Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
-
I don't know the significance of this....
but it's surprising..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2009/...udge-s/results/
President Obama announced he will nominate U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Do you think she was a good choice?
Thanks for your vote.
Response Percent Votes
Yes 12% 199 votes
No 74% 1172 votes
Undecided 12% 203 votes
Other 0% 5 votes
1579 total votes
-
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
-
Cal, how many times do we have to explain the difference between scientific polling and online polls like these?
We must have gone over this at least three times already.
-
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
I agree Tom, and for the most part, I don't pay much attention to what the public thinks as they usually don't have a cliue as to what makes a good SCJ.
For most it is their stance on 2-3 issues, and what most don't understand is once confirmed, they don't have to worry about any political payback.
As I said somewhere in the near past, for the most part most justices tend to take a few steps towards the middle once appointed. Radical leaning one way or the other are usually moderated once in a panel with other, equally qualified colleagues.
I don't know much about the woman other than she seems very qualified and has a good understanding of the law.
I trust she will consider the weight of the position as most have and not feel like she owes anybody anything and renders her opinion as best she can and abide by the laws of the land and not consider her opinion more important than the people who proceeded her.
-
And 95% of what we're going to hear about in the next few weeks will be about one single case in a career than spans a few decades.
In the end, it's not going to matter much. She's got the votes unless something major turns up.
-
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
Yes.
Exactly.
I don't know why it's so difficult to grasp the difference between scientific and non-scientific polls.
-
And 95% of what we're going to hear about in the next few weeks will be about one single case in a career than spans a few decades.
In the end, it's not going to matter much. She's got the votes unless something major turns up.
And 95% of what we're going to hear about in the next few weeks will be about one single case in a career than spans a few decades.
In the end, it's not going to matter much. She's got the votes unless something major turns up.
Is that all you are interested in...she has the votes??
Really man, you shouldn't be so shallow. You should look at everything the government does with a inquisitive eye.
-
Really, man. You shouldn't take one sentence in a quick post and assume that's the entirety of my opinion on the subject.
-
Really, man. You shouldn't take one sentence in a quick post and assume that's the entirety of my opinion on the subject.
Really, man. You shouldn't take one sentence in a quick post and assume that's the entirety of my opinion on the subject.
Fair enough...I had been talking with mz the pussy and his childish manner rubbed off on me for a moment.
You have my reply before and will leave it at that....at least until people start saying stupid stuff...and I expect that will happen
. -
No, I don't feel that there needs to be exactly four women on the court. Nor is it a matter of being "offended".
No, I don't feel that there needs to be exactly four women on the court. Nor is it a matter of being "offended".
Why not Heck?
You sneered when I said I wouldn't be pissed off ot it were 9 white men.
Tell me why I should.
I probably wouldn't bitch if it were 9 Italian men like Alito or Black men like Thomas.
You listed percentages I assumed you wanted to see.
So why attack me for it if you don't care?
And for the record guys I was being facetious with Hecks attack on White men.
See if you believe in affirmitive action and set asides you mseem to be sayng Blacks are actually inferior and need extra points.
WSS
-
No, that's what you think it means. Wanting organizations that represent America to look at least vaguely like America, or to believe that there's a benefit to diversity, as in on college campuses, is hardly the same thing as saying that you believe that minorities are genetically inferior.
Jeez. What kind of binary nonsense is that?
That might as well have been another one of your "No?" propositions.
Oh, wait. It already was.
Nor is having a specific numerical goal in mind for each race and gender on the Supreme Court the same thing as saying that, when picking from a host of qualified nominees (after all, nobody is saying Sotomayor is not qualified for the job) that diversity can be one of the factors in their selection.
As for Thomas, he clearly was not the most qualified - or even close to the most qualified - potential justice when he was nominated by Bush I. He was a diversity hire. An affirmative action hire, if you will. Did you oppose that one?
-
So now you are against diversity hires??
-
Cal, how many times do we have to explain the difference between scientific polling and online polls like these?
We must have gone over this at least three times already.
**************************************************
1. Stop being immature. Show me where I said it was a scientific poll. Do you know how
to THINK at all?
2. Golly Gee, Heckleberry Finne, of course it's an online poll. I was the one who
posted the accompanying link.
3. I thought it was interesting, since I'm pretty conservative, and I don't know that
she's a bad choice. Not my preference, but not my decision.
4. Heck, you are stooping to avoiding real questions, and cherry picking points that
you can twist into a "gotcha". It isn't working.
5. I don't need your permission to post an oline poll, your whiningness.
6. Just once, answer Steve's questions instead of running another diversion.
7. Just once, answer ballpeen's questions instead of running another diversion. 8. Why do you think there has to be women or blacks or whites or whoever on the court? Hint: It is better to nominate the very most qualified. The Supreme Court is not on a minority quota system. Yes, you didn't know that. 9. This is a ridiculous statement when you disregard the best qualifications:
"Wanting organizations that represent America to look at least vaguely like America, or to believe that there's a benefit to diversity, as in on college campuses"
10. So, you want a court to look like America? So, it should have a redneck possum hunter on it.
I don't even care if the redneck possum hunter is male or female or black or yellow or white or green
or purple or red or brown.
But you do, Heck. "diversity" means a nominee that is politcally what you want.
Ballpeen is right. You are way, way shallow to be so arrogant and wrong at the same time. Life isn't like that in the real world.
-
Well, read my earlier post: I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt,
but now, she is not a good nominee - not qualified, not smart, not a good choice:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...63-04e10199a085
-
Well, read my earlier post: I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt,
but now, she is not a good nominee - not qualified, not smart, not a good choice:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...63-04e10199a085
Of course Cal would paste that disgusting Rosen piece. It is what Pat Buchanan told him to read.
Here's Glenn Greenwald's rebuttal, as if one was even necessary:
It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous smear campaign led by The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen and his secret cast of cowardly Eminent Liberal Legal Scholars of the Respectable Intellectual Center. People like that, engaging in tactics of that sort, have exerted far too much influence on our political culture for far too long, and Obama's selection of one of their most recent targets both reflects and advances the erosion of their odious influence. And Obama's choice is also a repudiation of the Jeffrey-Rosen/Ben-Wittes/Stuart-Taylor grievance on behalf of white males that, as Dahlia Lithwick put it, "a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench."
but now, she is not a good nominee - not qualified, not smart, not a good choice
You tell 'em, Mr. successful genius!
Sotomayor's ascent from Bronx housing project to Princeton and Yale Law School to Supreme Court nominee -- driven by merit, intellect, talent and diligence -- is nothing short of inspiring.
via here.
-
No, that's what you think it means. Wanting organizations that represent America to look at least vaguely like America, or to believe that there's a benefit to diversity, as in on college campuses, is hardly the same thing as saying that you believe that minorities are genetically inferior.
Jeez. What kind of binary nonsense is that?
That might as well have been another one of your "No?" propositions.
Oh, wait. It already was.
Nor is having a specific numerical goal in mind for each race and gender on the Supreme Court the same thing as saying that, when picking from a host of qualified nominees (after all, nobody is saying Sotomayor is not qualified for the job) that diversity can be one of the factors in their selection.
As for Thomas, he clearly was not the most qualified - or even close to the most qualified - potential justice when he was nominated by Bush I. He was a diversity hire. An affirmative action hire, if you will. Did you oppose that one?
No, that's what you think it means. Wanting organizations that represent America to look at least vaguely like America, or to believe that there's a benefit to diversity, as in on college campuses, is hardly the same thing as saying that you believe that minorities are genetically inferior.
But you're saying minorities should be held to lesser standards. Perhaps you have other reasons they can't compete. Sorry Heck your spin didn't address that did it?
Jeez. What kind of binary nonsense is that?
The kind you serve up every day sir.
That might as well have been another one of your "No?" propositions.
Oh, wait. It already was.
Nor is having a specific numerical goal in mind for each race and gender on the Supreme Court the same thing as saying that,
But you would be unhappy with 9 qualified white men. Also are you uppset that Baptists are under represented on the court? If the president said he was "gonna find me a qualified Baptist" would you bitch?
when picking from a host of qualified nominees (after all, nobody is saying Sotomayor is not qualified for the job) that diversity can be one of the factors in their selection.
No one said she's unqualified.
But her most important qualifications are race and sex. You can admit that.
As for Thomas, he clearly was not the most qualified - or even close to the most qualified - potential justice
Sotemayor is THE pinnacle of American Law?
when he was nominated by Bush I. He was a diversity hire. An affirmative action hire, if you will. Did you oppose that one?
He isn't qualified you say?
It was you guys who oppoed that one. And Alito. And Roberts.
I don't "oppose" Sotomayor for anything except a perception of judicial activism.
And here's where race might factor in.
I someone pledges to make law for the United States based on their own experience as a minoruty there is cause for alarm.
I don't feel particularly guilty. If you do, fast for a day.
And by opposing I mean it in a shrug an an "oh well" manner.
She won't be stopped and the constitution is a joke these days anyway.
~BTW how would judge Heck rule on Ricci?~
WSS
-
I think the Rosen piece is being misread, though Rosen and his editors at The New Republic are largely to blame for that.
When I read it, I didn't see it as an argument that Sotomayor's not qualified to be a SCt justice but a case that she won't be the type of influential, persuasive justice that'll be good at getting swings justices like Kennedy to sign on to her opinions or deliver speeches that make a compelling case for her judicial philosophy. Ironically, his argument was that liberals won't end up being happy with her, yet Cal is linking to it as proof she shouldn't be confirmed. If Cal thinks the article is accurate, he should want her on the SCt - a liberal but ineffective justice is the best he could hope for from Obama.
-
Steve, are you even aware of Thomas qualifications before being nominated, or that race was clearly a factor in his hiring?
Did you oppose his nomination?
(PS - I didn't oppose Roberts or Alito.)
-
There Heck goes again, avoiding real questions
..arguing about Thomas is a moot question. Do I have to explain to you, Heck, how to start
your own thread? You run to another subject, another argument, and won't answer legit questions...
as it is... you're boring and your pompousness is totally unjustified.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login