Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by 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?

NO OP's??? What's the deal?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 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?

Matty probably reached out to you because he hoped that a wise half-Hispanic moderator with the richness of his experience would more often than not be a better moderator than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

And who is making such argument?

LOL...no sir, she has said many things in her life but people are focusing on a few comment. The woman is highly accomplished and she can express the fact that she has a unique background.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Moses wore sandals jack ass.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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)

Although we all like to believe justice is blind it seldom is. Justice is both subjective and opinionated. Nothing about Sotomayor's actions or nomination contradicts the blindness of justice.

Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hole with these cases. Roberts and Alito history are pretty similar I am sure. The only noteworthy case is Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch and there's presidance of a lone dissenter in the Supreme Court.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Moses wore sandals jack ass.

Your incompetence is staggering. Sandals are shoes but expecting you to know that would be asking too much. It's like you enjoy the taste of your own foot.

[70Chip]

I love hearing white newscasters say "Latina" as though they were Al Pacino in scarface. Classic douchebaggery. As though Hispanics will be offended if you don't say burrito or Rodriguez with a spotless Mexican accent.

[dmek25]

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Although we all like to believe justice is blind it seldom is. Justice is both subjective and opinionated. Nothing about Sotomayor's actions or nomination contradicts the blindness of justice.

If acknowledging race/sex as a determining factor in the rule of law doesn't contradict the blindness of justice, I don't know what does. I agree with Justice O'Connor.

Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hole with these cases. Roberts and Alito history are pretty similar I am sure. The only noteworthy case is Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch and there's presidance of a lone dissenter in the Supreme Court.

I couldn't find evidence in a quick search but I do not believe either Roberts or Alito have a history of over 83% of their rulings that appeared before the Supreme Court being overturned.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

Didn't hear any complaints from the right about Condi??? I wonder why the Dems filibustered Priscilla Owen & Janice Rogers Brown???

This has to do with Sotomayor's opinions and reasoning, not race/sex. How about rebutting claims with facts or a well reasoned counter-position rather than the standard "The racist/sexist white guys are pissed again."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

Can you say Clarence Thomas. If she had any pro life comments in her past the left would have eating her up by now.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

And who is making such argument?

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 think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...no sir, she has said many things in her life but people are focusing on a few comment. The woman is highly accomplished and she can express the fact that she has a unique background.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

That is absolutely the silliest thing you have ever said. I haven't seen even one tiny piece of evidence that anyone cares that she is Latino or a woman (here or anywhere). What some are perturbed with is the fact that those qualities were used as qualifications when maybe they shouldn't be. Get off the emotional log flume and try and the follow the discussion on its merits and not your predisposition to think all Pubs are evil.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

You're still on that stupid claim aren't you? I may disagree with saden often when it comes to politics, but I believe he's pretty intelligent and educated on such matters.

You, on the other hand...it amazes me how nearly every time you post in a thread about politics how ignorant you are. Just stuns me. Where do you come off claiming that Republicans hate women in power? What proof do you have?

By the way, do you remember which party was sitting in the White House when the first female Supreme Court Judge was selected?

Do the names Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Spellings, Elaine Chao, Gale Norton, Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Margaret Chase Smith, Kay Orr (country's first female governor), Jodi Rell, Jeannette Ranking (first congresswoman), Marsha Blackburn, or Jean Schmidt ring a bell at all?

I think you mean well and it's great you like to be involved in the whole political process...but it's just not your forte. I think I could speak Aramaic more eloquently than you could speak politics. You're probably better off just sitting on the sidelines and letting saden and 70Chip debate each other

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

Your incompetence is staggering. Sandals are shoes but expecting you to know that would be asking too much. It's like you enjoy the taste of your own foot.

If sandals were shoes they wouldn't be called sandals. Better my foot than the liberal BS that flows out your mouth.