Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
-
Ginsburg is a blatant liberal sexist.
Though her opinions on some important matters of discrimination against women are notably valid,
she is a Dem and if it isn't a sex oriented case (she headed up the ACLU's women's rights org)
she votes with conservatives on other issues with little or no opinion.
By her own admission, she often has opinions that get lost in terms of other Justices'
work, and complains that she is not understood because she's a woman.
I would say, she is ignored a bit because of her narrow focus of concern:
women's rights alone. Then she whines that her and O'Conner disagreed on issues, because
O'Conner is "truly a Republican". She's an arrogant liberal with an extremely narrow
area she cares about, or has expertise in.
I didn't say she wasn't technically qualified, but a lot of the time, she is a liberal and a woman first,
and a Supreme Court Justice second.
O'Connor was just a terrific Supreme Court Justice who happened to be a woman with the insights women have.
Heck and mz the pussy won't see the difference.
Obama's nominee is historically blatantly Hispanic and woman first, and judge responsibilties come second.
As a Supreme Court nominee, that's a bad thing.
Meanwhile, the Republicans voted for technical qualifications, and the Democrats vote for
the results of "litmus tests" that they can install in one fashion or another.
I want the Republicans to do the same as the Dems have.
And maybe, we can watch Heck and mz the pussy go ballistic when the Reps do.
http://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg
This was the case, yet to be ruled upon, that Ginsburg felt repeated Ledbetter. That 5-4 opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito — who succeeded O'Connor — rejected the notion that pay discrimination is harder to detect than other job bias and dismissed the "policy" argument that the law allows more flexibility for suing in such situations.
Ginsburg was so incensed by the decision that she took the unusual step of reading her dissenting opinion from the bench and called on Congress to reverse the court.
Congressional legislation, signed into law by Obama as one of his first official acts, gave workers far more freedom to sue for pay bias long after it began.
Ginsburg said in an interview that she believed some of her male colleagues had trouble understanding the difficulty of getting pay-disparity information and the general reluctance of women to claim a workplace policy is unfair.
"As often as Justice O'Connor and I have disagreed, because she is truly a Republican from Arizona, we were together in all the gender discrimination cases," said Ginsburg, a Brooklyn, N.Y., native and Democrat. "I have no doubt that she would have understood Lilly Ledbetter's situation."
-
Ginsburg is a blatant liberal sexist.
Though her opinions on some important matters of discrimination against women are notably valid,
she is a Dem and if it isn't a sex oriented case (she headed up the ACLU's women's rights org)
she votes with conservatives on other issues with little or no opinion.
By her own admission, she often has opinions that get lost in terms of other Justices'
work, and complains that she is not understood because she's a woman.
I would say, she is ignored a bit because of her narrow focus of concern:
women's rights alone. Then she whines that her and O'Conner disagreed on issues, because
O'Conner is "truly a Republican". She's an arrogant liberal with an extremely narrow
area she cares about, or has expertise in.
I didn't say she wasn't technically qualified, but a lot of the time, she is a liberal and a woman first,
and a Supreme Court Justice second.
O'Connor was just a terrific Supreme Court Justice who happened to be a woman with the insights women have.
Heck and mz the pussy won't see the difference.
Obama's nominee is historically blatantly Hispanic and woman first, and judge responsibilties come second.
As a Supreme Court nominee, that's a bad thing.
Meanwhile, the Republicans voted for technical qualifications, and the Democrats vote for
the results of "litmus tests" that they can install in one fashion or another.
I want the Republicans to do the same as the Dems have.
And maybe, we can watch Heck and mz the pussy go ballistic when the Reps do.
http://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg
This was the case, yet to be ruled upon, that Ginsburg felt repeated Ledbetter. That 5-4 opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito — who succeeded O'Connor — rejected the notion that pay discrimination is harder to detect than other job bias and dismissed the "policy" argument that the law allows more flexibility for suing in such situations.
Ginsburg was so incensed by the decision that she took the unusual step of reading her dissenting opinion from the bench and called on Congress to reverse the court.
Congressional legislation, signed into law by Obama as one of his first official acts, gave workers far more freedom to sue for pay bias long after it began.
Ginsburg said in an interview that she believed some of her male colleagues had trouble understanding the difficulty of getting pay-disparity information and the general reluctance of women to claim a workplace policy is unfair.
"As often as Justice O'Connor and I have disagreed, because she is truly a Republican from Arizona, we were together in all the gender discrimination cases," said Ginsburg, a Brooklyn, N.Y., native and Democrat. "I have no doubt that she would have understood Lilly Ledbetter's situation."
-
Steve, give me a break. You mentioned affirmative action - and your distaste for it - in multiple posts. And you've mentioned it even more over the years.
And that's why I'm asking you why the nomination of Thomas, a clear instance where race was a major factor in the decision to nominate - if not the primary one, as Thomas wasn't terribly qualified - doesn't bother you, but the nomination of Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic woman does.
How do you reconcile the two if they're both race-conscious hires? Since in your world it's all about who is the most qualified, and you wouldn't mind if that ended up being nine blacks or nine whites?
If you're against affirmative action hires, why weren't you against Thomas? Is this one of those instances where "your points are weakened by a too powerful love of party?"
-
Steve, give me a break. You mentioned affirmative action - and your distaste for it - in multiple posts. And you've mentioned it even more over the years.
And that's why I'm asking you why the nomination of Thomas, a clear instance where race was a major factor in the decision to nominate - if not the primary one, as Thomas wasn't terribly qualified - doesn't bother you, but the nomination of Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic woman does.
How do you reconcile the two if they're both race-conscious hires? Since in your world it's all about who is the most qualified, and you wouldn't mind if that ended up being nine blacks or nine whites?
If you're against affirmative action hires, why weren't you against Thomas? Is this one of those instances where "your points are weakened by a too powerful love of party?"
Steve, give me a break. You mentioned affirmative action - and your distaste for it - in multiple posts. And you've mentioned it even more over the years.
We're talking about this post Heck.
We're talking about the remarks of a jurist that, if uttered by a Republican, would be grounds for you to demand he step aside.
And no, Im not a fan of affirmitive action especially if a less able person gets a promotion.
I'd think that person or group would rightly be embarrassed. You?
And that's why I'm asking you why the nomination of Thomas, a clear instance where race was a major factor in the decision to nominate - if not the primary one, as Thomas wasn't terribly qualified - doesn't bother you, but the nomination of Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic woman does.
Again with the straw man.
I NEVER said that Sodomeayor's race made her unfit.
Did I?
If she plans to bestow special privileges on minority groups that would make her unfit.
Am I wrong to think that? Do historical injustices qualify one for extra benefits?
How do you reconcile the two if they're both race-conscious hires?
I don't .
Since in your world it's all about who is the most qualified, and you wouldn't mind if that ended up being nine blacks or nine whites?
But you would. Right?
Actually the president was serioulsy considering going out of academia for a nominee closer to the "people."
Wrong again in youyr view?
If you're against affirmative action hires, why weren't you against Thomas? Is this one of those instances where "your points are weakened by a too powerful love of party?"
Bexcause he didn't promise to make race an issue in deciding cases?
Because your hatred of Thomas amuses me?
Because he's as qualified as anyone to be a justice?
Because he doesn't seem to blame me or those who look like me as deserving of punishment?
Because I didn't bitch that your girl's race disqualified her?
(I doubt she's the most "qualkified" candidate in America even by the Heck meter.)
WSS
~here comes the "herrumph"~
WSS[/b]
-
This is really telling stuff. So you don't mind that Thomas clearly was not the most qualified person, or even among the most qualified people, to get his nomination. You're willing to ignore that and say "he's as qualified as anyone to be a justice" when it's a matter of record that he wasn't. No fair-minded person would argue that Thomas was among the most qualified people to receive an appointment in 1991. But you're willing to ignore this fact.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't support race-based preferences. You "just don't recall Thomas boasting aboyut his color or vowing to punish the white man."
Except that the reason he became a justice was because of a race-based preference. Clearly, Bush wanted to appoint a black to replace Thurgood Marshall, and the bench of black conservative justices isn't that deep. So he went with the best he could find, which was Thomas, even though he didn't have the traditional resume.
Or as you say, "Im not a fan of affirmitive action especially if a less able person gets a promotion." Well, in this case a less able person got a promotion. Clearly. And you are a fan.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't want to "bestow minorities with special privileges." Also because when Republicans do it it's okay: "I'm sure (race) was" a factor in Thomas hiring, you wrote. "I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
So here's what we're left with: affirmative action hires are okay if they don't like affirmative action. Just when they benefit from affirmative action. It's also okay when Republicans do it because they have the best interests of blacks in mind.
As for Sotomayor, you don't dispute that she's perfectly qualified. No one does. But you don't like how they used race and gender as a factor in her hiring: "And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....Well just imagine." And "her most important qualifications are race and sex." And why does this case of an admittedly qualified woman being tapped because of her race and gender bother you when a less qualified man who was tapped because of his race not bother you?
Because she made a ruling you disagree with, and because she made a statement you don't like.
This is the most ridiculous, ad hoc, and partisan position on affirmative action I've ever seen.
Of course, both of these issues with Sotomayor are the two main talking points issued by the Republican Party, and you were running with them within hours of her nomination. Because if there's one thing you can't stand, it's people who blindly follow their party.
Can you explain your inconsistencies? Do I have this wrong or do you? Are you against race-based preferences or are you not? Or are you only against them in cases where you like the person's views, specifically the one that says that they must hate the policy they just benefitted from?
-
Sotomayor should remove her name from nomination for the court.
The reason is clearly explained by Justice Scalia's words from the past:
****************************************
From "The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia" by James Brian Staab:
“More frequently, Scalia finds that American tradition does not support the right at hand,
And has been sharply critical of his colleagues for “inventing” rights through abstract legal tests
That erode traditional values and practices. In Court opinions, Scalia despairs about “elite” judges
Drawn from a “law-profession culture” who support the liberal agenda of secular humanism,
Abortion rights, affirmative action, opposition to the death penalty, and homosexual rights, and are willing to impose those values on the majority."
"Justice Scalia said:
'When judges test their individual notions of ‘fairness’ against an American
Tradition that is deep and broad and continuing, it is not tradition that is on trial, but the judges.'
***************************
Now, Scalia was clearly speaking of the kind of nominee that is SOTOMAYOR.
The legislation of a liberal agenda from the bench is a breach of the intent of the Constitution to
safeguard our freedoms.
And, the Founding Fathers cannot be imagined to have figured that the Constitution was
a "living document" that could be twisted, deleted from and added to per contemporary political whims.
And, with Sotomayor being surely pro-abortion, it's time that Republicans started doing the litmus test
on nominees, like Dems have been doing for years.
So, with Sotomayor's intent to legislate from her own experiences and race...she is not qualified to be a justice,
per Justice Scalia's own words.
-
BTW, Heck, assuming no one has helped you by lowering your chair - (it's a high chair... @@)
Justice Thomas was most certainly qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Keeping in mind what Justice Scalia spoke of about justices coming from a background
where they have their own liberal agenda that they find some obscure way of
forcing on the majority of Americans, Thomas is far more qualifed than Sotomayor
in that regard.
-
BTW, Heck, assuming no one has helped you by lowering your chair - (it's a high chair... @@)
Justice Thomas was most certainly qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Keeping in mind what Justice Scalia spoke of about justices coming from a background
where they have their own liberal agenda that they find some obscure way of
forcing on the majority of Americans, Thomas is far more qualifed than Sotomayor
in that regard.
BTW, Heck, assuming no one has helped you by lowering your chair - (it's a high chair... @@)
Justice Thomas was most certainly qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Keeping in mind what Justice Scalia spoke of about justices coming from a background
where they have their own liberal agenda that they find some obscure way of
forcing on the majority of Americans, Thomas is far more qualifed than Sotomayor
in that regard.
We can all accept this unless we merely want to bicker.
It doesn't seem there's an objective set of rules to make one qualified as there is in who is the heavyweight cvhampion of the world.
If that were true you pick the highest score. Period.
Otherwise you have to admit that by whatever rules you accept no one is likely to be "the most qualified" in America.
A group with a specific agenda not supported by the will of the people will seek to have that agenda forced by the courts in an end run around the principles of democracy.
Scalia is correct and it probably works both ways though it seems liberals do it more.
IMO.
WSS
-
This is really telling stuff. So you don't mind that Thomas clearly was not the most qualified person, or even among the most qualified people, to get his nomination. You're willing to ignore that and say "he's as qualified as anyone to be a justice" when it's a matter of record that he wasn't. No fair-minded person would argue that Thomas was among the most qualified people to receive an appointment in 1991. But you're willing to ignore this fact.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't support race-based preferences. You "just don't recall Thomas boasting aboyut his color or vowing to punish the white man."
Except that the reason he became a justice was because of a race-based preference. Clearly, Bush wanted to appoint a black to replace Thurgood Marshall, and the bench of black conservative justices isn't that deep. So he went with the best he could find, which was Thomas, even though he didn't have the traditional resume.
Or as you say, "Im not a fan of affirmitive action especially if a less able person gets a promotion." Well, in this case a less able person got a promotion. Clearly. And you are a fan.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't want to "bestow minorities with special privileges." Also because when Republicans do it it's okay: "I'm sure (race) was" a factor in Thomas hiring, you wrote. "I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
So here's what we're left with: affirmative action hires are okay if they don't like affirmative action. Just when they benefit from affirmative action. It's also okay when Republicans do it because they have the best interests of blacks in mind.
As for Sotomayor, you don't dispute that she's perfectly qualified. No one does. But you don't like how they used race and gender as a factor in her hiring: "And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....Well just imagine." And "her most important qualifications are race and sex." And why does this case of an admittedly qualified woman being tapped because of her race and gender bother you when a less qualified man who was tapped because of his race not bother you?
Because she made a ruling you disagree with, and because she made a statement you don't like.
This is the most ridiculous, ad hoc, and partisan position on affirmative action I've ever seen.
Of course, both of these issues with Sotomayor are the two main talking points issued by the Republican Party, and you were running with them within hours of her nomination. Because if there's one thing you can't stand, it's people who blindly follow their party.
Can you explain your inconsistencies? Do I have this wrong or do you? Are you against race-based preferences or are you not? Or are you only against them in cases where you like the person's views, specifically the one that says that they must hate the policy they just benefitted from?
This is really telling stuff. So you don't mind that Thomas clearly was not the most qualified person, or even among the most qualified people, to get his nomination. You're willing to ignore that and say "he's as qualified as anyone to be a justice" when it's a matter of record that he wasn't. No fair-minded person would argue that Thomas was among the most qualified people to receive an appointment in 1991. But you're willing to ignore this fact.
Sure Heck.
Since you aren't able to give me a list of requirements or tell my why your girl is at the very top of that list.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't support race-based preferences. You "just don't recall Thomas boasting aboyut his color or vowing to punish the white man."
Do you believe members of the white race today should pay for past discrimination? Yes or no.
Except that the reason he became a justice was because of a race-based preference. Clearly, Bush wanted to appoint a black to replace Thurgood Marshall, and the bench of black conservative justices isn't that deep. So he went with the best he could find, which was Thomas, even though he didn't have the traditional resume.
I never actually heard that anyone was lokking for a black man but I'd guess it could easily have played a part. Sodomeyer is the best you could find I assume.
Or as you say, "Im not a fan of affirmitive action especially if a less able person gets a promotion." Well, in this case a less able person got a promotion. Clearly. And you are a fan.
Again I do not agree Thomas is less qualified than Sodomayor. Is Obama clearly less qualified than John McCain? (in your estimation)
Why? Because Thomas doesn't want to "bestow minorities with special privileges." Also because when Republicans do it it's okay: "I'm sure (race) was" a factor in Thomas hiring, you wrote. "I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
True. As long as people like you allow balkinization the problems (as you see them) will worsen. Sorry. Sounds like Jim Crow revisited.
So here's what we're left with: affirmative action hires are okay if they don't like affirmative action. Just when they benefit from affirmative action. It's also okay when Republicans do it because they have the best interests of blacks in mind.
It helps to have everyones best interest in mind. Yes Heck, ya got me.
As for Sotomayor, you don't dispute that she's perfectly qualified. No one does. But you don't like how they used race and gender as a factor in her hiring: "And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....Well just imagine." And "her most important qualifications are race and sex." And why does this case of an admittedly qualified woman being tapped because of her race and gender bother you when a less qualified man who was tapped because of his race not bother you?
I'd say she's less qualified than many men. Just give me your list of criteria. But she is qualified. There is not a bar set except in your head.
Because she made a ruling you disagree with, and because she made a statement you don't like.
What else? Her hairstyle?
This is the most ridiculous, ad hoc, and partisan position on affirmative action I've ever seen.
Bork anyone?
Of course, both of these issues with Sotomayor are the two main talking points issued by the Republican Party, and you were running with them within hours of her nomination. Because if there's one thing you can't stand, it's people who blindly follow their party.
I do try to follow ideology. It gets hard with the two parties, though it'd likey be worse with three.
Can you explain your inconsistencies?
I don't think I'm inconsistent. Are you?
Do I have this wrong or do you?
You do as I see it.
Are you against race-based preferences or are you not?
I think they have a negative result. Do you?
Or are you only against them in cases where you like the person's views, specifically the one that says that they must hate the policy they just benefitted from?
Hate? Heh.
Look at your own hateful attacks on Thomas.
Now tell me that it doesn't affect doctors lawyers firefighters or anyone given a job based on his color?
You hate Thomas for it because.........?
One more to dodge.
Why should people today be held responsible for the injustices of some people of merely the same color generations ago?
WSS
-
Steve, this isn't therapy. You don't answer a question with another question. If you want to get my feelings on affirmative action programs in general we can do that later, or in another thread.
I'm asking you to reconcile your inconsistencies, or at least get you to agree that you have them. On one hand, you don't mind the race-based hiring of a less qualified black judge, and on the other hand you do mind the race/gender-based hiring of a obviously qualified Hispanic judge. Your only response has been to deny the premise that Thomas lacked qualifications, which is a ridiculous argument. And even then that doesn't make your position consistent. You'd still favor race-based hiring in one instance, and not in the next. And I quoted back to you your own reasoning, which is clearly ad hoc and partisan, and basically amounts to "When Republicans appoint someone who doesn't whine about race, it's okay."
Why the two positions? Don't you oppose race-based hiring?
And give me an example of my "hateful attacks on Thomas"! What are you talking about? I don't hate the man, and haven't said anything about him that's even controversial.
Or should I point out how this is yet another ad hominem attack?
A: Thomas lacks qualifications.
B. You're just saying that because you hate Thomas personally.
A. How does that prove that Thomas was qualified?
B. Because I don't agree, and you hate him.
-
Steve, this isn't therapy. You don't answer a question with another question. If you want to get my feelings on affirmative action programs in general we can do that later, or in another thread.
I'm asking you to reconcile your inconsistencies, or at least get you to agree that you have them. On one hand, you don't mind the race-based hiring of a less qualified black judge, and on the other hand you do mind the race/gender-based hiring of a obviously qualified Hispanic judge. Your only response has been to deny the premise that Thomas lacked qualifications, which is a ridiculous argument. And even then that doesn't make your position consistent. You'd still favor race-based hiring in one instance, and not in the next. And I quoted back to you your own reasoning, which is clearly ad hoc and partisan, and basically amounts to "When Republicans appoint someone who doesn't whine about race, it's okay."
Why the two positions? Don't you oppose race-based hiring?
And give me an example of my "hateful attacks on Thomas"! What are you talking about? I don't hate the man, and haven't said anything about him that's even controversial.
Or should I point out how this is yet another ad hominem attack?
A: Thomas lacks qualifications.
B. You're just saying that because you hate Thomas personally.
A. How does that prove that Thomas was qualified?
B. Because I don't agree, and you hate him.
Steve, this isn't therapy. You don't answer a question with another question. If you want to get my feelings on affirmative action programs in general we can do that later, or in another thread.
Lets say I don't believe you.
I'm asking you to reconcile your inconsistencies, or at least get you to agree that you have them.
Though you're merely in deny and bicker and plead the fifth mode maybe this will help.
You want me to address two different situations and tough shit foy ya there.
Thomas and Sodomayer are both perfectly qualified to serve. I like his politics better than hers. You don't.
If in fac t there were an objective test every jurist had to take it one might have a higher score.
Then we can address your desire for prejudice to take over.
Simple as that.
Why the two positions? Don't you oppose race-based hiring?
Have someone read the above to you again.
And give me an example of my "hateful attacks on Thomas"! What are you talking about? I don't hate the man, and haven't said anything about him that's even controversial.
Hey you used the word "hate" so I assumed you liked it.
Or should I point out how this is yet another ad hominem attack?
A: Thomas lacks qualifications.
He does not.
B. You're just saying that because you hate Thomas personally.
You seem to.
A. How does that prove that Thomas was qualified?
YOu said he wasn't not me. Prove it .
B. Because I don't agree, and you hate him.
You seem to.
Do you "hate" him because he isn't qualified according to the Heck yardstick or is he unqualified because you "hate" him?
And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
WSS
-
For the record, here are Thomas' qualifications when he was nominated. In short, he had assistant jobs until he was chairman of the EEOC for eight years. Then he was a district judge for one year before being nominated.
1971: Graduates Holy Cross
1794: J.D. from Yale Law School
1974-1977: Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 2 1/2 years
1977-1979: Private practice in Missouri
1979-1981: legislative assistant to Missouri Senator John Danforth
1981-1982: Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.
1982-1990: Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1990-1991: Judge, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Here's Sotomayor:
1976: graduates summa cum laude from Princeton, recipient of the Pyne Prize, the top award for undergraduates
1979: J.D. from Yale Law School, editor at the Yale Law Journal
1979-1984: Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan
1984-1992: private practice, made partner in 1988
1992-1998: appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
1998-2009: appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
1998-2007: Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law
1999-2009: Lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School
She's served at every level of our judicial system, and been a judge for 17 years, both at the district and appellate levels.
-
That was a real sorry answer.
It's okay, Steve. I get it. I think we all do. But you should probably stop the bitching about how other people only follow the party line, because you're really just projecting. It's clear you apply two different standards here.
Though just for shits and giggles, you said when Republicans use affirmative action it's "to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
Let's leave aside that you think African-Americans don't see themselves as Americans for now.
What about when Democrats use affirmative action? What's the reason they use it?
-
And again, your evidence for me "hating Thomas" is what?
It's all right there. All of my posts. Quote me.
-
For the record, here are Thomas' qualifications when he was nominated. In short, he had assistant jobs until he was chairman of the EEOC for eight years. Then he was a district judge for one year before being nominated.
1971: Graduates Holy Cross
1794: J.D. from Yale Law School
1974-1977: Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 2 1/2 years
1977-1979: Private practice in Missouri
1979-1981: legislative assistant to Missouri Senator John Danforth
1981-1982: Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.
1982-1990: Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1990-1991: Judge, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Here's Sotomayor:
1976: graduates summa cum laude from Princeton, recipient of the Pyne Prize, the top award for undergraduates
1979: J.D. from Yale Law School, editor at the Yale Law Journal
1979-1984: Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan
1984-1992: private practice, made partner in 1988
1992-1998: appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
1998-2009: appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
1998-2007: Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law
1999-2009: Lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School
She's served at every level of our judicial system, and been a judge for 17 years, both at the district and appellate levels.
She's served at every level of our judicial system, and been a judge for 17 years, both at the district and appellate levels.
And barney was a policeman for how many years? would that make him qualified to be a sheriff.
-
Heck must feel pretty uncomfortable to have T, Steve and myself kicking his butt.
So, Heck says that Thomas was unqualified for the Court, because Sotomayor has
more experience? "DOH"
Sotomayor also was a MARXIST out of Princeton, Heck. Go check her yearbook entries.
Marxist adoptees in these colleges get outstanding grades from Marxist profs..
Independent thinkers, not so much. Just a general rule I noticed years ago...
-
Haha. I love you guys.
-
And again, your evidence for me "hating Thomas" is what?
It's all right there. All of my posts. Quote me.
And again, your evidence for me "hating Thomas" is what?
It's all right there. All of my posts. Quote me.
Golly Heck.
You were tossing the word "hate" around like you knew what it meant.
I figured you liked it.
WSS
-
That was a real sorry answer.
It's okay, Steve. I get it. I think we all do. But you should probably stop the bitching about how other people only follow the party line, because you're really just projecting. It's clear you apply two different standards here.
Though just for shits and giggles, you said when Republicans use affirmative action it's "to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
Let's leave aside that you think African-Americans don't see themselves as Americans for now.
What about when Democrats use affirmative action? What's the reason they use it?
That was a real sorry answer.
It's okay, Steve. I get it. But you should probably stop it with the bitching about how other people only follow the party line.
I report. You decide.
Though just for shits and giggles, you said when Republicans use affirmative action it's "to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."
That's a better reason than most no matter who does it.
Let's leave aside that you think African-Americans don't see themselves as Americans for now.
Actually Heck I recently saw a poll (I can't post it so feel free to just say I made it up and huff and puff) that had a remarkably high number of black respondents say they thought of themselves first in terms of color.
Lots more than Christians and wayyy more than white.
I don't think even you would pretend that doesn't happen. But who knows, you're loath to admit anything.
And shall we notethat you did ust the terms "African Americans" and "Americans" so there must be a line somewhere in even your colorblind head.
What about when Democrats use affirmative action? What's the reason they use it?
Pandering to that voting bloc?
Plus we'ere off course on the judicial topic maybe a new header is in order.
WSS
-
I'm just glad we've confirmed the love you have for the benevolent form of Republican-sponsored race-based hiring.
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