|
Post by goGopherBill on May 29, 2009 7:57:01 GMT -5
Chipper..
why the name callin'
IT"S ENTERTAINMENT...GET OVER IT...I DID ..oh and by the way notice I didnt attach anybodys name to the name callin' ?
A huge difference from my opponents here.
Diversified ...
By what? Color ,race..place of origin..Who decides?
THE LAW is written and is THE CONSTITUTION.. THAT AND PRECEDENT are the ONLY THINGS THE COURT SHALL GO BY...
IT'S in the OATH THE JUDGES SWEAR TO...
It is ONLY in OUR IMAGINATION to gain a better position do we appoint someone that will be an ACTIVIST..one direction or another.
GAY MARRIAGE..If the supporters of the movement cannot WIN IN PUBLIC VOTES...they RESORT TO ACTIVIST COURTS
Conservatives are happy with the people deciding.
GUN CONTROL...I already know ,without spin, her rulings on GUN CONTROL..28 REPUBLICANS voted against her appointment...based upon many things..being an ACTIVIST JUDGE was one of them...her RULING will be over turned by the TOP COURT ,even with her on it. PRECEDENT......something liberals cant stand on.
Abortion..LIBERALS needed a liberal court to rule...THEY wont let voters in each state deciede..,,Funny they wanted the gay rights thingy decided by states ,UNTIL THEY LOST.
GOVERNMENT CONTROL...something never mentioned by liberals...anywhere.
They see takeover of GM as good thing ...violating many PRECEDENT in LAW governing bankruptcy..that will be challenged in court.
I SAY OBAMA IS VIOLATING LAW by using public monies to bailout private UNIONS.
The court will need to decide.
Summary...
You dont need to be a diverse person to know the law...it helps ..but an EDUCATED PERSON who follows PRECEDENTS would be better.
Do BLIND PEOPLE need a BLIND JUDGE to get a fair ruling?
Do they need that judge to be white,black,brown...or a woman?
or just be able to know and follow the law.
ooops..now I am against BLIND people...that's how liberals fight a argument they cannot win on merit.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 13:10:15 GMT -5
Limbag compares her to David Duke.
God help the GOP. Somebody from that party needs to stand up and say "Enough!" Will anyone have the guts?
As for Bill's hypothetical, a blind judge would certainly have a better understanding in a case involving discrimination against the blind. You still don't get it, do you? Well I can play the same game -- Hell, Rush would have been better served if there had been a judge in his case who was an Oxycontin addict.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 29, 2009 13:11:26 GMT -5
Yup, white males haven't done a damn thing for this country or the world for that matter. Basically they are a dying breed. People like Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin, etc. Latina females are the wave of the future because their life experiences clearly trump white males. Read her quote in context hammer and then tell me you honestly think that she claims that her life experience trumps that of white males. That is *not* what she said and anybody trotting that out as a criticism of her is being disingenuous, at best. Whoa, that was my tougue and cheek reply to Squeeze the Gherkin who apparently wants to rebalance the Supreme Court so that there are less white males. I believe in "equality for all" when it comes to picking a new member to the court. Here are people Obama supposedly interviewed for the position besides Sotomayor: Janet Napolitano, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood. Whoops, looks like no white guys allowed. But I wouldn't call that discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 13:25:22 GMT -5
So it's discrimination to try to deal with the lack of diversity on the court?
This is assuming that what you said is true, that these were the only ones interviewed (is that what you are saying?). They certainly were not the only candidates considered.
I don't deny that it's a topic that can be/should be debated, and that a case can be made for both sides. But to automatically assume she is not qualified, or underqualified, just because she is a Latina seems like a faulty assumption. The idea that there is a ranking of qualified judges out there in which Sotomayor fails to push the Top 10 (or whatever) is pretty absurd.
So I'd ask:
1) Is diversity a worthwhile goal? 2) How does one achieve it, if it is? 3) If it is not a worthwhile goal, why not?
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 16:00:50 GMT -5
Did you read the frickin quote, Bill? She said NOTHING evenly remotely close to what those clowns are claiming she said. Show me where what she said was racist or bigoted. YOU don't like her because she's a woman and latina, and you hide YOUR bigotry behind this "she's only been nominated because she's a woman and a latina" BS. You're no better than Rush: bigoted through and through. Your brand of conservatism is all about keeping people in their place, not about what's fair or just. But I keep forgetting, you belong to the old white male party. The only people who count. Your words are not very lady-like, Ms. Schadenfreude. I would even say your screen name reflects your personality.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 16:36:14 GMT -5
That's kind of the point, although I believe the word you are thinking of is Misanthrope, not Schadenfreude.
Sexist.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 17:04:18 GMT -5
You, on the other hand, should ponder what it is you mean by this, you bigot. Surely, a woman of your distinction, Ms. Schadenfreude, would not need to lower herself to these depths of crassness.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 17:27:05 GMT -5
Yup, white males haven't done a damn thing for this country or the world for that matter. Basically they are a dying breed. People like Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin, etc. Latina females are the wave of the future because their life experiences clearly trump white males. Read her quote in context hammer and then tell me you honestly think that she claims that her life experience trumps that of white males. That is *not* what she said and anybody trotting that out as a criticism of her is being disingenuous, at best. It's insightful to get a woman's opinion on this issue. Thanks for your input, Ms. Schadenfreude.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 17:43:13 GMT -5
Yup, white males haven't done a damn thing for this country or the world for that matter. Basically they are a dying breed. People like Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin, etc. Latina females are the wave of the future because their life experiences clearly trump white males. Read her quote in context hammer and then tell me you honestly think that she claims that her life experience trumps that of white males. That is *not* what she said and anybody trotting that out as a criticism of her is being disingenuous, at best. There is almost some irony in you describing others as being disingenuous. Wouldn't you say, Ms. Schadenfreude?
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 18:22:36 GMT -5
Pray tell, Mr. Nittany, what dost thou mean?
And are you using the commonly applied but erroneous definition of "disingenuous" or the actual definition? I mean what I say, if that's what you are asking.
Please also let me know if your other personalities are in agreement with you.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 18:54:20 GMT -5
This is what I mean. Someone here is a phony and it is not me.
Since this information is available to anyone viewing vt including guests, I see no reason it is not public information.
For the member bio information, a certain poster puts down his/her birth year as 1900, the same as his/her more famous alter ego. This poster and his/her alter ego are both over 100 years old. That is an amazing coincidence, isn’t it? Two people who frequently post here are both over 100 years old?
I expect this poster or his alter ego will soon change one of those birth years.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 29, 2009 19:15:56 GMT -5
Oh, you can do better than that. Maybe I and this other poster were just too lazy to change the birth year to the correct year. Is it the same *date*? That would be odd. I will not be changing my age. It's incorrect, of course, but I never cared. I still don't.
I really think we should concentrate on the posts and not the posters. I suspect, for instance, that you are the same person posting under at least two other monikers. Why? Style and substance of your posts. It's annoying, because it makes it seem like I am arguing with more people than I actually am, but whatever.
Except for Bill, of course. I will continue to call him names because he deserves those names.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 19:48:13 GMT -5
Is it presumptuous of me to assume you are referring to me? My birth year is also listed as 1900. Oddly enough, I am proud to say this is accurate. Yes, I am 109 going on 110. Knock on wood.
Perhaps Schadenfreude is my the lovely bride? It's another theory, anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 29, 2009 19:48:24 GMT -5
So it's discrimination to try to deal with the lack of diversity on the court? This is assuming that what you said is true, that these were the only ones interviewed (is that what you are saying?). They certainly were not the only candidates considered. I don't deny that it's a topic that can be/should be debated, and that a case can be made for both sides. But to automatically assume she is not qualified, or underqualified, just because she is a Latina seems like a faulty assumption. The idea that there is a ranking of qualified judges out there in which Sotomayor fails to push the Top 10 (or whatever) is pretty absurd. So I'd ask: 1) Is diversity a worthwhile goal? 2) How does one achieve it, if it is? 3) If it is not a worthwhile goal, why not? Whenever there is a competition for the best, the brighest, the strongest, the person who can jump the highest, and so forth, my answer is no. So you might say my viewpoint is Darwinian. Here's an example: Let's say I need to have brain surgery. I want the best neurosurgeon working on my brain. I don't want someone to choose who is going to operate on me based upon whether they are Asian, Black, White, Male, Female, Gay, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by nittanylionvb on May 29, 2009 20:07:49 GMT -5
Oh, you can do better than that. Maybe I and this other poster were just too lazy to change the birth year to the correct year. Is it the same *date*? That would be odd. I will not be changing my age. It's incorrect, of course, but I never cared. I still don't. I really think we should concentrate on the posts and not the posters. I suspect, for instance, that you are the same person posting under at least two other monikers. Why? Style and substance of your posts. It's annoying, because it makes it seem like I am arguing with more people than I actually am, but whatever. Except for Bill, of course. I will continue to call him names because he deserves those names. I issue a challenge to prove who is the real deal? I am a true nittany lion. I started at Penn State in 1969 and graduated in 1973. I propose a public “real–time” contest conducted by a neutral poster to ask myself and Ms. Schadenfreude about our colleges during the period we attended. The rules are: questions will be formulated and posted by the neutral poster and we will answer them immediately so neither of us can research the answers. Ask such questions as minutia about our football teams during the years we attended (which I am somewhat of an expert because I went to almost every PSU home game during the glory days). Ask the name of the dean of our major; the names of our professors; the dorms being constructed back then; anything at random that only a real student of the school would know. The only condition is that my opponent can not claim he/she went to the same school as his/her more famous alter ego. Are you game for a throw-down to prove who is the real deal, Ms. Schadenfreude?
|
|