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

AssHatZombie said:
No it is not. Why do you ask?

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.

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

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

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

MEANINGLESS
 
AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is valid in that you are indeed pulling out one portion of her comments and pretending there were no others.

"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 [Sandra Day] 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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. "


Now I know you want to see racism in that bolded portion, but given her comments prior to that portion I would disagree. I think she is trying to say that people are not going to be as clear cut as O'Connor stated. That they are going to be effected by what has occured over the course of their lives. That she hopes she would be better at dealing with issues that were a part of her life and not a part of a white mans. My guess is that she is alluding to the fact that she is hispanic and obviously female. That issues of discrimination/racism most likely are not going to be viewed the same by a person who has lived it vs. a person who typically has only read about it or experienced it second hand.
 
Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, those communities tend to be socially conservative and Christian, in fact a possible majority Catholic.
 
Superfreak said:
It is valid in that you are indeed pulling out one portion of her comments and pretending there were no others.

"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 [Sandra Day] 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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. "


Now I know you want to see racism in that bolded portion, but given her comments prior to that portion I would disagree. I think she is trying to say that people are not going to be as clear cut as O'Connor stated. That they are going to be effected by what has occured over the course of their lives. That she hopes she would be better at dealing with issues that were a part of her life and not a part of a white mans. My guess is that she is alluding to the fact that she is hispanic and obviously female. That issues of discrimination/racism most likely are not going to be viewed the same by a person who has lived it vs. a person who typically has only read about it or experienced it second hand.
Click to expand...

She's saying it's basically impossible to separate onesself from one's heritage, and that additionally, IT"S OK NOT TO. Then she goes on to unambiguously and inexplicably assert that a latina women would somehow reach a better conclusion than a white man. It's still racism, dip.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Wow. Superfreak was so serious too. He just got flattened. LOL. Im just ON today. Look at me go.
Click to expand...

You're a legend in your own mind .. but outside of that shallow place, you just seem kinda' goofy.

I don't even take your thoughts seriously anymore.

Just kinda' "Coulterish" goofy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
She's saying it's basically impossible to separate onesself from one's heritage, and that additionally, IT"S OK NOT TO. Then she goes on to unambiguously and inexplicably assert that a latina women would somehow reach a better conclusion than a white man. It's still racism, dip.
Click to expand...

LMAO... and why is that ass? Because YOU say so?

You are reading way too much into her comments.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's right. Turn off your brain when confronted with truths you cannot refute.
Click to expand...

Oftentimes, talking to you is like watching cartoons.

Amusing for the moment, but entirely meaningless.

The brain is not required when you're watching cartoons .. in fact, it's an impediment to the amusement.
 
blackascoal said:
...

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. ...
Click to expand...

Actually, it was Democrats who happened to be black.

Did I also mentioned that the Democrats opposed Alberto Gonzales? And by the way- he raises some important questions about her:

Blitzer: Here's what she said back in 2001, and I'll put it up on the screen: "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."

That's generating some commotion out there.

Gonzales: I'm not sure what that -- what she was trying to say there. I think -- you know, I served on the Texas Supreme Court. And there were times -- there were cases in which I had to interpret a statute. I didn't like the outcome based upon that interpretation as I read the statute, the intention of the state legislature, but I felt obliged by my oath of office to honor that intent of the legislature.

I think it's dangerous when judges impose their own personal views with respect to the outcome of a particular case.

Blitzer: Did you -- when the president of the United States says he wants something -- someone who's empathetic, and has had real-world, real-life experiences, is that good or bad?

Gonzales: I think we all -- we'd like to think that all of our government officials are good people, compassionate people. And obviously, someone with this kind of story makes a very attractive candidate in a confirmation process.

But to say that you empathize with someone, I think it's -- it's very, very difficult to predict the outcome of a case based upon whether or not a judge feels good about a result. I think there ought to be predictability and certainty in the interpretation of our laws. I think that's the number one requirement that a president should look for in the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

Blitzer: Based on what you know, the fact that the first President Bush named her to the federal bench to begin with. She was confirmed. Then President Clinton got her to the court of appeals. She was confirmed.

Based on what you know about her, do you think she's qualified to be a United States Supreme Court justice?

Gonzales: I have no questions in my mind about her qualifications in terms of education, experience. A president is not required to nominate the most qualified person to the court. I think he's obligated to nominate someone who is well qualified, and I think by any measure she is well qualified.

I think there are legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy, and again, that will be something that ... will be examined in the confirmation process.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/alberto.gonzales.sotomayor/
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, it was Democrats who happened to be black.

Did I also mentioned that the Democrats opposed Alberto Gonzales? And by the way- he raises some important questions about her:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/alberto.gonzales.sotomayor/
Click to expand...

First, you're wrong. I raised questions about Uncle Remus and I'm not now or then a democrat.

Alberto Gonzalez?

Are you serious?

In hindisght, NO ONE would approve of him as AG.

He has about as much credibility as Dick Cheney, the asswipe of the entire planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top