• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Nominates Judge Who Supports Reparations

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Double Trouble said:
I'd agree that it's not going to happen any time soon, but putting someone that has such an extreme view of things (well outside the mainstream) on the 9th circuit court of appeals seems absurd. Anyone who would support some of his views is apparently of the rational thought and analysis required to hold such an important position.

The "right" has gone apeshit over too many silly things over the past year and a half, but preventing people with radical views from getting to the high levels of the judicial systems is something worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

He's not quite right though. Congress would need to make a law for explicit reparations, however if someone lost a job for the sole reason of "reparations" on a small scale and it came before him, he can say it's OK, and he obviously has a bias. That then could be cited as precedent. It would not the first time a judge put his personal opinion before a legal one.

If someone has such power as he would, it must be understood that he'll be there a long time unless selected for a higher office. At that point, whatever he says the Constitution means is the effective law of the land.

It matters.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
He's not quite right though. Congress would need to make a law for explicit reparations, however if someone lost a job for the sole reason of "reparations" on a small scale and it came before him, he can say it's OK, and he obviously has a bias. That then could be cited as precedent. It would not the first time a judge put his personal opinion before a legal one.

If someone has such power as he would, it must be understood that he'll be there a long time unless selected for a higher office. At that point, whatever he says the Constitution means is the effective law of the land.

It matters.
Click to expand...
So that should hold true with those that have radical views regarding religion such as Mormons?
 
Whats next? We start giving Mexicans reparations because we owned them in the US-Mexican war?
 
I will say this, due to his radical views regarding reparations it would prudent to really vet this guy to see what his views are on other things that may come into play if he were to be seated.
 
I think it's never going to happen. But anything for a story I guess. When I read it in writing I may take more notice even tho, it will most likely never happen. That leads me to a troll post.
 
ericlp said:
I think it's never going to happen. But anything for a story I guess. When I read it in writing I may take more notice even tho, it will most likely never happen. That leads me to a troll post.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a Troll post. I can assure you that the Left got their panties in a bunch over nominees by Bush that had radicals views of their own over something inconsequential to the position they were being nominated for. It's just politics as usual.
 
I support reparations.

We'll just give Blacks small-pox infected blankets and make them march halfway accross the country, barefoot, in the Winter, to a tiny parcel of land reserved especially for them.




--
 
I can't watch the video. Here's what I don't like.
He has no judicial experience and worked only a few years in private practice
Click to expand...
The "originalist" views of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, centered on the original meaning of the Constitution when it was written and amended, are "seriously flawed,"
Click to expand...
"Original understandings are an important source of constitutional meaning, but so too are the other sources that judges, elected officials, and everyday citizens regularly invoke: the purpose and structure of the Constitution, the lessons of precedent and historical experience, the practical consequences of legal rules, and the evolving norms and traditions of our society," they wrote in "Keeping Faith With the Constitution."
Click to expand...

He will have no qualms about eviscerating the Constitution even more than it has been already as long as it furthers his agenda.

As for reparations...my family didn't come to the U.S. until 1965, and my parents had to struggle against discrimination too. Will I have to pay as well? Or will the gubment give me reparations?
 
I really wanted to post something mean but I won't...sigh. Please take away my family's hard earned money. Somehow we managed to pull ourselves out of being broke, no reparations required.
 
heyheybooboo said:
I support reparations.

We'll just give Blacks small-pox infected blankets and make them march halfway accross the country, barefoot, in the Winter, to a tiny parcel of land reserved especially for them.




--
Click to expand...

You and your family should do it first and get back to us.
 
Red Dawn said:
I will say this, due to his radical views regarding reparations it would prudent to really vet this guy to see what his views are on other things that may come into play if he were to be seated.
Click to expand...

This. I don't think you can disqualify someone for taking an extreme view on one issue (unless it's genocide or something like that), but the fact that he has one extreme view could indicate that he has others.

- wolf
 
ProfJohn said:
When people from his own state oppose him you have to wonder.
Click to expand...
Those aren't just any "people". DAs have a specific political agenda. It's better to read that with the same salt shaker as any press release from a lobbying group. Not saying I like where the guy's legal thinking (or complete disdain for legal thinking) might take his rulings, but there are better reasons to say that he is unfit.
 
I'm torn. He's asian and I'd like to see more asians in higher position of government and still be consider a real minority and none of this crap of being overrepresented. We're essentially ignored. Asians work hard and deserve to the fruits of their labor just like whites, blacks, hispanics, etc.

But then this whole reparations shit is just out there.
 
Red Dawn said:
That is an unpopular opinion even among most Liberals and would never come to fruition. In addition his position on the appellate court wouldn't enable him to make it happen as it would have to be proposed and voted on in Congress and then signed into law by the President which wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

From the bench he can push "social justice"
 
Double Trouble said:
I'd agree that it's not going to happen any time soon, but putting someone that has such an extreme view of things (well outside the mainstream) on the 9th circuit court of appeals seems absurd. Anyone who would support some of his views is apparently of the rational thought and analysis required to hold such an important position.

The "right" has gone apeshit over too many silly things over the past year and a half, but preventing people with radical views from getting to the high levels of the judicial systems is something worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

How exactly is reparations extreme? If my father worked for 40 years and wasn't paid, shouldn't I expect to be able to sue after his death and get the money he earned?

To think of reparations as some kind of extremist evil is to say "I'm all for reaping the benefits of slavery, but don't you dare make me pay for them, rabble rabble!!"
 
Throckmorton said:
How exactly is reparations extreme? If my father worked for 40 years and wasn't paid, shouldn't I expect to be able to sue after his death and get the money he earned?

To think of reparations as some kind of extremist evil is to say "I'm all for reaping the benefits of slavery, but don't you dare make me pay for them, rabble rabble!!"
Click to expand...
Sure I'm all for paying a child of a slave reparations but not their great great grandchildren.

I also believe the lives lost by the Union Soldiers was payment enough even if their sacrifice wasn't originally intended to free the slaves.
 
Red Dawn said:
Sure I'm all for paying a child of a slave reparations but not their great great grandchildren.

I also believe the lives lost by the Union Soldiers was payment enough even if their sacrifice wasn't originally intended to free the slaves.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to draw a line arbitrarily at some number of generations, but it's another to act like reparations is fascism or some crap like that.


I thought the Civil War "wasn't about slavery", so how could those Union soldiers possibly have been fighting to free the slaves?? 😀
But assuming this left wing revisionist version of history in which the North freed the slaves is true, when did the South ever pay back slaves and their ancestors? Was it the 100 years of Jim Crow? How about this-- let's stop redistributing wealth from the North to the South, and use that money for reparations.
 
Last edited:
Throckmorton said:
It's one thing to draw a line arbitrarily at some number of generations, but it's another to act like reparations is fascism or some crap like that.


I thought the Civil War "wasn't about slavery", so how could those Union soldiers possibly have been fighting to free the slaves?? 😀
But assuming this left wing revisionist version of history in which the North freed the slaves is true, when did the South ever pay back slaves and their ancestors? Was it the 100 years of Jim Crow?
Click to expand...

what part of even if their sacrifice wasn't originally intended to free the slaves. don't you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top