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.
It is also due to her involvement with La Raza, and her decision on the New Haven, Ct firefighter case, which we've been over. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's based only on her comment taken "out of context". So let's switch a couple words in her comment: "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 latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Now try to pretend for a second that the cries of racism, SOLELY ON THAT COMMENT, wouldn't be heard from a mile away if the tables were turned.
La Raza is NCLR, simpleman, so there is no "also" about it. And what decision regarding the New Haven firefighters? She sat on a panel of three judges that reviewed a lower court's ruling. All three judges agreed that the lower court ruled appropriately. There was no opinion issued. The decision was made public in a brief statement of just over 100 words that they recognized that the case was controversial, they sympathized with Mr Ricci, but they concurred with the lower court ruling which was based on precedent. So tell me again why this is an example of her "racism"?
It is also due to her involvement with La Raza, and her decision on the New Haven, Ct firefighter case, which we've been over. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's based only on her comment taken "out of context". So let's switch a couple words in her comment: "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 latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Now try to pretend for a second that the cries of racism, SOLELY ON THAT COMMENT, wouldn't be heard from a mile away if the tables were turned.
As regards the one sentence taken out of context, let me ask why anyone would make that statement with that switch, when the subject of the conference was minorities on the court. When you are discussing minority justices making decisions on cases involving minorities, when exactly would the white male have more experience as a minority????
As regards the one sentence taken out of context, let me ask why anyone would make that statement with that switch, when the subject of the conference was minorities on the court. When you are discussing minority justices making decisions on cases involving minorities, when exactly would the white male have more experience as a minority????
Nice spin, but you know that comment would be considered racist if a white man said it regardless of the context.
I missed that skimming through your response the first time. My apologies.
It's no big deal. I apologize if I'm coming off as strident. I really am just arguing with you in order to better understand what your reasons are for your opinions, not to belittle those opinions in any way.
Nice spin, but you know that comment would be considered racist if a white man said it regardless of the context.
But context is important. White men don't have a history of being marginalized in this country. In the legal system, minorities are terribly underrepresented when compared with the proportion of minorities in the general population. In the appeals system we have, rulings are generally made by panels. The idea that three heads are better than one isn't based on a perception that those three heads are all going to bring identical experiences and backgrounds to their deliberations, but that each of the three heads, with the richness of their individual experiences and backgrounds, will make a contribution that will yield a wiser, better ruling.
It's no big deal. I apologize if I'm coming off as strident. I really am just arguing with you in order to better understand what your reasons are for your opinions, not to belittle those opinions in any way.
And I appreciate your decency and civility, I wish some others on this board would follow your example. I also apologize if I have been rude, most of the forums I post on are on very passionate and emotional issues, and can get heated quickly. No disrespect intended.
Last edited by SimpleMan; 06-30-2009 at 12:51 PM..
Reason: grammer
But context is important. White men don't have a history of being marginalized in this country. In the legal system, minorities are terribly underrepresented when compared with the proportion of minorities in the general population. In the appeals system we have, rulings are generally made by panels. The idea that three heads are better than one isn't based on a perception that those three heads are all going to bring identical experiences and backgrounds to their deliberations, but that each of the three heads, with the richness of their individual experiences and backgrounds, will make a contribution that will yield a wiser, better ruling.
I agree, having diverse opinions from a panel of judges would be beneficial. Maybe what I have read and heard about her has been blown out of proportion, but can't help having a red flag raised because of it.
I agree, having diverse opinions from a panel of judges would be beneficial. Maybe what I have read and heard about her has been blown out of proportion, but can't help having a red flag raised because of it.
I'm all for raising red flags! While we often focus on Congress and the President and their actions, we shouldn't forget that the courts have a profound impact on our lives. Nominees to the courts deserve our close scrutiny and careful evaluation. That's why I've expended the time and energy to research Sotomayor, and why I was so interested in both Roberts and Alito. Interestingly enough, I thought Roberts would be more moderate and Alito more conservative, and so far that has not been the case. Roberts has been more conservative then I expected. Alito more moderate in his written commentaries, though he's consistently went with the conservative votes. Kennedy tends to be the swing vote. Based on her past rulings, Sotomayor will not be a liberal voice on the court. But she and Souter are similar enough that her confirmation will keep the court stable at this point. And what's also interesting is the number of Catholics we'll have on SCOTUS.
You don't have to agree with me, but don't insult me. I'm entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is what it is. Or are you just one of those arrogant people who thinks anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must be stupid?
Opinions vary in many ways. Some are well-founded. Some are laughable.
If I have the opinion that evolution isn't true, I should be mocked for it. If I think 9/11 was an inside job, I deserve whatever scorn you can heap on me. If I think President Obama isn't qualified by birth, then you'd be right to call me a blithering idiot.
And claiming that Sotomayor is racist falls in that category. It's a laughable notion spread by two types of people. Either that person is an idiot, who just repeats what he/she's been told. Or that person is a scumbag hack, who is happy to lie for his/her cause - a swiftboater.
You can plead all you want that it's just your opinion, and it's just as good as mine. But that's not true. To claim that someone of Sonia Sotomayor's talent, intelligence, experience, and accomplishment is a racist, you'd better have more than just your "opinion." You'd better have more than a single disputable quote from a single speech. You'd better have photos of her in sheets. You'd better have a manifesto.
If you don't have any proof, then that opinion is hateful, ugly, and stupid - and it and you deserve mockery.
PS. - this was written in my head during my lunch run. I submitted it before reading the latest posts, where you and DC seem to be achieving some common ground, such as it is. I don't want to re-ignite anything, but my comments here go to many others - especially the OP - so I'm leaving them here.
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.
