Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court -- bye bye Republican Party

[blackascoal]

It is controlled by a group of individuals. I don't know what your babbling about race has to do with anything.

We are all individuals with our own individual rights.

you're fucked in the head and can't really think right.

Surely you are at least aware of how utterly meaningless, useless, and laughable your claim of my being "fucked in the head" truly is.

Regardless of how you define society, or what you don't like, or what side of the earth the moon comes up on in the world you live in .. society continues to adapt and Sotomayer is headed for the Supreme Court.

That's my concern .. not what the blip on my screen called AssHat thinks about any of this.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Surely you are at least aware of how utterly meaningless, useless, and laughable your claim of my being "fucked in the head" truly is.

Regardless of how you define society, or what you don't like, or what side of the earth the moon comes up on in the world you live in .. society continues to adapt and Sotomayer is headed for the Supreme Court.

That's my concern .. not what the blip on my screen called AssHat thinks about any of this.

So you think a deeper embrace of judicial activism and racist judges is what we need? A pox on your scrot.

 

[Cancel5]

Punane hater...

 

[blackascoal]

When all individuals are treated justly then society is just. You cannot make society more just by denying rights to some members.

All individuals won't be treated fairly unless and until the diversity of opinion is considered in any decision-making.

The notion that men only can determine what is just for women in this society is ignorant .. make that REALLY ignorant.

Individuals don't come in homogenous. Americans come from different backgrounds with different concerns, perspectives, and history. We all have a stake in determining our future and should all have a voice in that determination.

That truth is elemental in even something as simple as jury trials. There is a reason why juries that reflect the makeup of the society where the offense has occured is considered more fair than juries devoid of the makeup.

The impetus for civil rights was African-American voices and those who knew first hand the oppression people were suffering.

Frankly, I find the notion of the individual reigns over all else to be quite sophmoric and immature. This world, this society, belongs to the whole of us, not any individual. Every demographic has a stake and every demographic should have a voice.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

All individuals won't be treated fairly unless and until the diversity of opinion is considered in any decision-making.

People are treated fairly when policy is fair, and not tilted in favor of certain races as an imagined solution to historical injustice.

The notion that men only can determine what is just for women in this society is ignorant .. make that REALLY ignorant.

Strawman argument. Nobody said that. Nobody thinks it.

Individuals don't come in homogenous. Americans come from different backgrounds with different concerns, perspectives, and history. We all have a stake in determining our future and should all have a voice in that determination.

But you support policies which are punitive to certain individuals based on their race; you think it's justice. "Having a voice" is not "the right to discriminate against whites".

That truth is elemental in even something as simple as jury trials. There is a reason why juries that reflect the makeup of the society where the offense has occured is considered more fair than juries devoid of the makeup.

The impetus for civil rights was African-American voices and those who knew first hand the oppression people were suffering.

Frankly, I find the notion of the individual reigns over all else to be quite sophmoric and immature. This world, this society, belongs to the whole of us, not any individual. Every demographic has a stake and every demographic should have a voice.

You don't like individual rights because they even protect white people, and you believe in racial discrimination against white people.

Behind all of your imagined intellectual superiority, you're just a pig-hearted bigot.

 

[blackascoal]

So you think a deeper embrace of judicial activism and racist judges is what we need? A pox on your scrot.

What I think is more than a bit curious, but deciededly humorous, is listening to people who do not embrace diversity jumping to claim anything they don't like is "racist."

People like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who have never embraced rights for anyone other than themselves, now claim "racism" as if they should be trusted to determine what racism is.

Sorry, I don't really give a damn about his or your definition of racist judges.

As for activist judges, I'm all for them. I applaud them. They recognize that life and society are dynamic, thus so must be the laws we live by.

You're barking up the wrong tree sir.

 

[blackascoal]

People are treated fairly when policy is fair, and not tilted in favor of certain races as an imagined solution to historical injustice.

Strawman argument. Nobody said that. Nobody thinks it.

But you support policies which are punitive to certain individuals based on their race; you think it's justice. "Having a voice" is not "the right to discriminate against whites".


You don't like individual rights because they even protect white people, and you believe in racial discrimination against white people.

Behind all of your imagined intellectual superiority, you're just a pig-hearted bigot.

Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't care about your determination of what is racist or your thoughts of what I think about white people.

It's meaningless.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What I think is more than a bit curious, but deciededly humorous, is listening to people who do not embrace diversity jumping to claim anything they don't like is "racist."

People like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who have never embraced rights for anyone other than themselves, now claim "racism" as if they should be trusted to determine what racism is.

Sorry, I don't really give a damn about his or your definition of racist judges.

As for activist judges, I'm all for them. I applaud them. They recognize that life and society are dynamic, thus so must be the laws we live by.

You're barking up the wrong tree sir.

Your version of "diversity" is just racial discrimination against white people.

I always claimed rights for all individuals, so does rush, as far as i know. Just because you 'hate whitey' types have warped the discourse on race so far that it's somehow racist to be against racial disrimination doesn't mean I won't be here callling you on your bullshit and hypocrisy 24/7. You can count on me.

At least you will admit she is a judicial activist. Good on you.

 

[christiefan915]

Reviewing it, it seems she is stating that people are influenced by their biases.

Seems she is speaking the truth to me, and people don't like it. Imagine that, we like to think of our judges as being neutral beings. If that were only the case!!!! A gaffe in Washington! Jeezus Gawd!

Are conservatives now denying they have wanted judges with biases?

The US was in existence for more than 200 years before a woman was appointed to the court. It's been one WASP male judge after another, even though women have slightly outnumbered men in the population for years. These male judges were influenced by their background and experience every bit as much as Sotomayor is by hers. In fact, the country's laws have been influenced by white male bias from the beginning, so how could anybody complain that one Hispanic female is going to skew the court to the left fringe? That's just absurd. I mean, thank God there are at least a few liberals and moderates to hold the likes of Scalia and Thomas in check.

 

[christiefan915]

Froggie. She's already said publicly she believes a latina women would be a better judge than a white man. Do you want me to get you the quote?

She dismissed the case where promotions were cancelled because only whites did well enough. She's a racist.

Stop being an intellectually dishonest hack.

We've already read the quote. Her remarks began "I would think..." which indicates an opinion, not a fact. Also, she made the comment in a speech regarding sexual discrimination, which numerous women have experienced are are all too familiar with.

It's intellectually dishonest to lift a quote out of context and build a bogus argument around it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We've already read the quote. Her remarks began "I would think..." which indicates an opinion, not a fact. Also, she made the comment in a speech regarding sexual discrimination, which numerous women have experienced are are all too familiar with.

It's intellectually dishonest to lift a quote out of context and build a bogus argument around it.

Her opinion is racist then. It's a racist opinion. That's been the point all along, dear.

 

[blackascoal]

Your version of "diversity" is just racial discrimination against white people.

I always claimed rights for all individuals, so does rush, as far as i know. Just because you 'hate whitey' types have warped the discourse on race so far that it's somehow racist to be against racial disrimination doesn't mean I won't be here callling you on your bullshit and hypocrisy 24/7. You can count on me.

At least you will admit she is a judicial activist. Good on you.

It is necessary for you to couch you nonsense in bullshit to cover up the utter ridiculousness of your illlogic. I have three minor partner in my business, two of them are white. I know lots of good black DBA's. We have our own professional organization. It's MY business, and if indeed I hated "whitey", I would not have them in my business. I could go on and on with examples of how I do not hate white people, but I owe you nothing. I don't have to validate myself to you. I've been on this site for years and there are lots of whites here, I'd say the majority easily, who know better than your bullshit claim.

As I said to you before, your opinion is meaningless.

Additionally, nice try but I did not say Sotomyer was a judicial activist. I said I applaud judical activism .. which is not the same thing.

But then again, considering your opinion of what is racist, why would I expect you to get something as complex as english right.

 

[blackascoal]

We've already read the quote. Her remarks began "I would think..." which indicates an opinion, not a fact. Also, she made the comment in a speech regarding sexual discrimination, which numerous women have experienced are are all too familiar with.

It's intellectually dishonest to lift a quote out of context and build a bogus argument around it.

It is indeed dishonest, but it's typical of people who think like him.

They don't know how to have an honest conversation.

 

[DamnYankee]

...
Republicans will be republicans and they will attack her .. only increasing the lock Obama now has.

Democrats attacked Clarence Thomas because he supposedly didn't "represent the views of the black community". I suggest that the GOP use the same argument to attack Sotomayor.

 

[Cancel5]

He was a pig, that is why he was attacked!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We've already read the quote. Her remarks began "I would think..." which indicates an opinion, not a fact. Also, she made the comment in a speech regarding sexual discrimination, which numerous women have experienced are are all too familiar with.

It's intellectually dishonest to lift a quote out of context and build a bogus argument around it.

Actually I think it started 'I would hope' .... but otherwise your point is valid.

As for Asshat... it is what he does... that and proclaim the jooooooz are out to get him and the world or something like that.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It is necessary for you to couch you nonsense in bullshit to cover up the utter ridiculousness of your illlogic.

No it is not. Why do you ask?

I have three minor partner in my business, two of them are white. I know lots of good black DBA's. We have our own professional organization. It's MY business, and if indeed I hated "whitey", I would not have them in my business. I could go on and on with examples of how I do not hate white people, but I owe you nothing. I don't have to validate myself to you. I've been on this site for years and there are lots of whites here, I'd say the majority easily, who know better than your bullshit claim.

I'd say it's a form of hate to advocate discrimination against individuals because of their race or gender, as you do in your support of Affirmative Action, and this racist skank twat judge who's up for grabs now.

As I said to you before, your opinion is meaningless.

Contrarily, my opinion is the basis of a new scientific, moral and really cool belief system. It's called "not being an asshole".

Additionally, nice try but I did not say Sotomyer was a judicial activist. I said I applaud judical activism .. which is not the same thing.

So are you disappointed she's not a judicial activist, if, in fact, she isn't?

But then again, considering your opinion of what is racist, why would I expect you to get something as complex as english right.

disrimination against individuals due to their race is racist. You're a racist because you advocate that.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Actually I think it started 'I would hope' .... but otherwise your point is valid.

As for Asshat... it is what he does... that and proclaim the jooooooz are out to get him and the world or something like that.

How is it a valid point? it's been the point all along that she holds racist opinions. Making the point that it's an opinion is just a redudant "no duh" scenario.

 

[Bonestorm]

Democrats attacked Clarence Thomas because he supposedly didn't "represent the views of the black community". I suggest that the GOP use the same argument to attack Sotomayor.

That should work out really well for the GOP. Really. They'd be arguing from a position of strength given their deep connection with the Hispanic and Latino communities.

 

[blackascoal]

Democrats attacked Clarence Thomas because he supposedly didn't "represent the views of the black community". I suggest that the GOP use the same argument to attack Sotomayor.

I'm all for any attack on her you can dream up. I have it on good information that she operates a terrorist safe house in the barrio. You should get that infoirmation to Rush as soon as you can.

By the way, it wasn't the democrats who said Uncle Thomas didn't represent the black community .. it was the black comnmunity.

Perhaps you can dig out of the hispanic community that Sotomayer doesn't represent them.

The sad truth is that people like you attack Sotomayer because SHE DOES represent the perspectives of many in the hispanic community. If she didn't you'd be embracing her, just as you did Uncle Thomas Remus.