TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
[youtube]I-zg0FduCRE[/youtube]
Sotomayor Refuses to Renounce 'Wise Latina' Word
- Thread starter TreesOfLife
- Start date
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
She explained herself very well in the the response. It was flat rhetoric she said - a bad joke. She said that she regretted any stereotyping based on race or gender at 1:33. It's quite simple. So what are you suggesting? That she's a racist because she made a joke, which, when taken in context, means nothing?
what... huh?
Active Member
That "joke" was not an off the cuff remark. It was not taken out of context. It was a prepared speech, SHE WROTE, revised, and delivered which claimed to espouse her beliefs, and to INFLUENCE graduates to understand and follow. She went on to reinforce it several times throughout the speech, and did not pause for laughter... but you keep on keepin on.
[youtube]7hOlwnP1H70[/youtube]
It wasn't out of context. It wasn't a joke. It was a central theme describing her core beliefs.
More of your classic hits. I know... joke right?
[youtube]OfC99LrrM2Q[/youtube]
[youtube]7hOlwnP1H70[/youtube]
It wasn't out of context. It wasn't a joke. It was a central theme describing her core beliefs.
More of your classic hits. I know... joke right?
[youtube]OfC99LrrM2Q[/youtube]
medicineman
New Member
Get over it, she will be the next supreme court justice, period. You righties are so fucking stupid, alienating any remnants of latino votes. When the 2010 elections come around, I doubt you'll get many latino votes, and that makes me very happy, ~LOL~. Since you already knew she was getting seated, why didn't you righties kiss her latino ass? I'll tell you why, you are all too stupid. So say Bye-bye to latino votes.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Has anyone here never said something about their race in a positive light, at the cost of another's?
I am willing to bet almost everyone has. Does being one make you better than another? No of course not. But it is amazing that we live in one of the very few countries in the world that the majority of the population is not the people that origianally populated it.
So finally we are going to have a latino judge, with a different view on the world coming from a poor backround in a non-white neighborhood. Out of the 100+ judges we have had is it not weird that we have one person who is closest nationality to the origional people of america.
And she doesn't make the laws btw. She won't get to change any laws that are made aside from setting precidence. They don't change the constitution, that is the senate and congress. The judges essentially say this is legal or no it is not. And if nothing else the situations they see have to be grey area enough to make it up to that level. She will not be handpicking cases from the lower state courts in order to fit her agenda. And if one does get to her she will only be a part of the decision.
I am willing to bet almost everyone has. Does being one make you better than another? No of course not. But it is amazing that we live in one of the very few countries in the world that the majority of the population is not the people that origianally populated it.
So finally we are going to have a latino judge, with a different view on the world coming from a poor backround in a non-white neighborhood. Out of the 100+ judges we have had is it not weird that we have one person who is closest nationality to the origional people of america.
And she doesn't make the laws btw. She won't get to change any laws that are made aside from setting precidence. They don't change the constitution, that is the senate and congress. The judges essentially say this is legal or no it is not. And if nothing else the situations they see have to be grey area enough to make it up to that level. She will not be handpicking cases from the lower state courts in order to fit her agenda. And if one does get to her she will only be a part of the decision.
K
Keenly
Guest
all you idiots defending this woman
forget about any video she is in...
just remember the fact that this woman wrote a book
in this book she describes hows she feels the second amendment does not
i repeat, does NOT give U.S. citiczens the right to bear arms... only the police and the military
this is the kind of person we want enforcing the constitution? some one who doesnt believe in it?
forget about any video she is in...
just remember the fact that this woman wrote a book
in this book she describes hows she feels the second amendment does not
i repeat, does NOT give U.S. citiczens the right to bear arms... only the police and the military
this is the kind of person we want enforcing the constitution? some one who doesnt believe in it?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
The problem is that she's a Judge, Justice is supposed to be blind. There is not supposed to be a consideration of one's "conditions" or "upbringing" or any of the idiotic hogwash that Sotomayor and Obama believe there should be.
That, and some of her judgments reek of gross stupidity.
http://volokh.com/posts/1245113908.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London generated a backlash on both sides of the political spectrum..... Many of the rear-guard defenders of this ill-conceived decision insisted that abusive condemnations are an aberration in an otherwise sound planning process. They, it turns out, were wrong. Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a most unfortunate decision out of the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, helps demonstrate the shortcomings of their optimistic view. In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a "redevelopment area" and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren't met. When the owners refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day.
Didden and Bologna challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a "public use," as the Fifth Amendment requires. Their view, quite simply, was that out-and-out extortion does not qualify as a public use. Nonetheless, the 2d Circuit . . . upheld this flexing of political muscle.
Though, based on further text written by the author, it is clear that Sotomayor is incapable of thinking for herself, and applied precedent established by the supreme court incorrectly.
As there is no way to remove a judge (except for death, or disabilitation) then it is hard to believe that any one like Sotomayor should be allowed near the supreme court, just on the record of that one case. While precedent is important in judicial cases, it should not be the end all, be all that Sotomayor is clearly attempting to make it into. That is, the Judicial Branch should not be legislating.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
So Sotomayor isn't allowed to take pride in her Latino heritage? That's ridiculous. She should have pride in what she accomplished and she's certainly allowed to make the claim she did. I don't see what's wrong with her comment, so please explain it to me.
As for her stance on the 2nd amendment - it's a whole other issue. She cannot and will not abolish the right to bear arms all by herself. Her presence and positions are easily mitigated by Roberts, Scalia, and other consesrvative judges. Are you saying that we shouldn't have checks and balances on the highest of all courts? You want rigid constitutionalists only, with no progressive thought whatsoever? Sounds dogmatic to me.
As for her stance on the 2nd amendment - it's a whole other issue. She cannot and will not abolish the right to bear arms all by herself. Her presence and positions are easily mitigated by Roberts, Scalia, and other consesrvative judges. Are you saying that we shouldn't have checks and balances on the highest of all courts? You want rigid constitutionalists only, with no progressive thought whatsoever? Sounds dogmatic to me.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
After viewing the videos, I have NO problem with what Sotomayor said. She thinks someone's perspective and background will lead them to different conclusions. I think that statement is wholly correct. Whether the conclusions reached by a wise latina woman are better is up for debate, but the mindset is not problematic.
Different people reach different conclusions based upon their life experiences. Her life experiences are MUCH different than most of the other judges. Does that make her decisions better? Maybe in her mind. But who cares? What difference will this mindset make? In fact, I would say EVERYONE has this particular mindset and they're just too worried about political correctness to admit it.
So we have a shoe-in for the next supreme court judge. I applaud the diversity and perspective that she will bring. I, being a white male in a VERY diverse world, am damn tired of being represented by ONLY white men. I want more perspective. Hers isn't necessarily better, but it's different. I'm tired of the Roberts and Scalias.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
You probably actually believe that I am mentally ill because I don't think like you - exactly like you. So why is your opinion - and only your opinion - the correct one? I like Sotomayor. Get over it. I'm not saying you have to like her. I couldn't give a fuck about you and your damn youtube-based theories. If you want to engage in debate, that's fine. But if you want to call people who disagree with you mentally ill, then fuck off. That's poisonous anti-intellectualism. You think it's okay to completely shut off inquiry into a matter because YOU say so. How fucking narcissistic is that? Do you ever leave open the possibility that you could be wrong sometimes? It's a serious question.Mental Illness!!!!
Scubasteve420
Member
Like Newt said "what if I said I was qualified because i'm a white male", that would get him in trouble. He's right if you're white male you have to walk a fine line. I'm not a fan of her it was sloppy wording on her part, but I could care less because I believe she'll do fine. The right is just going after her because of the "just say no" campaign they're using on the left.
This was something from 2001 and I think she was using in the context as I'm a woman and a Latino and I made it. I'm not racist but I sure as hell have said a lot of stupid racist things in my past as most of us have and I'm sure some of the other judges on the supreme court have as well, but their history wasn't probed as deeply as hers.
This was something from 2001 and I think she was using in the context as I'm a woman and a Latino and I made it. I'm not racist but I sure as hell have said a lot of stupid racist things in my past as most of us have and I'm sure some of the other judges on the supreme court have as well, but their history wasn't probed as deeply as hers.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
First off I don't think your mentally ill because you don't think like me.
Second Anyone with half a brain cell can see right past her. Did you watch any of her hearings where she didn't answer questions with a straight answer.
Third If I am wrong about her PROVE IT...
Lastly If you ever provide PROOF of anything instead of your opinion you might be more credible. I'm not one of your flock that will follow blindly over the edge.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2005-07-08-sheep-suicide_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161949,00.html
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/?c=ireland&jp=cwkfauidaukf
http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/3456.html
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
For the millionth time, I'm not leading anyone anywhere. And there's nothing to PROVE!!! For the millionth time as well, there's nothing to prove. I am stating my reasons for liking her. It's an AESTHETIC argument!!!! Do you know what that means? Aesthetics arguments have NO PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can link to a youtube video of a guy saying Sotomayor will do fine. Do you want me to do that? Obviously, that suffices as proof to you. Where were you educated?
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
That would be hearsay...
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
That's my point. On this site, when most people want to make an argument, what do they do? They post to a video. That's my argument. Right there.
Why not make an actual argument? Why rely on someone else's thoughts when you're supposed to be forming your own?
You can usually tell the intelligence of a person on the internet by the ratio of original words by the author and the amount of links to articles or youtube videos. The more reliance on video, the stupider they are. You yourself applauded NoDrama for his page long treatise on America in another thread. He relied upon no stupid videos or news articles. He made HIS argument and it was great.
And out of curiosity, how many videos or articles have you linked to in the past two weeks? Probably over a hundred.
Mcgician
Well-Known Member
It truly is. Debating hard core libs is like talking to a brick wall. No matter what FACTS you have to back you up, no matter what the Constitution says or the principles of our founding fathers, no matter what warnings of such dangerous precedents you provide, it still makes no difference. In the liberal mind, those things are just suggestions. Only after they've created their liberal hell on earth and stolen away all your liberties in the name of the state will they maybe realize they fucked up. It's truly pathetic.Mental Illness!!!!
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
One size does not fit all JRH. Some people do not retain information that they read as well as others. Some people are highly dependent upon auditory perception when it comes to retaining information. Of course, the problem with video (which is why I don't watch the news) is that there is too much emotional context and too much body language embedded in the message. It makes it easy for some one that has wasted their lives pursuing the study of speech delivery to manipulate the audience by manipulating their own body language.
No, the problem with video is not that it is unintelligent (though I am inclined to say it reeks of laziness) but that it reeks of bias from the videos themselves. Perhaps the videos should just be reduced to sound files, but then there is still the aspect of emotional content...
Anyway, I disagree with the posting of videos being a mark of unintelligence, but they are a mark of laziness, and perhaps a lack of understanding of the issues at a fundamental atomic level that would really allow for a discussion and debate surrounding them.
Me, personally, I prefer the written (printed) word, because I can read faster than most people talk.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Debating anyone that is not willing to listen to reason, or willing to change their ideas is that way.
So I looked up the quick look at it at, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html and it is insane that that took place. But as I don't have the transcript of the case, I will only say maybe either the lawyer sucked bad, or there was little evidence in the case. If there wasn't any tapes it would be hearsay, the decision was 5-4, so 4 other judges voted with her.
I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that someone would cry wolf to get what they want, just like I wouldn't put it past the officials to be corrupt.
Some other interesting cases:
Abortion: Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush She upheld the Bush campaign of not giving money to countries that use abortion as a form of birth control.
Racism: Pappas v. Giuliani She said that even though the cop posted horrible things on the internet and e-mails he did it on his own time. So being Hispanic doesn't mean she will string up white racists, which should be some comfort to the people who think she will be unjust.
2nd Amendment: Maloney v. Rice (aka Maloney v. Cuomo) http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
. Some dude thought that he should be able to us num-chucks in NY and got arrested. Sotty decided along with the other judges that it is the state law that dictates this (which is how it has gone down in almost every case with 2nd amendment rights in question.
With someone that has heard several thousand cases, there will always be things to site to make it seem horrible.
But as simple as things seem when we read them, the real situation could be vastly different, anyone can make a lawsuit for almost any reason, but it doesn't mean they are right.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
I post links to things that are relevant to the issues, that state the facts. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. I don't try to make arguments, you throw in your snide remarks and are almost always negative. You may have a God complex who knows. Maybe you are like Med and just need a hug
.