Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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

Is 1223 your Cub Scout den number?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Like you could judge anyone's character as bad. Someone like yourself is no position to criticize anyone on anything beyond how properly burn crosses on lawns.

Awesome! We have the left's answer to anything. If you don't agree with her appointment you are clearly racist.

I'm sorry you can't understand simple concepts. Disagreeing with her appointment is ok, but when your entire reason to disagree is because she is brown is what is known as racist.

lol, wut?

 

[theeedude]

Have Republicans been asked why they held up her appeals court nomination in the 90s simply because she is a Latina woman?
Is that not racist or sexist, or is it OK to be racist and sexist for political purposes?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Have Republicans been asked why they held up her appeals court nomination in the 90s simply because she is a Latina woman?
Is that not racist or sexist, or is it OK to be racist and sexist for political purposes?

Have democrats been asked to explain their blocking of a hispanic judge appointment in 2001?

"For some Republicans, however, it will be hard to avoid thinking back a few years, to a confirmation hearing that didn't end happily at all. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals. In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications. And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances."

http://www.washingtonexaminer....-nominee-46407227.html

 

[theeedude]

We are talking about Sotomayor, not Estrada here.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We are talking about Sotomayor, not Estrada here.

Actually you were talking about motives.

 

[daniel49]

she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.

its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.

Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Have Republicans been asked why they held up her appeals court nomination in the 90s simply because she is a Latina woman?
Is that not racist or sexist, or is it OK to be racist and sexist for political purposes?

Have democrats been asked to explain their blocking of a hispanic judge appointment in 2001?

"For some Republicans, however, it will be hard to avoid thinking back a few years, to a confirmation hearing that didn't end happily at all. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals. In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications. And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances."

http://www.washingtonexaminer....-nominee-46407227.html

You forgot to call Sotomayor an "uppity bitch" or "wise and beautiful woman."

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We are talking about Sotomayor, not Estrada here.

damn, you are like the french transmission i heard about, 1 forward gear, and 6 reverse...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: daniel49
she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.
its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.
Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

Thank you for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the principle of legal precedent. You should do some reading on its importance before posting again.
Also, please note that precedent has no ideology, since a conservative court can set precedent as readily as a liberal court.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: daniel49
she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.

its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.

Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

Have you read the Constitution? Obviously not past the 2nd amendment, and you prolly skimmed the first. There is only one Constitutionally recognized federal court in the country, the US Supreme Court. Appellate courts have no right to overturn USSC precedent, only USSC can overturn it. It would be the height of judicial activism for Sotomayor to overturn the USSC standard on "disparate impact" before USSC overturned it themselves.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: daniel49
she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.

its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.

Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

Have you read the Constitution? Obviously not past the 2nd amendment, and you prolly skimmed the first. There is only one Constitutionally recognized federal court in the country, the US Supreme Court. Appellate courts have no right to overturn USSC precedent, only USSC can overturn it. It would be the height of judicial activism for Sotomayor to overturn the USSC standard on "disparate impact" before USSC overturned it themselves.

i was referring to her testimony and speeches about how she would rule not her apellate time.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: daniel49
she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.
its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.
Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

Thank you for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the principle of legal precedent. You should do some reading on its importance before posting again.
Also, please note that precedent has no ideology, since a conservative court can set precedent as readily as a liberal court.

in a perfect world Joe

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: daniel49
she leans to heavily upon precedent I think. Instead of just allowing the constitution to dictate the answer.

its a slippery slope because a liberal interpetation sets a precedent. and as precedent upon precedent is stacked upon the initial ruling, each one becomes a little farther out then the last one. its like being just a little off on the corner of your house from being true.
not a big deal at the beginning , but By the time you get to the other end your house is a Rhombus.

Also her explanations of her speechs are ludicrous.

Have you read the Constitution? Obviously not past the 2nd amendment, and you prolly skimmed the first. There is only one Constitutionally recognized federal court in the country, the US Supreme Court. Appellate courts have no right to overturn USSC precedent, only USSC can overturn it. It would be the height of judicial activism for Sotomayor to overturn the USSC standard on "disparate impact" before USSC overturned it themselves.

i was referring to her testimony and speeches about how she would rule not her apellate time.

I certainly expect her to vote to overrule some precedents, but "if it's not broken, don't fix it" (settled law) argument also works for me.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We are talking about Sotomayor, not Estrada here.

Backpedal harder. You're really not doing yourself any favors by calling people racist and sexist just because we don't like a person's views on law. In fact I'm pretty sure that it's lefties that brought up her race here. Granted, a few idiots did take the bait, but that doesn't make anything you say worth listening to.

As far as her relying on precedent... not a big deal, there is a fine line to walk between precedent and following the Constitution to the letter. And yes, there is that line, because believe it or not, precedents are set every week in courts that aren't the USSC. In general, the USSC spends most of its time trying to affirm or reverse precedents set by lower courts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Have Republicans been asked why they held up her appeals court nomination in the 90s simply because she is a Latina woman?
Is that not racist or sexist, or is it OK to be racist and sexist for political purposes?

Have democrats been asked to explain their blocking of a hispanic judge appointment in 2001?

"For some Republicans, however, it will be hard to avoid thinking back a few years, to a confirmation hearing that didn't end happily at all. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals. In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications. And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances."

http://www.washingtonexaminer....-nominee-46407227.html

...Miguel Estrada, Bush's nominee for a seat on the crucially important D. C. Circuit Court (a seat open only because Republicans blocked a Clinton nominee - indeed, two Clinton nominations to the D. C. Circuit were blocked because the Republicans said the circuit had too many judges already; Bush sent nominations for both those seats). Estrada'a confirmation got stuck in a months-long filibusterby Democats because neither he nor the White House would supply any information about his judicial views. Republicans, Kinsley wrote, were "hoarse with rage that Democratic senators want to know what someone thinks before making him or her a judge." Naturally, they also accused the Democrats of being anti-Hispanic. (With forty-two circuit vacancies to fill, Estrada was, as of May 2003 [this source was written in 2003 - Craig234], Bush's only Hispanic nominess - and the major Hispanic organizations opposed him...

Miguel A. Estrada, D. C> circuit, the second most important in the country after the Supreme Court. With jurisdiction over many federal agencies, the D. C. Circuit rules on environmental, civil rights, workplace, and consumer protection statues affecting the whole country - and on what federal agencies can and cannot regulate; thus it had long been targetted by conservatives seeking to limit federal power to regulate corporations. The confirmation of Estrada, along with Bush nominee John Roberts (confirmed May 2003), would give the already conservative D. C. Circuit six Republican and four Democratic appointees, with two seats still vacant, awaiting Bush nominations...

Estrada... was dubbed the "stealth candidate" becuase of the difficulty of getting any information out of him or the White House about his judicial views... Estrada claimed he never read Supreme Court decisions and could not recall discussing any high-court rulings while working in the Solicitor General's office from 1992 to 1997. The White House refused to hand over recommendations Estrada wrote during that time, calling them "highly privilieged." What was known about Estrada, however, made him... qualified from the right' point of view: he was one of the architects of the Bush 2000 legal strategy in the Florida recount battle, and his former superior in the Solicitor General's office, Paul Bender, said he was a "right-wing ideologue" who "couldn't be trusted to state thelaw in a fair, neutral way."
- Banana Republicans book

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

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.

"When a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant - and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases - I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position."

--Sam Alito

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

--Sam Alito

Hopefully your consistant and call Sam Alito a racist also, according to you the SCOTUS is overrun with racists

Why are those Sam Alito statements racist again? They show a judicial prejudice but not racism...

Some of you need to pay attention. There is NOTHING racist in the Sam Alito quotes above. In his confirmation hearings, these are examples of empathy he uses in making his decisions. Just as Sotomayer was refering to in her "wise Latina" quote. So if you partison reactionaries want to call Sotomayor a racist based on that, you also include Alito in the same smear. If not, your a bunch of hypocrites.

If you think any of those Republicans questioning Sotomayor think she is racist, your delusional. They are just throwing political theater to there voting base. You know all the people crying racism when its not there.

Shame on you 21st century conservitives, crying racism when it suites your ideology. I thought only the liburel & leftys were the ones going around useing racism for political gain. Looks like you are becoming the boogymen that you despise. Boo!!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Some of you need to pay attention. There is NOTHING racist in the Sam Alito quotes above. In his confirmation hearings, these are examples of empathy he uses in making his decisions. Just as Sotomayer was refering to in her "wise Latina" quote. So if you partison reactionaries want to call Sotomayor a racist based on that, you also include Alito in the same smear. If not your a bunch of hypocrites.

Shame on you 21st century conservitives, crying racism when it suites your ideology. I thought only the liburel & leftys were the ones going around useing racism for political gain. Looks like you are becoming the boogymen that you despise. Boo!!

Umm, she said she thought she was better based on her race, Alito didn't. She's by the very definition a racist.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
...Shame on you 21st century conservitives, crying racism when it suites your ideology. I thought only the liburel & leftys were the ones going around useing racism for political gain. Looks like you are becoming the boogymen that you despise. Boo!!

The next thing I suppose you'll accuse some Republican woman of playing the "Victim of Sexism" Card...

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
...Shame on you 21st century conservitives, crying racism when it suites your ideology. I thought only the liburel & leftys were the ones going around useing racism for political gain. Looks like you are becoming the boogymen that you despise. Boo!!

The next thing I suppose you'll accuse some Republican woman of playing the "Victim of Sexism" Card...

LOL, whatever, your use of "projection" is ridiculous. The particular single statement, apparently cherry-picked from a single speech made more than a decade ago, that everyone keeps harping on is not very convincing. Sotomayor's got a long record as a federal judge. Presumably if there was some sort of bias in her decisions, it would be evident in the public record. I find it curious that the right-wing noise machine, with all that data just laying there for review, can't seem to find anything in her court record to hang her with.

It's close to two months since the comment became widely known, so it's not several. (The comment itself is eight years old, but never mind.) Given the amount of hashing and rehashing that has taken place since then, it feels like more. If she needs to have faith in her wisdom to do a job, its not wrong for her to say so. It's an acknowledgement of the obvious, or at least of an obvious conceit. And judges talk all the time about how wise the court is, even when they are in the middle of criticizing the majority for making a stupid decision. It's part of the job.

Amusingly enough, before the hearings the Republicans were whining that the process was being dreadfully rushed and that they needed lots more time to go carefully through her voluminous record in order to interrogate her properly. Her record must be examined fully, they declared, in order to test her fitness for the Supreme Court.

Then they get to the hearings and it's all "wise Latina/New Haven firefighters", over and over and over again. They have their pathetic little collection of tattered talking points and they go back and back and back to them ad nauseam. It's as if none of them had ever heard the term "asked and answered."

A judge's life experiences will color their wisdom - sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better - and that its more likely for nine white, straight, privileged, Christians to have similar definition of a "wise" decision than a diverse court. And therefore, a diversity of life experiences on the Court and within the legal system generally is a wise thing to have.

Just as Sam Alito stated...

 

[Lemon law]

Bottom line, I think BMW is right, the GOP is making a pile of political hay to pander to their base, but as they look at the alternative of someone more to the left of Sotomayer, enough of the GOP will vote for her confirmation with the result that Sotomayer will easily win confirmation.

And the GOP will save their big hyperspastic appeals on SCOTUS nominees for some future point where an Obama appointment is far more likely to tip the balance of SCOTUS to the left.

And that when the big big SCOTUS arguments will start.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
...Shame on you 21st century conservitives, crying racism when it suites your ideology. I thought only the liburel & leftys were the ones going around useing racism for political gain. Looks like you are becoming the boogymen that you despise. Boo!!

The next thing I suppose you'll accuse some Republican woman of playing the "Victim of Sexism" Card...

LOL, whatever, your use of "projection" is ridiculous...

Check your sarcasm meter - I think it's on the Fritz...

or I'm not half the wit I think I am...