Obama Nominates A New Supreme Court Justice

[eulesseagle]

emmitt-

There you go again with various assumptions of what not was said and their subsequent endings.

(1) I made clear the parallels of Sotomayor's decision supporting affirmative action by disqualifying the highest qualified applicants, based on race, for someone / somebody who is "underqualified." The parallel was Bolton and how he failed, probably due to whatever you want to ascribe his failures to. If you want to add nepotism to that list I will take your word for it. Even you can see the dangers of hiring underqualified applicants is a general statement, not based on race as you would like to think, but based on reality. Evidently, your defensiveness toward affirmative action, as applied by Sotomayor and to Bolton, is supported by you....unless you state otherwise. Do you believe in affirmative action? or do you believe that the "best" qualified applicant should be appointed to a position? That, my friend, is the crux of the argument. That is the parallel that is being made. Not 40 acres and a mule as you stated.

(2) Your other point still revolves around "discuss" and a link to an ebony type magazine with 10 racial statements by Rush. I still say there was nothing intellectual that you stated in those two posts but you bring up your own suppositions on what I may have been thinking. How can I be ascribing you to anything when all I am doing is asking for your opinion on a simple yes or no opinion. Yet you continue to do the 40 acres and a mule speech.

(3) I really see no reason why you should get upset when I paraphrased an MLK philosophy. Is this some sacred ground that is off limits to conservatives and can only be stated by liberals?? That appears to be a bit one sided don't you think? I would think with the grounded human philosophies that MLK had he would be a staunch Republican if he were alive today....as much as Supreme Court Justice Thomas is. You see, emmitt, the common good for all man is not based on racial quotas and affirmative action but based on "blind justice" of Constitutional law and not based on feeling and should not be forced and dictated from the bench. Do you agree or no? In Clarence Thomas' book, "My Grandfather's Son" (because he was raised by his grandfather).....and incidently one of the better books that I have read this year.....he stated that after he was grilled, unmercifully, by Biden et. al., his grandmother told him that she would NEVER vote for another Democrat as long as she lived.

(4) Hysteria? No, reality. Look at Sotomayer and her decisions....60% overturned. There is a red flag.

(5) Finally, affirmative action just like many of the civil rights laws have run its couse and should be dismantled because of the decissive nature that this wedge has placed on our society. Let every man stand on his own abilities without the federal cruch.

If you can not see the parallels without getting defensive then ...... we will have to continue to agree to disagree.

[KRAM1]

Back on topic...I quote judge Sotomayor; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

OK, now invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and let a conservative say it. CAREER OVER! Where is the same treatment for this racist statement? This quote alone should be enough to derail this nomination. Come on folks..if it "ain't" OK for a conservative or "white guy" to say, then why should Judge Sotomayor get a "free pass"?

There are other highly qualifed candidates who will work to interpret the law, not set policy from the bench. Obama uises the word "emphaty" to describe Sotomayor as a new code word for "liberal activism" as he knows the truth could help derail the nomination.

Again, she will be confirmed and Republicans will treat her so very much nicer than democrats did in their grillings of Roberts and Alieto. What about the way the democrats treated Miguel Estrada when Pres. G. W. Bush nominated him to the federasl bench? You think republicans could get away with doing the same to Sotomayor? You live in a liberal dream world if you think so.

[SUMG]

Back on topic...I quote judge Sotomayor; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

OK, now invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and let a conservative say it. CAREER OVER! Where is the same treatment for this racist statement? This quote alone should be enough to derail this nomination. Come on folks..if it "ain't" OK for a conservative or "white guy" to say, then why should Judge Sotomayor get a "free pass"?

There are other highly qualifed candidates who will work to interpret the law, not set policy from the bench. Obama uises the word "emphaty" to describe Sotomayor as a new code word for "liberal activism" as he knows the truth could help derail the nomination.

Again, she will be confirmed and Republicans will treat her so very much nicer than democrats did in their grillings of Roberts and Alieto. What about the way the democrats treated Miguel Estrada when Pres. G. W. Bush nominated him to the federasl bench? You think republicans could get away with doing the same to Sotomayor? You live in a liberal dream world if you think so.

The great Thomas Sowell was on a television show yesterday. When he was asked about the above Sotomayor quote he responded: "Racism has a bad track record. Why bring it back under new management?"

Edited May 28, 2009 by SUMG

[Mean Green 93-98]

Ohhhhhh...snap...churchie droppin the hamma!

Did you know that the Skull and Bones Society at Yale got its name because of all the carcusses of 8 month term fetuses (or is it fetui...eh, who cares if you're just gonna kill 'em anyway) that collected in the Quad outside their house? It was an act of initiation...they had to knock the girl up, then 8 months later the abortion is performed in front of all the active brothers...the sexual organs are then roasted and feasted on by the pledges while the rest of the brothers play a game not unlike football with the remaining dead baby.

The Wire Coat Hanger Society is similar at Dartmouth...but no where near as classy...but then those Dartmouth-ites never are.

It might do you some good to leave your insular nest every once in a while.

I went to college for two years in Boston, Massachusetts. I know of what I speak.

[GreenBat]

"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," said Judge Sotomayor,

This was a comment she made in 2001. That's 8 years ago. Here is a question I have for EulessEagle, FFR, KRAM1 & UNTFlyer. Do you still think the same thing as you did 8 years ago? I would hope not. Life experience and age should mold your opinions. I'm sure your friends can go back 8 years and find something that you said that is embarrassing to you and that you no longer feel that way.

[untbowler]

Back on topic...I quote judge Sotomayor; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

OK, now invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and let a conservative say it. CAREER OVER! Where is the same treatment for this racist statement? This quote alone should be enough to derail this nomination. Come on folks..if it "ain't" OK for a conservative or "white guy" to say, then why should Judge Sotomayor get a "free pass"?

There are other highly qualifed candidates who will work to interpret the law, not set policy from the bench. Obama uises the word "emphaty" to describe Sotomayor as a new code word for "liberal activism" as he knows the truth could help derail the nomination.

Again, she will be confirmed and Republicans will treat her so very much nicer than democrats did in their grillings of Roberts and Alieto. What about the way the democrats treated Miguel Estrada when Pres. G. W. Bush nominated him to the federasl bench? You think republicans could get away with doing the same to Sotomayor? You live in a liberal dream world if you think so.

Funny how Dear Leader voted against both Alito and Roberts while in the Senate, even saying they were both Well-Qualified. In fact I believe he led a Fillibuster against Alito. Funny how the tables have turned and he wants bi-partisanship.

[CMJ]

We don't know the full context of what Sotamayor was saying(one sentence out of context can make just about anyone look bad). Even the next statment that I found from the speech that was quoted in the NYT(I think, I honestly don't recall where I cound it now) makes it look a bit less damning. To me anyways.

I quote.

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. Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.

Edited May 28, 2009 by CMJ

[UNTflyer]

This was a comment she made in 2001. That's 8 years ago. Here is a question I have for EulessEagle, FFR, KRAM1 & UNTFlyer. Do you still think the same thing as you did 8 years ago? I would hope not. Life experience and age should mold your opinions. I'm sure your friends can go back 8 years and find something that you said that is embarrassing to you and that you no longer feel that way.

Well, you are deflecting from the issue by insinuating she doesn't think this way any more. This wasn't a private conversation, this was a speech to the Berkeley School of law. And since she is a current member of La Raza, I seriously doubt her opinion has changed at all.

PLUS, she is on record saying the court is where policy is made. I disagree with that. Judges need to adhere to the law, and not try to wrestle the law to bend to his or her will.

Edited May 28, 2009 by UNTflyer

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Funny how Dear Leader voted against both Alito and Roberts while in the Senate, even saying they were both Well-Qualified. In fact I believe he led a Fillibuster against Alito. Funny how the tables have turned and he wants bi-partisanship.

Further, where is the "Gang of 14" featuring John McCain, Lindsey Graham and other Republican sellouts? Remember, they blocked some of Bush's federal nominations because the GOP had an almost filibuster proof majority in 2004-2005?

Come of McCain. Step up, big guy.

What a fraudulent bunch of spineless copouts the GOP senators are.

[KRAM1]

This was a comment she made in 2001. That's 8 years ago. Here is a question I have for EulessEagle, FFR, KRAM1 & UNTFlyer. Do you still think the same thing as you did 8 years ago? I would hope not. Life experience and age should mold your opinions. I'm sure your friends can go back 8 years and find something that you said that is embarrassing to you and that you no longer feel that way.

And, once more you ignore the issue. This was an "on record" comment...the better question is...has she changed? I doubt it very much. Heck, I say things every day that might be embarrassing simply because they do not fall in the realm of what is considered PC today, but I am not the one nominated for the Supreme Court.

[UNTflyer]

Sotomayor was on the wrong side of this free speech case:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/C...peech-case.html

What a douchebag

[Mean Green 93-98]

Sotomayor was on the wrong side of this free speech case:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/C...peech-case.html

What a douchebag

I find it hard to disagree with their ruling.

In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”

However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.

“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”

Keep the fed out of state and local affairs unless necessary.

[UNTflyer]

I find it hard to disagree with their ruling.

Keep the fed out of state and local affairs unless necessary.

A cop-out ruling.

"we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”"

I would say the 1st Amendment qualifies as a specific constitutional guarantee.

[Mean Green 93-98]

A cop-out ruling.

"we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”"

I would say the 1st Amendment qualifies as a specific constitutional guarantee.

A high school student does not have the right to call her school's administrators "douche bags" without fear of repercussion. I assure you, we would have been punished, probably suspended, for saying such things about our superintendent. Maybe the punishment exceeded the offense, but that's not for the federal court to decide. This is certainly in line with precedent.

[UNTflyer]

A high school student does not have the right to call her school's administrators "douche bags" without fear of repercussion. I assure you, we would have been punished, probably suspended, for saying such things about our superintendent. Maybe the punishment exceeded the offense, but that's not for the federal court to decide. This is certainly in line with precedent.

I disagree. Off-campus, the school has absolutely no business telling a student what they can or cannot say.

[oldguystudent]

I disagree. Off-campus, the school has absolutely no business telling a student what they can or cannot say.

Nevermind. Misread your post.

Edited May 28, 2009 by oldguystudent

[GreenMachine]

No Republican was gonna beat Obama last November. Ronald Reagan would've lost. Not because Obama was a strong candidate(tho he arguably was with his oratory and such), but because the GOP was just plain toxic across the board to voters. Voters were blaming pretty much every problem in the country on Republicans according to polls. One guy, no matter who he was, couldn't save the ship. That ship was going down.

Honestly, I think McCain did pretty well not to get his ass totally kicked like a Mondale or McGovern. The GOP was in THAT dire of straits.

to go even further, I don't believe that any Dem candidate could have lost in Nov. I think that Americans as a whole were so frustrated with things on so many levels that voting Dem was the only solution to all our problems. Was Obama the best of the candidates? Who knows but I think his timing for running was perfect.

[UNTflyer]

to go even further, I don't believe that any Dem candidate could have lost in Nov. I think that Americans as a whole were so frustrated with things on so many levels that voting Dem was the only solution to all our problems. Was Obama the best of the candidates? Who knows but I think his timing for running was perfect.

Republicans could have nominated the risen Christ, and he still would have gotten his ass kicked.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

emmitt-

There you go again with various assumptions of what not was said and their subsequent endings.

(4) Hysteria? No, reality. Look at Sotomayer and her decisions....60% overturned. There is a red flag.

WOW --- what a terrible misuse or distortions of statistics.... The Supreme Court only heard 5 of her cases and overturned 3..... That is ignoring the ones that were appealed and the appeal quickly denied because they were absolutely correct. Looking at it that way, it is down to less than 2%.

--That is almost as bad as some an advertisement I heard that complained that half of the students in America are below average. (of course they are, what does average mean!! )

I teach stat. You need to analyze any stat you hear to see if there are any nutty flaws or misrepresentations.

Edited May 28, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CaribbeanGreen]

and yeah, keep yer "ebony-type" magazines in the cotton fields! Yeeee-haw!!!!!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Republicans could have nominated the risen Christ, and he still would have gotten his ass kicked.

---Maybe... but I doubt he would have been a Bush Liberal-Republican that taxed less, spent more, and doubled the National Debt which means he over-ran his budget more than the previous 42 President COMBINED. ....and now we have a screwed up economy.

---All the time claiming to be conservative... really???

[UNT90]

WOW --- what a terrible misuse or distortions of statistics.... The Supreme Court only heard 5 of her cases and overturned 3..... That is ignoring the ones that were appealed and the appeal quickly denied because they were absolutely correct. Looking at it that way, it is down to less than 2%.

--That is almost as bad as some an advertisement I heard that complained that half of the students in America are below average. (of course they are, what does average mean!! )

I teach stat. You need to analyze any stat you hear to see if there are any nutty flaws or misrepresentations.

For a Stats teacher, you missed the biggest stat of all. That only 5 of her decisions have been reviewed. Compare that with rulings out of the 9th CCA. The most overturned court in modern history. If you have been on the bench as long as she has, and have only had 2 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (soon to be 3), then you really haven't been issuing very many opinions that the SC deemed reviewable (possibly overturnable).

Question. Were these 5 cases that were reviewed cases she ruled on as a US District Judge before being appointed the the COA? The must be, due to the fact that the CCA is a panel of judges, and she could could come down on the minority side of an issue that went no further than that CCA. Now, how long was she a district judge and are 5 cases a high or low figure for a district judge of her tenure to have viewed by the SC? Those are the statistical numbers to work with. Get to it, SE 66.

[KingDL1]

9

---Maybe... but I doubt he would have been a Bush Liberal-Republican that taxed less, spent more, and doubled the National Debt which means he over-ran his budget more than the previous 42 President COMBINED. ....and now we have a screwed up economy.

---All the time claiming to be conservative... really???

Are you so removed that you don't honestly think a Democratic President would not have spent twice as much as Bush given the same time line and events?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

9

Are you so removed that you don't honestly think a Democratic President would not have spent twice as much as Bush given the same time line and events?

I sort of doubt it.... but it will be to try and correct the mess Bush left... beside... Bush proposed and signed the first bailout. At least O did not cause this mess and he hasn't claimed to be the ultimate conservative. Face reality... he did terrible and now we have a big mess.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

For a Stats teacher, you missed the biggest stat of all. That only 5 of her decisions have been reviewed. Compare that with rulings out of the 9th CCA. The most overturned court in modern history. If you have been on the bench as long as she has, and have only had 2 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (soon to be 3), then you really haven't been issuing very many opinions that the SC deemed reviewable (possibly overturnable).

Question. Were these 5 cases that were reviewed cases she ruled on as a US District Judge before being appointed the the COA? The must be, due to the fact that the CCA is a panel of judges, and she could could come down on the minority side of an issue that went no further than that CCA. Now, how long was she a district judge and are 5 cases a high or low figure for a district judge of her tenure to have viewed by the SC? Those are the statistical numbers to work with. Get to it, SE 66.

---I can't remember the number but it was between 150-200 cases she has decided in her current position. The low number of cases reviewed by the S.C. seem to be a good thing.. A lousy judge making wrong decisions would have a very large numbers accepted by the Supreme Court for review and to be overturned.. Your logic completely fails with me.