Sotomayor chosen as SC nominee (academic discussion) - Page 15 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Doctor Who · #**211** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Yeah, it sure is.

Okay. I can read exactly what she said. You seem to want to interpret it as something different. That's fine. It's how you are wired as an attorney. And to be honest, it's not that high up on the list.

Quote:

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.

OSB, I never suggested her rulings were wrong. Please do not read anything into what I am saying.

Quote:

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

It's all opinion. If you consider reaching up into your ass to tie facts not a great leap then, okay.

Quote:

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.

The whole point is the Democratic party pandering to those groups. White, black, Hispanic, etc. We all know the Dems want as many people dependent on the govt because that is what solidifies their power not just within the govt but over the people. I won't get as mean as you did with regard to the typical democrat base. It's not in my nature to be so cruel with words about people I don't know and expose myself as a narrow minded, uninformed hater. Let's just say that is equally spread between the parties. Please don't pretend the Dems are the sainted ones as you proved otherwise with your rant.

Quote:

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.

See above.

Quote:

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.

Again...whatever.

Quote:

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.

Oh, I see. It's not comparable when Dems do it because...???? Oh, yeah, their freakin hypocrits.

Quote:

It was common sense.

It was insulting. Hispanics don't need a white guy to validate them as intelligent.

Quote:

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.

I cannot believe you pulled out the "I have a friend who is hispanic" card. Public record? Can I get that info through FIOA? I hope you are not relying on some pole you heard or read.

Quote:

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.

I agree in part with what you say here. But first, that was no partial quote. Seems to be a liberal talking point that it was. So let me ask this, in what context does a remark that says because she is a hispanic woman, she can make better decisions than a white guy become justified? I don't see any way that could be defended and if someone would just say that, and she admit that it was the wrong thing to say, maybe we could move one. It places her in a catagory for me that I cannot tolerate. I don't tolerate it when Republicans do it either. Please don't diminish it as something that was just chauvanist. It was much more than that.

Quote:

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

The court, which has a majority of white guys came to a different conclusion.

Quote:

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).

I think we can logically conlcude it will be.

Quote:

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.

Well, if she had said different, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:

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.

Again, she said better, not different. Big difference there.

Quote:

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.

Better implies you know more than another. And in and of itself, that could be true. When you say you are better because of your race and gender it is racism and sexism plain and simple. It is indefensible and the fact that liberals want to ignore it and just dismiss it is also indefensible.

Quote:

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

Well, your cirlce, probably a great deal of legal folk, might think so but I talk about it here at the bank and people look at me like I'm from Mars.

Quote:

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.

I don't see any of that coming from people in the GOP that matter. And especially not true conservatives. I know the MSM is trying to paint it that way and they will probably be successful. It doesn't make it true though.

Quote:

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

I would disagree that the GOP has been hijaccked by the racist bigots and homophobes. It's been hijacked but not by them. These people are getting the airtime because it serves the MSM but it is not mainstream GOP, which, BTW, is not Rush Limbaugh.

Quote:

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

I could post ten of those type of videos with lunatic lefties calling for the death of republicans for every one you find of a nut job righty. It's not mainstream so let's not use the outliers to try to make a point.

Quote:

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.

All of what you said easily applies to the left as well.

Quote:

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.

I agree with you hear but both sides have their loons. The intelligent people, on both sides, know they do not represent them so bottom line is while I don't like it, it's not me and it's not substaintially all of us. I take issue with the media trying to portray it as if it were but we know how they are (the media) so we take it with a grain of salt.

Quote:

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.

That may be true but most conservatives I know do not identify with the GOP today. We need to change it or find another party.

Quote:

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.

Again, mostly true but it seems the Democrats only want to talk about policy direction, not actaully debate it. To them, as it has always been, bipartisanship is when Republicans agree with them. That is also wrong and will eventually hurt them especially when we see their policies more and more are not working.

Quote:

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).

Most conservatives are very inclusive. Again, the GOP has been hijacked and most of us do not identify with it anymore. But the Dems have to allow for legitimate debate and not scream "party of no", racism and other words that derail the debate.

Quote:

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.

Feigning inclusiveness for the symbolism is a democratic ploy. Democrats are no more inclusive or tolerant than republicans. It's a myth and I could site thousand of examples. I'm not going to so don't ask.

Quote:

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.

I tend to agree with you here. Although the debate is not about Alito. He never said he could make better decisions that a white guy. She opened herself up for that one and it was an easy shot. The only reason it is not front and center is the MSM is ignoring it because they know it will sink her. Even when they tried, they were shut down by Gibbs and in true MSM fashion, didn't push it.

Quote:

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.

I haven't heard that but I agree it is a pointless bullet.

Quote:

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.

Partially true. I have heard many people say they support her but beyond the fact that they feel we need a hispanic woman on the court, they can cite no other reason. Like anything else, as we learn more about her and the confirmation hearings begin, many will change their mind on both sides. I may be one of them but she would need to answer for and acknowledge her racist comments first. Anything she says or believes beyond that is irrelelavant if she pretends she never said it.

Imperator · #**212** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Just as a note I have been flipping through some of the networks over the last 2 days, and I have to tell you Schieffer Couric et al, listing to them, its like shes Hispanic, shes a woman shes overcome huge hurdles to get where she is so confirm her, Typical.

When Thomas was nominated this got super short shrift, his background is even more compelling , uhm belly of the poor beast than hers is, by a country mile, so was say Gonzales’s. We are now being told to pay attention to her background sans her record and words, that’s the talking point, this was exactly the opposite as to Roberts and Alito. And this is were the msm falls into parody and is what they have truly become, a rah rah section for the dem. party.

Its shameful and in the end, criminal inho.

wiggidy · #**213** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Just as a note I have been flipping through some of the networks over the last 2 days, and I have to tell you Schieffer Couric et al, listing to them, its like shes Hispanic, shes a woman shes overcome huge hurdles to get where she is so confirm her, Typical.

When Thomas was nominated this got super short shrift, his background is even more compelling , uhm belly of the poor beast than hers is, by a country mile, so was say Gonzales’s. We are now being told to pay attention to her background sans her record and words, that’s the talking point, this was exactly the opposite as to Roberts and Alito. And this is were the msm falls into parody and is what they have truly become, a rah rah section for the dem. party.

Its shameful and in the end, criminal inho.

Criminal is the right term. They are all criminals.

htperr6565 · #**214** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Just as a note I have been flipping through some of the networks over the last 2 days, and I have to tell you Schieffer Couric et al, listing to them, its like shes Hispanic, shes a woman shes overcome huge hurdles to get where she is so confirm her, Typical.

When Thomas was nominated this got super short shrift, his background is even more compelling , uhm belly of the poor beast than hers is, by a country mile, so was say Gonzales’s. We are now being told to pay attention to her background sans her record and words, that’s the talking point, this was exactly the opposite as to Roberts and Alito. And this is were the msm falls into parody and is what they have truly become, a rah rah section for the dem. party.

Its shameful and in the end, criminal inho.

msm, msm, msm, why not just admit you don't have an explanation here?

Doctor Who · #**215** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

msm, msm, msm, why not just admit you don't have an explanation here?

I know I don't need to defend Imperator here, he's perfectly capable but what is it you would like him to explain? It seems you should address his real point (that apparantly you missed) and explain why we should ignore any record she has, good or bad, simply because she is a hispanic woman who overcame the odds. If you ask me, she didn't overcome any odds since we are all capable of anything we desire. Just some have more ambition than others and are willing to work to get somewhere. For that I give her credit but it doesn't make her special..but I digress.

wiggidy · #**216** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

I know I don't need to defend Imperator here, he's perfectly capable but what is it you would like him to explain? It seems you should address his real point (that apparantly you missed) and explain why we should ignore any record she has, good or bad, simply because she is a hispanic woman who overcame the odds. If you ask me, she didn't overcome any odds since we are all capable of anything we desire. Just some have more ambition than others and are willing to work to get somewhere. For that I give her credit but it doesn't make her special..but I digress.

Exactly, if we want somebody that overcame the odds then we should elect a person that has lived their entire life unemployed with no desire to work.

Doctor Who · #**217** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Exactly, if we want somebody that overcame the odds then we should elect a person that has lived their entire life unemployed with no desire to work.

Perfect. Very funny.

Jason Marcel · #**218** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Just as a note I have been flipping through some of the networks over the last 2 days, and I have to tell you Schieffer Couric et al, listing to them, its like shes Hispanic, shes a woman shes overcome huge hurdles to get where she is so confirm her, Typical.

When Thomas was nominated this got super short shrift, his background is even more compelling , uhm belly of the poor beast than hers is, by a country mile, so was say Gonzales’s. We are now being told to pay attention to her background sans her record and words, that’s the talking point, this was exactly the opposite as to Roberts and Alito. And this is were the msm falls into parody and is what they have truly become, a rah rah section for the dem. party.

Its shameful and in the end, criminal inho.

The rhetoric about this moderate nominee is idiotic.

Scalia wrote in a decision that indeed, "the inferior court judges often make laws, since the SC does not cover every situation".

And how about Alito? From his confirmation hearing, "When I get a case about discrimination, I think about the people in my own family who were discriminated against because of their race or religion or gender, and I do take that into account".

Nobody called the guy a racist for that.

Sotomayor brings more bench experience to the SCOTUS than any other nominee in generations, and when you actually take the time to read her decisions, they often leave you wondering precisely what side of the political spectrum she's on.

But I know reading isn't very popular among the modern GOP.

wiggidy · #**219** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The rhetoric about this moderate nominee is idiotic.

Scalia wrote in a decision that indeed, "the inferior court judges often make laws, since the SC does not cover every situation".

And how about Alito? From his confirmation hearing, "When I get a case about discrimination, I think about the people in my own family who were discriminated against because of their race or religion or gender, and I do take that into account".

Nobody called the guy a racist for that.

Sotomayor brings more bench experience to the SCOTUS than any other nominee in generations, and when you actually take the time to read her decisions, they often leave you wondering precisely what side of the political spectrum she's on.

But I know reading isn't very popular among the modern GOP.

As if you read those statements. You quoted headlines from the national news and accused the GOP of not wanting to read.

Have you seen how seriously the Dems take reading the bills they pass?

Doctor Who · #**220** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

And how about Alito? From his confirmation hearing, "When I get a case about discrimination, I think about the people in my own family who were discriminated against because of their race or religion or gender, and I do take that into account".

Nobody called the guy a racist for that.

Because he didn't say that his own race and gender make him better than others. It seems comprehension skills aren't very popular among Democrats.

Jason Marcel · #**221** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

I know I don't need to defend Imperator here, he's perfectly capable but what is it you would like him to explain? It seems you should address his real point (that apparantly you missed) and explain why we should ignore any record she has, good or bad, simply because she is a hispanic woman who overcame the odds. If you ask me, she didn't overcome any odds since we are all capable of anything we desire. Just some have more ambition than others and are willing to work to get somewhere. For that I give her credit but it doesn't make her special..but I digress.

The msm follows the big story first, and then gets into details second.

So it makes sense that they are covering the fact that she's a first to be nominated in this very important position.

But in the second week now we'll get into record, and that's where things will get sticky with all the people who have been brainwashed to hate whatever Obama will do anyway, since her record reveals her to have more bench experience as a nominee than anyone else in generations, and that on things like abortion, she upheld Bush's policy on foreign organizations who receive public funds.

I don't think you could actually quote anyone saying she should be nominated simply because she's a Latina woman.

It worked the same way with Bush's cleaning lady. It was a big deal for a couple days; another woman nomination in a country that hasn't done that so much. But then it was revealed that her record was so light and inexperienced that even the right turned on her as a pick.

Doctor Who · #**222** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The msm follows the big story first, and then gets into details second.

So it makes sense that they are covering the fact that she's a first to be nominated in this very important position.

But in the second week now we'll get into record, and that's where things will get sticky with all the people who have been brainwashed to hate whatever Obama will do anyway, since her record reveals her to have more bench experience as a nominee than anyone else in generations, and that on things like abortion, she upheld Bush's policy on foreign organizations who receive public funds.

We can only hope Jason. I don't have much faith in the MSM.

Quote:

I don't think you could actually quote anyone saying she should be nominated simply because she's a Latina woman.

I'm not going to look because I don't care. I have heard people I know say it so it wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with a quote for you.

Jason Marcel · #**223** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

Because he didn't say that his own race and gender make him better than others. It seems comprehension skills aren't very popular among Democrats.

But if Alito were the Dem President's pick, you would have a problem with it for sure.

Besides, it is obvious to any thinking person that one who comes from a background of being discriminated would know more about it than a white man.

You guys are just all FALSE OUTRAGE!!! with not a whole lot to back it up.

She has a long record, she's the most experienced nominee for the SCOTUS in generations, and many of her decisions have been friendly to the right, including the one on abortion.

If the right had any intelligence left on it, they would have taken the stance that perhaps she's Obama's "Souter", a nominee that is thought to be left but who turns out being right. They could have taken a few decisions she's written and spun it as if maybe it's favorable to them in the long run, making the left worried about who she is exactly.

But that would take "strategy" and "reading" and "thinking", whereas the modern conservative was told to get their panties in a twist on whoever Obama was going to pick anyway, the talking points were leaked before he made the nomination, so it gives conservatives no credibility to speak of.

Mrs. M · #**224** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The msm follows the big story first, and then gets into details second.

So it makes sense that they are covering the fact that she's a first to be nominated in this very important position.

But in the second week now we'll get into record, and that's where things will get sticky with all the people who have been brainwashed to hate whatever Obama will do anyway, since her record reveals her to have more bench experience as a nominee than anyone else in generations, and that on things like abortion, she upheld Bush's policy on foreign organizations who receive public funds.

I don't think you could actually quote anyone saying she should be nominated simply because she's a Latina woman.

It worked the same way with Bush's cleaning lady. It was a big deal for a couple days; another woman nomination in a country that hasn't done that so much. But then it was revealed that her record was so light and inexperienced that even the right turned on her as a pick.

Her gun control position can definitely hurt her.

Quote:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash - Political News - FOXNews.com