Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
-
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.
-
Haha.
Yes, she's out for race revenge and she wants to re-write the Constitution.
Persuasive as always.
Haha.
Yes, she's out for race revenge and she wants to re-write the Constitution.
Persuasive as always.
Oh dear Heck.
I'd never try to pursude a guy as steeped in the Democrat dogma as you.
WSS
-
Give me an example of my Democratic dogma.
-
Give me an example of my Democratic dogma.
Give me an example of my Democratic dogma.
One?
This discussion is about institutionalized reverse descrimination and a desire to make that constitutional.
(Well the half that isn't about Sodemayer's qualifications which I never questioned.)
So while you defend that you attack Thomas because he's Black.
Chapter and verse in the Dem playbook.
WSS
~I'm predicting the response~
-
“It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality.
"But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”
-
“It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality.
"But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”
Is Sotomayor a Racist?
That's pretty funny coming from you, T. Being an admitted bigot and all.
Being able to see things from a more personal perspective (Sotomayor) is vastly different than hating someone because they were born black, gay or Mexican (you).
-
I attacked Thomas because he was black?
I thought I pointed out that Thomas wasn't particularly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and that his race played a role in his appointment.
Again, try to argue what I'm saying, not the straw man.
Want to try again?
-
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993, unanimous well-qualified.
**************************************************
Thanks, Al, but I'd take O'Conner or Thomas and a whole bunch of others
over Ginsburg, who is a total waste on the court.
And if anybody tells me that the ABA is totally above putting politics into their
votes, I'll go roll all across ten plowed and disced acres after a hard rain, RIM,LMAO.
-
Is Sotomayor a Racist?
That's pretty funny coming from you, T. Being an admitted bigot and all.
Being able to see things from a more personal perspective (Sotomayor) is vastly different than hating someone because they were born black, gay or Mexican (you).
mz. said:
That's pretty funny coming from you, T. Being an admitted bigot and all.Being able to see things from a more personal perspective (Sotomayor) is vastly different than hating someone because they were born black, gay or Mexican (you).
I see your still into name calling.
-
mz. said:
That's pretty funny coming from you, T. Being an admitted bigot and all.Being able to see things from a more personal perspective (Sotomayor) is vastly different than hating someone because they were born black, gay or Mexican (you).
I see your still into name calling.
I see your still into name calling.
As long as you're into bigotry, something you have never denied IIRC, I'll call 'em as I see 'em.
Explain it?
Fine. I will.
Conservative critics have latched onto the speech as evidence that Sotomayor is an “activist judge,” who will rule on the basis of her personal beliefs instead of facts and law.
That's what you are grabbing onto, as Rush would (I assume) tell you to. I maintain that she is an impartial yet left-leaning judge (duh) according to everything I've read.
So what's the problem here, other than the fact she doesn't lean in your direction?
-
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993, unanimous well-qualified.
**************************************************
Thanks, Al, but I'd take O'Conner or Thomas and a whole bunch of others
over Ginsburg, who is a total waste on the court.
And if anybody tells me that the ABA is totally above putting politics into their
votes, I'll go roll all across ten plowed and disced acres after a hard rain, RIM,LMAO.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993, unanimous well-qualified.
**************************************************
Thanks, Al, but I'd take O'Conner or Thomas and a whole bunch of others
over Ginsburg, who is a total waste on the court.
There's a difference between judging ideology and judging whether a nominee's qualified for the job. That's why Heck can say Obama should have voted for Alito & Roberts, and why both conservatives and liberals at the ABA agreed that Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Ginsburg, etc. were well-qualified for the job, whereas Thomas and, to a lesser extent, O'Connor didn't have the same kind of experience (IIRC, O'Connor had only been a state court judge).
Ginsburg had been an federal appeals court judge for thirteen years when Clinton put her on the SCt. That made her eminently qualified for the job, and I don't think anyone credible has said that she's been a failure as a justice. You linked to Jeffrey Rosen's article on Sotomayor; he also wrote a glowing article on his one of his favorite candidates, Diane Wood, in which he compared her to Ginsburg. No one questions the quality of her opinions, and she's been a thoroughly positive influence on the internal workings of the court. She & Justice Scalia co-host a Christmas/Chanuka party every year, which is a testament to how good she is at keeping things civil.
Not sure how that makes her "a total waste on the court."
-
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993, unanimous well-qualified.
**************************************************
Thanks, Al, but I'd take O'Conner or Thomas and a whole bunch of others
over Ginsburg, who is a total waste on the court.
There's a difference between judging ideology and judging whether a nominee's qualified for the job. That's why Heck can say Obama should have voted for Alito & Roberts, and why both conservatives and liberals at the ABA agreed that Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Ginsburg, etc. were well-qualified for the job, whereas Thomas and, to a lesser extent, O'Connor didn't have the same kind of experience (IIRC, O'Connor had only been a state court judge).
Ginsburg had been an federal appeals court judge for thirteen years when Clinton put her on the SCt. That made her eminently qualified for the job, and I don't think anyone credible has said that she's been a failure as a justice. You linked to Jeffrey Rosen's article on Sotomayor; he also wrote a glowing article on his one of his favorite candidates, Diane Wood, in which he compared her to Ginsburg. No one questions the quality of her opinions, and she's been a thoroughly positive influence on the internal workings of the court. She & Justice Scalia co-host a Christmas/Chanuka party every year, which is a testament to how good she is at keeping things civil.
Not sure how that makes her "a total waste on the court."
Aloysius said:
Not sure how that makes her "a total waste on the court."Some folks like cal simply cannot process the idea someone being qualified to serve on the court while not agree with their personal ideology or leanings. As in: I believe Justice Scalia is certainly qualified to serve as a judge but I do not agree with his ideology.
-
I attacked Thomas because he was black?
I thought I pointed out that Thomas wasn't particularly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and that his race played a role in his appointment.
Again, try to argue what I'm saying, not the straw man.
Want to try again?
I attacked Thomas because he was black?
I thought I pointed out that Thomas wasn't particularly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and that his race played a role in his appointment.
Again, try to argue what I'm saying, not the straw man.
Want to try again?
Try again?
That'd be two hits in a row.
Though you love that straw man no one ever accused Thomas of racial bias.
(He's an Uncle Tom for not doing it. And I've not heard you call him that)
No doubt it's Democrat dogma Heck.
Scream racism at every turn while pimping your own version of it.
Probably in tthe first chapter.
Wait....
No?
(sorry)
WSS
-
Again, where are you suggesting I'm following some Democratic dogma? You're making the point that Democratic dogma is such and such.
What's your example? Want to try again?
And what does this mean?
"Though you love that straw man no one ever accused Thomas of racial bias."
It seems that you don't know what a straw man is. Which shouldn't surprise anyone.
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