|
Post by goGopherBill on May 31, 2009 7:47:12 GMT -5
Wrong as usual.. I HAVE SHOWN A SPECIFIC COURT CASE..MALONEY Where she ruled against the rights of an individual to own and keep a gun... against THE 2ND amendment. SHE ruled and its in writing..that a state and local government shall have the right to rule and restrict and register guns. GREAT ...NOW APPLY THAT TO ABORTION and GAY MARRIAGE. or stay away from the Supreme court. a LIBERAL woman would rule on empathy against the constitution and for those issues.. THAT IS WHY I OPPOSE HER.. Makes me light years MORE ADVANCED THAN YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on May 31, 2009 10:13:09 GMT -5
Actually, Bill, you are wrong as usual.
In Maloney she ruled that it was "settled law" that the 2nd Amendment pertains to federal law and not to states. The particulars of the 2nd Amendment were not in question, merely whether it applied to a state decision.
Technically it was not a "gun rights" case in any case as it was not a firearm in question (unless those were some interesting numchucks).
So, if she applies "settled law" to abortion rights, gay marriage, etc...
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2009 10:54:40 GMT -5
So, if she applies "settled law" to abortion rights, gay marriage, etc... No, of course she won't. She's an "activist judge". She must be, she was appointed by Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on May 31, 2009 16:56:00 GMT -5
So, if she applies "settled law" to abortion rights, gay marriage, etc... No, of course she won't. She's an "activist judge". She must be, she was appointed by Obama. And originally Bush 41
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on May 31, 2009 20:49:40 GMT -5
Speaking of gun rights and abortions ... now we know why anti-abortionists favor gun rights.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 1, 2009 0:37:11 GMT -5
This discussion seems to fall along the same republican and democrat lines as other topics, or maybe those with Bill and against Bill, either way, this isn't a cheep or tawdery topic and to have a fair discussion, we should get some things straight. I believe all of the following is true, but I welcome you to challenge me. - First, on abortion Sotomayor has ALMOST NO RECORD and if the pro-choice groups didn't have so much blind faith in Obama this would not be their girl, by any means, and I believe you can find quotes to that affect out there. - I haven't heard anyone refer to Sotomayor as being "one of the great legal minds of our time" and in fact even supporters of hers have said she is not of any extraordary intelectual abilities, as some other candidates are. -Finally, the quote (if you want context, read here www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml) can be viewed as half empty or half full. She mentions the need for a latino and female presence on the benches and I completely concur, but when she uses the word "better" it frightens me. She is saying that her background allows her to make "better" decisions, superior decisions. Its a long speech and the qotes was in her prepared text - how does she not qualify or clarify that statement in some way to make it clear that being a minority is an automatic qualifier for a lifelong seat on the bench? I don't think she's saying that J-Lo should take Roberts seat on the bench but I'd like to hear her address the topic. On the same note, her recent decision in Connecticut (2-1 on a 3 judge panel with the dissent coming from a latino male judge), to throw out a firefighter hiring test because none of the top candidates were black helps us put this in different context. Being Latino and female makes her a better judge, so does she believe it also makes her a better firefighter (even if the test suggests otherwise)? What else are minorities better at? And if indeed minorities are better at most things simply by virtue of being minorities then the question has to be asked "Ms. Sotomayor, how do you reconcile those views with accusations that you are a racist?" Whatever you think of Newt Gingrich, he's 100% right in saying that if the statement were reversed, that a judge who believed being a white male allowed him to make "better" decisions than a minority would be retired in a hurry. The Connecticut case will go before the supreme court and her future colleagues will be asked to uphold or strikedown her decision, which could also create some interesting conversation when she gets there. And she will get there. I hope that the senate sees her rubber stamp approval as an opportunity to ask some questions and create a discussion on some things, and not a reason to run and hide, like they so often do.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Jun 1, 2009 1:12:59 GMT -5
... -Finally, the quote (if you want context, read here www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml) can be viewed as half empty or half full. She mentions the need for a latino and female presence on the benches and I completely concur, but when she uses the word "better" it frightens me. She is saying that her background allows her to make "better" decisions, superior decisions. Its a long speech and the qotes was in her prepared text - how does she not qualify or clarify that statement in some way to make it clear that being a minority is an automatic qualifier for a lifelong seat on the bench? I don't think she's saying that J-Lo should take Roberts seat on the bench but I'd like to hear her address the topic. ... How can you provide the speech and say, if you want context, then completely ignore that context in discussing your opinion of what she said?? The paragraphs just above and below the paragraph you chose to question clearly indicate she is talking about judicial decisions in sex and race discrimination cases that have historically been decided upon by white men. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that she says she hopes a wise minority woman with her life experiences would reach better conclusions than white men who never experienced such types of discrimination. Duh. She's not talking about decisions dealing with male prostate cancer or something, she's talking about decisions dealing with sex and race discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Jun 1, 2009 1:51:18 GMT -5
... - I haven't heard anyone refer to Sotomayor as being "one of the great legal minds of our time" and in fact even supporters of hers have said she is not of any extraordary intelectual abilities, as some other candidates are. ... Quotiing from: www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29judge.html "She is known as a formidably intelligent judge with a prodigious memory who meticulously prepares for oral arguments and is not shy about grilling the lawyers who appear before her to ensure that she fully understands their arguments." and from: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/28/us/politics/0529-judge-graphic.html "Opinions written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor from 2004 to 2006 were cited more often by other judges and by law reviews than those of other federal appeals court judges who were reported to be considered for the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice David H. Souter’s retirement."
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 1, 2009 7:14:10 GMT -5
Were those opinions correct? It's like saying OBAMA was best qualified to be president because of his speeches...his tremendous intelligence.
Remember Star TREK..
"YOUR'S IS THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT"
KHAN.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jun 1, 2009 9:26:57 GMT -5
Bill:
The fact that he was articulate and extremely smart were defiantly two of items on my "Reasons Barak Obama is the Best Qualified to Be President" list. Were they the only items, no, but they were deemed necessary items to me.
(and the lack of them were two of the items on my "Why Shrub is totally un-qualified to be President" list)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 1, 2009 9:48:07 GMT -5
Pirate, let me point out that you are arguing with someone who is using Star Trek as a historical reference. This usually does not end well.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 1, 2009 10:07:58 GMT -5
YES MG.. I was using KHAN as HISTORICAL evidence ..
It was another example by the far seeing authors of the movie that superior intellect and knowledge DO not translate INTO A superior leader OR GOVERNMENT rule.
Hitler CAN BE SEEN AS Brilliant.. tricky Dickie ..THE FIRST AND LAST..WERE USING SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE..
You can be the worlds Best at anything and be wrong for the masses.
HER MAJOR OPINIONS WILL BE HEARD and overturned later,
SHE WAS SMART...and wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 12:23:32 GMT -5
It absolutely boggles my mind that the context of Sotomayor's quote has been out there for at least 2 weeks (hell, it's on _this_ forum) and people still don't seem to have the mental acuity to understand it. Either that, or they are just too lazy to read it.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jun 1, 2009 12:55:17 GMT -5
... 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. Are you claiming that Clarence Thomas was even remotely close to being one of the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?? Not only does Sotomayor have more judicial experience than ANY current sitting Supreme Court Justice had WHEN they were nominated; I don't see how the GOP can even begin to question her qualifications when they appointed someone like Clarence Thomas?? Thanks for pointing that out -- Clarence Thomas may not have been the most qualified. I agree. My argument boils down to whether you think it is good thing to appoint someone based upon whether there was bias in the past. These are termed "make-up calls" in the sports world. If that's what you believe, fine. I'm just saying that sometimes that can be a slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jun 1, 2009 14:08:55 GMT -5
YES MG.. I was using KHAN as HISTORICAL evidence .. It was another example by the far seeing authors of the movie that superior intellect and knowledge DO not translate INTO A superior leader OR GOVERNMENT rule. Hitler CAN BE SEEN AS Brilliant.. tricky Dickie ..THE FIRST AND LAST..WERE USING SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE.. You can be the worlds Best at anything and be wrong for the masses. HER MAJOR OPINIONS WILL BE HEARD and overturned later, SHE WAS SMART...and wrong. Bill, on the first day of any logic class (and I took three of them in college, basically the same course taught by three different departments - three easy A's) you learn simple things like "If A is C and B is C and B is D, proves nothing about whether A is D". You are arguing "Sotomayor is brilliant. Hitler was brilliant. Hitler was evil, therefore Sotomayor is evil."
|
|