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.
Which implies some very unflattering (and probably false) things about Hispanic voters.
It continues to amaze me that the Democrats continually get away with patronizing and insulting minority people by telling the rest of us what Hispanics, African-Americans, etc., think.
If I were Hispanic, I'd want my independence of thought to be valued a little more highly than the taken-for-granted tokenism of the DNC. If I supported Ms. Sotomayor, I'd want to do it for her excellence as a jurist and her command of all aspects of the law -- not because of her Puerto Rican ancestry, nor the urging of the media that I revere her.
Yeah, but you're not Hispanic. If people were insinuating that an Armenian dude got a nod to the SC because of affirmative action and oh yeah, that he was also a racist I'd be pretty pissed.
I don't even like Satomayor and I see through this crap. What a surprise; GOP sends its attack dogs that have literally nothing to lose by being loud and obnoxious. Politics as usual. GOP voters love it because they get to call Democrats racist. Everyone else thinks it's idiotic and a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
So it's sort of like drug dealers sending kids to do the actual sales because they'll get sent to juvie instead of the penitentiary? I get it.
With a name like that I'm assuming you jacked that from The Wire... heh.
When your neighborhood is nominated for the Supreme Court I'll take you seriously. Until then, let's focus on the troubling aspects of Ms. Sotomayor's vision of the world, shall we?
Well, then, let's enumerate those "troubling aspects."
Conservative attack #1: She actually had the temerity to suggest that the judicial branch of our government effects government policy. Horror, a branch of government effecting government policy. And following Limbaugh's lead, scores of conservatives start claiming that only the legislative branch makes policy. To which I might respond---"executive policy directives". Horror!!!! The executive branch of government is also trying to direct policy. Will wonders never cease?
Conservative attack #2: She made a speech about the importance of diversity in the judicial process. During the speech she addressed the issue of how judicial rulings have an impact on minorities, and how as a woman and a minority her experiences and background might make the final opinion she reaches on such an issue wiser than someone who did not have those experiences and background. We actually acknowledge this all the time when we talk about older people having greater wisdom than younger people about various matters by virtue of their experiences. Experiences confer wisdom. She just pointed out that her experiences as a member of minority groups gives her more insight about issues facing those minority groups. Ooooh, the nerve of her.
Conservative attack #3: She was selected soley because she was a woman and a Latina. The fact that she is well-qualified, and has decades of experience, that her record is excellent and that she has rarely had her decisions overturned by higher courts couldn't have anything to do with why she was selected. And these same conservatives have the nerve to call her a racist!
Conservative attack #4: She may be overturned quite soon regarding firefighters in New Haven. Or she may not be. The city administered a test. An evaluation of the test results seemed to suggest a clear and unambiguous bias. Promotions based solely on the test results would have provoked discrimination lawsuits. The city wasn't obligated to promote anyone based on the test results, so they promoted no one and they threw out the test and its results. The white firefighters are claiming that their expectation of promotion and the subsequent failure to get promoted constitutes real damage. However, the foundation for that real damage is tenuous, because they can have no expectation of promotion unless they expected to outperform the minority firefighters on the test. How could they expect that?
That's all the "troubling" aspects I've heard about. Have you any more?
When your neighborhood is nominated for the Supreme Court I'll take you seriously. Until then, let's focus on the troubling aspects of Ms. Sotomayor's vision of the world, shall we?
Well, then, let's enumerate those "troubling aspects."
Conservative attack #1: She actually had the temerity to suggest that the judicial branch of our government effects government policy. Horror, a branch of government effecting government policy. And following Limbaugh's lead, scores of conservatives start claiming that only the legislative branch makes policy. To which I might respond---"executive policy directives". Horror!!!! The executive branch of government is also trying to direct policy. Will wonders never cease?
Conservative attack #2: She made a speech about the importance of diversity in the judicial process. During the speech she addressed the issue of how judicial rulings have an impact on minorities, and how as a woman and a minority her experiences and background might make the final opinion she reaches on such an issue wiser than someone who did not have those experiences and background. We actually acknowledge this all the time when we talk about older people having greater wisdom than younger people about various matters by virtue of their experiences. Experiences confer wisdom. She just pointed out that her experiences as a member of minority groups gives her more insight about issues facing those minority groups. Ooooh, the nerve of her.
Conservative attack #3: She was selected soley because she was a woman and a Latina. The fact that she is well-qualified, and has decades of experience, that her record is excellent and that she has rarely had her decisions overturned by higher courts couldn't have anything to do with why she was selected. And these same conservatives have the nerve to call her a racist!
Conservative attack #4: She may be overturned quite soon regarding firefighters in New Haven. Or she may not be. The city administered a test. An evaluation of the test results seemed to suggest a clear and unambiguous bias. Promotions based solely on the test results would have provoked discrimination lawsuits. The city wasn't obligated to promote anyone based on the test results, so they promoted no one and they threw out the test and its results. The white firefighters are claiming that their expectation of promotion and the subsequent failure to get promoted constitutes real damage. However, the foundation for that real damage is tenuous, because they can have no expectation of promotion unless they expected to outperform the minority firefighters on the test. How could they expect that?
That's all the "troubling" aspects I've heard about. Have you any more?
All of those examples have validity which exists apart from your sneering rejection of them.
1. She did indeed say "effects". Look the term up in the dictionary. Keep clearly in mind the fact that "affect" and "effect" are different words. This distinction may be lost on the liberal mind; it is not inconsequential to the rest of us.
2. Her observation flies in the face of our need for a disinterested and impartial judiciary. Yet you mock that fact. Telling.
3. If we select people for the Court solely based on their gender and ethnic background, it is we who are racist, not the nominees.
4. When Sotomayor's absurd and racist ruling is overturned by her soon-to-be-colleagues, it will represent an unprecedented diminishment of her stature and standing on the Court. Let us hope the tonic effect of that slap in the face is not lost on her. Or you.
And yes, I do have another reason to oppose Sotomayor's selection. She is the judge who turned the control of major league baseball over to perhaps the most malignant personality ever to mar the public scene in America, Donald Fehr, head of the player's union. Mr. Fehr is the scoundrel who has made millionaires out of drug cheaters and minor felons and whose contempt for our national pastime and its loyal and trusting fans is exceeded only by his utter disregard for the effect the disgraces visited upon baseball have had on the young people of our country.
You see, I assess Sotomayor by her words and her actions, not on her race or biography. As a jurist, she is a mediocrity of muddled views clothed in ethnic entitlement. The source of the criticisms I make are not the point, to my mind. That they are accurate and of consequence is what counts with me.
"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by "liberal" colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are."
And what kind of racist filth thinks this way? Why it was none of than that segregationist and narcotics addict, Justice William Rehnquist.
So please, go peddle that "Latina woman racist" bulls**t elsewhere.
My hat is off to you for exposing the lies and slander the right wingers ALWAYS resort to.
Well, then, let's enumerate those "troubling aspects."
Conservative attack #1: She actually had the temerity to suggest that the judicial branch of our government effects government policy. Horror, a branch of government effecting government policy. And following Limbaugh's lead, scores of conservatives start claiming that only the legislative branch makes policy. To which I might respond---"executive policy directives". Horror!!!! The executive branch of government is also trying to direct policy. Will wonders never cease?
Conservative attack #2: She made a speech about the importance of diversity in the judicial process. During the speech she addressed the issue of how judicial rulings have an impact on minorities, and how as a woman and a minority her experiences and background might make the final opinion she reaches on such an issue wiser than someone who did not have those experiences and background. We actually acknowledge this all the time when we talk about older people having greater wisdom than younger people about various matters by virtue of their experiences. Experiences confer wisdom. She just pointed out that her experiences as a member of minority groups gives her more insight about issues facing those minority groups. Ooooh, the nerve of her.
Conservative attack #3: She was selected soley because she was a woman and a Latina. The fact that she is well-qualified, and has decades of experience, that her record is excellent and that she has rarely had her decisions overturned by higher courts couldn't have anything to do with why she was selected. And these same conservatives have the nerve to call her a racist!
Conservative attack #4: She may be overturned quite soon regarding firefighters in New Haven. Or she may not be. The city administered a test. An evaluation of the test results seemed to suggest a clear and unambiguous bias. Promotions based solely on the test results would have provoked discrimination lawsuits. The city wasn't obligated to promote anyone based on the test results, so they promoted no one and they threw out the test and its results. The white firefighters are claiming that their expectation of promotion and the subsequent failure to get promoted constitutes real damage. However, the foundation for that real damage is tenuous, because they can have no expectation of promotion unless they expected to outperform the minority firefighters on the test. How could they expect that?
That's all the "troubling" aspects I've heard about. Have you any more?
An excellent summary of the lies right wingers have used to attack this fine justice.
It doesn't really matter, especially since the Republicans in the Senate are going to vote for her confirmation.. Which is not really a surprise, because it was the Republicans that initiated her original appointment to a circuit court back in the 90s...
I have not yet figured out why the left wingers are whining so much, especially since they did the same thing to Republican choices for SC justice..
Well, then, let's enumerate those "troubling aspects."
Conservative attack #1: She actually had the temerity to suggest that the judicial branch of our government effects government policy. Horror, a branch of government effecting government policy. And following Limbaugh's lead, scores of conservatives start claiming that only the legislative branch makes policy. To which I might respond---"executive policy directives". Horror!!!! The executive branch of government is also trying to direct policy. Will wonders never cease?
Conservative attack #2: She made a speech about the importance of diversity in the judicial process. During the speech she addressed the issue of how judicial rulings have an impact on minorities, and how as a woman and a minority her experiences and background might make the final opinion she reaches on such an issue wiser than someone who did not have those experiences and background. We actually acknowledge this all the time when we talk about older people having greater wisdom than younger people about various matters by virtue of their experiences. Experiences confer wisdom. She just pointed out that her experiences as a member of minority groups gives her more insight about issues facing those minority groups. Ooooh, the nerve of her.
Conservative attack #3: She was selected soley because she was a woman and a Latina. The fact that she is well-qualified, and has decades of experience, that her record is excellent and that she has rarely had her decisions overturned by higher courts couldn't have anything to do with why she was selected. And these same conservatives have the nerve to call her a racist!
Conservative attack #4: She may be overturned quite soon regarding firefighters in New Haven. Or she may not be. The city administered a test. An evaluation of the test results seemed to suggest a clear and unambiguous bias. Promotions based solely on the test results would have provoked discrimination lawsuits. The city wasn't obligated to promote anyone based on the test results, so they promoted no one and they threw out the test and its results. The white firefighters are claiming that their expectation of promotion and the subsequent failure to get promoted constitutes real damage. However, the foundation for that real damage is tenuous, because they can have no expectation of promotion unless they expected to outperform the minority firefighters on the test. How could they expect that?
That's all the "troubling" aspects I've heard about. Have you any more?
Beautiful. And directly on point. Proud to be on the same side here!
And since none of you racism chasers had the courage to post it, here is the context of what Judge Sotomayor ACTUALLY said.
Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
(emphasis added for spoon feeding)
The bold-underlined portion of the quote is where Judge Sotomayor explicitly refutes every single baseless and groundless notion that she is an anti-White-male racist.
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.
The executive branch of government is also trying to direct policy. Will wonders never cease?
