So... [bart simpson]chicks on the bench[/bart]?
Thoughts on the new girl that might be replacing the old guy?
So... [bart simpson]chicks on the bench[/bart]?
Thoughts on the new girl that might be replacing the old guy?
I wonder, did she get the job cause of her qualifications, or because of her skin color and gender??
And we thought racism was over. HA!
Originally Posted by Sonia SotomayorIt appears that Sotomayor believes that some individuals are better than others merely by fact of the identity group to which they belong. I think there is a name for this for this kind of belief system.Originally Posted by Sonia Sotomayor
Last edited by OklahomaTuba; 5/26/2009 at 09:49 AM.
And the response from the Republicans is...
I think Republicans have to realize that a pure conservative is not going to get nominated by Obama, so the best they can hope for (just as the best Dems could hope for when Bush got to nominate two Supreme Court justices) is that the candidate is fair and will uphold the Constitution of the United States.Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.
It will be interesting to see how the hearings go.
The Republicans don't have enough to stop this, do they?
Happiness is found at the bottom of a glass of crown and coke.
Chuck's version of Christmas is the Anti-SicEm-
SicEmBaylor
Only hope to stop this train wreck is the moderate donks nuking this like they did with Zeros plan to bring terrorists to the US.
But then you get into the race thing all over again. Even if she is bat **** crazy, no good liberal would ever vote against her based on her skin color and gender. Qualifications for such a high office is of lesser concern to libz.
And what do you base that on???
Its painfully obvious she is a statist of the worst kind, and maybe even worse than that, and will work very hard at "remaking America" by making laws from her seat on the court, or legislating from the bench as they say. She says as much from some of the stuff I am reading right now.
I don't know a ton of her politics, but what I'm reading right now I don't know if I'd support her:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ume/index.html
Happiness is found at the bottom of a glass of crown and coke.
__________________
When the Shooting Starts, We Kill What Moves
Roland Deschain of Gilead
________
- Olevet Posse Gunslinger -
I just don't know enough about her yet to really know whether or not this is a good nomination. I mean, W. also had a bad nomination before going with Alito, remember?
Heh, Tuba is confusing qualifications with politics, how unexpected. She is a Princeton and Yale educated judge, with DA and private practice experience, and has been on the Fed bench for almost 20 years.
I don't care for the facted that she punted without certifiying Ricci, but I think the Republicans only get one shot to stonewall (if that) and I wouldn't use it on this nominee.
Boomer Sooner
She has made a point to say that life experience leads to better decision making and better judgments, along with the fact she's indicated that she makes policy from the bench. So, I'd say it's completely fair to bring her politics into her qualifications. Why not, she does?
Happiness is found at the bottom of a glass of crown and coke.
She's definitely qualified from an experience perspectuve so let's just drop that part.
The only real argument that can hold water from both sides is if she will attempt to legislate from the bench.
Let's argue that instead of silliness. That is a legitimate argument and the rest is just partisan bickering as usual.
__________________
When the Shooting Starts, We Kill What Moves
Roland Deschain of Gilead
________
- Olevet Posse Gunslinger -
Dr. Tom Coburn's take here.
Nice:
VIDEO: Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
I love having unelected appointed for life people in black robs make "policy".
So much for that whole "she will uphold the constitution" BS. She just comes right on out and says she will be a political acitivist on the supreme court.
Awesome.
Thanks Obama!!!
Well, you cannot use the two interchangeably as they have distinctly different meanings. I don't agree with Justice Robert's policy, but that doesn't mean I think he's unqualified. Which leads me to my second point, every judge crafts policy, hence why it's called judicial policy. I know there is this pie in the sky idea that back in the good ole days they didn't, but they did. Hell, judicial activism is pretty much deifined as the bench holding up policies to which you disagree, I'm sure Dred Scott thought the court was pretty freaking active.
Also, this should come as a surprise to no one, Obama specifically mentioned that he was seeking an empathetic nominee to the American social structure, sort of an anti-Souter.
Last edited by soonerscuba; 5/26/2009 at 10:42 AM.
Boomer Sooner
What I was getting at and maybe didn't express clearly enough, is that I believe judicial policy is a bad thing. I think ideally we'd want to get away from it, not move further towards it. By her clear support of it, along with her politics, it speaks to me of her qualifications. I realize she's got a solid educational background, but she has bad decision making in her history. That is a poor qualification. But, if you don't mind judges making the law, then I can understand why you wouldn't connect the two.
Happiness is found at the bottom of a glass of crown and coke.