Which just means she applied the precedents as they existed before the Supreme Court overturned her ruling and set a new precedent.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Yes it was and apparantly your comprehension skills are lacking. Meh.

Yes I did and I said specifically that I don't know enough about her rulings to say they are wrong. But I could find something GWB said that was intelligent also.

What you said was opinion. I see a pattern here.

Yeah, because the real appeal of the democratic party is their inclusion, right? Saying a group might be drawn to those things when they are, by and large, in the lower socio-economic scale is not stereotyping. It's human nature.

Oh NO.....

They didn't want a hispanic that was conservative. The fear mongering was coming from the left.

How white of you to give them props.

Whatever. You don't know squat about what the hispanics really think. Talking heads do not represent the masses.

Okay...sorry for lumping you in. But your support for Roberts and Alito doesn't make your opinion more valid on a different appointment

No strawman. Here is what she said. "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."

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black man who hasn't lived that life."

Those two sentences are the same. Only the races have changed to illustrate the point. Here's the irony of that statement. In 3 out of 4 cases, and soon to be 4 out of 5, the wise white men came to the better conclusion than she did. Now substitute different for better and there is nothing there. But she didn't say different.

Both you and I know the public doesn't really give a shit about who they pick for judges. It won't have any effect at voting time. That is why your assumption that hispanics will driven away by the GOP over this is just wishful thinking and an attempt to bully them (the GOP) into submission.

Wow, now that is some rant. I think you just put stereotyping over the top.

It says that of the cases that went to the SCOTUS, she was overturned more than not. And I believe one was overturned unanimously. There are an infinite number of reasons other cases were not heard by the court. Only a liberal thinks losing 3 out of 5 is a success. I am not familiar with the cases Roberts and Alito ruled on that were reviewed by the SCOTUS. But it doesn't matter, we're not dicussing them.

Look OSB, if she gets confirmed, am I going to lose sleep over it? In your words...Pffft. I guess my issue is that many are just giving an approval simply because she is a latina. I don't like her racist remarks and anyone else would be thrown to the wolves and ya'll know it. But so be it if she gets there.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

It's called "showing the flag".
If Obama nominated the reincarnated John Marshall to the Supreme Court, or Antonin Scalia's twin brother, the Republicans would have to oppose the nomination on the grounds that whoever it was, was nominated by a Democrat.

They need to bluster, and fuss and have grave reservations, even though they know that she will sail through the process.

Because if they just said "Great Choice, we approve", people would question why they need Republicans at all.

They will try to make their points on wedge issues and try to leverage some political gain out of this, because there are cameras, and it's free, so make your point about something.
At the same time they can't get too over the top, because then the Democrats would own the Hispanic vote. So they will try to walk that fine line, at least most of them. There will be a few that just tear into it and declare that to confirm Sotomayor would lead to the end of the republic, because that plays well in their districts.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

She did not rule for quotas. She ruled a test to be racist and irrelevant in determining merit for firefighter promotions, and as a result, qualified non-White firefighters could get promoted, whereas before, the test excluded non-Whites for no reason.

Her ruling had a positive impact.

__________________

"Dumbing things down" is not requisite to your understanding. Listening honestly to an opinion other than your own is what is required of you. You don't do that.

In another thread, you asked where Congress got the authority to declare war. Several members cited the source of that authority, chapter and verse, directly from the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet you insisted that their answer was insufficient to establish the sole authority of the Congress. That's not stupidity--that's dishonesty.

The reason I answered the question was posted as part of that response, "but the distinction may be helpful to those who really care about fairness and the law."--and that part of the response was ignored by you. So you could whine? I take that as simply another exhibition of your intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, you are not worth responding to, but I cannot let other members read your misrepresentations and untruths without any rebuttal being posted. So I write for them. They matter. You are beyond any redemption.

I think it is hardly possible to be more disingenuous.

did'nt like 70-80% of hispanics vote for Obama anyway?

I am sure the 20% that did not vote for obama are not going to be swayed by a LIBERAL judge.. since ya know they were PROB conservatives ANYWAY!!!

__________________
http://www.BHOCOUNTDOWN.com



"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." -Ronald Reagan

Yeah, it sure is.

I can find the same things about GWB. And if you don't know her rulings are wrong, then don't offer comments suggesting they are or generally might be until you have an informed opinion on it and why you believe so.

Sure it's an opinion. Not involving any great leaps in tying facts though and just adding 2+2 in this particular case.

Sure it's stereotyping. Even your comment there is stereotyping. Stereotyping doesn't mean they don't always have some elements of basis, though, and it is likely impossible to have any kind of fluid social discussion without the stereotypings when speaking of categorical issues of people and issues in need of debate.

But in this case, I think your stereotype is less accurate. For example, loads of poor white males vote Republican. The demographic is that the majority do, and especially so if not union workers. The GOP made big inroads with Latino voters during the early Bush years. So, it's not a matter for the bulk of anyone in lower socio-economic statuses that they vote primarily for getting social welfare programmes.

But inclusiveness, yes...that is why minorities consistently align themselves with the Democrats because unfortunately racists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc, hide their bile under the umbrella of conservativism and the GOP and unfortunately too many short term minded GOP politicians have pandered to that with long term adverse consequences.

Oh YES... And afterwards, I'm sure the Democrats will be asking you if it was as good for you as it was for them.

That type of 'fear mongering' is the whole point of politics...debating the desired national directions via its elected officials and lawfully selected appointees. It's what it is supposed to be about and it's not comparable.

It was common sense.

Yeah, I'm only friends with them, have dated them, do business with them, been all over Latin America, speak conversational level Spanish and some but non-fluent Portuguese, etc. Never mind that it's common sense and a matter of public record and stats in the GOP's gains and losses of that group and the whys.

Apology accepted. And I do agree with you that each candidate represents their own case and, as I said earlier, I even believe it's ok to want or not want a judge based on academic disagreement with them in the selection and confirmation process. Those considerations, IMO, are the legitimate aspects of the political system.

It's a partial quote of everything she said and does not take into account where she said it and the theme. And I already said that part was chauvinistic, non-PC and poorly thought out when she phrased it that way and I don't agree with it insofar as always being correct. Her background has bearing only where it has bearing, and even still, she's not infallible just like everyone else.

But I do give what I believe is its proper assessment and context just like I do your own comments, mine and others. There is a big difference given what she said, why she said it, and where she said it just like I do for those making similar comments in the sister thread of this one on ethnicity. These kinds of comments are found out of most people's mouths at times. They are much different than, say, found on Stormfront or comparable sites of any hate group or just plain old bigots who make it clear they hate other people based on their traits and/or people with a track record of biased commentary.

First, there is one black male and one white woman on the SCOTUS right now.

Second, the SCOTUS has not concluded the last case you mentioned so whilst odds are that the cases they decide involve reversals, it does not mean it will be, nor have her cases always been reversed when they have heard them (she has been affirmed too).

Third, just because a SCOTUS hold differently doesn't necessarily mean better. It just means a different conclusion, and the conclusions of the SCOTUS are hotly debated themselves as to whether they are right in one's view.

Fourth, even the SCOTUS Justices regularly disagree on what they feel is the right decision and/or its reasoning. To follow your line of thinking, it means the conservatives Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are incompetent all the time given they commonly write dissenting opinions or concurring opinions (agree with conclusion but for different reasons) against themselves, never mind their liberal co-equals on that bench with whom sometimes some of the conservatives can be seen joining against other conservatives depending on the issue.

Often times, 'better' is simply in the eye of the beholder, and certainly often contains subjectivity in interpretation. The mostly objective stuff like clear statutory direction with well settled case law on it almost never needs getting to the SCOTUS because that stuff has been made clear.

The public rarely informs themselves on judges below the SCOTUS, but they do IMO take the SCOTUS seriously.

Moreover, what I believe will drive Hispanics away is the nasty rhetoric and biles on her sex and ethnicity I'm seeing flung at her by the knuckleheads. It tells the Hispanics that the GOP is hostile to Hispanics. Enough of them already have gotten that opinion listening to rhetoric on the immigration issue and it erased all the gains the GOP and Bush were making notable inroads on in the first term and set it back even further, and this compounds it.

So, I'm not trying to bully the GOP on anything...just wondering when they will collectively challenge and court people intelligently instead of being self-destructive to themselves in the process of being destructive to others. It's a matter of being smart versus stupid, and what they are doing IMO is definitely stupid.

It was a rant, and a stereotype, but one with a point. IMO, the GOP has been hijacked by these kinds of assholes:

YouTube - Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08

And IMO not only are they ignorant, scared of their shadow, bigoted garbage, but beyond themselves they also injure the quality of intellect and debate in this nation and jeopardise the domestic health and national security of the nation by enacting and broadcasting their stupid toxic asshole selves into law, policy and national image. That's why they are my business as well as to others. I stand to pay the prices for them being assholes.

And as part of the point of my rant, I'll also say that you have as much stake in this too being a conservative and a Southerner. Do you like conservativism reduced to those people? Or the image of whites and/or Southerners reduced to that? I'd wager that you object to the common stereotypes created by those idiots (and they were from Ohio but you can bet the farm they create the stereotypes for you all inclusively)? IMO, all fair minded and decent people who are conservative, white, male and/or rural don't deserve what they create image-wise.

But to erase them and defeat them for the sake of your country, locality and personal ideologies, the kinds of things they say and do have to be shut down and repudiated if you don't agree with them. And that sometimes comes at the cost of some of the knuckleheads' votes, which is what too many in the GOP are afraid to face in the short term for long term gain. It happened in the last election, when the GOP got those votes at the expense of losing much more, and they got crushed. And even more pointless, they probably would have gotten those votes anyway.

Right now, too many in the GOP are trying to balance their scales, hedge their bets and have it both ways, letting the rhetorics of those total losers fly on talk radio, FOX and in some Congresspeople whilst others try to take the 'elevated' approach. It won't work anymore. The nation is too diverse now, and as a matter of right and wrong, it's just wrong anyway. IMO, the nation needs to get past the old crap and move on to actual issues that should be of concern insofar as policy direction.

How does that happen? Allow inclusivity of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc, so people can talk fairly and squarely about the meat and potato issues that should be of concern and legitimate debate to everyone. And over time, those kinds of angles have always lost in the end anyway with groups being added (Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, women, and now Hispanics, blacks and gays).

Out of 110 SCOTUS Justices, all but 4 have been white males. Of the 4, two are male and two are minority, so for women and minorities, they have only seen 2 out of 110. Having a Hispanic female should be a nice viewpoint addition to a fair minded person insofar as that aspect, and if certain white males of the ilk of that link above have a problem with it as a 'quota' or 'reverse discrimination' and other crap I'm hearing, then they have the most phoney argument one can think, and especially so given how diverse and integrated the nation has become already.

But her viewpoints on the law beyond that are fair to consider, just like the Dems did with Estrada without regard to his background. That is where I think the GOP ought to focus and claim her background brings a fresh different set of experiences, but that there is more to the analysis than just that. That is showing inclusiveness towards Hispanics just as it was with approving of Estrada and signalling that the real issues of concern are ideological. And if that is made clear to Hispanics, then those who agree with the debates made by the GOP will be inclined to feel welcome to join hands with them in those causes.

Hehe, sorry, you can't hit and run like that. "Only a conservative thinks losing all his decisions before the SCOTUS is a winner (100% loss rate for Alito)." That is how it must necessarily apply using this utterly bogus attack that some nitwit over at the Washington Times and FOX pulled which is already making the GOP look ridiculous in the public debates over her.

Next to claiming she lacks the intellect for the job given her resume, this new attack talking point is the most stupid, hypocritical and disingenuous yet. And it makes the GOP look terrible on credibility for even trying it and that is all it will amount to be, another pointless bullet in its own feet.

Although some people certainly are chauvinistic towards their own demographics, neither Latinos and/or other liberals support someone just because of that. If that were so, blacks would be supporting Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, and Hispanics would be supporting Alberto Gonzales, Miguel Estrada, women would have fully supported Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton or Harriet Miers, etc, all regardless of their ideologies.

The first and foremost concern for the majority of people is that the person shares enough of their outlook socially and politically. Other commonality is a bonus for those who also value those things.

__________________

She said some racist things, but the important thing is that she's been complimented on her skills - even thought she's been turned over 60% of the time.

Yeah, apply that to a white guy and see what happens.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

This is absolutely false. Please post a quote or link where I "asked where Congress got the authority to declare war." Is it possible for you to make in one post without implying insults?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I understand that four days is a really, really long time to expect you to remember anything, so I will provide the links.

How Should the US Treat Detainees that are Non-POW Enemies?

USPOL member Skeptic1 immediately posted

To which you (jviehe) replied

Apparently "Section 8 item 11 of our constitution" was not specific enough for you. So I tried to help you;

And then Skeptic1 added;

And THEN you posted this gem

So it is quite clear that what I said above is NOT false--it is absolutely true. It is easy to read through that thread. All these posts, quoted herein, were posted just four days ago, and you apparently think that sufficient time has passed that you can now deny that you ever posted them. I think that your behavior completely justifies everything that I have said about that behavior, and it would certainly cause any reasonable person to have second thoughts about the reliability or good intentions of anything you post here.

Is it possible for me "to make one post without implying insults?" Why, yes it is, jviehe. Ever since the days of John Peter Zenger it has been recognized that telling the truth is not an offense. It is unfortunate that you never learned that lesson.

Sotomayor has written over 400 decisions and has had three overturned on appeal. It takes a very special kind of math to conclude that "she's been turned over 60% of the time." Using the old fashioned math, I came up with 0.75%.

and they'll vote 90-9 to confirm her as they have in the past ala ginzberg et al. Becasue they will be held 'accountable'
( see- pilloried) to the image makers if they don't. Its funny that it never works the other way around.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Thanks for proving my point that what you said was false. I find it funny that you had to take it out of context to try and defend yourself. Here is the full post, which was a response to you by the way. You cant even recognize your own writing, it appears.

How Should the US Treat Detainees that are Non-POW Enemies?

Now, since you must continue with the implied insults, Ill go ahead and report it so we can move on with the discussion.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Report what you like. When speaking the truth becomes an excuse for "punishment" in this forum, the forum will die.

My point was that you have shown that you do not intend to "move on with the discussion." That point stands, unrefuted.