Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
-
And, I did overstate my opinion of her.
I just worry that after reading the article, she doesn't have the eloquence
and top tier ability to analyze and communicate her legal positions properly.
Which, even if she's on the excellent side of an issue before the court, won't
help sway the libs on the court.
But, all in all, she's a far better choice, I think, than several others Obama could have made.
But the "Hispanics know better how to interpret the Constitution than white people"
makes Obama a blatant racist. Which, is no surprise to those of us who warned of the
influence of the church pastor where he attended.
And siding against the firefighters who were reverse discriminated against, I think, would
disqualify her from being considered a future, honestly objective Constitutionalist judge on the court.
-
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.)
Steve, are you even aware of Thomas qualifications before being nominated,
Nope. Is there a checklist?
or that race was clearly a factor in his hiring?
And I'm sure it was.
I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans.
As to "qualifications" I'm not saying your girl isn't qualified. Did I say that?
Did you oppose his nomination?
Nope. Should I? Did he say he'd make better decisions than a White man? Or did he stick to the law?
(PS - I didn't oppose Roberts or Alito.)
So you feel Obama was wrong to do so?
WSS
-
And by the way, of course Thomas was qualified. Most qualified?
Based on which of 7-10 criteria?
Based on his education and intellect, he was most certainly qualified.
Thomas was despised because he interpreted discrimination AND
reverse discrimination as EQUALLY BAD.
Thomas clearly has the intellect to be superior a nominee to Obama's current nominee.
She condones reverse discrimination, which is not the law, it's a social judgement
based on legit and/or perceived discrimination in the past.
How ignorant is it, to stop discrimination by reversing it, thus compounding the problem?
It's a liberal tack - and it sails into the usual lib problem of trying to solve a problem
by causing another problem.
-
That was a perfect post, Steve.
Of course there are qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Thomas had some, but his resume was rather thin. He'd been a legislative aide, worked in the Dept. of Education, and I believe he'd only been a judge for a year when he was nominated. This doesn't seem to bother you. Why?
Because a Republican nominated him. And the perfect part of your post is where you suggest that when Republicans hire someone based on race it's because they "want(s) to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
I don't know what part of that is the most ridiculous - the idiocy of it, the blind partisanship part, or the white condescension.
So when a Republican nominates a black guy with a really thin resume for the highest court in the land, it's a benevolent gesture to help assimilate blacks.
When Obama nominates a Hispanic woman who has qualifications out the wazoo, there's something wrong with that, mostly because she dared to suggest that someone who grew up the way she did might have a better idea about growing up the way she did than a white person who didn't grow up the way she did.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's just you, bar singer, being concerned about the integrity of US law. A few posts after you expressed (for the 8th or 9th time) your disdain for the US Constitution. So clearly, you're concern for the judges who will be interpreting the Constitution is really what's guiding you here.
And yes, I thought Obama was wrong to vote against Alito, and particularly Roberts. Both were clearly qualified, and my feeling is that if you don't agree with their judicial philosophy, then you should win an election.
-
And by the way, of course Thomas was qualified. Most qualified?
Based on which of 7-10 criteria?
Based on his education and intellect, he was most certainly qualified.
Thomas was despised because he interpreted discrimination AND
reverse discrimination as EQUALLY BAD.
Thomas clearly has the intellect to be superior a nominee to Obama's current nominee.
She condones reverse discrimination, which is not the law, it's a social judgement
based on legit and/or perceived discrimination in the past.
How ignorant is it, to stop discrimination by reversing it, thus compounding the problem?
It's a liberal tack - and it sails into the usual lib problem of trying to solve a problem
by causing another problem.
And by the way, of course Thomas was qualified. Most qualified?
Based on which of 7-10 criteria?
The American Bar Association rates SCt nominee's qualifications, and Thomas received the lowest grade of any recent nominee, other than Robert Bork.
Past ABA ratings of Supreme Court nominees
Harriet Miers, 2005, withdrew nomination before receiving ABA rating.
Chief Justice John Roberts, 2005, unanimous well-qualified.
Justice Stephen Breyer, 1994, unanimous well-qualified.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993, unanimous well-qualified.
Justice Clarence Thomas, 1991, 12 votes for qualified, two votes for not qualified and one recusal.
Justice David Souter, 1990, unanimous well-qualified.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, 1987, unanimous well-qualified.
Douglas Ginsburg, 1987, withdrew nomination before receiving ABA rating.
Robert Bork, 1987, majority well-qualified, four votes for not qualified. Bork was rejected by the Senate.
Justice Antonin Scalia, 1986, unanimous well-qualified.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981, well-qualified on judicial temperament and integrity, qualified on professional competence.
Justice John Paul Stevens, 1975, unanimous well-qualified.
-
"Hispanics know better how to interpret the Constitution than white people"
In respect to that, and to be fair, I would have to see in what context that quote was pulled.
However, your personal experience really has little to do with interpreting the law and the constitution unless you are talking about the level at which you studied such matters.
Possibly they veered off point while discussing the merits of soft or fried taco shell/wraps.
-
Miers would have topped them all.
Here is Bush in 1991, laying out Thomas' qualifications when announcing his nomination:
"After graduation from Yale Law School, he worked for then Missouri attorney general John Danforth, and spent 2 1/2 years litigating cases of all descriptions. In 1977, Judge Thomas practiced law in the private sector, and in 1979, he rejoined Senator Danforth as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate. In 1981, President Reagan appointed him Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990, he served as President Reagan's Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And I appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1990."
-
So clearly, you're concern for the judges who will be interpreting the Constitution is really what's guiding you here Heck
********************************************************
"you're concern?"
ROF,LMAO !!!
Heck, the word you want to use, is "your".
"You're" is used in place of "You are"
The idea, Heckster, IS INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION.
But, with your politics, apparently you don't like the idea.
Too bad, never been funny boy.
(have you had someone lower your chair for you yet?) ROF,L !
-
Why are we discussing Justice Thomas??
It has nothing to do with this nomination.
Incredible.
-
Agreed. But Heck brought it up. The usual divert the subject to another subject.
I just replied to give him some backtalk about the truth of Thomas's qualifications.
-
Quick trivia question: which president made a campaign promise to put a women on the Supreme Court?
-
Daddy Bush?
-
Yeah, you're right. Talking about another minority justice's nomination when talking about the current minority justice's nomination is a right turn we just can't handle.
And Cal, you're right about my spelling mistake. Would you like me to go through your posts and correct your spelling/grammar?
-
Not sure how to read you comment Heck...
It really has no bearing at all. The only thing that matters is this woman, her record, and how she has conducted herself in the course of her career.
-
It's about the double standard on the right.
-
And Cal, you're right about my spelling mistake. Would you like me to go through your posts and correct your spelling/grammar?
************************
You could, you wouldn't even have to have someone lower your chair for that, too !
Well, I type so fast, I usually correct my own gaffes, but my thumb healed, so that helps immensely.
I already did it once, I used "easily" instead of "easier", but didn't bother to fix it.
And, I thought it would have been better to just nominate the best qualified person who
will INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION no matter what sex or race someone is.
I really object to the idea that a judge anywhere would make up his own law per his own
background and biases. Like Obama's nominee did.
Not good, really, really bad.
-
Daddy Bush?
No, it was Saint Reagan:
According to Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, during the 1980 presidential race between Reagan, the Republican nominee, and Democratic President Jimmy Carter running for re-election, Reagan had a small lead over Carter as of mid-October. But Reagan's political strategist Stuart K. Spenser, concerned that support from female voters was slipping, wanted to close the perceived gender gap. The strategist and his boss discussed ways to win back women and the idea of naming a woman to the Supreme Court was born.
More here.
-
I just couldn't remember if it was Reagan or Bush and thought it was part of ones platform when the two were pushing for the nomination before they struck their cord.
I am getting a bit long in the tooth and couldn't remember...thanks.
-
That was a perfect post, Steve.
Of course there are qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Thomas had some, but his resume was rather thin. He'd been a legislative aide, worked in the Dept. of Education, and I believe he'd only been a judge for a year when he was nominated. This doesn't seem to bother you. Why?
Because a Republican nominated him. And the perfect part of your post is where you suggest that when Republicans hire someone based on race it's because they "want(s) to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
I don't know what part of that is the most ridiculous - the idiocy of it, the blind partisanship part, or the white condescension.
So when a Republican nominates a black guy with a really thin resume for the highest court in the land, it's a benevolent gesture to help assimilate blacks.
When Obama nominates a Hispanic woman who has qualifications out the wazoo, there's something wrong with that, mostly because she dared to suggest that someone who grew up the way she did might have a better idea about growing up the way she did than a white person who didn't grow up the way she did.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's just you, bar singer, being concerned about the integrity of US law. A few posts after you expressed (for the 8th or 9th time) your disdain for the US Constitution. So clearly, you're concern for the judges who will be interpreting the Constitution is really what's guiding you here.
And yes, I thought Obama was wrong to vote against Alito, and particularly Roberts. Both were clearly qualified, and my feeling is that if you don't agree with their judicial philosophy, then you should win an election.
That was a perfect post, Steve.
As usual.
Of course there are qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Thomas had some, but his resume was rather thin. He'd been a legislative aide, worked in the Dept. of Education, and I believe he'd only been a judge for a year when he was nominated. This doesn't seem to bother you. Why?
Why? Why should it. You've listed no guidelines to qualify one. I'd say that a nominee may well be top of the class or whatever you think matters and have the idea that it is their job to outlaw XXXX or claim revenge for their people.
That'd worry me. Not you I assume.
Because a Republican nominated him. And the perfect part of your post is where you suggest that when Republicans hire someone based on race it's because they "want(s) to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
They did.
Again, puss that you are, would you bitch had he said he would be a better juror than a whirte man? I just never got the feeling he was more concerned about color than law. I guess you did.
I don't know what part of that is the most ridiculous - the idiocy of it, the blind partisanship part, or the white condescension.
As usual you missed the third option.
It's your laughable hypocrisy.
So when a Republican nominates a black guy with a really thin resume for the highest court in the land, it's a benevolent gesture to help assimilate blacks.
I just don't recall Thomas boasting aboyut his color or vowing to punish the white man. If he did Heck, I'll admit I'm wrong.
When Obama nominates a Hispanic woman who has qualifications out the wazoo, there's something wrong with that, mostly because she dared to suggest that someone who grew up the way she did might have a better idea about growing up the way she did than a white person who didn't grow up the way she did.
LOL yeah that's it.
Sort of like "Well the Negro doesn't have the temperment to judge white folks." Is that your take too?
Oh, I'm sorry. That's just you, bar singer, being concerned about the integrity of US law. A few posts after you expressed (for the 8th or 9th time) your disdain for the US Constitution. So clearly, you're concern for the judges who will be interpreting the Constitution is really what's guiding you here.
Yeah if only I were some jagoff corporate hack....
But you're right about the constitution. And after 8 years of crying that Bush was dismantling it you deman a re write.
And yes, I thought Obama was wrong to vote against Alito, and particularly Roberts. Both were clearly qualified, and my feeling is that if you don't agree with their judicial philosophy, then you should win an election.
And that is true. (also true that thge empty suit is "out of the mainstream.")
Sorry did I say otherwise or are you just in a frenzy now?
WSS
-
Haha.
Yes, she's out for race revenge and she wants to re-write the Constitution.
Persuasive as always.
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