Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Its nice seeing Republicans do what they can to turn away the largest growing demographic in America, keep it up! Since every Republican complaint about here has essentially been "You brown people are less then human, why do you think you should be doing anything but cleaning laundry" I can see this going over well.

Who has ever said that?

I don't care, I would be more than happy to see someone other than white. I want the most qualified candidate in any position - whether they are all white, all black, all hispanic, it doesn't matter to me.

What I take issue with is that Sotomayor is being openly racist. I don't buy the "I didn't think about the words properly". Sorry you have a lot of time when you type up the transcripts and right a detailed account on your views of the case to think about that... She is just saying whatever it takes to get into that position.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Its nice seeing Republicans do what they can to turn away the largest growing demographic in America, keep it up! Since every Republican complaint about here has essentially been "You brown people are less then human, why do you think you should be doing anything but cleaning laundry" I can see this going over well.

Oh please, most of us are so over the racism thing. The judge in question isn't, she still feels the need to give minorities special privileges. That's the only problem. It doesn't matter what color of skin I am, or what color she is. The only thing wrong is the fact that she is prejudiced towards/against certain races, depending on how you see it.

I really doubt that there is anyone smart enough to sign up for internet forums and post, that is actually racist in the way that you look down on people.

Prejudiced (With regards to race) = Racist

Sorry, if you need to increase the benefits/abilities of one group of people over another, you are then saying that the other group doesn't deserve the same and, in turn, isn't equal. That is 100% racism (When the group of people are grouped by race that is).

-Kevin

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Craig234
Fixed. Of course, it *looks* racist when you don't understand why it's not. It's actually quite easy for politicians to wrongly argue that affirmative action is 'racist'.

Who or what is affirmative action actually helping? I disagree, most minorities that I know (and by the way, I live in a place where whites are the definite minority) neither want nor need affirmative action to affirm their existence. That's all it really is, it's providing minorities with affirmation of equality. That's a pretty big insult if you ask most minorities...

Also, what politician that you know argues that affirmative action is racist? Include links please so I can shame both them and you.

edit: fixed... read it again, my bad, not thinking straight atm...

Don't worry 'bout him, Craig likes sitting up on his perch high above the petty commoners. He thinks he knows what's best for society, and believes that the ends always justifies the means.

You lie.

 

[Dari]

Don't really care for her but the fact that she's not married worries me. If she tried the marriage thing and decided it wasn't for her, could she be hiding something? Just wondering.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dari
Don't really care for her but the fact that she's not married worries me. If she tried the marriage thing and decided it wasn't for her, could she be hiding something? Just wondering.

Why is that an issue? Maybe she was 'married' to her job. I have a lot more respect for a childless woman who decides to focus on her career, knowing she's not really willing or able to give a child the love/time/attention he/she deserves, and thus doesn't have kids, than a career-oriented woman who has kids anyway and never sees them/spends quality time with them.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm watching it now on CNN and Sen. Kyl is giving me a headache. He is a former lawyer and it shows , lots of words , saying little and trying to phrase things in ways that will get her to say things she doesn't really mean to say.

His questions twist so much she is having to write them down to keep them straight.
He is asking the "So when did you stop beating your wife ? " type questions.

so you are saying seh is not smart enought to figure out the questions posed to her by a lawyer?

There isn't anyone who could understand those questions. Most people ask questions in a sentence, not make a statement with several questions for 15 minutes then ask you , what is your opinion ?

You have to stop and go "wait a minute, what was that ?"

I strongly disagree, "those questions" are asked every day, in every courtroom, across America. Any attorney caught flat footed, or allowing his client to respond to this line of questioning, *without objection*, should be fired on the spot! IMHO

 

[spidey07]

She slipped up when asked about if the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Instead of saying yes or no she just responded with...

'The judge also stressed that she understood "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans" and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.'
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...eet/entry5160633.shtml

The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

So she is for states rights?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: spidey07
The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

So she is for states rights?

I'd say she lacks a basic understanding of the 14th amendment. That is a great quality to have in a supreme court justice.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally posted by: spidey07
She slipped up when asked about if the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Instead of saying yes or no she just responded with...

'The judge also stressed that she understood "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans" and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.'
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...eet/entry5160633.shtml

The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

LOL! Me, a racist? heck no, why, I gots me a couple of them thar darkies as friends.

BTW, last year the USSC upheld the 2nd amendment by a margin of only,----- ONE VOTE!!!
think about it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
She slipped up when asked about if the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Instead of saying yes or no she just responded with...

'The judge also stressed that she understood "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans" and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.'
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...eet/entry5160633.shtml

The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

yeap she was getting grilled on it today and dancing around the subject. she refused to say that it is a right.

 

[Craig234]

These hearings are all too filled with idiotic attacks from the right and shmooze from the left. The substance is little and far between. The Republican Senators come across like bad wingnut from the user posts on right-wing blogs. 'Ya, uh, Judge, what about following foreign laws on our constitution, what about that huh?'

The analysis we get from good commentators is far better than what comes out of these hearings, and the media is no help as they look for a 5 second sound bite they can use, however out of context, out of hundreds of things said.

But having said that, there is some value in watching her respond. You do get to know her better watching that. For what it's worth, she's very much a 'centrist', and I'd prefer a more liberal justice who would be dedicated to the values in the constitution, not merely grinding out opinions with technical competence.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07
As a white male I can assure you that my life experience provides me with much better intellect than latino or black people. I have real empathy for white people and that is why I'll be a good judge.

Nope, not racist at all.

You don't have empathy for white people, you have empathy for wingnuts who are mainly white. You see most of us white people don't consider ourselves victims.

Maybe if you had to take a firefighters test you'd feel differently??

 

[ScottyB]

This lady is hard to like. She seems like a total bitch. She was talking about being a prosecutor and how she was "known for seeking the maximum penalty." Overzealous prosecutors are the worst kind of scummy lawyer.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
These hearings are all too filled with idiotic attacks from the right and shmooze from the left. The substance is little and far between. The Republican Senators come across like bad wingnut from the user posts on right-wing blogs. 'Ya, uh, Judge, what about following foreign laws on our constitution, what about that huh?'

The analysis we get from good commentators is far better than what comes out of these hearings, and the media is no help as they look for a 5 second sound bite they can use, however out of context, out of hundreds of things said.

But having said that, there is some value in watching her respond. You do get to know her better watching that. For what it's worth, she's very much a 'centrist', and I'd prefer a more liberal justice who would be dedicated to the values in the constitution, not merely grinding out opinions with technical competence.

Well right now it is nothing more than a show due to Republicans have no avenue to block her even if they wanted. And Democrats already deciding before the hearings to vote her in because she is latino, not a radical, and no way do they deny Obama. It is what it is. All I can say is luckily for me she is replacing somebody who has similar views.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: spidey07
The article goes into much more concerning things she's said, essentially she agrees that states can have restrictions or bans.

So she is for states rights?

I'd say she lacks a basic understanding of the 14th amendment. That is a great quality to have in a supreme court justice.

+1

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why does it seem like she is Scalia or Thomas? Why can't the left be honest in their positions when they go through processes like this? If she truly rules like she is talking in these hearings we may have someone more conservative than any of the Bush nominees.

 

[Lemon law]

Sotomayer is basically responding similarly to the way both Alito and Roberts did, because both Alito and Roberts were not total
smucks, the democrats who could have filibustered instead allowed their confirmation as the right of a sitting President.

Now we find out that Alito and Roberts were not totally honest in their conformation hearing, why should the republicans suddenly hold Sotomayer to a much higher standard than their nominees of Alito and Roberts? As it is, Obama could have nominated someone far more liberal, and if the GOP manages to derail the Sotomayer nomination, they will have to probably deal with a more liberal nominee next time. And if the GOP pisses off the collective democratic party in the Senate, it can only serve to unite the democratic party who now have enough votes to kill any GOP filibuster.

Face the facts, a few GOP senators are trying to make brownie points with their right wing, by asking basically stupid and unfair questions, but I doubt the GOP is serious about stopping her confirmation.

But if Obama gets a chance to replace any of the gang of four, in Scalia, Alito, Roberts, or Thomas, the person replacing them will likely to really tip the balance of SCOTUS, and the GOP is going to go off the wall bonkers. And then the dems are likely to have to
invoke cloture or the vacancy will never be filled.

 

[mattpegher]

Considering the political rosters it is certainly unlikely that she will not be confirmed.

Considering the question of Racism:

We have reached a state in the country in which it has become counterproductive to the greater good of all americans for anyone of political or judicial power to be biased by the race, sex or sexual orientation of those involved. This is something that has been emphasized to the majority white population, but until now we have for reasons of fearing to be percieved as racist have not emphasized to the minorities.
Certainly any persons experience strongly influences their choices, however any person who believes that those with different experiences are somehow less qualified is being racist/sexist etc.
I certainly believe that her statements to a hispanic womans conference were ment to empoyer this particular subset of citizens, it shows little insight into race relations and shows poor forsight into the impartial requisite of the judiciary.
Consider an analogy, we would not expect someone who was never taught fractions to recognize the problem with devide by zero. Most minorities have never been taught the negative consequences of racial biases that they may harbor, and be just as blind to its existance as many white minorities in the 50's were of theirs.

Argue the semantics of definition of racism all you want, but all judges of the SCOTUS need to be held to the same standard of impartiality. Her most appropriate response to the questions posed would be to be honest and admit that none of us, even judges speak perfectly at all times and that her words to the hispanic women could have been worded better.
As for the firefighter case, She was acting in her official capacity and although more complicated, I believe that the white firefighters were unfairly treated, thus I am a bit concerned about her impartiality.

 

[Genx87]

Yes such unfair and stupid questions about the 2nd amendment, abortions rights, you know things that are reviewed by the Supreme Court. :roll:

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
This lady is hard to like. She seems like a total bitch. She was talking about being a prosecutor and how she was "known for seeking the maximum penalty." Overzealous prosecutors are the worst kind of scummy lawyer.

True. I do like the way she says her name though. "I am Sonia So-toe-may-OR!". It's like shes in WWF of judges. Can you smell what the SoSo is cookin?!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07
As a white male I can assure you that my life experience provides me with much better intellect than latino or black people. I have real empathy for white people and that is why I'll be a good judge.

Nope, not racist at all.

You don't have empathy for white people, you have empathy for wingnuts who are mainly white. You see most of us white people don't consider ourselves victims.

Maybe if you had to take a firefighters test you'd feel differently??

I doubt it.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07
As a white male I can assure you that my life experience provides me with much better intellect than latino or black people. I have real empathy for white people and that is why I'll be a good judge.

Nope, not racist at all.

You don't have empathy for white people, you have empathy for wingnuts who are mainly white. You see most of us white people don't consider ourselves victims.

Maybe if you had to take a firefighters test you'd feel differently??

I doubt it.

So you'd be cool if you were denied a promotion because no minorities in your company qualified? You sound like a pretty chill guy.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
but I doubt the GOP is serious about stopping her confirmation.

Comments like these are what I hate about network news channels, and what I hate about this forum.

The Democrats do seem to want to sweep her through the processes, confirm her without questioning her, because it was The Messiah's choice.

If she is the one who will be amongst the highest authority in the country in a lifetime non-impeachable position, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican cat-fight to determine exactly how such a person feels on issues important to the nation.

The GOP cannot stop the confirmation. The GOP shouldn't make it their goal to stop the confirmation. Both parties should pry into what her judicial beliefs are, and every Senator should make their own individual judgments on her completely ignoring party lines.

But that's not the way government seems to ever work :roll:

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
So you'd be cool if you were denied a promotion because no minorities in your company qualified? You sound like a pretty chill guy.

It's the same old story with all liberals. They want everyone else to bend over backwards for minorities. When it comes to themselves personally, they want the promotion, they want the higher salary, or earlier in life they want the college acceptance & scholarship. Force those crusty, old, racist conservatives to be held back. I still haven't quite grasped how exactly smaller government equals racism... :roll: I'm sure Craig will enlighten me