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

it is not a strawman....it is the logical conclusion of her statements. why should we want someone that reaches a lesser conclusion? do we not want the best possible conclusion?

she flat out said that because she is hispanic woman, that she hopes that allows her, more often than not, to make reach better conclusions, IOW, to reach the right and proper conclusions as opposed to those lesser conclusions by white males who have not lived her life. what fucking nonsense....give me a break SF...should she then defer all things "white" and "male" to white males as, according to her logic, they should be able to reach better conclusions regarding things they've lived....

Perhaps you can logically explain how the Roberts court found a woman should have acted sooner on a wage discrimination case even though she had recently discovered the discrimination and it was ongoing at the time of the discovery. Where is the logic, or justice, in finding the necessity of reporting discrimination BEFORE the act is discovered? Was the decision made from male bias? I believe the woman is correct and a balanced court is a better court, which was her point.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you can logically explain how the Roberts court found a woman should have acted sooner on a wage discrimination case even though she had recently discovered the discrimination and it was ongoing at the time of the discovery. Where is the logic in the necessity of reporting discrimination BEFORE the act is discovered? Was the decision made from male bias? I believe the woman is correct and a balanced court is a better court, which was her point.

wtf? you have the facts of that case wrong...

the decision was based on statutory time limits, it would have been judicial activism to change the law. they interpreted the law and ruled accordingly. stop posting nonsense....
 
wtf? you have the facts of that case wrong...

the decision was based on statutory time limits, it would have been judicial activism to change the law. they interpreted the law and ruled accordingly. stop posting nonsense....


Actually, that's a crock of shit. They interpreted the law and ruled in direct contravention to the remedial purpose of the statute and just happened to reach a result that favored corporate and business interests and worked against the interests of victims of discrimination.

It was pretty much standard fare judicial activism - ignoring long-standing precedent, the purpose and intent of the law and using a strained reading to reach an absurd result that benefits the powerful.
 
Actually, that's a crock of shit. They interpreted the law and ruled in direct contravention to the remedial purpose of the statute and just happened to reach a result that favored corporate and business interests and worked against the interests of victims of discrimination.

It was pretty much standard fare judicial activism - ignoring long-standing precedent, the purpose and intent of the law and using a strained reading to reach an absurd result that benefits the powerful.

lawyers, bastards, judges.
 
In this context, "I would hope" is just a phrase. She's not really talking about hope.

What sense does it make to say you hope someone can make decisions in a superior fashion based on their race? She HOPES for the race/gender based supremacy of a latina over a white male?

No. In this context, it's just a filler phrase, mostly meaning nothing.
 
So 53 and not married. Granted she's not much to look at, but there is someone for everyone. The first gay as well?
 
wtf? you have the facts of that case wrong...

the decision was based on statutory time limits, it would have been judicial activism to change the law. they interpreted the law and ruled accordingly. stop posting nonsense....

"wtf" back at ya.
How is it possible for an injustice to be reported before it is discovered and the act is ongoing? It is called JUSTICE, even though, in this case, the male majority of a court of JUSTICES chose to ignore it.
Doesn't the Supreme Court "change the law" every time they declare a law unconstitutional? Once again the "nonsense" is yours because you find it difficult to dispute the truth.
I stand by Sotomayor and the point she was making.
 
Actually, that's a crock of shit. They interpreted the law and ruled in direct contravention to the remedial purpose of the statute and just happened to reach a result that favored corporate and business interests and worked against the interests of victims of discrimination.

It was pretty much standard fare judicial activism - ignoring long-standing precedent, the purpose and intent of the law and using a strained reading to reach an absurd result that benefits the powerful.

so the court should be free to disregard statutes of limitation, put in place by the legislative branch, anytime they wish?
 
"wtf" back at ya.
How is it possible for an injustice to be reported before it is discovered and the act is ongoing? It is called JUSTICE, even though, in this case, the male majority of a court of JUSTICES chose to ignore it.
Doesn't the Supreme Court "change the law" every time they declare a law unconstitutional? Once again the "nonsense" is yours because you find it difficult to dispute the truth.
I stand by Sotomayor and the point she was making.

But they're supposed to declare laws unconstitutional based on the constitution, not personal whim, identity feelings of racial superiority or any other activist thing.
 
you guys do realize that the checks and balances actually worked in this case. the legislative branch has now changed and made the law....Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009....that is not the role of scotus

it worked as it should
 
But they're supposed to declare laws unconstitutional based on the constitution, not personal whim, identity feelings of racial superiority or any other activist thing.


In this case, the "personal whim" is in the impossibility of a victim to meet the standard of their conclusion.
 
you guys do realize that the checks and balances actually worked in this case. the legislative branch has now changed and made the law....Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009....that is not the role of scotus

it worked as it should

Would it have "worked as it should" had the Congress been GOP controlled?
 
Would it have "worked as it should" had the Congress been GOP controlled?

that is irrelevent to my comment. my point wasn't that i agree or do not agree with the law, my point is that court did not make law by legislating from the bench, the legislative branch legislated, as it should.
 
that is irrelevent to my comment. my point wasn't that i agree or do not agree with the law, my point is that court did not make law by legislating from the bench, the legislative branch legislated, as it should.

Thus, if it had not been for a sympathetic Congress, Justice would not have been served and the victims of discrimination would be left to meet an impossible, Court applied, standard. Is the term 'Justice' of the Supreme Court a misnomer or does the Constitution run counter to justice?
The great Justices of the past were more than mere translators of the Constitution, it was their words of interpretation that made them great. To suggest otherwise seems eerily close to strict interpretation of the Earth being created in just six 24 hour days.
 
The great Justices of the past were more than mere translators of the Constitution, it was their words of interpretation that made them great. To suggest otherwise seems eerily close to strict interpretation of the Earth being created in just six 24 hour days.

I need to hear some of these 'great translators'. please, throw some opinions up here.
 
Thus, if it had not been for a sympathetic Congress, Justice would not have been served and the victims of discrimination would be left to meet an impossible, Court applied, standard. Is the term 'Justice' of the Supreme Court a misnomer or does the Constitution run counter to justice?
The great Justices of the past were more than mere translators of the Constitution, it was their words of interpretation that made them great. To suggest otherwise seems eerily close to strict interpretation of the Earth being created in just six 24 hour days.

do you 100% proof the earth was not created in six 24 hour periods?

you need to read the case more carefully, you're spouting nonsensical ruminations
 
You're a man??? I thought you were an Irish woman. interesting.

You guys really thought Charver was a woman? lol. You know, one time this republican guy thought that Ornot was a woman - this was on my old board - and he started talking about his "sausage" and, well, hijinks ensued.

Anyway, I think that Digby has been the only one I have seen so far, who has printed the entire statement in question, and once one reads it, it becomes even more clear just how fucking, excuse my language, absurd, this "racist" bullshit is. First of all, she is clearly speaking of discrimination cases, and sorry, but that is a "doh" statement in that context. And further, as DH has already pointed out this entire bs story is based on the false and outrageously privileged idea that white males don't have a gender or a race. Please, give me a break.

From Sotomayor's speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:


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.
 
Back
Top