User avatar
By LTD
#240224
"I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life" What would you call me if I had said this?

1) Anti-Death Penalty 2) Anti-Gun 3) Affirmative Discrimination 4) La Raza RACIST 5) Pro- Abortion... regardless 6) Eminent Domain taking Personal Property 7) International Law Trumps the U.S.A. Constitution 8) Promises Judicial Policy aka judicial activism 9) Pro Teachers Union 10) NO on English Language Amendment 11) OK for Teaching in Spanish All typical SotoMayor.... the embodiment of the Liberal Socialist Democrat an extremist elitist Sexist Racist agenda.

Please discuss.......

Wake up people....this potential SCJ WILL affect your life and those you love if appointed.
User avatar
By sarCASTic
#240235
What else would we expect from this president? It was a "given" the day some of you voted for the guy. :vomit

Strange to me that the media is transmitting the message that this is the direction the country is going, yet I can't seem to find the people that support the agenda in my everyday life. Fucking sheep.
User avatar
By FlyFish2
#240240
The tag line should of been "Yes we can....but we cannot afford it!"


The media sucks, everything is for profit in this country even the pebble mine fiasco. They want to create the mine to earn profit. People are trying to fight them off and protest against it. Well many companies are backing those people, want to know why because if the land stays the way it is their profits will remain the same. If they say they will back the Anti pebble mine campaign consumers like us may be more likely to buy gear from those companies, thus increasing their profits. The whole green movement is backed by the profit motive. Wonderful world we live in!
By SOBF
#240259
"I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life" What would you call me if I had said this?
Justice LTD ?
User avatar
By LTD
#240275
SOBF wrote:
"I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life" What would you call me if I had said this?
Justice LTD ?
That's better.......
I figured there might be a few more people around here that aren't afraid to discuss this selection....Ditch? Where are you Ditch? CT? Whooly? Ha.LOL.. (Whooly, I know you hate this shit but I thought I might get a laugh out of you)

Upstanding.......what do you think of SOTO? I always value your input.
User avatar
By eponymous
#240282
Judge Sotomayor while clearly a bright person is for all intents and purposes an affirmative action hire. I don't care about liberal or conservative in views - BO won the election and deserves to name whomever he wants that fits his view of the world - but if she is in fact the brightest legal mind not already on the supreme court I would be surprised. Her stated positions on matters do not lead me to think this - particularly her wink wink nod nod lectures when she admits that judges in fact do legislate from the bench. Even if she thinks that (and she clearly does) she should be smart enough not to articulate it (and she clearly wasn’t).

IMHO affirmative action should mean that a person's race is the tie-breaker when all else is equal - it should not be a trump card and sadly race has become a trump card in this country.

When AA was first enacted it was a program that increased advertisement of fedral jobs in disadvantaged neighborhoods. It later became about the aforementioned tie-breaker when all else was equal. I think we all know what it means these days. I'm sad about it but try to just go about my day. I consider myself to be color blind. I don't give a hoot what color you are if you work hard, do your job, and do what you say you are going to do. Your color should not entitle you to anything based solely upon that itself - be you black, white, red brown feel the vibration.....Judge Sotomayor has been nominated b/c she is a (liberal) Latina woman. Period.

If I were a senator I would vote against her and would not feel bad about it. Consider that BO voted against Chief Justice Roberts who is clearly a brilliant legal mind - whether you agree with his legal stances or not. I mean who goes to their senate hearing w/o notes and dictates legal cases from memory. He is clearly the proverbial “smartest guy in the room.”

This sort of makes me ask a different question. Why is it that recently when a conservative president nominates a candidate that candidate is either ostracized and not confirmed (now called a Bourkeing) or they are confirmed by a narrow margin - usually along party lines and when a liberal or democrat nominates a candidate they are for the most part approved by a very wide margin.

Recent examples – Thomas (also kind of dopey) 52-48, Alito – (mwehh) 58-42 and even Roberts was only confirmed 78-22. Remarkable when you consider the older (ford, reagan, ghwb) “conservative” justices on the court were confirmed unanimously. Both Clinton nominations Ginsburg – 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. Looks as though Sotomayor may be unanimous.

I don't get that. I'm not making any judgments positive or negative, I just don't understand why that is what has happened as of late.
Last edited by eponymous on Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By LTD
#240283
There is no doubt she will get in IMO. Only because of the majority. She has made it very clear most recently that she will not uphold the constitution as a SCJ is meant to. She will allow her personal experience and opinion to influence her decisions. NOT good.
User avatar
By jerome
#240346
between her and the communist health care plan they plan to shove down our throats......WE ARE SO FUCKED!!!!!!! :vomit
User avatar
By ditchdoc
#240468
I decided a while back to keep my political opinions to myself, as far as this forum goes. They do not have any influence here. I will voice my opinions through the ballot box, and locally, where it might have some effect. Make of that what I am sure you will. The future has a way of making geniuses of some and fools of others.
User avatar
By Upsetter
#240476
eponymous wrote:Judge Sotomayor while clearly a bright person is for all intents and purposes an affirmative action hire.

IMHO affirmative action should mean that a person's race is the tie-breaker when all else is equal - it should not be a trump card and sadly race has become a trump card in this country.

If I were a senator I would vote against her and would not feel bad about it. Consider that BO voted against Chief Justice Roberts who is clearly a brilliant legal mind - whether you agree with his legal stances or not.

Recent examples – Thomas (also kind of dopey) 52-48, Alito – (mwehh) 58-42 and even Roberts was only confirmed 78-22. Remarkable when you consider the older (ford, reagan, ghwb) “conservative” justices on the court were confirmed unanimously. Both Clinton nominations Ginsburg – 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. Looks as though Sotomayor may be unanimous.

I don't get that. I'm not making any judgments positive or negative, I just don't understand why that is what has happened as of late.
Epo, good post. Sometimes very reasonable, but sometimes rather unreasonable. Sotomayor is a 2nd circuit judge, 2nd in importance only to the DC circuit, has a lot of experience at the appellate level, really has no history of judicial activism, and any instance you could cite was a unanimous decision by the 2nd. This places here in a very shallow pool of applicants, where, most everything else being equal, PERHAPS you could assert she was chosen to provide a divergent viewpoint, culturally speaking, to contribute to the SCt's understanding and application of constitutional law as a whole. There is nothing wrong with that and it does not mean, in any way, that she will flout the constitution looking out for her homeys. To say that, IMO, disgraces our entire institution of laws, an inevitably human institution, which, flawed as it may be, is undeserving of snipes like that. Be it old white men or latina women writing or interpreting our laws, we should show them the deference they deserve for the hard work and dedication they have put into their service to the country.

To answer your related question about the recent votes on SCt nominees, I can only speculate. It is my opinion that 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. This has caused stern reaction from the left and even center right to the more radically conservative appt's by repub presidents. Noting that the Roberts vote really wasnt close, I would say that vote was indicative of the split within the left btw the reasonable and unreasonable. While Robert's jurisprudence was undeniably conservative, one was very hard pressed to point to any decision he wrote where the law was not scrupulously followed. Alito and Thomas had issues to overcome. Thomas had the obvious problems. Alito had to explain away, and didnt do a great job of doing so, a memo he wrote while working for Reagan's white house counsel specifically enunciating this agenda of undoing Roe v Wade by systematically stacking the Court and recommending reagan pursue it in his nominations, the next one being Bourke. This really struck a cord and made his confirmation a very difficult partisan battle. On the left, between ginsburg, breyer and sotomayor, you will again, like Roberts, be very hard pressed to find any issues with their jurisprudence. Unfortunately, Sotomayor has joked around when not in Court and has some gaffes to explain, but for most of those who count in the Senate, she has successfully explained them away.

LTD, tone down the hyperbole bro, youre gonna give yourself an aneurism. :cool
User avatar
By LTD
#240573
Don't worry I'll be ok....
No doubt SOTO is a smart woman. She didn't get to the 2nd without a head on her shoulders. I just don't feel she has what it takes to be a SCJ. Her comments, joking or not are NOT acceptable. I do not trust her to preside without personal prejudice. I feel that once appointed, the constitution might not govern her decisions as it is meant to.
I grew up around the groups that she actively supports and I have NOTHING good to say about them. La Raza in particular....I have first hand experience with them. They are nothing more than a racist, self serving group looking only to support/promote Hispanic/Latin superiority. Equal activism from ANY other nationality in the same form would not be acceptable and would have never stood a chance in hell to have even been nominated, much less appointed.
Her stated opinion (today) on 2A is BS ... I fully understand where it lies. :mad:
She will be our next SCJ with the current DEM majority, why she continues to conceal or hide here true positions on many important issues is beyond me.
Republicans that support her or vote for her will not be getting my vote down the road. I hope others will do the same. Edit: Make that any candidate/politician.
Last edited by LTD on Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I struggle to come up the severity of disappo[…]

Another great time. This year brought redfish to […]

Thumbing Through Some SBSs

Muddled HedgeHog Kate https://live.staticfli[…]

LA Marsh......TR

Marry me? Disclaimer: I'm just in it for the f[…]

Subsribe to The Drake Magazine