Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

[Cool Beans]

Called this one didn't I? I posted a while back that he would pick a Hispanic woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/..._supreme_court

Sounds like she's a qualified Hispanic women, but doubt she is the most qualified person for the job. Didn't agree with affirmative action and don't agree with this either.

An example of her judgement:
As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

[JohnnyD]

She's coast relatively easily through the confirmation process. Republicans are trying to gain some ground on the Dems in fostering support from the Latino voters. No Republican wants to be the one singled out for not supporting a Hispanic. Hispanics in the Southern US helped Obama win the election.

[Cool Beans]

I realize that she will more than likely be confirmed as the next judge, but think people should know what they are getting, "a person that believes in reverse racism". If all the firemen take the damn advancement exam and not enough "minorities" scored high enough, and she agrees with the city in throwing out the results? "We have to test them later or in a different way to ensure a more diverse pool of people advanced".

There is no legal reason for throwing the test out, those guys that passed including the one Hispanic guy deserve to be advanced! I think by siding with the city she clearly identifies her as a proponent of reverse racism.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

There is no legal reason for throwing the test out, those guys that passed including the one Hispanic guy deserve to be advanced! I think by siding with the city she clearly identifies her as a proponent of reverse racism.

Being a white male, I've accepted the idea of reverse racism and reverse sexism as an unfortunate inevitability. An ethnic person or person of color could say anything they want to me about me being white without anyone thinking much about it, yet if in any public setting I say anything that could remotely be related to their color then I'm a racist.

The American, white, middle-class(or higher) male has to walk on eggshells and be careful with their words more so than any other demographic.

[Raven]

just so long as it ain't Judge JUDY

i'm cool with it as cold beans

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Called this one didn't I? I posted a while back that he would pick a Hispanic woman.

Yes, you and 3500 other people.

I think you've been listening to too much Limbaugh. State the obvious, cite examples and then declare brilliance

Sounds like she's a qualified Hispanic women, but doubt she is the most qualified person for the job.

You lost me at qualified.

An example of her judgement:
As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

And oddly enough, it looks like that case might not have had a sound legal basis. So was her decision based on a blind respect for the law, or on political bias? Perhaps this example isn't as good as it sounds...

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

And oddly enough, it looks like that case might not have had a sound legal basis. So was her decision based on a blind respect for the law, or on political bias? Perhaps this example isn't as good as it sounds...

-spence

Spence this avenue of litigation was fought over in the 1970's. Sotomayor must have been absent that day in law school when they reviewed those cases. Reverse discrimination cases were made famous in Massachusetts with regard to the civil service examination test for police officers.

[sean curry]

I agree with affimative action.

sean

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

Well, when you put it that way... I see your point.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

maybe you'll get all the advantages of an affirmative action brain surgeon some day



since when does "qualified" matter to da dems, it's the story and the image projected, doesn't matter if there's anything between the ears...give her a teleprompter...look at the clown that we have posing as a president...she will be treated respectfully and confirmed as this is the presidents perrogative barring some bizarre circumstances...(like stating on tape that she thinks judges should "make" policy)..I though that was for the policy-makers...anyway

it's the dems that turn these hearing into a circus with personal attacks and mindless impuning of people of high achievement and exemplary records led by that fat puke Ted Kennedy, this was his specialty, engineering the destruction of nominees...imagine having that piece of crap attempting to taint your career and record, slobbering and mispronouncing your name....


Obama asked that the Senate "move quickly and in a bipartisan manner"...just as the dems have always done in the past...right????

Ginsburg 97-3
Breyer 87-9
Thomas 52-48
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42

any bets...I'll go with 98-1... there are a couple of illnesses and good ole' Rowland isn't looking like he's long for the job so I don't know if there will be 100 votes...we should have a pool.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

since when does "qualified" matter to da dems, it's the story and the image projected, doesn't matter if there's anything between the ears...give her a teleprompter...look at the clown that we have posing as a president...she will be treated respectfully and confirmed as this is the presidents perrogative barring some bizarre circumstances...(like stating on tape that she thinks judges should "make" policy)..I though that was for the policy-makers...

Funny as her judicial record points to someone who has behaved nearly the opposite to what you've described.

It's almost like you're responding based on the image you'd like projected regardless as to what's between her ears.

And your comment is out of context...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny as her judicial record points to someone who has behaved nearly the opposite to what you've described.

It's almost like you're responding based on the image you'd like projected regardless as to what's between her ears.

And your comment is out of context...

-spence

you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..Obama himself said Roberts and Alito were qualified and then voted against in a swift and bipartisan way...jerk...now he wants it both ways....doesn't matter if she's qualified as long as she's got the right "makeup"...that's fine with me....like Obama will tell you..."he won"...it's his pick....just compare the treatment of the last several nominees and you'll see who the dirtbags are...I didn't say she had nothing between her ears, just that it didn't matter...

my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...it was an Obama "clinging to their guns and bibles moment"..you have become very predictable...but I still love you

he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap like of looking to foreign law and precendents to form her opinions ala Breyer...maybe have all property rights taken away...stuff like that...at least abortion will be safe....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..

Doesn't sound like it matters to you either...

my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...

So did you listen to the tape?

Here's her full comment in response to a student asking about the differences between circuit and district court experiences.

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.

If you take the time to read her full comment, think critically about what she was saying and then reflect on the meaning it should be clear to just about anyone that she was simply stating the obvious.

he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap....

It looks like she authored 380 majority opinions in 11 years, 5 of which made it to the Supreme Court and 3 of which were overturned. That's your 60%? 3 of 5?

Considering that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear selective cases, to even use the 3 without understanding the circumstance and how the majority ruling differed from her's make the number pretty meaningless...

Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.

Don't you have anything of substance today? So far you've provided no evidence to support the assertion this is an activist pick.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

How have you been affected by affirmative action/reverse descrimination directly? Just curious.

[saltfly]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

Until it effects you.

[keeperreaper]

I dont agree with affirmative action at all. Its BS. If there is a test out to place 20 people take the 20 highest scoring people. If it is 20 whites, great, 20 blacks awesome, 20 purple martians, outstanding. The jobs should go to the highest scoring because that is what they are using as a standard.

[Joe]

A read a while back that if Brown University admitted students based upon merit only, the student body would be overwhelmingly comprised of Asian women.
There are more women in law school than men now, and women comprise of 40% of practicing lawyers, yet there is only one woman on the court.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by keeperreaper

I dont agree with affirmative action at all. Its BS. If there is a test out to place 20 people take the 20 highest scoring people. If it is 20 whites, great, 20 blacks awesome, 20 purple martians, outstanding. The jobs should go to the highest scoring because that is what they are using as a standard.

perfect, agree 100%
that was the critetria set for the promotions, and when the results were in, they were changed - based on race

As far as Brown and any other university, the expectations are set up front that a diverse well rounded student population adds to the quality of the education. A student with lower grades but raises doberman puppies may get accepted over a student with higher grades. you dont change the rules after the fact, based on race.

[EarnedStripes44]

Not to take anything from a written test as a way of assessing "aptitude" but I would be interested to know how well the test is at measuring valuable dispositions like judgement, commitment, good will, ethical reflection, effort, initiative and heart.

How does one fit such things in a standardized test?

[EarnedStripes44]

"Its funny how some think this is a Right vs. Left debate"
-Spence

I'm curious as to why this insistence on judicial "activism" as a product of the liberal/left. Clarence Thomas has taken positions on hate crime that would without question be considered "activist" rulings. Its fair to say some judge's "activist" ruling or otherwise, is not necessarily anchored to their political orientation.

I would like to politely ask that those listening to Hannity put him on mute. A great book titled "Supreme Conflict" authored by Jan Greenburg goes into great detail about competing judicial philosophies and how they have shaped the court. Its also refreshingly objective. I recommend it to anyone who wants to compliment their understanding of the court.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

I would like to politely ask that those listening to Hannity put him on mute.

Good luck with that.

I'll watch Hannity on occasion because it amuses me. Even funnier is when I hear him ranting about something and then see comments made on here that are almost word-for-word quotes of what was said earlier.

It's the same thing with Right-Wing radio. Some people drink the kool-ade then come on here and regurgitate it back out. Drones.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good luck with that.

I'll watch Hannity on occasion because it amuses me. Even funnier is when I hear him ranting about something and then see comments made on here that are almost word-for-word quotes of what was said earlier.

It's the same thing with Right-Wing radio. Some people drink the kool-ade then come on here and regurgitate it back out. Drones.

still cranky...must not have caught anything last weekend


and Spence...gotta give you credit, I've been laughing all morning..."so she's a lesbian tax cheat"...that's the funniest thing you've said in a long time...

[Bocephus]

The firefighters lawsuit being dismissed showed how she would rule. When she said she would be better qualified than an old white guy, jeez... that really does say something. Like saying all white guys that are educated were sheltered their whole lives while they studied and did internships, choosing to spend their weekends at the yacht club amongst the elite. Yeah, its not what she said, I know. However you want to spin it, the firefighters, that should have gotten promoted for passing the test, didnt and it was because of discrimination. She sided with discrimination.

[sean curry]

Scotty,

Fellows like you are exactly wht we have affirmative action

sean

[EarnedStripes44]

Racial Minorities can certainly be racist, but only with the requisite monopoly of political power over others. Otherwise, they are just prejudiced.

The defining feature of racism, like sexism in many respects, as opposed to run-of-the-mill prejudice, is how power shadows the marginalization of a group of people in the context of race.

As an example, one only needs to turn to George Wallace or Robert Mugabe, they are both racist eventhough one is black and one is white.

In my most humblest of opinions, I cant say I agree with the city of New Haven's decision to drop the promotions. But if the overriding concern is about maintaining diversity in the brass, surely there are other means of assessing candidacy.

[sean curry]

Scotty,

Fellows like you are exactly wht we have affirmative action

sean

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sean curry

Scotty,

Fellows like you are exactly wht we have affirmative action

sean

Affirmative action is a joke now a days - it merely keeps qualified people out of positions in order to fill an arbitrary quota.

But thank you for elaborating your position. I see where you're coming from.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by sean curry

Scotty,

Fellows like you are exactly wht we have affirmative action

sean

but I'm Cablanasian



Activism? Saved Baseball?????

Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that devoted Chicago Cubs fan George Will totally disagrees with Obama. And Sotomayor.



Will says that "in fact, what she did was take sides, took union's side against the management, and in so-doing, wasted 262 days of negotiations. That, far from saving baseball, consigned baseball to seven more years of an unreformed economic system, which happened to be the seven worst years in terms of competitive balance."

Sotomayor, Will says, "delayed the restructuring of baseball. So I would say that far from her saving baseball, as the president says, that in fact, baseball thrives now because we got over the damage that her judicial activism did in that strike.

[Bocephus]

Sean Curry, youre saying even though affirmative action pushes thru people that ARENT as qualified to fill a position as others, you would be all for it. I guess you wouldnt mind losing a possible job to someone else who isnt as skilled, but looks different so they must be a better worker. Please explain that to me.....qualifications and experience matter less than having a colorful workplace?