Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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

I think you both are right on this one. Back in those days there were no shoes and everything was a sandal. As time passed shoes took the place of sandals and sandals just became a type of shoe. Now that I said that why are you guys even debating if its a shoe or sandal and calling each othe names in the process. We all get heated about things but lets try and not to call each other names so we can enjoy debating these subjects. I'll start by saying if I have offended any lately I'm sorry.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

better talk to trample about that. and i really don't think all republicans are evil. Colin Powell is a fine man. and i admire Cheney for his commitment to public service. my point is exactly what you are saying later in your post. lets talk about her qualifications, or lack of, instead of her skin color.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

better talk to trample about that. and i really don't think all republicans are evil. Colin Powell is a fine man. and i admire Cheney for his commitment to public service. my point is exactly what you are saying later in your post. lets talk about her qualifications, or lack of, instead of her skin color.

Didn't you bring up the skin color issue?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.



The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

So give me an example of a man and a women both have the same case (to the T) where a women or the man for that fact get a different ruling from a court because of their gender.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

My post reflect my sentiment as to slippery slop fallacy used by CRedskinsRule to justify why we shouldn't consider race/sex/background as a factor. And the fact that the arguments tends to be the argument of choice by the majority (i.e. gay marriage could lead to bestiality arguments).

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

Is that what this tells you?

"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."

p.s. The future looks bright...everyone will be singing a different tune in 2050.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Didn't you bring up the skin color issue?

better go back and re read the previous posts. it was my man trample

[Hog1]

p.s. The future looks bright...everyone will be singing a different tune in 2050
---will we be singing it in English? (The recent Supreme nom. notwithstanding)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So give me an example of a man and a women both have the same case (to the T) where a women or the man for that fact get a different ruling from a court because of their gender.

Easy...cases dealing with womens issues are not viewed the same by a man and a woman.

[saden1]

For those interested (not you TTL, I know comprehension isn't your forté) here is Sotomyor's "controversial" lecture in its entirety. The last page is a marvelous read:

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. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

Oh, if I could only be so arrogant

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.

[dmek25]

thanks alot SS. ill take your advice. only i wish i could be as smart as some around here

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.

This is where deep understanding of the founding of our governmental structure is and the reasoning behind it is required. You won't get this information for the Levins of the world for they betray you at the expense of making a buck. Me, I go straight to the source...the writings of John Adams a.k.a. Marchmont Nedham and James Madison.

If by the people is meant all the inhabitants of a single city they are not in a general assembly at all times the best keepers of their own liberties nor perhaps at any time unless you separate from them the executive and judicial power and temper their authority in legislation with the maturer counsels of the one and the few If it is meant by the people as our author explains himself a representative assembly such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people still they are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own if you give them all the power legislative executive and judicial They would invade the liberties of the people at least the majority of them would invade the liberties of the minority sooner and oftener than an absolute monarchy such as that of France Spain or Russia or than a well checked aristocracy like Venice Bern or Holland.

An excellent writer has said somewhat incautiously that a people will never oppress themselves or invade their own rights This compliment if applied to human nature or to mankind or to any nation or people in being or in memory is more than has been merited If it should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress themselves it is as much as is ever and more than is always true All kinds of experience show that great numbers of individuals do oppress great numbers of other individuals that parties often if not always oppress other parties and majorities almost universally minorities All that this observation can mean then consistently with any color of fact is that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress themselves But if one party agrees to oppress another or the majority the minority the people still oppress themselves for one part of them oppress another.


-John Adams

The essence of Government is power and power lodged as it must be in human hands will ever be liable to abuse In monarchies the interests and happiness of all may be sacrificed to the caprice and passions of a despot In aristocracies the rights and welfare of the many may be sacrificed to the pride and cupidity of the few In republics the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority Some gentlemen consulting the purity and generosity of their own minds without adverting to the lessons of experience would find a security against that danger in our social feelings in a respect for character in the dictates of the monitor within in the interests of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community But man is known to be a selfish as well as a social being Respect for character though often a salutary restraint is but too often overruled by other motives When numbers of men act in a body respect for character is often lost just in proportion as it is necessary to control what is not right We all know that conscience is not a sufficient safe guard and besides that conscience itself may be deluded may be misled by an unconscious bias into acts which an enlightened conscience would forbid As to the permanent interest of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community and in the proverbial maxim that honesty is the best policy present temptation is often found to be an overmatch for those considerations These favourable attributes of the human character are all valuable as auxiliaries but they will not serve as a substitute for the coercive provision belonging to Government and Law They will always in proportion as they prevail be favourable to a mild administration of both but they can never be relied on as a guaranty of the rights of the minority against a majority disposed to take unjust advantage of its power The only effectual safeguard to the rights of the minority must be laid in such a basis and structure of the Government itself as may afford, in a certain degree directly or indirectly a defensive authority in behalf of a minority having right on its side.

To come more nearly to the subject before the Committee viz that peculiar feature in our community which calls for a peculiar division in the basis of our government I mean the coloured part of our population It is apprehended if the power of the Commonwealth shall be in the hands of a majority who have no interest in this species of property that from the facility with which it may be oppressed by excessive taxation injustice may be done to its owners It would seem therefore if we can incorporate that interest into the basis of our system it will be the most apposite and effectual security that can be devised Such an arrangement is recommended to me by many very important considerations It is due to justice due to humanity due to truth to the sympathies of our nature in fine to our character as a people both abroad and at home that they should be considered as much as possible in the light of human beings and not as mere property As such they are acted upon by our laws and have an interest in our laws They may be qonsidered as making a part though a degraded part of the families to which they belong <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=B0waAAAAYAAJ&dq=James%20Madison%20minorit y%20majority&pg=PA362&ci=185,209,793,644&source=bo okclip">The Writings of James Madison : 1819-1836. comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed By James Madison, Gaillard Hunt</a>

-James Madison

[Hog1]

You know D, it is not a matter of IQ......and I take a quote from someone we all know.
Have a take....don't suck!
It seems to me in the political arena, you squander your oppurtunities at debate on useless name calling, baseless anti-(anything but raging demspeak) GOP.... AND, George Bush is no longer in office.........give it a rest. Anyway, we have both been around here for a while. SOMETIMES you have to have a thick skin.......
HTTR