Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

[/B]

What a stupid comment. Let's see, Sotomayor: a) was a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University; b) was editor of Yale's law review (one of the single most prominent educational accomplishments in the US educational system); c) was an NYC prosecutor; d) is a seventeen year veteran of the federal judiciary, having served at both the district court and court of appeals level.

The most recent appointee to the US Supreme Court was Samuel Alito, a white male. He also graduated from Princeton, and also went to Yale, where he also served as the editor of the law review, and also served as a state prosecutor, and also was elevated to the US Supreme Court from the court of appeals level. Based on your assessment, he never would have been nominated, but somehow he is a current justice.

Sorry to have scuttled your point with facts; clearly, your preferred vantage point is pure ignorance.

This country will be fortunate to have Sonia Sotomayor serving as a justice to our Supreme Court. Congrats to Judge (and soon to be Justice) Sotomayor.

Yeah whatever. I've been listening to the liberals. We need another woman! We need a minority! We need someone who will feel sorry for the gutter snipes.

Don't give me that crap! Like you're all offended. The last time I checked they spat on Alito at his hearing. All they did was sit up there and lecture the poor man and pontificate about abortion. The poor man's wife had to leave in tears.

Bush had a good education too, yet for eight years he was portrayed as a stupid redneck from Texas. I went to an Ivy League school too, and from what I see most of them are nothing but over-priced liberal sewers I wouldn't let my dog go to.

Oh, and that great woman thinks that she's superior to Caucasian men because of her race and gender, and the fact she crawled out from a NY sewer. So go take it up with her, because she's on record. Here's what I think of that sewer rat and you, Mr. I'm so morally superior. :vomit:
and that's from the heart.

[dmek25]

OK trample, the ball is in your court. but wait, it must be the liberal medias fault. some way, some how

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by dmek25

OK trample, the ball is in your court. but wait, it must be the liberal medias fault. some way, some how

I don't care what the color of the ladies skin is or if she's a lady. Harriet Meyers wasn't my cup of tea either. The liberal media isn't totally at fault. Many American's don't do their homework and just accept what some talking head tells them and repeat it.
The Supreme Court is a joke, just like this government. Eminent Domain shouldn't be about bulldozing some poor schmucks house to build a Super-Walmart. Let's not forget that we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms because these groups of clowns couldn't find it in the Constitution.
From what I hear we've already had a Hispanic or Latin Justice, Justice Cardozo. Since he was Jewish, of Portugese decent, looked white and wasn't an Indian, Mestizo, or of African decent than that doesn't count. Hispanic is a stupid term.

[firstdown]

This is the socialist she quoted in her year book.

Norman Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884—1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

This quote her says more about her then any case.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I don't care what the color of the ladies skin is or if she's a lady. Harriet Meyers wasn't my cup of tea either. The liberal media isn't totally at fault. Many American's don't do their homework and just accept what some talking head tells them and repeat it.
The Supreme Court is a joke, just like this government. Eminent Domain shouldn't be about bulldozing some poor schmucks house to build a Super-Walmart. Let's not forget that we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms because these groups of clowns couldn't find it in the Constitution.
From what I hear we've already had a Hispanic or Latin Justice, Justice Cardozo. Since he was Jewish, of Portugese decent, looked white and wasn't an Indian, Mestizo, or of African decent than that doesn't count. Hispanic is a stupid term.

Are you simply that stupid of a man? Or are you so f'ing lazy you can't even bother to look up the word Hispanic? For f*ck sake man get your act together. Portuguese are neither Hispanic nor Latino.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are you simply that stupid of a man? Or are you so f'ing lazy you can't even bother to look up the word Hispanic? For f*ck sake man get your act together. Portuguese are neither Hispanic nor Latino.

F you Saden. I am so-called Hispanic. It's a made up term and so is Latino. You're not as smart as you think you are.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

F you Saden. I am so-called Hispanic. It's a made up term and so is Latino. You're not as smart as you think you are.

I am not as smart as I think I am but when I talk about something I try to know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand don't make any effort. It's like you're handicapped and if that's the case I apologies.

Made up term indeed.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are you simply that stupid of a man? Or are you so f'ing lazy you can't even bother to look up the word Hispanic? For f*ck sake man get your act together. Portuguese are neither Hispanic nor Latino.

So are we going to be excited when an Azerbaijanee is put on the court? Do we have to have one representative from every dialect and race and nationality appointed to the court before we stop citing it as a quality? I am pretty sure that every person appointed is unique in some way, so must we now always sort that out? She is the first woman who wears her hair in pig tails. He is the first male named Robert who is not called Bob by all his peers. It gets redundant and ridiculous. As MLK Jr called for, let each person be known by their character, integrity, and honor instead of by the race they were born a member of. (obviously paraphrased)

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not as smart as I think I am but when I talk about something I try to know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand don't make any effort. It's like you're handicapped and if that's the case I apologies.

Made up term indeed.

Just because you try to understand something doesn't mean you do. If three frogs are sitting on a log and one decides to jump off there are still three frogs on a log. You'd have made a good Greek slave, smart in your own pompous way. In the end you'd do the bidding of a Roman who didn't give a damn about your high ideals and stupid ass idealism.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So are we going to be excited when an Azerbaijanee is put on the court? Do we have to have one representative from every dialect and race and nationality appointed to the court before we stop citing it as a quality? I am pretty sure that every person appointed is unique in some way, so must we now always sort that out? She is the first woman who wears her hair in pig tails. He is the first male named Robert who is not called Bob by all his peers. It gets redundant and ridiculous. As MLK Jr called for, let each person be known by their character, integrity, and honor instead of by the race they were born a member of. (obviously paraphrased)

Diversity matters, it's that simple. I don't understand why people are acting as if she was selected solely based on the fact that she's a Hispanic. It is one factor among many and that is OK.

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

[firstdown]

A socialist Hispanic at that.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Just because you try to understand something doesn't mean you do. If three frogs are sitting on a log and one decides to jump off there are still three frogs on a log. You'd have made a good Greek slave, smart in your own pompous way. In the end you'd do the bidding of a Roman who didn't give a damn about your high ideals and stupid ass idealism.

You are unique and special. I have no doubt you only speak the truth and are more than capable of filling Moses' shoes if called upon.

Oh, who I'm I kidding...you're as smart as a peanut butter biscuit laced with salmonella.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Diversity matters, it's that simple. I don't understand why people are acting as if she was selected solely based on the fact that she's a Hispanic. It is one factor among many and that is OK.

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

I always love the argument that the opinions of members in the majority are less important or less valuable simply because they're in the majority. White people certainly aren't capable of understanding or even discussing matters involving race of course.

I don't know that people are acting like she was only elected based on her ethnicity but then again it was used as qualifying factor. She herself frames the opinions and public perception of her through the prism of her ethnicity adn gender.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Diversity matters.... It is one factor among many and that is OK.

In matters of law it's not supposed to matter. Race, gender, etc. shouldn't be considered. There's a reason Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

Obama stated he would nominate someone in the judical mainstream, with this pick he definitely did not do what he stated. This is a bad nomination, Obama should've done better homework.

Her legal reasoning should be called into question, a 1-5 with one pending is not a good record on cases reviewed by the SC.

Possible Controversial Positions and Statements
• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that 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....
"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 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." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

[SmootSmack]

I was the first half-Hispanic moderator ever on this site (I think)...but did anyone acknowledge that? Nooooooo.

I'm starting to wonder now if I wasn't a token case by Matty?