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.
Sotomayor has been a racist since she was born. Look at her past and her writings. ALL about race.
Face it, she was positively raised to be the victim.
If in fact this person that was on trail, has a biased judge because of race, and the punishment does not justify the crime, then yes, even a blind dog finds a bone every now and then.
Amazing how all those previous justices, that were born white, went to school white, practiced the law white, yet had a thorough understanding of race, to sit in judgement on cases of race, without interjecting their own personal biases and beliefs into their rulings...what an amazing group of men.
Amazing how all those previous justices, that were born white, went to school white, practiced the law white, yet had a thorough understanding of race, to sit in judgement on cases of race, without interjecting their own personal biases and beliefs into their rulings...what an amazing group of men.
Yes it is the same as the frequent contention that men cannot understand womens' issues but the other way around is fine. The only reason Sandra Fluke came to prominence is because of complaints that men couldn't understand contraception, so they had to invite a woman to speak. But where are the complaints about her now discussing transgender issues when she isn't transgender? The same people who declare that whites can't understand the black/hispanic experience, have no problems whatsoever when blacks or hispanics talk about white privilege.
Amazing how all those previous justices, that were born white, went to school white, practiced the law white, yet had a thorough understanding of race, to sit in judgement on cases of race, without interjecting their own personal biases and beliefs into their rulings...what an amazing group of men.
It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the
United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade
into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dignity of
our criminal justice system and undermines respect
for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek
justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice. In
discharging the duties of his office in this case, the
Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of
Texas missed the mark. Also troubling are the Government’s
actions on appeal. Before the Fifth Circuit, the
Government failed to recognize the wrongfulness of the
prosecutor’s question, instead calling it only “impolitic”
and arguing that “even assuming the question crossed the line,”
it did not prejudice the outcome. Brief for United States
in No. 11–50605, pp. 19,20. This prompted Judge Haynes to
“clear up any confusion—the question crossed the line.”
478 Fed. Appx. 193,196 (CA5 2012) (concurring opinion).
In this Court, the Solicitor General has more appropriately
conceded that the “prosecutor’s racial remark
was unquestionably improper.” Brief in Opposition 7–8.
Yet this belated acknowledgment came only after the
Solicitor General waived the Government’s response
to the petition at first, leaving the Court to direct a response.
You can read can't you? One would think that her statement would be abundantly clear.
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.
