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's the "richness of her experience" have to do with making a judgement that is supposed to be based on "constitutional" parameters? Everyone has different "richness experiences", some positive and some negative.
I don't see the relevance of this concept when deciding to rule on cases. Are particular cases then going to be examined using constitutional parameters and also examined by the "richness of her experience" concepts? Isn't this against how the rule of law is applied in America? Will the "richness of her experience" basis then trump the constitutional basis if she "feels" a particular affiliation between a given case and her richness experiences?
You are backing away from the topic. The topic of this thread is about whether or not what she said was racist. Don't try and change the subject. The words that she spoke are out there for everyone to see. Trying to deny that she spoke them and veer off topic is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
Um, WRONG!
I did not back away from the issue...there were comments going on between me and the other poster in which he brought up the issue that we were discussing.
I did not deny anything about what she said. If you think i did, please show me in my post?
You accuse me of backing away from a subject, which I didn't but you keep doing the same thing. A typical ploy by a CD'er who chooses to ignore the facts. I see you are still not answering the question...you keep refering to C. Thomas. As I said in my previous posts, the GOP assumes that Affirmitave action is not in play when they AGREE with someone on their side.
When a minority is a democrat, immediately the cries of "they only got here because of Affirmative Action" are started.
Again, ignoring the subject doesn't make it go away.
Yes, YOU are indeed sad
Obviously you just dont get it....liberals were the 1st to bring up race even before she was nominated.
Obviously you just dont get it....liberals were the 1st to bring up race even before she was nominated.
Are you kidding me or what!
No, are you kidding me?
Why? because she was a Latina? Well, isn't she?
That goes back to my original point. Why was it assumed that she only got where she was because of Affirmitive action? Why do some people on the right always assume that? That can be considered being racist as well.
What's the "richness of her experience" have to do with making a judgement that is supposed to be based on "constitutional" parameters? Everyone has different "richness experiences", some positive and some negative.
I don't see the relevance of this concept when deciding to rule on cases. Are particular cases then going to be examined using constitutional parameters and also examined by the "richness of her experience" concepts? Isn't this against how the rule of law is applied in America? Will the "richness of her experience" basis then trump the constitutional basis if she "feels" a particular affiliation between a given case and her richness experiences?
Richness of experience refers to the acquisition of information. For instance, Sotomayor once had to hear a discrimination suit against a trucking company. The trucking company had a policy where they refused to hire long-haul drivers if those drivers were taking certain medications that the trucking company had made a list of and which was available to prospective drivers. Some of the prospective drivers felt that the policy discriminated against certain health conditions and disabilities.
The appeals court sided with the trucking company, but Sotomayor dissented and agreed with the prospective drivers.
I think she's wrong, because her life experiences have not included much interaction with the trucking industry. I don't think she adequately considered the potential liability that the trucking company faces, the difficulty obtaining insurance that trucking companies have to deal with as well as the compliance requirements that insurance companies place on trucking companies in order to cover them. I think her personal experience with diabetes affected how she viewed the case.
That's why appeals are decided by panels of judges. Our system recognizes that judges will be reading and hearing cases, and that the facts of the case will be contextualized by each judge's experiences and knowledge. A judge who golfs and belongs to a country club will hear a case involving a country club a little differently than someone who's never golfed. A judge who is or was an avid fan of whitewater rafting and canoeing will hear an environmental case on water by-way preservation differently than a judge who's never floated a river. A judge who was educated in private Catholic schools will hear a case on school vouchers differently than someone who only attended public schools. The experiences we have add to the knowledge we have. The knowledge we have informs all of our decisions, all our choices.
And we know this. If you've ever told a young person that you get wiser as you get older, you know this. Because it's not the accumulation of birthday cards that adds wisdom. It's the accumulation of experiences. The more experience you have in this world, the more knowledge you have of this world.
Sotomayor didn't say that in every decision her opinion was wiser than a white man's. It is that she lives and works in a world dominated by white men. The judiciary in our country is strikingly dominated by white men, the proportion of judges to the population proportions do not match at all. 15% of our population is Hispanic. Only 3% of judges in our country are of Hispanic descent. Women outnumber men in our country, but only 25% of judges in our country are women. The judiciary is overwhelming white and male. Their experiences color their decisions.
If you hear a discrimination case as a judge, but you've never been discriminated against, do you have all the pertinent information about discrimination available to you? Or would the experience of being discriminated against add to your knowledge of what discrimination is? What the impact on the victim is?
Sotomayor's experiences aren't defined solely by her Hispanic heritage. She has the ivy league education that all the current Supreme Court justices and many of her other judiciary colleagues has. She serves on panels with white male judges and hears what criteria they are using to base their opinions and decisions on. As she has progressed in her career, she has been inundated with the same philosophies and rationale that have driven our courts over the past 20+ decades, and those career experiences have become part of her just like the experiences of being poor and Puerto Rican and a woman are part of her experiences, part of her identity.
She recognizes when she sits down with her colleagues that many of them come from similar backgrounds, and have almost identical experiences. When they are establishing a precedent for how the law should be applied, they are applying it in some cases to people or groups of whom they have little knowledge and limited experience. In some of those cases, she may have more knowledge and more experience. So she might have more insight into how the law should be applied, the impact the law will have. It's not about ignoring the Constitution, or losing sight of the responsibility she bears, but laws are ultimately about people, about creating a society where people can peacefully coexist while also achieving their goals. Law is a human endeavor. You can't take humanity out of the courts and expect law to work. Laws work when they address the real human issues at their heart.
That goes back to my original point. Why was it assumed that she only got where she was because of Affirmitive action? Why do some people on the right always assume that? That can be considered being racist as well.
Obviously YOU just don't get it.
Your so lost in space right now! Forget it..its over your head.
Your so lost in space right now! Forget it..its over your head.
No, you are the one who is lost...and it's not over your head, you just don't want to admit that what i said was true, that there are many on the right who accuse minorities of being where they are because of Affirmitative Action when they don't agree with them. Pat Buchannon and others said it when the nomination was first announced. It's a clever way by them to get many in the base fired up, hense bringing in these other arguements.
So if you choose to let those facts go over your head, that is entirely up to you.
No, you are the one who is lost...and it's not over your head, you just don't want to admit that what i said was true, that there are many on the right who accuse minorities of being where they are because of Affirmitative Action when they don't agree with them. Pat Buchannon and others said it when the nomination was first announced. It's a clever way by them to get many in the base fired up, hense bringing in these other arguements.
So if you choose to let those facts go over your head, that is entirely up to you.
Are you denying that many on the left call any black person in the republican party a token? Michael Steele ring a bell?
Are you denying that many on the left call any black person in the republican party a token? Michael Steele ring a bell?
Both sides do the same thing.
You're right. Both sides do the same thing. Doesn't make it right when either side does it, though.
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.
Forget it..its over your head.
