Let the Palin-izing and JTP-ing of the new SCOTUS nominee begin: Divorced, no children, diabetic, blah blah blah
Seriously, pretty decent (and fair) article about her and what we can expect during confirmation:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3332253528_7b71237f76_o.jpg)
Not too bad a choice given her prior experience and education. Nor a surprise.
The part of the article that pisses me off is the author saying that GOP opposition would be interpreted as "anti-Hispanic". Doesn't matter that they would have idealogical issues, must be simply because she's female, Hispanic, and comes from modest means.
Just play the race/ethnic card if someone disagrees.
(http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/race-card-06.jpg)
Her nomination is a slam dunk if the GOP dogs can be kept in their kennels.
GOP can't do a thing about it. Just depends on if she's done or said anything incredibly stupid. I doubt she will get Borked.
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-10-things_n_207724.html
Same article also points out that she might be ambiguous enough on abortion to please pro-choice groups and has ruled in the past with the position of pro-life.
Here's a decent summary from NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27court.html?_r=1&hp
I suspect GOP will lay down on this one and wait for President Obama's next pick to SCOTUS. Chances are, he will replace Stephens this term and if Justice Ginsburg's health declines, he could wind up picking three justices.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2009, 11:55:18 AM
Just play the race/ethnic card if someone disagrees.
(http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/race-card-06.jpg)
I do not recall the media b*tching about the race card when the dems filibustered Miguel Estrada, and he was a court of appeals nominee.
Quote from: guido911 on May 26, 2009, 01:42:24 PM
I do not recall the media b*tching about the race card when the dems filibustered Miguel Estrada, and he was a court of appeals nominee.
It's not racist when Democrats do it. And all those Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act? They're all Republicans now, remember. Oh, and Abe Lincoln would have been a Democrat today.
/snark
Here's Soto's sherpa Claire McCaskill making an a$$ out of herself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/26/sen_mccaskill_sotomayor_has_richly_uniquely_experience.html
Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating under their desks this evening.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2009, 02:17:33 PM
Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating under their desks this evening.
Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating
each other under their desks this evening.
FIFY
Not sure about Olby given that Prop 8 was upheld. Remember that Special Comment he gave after it passed and how he was mercilessly excoriated by Opie and Anthony?
Her qualifications boil down to just one thing: Her legal mind. Her qualifications have nothing to do with:
1. Being female
2. Being Hispanic
3. Her life experiences
4. Her real world richness
(all quotes I've heard)
Remember, she is there for just one reason...to interpret the constitution.
Having said that, one of the honors of being President is, you get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Absent outrages court behavior and/or consistently being overturned by higher courts, a nominee, whether appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, she get the nod from the Senate.
Wilbur,
If she wasn't a Hispanic who has a vagina - would she have gotten the appointment? The answer is no. Her race and her sex are the reason she was chosen over a litany of other people.
I'm not arguing that she isn't qualified. But when the criteria starts with female and then includes "minority, preferably Hispanic" the question should be asked. I think different people can bring different perspectives to the bench and I think that is important, but it still bothers me when race is a criteria for better or for worse.
- - -
And the whole "policy from the bench" thing is just junk. She was commenting on the state of affairs, not the way she wants it to be. The fact is Judges do make policy and they have to. Our legislature is usually to slow, ambiguous or divided to make policy. Judges don't really have that luxury and have to decide one way or another.
I do not think her statement was in favor of judicial activism.
(fwiw, I am not a fan of this appointment. But to be fair she does appear to be qualified. . . )
Quote from: Wilbur on May 27, 2009, 06:06:40 AM
Her qualifications boil down to just one thing: Her legal mind. Her qualifications have nothing to do with:
1. Being female
2. Being Hispanic
3. Her life experiences
4. Her real world richness
(all quotes I've heard)
Remember, she is there for just one reason...to interpret the constitution.
Having said that, one of the honors of being President is, you get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Absent outrages court behavior and/or consistently being overturned by higher courts, a nominee, whether appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, she get the nod from the Senate.
What was so outrageous about Bork or Estrada?
Quote from: guido911 on May 27, 2009, 09:58:58 AM
What was so outrageous about Bork or Estrada?
Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.
Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 27, 2009, 11:07:05 AM
Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.
Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans.
I remember it well. Some of Bork's comments came so out of left field that even some Republicans looked at him like he came from outer space.
He came across like an arrogant guy who was all-theory, no-practice in terms of constitutional law. He said stuff that was way out of the norm, then got all indignant when senators said they were disturbed by this.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 27, 2009, 11:07:05 AM
Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.
Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans.
Would you please direct me the provision in the constitution providing a "right to privacy"? Lemme help you, there isn't one. The rigt to privacy was created by the Supreme Court in cases like Griswold v. Conn., a case involving contraception use in the bedroom. While Bork may have been wrong, his thinking is no different that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Rehnquist or any other strict constructionists.
As for being a "tool", gee whiz RM, how many of those folks currently occuy high level government posts today? Eric Holder and his involvement in the Marc Rich pardon? Tim Geithner and his tax issues? Biden the plagiarist? Sh*t, Alcee Hastings is a disgraced and IMPEACHED federal judge yet has a seat in Congress:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alcee_Hastings_corruption_scandal
Bork got "borked" because of his views on abortion. Period. Why else would his video rental history be leaked?
Quote from: guido911 on May 27, 2009, 11:43:52 AM
Bork got "borked" because of his views on abortion. Period. Why else would his video rental history be leaked?
No, Bork got borked because he was an out-of-touch and out-of-whack fool.
But if you want to keep defending a fool, I won't stop you.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 27, 2009, 11:55:56 AM
No, Bork got borked because he was an out-of-touch and out-of-whack fool.
But if you want to keep defending a fool, I won't stop you.
Let's see, he went to the University of Chicago, was the U.S. Soliciter General, sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (arguably the most influential appeallate court) was nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, and is currently a law professor. Size up your Red Fork Oklahoma resume to that and see who the "fool" is.
I am not defending anyone, particularly Bork since I believe the right to privacy can be inferred from the fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. I was pointing out that merely opposing abortion is not so outrageous as to deny a sitting president's choice. Hell, Reagan's nominee Douglas Ginsberg was forced to withdraw for...wait for it...wait for it...you guessed it, smoking grass. Being a pothead is apparently so outrageous that you cannot be a justice, but being an admitted pothead
and cokehead, not so much to be president.
RW, you are dangerously close to going full retard, again.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on May 27, 2009, 08:35:32 AM
Wilbur,
If she wasn't a Hispanic who has a vagina - would she have gotten the appointment? The answer is no. Her race and her sex are the reason she was chosen over a litany of other people.
Sparty,
Help put Clearance Thomass in the right context.....
The Palinizing is in full swing. Idiot/"Dodomayor" meme being pushed, with lots of help from liberal bedwetter Jonathon Turley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MT5y8R-kg
Doesn't take long, does it.
Quote from: FOTD on May 27, 2009, 02:30:06 PM
Sparty,
Help put Clearance Thomass in the right context.....
He would be different from Thurgood Marshall by that logic?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2009, 04:04:43 PM
He would be different from Thurgood Marshall by that logic?
1) you are NOT Spartacus
2) you can't compare Thomass with Marshall....your perspective and time periods are whack.
3) Hint: If he wasn't a black man who was an Uncle Tom would he ever have gotten an appointment?
Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In this case, Maloney v. Cuomo, the court noted that the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of the District's gun control law, did not invalidate this principle, and "to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle," earlier Supreme Court rulings took precedence in the case.
So she's saying the second amendment only applies at the federal level?
Just some Canon Fodder, Conan.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2009, 11:55:18 AM
Just play the race/ethnic card if someone disagrees.
(http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/race-card-06.jpg)
When the White House says they dare the GOP to turn down an Hispanic female, who's playing the race card?
Quote from: Wilbur on May 27, 2009, 06:12:20 PM
When the White House says they dare the GOP to turn down an Hispanic female, who's playing the race card?
Hispanic refers to an ethnic group. Puerta Rican is not a race. Besides, where do you get this racist bs?
Here's hoping your skin crawls... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30951252#30951252
Quote from: FOTD on May 27, 2009, 06:48:16 PM
Hispanic refers to an ethnic group. Puerta Rican is not a race. Besides, where do you get this racist bs?
Here's hoping your skin crawls... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30951252#30951252
Ummm, she seems to imply she's a woman of color and implies her ethnicity makes her a superior jurist:
"... I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions"
Right, Justice Marshall wasn't an Uncle Tom because he was nominated by Johnson, thanks for reminding me. Different time, different context. I keep forgetting it's not racism or pandering when Dimocraps do it.
Does the name "Sotomayor" kind remind anyone of "Robocop"?
Okay back to our highly-charged discussion.
I heard she did coke...I'm calling her Snortomayor...
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2009, 08:36:27 PM
Ummm, she seems to imply she's a woman of color and implies her ethnicity makes her a superior jurist:
"... I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions"
Right, Justice Marshall wasn't an Uncle Tom because he was nominated by Johnson, thanks for reminding me. Different time, different context. I keep forgetting it's not racism or pandering when Dimocraps do it.
Conan, please insert the entire quote. It's out of context. So are you.
Marshall was brilliant, the real deal while Clarence perverted the process of appointing a member to SCOTUS. He too had coke (with hair, evidently)...
Quote from: Breadburner on May 27, 2009, 10:00:14 PM
I heard she did coke...I'm calling her Snortomayor...
That's not a wordvention but nice try.
Who was Long Dong Silver?
Your Daddy....
Quote from: Wilbur on May 27, 2009, 06:12:20 PM
When the White House says they dare the GOP to turn down an Hispanic female, who's playing the race card?
Yeah, cuz the Supreme Court is dominated by hispanics and females.... not.
Who's playing the race card? Oh, I think I know.....
Rush Limbaugh"Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one."Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22983.html#ixzz0Go1JRpWG&B
The racism is so deeply embedded that they can't even see it.
Sonia Sotomayor is not Clarence Thomas
Why do Republicans think Sotomayor is a mediocre beneficiary of affirmative action? Because they had their own. When the wingnuts attack Sotomayor with inaccurate stereotypes, they're projecting onto her the shortcomings of their own beloved Clarence.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/29/clarence_thomas/
"Eighteen years ago, the Senate confirmation of Thomas earned historic notoriety for its bizarre descent into conflicting recollections of sexual harassment and pornographic banter. But the lingering question about the man selected to replace the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall was whether he fulfilled the White House description of him as "the most qualified [candidate] at this time." As Thomas confessed in his memoir a few years ago, "Even I had my doubts about so extravagant a claim."
So extravagant was Bush's assertion as to verge on comical. Far from being the "most qualified," Thomas was a nominee with no experience on the bench beyond the 18 months he had served on the U.S. District Court of Appeals. He had never written a significant legal brief or article. He had achieved no distinction in private practice or law enforcement. He had never even argued a case in federal court, let alone at the U.S. Supreme Court."
White males have benefitted from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.
Quote from: FOTD on May 30, 2009, 09:00:12 AM
White males have benefitted [sic] from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.
Ergo, we should discriminate in another direction? You logic also falters by assuming that all white people are magical members of said network. Which is as asinine as assuming all black people are criminals. So basically, it's a great example of why classifying or giving credence to judgment by skin color is a stupid idea.
Would she have been nominated if she wasn't a female? No.
Would she have been nominate if she wasn't of a particular race? No.
If a white man claimed to be superior by virtue of his skin color and having a penis would he be excluded from consideration and dubbed a racist? Yes.
Would the other party be making the same arguments if they were on the other side? Yes. They are both willing and able to whip out the race card when it serves their purpose. Pot, meet the kettle.
Is she qualified to be on the Supreme Court? Yes.
The Democrats are played with race to force the Republicans to play with race. The Democrats had to push a candidate that was qualified by relatively extreme. The Republicans have to act shocked and outraged but respectful of the fact that she has a vagina and is Hispanic. It is a big stupid game that won't change the fact that she will be confirmed.
I AM impressed with the idea that Sotomayor is credited as being the most accomplished jurist nominated for SCOTUS in the last 100 years. I am put off with her notions though that her ethnicity and gender somehow make her a better judge than a white man. I'd be just as put off if it were a white male nominee who made such claims. If it were the other way around, the President would have already pulled the nomination off the table.
I simply question "statement" nominations. How many other judges are out there with the same or more creds who could do the job just as well or better?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2009, 10:26:00 AM
I AM impressed with the idea that Sotomayor is credited as being the most accomplished jurist nominated for SCOTUS in the last 100 years. I am put off with her notions though that her ethnicity and gender somehow make her a better judge than a white man. I'd be just as put off if it were a white male nominee who made such claims. If it were the other way around, the President would have already pulled the nomination off the table.
I simply question "statement" nominations. How many other judges are out there with the same or more creds who could do the job just as well or better?
I have no idea why anyone would object to this statement:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The points of emphasis are "with the richness of her experiences" and "who hasn't lived that life." You could switch the people in the sentence, and I would have no objection. I certainly would rather have a judge who's been around the block a few times than someone who's sequestered himself from the outside world.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 01, 2009, 11:15:24 AM
I have no idea why anyone would object to this statement:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The points of emphasis are "with the richness of her experiences" and "who hasn't lived that life." You could switch the people in the sentence, and I would have no objection. I certainly would rather have a judge who's been around the block a few times than someone who's sequestered himself from the outside world.
Huh? Did you read all my post? I agree she's been around the block as a judge. Certainly there are other equally or more-accomplished judges available for this post. Explain to me why given a subjective test such as number of years on the appelate bench, number of cases heard, number of opinions written, GPA at a similar law school, bar scores, etc. how is the ethnicity or gender of one judge superior to anothers?
"I'm a better judge because I'm an Hispanic female"
As it comes to issues relating to Hispanic females, I suppose she's correct. As far as it makes her more adept at legal issues affecting all Americans of every race, ethnicity, and gender (or cross-gender), I drop the BS card.
What's stumping you on that RW? Would you be okay with a white male candidate for SCOTUS making a claim to be a superior judge because he brings the richness of growing up white, male, and rich in the lap of luxury?
"I would hope that a wise [white male] with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [female minority] who hasn't lived that life."
By implication the white male is wise because of his experiences. Ones that, presumably, the female minority would be unable to have. Thus, he is a better judge because he is a white male.
That would not over well.
I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male. I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions. Variety of viewpoints on the court is probably a good thing. But if the situation was reversed, as above, the left would be crying foul.
Really probably a non-issue, but you should at least be able to see where they are coming from.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
What's stumping you on that RW? Would you be okay with a white male candidate for SCOTUS making a claim to be a superior judge because he brings the richness of growing up white, male, and rich in the lap of luxury?
I do think a poor person who pulls herself up to a very prestigious legal position with her ability and intelligence is a lot more of an excellent choice to any position than a not-as-bright white guy who got a foot in the door solely due to affluence and family connections.
For a clear example of the latter see: Bush, George W.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 01, 2009, 11:44:39 AM
I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male. I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions. Variety of viewpoints on the court is probably a good thing. But if the situation was reversed, as above, the left would be crying foul.
Really probably a non-issue, but you should at least be able to see where they are coming from.
Which was kinda my point. If the situation were reversed, the context would have an entirely different meaning. But it's been abundantly clear in much of the history of the United States that the white race, for whatever reasons, has had more inherent (and even legal) advantages than people of other races.
That situation has only begun to fade away in the past 40 years or so. The U.S. had a chance to do this much earlier, after the Civil War, but fumbled the ball starting in the 1890s. It took until the 1950s and '60s before Jim Crow and other racist laws and bad behavior by white people were finally addressed.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 01, 2009, 11:51:13 AM
I do think a poor person who pulls herself up to a very prestigious legal position with her ability and intelligence is a lot more of an excellent choice to any position than a not-as-bright white guy who got a foot in the door solely due to affluence and family connections.
For a clear example of the latter see: Bush, George W.
You keep side-stepping my argument. I said someone with equal or better experience using some sort of subjective yard stick. Naturally, anyone would hope we'd get the best and brightest. If that person is Sonia Sotomayor, I'm all for it. Her claim that being Hispanic and female gives her a better perspective smacks of an arrogance that would be unforgiveable coming from a white male. The point being made that
you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why
should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?
This is a statement hire. Otherwise, why make such an issue out of "first Hispanic" or "first Hispanic female" nominated to SCOTUS.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2009, 12:03:20 PM
The point being made that you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?
Easy answer: Because a minority had more to overcome than a white person.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 01, 2009, 11:44:39 AM
I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male. I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions.
This is why I think that presuming all appointments meet some basic qualifications as being not-loony and having the requisite experience to be a justice, the Court's makeup would ideally approximate the ethnic and gender makeup of the US as a whole.
As it stands, white males are extremely overrepresented on the Court and as such cries of reverse racism are completely misplaced, unless some totally unqualified female or person of other ethnicity were nominated.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 01, 2009, 03:57:33 PM
Easy answer: Because a minority had more to overcome than a white person.
Really? So you'd be less impressed with a white person from the exact same background accomplishing the exact same things? Ahh, I dream of a day when people are judged by the content of their character. . .
I have a friend whose father was the UN ambassador from an African nation. He went to Oxford for undergrad and is fluent in English, an African dialect (can't remember which it was) and French. He then went to the University of Tulsa for a masters petroleum engineering with all expenses paid by his father (he drove a brand new luxury car, flew to the coast for long weekend, etc.). He returned briefly to his country but decided he preferred the US of A so his fathers connections hooked him up with a great job in Houston for a major oil company. Probably makes $100,000+ a year.
I have a neighbor who is white. He grew up in a crap hole part of Dallas to a single mother. Was shot when he was a kid for "wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood." His mom was a drug addict and he ended up in DHS custody bouncing around. He had a kid when he was in high school and dropped out to get a job. Probably makes about $15 an hour.
I have a Indian (Hindu persuasion not Native) who is a laser eye surgeon after graduation from Johns Hopkins. Woe be his minority tale. I have a white uncle who was a Vietnam vet and never got his life back together before dying of liver failure. I worked my way through college and graduate school while some minority friends road minority scholarships. Do a disproportional number of minorities have it harder than many white kids? Yes. But the color of their skin is not the driving factor.
The color of their skin was not the primary factor in what happened. Extreme examples? Absolutely. The notion that skin color is a direct correlation to a persons life story is simply a fallacy. In the present case it seems Ms. Sotomeyor did rise up from an "underprivileged" background. I am impressed by her accomplishments, but not because of the color of her skin.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 02, 2009, 10:07:08 AM
Really? So you'd be less impressed with a white person from the exact same background accomplishing the exact same things? Ahh, I dream of a day when people are judged by the content of their character. . .
Considering that Sotomayor attended Princeton at a time when the school was just beginning to admit females (and even fewer Latinos) and graduating with high honors, and excelling at Yale Law School, I'd say the disadvantages, inevitable racism and sexism that she had to overcome (not to mention her poverty background) speaks highly of her character indeed.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 02, 2009, 01:07:15 PM
Considering that Sotomayor attended Princeton at a time when the school was just beginning to admit females (and even fewer Latinos) and graduating with high honors, and excelling at Yale Law School, I'd say the disadvantages, inevitable racism and sexism that she had to overcome (not to mention her poverty background) speaks highly of her character indeed.
That's not entirely accurate. Women had been admitted as early as WWII. The first full time female undergrads were admitted in 1963. By 1973, female discrimination was becoming a thing of the past. Perusing some of her writings at Princeton, she was quite the activist. I wouldn't call her militant, but I'd go so far as to say she had a chip on her shoulder.
I still fail to see why one's own sense of extreme adversity over someone else's sense of it makes someone a superior jurist or candidate for SCOTUS. Here's her own words from her Princeton days (this was in relation to a student search committee for a new "dean of minorities"):
"In closing, we raise the issue to begin discussion and reevaluation that will prevent such unfortunate actions in the future. As a start, we feel a definite policy on administrative appointments should be set forth in writing. For instance, regarding student involvement, a detailed policy on the area and extent of our involvement, should be delineated. Also, clear channels should be established to ensure legitimate student input when it is sought.
And finally, concerning the appointment process, the procedure established should insure uniform treatment of all candidates. A candidate's background or the position he or she seeks to fill should be no reasons for preferential treatment on the part of the university."
(bold and italics for emphasis are mine)
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/15/23732/
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/15/23734/
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/sotomayor-as-student.php
Harry Reid says he's not read any of Judge Sotomayor's opinions and hopes by the time this is all over he won't have to. I'm sure I've taken this all out of context, right RW and FOTD? Don't you think it would set a good example of leadership to at least figure out the quality and relevance of her opinions?
What a total moron:
Sotomayor is to undergo the most grueling interview process imagineable?
With the fix in like this, should be a breeze. Just deflect some questions from Repugs, answer the scripted ones from the Dims and she's a shoo-in. I truly do appreciate any adversity Judge Sotomayor may have gone through in her life to rise to the position she has, but it's being over-played, over-hyped, and used for over-qualification.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5056488.shtml
"Reid praised Sotomayor's record and said, "You have been an underdog many times in your life, but always ended up being the top dog." Then Reid and Sotomayor promptly left the room to meet privately.
Less than 40 minutes later, the two walked by the crowded Ohio Clock corridor just off the Senate floor. Cameras flashed and reporters shouted after them to find out how the meeting went.
Any answer from Sotomayor? Unfortunately, just a big smile. But she does have to save her voice. One meeting down, nine to go. And that's just on her first day wooing the members who hold her future in their hands. Sotomayor has now officially started what may be one of the most grueling job interview processes imaginable. "
Quote from: Conan71 on June 03, 2009, 09:52:40 AM
Harry Reid says he's not read any of Judge Sotomayor's opinions and hopes by the time this is all over he won't have to. I'm sure I've taken this all out of context, right RW and FOTD? Don't you think it would set a good example of leadership to at least figure out the quality and relevance of her opinions?
What a total moron:
I've got no problems whatsoever with you describing Reid as a moron. He's proven it many times over.
He's not at the moron level of Inhofe, but he's in the same ballpark.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 03, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
Sotomayor is to undergo the most grueling interview process imagineable?
With the fix in like this, should be a breeze. Just deflect some questions from Repugs, answer the scripted ones from the Dims and she's a shoo-in. I truly do appreciate any adversity Judge Sotomayor may have gone through in her life to rise to the position she has, but it's being over-played, over-hyped, and used for over-qualification.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5056488.shtml
"Reid praised Sotomayor's record and said, "You have been an underdog many times in your life, but always ended up being the top dog." Then Reid and Sotomayor promptly left the room to meet privately.
Less than 40 minutes later, the two walked by the crowded Ohio Clock corridor just off the Senate floor. Cameras flashed and reporters shouted after them to find out how the meeting went.
Any answer from Sotomayor? Unfortunately, just a big smile. But she does have to save her voice. One meeting down, nine to go. And that's just on her first day wooing the members who hold her future in their hands. Sotomayor has now officially started what may be one of the most grueling job interview processes imaginable. "
Fix? You hate women, Conan. It's becoming more and more evident throughout these threads. As stated before, white males have benefitted from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.
How does Harry Reid saying he has not read one of her opinions and hopes he never has to by the time this is over say that I hate women? You have the majority leader of the U.S. Senate saying "she's an underdog" and essenitally: "Great back-story!" yet the substance of her work is totally unimportant to him.
Harry the turd's statement smacks of a statement hire. He could at least lie to us and tell us he's going to read some of her opinions just to make sure Americans are getting a great jurist.
I'd say precisely the same thing if this candidate were white, Episcopalian, and born to wealth or black, Baptist, and straight out of Harlem.
How can we decide someone is a great candidate for SCOTUS simply because of ethnicity, gender, disadvantages early in life, and ignore their life work which is what their qualifications should be? Just because someone sat on the bench for 50 years prior to being nominated for the court doesn't make them the best candidate either if their judgement is un-sound, can't write a coherent opinion, and their sense of justice is not fair and equal to all.
I've said all along if Judge Sotomayor's work is sound and just and she's truly the best of the field presently available, she should become the next nominee.
Was the previous work of Justices Alito or Roberts of any interest to you? It was to me. You take every chance to spear Justice Thomas by making pubic hair comments or mangling his last name. That simply must mean you hate black people, by your logic. Or at least black ones given any sort of advancement under a Bush Administration.
Hurray for you hate <blank> people comments FOTD!! Seriously though, I mean Reid is a lawyer, what do you expect?
It is pretty dumb to say that you never read anything... You can't even make an informed decision. And I doubt very highly that in the 100 years we might get 1 or 2 of "the best" possible candidates. The problem with the whole process is the president in charge nominates somebody. The congress on the opposite side says they are the worst person ever in the history of the world. Then whoever has the most votes votes them in with a few moderates if you need them.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2009, 12:03:20 PM
You keep side-stepping my argument. I said someone with equal or better experience using some sort of subjective yard stick. Naturally, anyone would hope we'd get the best and brightest. If that person is Sonia Sotomayor, I'm all for it. Her claim that being Hispanic and female gives her a better perspective smacks of an arrogance that would be unforgiveable coming from a white male. The point being made that you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?
This is a statement hire. Otherwise, why make such an issue out of "first Hispanic" or "first Hispanic female" nominated to SCOTUS.
Oh, fer god's sake.
Look at the Supreme Court.... look really, really hard.
Mostly old white males. Period.
Look at the history of the Presidency. All old white males.
And look at all the crap coming from un-elected Republicans these days.... reverse racist lunacy.
Per usual..... oh poor me!.... white males being discriminated against.... if there's a shortage of white males on the Supreme Court these days... I don't see it. If there's a shortage of white males on the police and fire depts, I have yet to see it...
First hispanic... and first hispanic female... are important terms.... not unlike the sentiments when Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor....
God forbid her critics EVER take ANYTHING in proper context.... more soundbite politics from the right.
Pathetic. Truly Pathetic. From the same people who pissed and moaned a couple of decades ago about Martin Luther King Day.
It's all just a little bit of history repeating.