well, as a lower court judge, kavanaugh had 13 opinions get reviewed by SCOTUS, they affirmed 12 and reversed 1.

Sotomayor had 5 opinions get reviewed and 2 got overturned, one unanimously.

What does that suggest, Pete?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.

I bet Kavanaugh rolled his eyes when she said this :jester:

She also famously said this about judges of different gender and race...

"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."

She said that white men have inferior life experiences compared to female Latinas. Saying something that bigoted, would get you instantly banned from jury duty. But apparently it doesn't preclude you from being on the Supreme Court for life.

Jim leaves out she ruled on over 300 cases but Amy 75 overall

Brett at least did 12 years on the bench
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again Jim post this again with no context

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


white male who hasn't lived that life

Not sure Jim how you twisted that comment to be bigoted

Oh wait I do she called out bias
And that triggered your white victimhood

How dare a person of color speak the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here's all the context you need wayne...

"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor backed away from a now-famous quotation from one of her speeches, saying her comment about a “wise Latina” judge had fallen flat, and was “a bad idea.”

The statement was made in contrast to a familiar quote from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who often said that she did not view herself as a female jurist. Instead, she said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same result as judges."

you posted the same exact quote I did, with no additional context. None.

And i’m not sure how anyone can pretend that’s not textbook bigotry.

she said explicitly, that being hispanic and female allows one to acquire more wisdom than a white man can acquire. Because our experience is inferior.

I notice being a female latina ( and all the inherent wisdom contained therein) didn’t prevent her from making a fool of herself when she said there were many more kids hospitalized with covid than actually are.

Nor did all that wisdom prevent her from being unanimously overturned by SCOTUS when she was a lower judge.

When Ginsberg and Scalia and everyone in between says you were wrong in the law, that means you were really wrong. Doesn’t it?

She’s not bigoted! She just thinks female Latinas are more wise than white men. That’s not bigoted at all!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was brilliant...really...:claps:

did i miss the additional context?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i'm sure he'll think of something :rotf2:

Yes if those 2 wise people had the same experience in life

That would be a true statement
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now it’s my job to make your case?

Again your just upset a brown person called out Bias

Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.


Look at that what a shocker cries of racism from some Republicans

How that for context Jim and Scott

You 2 are like a moths to the flame
parroting Republicans talking point wash rinse and repeat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you love to write things that nobody ever said or implied or would... and then act self-satisfied for doing so, as if you've made some point

I know right your commentary here is always informative LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we still love you...

"Now it’s my job to make your case?"

Huh?

No. But if you say I took it out of context, you should provide the correct context. You didn't.

What bias did she call out? She said female Latinas have a superior life experience compared to us male gringos.

It's textbook bigotry.

The bias is hers.

"Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked "

That's not within a million miles of what she said. She said her experience generates more wisdom that that of a white man.

You completely changed what she said, to make it more benign. I have no problem with what you said. But that's nowhere near what she said.

Sotomayor said female latinas are superior to white men. How did you hear, "don't judge me unless you've walked a mile in my shoes"?

She didn't say female latinas are different. She said they're better.

that's not context, it's wayne's racist Tourette's

?....who told her how easy it was and how she should have walked?

so you are admitting that she said it repeatedly but then backed away from it when she was a supreme court nominee and said it was “a bad idea”

That's worth noting, sure.

How many times was Barrett overturned, unanimously, on appeal?

How many times did Barrett say that her race and gender result in more wisdom than any other race or gender?

Ummm...Sotomayor's race is Caucasian, she may not be Western European Caucasian, but she is Caucasian

Her ethnicity is Hispanic, but she is a cracker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's wow about it, 80% of Puerto Rico is white. She is Puerto Rican.

Are Italians POC's, are Greeks POC's, are Turks POC's? They are darker skinned than Western Europe, but they are still Caucasian by race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://welcome.topuertorico.org/fastfacts.shtml

Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you sure she isn’t Honkey and not Cracker?

That is so 70's
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden should have just asked the federalist society to draw up a list and picked from that.

and regardless of who Biden picks ( which won’t change the political
makeup of the court so who really cares), maybe the gop can drag some broken person out to say they were raped by the nominee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, since we know women can have penises and democrats like to dress in black face...there are a lot of possibilities:uhuh:

You guys have now risen to a new level of stupidity.:jump:

Shows the hypocrisy of the R.

Yes, let's investigate - but do a real investigation.

I think if Jim wrote "I had an omelette for breakfast"

paul would respond

"Shows the hypocrisy of the R."

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was an allegation against Kavanaugh, and also against Biden. Should we investigate both? or only investigate allegations against republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So somehow Biden announced this before Trump kissed the federalists societies butt and promised to pick someone from the list they produced or before Reagan said he would hire a woman:fishslap:

I'm guessing you missed my response otherwise why ask about investigating both?

Hard to investigate a President but if the SC nominee has credible claims against them then by all means investigate - and as I said a "but do a real investigation" not the shame the Rs did with Kavanaugh

“credible”. yup. a very broken person making politically convenient, yet unbelievably vague allegations with massive holes in it.

Why did Feinstein wait until
the very end of Kavanaugh’s first round of hearings, to break the story? She had the allegation all along. Other than for political drama and political impact, what possible reason was there for her to sit on it for a week?

i don’t know when the rape happened, i do t know where it happened, i never told
anyone about it, i don’t know how i got home, can’t name a single
other person who was at the party, but i know who did it.

reeks of credibility.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should have been easy to disprove then - right? There were lots of witness' who were never interviewed or contacted after they contacted the FBI to say they had info.

So back to your other post

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.

What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated" since it seems like the Rs have a long history of limiting who should be considered for the SC but when the Ds do it the Rs get their panties all in a bunch?

"Should have been easy to disprove then - right?"

No, in fact. Almost impossible to disprove. How does Kavanaugh prove that he didn't rape her in a room at someone's house, 35 years ago?

It was an asinine allegation. The one against Boden, at least, was brought by someone who told people back when it happened, that she was raped by a US Senator. That's waaaay more credibility than Ford had.

I feel sorry for her, don't want anything bad to happen to her. But her story is a joke.

"What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated""

I said that the GOP should claim that Bidens nominee raped someone 35 years ago. That would be replicating the lefts tactics.

Ford's therapists notes backed her story. Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent and while not admissible in court law enforcement uses them. She did not want to go public.

So you have nothing. I demonstrated the R's hypocrisy in picking of SC justices and you have nothing.