Sotomayor nominated for high court...

[rjdmmfl1]

I'm interested to hear any comments on this nomination... her credentials are hard to argue against, but I know her previous speeches and writings have raised red flags for our conservative brethren...

where are all of the supporters of statement..."the best candidate should get the job"?

[Repo Man]

Hopefully she can figure out that she should make judgments based on law and not on empathy for any particular party that she has a soft spot for. EQUAL justice under law, not SPECIAL justice under law.

I will be VERY interested to hear her position on abortion, and especially partial-birth abortion. To my knowledge, she does not have much of a track record here.

[rjdmmfl1]

Hopefully she can figure out that she should make judgments based on law and not on empathy for any particular party that she has a soft spot for. EQUAL justice under law, not SPECIAL justice under law.

I will be VERY interested to hear her position on abortion, and especially partial-birth abortion. To my knowledge, she does not have much of a track record here.

Regarding her track record on abortion (or lack thereof)... I think that's one of the things that aided her in her nomination... no fodder for conservatives to fuss over...

However, to your first statement... Why is it that white males from upper class, privaledged backgrounds do not have these same types of statements directed towards them? Why is it that because she is a Latina female, qustions of her ability to make sound judgements based on the law are now being questioned. The very idea of that is disturbing. If in her extensive judicial practice, this has not been cited as a problem in the past, why would she now begin making decisions based off of her background? It simply does not follow logic.

On another note, I will say that, unlike the republicans in their presedential bid to swing the female vote, I'm glad this administration selected someone that was qualified credentially. Sotomayor is no Sarah Palin!

[szh]

However, to your first statement... Why is it that white males from upper class, privaledged backgrounds do not have these same types of statements directed towards them? Why is it that because she is a Latina female, qustions of her ability to make sound judgements based on the law are now being questioned.

The comment had nothing to do with her racial background ... it had to do with her political motivations.

Sotomayor is no Sarah Palin!

I agree ... Sotomayor is definitely not a Vice-Presidential caliber candidate. No executive or political experience of any kind.

Z

[Kohster]

I believe he meant to say that she isn't a "ditz" like Sarah Palin.

[szh]

I believe he meant to say that she isn't a "ditz" like Sarah Palin.

NO! Really?!? Is that what he meant?!?!?...

Z

[telcoman]

I will be VERY interested to hear her position on abortion, and especially partial-birth abortion. To my knowledge, she does not have much of a track record here.

As long as the republican party keeps those items as important positions of the party, that is exactly what is driving vast numbers of voters away towards the democrats.

The party of "NO" failed on fiscal responsibility, failed on small government, failed on mismanaging two wars, and wants to enter bedrooms and get involved in family issues.

Its no wonder they can't win elections.

Hello Al Frankin! Welcome to the US Senate

Telcoman

[ishkabibble]

Sotomayor is definitely not a Vice-Presidential caliber candidate.

Neither is Palin, apparently.

[CakeDaddy]

As long as the republican party keeps those items as important positions of the party, that is exactly what is driving vast numbers of voters away towards the democrats.

Telcoman

exactly.. nicely said. People are starting to see through the mindless rhetoric that the repubs are trying to push. They have nothing and with all the talking heads screaming racism, racist, etc... and what not on the radio and tv........ It's even more of a challenge for them to rebound.

As for Sotomayor... Im happy to see history being made again.

[themadscientist]

However, to your first statement... Why is it that white males from upper class, privaledged backgrounds do not have these same types of statements directed towards them? Why is it that because she is a Latina female, qustions of her ability to make sound judgements based on the law are now being questioned. The very idea of that is disturbing. If in her extensive judicial practice, this has not been cited as a problem in the past, why would she now begin making decisions based off of her background? It simply does not follow logic.

Well, first, I would answer your question, with a question. Why are white people who voted against Obama automatically racist?

I would then point you to this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

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

Now let's flip it and see if it sounds ok the other way.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 latino woman who hasn’t lived that life

To me, either way it is arranged, it sounds like racist, sexist bulls***. Now how much slack would we cut a candidate who said version two? I'm a white male, I guess I have nothing to offer, right? There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism, is racism, regardless of the assailant, or the target.

The facts about this woman are why she is a terrible candidate for anyone who believes in the role of the judiciary and expectations for its applicants to the highest court. First, here is how she performs when her rulings come before the same court she is held up as worthy of being a member of.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...stpopQuote » Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)[/quote]

Wow, she's awesome! Wait, no she isn't, she sucks. But, she ain't white, and sa a vagina, that's good enough right?

I'll pull the other quote that is making the rounds. I'll even pull it from that whack-job Huffington's website so I can't be accused of being partisan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html

"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."

Her ideas are laid bare. Obama's own press releases confirm it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...story

Pressed on the matter, Gibbs would only answer broadly, saying Obama was very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to his.

And what are Obama's feelings on the Constitution?

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/200...rxist/

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama is a known commodity. The fact that he likes this lady should set off alarms.

No thank you. Legislating from the bench is not what the court is supposed to do, liberal or conservative leanings be damned.

[themadscientist]

And if you think people are picking on her ask Robert Bork what that really looks like.http://www.time.com/time/magaz....html

Wait, that's impossible! He's a white male! He is in "the club". He knows the secret handshake all us white guys know. If you don't know the handshake, you don't get into our meetings where we plan on how best to oppress EVERYONE!

Give me a friggin break already.

[HashiriyaS14]

^^I'm not reading this whole thread, because it haz lots of wordz and I haz no time.

BUT, I'll say the following:

1.) Z is hella funny when he's trying

2.) Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her experience" was indeed "some straight mess". I can offer no defense, although I don't claim to know the context. I'd like to see the whole speech/conversation, because I *suppose* it could have been in reference to discrimination or something that a Hispanic female could credibly be more familiar with, but I am NOT making an excuse unless I know 100% that's the case. I stand by my comment that it's a dumb f**king thing to say, period.

3.) The right is going to get eviscerated by the Hispanic electorate for voicing any opposition to this chick at all, deserved or not. Them's the breaks, right or wrong. So far actual GOP elected officials haven't said much, but unfortunately, their fates are tied to Gingrich and Limbaugh's public statements.

Telco: I hate to keep picking on you, but if you're going to be welcoming Al Franken into the US Senate, you should at least be familiar with the proper spelling of his name.

[telcoman]

^^

Telco: I hate to keep picking on you, but if you're going to be welcoming Al Franken into the US Senate, you should at least be familiar with the proper spelling of his name.

Perhaps there is a volunteer out there that will allow me to carve his name into a gun stock so I'll remember the spelling next time?

[szh]

Neither is Palin, apparently.

Unfortunately ...

Regardless, she would have been a better VP than Sotomayor!

And, yes, Sotomayor would be a better Judge than Palin!

Regardless of which, Sotomayor's qualifications to be a Supreme Court Judge are still unknown, as far as I am concerned. My own concern is that I doubt she would be objective and centrist enough.

What I was trying to accomplish with my earlier response was that making such a comparison was assinine in the first place. It is totally silly to pick on Palin as a way of supporting Sotomayor.

Z

[szh]

Perhaps there is a volunteer out there that will allow me to carve his name into a gun stock so I'll remember the spelling next time?

You have a rifle? Cool! Please ship it to me ... I can get the carving done at a local wood-working shop I know about - they have a CNC tool that does wonderful work!

Z

[themadscientist]

that gun could jump up and shoot a bunch of people at any moment, ban it immediately!

[szh]

Legislating from the bench is not what the court is supposed to do, liberal or conservative leanings be damned.

Exactly correct. Thank you!!

Z

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[rjdmmfl1]

all valid points... regarding palin, I'm sorry, but she's an idiot. I like picking on her. She doesn't read .. that by itself should have disqualified her as being a VP candidate... my comparison was only to show that at least Judge Sotomayor is intelligent!

as for her previous rulings, I wouldn't say that posting a few of her many, many, many rulings is prrof of her being qualified... judges' rulings are often overturned...

as for her statement, I would haveto hear it in its full context to weigh in one way or another. I hate snipets taken from full speeches... its easy to get wrapped up and bent out of shape over a few lines taken out of context.... I'm not saying this is what happened here, I would just need a bit more info on that...

[themadscientist]

I ain't forgot about this lady. The Supreme court again has to undo her decision.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...age=1

Quote »In a decision that could have sweeping impact on employers across the nation, the Supreme Court ruled today that white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. [/quote]Patrick Leahy decided to weigh in. Quote »Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that today's decision interprets Title VII in a way "never intended by Congress" and could have a negative impact on protections for families.[/quote]Let's analyze that for a moment, shall we Pat? Can I call you Pat?

Here is title VII of the 1964 civil rights acthttp://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

Now here is a passage from it.Quote »It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[/quote]Yeah, um Pat, what the supreme court did was hold the decision exactly to the letter of title VII. These guys were denied promotion, held back based upon their race. That's what title VII is all about. Maybe try reading it before running your mouth.

Leahy, more drivel Quote »"Today's narrow decision is likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families," Leahy said. "It is less likely now that employers will conscientiously try to fulfill their obligations under this time-honored civil rights law. This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces." [/quote]So the applicants who passed the test are not entitled to be protected Pat? What would you say to their families. Sorry Timmy, your daddy passed the test, but he's a white guy so SCREW HIM! Interesting. "qualified workforces?" Again, i find it tedious to have to explain such a simple concept to a United States congressman.To be "qualified" you must pass measurements of skill and knowledge, called TESTS. When you pass them you advance, you don't and you don't. Anything to the contrary would be what happened here.

[BusyBadger]

I ain't forgot about this lady. The Supreme court again has to undo her decision.

Oddly enough its the SIXTH time SCOTUS has done this regarding a decision that Sotto has been previously involved in.

Fair, impartial and racially unbiased? GMAFB.

[themadscientist]

I have heard some supporters say she would be a counterbalance to Scalia, an aggressive and challenging voice to his.

Excuse me a moment.,,,,BWAHAHAHAHA! That has got to be a joke. Scalia is one of the most opinionated, sharp and battle-tested judges on the court. If this little troll stepped to him, they would have to wipe her remnants of the walls of the chamber. Talk about bringing a spork to a gunfight.

The more I think about it, the more i like the idea of her being on the court. Why you may say? Because in all these decisions that are coming to light, she has shown such stunning ineptitude as a jurist that she will be certain to offer no logical opposition to the conservatives. Yes, she can dissent but with such a demonstrated inability to form a solid legal decision that is all she will ever be able to contribute. Her judicial rulings for dummies approach will be chewed up and spit out if she ever attempts to author an opinion so she is a vote, and that's it, and they already had that in Souter.

So Barry, please, do waste an opportunity to appoint a steely, powerful liberal hawk to the bench. Please do send this hack who will amount to nothing but a footnote in history. Please do appoint her, I need a good laugh. I bet the liberal justices are lamenting this move. This women is dead weight and they know it.

The amateur, inept president does it again.