Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on May 26, 2009, 10:55:35 AM
-
I know nothing about her. I'm not sure "she saved baseball" is that ringing of an endorsement as a claim to judicial fame. =|
-----------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090526/pl_nm/us_usa_court_nominee_11
Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
By David Alexander David Alexander 17 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama nominated Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, selecting a woman who would be the court's first Latino to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
Obama's choice of the liberal Sotomayor, a 54-year-old judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, was unlikely to change the ideological balance of the high court because Souter, 69, was part of the panel's liberal wing.
The court, which decides controversial cases on abortion and the death penalty, has been closely divided on many contentious issues, with a five-member conservative majority and four dissenting liberal justices. Sotomayor was expected to be a reliable liberal vote.
Conservatives quickly moved to criticize the choice, but political analysts said that, barring an unexpected scandal, there was little chance the nomination could be derailed. Supreme Court justices serve for life but their nomination must be approved by the U.S. Senate, where Obama's fellow Democrats have a majority.
"I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the great state of New York," Obama said in a White House event announcing his decision.
Sotomayor, a child of Puerto Rican parents, is most widely known for her decision as a trial judge in 1995 to bar Major League Baseball from using replacement players, ending a nearly year-long strike.
"Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball," Obama told the White House crowd.
Based on her rulings as a trial judge and then a U.S. appeals court judge in New York, Sotomayor's views would in many respects be similar those of outgoing Justice Souter.
As an appeals court judge, she has often sided with plaintiffs in cases involving race, sex, age and disability discrimination and has ruled against businesses in cases on environmental law and securities litigation. The two business rulings were later reversed by the Supreme Court.
Hoping to show a consultative approach, Obama had been meeting with key Democratic and Republican members of the Senate as he weighed a short list of mostly women to replace Souter.
Obama interviewed Sotomayor on Thursday at the White House and called her on Monday to ask her to take the Supreme Court position, a White House official said on condition of anonymity.
-
Sotomayor, a child of Puerto Rican parents, is most widely known for her decision as a trial judge in 1995 to bar Major League Baseball from using replacement players, ending a nearly year-long strike.
Ah, a Union supporter. Whodathunkit?
-
Here's a much longer article about her:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30938978/
Mini-bio excerpted:
Sonia Sotomayor biography
Name: Sonia Sotomayor
Age-Birthdate-Location: 54; June 25, 1954; New York, N.Y.
Experience: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present;
judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; private practice,
New York City, 1984-1992; assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984
Education: B.A., Princeton University, 1976; J.D., Yale Law School, 1979.
Quote: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says
what it says. We should do honor to it." — during a 1997 nomination hearing.
I like the quote at the end.
-
Was she the one who was filmed while joking about "making policy" from the bench?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html
IN this article, she states that 2A is a restriction on federal laws infringing on RKBA. This is a fascinating position to take, as it (1) would seem to make her a vote against a federal AWB, and (2) may be something of a point of discussion for her in terms o fthe 14th Amendment applicability to the states. For if 1A, 4A, and 5A are all applicable to states under 14A, then should not 2A also be applicable to the states?
What impresses me about her is that, despite my disagreement with her on RKBA, her reasoning (at least on the surface) has less to do with firearms as an issue, but upon constitutional interpretation.
-
If you're looking for her to save RKBA the way she saved baseball, you may be disappointed. Take a look at the Ricci case, now under review by SCOTUS; that will give you a better sense of how she sees the world and what it may mean for America.
-
“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”
...wha?
-
Remember....she is a dimokrat, being appointed by a dimokrat. What is the first thing out of the mouth of a dimokrat.......a lie......chris3
-
This just in from: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
From The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corruption, by Bob Ingle and Sandy McClure, p. 213:
“[Former Chief of Staff to New Jersey Governor James Florio Joseph C.] Salema could have spent up to 10 years behind bars for steering government bond business to First Fidelity in exchange for payments in a scheme that netted him hundreds of thousands of dollars,” the Trentonian reported. U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor instead sentenced him to six months in a halfway house and six months of home detention, fined him $10,000 and gave him 1400 hours of community service.
A $10,000 fine to someone who pleads guilty to a federal charge of sharing in more than $200,000 in kickbacks. Boy, that will teach him!
-
If you're looking for her to save RKBA the way she saved baseball, you may be disappointed. Take a look at the Ricci case, now under review by SCOTUS; that will give you a better sense of how she sees the world and what it may mean for America.
Don't get me wrong. I don't count on her, or any judge, to rule a particular way. One of the key points I learned in law school...there are three kinds of law:
1. The law in the books
2. The law that the professor tells you about
3. The law of the judge in whose courtroom you are appearing
What I thought was interesting, and unique, was the position that 2A does prohibit restrictions on RKBA. Even if she's arguing that it prohibits only federal restrictions, in so doing she's at the same time recognizing that 2A does prohibit governmental restrictions. What I am curious to see is how she reconciles that position with 14A, and the manner in which previous courts have used 14A to extend the other rights of the Bill of RIghts to states, despite being a federal document.
Then again, it could just end up like my Con Law professor in law school..."2A means states can have a national guard. Why? because that's what it says. end of discussion."
-
Well, she fills the female and minority requirements. She's also unmarried (divorced in '83), so she just might fill the gay/lesbian quota as well.
-
What I thought was interesting, and unique, was the position that 2A does prohibit restrictions on RKBA. Even if she's arguing that it prohibits only federal restrictions, in so doing she's at the same time recognizing that 2A does prohibit governmental restrictions.
Until the second amendment is incorporated, she's exactly right.
[deleted because it's lame --Nitrogen]
So far she seems, at worst, not a follower of the collective rights theory on the second, and at best, she might even be a supporter.
Hopefully as people dig into her previous cases, this pans out.
-
Or she'll cave to the "popular" position espoused by those on the confirmation committee, which includes the Hononrable Dinae Feinstein and the Honorable Cuarles Schumer, just to give some sense of the way the cards are stacked.
-
I think this says it all-
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)
-
Well, she fills the female and minority requirements. She's also unmarried (divorced in '83), so she just might fill the gay/lesbian quota as well.
That would make eligible to also be the Poet Laureate of the USA or any other western country.
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but frankly I am tired of hearing how someone else's life experience is "richer" and more "diverse" than my own because I happen to have been born white and male. This is unadulterated racism and sexism and, in the mouth of anyone else would be rightfully mocked and derided for the foolishness it contains.
-
I think this says it all-
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)
Please disregard my earlier posts. I no longer am interested in her or her philosophies, as I am sure she would not be interested in mine as a "white male who hasn't lived that life."
-
I think this says it all-
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)
Screw that noise.
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but frankly I am tired of hearing how someone else's life experience is "richer" and more "diverse" than my own because I happen to have been born white and male. This is unadulterated racism and sexism and, in the mouth of anyone else would be rightfully mocked and derided for the foolishness it contains.
Hmm...
This is really very funny to me. In another thread, a liberal columnist is talking about how we need to force people who are "fortunate" (lucky) "through accident of birth" to share with others not so lucky.
Why is this woman getting special treatment "through accident of birth"?
Why should she get nominated to the Supreme Court simply because of the accident of her birth?!
Shouldn't we give the position to some poor white man who is now suffering a lack of perspective because she got lucky in the "lottery of life"?
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but frankly I am tired of hearing how someone else's life experience is "richer" and more "diverse" than my own because I happen to have been born white and male. This is unadulterated racism and sexism and, in the mouth of anyone else would be rightfully mocked and derided for the foolishness it contains.
I can buy that.
Maybe I lived a richer life. I grew up in a small Iowa city along the Mississippi River. I lived with both of my parents in a green 3 bedroom colonial style house not far from lots of woods where I played as a kid. I learned outdoor skills in the Boy Scouts, I learned discipline in the Civil Air Patrol and I spent most Sunday mornings at St John the Baptist Church. My parents liked to do activities as a family and my parents and my friends parents also like to be involved in the goings on of my friends and I. I learned to respect the outdoors by my father taking my fishing and hunting as soon as I was mature enough to do.
Etc, etc.
-
I can buy that.
Maybe I lived a richer life. I grew up in a small Iowa city along the Mississippi River. I lived with both of my parents in a green 3 bedroom colonial style house not far from lots of woods where I played as a kid. I learned outdoor skills in the Boy Scouts, I learned discipline in the Civil Air Patrol and I spent most Sunday mornings at St John the Baptist Church. My parents liked to do activities as a family and my parents and my friends parents also like to be involved in the goings on of my friends and I. I learned to respect the outdoors by my father taking my fishing and hunting as soon as I was mature enough to do.
Etc, etc.
[liberal sneer] Sorry, none of that counts as "life experience" unless you were discriminated against or otherwise repressed. [/liberal sneer]
-
Was she the one who was filmed while joking about "making policy" from the bench?
Yep, she's the one. She is nothing but a racist, leftist, lying gold digger.
-
[liberal sneer] Sorry, none of that counts as "life experience" unless you were discriminated against or otherwise repressed. [/liberal sneer]
My parents refused to buy me "Guess" or "Z Cavaricci" jeans in High School. So I was oppressed because I wasn't able to be fashion conscious in High School.
-
My parents refused to buy me "Guess" or "Z Cavaricci" jeans in High School. So I was oppressed because I wasn't able to be fashion conscious in High School.
I thought Guess (umm, 180lbs?) jeans were for girls only. No clue what Z Cavaricci is. What sort of yuppie paradise did you come from?
Chris
-
I thought Guess (umm, 180lbs?) jeans were for girls only. No clue what Z Cavaricci is. What sort of yuppie paradise did you come from?
Chris
They had them for dudes too, both brands were sold at the mall in a store called "The Brass Buckle". What sort of yuppie paradise I grew up in? Burlington, IA an industrial river town, kind of like a steel town but much cleaner.
-
Rest assured she would not have been tapped unless she is fully lined up behind the agenda of the power brokers, whatever that agenda is.
-
Obama is the kind of "romantic" who thinks you get "real wisdom" in the Projects.
Not that he would know personally.
This country is turning into reality tv, and ugly duckling make-overs are part of that, disguised as "a great personal story." It's all part of the massthink. Sotomayor's life of "hardship" ended at 18, with Princeton; she's had 36 pretty golden years since from what I can tell. But what she really learned from a family on welfare is anyone's guess. Trouble is, the reality of the situation just doesn't matter to a lot of people any more.
-
Not that he would know personally.
Hasn't Obama spent some time working in such places?
-
Video of Obama introducing Sotomayor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqShO72gQq4
At about 0.56, he says that the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago. Unless he's talking about the Old Testament or something.
-
Seems like the type of candidate you would expect to be nominated from a member of Rev Wright's flock. :mad:
Is there anyone out there that still isn't convinced that Obama is a radical socialist and a racist?
-
My experiences growing up are a bit like Charby's through about age 13. About then my dad lost his job in his mid 40's when I was getting ready to go into high school in 1957. No age descrimination then, and no one was hiring "old guys" like my dad. Clothing became hand me downs, food was pretty basic, and I had to go to public school instead of the Catholic school because we didn't have the $35.00 yearly tuition. To say we had to scramble for the necessities was an understatement. My dad got hired by the post office after monumental study on his part so he could pass the postal exam. That exam was excrutiatingly difficult in those days. He worked hard to overcome.
Those experiences prepared me to be able to overcome set backs in life. Made me more determined to not be put in the same position as my dad. The last time I looked, education is free through 12 grades, and there are no laws stopping anyone from excelling as long as one has the drive and ambition. Opportunity exists in America. I have no patience with people who believe that life is a zero sum game like Obama and his ilk. A good deal of the so called poor and oppressed are that way because they would rather wait for the handout that zero sum game politicians promise. Certain political ideology promotes victimhood.
Race, sex, and life experience should have nothing to do with appointments to the federal bench. It should be about a track record of being faithful to our founding documents and sticking to those principles. A judge who legislates from the bench is not fit to be part of the judiciary as that contravenes the separation of powers. It is so sad to see how far down and coarse we have become as a nation because we have failed to hang onto the principle that we are a society of laws rather than of the whim of Man.
-
.... and there are no laws stopping anyone from excelling as long as one has the drive and ambition.
Bush's "no child left behind"?
At about 0.56, he says that the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago. Unless he's talking about the Old Testament or something.
I laughed outloud at this one. I'm sure he was just reading whatever was on the teleprompter, but he said it so dramatically with that "serious emotional conviction" face. Maybe his writers meant 20 decades.
-
Hasn't Obama spent some time working in such places?
He's dabbled in the ghetto but he's lived a life of privilege. My point was that he's myth-making. This is another attempt to transmogrify American values. Now he's moved on to judicial values. Detachment and rational analysis used to be the criteria; now, apparently, it's the inverse of that: empathy, emotional immersion. But not all are equally empathetic or to be empathized with. This is dangerous ground and fatal to our core principles. Either all are equal before The Law or they are not.
-
And re the Second Amendment & Sotomayor, this:
May 26th, 2009 11:47 AM Eastern
KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.
If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.
The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.
Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.
But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.
There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.
These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.
Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.
-
Is there anyone out there that still isn't convinced that Obama is a radical socialist and a racist?
There are plenty of people out there who are still happily ignorant of Obama's true character.
-
Interesting view of gun owners' place in Sotomayor's nomination fight.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor-and-the-second-amendment/ Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 5:46 pm | Lyle Denniston |
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, already facing bitter criticism from gun rights advocates for an appeals court decision she joined last January, may have to choose whether to take part when the constitutional issue at stake comes up before the Supreme Court (assuming that she is confirmed). As of now, the first case in line on that issue is the one on which she ruled as a judge of the Second Circuit Court — Maloney v. Cuomo.
The Maloney decision (Second Circuit docket 07-581) involves the next major issue on the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which guarantees a “right to keep and bear arms.” The issue is whether that Amendment applies to state and local government, thus restricting their power to control individuals’ private possession of pistols and other guns. The Supreme Court ruled last year, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, for self-defense, in the home.
The Court, however, did not settle whether the Amendment operates against any level of government other than the federal government and a federal entity, the District of Columbia. The Second Circuit, in the Maloney case, ruled that prior Supreme Court precedent saying that the Amendment only applied at the federal level is still binding law. Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge panel that issued the unsigned ruling.
In reaction to her nomination, supporters of broad rights under the Second Amendment exploded. For example, Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative advocacy group, Committee for Justice, wrote: “Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he’s supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don’t have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they’re drawn into the debate. Obama’s selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.”
The Maloney case is now scheduled to be challenged in the Supreme Court by June 26. Sotomayor, as a Justice, almost certainly would take herself out of consideration of that case, because of her prior participation in it at the Circuit Court.
Other cases raising the same question, however, are moving along in lower courts, and it is possible that the Justices may see more of those, perhaps over the summer months. If that happens, the Court may have other vehicles to choose from, thus perhaps giving Sotomayor a chance to get involved.
The Ninth Circuit Court in April became the first federal appeals court to rule that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local government — thus assuring the kind of Circuit split that often leads the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the disput.e
The Ninth Circuit did so in the case of Nordyke, et al., v. King (Circuit docket 07-15763). Although there was a chance that the Nordyke case could be appealed soon to the Supreme Court, in time to compete with the Maloney case for the Court’s attention on the Second Amendment question, that prospect dimmed last week. A judge of the Ninth Circuit called for a vote on whether the full en banc Court should consider the case. Both sides were ordered to file simultaneous briefs on that question by June 8 — thus slowing down the pace of that case.
Another case on the same issue involves the leader of the Nation’s gun rights forces — the National Rifle Association. Its lawsuit seeking to have the Second Amendment apply to state and local government (National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago) was heard Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court (docket 08-4241). An early decision is expected in that case; indications at the oral argument were that two of the judges were deeply skeptical of the NRA’s plea (see this analysis by law professor Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for this link.)
Another Second Amendment case moving toward a decision, in the Fifth Circuit Court, does not involve the question of applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities. But it does test whether the right recognized by the Supreme Court is a “fundamenal” one; if it is of that rank, that very likely would lead to its application to state and local government. (The Fifth Circuit case is Bledsoe v. U.S., docket 08-51217. Briefing was completed in March. Both sides have waived oral argument.)
If Sotomayor as a member of the Supreme Court does take part in the next round on the Second Amendment, it is unclear just what difference that would make. She would replace retiring Justice David H. Souter, who dissented in the Court’s 5-4 ruling in Heller establishing a personal right to have a gun in the home.
If the same five Justices who made up the Heller majority were to rule that the Amendment reaches below the federal government, Sotomayor’s vote probably would not be decisive. She could bolster a majority, if she were so inclined, in favor of the broader application, of course.
I seriously doubt gun owners are sufficiently powerful to throw the nomination into doubt.
-
World Nut Daily is reproting that she is a member of La Raza.
That by itself should be enough to disqualify her if true.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420)
-
There are members of La Raza high up in the Obama administration.
They interface nicely with ACORN.
-
I seriously doubt gun owners are sufficiently powerful to throw the nomination into doubt.
Sufficiently powerful, or sufficiently interested? In any event, I agree that gun owners will have little to say about this nomination, comparitively speaking.
-
As lousy as her views are on that, she's really no change from how Souter dissented on Heller vs. D.C.
I'm much more concerned that she's a member of La Raza. =|
-
I'm much more concerned that she's a member of La Raza.
So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?
-
So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?
How is it any better?
None of the conservatives here would allow David Duke to sit on SCOTUS. Silly argument.
-
Racism is racism, no matter the color of the sheet.
-
Got this from John Derbyshire:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDhkYzg5ZGZiMDMzNDYwNWE4NDhiOGU2MTI2ZjQ0OGM=
All hail the brave and wise Latina!
Compelling is her story!
And jurisprudent her demeanor —
She's on the path to glory!
At SCOTUS she'll make policy
(What need for legislators?)
More jobs! More opportunity!
For twofer second-raters.
Latina wisdom, egged on by
La Raza mischief-makers,
With fill her soul with empathy
(Though not for white test-takers).
-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQxOGZlYTJmY2JkZWYyMTM4YWMwYjU1M2I4MjY2YTM=
The trouble with posting doggerel is, it wakes all the other doggerelists.
Mr. Derbyshire — If I might suggest a final stanza to your fine ode:
For the rule of law, for much too long
Has been macho demasiado;
A wise Latina may well suggest
It’s better off castrado.
The species doggerelistia includes of course the subspecies haikuniensis:
Derb — How can you cite odes but not haikus? I'll offer a few to start things off.
Latina woman
A member of La Raza
Lots of empathy
Policy-making
Is done by Courts of Appeals
The real lawmakers
No white males needed
Sotomayor knows better
Our newest Justice
-
Racism is racism, no matter the color of the sheet.
This one hasn't been properly re-educated yet. Send him to the gulags vacation camps in Siberia northern Alaska!
PC-speech police => :police:
-
When she was nominated, I really didn't have a strong opinion about Sotomayer. I didn't know anything about her more than what the President said and her comments. A few days have passed and I don't believe she is a friend of 2nd Amendment rights. I believe she is an activist judge who believes the Constitution is a living document that is changed to fit the times through legal rulings rather than going through the legislative process.
Her comment about her life's experience giving her the tools to make better rulings than a white man certainly said it all after I let it sink in a bit and digest. It has broad ramifications about her belief structure.
-
When she was nominated, I really didn't have a strong opinion about Sotomayer. I didn't know anything about her more than what the President said and her comments. A few days have passed and I don't believe she is a friend of 2nd Amendment rights. I believe she is an activist judge who believes the Constitution is a living document that is changed to fit the times through legal rulings rather than going through the legislative process.
Her comment about her life's experience giving her the tools to make better rulings than a white man certainly said it all after I let it sink in a bit and digest. It has broad ramifications about her belief structure.
Which is exactly the type of judge he wanted to appoint.
-
One Sottomayer is one more than we can afford; one will become two, and two is a game-changer.
-
I agree that she is exactly the kind of judge that Obama wanted to nominate. I didn't expect anything less. But Obama is painting a different picture which makes me distrust him. Words have meaning.
-
I'm just glad that he picked a wise Latino woman....as a white man, I just don't feel that I could be wise enough to be a proper Supreme Court
Justice Activist.... ;/
-
Another Obama appointee who wasn't vetted adequately.
And now he's doing his Orwell thing again: WE are the racists, not Sotomayor. Ain't buyin' it.
This is a "law professor" who clearly does not understand, or wishes not to understand, the role of the highest court in the land. That is not only depressing, it's ominous.
Even more ominous is the feckless response by too many in the GOP. They want "civil debate" when the war whoops have become the music of our time.
-
So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?
Oh, it's not. But which of the Justices represents the KKK?
-
Obama does understand the role of the Supreme Court. If he were on the Court, he'd be an activist judge. Obama would sail through the nomination process personally as he would answer every question exactly correctly (ie constitutionally). Then he would do what he wants to as many liberal politicans have done for years. BHO nominated exactly the kind of judge that fits his own character and what he believes he'd like to shape the court in the future. He knows the easiest way to make permanent liberal change is through the court/ though liberal interpetation of the Constitution. Gun control... heck, use the courts to make rulings that he would have a great deal of trouble getting passed legislatively. All you need is a majority of judges and the right case to have them make a revisionist decision. Few question the integrity of the court, but they queston the integrity of legislators.
-
Smile of a Cheshire
Eyes twitching as though in flight
Scales of Justice tip
Aw, c'mon! Ya know if she was conservative, the comedians would be all over her by now... :rolleyes:
DD
-
Obama does understand the role of the Supreme Court. If he were on the Court, he'd be an activist judge. Obama would sail through the nomination process personally as he would answer every question exactly correctly (ie constitutionally). Then he would do what he wants to as many liberal politicans have done for years. BHO nominated exactly the kind of judge that fits his own character and what he believes he'd like to shape the court in the future. He knows the easiest way to make permanent liberal change is through the court/ though liberal interpetation of the Constitution. Gun control... heck, use the courts to make rulings that he would have a great deal of trouble getting passed legislatively. All you need is a majority of judges and the right case to have them make a revisionist decision. Few question the integrity of the court, but they queston the integrity of legislators.
What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again? I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.
I'd like to know what the hallmark of a "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution is myself. For the most part, it obviously does not prohibit leftist policy on the part of the Government...and the Supreme Court can't order spending for a program, which is where most of the left-right debate happens.
-
What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again? I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.
I'd like to know what the hallmark of a "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution is myself. For the most part, it obviously does not prohibit leftist policy on the part of the Government...and the Supreme Court can't order spending for a program, which is where most of the left-right debate happens.
A "liberal" will make decisions based on how they affect people and progressive policy, and not just the abstract of the law.
-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRkYThkNDUzN2ZhOTUwOTEyMjIyZGQ2MjcxMzBmMDY=
Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror? [Andy McCarthy]
In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused "for cause" — the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or "peremptory") jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.
And the stress on impartiality does not end once the prospective jurors, after being carefully vetted for any hint of bias or prejudice during voir dire (the selection process), are finally selected to sit as trial jurors. Instead, the admonition to consider the case fairly, impartially, and without bias of any kind is often repeated many times throughout the trial. And even after that, it is standard procedure to drum the obligation into the jurors again right before they retire to deliberate on a verdict. Here is the standard instruction:
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
Now let's forget labels like "racist" for a moment. In our society, "racist" is a radioactive term, whether or not it's applied accurately. I want instead to home in on the premium our law places on impartiality — how noxious it regards the very notion that any important decision might be "influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex." No one is saying that those attitudes don't exist, or even that someone is necessarily a bad person for having such attitudes — sometimes such attitudes are fostered by bitter life experiences that people find themselves unable to get over. But we strive to keep those attitudes out of our law — even to the point of expecting prospective jurors to tell us honestly whether they have such biases so we can make certain they don't get on a jury. Non-biased decision-making, we tell every ordinary citizen called for jury duty, is the most basic obligation of service in the legal system.
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
-
and whats your point?obama is not eligable to work for the secret service but.......
-
What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again? I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.
I don't think there's been a right-wing court since Charles Hughes was the Chief Justice. The definitions of what is "right" and "left" wing are subjective anyway.
-
Oh, it's not. But which of the Justices represents the KKK?
Ironically the KKK hated Catholics as well and now we'll have a court chock full of them.
Obviously taking their marching orders directly from the Pope.
=D
-
Oh, it's not. But which of the Justices represents the KKK?
They have a Senator....Robert Byrd (D-WV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[6]
According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[6] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[6]
In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:[9]
“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [6][10]
-
So... the Kluckers have ONE senator, and that equates to La Raza having a Justice?
-
How is La Raza like the Klan? I thought it was more like the NAACP, except for Spanish-Americans?
-
A piece by Georgia Representative Charlie Norwoord (my former Representative), this is a pretty good primer on La Raza and its sub organizations.
Jeff B.
Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'
by Rep. Charlie Norwood
04/07/2006
The nation's television screens many days recently have been filled with scenes of huge crowds carrying the colorful green and red flag of Mexico viewers could well have thought it was a national holiday in Mexico City.
It was instead, downtown Los Angeles, Calif., although the scene was recreated in numerous other cities around the country with substantial Mexican populations. Hordes of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, were protesting the very U.S. immigration laws they were violating with impunity. They found it offensive and a violation of their rights that the U.S. dared to have immigration laws to begin with.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa mounted the podium, but any hopes that he would quiet the crowds and defend the law were soon dashed. Villaraigosa, himself, has spent a lifetime opposing U.S. immigration law.
For law-abiding Americans without knowledge of the dark side of our current illegal immigration crisis, all this is unfathomable. For those who know the truth about the "La Raza" movement, these demonstrations were a prophecy fulfilled.
It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of "La Raza" -- The Race.
There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall "La Raza" movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza -- the Council of "The Race".
To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.
But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.
The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for "housing reform," while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
The Mexican flag flew over a crowd of pro-amnesty marchers in New York. Marches like this across the U.S. have been supported by the “La Raza” movement. (Reuters/Seth Wenig)
Radical 'Reconquista' Agenda
Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.
Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."
That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."
If these morally sickening MEChA quotes were coming from some fringe website, Americans could at least console themselves that it was just a small group of nuts behind it. Nearly every racial and ethnic group has some shady characters and positions in its past and some unbalanced individuals today claiming racial superiority and demanding separatism. But this is coming straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Colorado, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.
MEChA was in fact reported to be one of the main organizers of those street demonstrations we witnessed over the past weeks. That helps explain why those hordes of illegal immigrants weren't asking for amnesty -- they were demanding an end to U.S. law, period. Unlike past waves of immigrants who sought to become responsible members of American society, these protesters reject American society altogether, because they have been taught that America rightfully belongs to them.
MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.
This plan is what is referred to as the "Reconquista" or reconquest, of the Western U.S.
But it won't end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."
As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
MEChA Plants
Members of these radical, anti-American, racist organizations are frequently smoothly polished into public respectability by the National Council of La Raza.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and was awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez Award. Now we know why he refuses to condemn a sea of foreign flags in his city. California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is also a former MEChA member. He delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 Annual Convention.
The National Council of La Raza and its allies in public office make no repudiation of the radical MEChA and its positions. In fact, as recently as 2003, La Raza was actively funding MEChA, according to federal tax records.
Imagine Robert Byrd's refusing to disavow the views of the KKK, or if Strom Thurmond had failed to admit segregation was wrong. Imagine Heritage or Brookings Foundation making grants to the American Nazi Party.
Is the National Council of La Raza itself a racist organization? Regardless of the organization's suspect ties, the majority of its members are not. When one examines all the organization's activities, they are commendable non-profit projects, such as education and housing programs.
But even these defensible efforts raise the question of whether education and housing programs funded with federal tax dollars should be used in programs specifically targeted to benefit just one ethnic group.
La Raza defenders usually respond by calling anyone making these allegations "a racist" for having called attention to La Raza's racist links. All the groups and public officials with ties to the La Raza movement can take a big step towards disproving these allegations by simply following the examples of Senators Byrd and Thurmond and repenting of their past ways.
If they are unwilling to admit past misdeeds, they can at least state -- unequivocally -- that they officially oppose the racist and anti-American positions of MEChA, and any other groups that espouse similar views.
Through public appearances, written statements, and on their respective websites, La Raza groups and allies must:
1. Denounce the motto "For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada," as repugnant, racist, and totally incompatible with American society or citizenship.
2. Acknowledge the right of all Americans to live wherever they choose in the U.S. without segregation.
3. Commit to sponsorship of nationwide educational programs to combat racism and anti-Semitism in the Hispanic community.
4. Denounce and sever all ties with MEChA and any other organizations with which they have ever been associated which held to the racist doctrines held by MEChA.
5. Acknowledge the internationally recognized borders of the U.S., the right of the citizens of the U.S. to determine immigration policy through the democratic process, and the right of the U.S. to undertake any and all necessary steps to effectively enforce immigration law and defend its border against unauthorized entry.
6. Repudiate all claims that current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico.
If the National Council of La Raza, other La Raza groups, and local and national political leaders with past ties and associations with the radical elements of the La Raza movement can publicly issue such a statement and live by every one of these principles, they should be welcomed into the American public policy arena, with past sins -- real or imaginary -- forgiven.
If they cannot publicly and fully support these principles, Congress needs to take appropriate steps and immediately bar any group refusing to comply from receiving any future federal funds. Both the House and Senate should strike these groups from testifying before any committees, and the White House should sever all ties. Both political parties should disengage from any further contact with these groups and individuals.
There are plenty of decent, patriotic Hispanic organizations and elected officials to provide Congress with necessary feedback on specific issues confronting Americans of Latino heritage. Any group or individual who can agree with the simple six points should be welcomed into that fold.
If not, the American people will know there's a wolf in their midst, and take the necessary precautions to defend our Republic against an enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Norwood, a Republican, represents the 9th District of Georgia.
-
Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[6]
I don't agree with the KKK in any way whatsoever, but I almost want to join simply so I can get a badass title.
I want to be the "Night Hawk". muwahaha
-
Micro, I agree. It has mostly been a predictable constitutionalist court. The constitution does not forbid leftism, and I think that's where most of the bum rap comes from.
-
Okay these topics were redundant so I merged 'em.
-
Micro, I agree. It has mostly been a predictable constitutionalist court. T
How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?
-
How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?
He's a lawyer.
-
Ironically the KKK hated Catholics as well and now we'll have a court chock full of them.
Obviously taking their marching orders directly from the Pope.
=D
I HATE when that happens!
-
What if the real intent is to make the Court irrelevant?
Many think we have a rogue Executive and a rogue Congress; is a rogue SCOTUS far behind?
-
What if the real intent is to make the Court irrelevant?
Many think we have a rogue Executive and a rogue Congress; is a rogue SCOTUS far behind?
We've had a rogue SCOTUS for decades. Sotomayor's record shows she would make it even more tyrannical.
-
Maybe my point wasn't clear. I'm saying that SCOTUS will be perceived as rogue; in other words, people will no longer give a fig what the Court rules any more than they will trust the results of ACORN-infected elections.
That will be the "point of inflection" in America, the complete rending of the social compact.
-
How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?
How was my response "the reverse" of what you said? I was agreeing that it hasn't been a right wing court.
Similarly, I was maintaining my position that it hasn't been a left wing court.
It's mostly just narrowly ruled on constitutional grounds, and been fairly predictable (except for its reversal of commerce clause jurisprudence and text in the 90's). What it has not done is give expansive rulings that make all sets of facts amenable to predictable outcomes in the future.
I'd like some examples of the rogue Supreme Court post Warren. Where are all these rogue decisions?
-
Define a "rogue decision", please?
-
Here's an recent article written by David Limbaugh on Sotomayer. It is interesting.
I simply want a judge to be as impartial as is humanly possible and Sotomayer has demonstrated that she personally is far from impartial. She may be a smart woman, have a long judicial record, etc., but I don't think the Supreme Court is the place for her.
http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Sotomayor_Obama_empathy/2009/06/02/220519.html
Newsmax.com
Sotomayor Fits Obama's 'Get-Even' Power Approach
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:02 AM
By: David Limbaugh
It amazes me that, for all the attention Judge Sonia Sotomayor has attracted for a racially charged statement in a 2001 speech, few are tying her attitude to President Barack Obama's.
Just as he knew precisely what his 20-year pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was about, and approved, he knew before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor what she is about, and approved.
In both cases, he just didn't want us to know.
During that 2001 speech at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "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."
Obama's apologists claim Sotomayor's statement was taken out of context. But the context of her prepared remarks makes the statement more — not less — incriminating.
The sentences preceding the statement were: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice (Sandra Day) 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 that I agree with the statement."
First, it's important to note that she's not talking about trial judges, for example, who might be more or less lenient in their sentencing within the prescribed sentencing guidelines, but about appellate judges applying the law.
Next, Sotomayor is not just saying that, as imperfect human beings, judges sometimes rule differently because, try as they might to be impartial, no human being can be totally impartial.
Nor is she saying merely that women, based on their gender, rule differently from men or that those of different nationalities rule differently based on those differences, but that they should do so and that their rulings usually are superior because of it.
Are you getting this? She is saying women and minority judges should not even strive toward objectivity, impartiality, or blind justice. Rather, they should indulge their subjective experiences to apply the law with partiality aforethought, presumably to remedy past perceived or actual wrongs, even if objective application of the law does not warrant it. They should ignore or twist the law to achieve their desired policy result.
To the objection that Sotomayor was just theorizing in a harmless speech, I would respond by reminding you — again — of her pivotal role in that now-notorious concrete case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she summarily and cavalierly affirmed a district court's decision to cheat firefighters of their duly earned promotions because no black candidates passed the tests.
Talk about empathy all you want, but she and her judicial colleagues displayed no empathy for those who played by the rules. With strokes of their pens, they discriminated against successful candidates and caused them real damage by changing the rules after the fact — not to mention the damage their ruling might have caused to the quality of fire departments, whose job is to save lives and property.
Those ordinarily quickest to cry "racism" are expressing outrage that certain commentators have used that term to describe Sotomayor's statements and rulings that would be condemned universally if somebody such as, say, Trent Lott, made them. But the fact remains that Sotomayor apparently approves of reverse discrimination, and President Obama must have known that in advance.
Obama is a militant proponent of get-evenism, that is, using the power of the state — actually, misusing the power of the state — to even the score for minorities and/or the economically less fortunate.
After all, Obama is the one who said: "Solving our racial problems in this country will require concrete steps, significant investment. We have a lot of work to do to overcome the long legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. It can't be purchased on the cheap."
Are we to assume that the Civil War and the civil rights movement were "on the cheap"?
And Obama's Justice Department just inexplicably dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther members who intimidated voters and polling judges at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008. This, despite the fact that one civil rights lawyer said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen and the fact that the defendants didn't even bother to file pleadings with the court or raise any defenses to the charges.
Regardless of whether race played a factor in this dismissal, Obama has a long way to go before claiming he's a post-racial president.
Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and reverse racism is racism. None of us is exempted of our duty to rise above them.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book
"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" recently was released in paperback. To find out more about him, visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
© 2009 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
-
So, has she been officially confirmed yet?
-
Here's another story on her that raises some concern. Note the bolded (by me) text. I don't want a Justice that can't bring herself to say "United States". I don't care if it WAS in her college days, it says volumes about her background beliefs. "North American Congress"? Seriously, go jump in a lake lady.
-----------------------------
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/grading-sotomayors-senior-thes.php#more
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Stuart Taylor Jr.: Commentary
Grading Sotomayor's Senior Thesis
Judge Sonia Sotomayor said in a 1996 speech at Princeton University's Third World Center (now called the Carl A. Fields Center) that when she arrived at Princeton in 1972 as her high school's valedictorian, "I found out that my Latina background had created difficulties in my writing that I needed to overcome. For example, in Spanish we do not have adjectives. A noun is described with a preposition.... My writing was stilted and overly complicated, my grammar and vocabulary skills weak."
To catch up with her prep school classmates, Sotomayor recalled, "I spent one summer vacation reading children's classics that I had missed in my prior education -- books like Alice In Wonderland, Huckleberry Finn and Pride and Prejudice. My parents spoke Spanish; they didn't know about these books. I spent two other summers teaching myself anew to write."
She taught herself well, graduating summa cum laude and winning the prestigious Pyne Prize in her senior year. The prize was for academic excellence and -- Judge Sotomayor said in the 1996 speech -- "because of my work with Accion Puertorriquena, the Third World Center and other activities in which I participated, like the university's Discipline Committee."
These honors reflect, among other things, a high grade on Sotomayor's 178-page senior thesis, La Historia Ciclica De Puerto Rico. The Impact Of The Life Of Luis Muñoz Marin On The Political And Economic History of Puerto Rico, 1930-1975.
We don't know what the exact grade was, as far as I've seen, but an award-winning history professor -- K.C. Johnson of Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center -- who read it at my request concluded that "the thesis would probably receive an A/A minus or an A minus." (Johnson and I co-authored a 2007 book on the Duke lacrosse rape fraud.)
Here is Johnson's detailed assessment:
This is, by coincidence, a topic about which I know something -- I did a biography of Ernest Gruening, a sometimes friend, sometimes foe of Muñoz MarÃn, and also did a journal article on Puerto Rico and the Good Neighbor Policy. The thesis is quite good. I'm not sure it's a summa cum laude thesis... but summa grades essentially depend on the competition and the standards at the time.
As for the thesis as a whole, from a historian's perspective: It's solidly researched and fairly well written -- uses lots of data, more or less presents an argument, and has a pedagogical approach (political/economic history, focus on a key political leader in Muñoz Marin) that is very much mainstream. This is basically a pedagogically sound thesis that (with one exception) allows the facts to speak for themselves.
There are also a few jarring elements that contrast to the pedagogical approach. First, I'm curious as to when Sotomayor ceased being a Puerto Rican nationalist who favors independence -- as she says she does in the preface. (The position, as she points out in the thesis, had received 0.6 percent in a 1967 referendum, the most recent such vote before she wrote the thesis.) I don't know that I've seen it reported anywhere that she favored Puerto Rican independence, which has always been very much a fringe position....
Second, her unwillingness to call the Congress the U.S. Congress is bizarre -- in the thesis, it's always referred to as either the 'North American Congress' or the 'mainland Congress.' I guess by the language of her thesis, it should be said that she's seeking an appointment to the North American Supreme Court, subject to advice and consent of the North American Senate. This kind of rhetoric was very trendy, and not uncommon, among the Latin Americanist fringe of the academy.
Third, she had an odd habit of inserting [sic] into quotes not to identify an error but because she disagreed with the (usually innocuous) content of the quotes.
Fourth, she asserted that Muñoz MarÃn's economic program, called Operation Bootstrap, failed primarily because Puerto Ricans continued to think of themselves as colonials. This, like the reference to the US Congress as the 'North American' Congress, was 1970s-trendy dependency theory rhetoric, but was wholly unsupported by the evidence that she presented in the thesis (and, indeed, by virtually any evidence that has appeared since that time).
-
Sadly, I suspect 90% of the voters will not understand what you're on about. We need something far more solid than the linguistic structure of her college papers. Say, a picture of her eating a baby. Even then it's not guaranteed to work.
-
Apparently her "A latina woman would make better decisions" quote was repeated in other speeches.
I'm done with her.
-
We know enough already to reject her. We can do better. We should do better.
Whether that will matter in the end is doubtful. There are too many in power who clearly do not care about the principles involved. There are too many not in power who have the same underlying attitudes and motives as Sotomayor. What is in process is going to have to play out, that's all.
-
We know enough already to reject her. We can do better. We should do better.
Whether that will matter in the end is doubtful. There are too many in power who clearly do not care about the principles involved. There are too many not in power who have the same underlying attitudes and motives as Sotomayor. What is in process is going to have to play out, that's all.
Nothing new. Justices have been appointed for years based off of how they would benefit the ruling party versus actually apply the abstract of law.
-
We're talking about more than just "the ruling party," whatever that means.
We're talking about someone making legal determinations based expressly on racial and ethnic favoritism. Some may be okay with that, some may justify it, I won't.
-
I didn't justify diddle. Just remember that each appointment was some president's pet. Some vote with the constitution and law in mind, some vote otherwise.
-
I googled it, but I can't tell. What is the status of her nomination?
-
From what I've seen, Republicans are trying to postpone it to get more time to gather documentation. Dems want the hearings ASAP except wanting to wait long enough for Franken to get there for his "yes" vote.
-
I get the part about "North American Congress" - she's highglighting that Puerto Rico is part of America, but has no representation in Congress.
-
I get the part about "North American Congress" - she's highglighting that Puerto Rico is part of America, but has no representation in Congress.
"Part of America" is a bit of a stretch.
-
"Part of America" is a bit of a stretch.
Point taken there.
-
Especially since its closest "North American" cultural tie is to NYC. =D
-
Especially since its closest "North American" cultural tie is to NYC. =D
It still weirds me out to call a guy "Jesus" in English (as is custom in NYC in certain communities), even though it's the same name as the "hey - soos" you see used for latinos in other parts of the country.
-
It still weirds me out to call a guy "Jesus" in English (as is custom in NYC in certain communities), even though it's the same name as the "hey - soos" you see used for latinos in other parts of the country.
If it makes you feel any better, the English pronounced "Joshua", and very common American name, is pretty much the same name. Latin guys named Jesus aren't usually (religiously) uncomfortable with an English speaker mispronouncing their name as "Jesus", because cultural tradition is that the written "Jesus" only denotes the Messiah, if followed by a more specific denominator, such as "El Christo". The Christian Messiah "Jesus" undoubtedly had loads of friends/aquaintances/relatives with the same first name (and I doubt if there is a single person in this world who can be definitively sure how you could correctly pronounce it circa 2,000 years later). I had an agnostic/atheist/anti-religious philosophy professor in college who preferered to refer to the historical Jesus as "Joshua ben Joseph". Without criticizing his philosophy or teaching technique, I have to say that is at least as accurate a historical translation of his name, translated into English, as any other.
(Note that I only speak and write English, and only read Spanish and other Latin languages in a halting, illiterate style, I have no moral reservation whatsoever in the notion that Urdu, Arabic, Hindi or [here name language fron darkest Peru] other language might have a better, more accurate, nomenclature for the Messiah or if you prefer "the historical figure, now known as Jesus", than English language... )
http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99736.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/
***
Joshua = Jesus?
Question
Is Jesus called Joshua anywhere in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer
The answer is “yes and no.” Or, if you prefer, “sort of.” That is, in the New Testament “Jesus” is the English translation of the Greek name “Iesous” when “Iesous” refers to the Savior. “Joshua” is a common English translation of “Iesous” when “Iesous” refers to someone other than the Savior (Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8). This use of “Joshua” is a stylistic substitution, probably intended in most translations to prevent confusion between the Savior and the others.
More commonly, “Joshua” is found in the Old Testament as the English translation of the Hebrew name “Yehoshua.” In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, “Yehoshua” is translated as “Iesous.” In Aramaic, the language Jesus probably spoke most often, the name is translated “Yeshua.”
So, “Yehosuah,” “Iesous,” “Yeshua,” “Joshua” and “Jesus” are all essentially the same name. “Jesus” is usually preferred in the New Testament because it is a transliteration of the Greek “Iesous.” Some people prefer “Yehoshua” or “Joshua” because they believe that it is the true root name prior to its translation into Aramaic and/or Greek. Others prefer “Yeshua” because they believe that is what Jesus was actually called by those who knew him.
-
I don't think I have heard anyone talk so slow and not make any sense.
She sure likes to blink her eyes alot.
-
Blinks a lot and says that her statements were taken out of context. If so, what was the context in which she meant them? There's not a lot of wiggle room in what she's said, or in her decision in the Ricci case.
-
i really wish they were setup to play the tapes when she starts that out of context shtick, at least then it would be entertaining =D
-
No tapes, but we have transcripts:
Senator Sessions: "Judge Sotomayor, you have been widely quoted as having said, “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," yet you are now saying that your remarks have been taken out of context. Would you care to provide the context in which you meant the "wise Latina woman" quote?
Sotomayor: "Certainly, senator. I was referring to Charo."
-
No tapes, but we have transcripts:
Senator Sessions: "Judge Sotomayor, you have been widely quoted as having said, “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," yet you are now saying that your remarks have been taken out of context. Would you care to provide the context in which you meant the "wise Latina woman" quote?
Sotomayor: "Certainly, senator. I was referring to Charo."
Nice!
Well the Bill O'Reilly is going to run the highlights of the dumb answers tonight on the O'Reilly factor. I really don't like that pompus butthole but I may have to watch it with popcorn in hand.
Yesterday when I was watching some of the Republican questioning, looked like she was on the edge of blowing up. She was fighting hard not to go into full frothing at the mouth afterburner nuclear meltdown.
-
Who is Charo?
-
Who is Charo?
Google is your friend.
-
So do we think it might be possible to stop her nomination, given how poorly she did?
-
Unlikely. The point of confirmation hearings isn't actually to stop the nomination. It's to look good in front of your constituents. Even if by some miracle all of the Republicans vote against confirmation, the Democrats still have enough votes to put her on the court.
-
Do I not understand correctly that by this stage, the Senators already know - roughly if not in detail - how each one of them will vote, and that the speechmaking is mostly for the benefit of the viewers back home?
-
Do I not understand correctly that by this stage, the Senators already know - roughly if not in detail - how each one of them will vote, and that the speechmaking is mostly for the benefit of the viewers back home?
Oh, hell, it was decided as soon as she was nominated. And they don't do anything to "benefit" us. The hearings are just showing off and a chance for senators to look like they are doing their jobs.
Not a chance of stopping her. Not a chance.
-
Not always, Harriet Miers was nominated and she didn't get very far very fast. Harry Ried was the one who who mentioned to Bush to nominate her.
-
Not always, Harriet Miers was nominated and she didn't get very far very fast. Harry Ried was the one who who mentioned to Bush to nominate her.
While I think she was rightfully stopped, she was pounded by the Dems and Republicans...heavy opposition.
The Republicans have no backbone to stop "a wise Latina woman" even if they could and the Dems are going to toe the party line in this case.
-
I forget that most everyone on this forum is much younger than me.
Charo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Fu-XuNijs)
-
Oh, hell, it was decided as soon as she was nominated. And they don't do anything to "benefit" us. The hearings are just showing off and a chance for senators to look like they are doing their jobs.
Not a chance of stopping her. Not a chance.
or in frankin's case to show us just how big an idiot he is :O :angel:
-
Not always, Harriet Miers was nominated and she didn't get very far very fast. Harry Ried was the one who who mentioned to Bush to nominate her.
Harriet Miers wasn't even supported by the President. She was a throwaway nomination from the start.
-
If you use weasel words, then you're definitely an Anti.
It was a battle of wits between GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative senators, and the nominee. Who won? Tell us: @reply us on @AP_Courtside on Twitter.
Here's a capsule: Coburn, a strong advocate of individual gun ownership, found an intriguing way to question Sotomayor on that issue. First, he asked her how she could consider that the right to privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) is settled law but the right to keep and bear arms (the Second Amendment) as unsettled.
Sotomayor started with her usual answer that judges don't make law. And she noted that the federal government and many states have laws restricting guns, such as possession of firearms by felons. Then the sparing got more interesting.
"Do I have a right to personal self-defense?" Coburn asked.
Sotomayor: "That's an abstract question."
Coburn: "That's what the public wants to know. Yes or no? Do we have that right?"
The judge thought for a moment, then came up with an answer based on her experience as a New York City prosecutor: "If there's a threat of serious injury you can use force. How imminent is the threat? If the threat is in this room and I go home get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law."
Coburn: "What the American people want to see is what your gut says."
Sotomayor said that's not how judges decide cases.
-Larry Margasak, AP reporter, Congress
-
Sotomayor said that's not how judges wise latinas decide cases.
Fixed it for her.... ;/
-
What a weasel!
-
Sotomayor did not say she agrees with the Heller decision. Is it simple minded for Americans to know her personal opinion on these issues. She essentially says her personal opinion is not relevant. But the fact is she doesn't believe that herself.
-
Most of her answers were not an answer. They were smoke and mirrors.
-
Most of her answers were not an answer. They were smoke and mirrors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LfhGNOlg90&feature=related
-
That's an abstract question.
That's easy for someone with armed bodyguards to say.
-
Standing Wolf wins one (1) internets.
-
A spirited and spicy self-defense from the latina lawyer!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/07/a-wise-latina-will-add-spice-to-the-menudo-of-justice.html
A Wise Latina Will Add Spice to the Menudo of Justice
Iowahawk Guest Commentary
by Judge Sonia Sotamayor
Nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court
There has been a great deal written in recent weeks about an old extemporaneous quote of mine in which I stated that "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." One needn't read the prophetic entrails of my culture's colorful Santeria chicken sacrifice ceremonies to realize this out-of-context quote has caused some public concern and confusion. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up any lingering questions, and reassure the American public I will bring to the Supreme Court a jurisprudence borne of the intellect of Louis Brandeis, along with the spicy salsa rhythms of Tito Puente and Celia Cruz. ¡Azucar! ¡Arriba!
First, let me say that in no way did I mean to disparage the legal abilities of white males or others of non-Latina persuasion. Nature endows each of us -- male or female, white or black, Latina or Latino, Caribbean Mestizo or Aleut, Micronesian or Southwest coastal Scandinavian, Tutsi or Hutu -- with the rich, innate, culturally-specific legal DNA and genetic tribal empathy chromosomes that reflect a diverse ethnic rainbow of justice. I was not suggesting that one is somehow better than another; only that they are beautifully, beautifully different.
Indeed, it is only through these differences that America can forge a better, more diverse tradition of legal justice. As you know, the Latina women of my culture are passionate and fiery, and if we learn our famously hot blooded men have been cheating with some raven-haired puta at the cantina, there will be hell to pay. As a Justicia on the Tribunal Supremo I will be naturally vigilant for any colleague who strays from the law, and will not hesitate to clobber them with the rodillo of established legal precedence. Afterwards, when we have reached consensus, there will be hot makeup majority opinions.
This is exactly the kind of wise, precedent-faithful Latina legal approach that I believe will be welcome by others on the Supreme Court bench, all of whom bring their own unique genetic legal wisdom and instinctual empathy. Justices Roberts and Souter for example, with their aloof, sexless, constipated, emotionally-stunted WASPy intellects and natural affinity for preppy white collar criminals. Justice Stevens has this as well, along with a keen grasp for the legal issues facing Americans with senile dementia. As an Irishman, Justice Kennedy enjoys a natural "gift of the gab" and poetically tragic alcoholism. Like you, I imagine that Justice Breyer can be kind of pushy and whiny, but we should also remember that as a Jew he is probably very skilled at cases that involve complicated numbers and math. To the casual observer, it probably seems absurd to have greasy Italian "goodfellas" like Justices Alito and Scalia working inside the legal system, but if we give them a chance they may eventually break the code of Omerta and finally turn state's evidence against their Cosa Nostra bosses. Yes, many have criticized Justice Thomas for being a self-hating "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom," but I like to think that deep inside him still lurks the the DNA of an angry Cadillac-driving streetwise Superfly, ready to show "The Man" that his pimp hand is strong.
And let us not forget the Justice I assume I have been nominate to replace, the great woman jurist Ruth Bader Ginsberg. With her retirement, America will be losing a towering legal Yenta who tackled some of the Court's toughest legal issues with her relentless nagging maternal Jewish guilt complex. Obviously, she will be irreplaceable, short of finding another Yiddishe bubbe from Boca Raton. But as the court's new designated woman I will do my best to emulate her through Latina culture's tradition of the wise old village bruja, ready to cast the Evil Eye spell on those who would subvert our Constitutional rights.
I believe jurisprudence, like cooking, requires many ingredients to make a satisfying meal. In Latina culture we love menudo, the delicious spicy sopa made from simple ingredients. Think of the Constitution as our base ingredient: a bland, tasteless broth of boiled white tripe. Doesn't sound so tempting, does it? Now here's where the fun comes in: all of the cooks gather in the cocina and bring their own special secret ingredients to the mix. Souter salts the pot and Roberts adds Wonder Bread and mayonnaise; Breyer the lox and cream cheese. Thomas drops in fried chicken, and Alito and Scalia spaghetti. Now here comes Kennedy with corned beef and potatoes. Stevens adds the Metamucil. Now we're cooking! Finally, I stir in my special picante blend of Latina legal spices. What started as a boring simple broth is now a delicious crazy justice stew -- that tastes different every time!
And after the menudo is finished, we will go out into the hot evening air of the Supreme Court plaza for drinks. Sangria and Irish whiskey, 2% milk and Colt 45 Malt Liquor. The night breeze is intoxicating, no? Now it is time for the music of justice! The instruments will be taken out, like the Buena Vista Social Club. Carribean drums and mazurkas, the blues guitarra and the bagpipes, creating the caliente salsa beat of la ley! Bailando en la calle, everybody! What's that Justicio Juan Roberto? You are too white and do not have the ritmo to do the dance? Let wise Latina Justicia Sonia show you the steps! Meringue, samba, macarena! ¡Andele! Yes, yes! Lose yourself in the rhythm, Perito Breyer! Together we make the beautiful Constitutional musica together!
In conclusion, the future of American jurisprudence requires wise jurists from every gender and genetic background -- including Latina. In fact, I seem to remember that my law school books were filled with Latin words. Let us recognize and celebrate those diverse, culturally-specific legal traditions. Together we can build a future where we will all be Livin' La Vida Loca!
-
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
-
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Parody, a form of humor.....
-
Parody, a form of humor.....
Yep, watch out for us Iowa guys, we'll talk circles around you.
-
In conclusion, the future of American jurisprudence requires wise jurists from every gender and genetic background -- including Latina. In fact, I seem to remember that my law school books were filled with Latin words. Let us recognize and celebrate those diverse, culturally-specific legal traditions. Together we can build a future where we will all be Livin' La Vida Loca!
Couldn't have said it better myself.... =D
-
I can't wait for her opinions once she's on the Court. No doubt she will provide our side with plenty of quotable material.
She got through the hearings on a combination of long rehearsal, dissembling, Paxil, and the usual GOP fecklessness. No one should be surprised. The people we rely on to defend our freedoms have become too comfortable and too insulated and too arrogant. We need to find a fix for that.
-
we need to move DC to Alaska :laugh:
-
we need to move DC to Alaska :laugh:
If you thought we had a secession movement before, just propose THAT!
=D
-
Dear God that was funny Jfruser. In the "Oh no it's actually kinda true" way.
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three Republican senators said on Friday they will back President Barack Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a likely easy confirmation.
Here. (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-41136120090718)
No filibuster for you!
-
Snowe was no surprise, but Lugar and Martinez were, at least in announcing so quickly. I'm sure Lindsay Graham will join them shortly, that stunz.
-
Was there ever any real doubt that the line would not hold?
The Democrats know with whom they are dealing and what they can expect. Don't bring children to a gunfight.
-
....after the GOP's announcement, I wonder if they're even planning to run in the next election...
...not like they're going to get any votes or anything.... ;/
-
After listening to some of the pundits, the appointment of Sotomayor is the wrong battle. There are far more important battles to fight at the moment. Bush 41 appointed her to the Federal Bench. Bear in mind, this is a "progressive" replacing another "progressive".
-
The opposition to Sotomayor isn't about her, it's about what she represents, which is Obama's philosophy. The more that his radical positions can be shown to the country, as in this case with a judicial nomination, the more clearly the country will see that his positions are at odds with the majority.
He's been telling the citizens what they want to hear for several years. Now he's showing them what they probably don't want to see. The more press her racist, radical views get, the better.
-
The only upside, yes, to her confirmation will be the inevitable revelation of what she stands for, and by extension who Obama really is.
That, however, won't change the fact that a growing percentage of Americans are just fine with "justice" based on identity politics. That concept was introduced quite a while ago with the new religion of Diversity, a religion that has been accepted not only by government but by large corporations as well.
-
Ok, as a white male diversity hire in my new job, I simply have to ask what's wrong with the concept, as opposed to reverse discrimination, etc. ???
-
It's simple: the concept of hiring for diversity means hiring people that aren't qualified for the position just so you can claim to have said "diversity". It results in incompetence in the workplace, and...
>... male diversity hire in my new job<
Ummm... oops...
Hey, didja hear about them Brewers? :angel:
-
Ok, as a white male diversity hire in my new job, I simply have to ask what's wrong with the concept, as opposed to reverse discrimination, etc. ???
Token white guy? =D
-
Actually, token white male disabled veteran, truth be known.
I found out my employers got a $5K tax credit for hiring me, but they also stated I was indeed the most qualified for the job, regardless of the tax break.
I've seen the whole "diversity" thing get mileage, when I did the deputy sheriff thing a few years ago, and even when applying for another bio/pharmaceutical company. I don't believe for a second it's the sole reason for hiring an individual, but gets weighed in the decision-making process along with experience, education, and veterans' preference points, etc. Hell, the credit check they're now doing in the whole application/interview process makes me more leery than anything else.
YMMV, of course.
-
I found out my employers got a $5K tax credit for hiring me, but they also stated I was indeed the most qualified for the job, regardless of the tax break.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. =)
-
Actually, token white male disabled veteran, truth be known.
....and as wise as any Latina, I bet.... =D
-
Lindsay Graham has come forward and pledged to vote for her. :mad:
-
I hate that little weasel. He looks like the kind of guy who got punched out a lot in high school.
-
I hate that little weasel. He looks like the kind of guy who got punched out a lot in high school.
He reminds me of the bully's sidekick in A Christmas Story.
-
I hate that little weasel. He looks like the kind of guy who got punched out a lot in high school.
You think you hate him? Try living in a state that he "represents". We can't seem to get rid of him, either...