Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What exactly are Sotomayors qualifications to sit on the nation's highest court? Other than being a brown-skinned ultra-liberal female with feel-good viewpoints that suit your progressive mentality, how is she more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than somebody else who has just as much if not more experience than she?
She is a member of a Latino civil rights organization. As a woman in her position should be.
That is incorrect. La Laza's motives are positioned beyond civil rights.
The movement she belongs to subscribes to rights for illegal immigrants, the criminals that are living here milking off our welfare system and do not have rights based on the fact they are not United States citizens.
La Raza is a hispanic-supremacy outfit. Even the name La Raza means the race, so they believe that their race is THE race.
We'll need a specific example if you care to debate.
I am simply asking what qualifies her to be an associate justice, other than her race, gender, and liberal viewpoints.
How many other judges have been waiting in the wings to possibly sit on the nation's highest court? How does Sotomayor exceed their qualifications to be Obama's choice?
What exactly are Sotomayors qualifications to sit on the nation's highest court? Other than being a brown-skinned ultra-liberal female with feel-good viewpoints that suit your progressive mentality, how is she more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than somebody else who has just as much if not more experience than she?
She is an academic star who has a history of prevailing over some significant obstacles. In addition to being a member of the prestigious second circuit court of appeals of the federal court, she has excelled as an adjunct professor of law, a federal prosecutor and in private practice.
No one claimed Clarence Thomas was the most qualified nominee for the court and he never showed the academic success or intellectual prowess of Sotomayor. He never really was in private practice nor did he teach and he was in the general middle at Yale and Holy Cross. Yet, I guess Bush named him because of his charm?
That is incorrect. La Laza's motives are positioned beyond civil rights.
The movement she belongs to subscribes to rights for illegal immigrants, the criminals that are living here milking off our welfare system and do not have rights based on the fact they are not United States citizens.
La Raza is a hispanic-supremacy outfit. Even the name La Raza means the race, so they believe that their race is THE race.
Hmm...
Just like how you think your religion is THE religion?
Just like how you think your religion is THE religion?
Christianity has been the dominant religion of Americans and many people around the world, so I suppose that would qualify it to be the religion.
See, the difference is that while we Christians attempt to right the wrong and promote people to seek faith in our Lord Savior Jesus Christ, we as a rule do not advocate violence, legitimazation of criminal activity, or special rights or favors simply because of who we are.
She is an academic star who has a history of prevailing over some significant obstacles. In addition to being a member of the prestigious second circuit court of appeals of the federal court, she has excelled as an adjunct professor of law, a federal prosecutor and in private practice.
No one claimed Clarence Thomas was the most qualified nominee for the court and he never showed the academic success or intellectual prowess of Sotomayor. He never really was in private practice nor did he teach and he was in the general middle at Yale and Holy Cross. Yet, I guess Bush named him because of his charm?
But Clarence Thomas was not a member of an extremist organization like Marshall was, or Sotomayor is.
Being a member of a particular movement that advocates supremacy and-or violent protests should be a sufficient reason to disqualify anybody from the nation's highest court.
It's really ironic how this has turned out because some libs on this forum have suggested that I belong to the Ku Klux Klan, another extremist group of radicals that the majority of Americans do not support. I am not a member of, nor do I condone the actions of the K.K.K.
If a Supreme Court nominee was a member of the K.K.K., I would maintain that the individual should also be disqualified for being a part of violent radical movements such as this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
