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.
His issue was with Justice Sotomayor's pointed remarks that Latinas were superior to white males.
That was a racist comment and you know it.
Can you imagine the uproar if a white male judge had said that he could make a better decision than a Latina?
That's not what she said, but you've certainly been told to repeat that falsehood.
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."
Of course, you might well believe that a white male understands issues of Latina women's lives better than Justice Sotomayor, and that wouldn't surprise me. But you and other posters on this thread shouldn't deliberately delete part of her quote to make it sound like what you want. It just makes your arguments look weak.
And I'd love to see more people of color on the SC. Who was it who appointed most of the recent white men? Let's see, oh yes … that was St. Ronnie and GHW Bush. St. Ronnie did give us the inimitable Sandra Day O'Connor, but it took Clinton and Obama to name more women. And the only minority woman? Obama.
I don't think he should have been appointed at all. The controversy with Anita Hill should have disqualified him.
The fact is every time a conservative black man is nearing a position of power the liberals bring in some bimbo to utilize the hypersexual black male myth to discredit him.
That's not what she said, but you've certainly been told to repeat that falsehood.
Of course, you might well believe that a white male understands issues of Latina women's lives better than Justice Sotomayor, and that wouldn't surprise me. But you and other posters on this thread shouldn't deliberately delete part of her quote to make it sound like what you want. It just makes your arguments look weak.
And I'd love to see more people of color on the SC. Who was it who appointed most of the recent white men? Let's see, oh yes … that was St. Ronnie and GHW Bush. St. Ronnie did give us the inimitable Sandra Day O'Connor, but it took Clinton and Obama to name more women. And the only minority woman? Obama.
Fascinating stuff.
Why should your race or sex matter in interpretation of legal matters? If I have a legal dispute with someone should I consider the race and sex of the attorney I select a matter of importance?
Why should your race or sex matter in interpretation of legal matters? If I have a legal dispute with someone should I consider the race and sex of the attorney I select a matter of importance?
Just go over to the "Don't Tell me to Smile" thread. It's full of men telling women how to feel and pretending to understand what women's issues are. I mean, hey, they've never been sexually harassed on the street by strangers, so it's no big deal, right?
If you think things are just peachy all the time because you're a white male, you're going to do the same thing in legal terms. As, in fact, they already have: "There is no racism, America! We're happy, so you must be happy too. End of discussion!" Then the next day we hear about the Clippers owner and Cliven Bundy -- two happy white men -- to prove that racism is still alive and well in America, thankyouverymuch.
What next? Our happy white men ruling that it's perfectly Constitutional to sexually harass women because hey, it's not a bad thing really, and women are just making it up? Is that what you expect in your Supreme Court?
And yes, you absolutely should seek a lawyer whose experience and expertise matches your case. Why do you think Gloria Allred gets hired for all the sexual discrimination cases?
The fact is every time a conservative black man is nearing a position of power the liberals bring in some bimbo to utilize the hypersexual black male myth to discredit him.
"Every time"? Like, once? Got it.
And the fact that you call Yale Law School graduate and Brandeis University Law Professor Anita Hill a "bimbo" says a great deal more about you than you realize. Talk about your myths and stereotypes.
That's not what she said, but you've certainly been told to repeat that falsehood.
Of course, you might well believe that a white male understands issues of Latina women's lives better than Justice Sotomayor, and that wouldn't surprise me. But you and other posters on this thread shouldn't deliberately delete part of her quote to make it sound like what you want. It just makes your arguments look weak.
And I'd love to see more people of color on the SC. Who was it who appointed most of the recent white men? Let's see, oh yes … that was St. Ronnie and GHW Bush. St. Ronnie did give us the inimitable Sandra Day O'Connor, but it took Clinton and Obama to name more women. And the only minority woman? Obama.
Fascinating stuff.
The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to "understand issues of Latina women's lives." And saying that it is leads to results like Sotomayor's dissent in Schute: an illogical, ill-argued mess that reads more like ethnic activism than a Supreme Court decision.
Also, by your illogic I suppose that a wise Latina cannot understand issues of white people's lives. Seeing as how there are more non-hispanic whites than hispanics, I guess a wise Latina should not be on the Supreme Court at all, seeing as how she can't understand 70% of the population.
It was very clear when Obama chose her he was specifically looking for the judge with the best qualifications among the subset who held radically leftist views on race and would be inclined to let their politics rather than the merits determine their rulings in cases touching on it; heck we wanted that so much that he chose someone (Sotomayor) whose background on abortion is a lot shakier than someone that a Democratic president would usually prefer. She's not inept, just someone who prioritizes maintaining racial discrimination above her occupational responsibility as a judge of upholding the law.
As someone who is pro-choice and anti-racism, I was somewhat upset when he named her because it was pretty known ahead of time what kind of Justice she would be.
Thankfully she and her ideological cohort (read: scum) Ruth Ginsberg were on the losing side of the affirmative action argument. To be steamrolled in a 6-2 decision means that Sotomayor and Ginsberg are far left radicals on this issue. America hates a far left radical.
And the fact that you call Yale Law School graduate and Brandeis University Law Professor Anita Hill a "bimbo" says a great deal more about you than you realize. Talk about your myths and stereotypes.
Just once? You seem to have forgotten the last Republican Presidential primaries.
Anyone who makes false claims of sexual harassment I have no respect for. They undermine women who are actually sexually harassed. Bimbo is probably not the best term for the lying libelous beech.
her appointment was a bad choice.. i thought for sure she was a sacrificial cow and would not get there.
Why did you think she would not be confirmed? They did not need a single Republican vote to confirm her (although they got some) - The Dems had a filibuster proof Senate for Sotomayor's confirmation.
She was a "bad choice" as a US Supreme Court Justice - anyone would be a "bad choice" that had 6 cases go to the US Supreme Court and have 4 of those cases Overturned (the Ricci case was before the Supreme Court when Sotomayor was nominated & expected to be overturned). Her judgement was already proven to be poor. She is a disgrace.
• Ricci v. DeStefano (2008) Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor
Ricci v. DeStefano] 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
• Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor
Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency] 475 F3d 83 (2007)
• Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush] 304 F3d 183 (2002)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation (2000) Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation] 229 F3d 374 (2000)
Even Talking Points Memo (Leftist website) notes that Sotomayor is the first Justice in history to issue such a political and vituperative statement after a ruling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor this week took the unusual step of reading her dissent in a case involving state-sponsored affirmative action in Michigan. In doing so, she showed herself not only petulant to be on the losing side in a 6-2 decision, but unable to divorce her legal reasoning from her own sense of racial grievance. It was an embarrassing but predictable performance.
Sotomayor totally ignored the FACT that none of the Politicians in Michigan (GOP or Democrat) supported this referendum AND that the opponents of the referendum outspent the supporters 3 to 1. The Michigan voters supported the referendum which became part of their State Constitution by almost 60% in spite of a very nasty campaign.
This is the the section that two Justices (Sotomayor & Ginsburg) thought should be "Un-Constitutional".
Quote:
(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
They are just fine with the "not discriminate against" part, but they both feel strongly that it is Un-Constitutional to "not give preference to". This is the mindset of the Ruling Regime - they want to pick and choose winners in all things. They want to put their finger firmly on the scales of both Justice and Fairness by "giving preference" to their (perceived) voter base.
This is exactly what the IRS is also attempting to do -
I don't think he should have been appointed at all. The controversy with Anita Hill should have disqualified him.
That is what the liberals who engineered that fiction were hoping would occur.
They would invent more lies if it could prevent a black conservative from being on the bench.
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.
