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

Jarod said:
I like this woman, she is the next Supreem Court Justice. I wish Obama would have picked someone more consistantly liberal... but she will make a great justice.

I predict Obama will get two more choices and I am looking forward to them both being more liberal than this pick.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Dungheap said:
But they don't do that for judges so your rejoinder, while a decent effort, is incorrect when it comes to judges.
Click to expand...

um.....i didn't say they did it for judges, but in a legal setting, having experience eating cake or being raped does not necessarily make one a better judge or trier of fact. a judge, like a juror, is the trier of fact, so my analogy is far closer than cake....i guarantee you that a judge will 170.6'd if their personal experience will interfere with their ability to be impartial.

are you actually saying that to be a better judge you MUST have eaten cake in order to judge the constitutional worthiness of cake?
 
blackascoal said:
You calling someone racist is like the Elephant Man calling someone a freak.

Yes, I believe hispanics may well interpret the Constitution differently than some white dude in Buttfuck, Texas.

Blacks have a different interpretation of it .. so I must be racist .. in the noin-human world you exist in.
Click to expand...

So now I'm a racist because I think that this system of laws should be color-blind. :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
um.....i didn't say they did it for judges, but in a legal setting, having experience eating cake or being raped does not necessarily make one a better judge or trier of fact. a judge, like a juror, is the trier of fact, so my analogy is far closer than cake....i guarantee you that a judge will 170.6'd if their personal experience will interfere with their ability to be impartial.

are you actually saying that to be a better judge you MUST have eaten cake in order to judge the constitutional worthiness of cake?
Click to expand...


1) You implied that it applied to judges. I mean, that is what we're talking about here.

2) Appellate judges are not triers of fact so no, your analogy isn't all that apt.

3) I have no idea what you are talking about with 170.6'd.

4) I don't do analogies. They're typically pretty stupid. This one is no exception. I believe that was charver's intent but you decided to actually take her (him?) seriously and run with it. Forgive me if I do not take part.
 
Yurt said:
how can you not see the racism and stupidity of her comment? i guess she has no business making judgements about "white" issues as she has not lived that life.....that you would defend her is perplexing. i can only imagine if a white person said what she said...she and YOU are saying that in order to judge on the scotus, one need to have personally experienced something in order to be "better" at dealing with the issues before them.

personally experiencing something does not make someone a better judge.
Click to expand...

Wow... you truly have a hard time comprehending what you read. Either that or you enjoy strawmen. No one said that the white men had no business making judgements on those issues. She simply stated that she hoped she would be able to make better judgements on issues she had lived through vs. someone who had not. That is NOT racist.

Personally experiencing something DOES give one a better perspective. It gives them an edge. But you are correct, it does not make them a better judge.

Bottom line, to call this racist is ridiculous.
 
blackascoal said:
Surely you're not suggesting that white males don't know what's best for everybody.

I support the right making that a theme for their attacks on Sotomayer.

"We don't need no stinkin' hispanic opinion, white men know what's best for everybody .. and anything else is racist"

That is essentially the crux of their argument.
Click to expand...

well, I am white and a man and as luck would have it.... I DO indeed know what is best for everyone.

I should be supreme ruler of the world.
 
Dungheap said:
4) I don't do analogies. They're typically pretty stupid. This one is no exception. I believe that was charver's intent but you decided to actually take her (him?) seriously and run with it. Forgive me if I do not take part.
Click to expand...

Her?

Her?

How dare you?...If we weren't separated by several thousand miles of salty water i'd come over and scratch your eyes out.

Oooh...now you've made me break a nail. Bitch.
 
The right wing will throw bombs at this nominee for fundraising reasons and try to hype the threat she poses...

Then those who come from districts without hispanic populations will vote against her, she will be easily comfirmed sometime at the end of this summer.
 
Its my experience that trial judges are better if they come from private practice and have run there own law practice. The judges who worked for the government there entire pre-judical careers are often not such good judges.
 
Jarod said:
Its my experience that trial judges are better if they come from private practice and have run there own law practice. The judges who worked for the government there entire pre-judical careers are often not such good judges.
Click to expand...

and it's my experience that lawyers should be banned from ever being a judge. The majority of judges who have been lawyers have royally screwed up the country and the constitution.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and it's my experience that lawyers should be banned from ever being a judge. The majority of judges who have been lawyers have royally screwed up the country and the constitution.
Click to expand...

Id venture to say that 99% of Judges have been lawyers.


At least here in Florida its a requirement.
 
Yurt said:
i've never heard of this objective white male....everyone is biased. being hispanic or white does not give anyone any special advantage in making judicial determinations....contra to sotomayor's opinion.
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you are saying that everyone has bias that works into their decision. Yet you are also saying that she is a racist because she acknowledged that fact?

Or are you saying she is a racist for saying that her personal experience factors into her overall experience on certain issues?
 
Superfreak said:
So, just to be clear, you are saying that everyone has bias that works into their decision. Yet you are also saying that she is a racist because she acknowledged that fact?

Or are you saying she is a racist for saying that her personal experience factors into her overall experience on certain issues?
Click to expand...

no, you're not clear....i take umbrage with her saying that her being hispanic should give her the ability to make better decisions than a white male

"Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

"Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than 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... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... 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."

The full text of the speech, as published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, is available on The New York Times website. (It says that the speech was in 2002; I've read elsewhere that it was October 2001.)
Click to expand...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
 
Superfreak said:
Wow... you truly have a hard time comprehending what you read. Either that or you enjoy strawmen. No one said that the white men had no business making judgements on those issues. She simply stated that she hoped she would be able to make better judgements on issues she had lived through vs. someone who had not. That is NOT racist.

Personally experiencing something DOES give one a better perspective. It gives them an edge. But you are correct, it does not make them a better judge.

Bottom line, to call this racist is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top