Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

[Cool Beans]

It doesn't matter......

Some of us see it one way, while others seem to look at the world as if they were slightly out of phase with reality. Sometimes it's hard to see you over there Spence. I know we are playing on the same team, but sometimes I can't see your position "left field" from my position "right field". Do you have a "smoke machine" on or something?

I am pretty sure we are talking about the same person, but I'm seeing a racist judge who legislates from the bench and you are seeing Saint Theresa.

Did you get hit in the head your last "at bat"?

Go Sox!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I am pretty sure we are talking about the same person, but I'm seeing a racist judge who legislates from the bench and you are seeing Saint Theresa.

No, actually I don't know that much about her. I have looked into the key accusations against her and find them to be extremely misleading.

1) She's a racist
2) She believes the Judicial system makes policy
3) Her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court more times than not.

I've yet to see any substance to back up these claims, aside from ScottW's insistence that out of context statements are hard evidence

So you think she's a racist, why? because Rush called her one?

It's funny how some think this is a Right vs Left debate. I've said it before but I don't think many of you would know a real Liberal if you saw one.

-spence

[scottw]

well, then there's always that little tax issue...not sayin' she has one... yet...but she...IS...an Obama nominee which means she's 80% likely to not have paid her taxes....

look, here's the deal...this is the Supreme Court, this nominee is, aside from her "compelling" life story fairly unremarkable, accumulated comments from lawyers that I have read describe her at best as average and fairly competent and at worst downright mean and nasty...they would know, I think that it's wonderful that she and Obama have ascended to their ranks in life, my problem is that in both cases these are people who have had unspectacular careers (still trying to locate anything that Obama wrote while at Harvard, got some new Joe Cool smoking pics though), have ascended with advantage through the IVY League in Obama's case with the advantage of being an exotic Halfrican American and in Soto's case a Latino neither being academic standouts or we would surely hear about it...are they burying her academic records too?, and I applaude them for using every advantage offered to the to get to their respective goals..... but to arrive at your destination having travelled a road of advantage after performing at an unspectacular level and then turn and suggest that you somehow carry a higher intellect, judgment, than others when this has never been demonstrated is very distasteful...Obama displays this attribute constantly and Soto had said it plain and simple...this is akin to taking a C student and making him class president to make you, him and perhaps others feel good and then having the kid walk to the head of the class and start lecturing about how smart he is...

again, she'll be confirmed...hope it's thorough but respectful

Spence Alynski, you are really execrised on this one...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

well, then there's always that little tax issue...not sayin' she has one... yet...but she...IS...an Obama nominee which means she's 80% likely to not have paid her taxes....:eek

Yea, she's a lesbian tax cheat...nice.

I guess when you have to just make %$%$%$%$ up you don't really have much of a case do you?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, she's a lesbian tax cheat...nice.

I guess when you have to just make %$%$%$%$ up you don't really have much of a case do you?

-spence

just going with the odds....

btw...you stated it...I just asked the question innocently...for democrats, I believe that would be "resume enhancement"

wish you demanded the same level of honesty and integrity from the Obama admin......

[Cool Beans]

One big thing that bothers me is her previous statements on gun control. In one case about a states right to ban weapons she stated the 2nd amendment only applies to what limitations the federal government may place on weapons control.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’"

As for the racist part, she stated that her experience as a wise Latina woman she would make her a more impartial and fair judge than a typical white male.

Let's switch that around, I'll be the typical white male and I've been nominated and I say this "My experience as a white man makes me a more impartial and fair judge than a Latina woman"

What would be the response? from you? from the Latino community? from the black community? From the media?

I know for a fact I would have four different people or groups of people calling me a racist and I'd be forced to step down!

Saying that someone would decide a case differently... because she's a Latina, not a white male, that statement by definition is racist.

Not to mention the firefighters case. She ruled that it was ok for the city to throw out the exam, as too few minorities would be advanced. If you passed the advancement exam set up by the city to advance, the top scorers should advance. You can't change the rules after the fact to ensure a fair balance of races.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

One big thing that bothers me is her previous statements on gun control. In one case about a states right to ban weapons she stated the 2nd amendment only applies to what limitations the federal government may place on weapons control.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’"

As for the racist part, she stated that her experience as a wise Latina woman she would make her a more impartial and fair judge than a typical white male.

Let's switch that around, I'll be the typical white male and I've been nominated and I say this "My experience as a white man makes me a more impartial and fair judge than a Latina woman"

What would be the response? from you? from the Latino community? from the black community? From the media?

I know for a fact I would have four different people or groups of people calling me a racist and I'd be forced to step down!

Saying that someone would decide a case differently... because she's a Latina, not a white male, that statement by definition is racist.

Not to mention the firefighters case. She ruled that it was ok for the city to throw out the exam, as too few minorities would be advanced. If you passed the advancement exam set up by the city to advance, the top scorers should advance. You can't change the rules after the fact to ensure a fair balance of races.

part of the liberal creed..."minorities cannont be racists", just ask Spence, he'll explain...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

One big thing that bothers me is her previous statements on gun control. In one case about a states right to ban weapons she stated the 2nd amendment only applies to what limitations the federal government may place on weapons control.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’"

I can see how a gun advocate might be concerned, but I would note that the stuff you quoted seems to indicate her ruling was directly contradicted by the King case when they were quite different.

As for the racist part, she stated that her experience as a wise Latina woman she would make her a more impartial and fair judge than a typical white male.

Actually, no, that's not what she said at all. She did say that in some circumstances the life experience of a judge might give them a better ability to evaluate some cases, but that judges also had to be careful of this. The "racist" charge is simple talk radio cocaine.

I believe Sam Alito made similar comments about his life experience.

Not to mention the firefighters case. She ruled that it was ok for the city to throw out the exam, as too few minorities would be advanced. If you passed the advancement exam set up by the city to advance, the top scorers should advance. You can't change the rules after the fact to ensure a fair balance of races.

Again, that's not what actually happened. The ruling was based on constraints by Federal law that they felt prohibited them from overturning the case.

Had they overturned the case they would have been, by most conservative principals, behaving in an activist manner.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

It's funny how some think this is a Right vs Left debate. I've said it before but I don't think many of you would know a real Liberal if you saw one.

-spence

I thought a Liberal was any person who disagrees with a Republican??