What am I?

User avatar
eponymous
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: The Hub

Re: What am I?

Post by eponymous » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:53 pm

Upsetter wrote: it became well known by the time of the Bourke appt that the anti-abortion, religious right had set their sights on the SCt as the way to achieve their policy objectives rather than in the legislature.
Yes because it is well know that the liberals have no intention of imposing their world view via bench legislation as opposed to a vote of the people or thier elected representatives. Jus sayin'.

e
"Baseball gives every American boy a chance to excel, not just to be as good as someone else but to be better than someone else. This is the nature of man and the name of the game." Ted Williams

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: What am I?

Post by Upsetter » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:50 pm

eponymous wrote:Yes because it is well know that the liberals have no intention of imposing their world view via bench legislation as opposed to a vote of the people or thier elected representatives. Jus sayin'.
I cant argue w/this proposition, only say there really arent any issues liberals can make any headway on in court. The only one any libs have tried this tact with is the 2nd and both the earlier court and the current court have shot them down, repeatedly, from different angles. From what I know, they gave up on it as a party strategy back during the Clinton years. And I wouldnt consider cities trying to do what they can to deal with their violence issues, however ill-conceived, to be evidence of a liberal agenda to usurp the 2nd in court.

LTD, if that is the way you feel, you shouldnt trust a single judge in america to preside without personal prejudice. To say one does and another doesnt is hypocritical and bullshit, they are all human and all have their own experiences, background and prejudices. Further, the right doesnt have a monopoly on 'proper' constitutional interpretation. In fact, this whole notion of 'if it doesnt say it verbatim in the constitution, its not constitutional' is a very young form of jurisprudence, no older than the reagan years. Applying the constitution to the changing conditions of modern times, while preserving the spirit of the document, is the pervasive constitutional jurisprudence throughout history. For my part, I say very few judges, if any, allow personal prejudice to decide cases. I feel they all strive to perform their jobs in good faith, apply the law as accurately and fairly as they can given specific fact scenarios, and this is esp so at the federal appellate level.

And La Raza? Cmon, if any federal appellate judge was openly supportive of any outfit as radical as La Raza, no matter what their political stripe or cause, ethical charges would have been filed long ago and the judge potentially unseated. Judges go WAY out of their way to avoid the appearance of ANY impropriety of this type, even with mainstream advocacy groups, and this is esp so at a ct as visible as the 2nd circuit. Moreover, I havent heard word one about this at her hearings. If this claim had ANY merit, sessions and co. would be all over it. You got to stop reading nutjob blogs.

User avatar
LTD
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: All over rover.........
Contact:

Re: What am I?

Post by LTD » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:26 pm

Upsetter wrote:
eponymous wrote:Yes because it is well know that the liberals have no intention of imposing their world view via bench legislation as opposed to a vote of the people or thier elected representatives. Jus sayin'.
Well known? OK....Baaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahhaaaaa. Sheep.

I cant argue w/this proposition, only say there really arent any issues liberals can make any headway on in court. Really? The only one any libs have tried this tact with is the 2nd and both the earlier court and the current court have shot them down, repeatedly, from different angles. ( All prior to OBAMA and his newley appointed admin. Whats to keep them from changing 2a with all the" OBAMA CHANGE"?) You can continue to look at the past and close your eyes to the future....NOT ME. Foolish. From what I know, they gave up on it as a party strategy back during the Clinton years. And I wouldnt consider cities trying to do what they can to deal with their violence issues, however ill-conceived, to be evidence of a liberal agenda to usurp the 2nd in court.

LTD, if that is the way you feel, you shouldnt trust a single judge in america to preside without personal prejudice. All fine and dandy ....why confirm one that openly acknowledges this? To say one does and another doesnt is hypocritical and bullshit, they are all human and all have their own experiences, background and prejudices. Further, the right doesnt have a monopoly on 'proper' constitutional interpretation..I never implied that they did. In fact, this whole notion of 'if it doesnt say it verbatim in the constitution, its not constitutional' is a very young form of jurisprudence, no older than the reagan years. Applying the constitution to the changing conditions of modern times, while preserving the spirit of the document, is the pervasive constitutional jurisprudence throughout history. (a liberal view not accepted by many independents and the right, nor me for that matter!)For my part, I say very few judges, if any, allow personal prejudice to decide cases. (great..if that's the way you feel...) I feel they all strive to perform their jobs in good faith, apply the law as accurately and fairly as they can given specific fact scenarios, and this is esp so at the federal appellate level.

And La Raza? Cmon, if any federal appellate judge was openly supportive of any outfit as radical as La Raza, no matter what their political stripe or cause, ethical charges would have been filed long ago and the judge potentially unseated. Judges go WAY out of their way to avoid the appearance of ANY impropriety of this type, even with mainstream advocacy groups, and this is esp so at a ct as visible as the 2nd circuit. Moreover, I havent heard word one about this at her hearings. If this claim had ANY merit, sessions and co. would be all over it. You got to stop reading nutjob blogs.
Umm...... FACT! Goggle is your friend......Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, 1998 to 2004, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S. La Raza is a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland." How do you feel about a potential SCJ that supports a group with these ideals? "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Do you honestly have believe that this comment warrants NO concern? From Soto...“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” Sotomayor said. “My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” This from a person who's decisions as a SCJ CANNOT BE REVERSED. Bottom line IMO...This sums it up. "New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
"At some point reasonable people have to accept certain changes our presence has brought about, learn to not make similar mistakes in the future and appreciate and enjoy what we have while lamenting what we've lost"~~~~~ Muddled Duck

http://www.keywesttarponguides.com

Fish every fish like it's your last!!!

User avatar
LTD
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: All over rover.........
Contact:

Re: What am I?

Post by LTD » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:20 pm

She is also on the council of this lovely group (notice about 1/4 of the land mass of the United States is part of Mexico here?)
Attachments
Jose Angel Gutierrez.jpg
Jose Angel Gutierrez.jpg (90.67 KiB) Viewed 739 times
"At some point reasonable people have to accept certain changes our presence has brought about, learn to not make similar mistakes in the future and appreciate and enjoy what we have while lamenting what we've lost"~~~~~ Muddled Duck

http://www.keywesttarponguides.com

Fish every fish like it's your last!!!

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: What am I?

Post by Upsetter » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:24 pm

LTD wrote:She is also on the council of this lovely group (notice about 1/4 of the land mass of the United States is part of Mexico here?)
Gimme a single reputable link about laraza or this group and sotomayor. I am quite sure you cant. The only one I came up w/when I googled sotomayor and laraza is this one: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cri ... 05-27.html

And all this link says is that 'the speech' that has caused her so much trouble was published at a later date in a legal journal put out by la raza. It says nothing about her being affiliated in any way with la raza. The rest of the links on the first page of the google result are wingnut radicals who are lying thru their teeth to achieve a goal. Please, gimme a single link from a reputable news source cause this would be just about the biggest story of the year if it was true. I just cant believe it has any merit or it would be the talk of the beltway.

And whether or not you agree with the notion of changing conditions in society and applying the constitution thereto, I think that if you read up on the history of the SCt, you will find that going as far back as Marshall, the first chief justice, this is THE jurisprudence. In fact, Marshall was a downright radical compared to modern day chief justices. It wasnt until the late 1970's, in reaction to some of the later Warren Ct decisions, that this notion of 'strict interpretation' came about. People didnt like the outcome of certain decisions so they decided to criticize the methodology by which they were arrived at. However, if you read the strict interpretationalists' jurisprudence, Scalia's in particular, you will see this notion bent to the point of incredulity. I cannot criticize Scalia's legal mind, nor his decisions, they are all well reasoned and written, but that he or anyone else tries to take a holier than thou attitude that his approach is any more valid than Breyer's for instance, is a hypocrit.

User avatar
LTD
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: All over rover.........
Contact:

Re: What am I?

Post by LTD » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:40 am

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
Try this and please don't attempt to tell me that you now believe the American Bar Association is a right wing group looking to smear Sotomayor.
Her membership and involvement was discussed in her conformation hearing and she herself has personally acknowledged it.

Now....if your fine with the views La Raza has, then you will have no problem with her being a listed member. I have personally seen La Raza in action. I grew up with La Raza and many of it's members in SO CA. I have seen their protest/demonstrations some of which were very much like that of the white activist groups. VERY disturbing to say the least. Don't be fooled by their denial and "peaceful" propaganda.
What would happen if a white women/man (with the exact same qualifications as Sotomayor) who's involved with white activist groups on the same level as LA RAZA were nominated for the same position?
ANSWER: They would be crucified and labeled a bigot and a racist. That person would NEVER be confirmed much less appointed.
Last edited by LTD on Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
"At some point reasonable people have to accept certain changes our presence has brought about, learn to not make similar mistakes in the future and appreciate and enjoy what we have while lamenting what we've lost"~~~~~ Muddled Duck

http://www.keywesttarponguides.com

Fish every fish like it's your last!!!

User avatar
cougarcockburn
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Terrestrial Kingdom

Re: What am I?

Post by cougarcockburn » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:42 am

people would vote?
Call on God, but row away from the rocks. -HST

gadflyfisher
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 am
Location: The razor's edge

Re: What am I?

Post by gadflyfisher » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:13 am

LTD wrote:
Upsetter wrote:
eponymous wrote:Yes because it is well know that the liberals have no intention of imposing their world view via bench legislation as opposed to a vote of the people or thier elected representatives. Jus sayin'.
Well known? OK....Baaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahhaaaaa. Sheep.

I cant argue w/this proposition, only say there really arent any issues liberals can make any headway on in court. Really? The only one any libs have tried this tact with is the 2nd and both the earlier court and the current court have shot them down, repeatedly, from different angles. ( All prior to OBAMA and his newley appointed admin. Whats to keep them from changing 2a with all the" OBAMA CHANGE"?) "


Um the fact that it is an amendment to the constitution and to change it they would need two thirds of the states to vote for it to be changed.
Interpretation is a different animal.

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: What am I?

Post by Upsetter » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 am

gadflyfisher wrote:Um the fact that it is an amendment to the constitution and to change it they would need two thirds of the states to vote for it to be changed.
Interpretation is a different animal.
Every right created by the amendments to the constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. The most famous one being: the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded building. In deciding what is reasonable, the court certainly does interpret the meaning and spirit of the amendment in light of common sense and current conditions in society. There are many state and federal laws that restrict and control the 2nd that are constitutional, are there not? My point was that libs hit a wall trying to erode the 2nd, have failed several times in the past couple decades, and dont really consider court challenges a viable option. I heard the anti-gun guru bill brady himself state this on some interview or another.

gadflyfisher
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 am
Location: The razor's edge

Re: What am I?

Post by gadflyfisher » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:09 am

Upsetter wrote:
gadflyfisher wrote:Um the fact that it is an amendment to the constitution and to change it they would need two thirds of the states to vote for it to be changed.
Interpretation is a different animal.
Every right created by the amendments to the constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. The most famous one being: the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded building. In deciding what is reasonable, the court certainly does interpret the meaning and spirit of the amendment in light of common sense and current conditions in society. There are many state and federal laws that restrict and control the 2nd that are constitutional, are there not? My point was that libs hit a wall trying to erode the 2nd, have failed several times in the past couple decades, and dont really consider court challenges a viable option. I heard the anti-gun guru bill brady himself state this on some interview or another.
And much like a recent NY City reg can be overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional.
Even SC rulings can be reversed. Why else would the right keep bringing challenges to Rowe v Wade. Apparently they still consider it a viable tactic.

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: What am I?

Post by Upsetter » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:13 am

Nope, cant say that about the ABA, thanks for the link. Although, it seems like her affiliation is considered by the ABA to be as prestigous as all those other affiliations listed in the same paragraph, including their own organization. They dont sepearate it out as a point of major concern. Why would the ABA consider her affiliation with laraza to not be a problem and instead list it as an accolade? I mean, if they are in fact a racist organization comparable to the kkk, as you suggest? Has the ABA been duped? I mean, w/in the legal community, the ABA is pretty conservative, so I would expect them to take issue with this if it was in fact an issue.

FTR, I have no on the ground understanding of how la raza operates. I had never even heard of them until that day in cali where all the illegals went on strike or whatever it is they did. Then they were all over the news for a while, but otherwise I know nothing about them. I did read some of their 'peaceful propaganda' though: http://www.nclr.org/section/about/history. They seem to be a civil rights group. I am sure that can translate to angry people on the ground though, saying and doing things the group wouldnt support. I know I saw that back in the midwest when things were bad b/n black and white folks around the end of the 'crack era', late 80's, early 90's. I lived in kinda bad neighborhoods back then and saw folks pulling in different directions as far as giving a voice to their frustrations, concerns, and desires.

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: What am I?

Post by Upsetter » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:23 am

gadflyfisher wrote:And much like a recent NY City reg can be overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional. Even SC rulings can be reversed. Why else would the right keep bringing challenges to Rowe v Wade. Apparently they still consider it a viable tactic.
Of course they can, and you are correct the right considers this a viable tactic, they have felt this way since the late 70's. That was the gist of my earlier comment about Alito's difficulty in his confirmation. He authored a memo while working for reagan that iterated and recommended that exact tactic and it raised concern on the left which persists till today. That is why roe v wade figures so prominently in every confirmation. However, given the jurisprudence on the 2nd, I believe the battle is done. The only potential is legislative, which will get shot down by the court unless it is conservative in its approach, and there doesnt appear to be any stomach for that even.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 12 guests