Sotomayor Refuses to Renounce 'Wise Latina' Word

[Parker]

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.

She didn't say different she said better.

“I would hope that 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.”

Just like her you're full of shit.

Whether the conclusions reached by a wise latina woman are better is up for debate, but the mindset is not problematic.

Up for debate? Since when does the color of anyones skin or their sex make them more suitable for office?

 

[hanimmal]

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.

The statement she made doesn't have to mean I am better than a white man in every situation. But in the situation above it would be benefitial to be a minority and have the ability to uphold the law as it is written. Imagine someone siting the same case for a white man trying to get into the supreme court and the anger it could be used to insite among the minority population.

 

[Mcgician]

The statement she made doesn't have to mean I am better than a white man in every situation. But in the situation above it would be benefitial to be a minority and have the ability to uphold the law as it is written. Imagine someone siting the same case for a white man trying to get into the supreme court and the anger it could be used to insite among the minority population.

Well then those minorities are RACISTS. Simple as that!

 

[jrh72582]

Whether the conclusions reached by a wise latina woman are better is up for debate, but the mindset is not problematic.

She didn't say different she said better.

“I would hope that 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.”

Just like her you're full of shit.


Up for debate? Since when does the color of anyones skin or their sex make them more suitable for office?[/QUOTE]

I never said more suitable. I said different. Different. Different perspective is absolutely necessary if we are to have a robust marketplace of ideas. Different does not mean right. It means different. Having only ONE perspective on each issue means NO growth. Having multiple and DIFFERENT opinions on every issue mandates growth and change. It's that simple. She's different and that's WHOLLY positive.

 

[jrh72582]

Well then those minorities are RACISTS. Simple as that!

The man who constantly plays the 'racist' card is usually a racist. Think over your life. How many racist statements have you made? Have you ever taken pride in your white race? By your definition (which Sotomayor is applied) would you be a racist? I think the answer is.......

 

[Mcgician]

The man who constantly plays the 'racist' card is usually a racist. Think over your life. How many racist statements have you made? Have you ever taken pride in your white race? By your definition (which Sotomayor is applied) would you be a racist?

NO.

I think the answer is.......

Bite me jerkoff. Dude, the points you make on here are like swiss cheese. They've got so many holes in them when it actually comes to providing FACTS it's not even funny. Feel free to spread more you OPINION around though- and we all know how special those are........................as important as assholes. *rollseyes*

 

[jrh72582]

NO.

Bite me jerkoff. Dude, the points you make on here are like swiss cheese. They've got so many holes in them when it actually comes to providing FACTS it's not even funny. Feel free to spread more you OPINION around though- and we all know how special those are........................as important as assholes. *rollseyes*

You want my opinion based on FACTS, here it is:

I think that arguing over the credentials of a supreme court judge to this extent is ridiculous. A supreme court judge is quite insignificant, so arguing their credentials and holding them to the status of, say, a congressman or president, is silly. Their power is discussed in article 3 of our great law. Articles 1 and 2 are for the powers and duties of the president and congress. Articles 1 and 2 are quite long and detailed. Article 3 is quite spartan because as John Jay stated quite clearly, the supreme court is an insignificant part of our government. Their sway and power is quite limited. One judge can accomplish nothing. There remains a system of checks and balances so that the court remains neutral and deadlocked on almost all issues.

As I said, Jay actually resigned from the supreme court because he could not influence the direction of the US as much as what he wanted to. Should I provide written citation for my argument or can I assume that you have the faculties necessary to engage in such research yourself? Basically, I'm asking whether I should spoon-feed you (versus the ideal option - you feeding your damn self). I ultimately believe that arguing over Sotomayor's statement is absolutely inane and uttely useless. She's practically a supreme court judge already and will have no impact upon our system. So to focus on ONE statement as a matter of banning her from the court (when we all make and believe such statements as regards to our own race) is frickin' ridiculous. It makes no sense.

 

[TreesOfLife]

You want my opinion based on FACTS, here it is:

I think that arguing over the credentials of a supreme court judge to this extent is ridiculous. A supreme court judge is quite insignificant, so arguing their credentials and holding them to the status of, say, a congressman or president, is silly. Their power is discussed in article 3 of our great law. Articles 1 and 2 are for the powers and duties of the president and congress. Articles 1 and 2 are quite long and detailed. Article 3 is quite spartan because as John Jay stated quite clearly, the supreme court is an insignificant part of our government. Their sway and power is quite limited. One judge can accomplish nothing. There remains a system of checks and balances so that the court remains neutral and deadlocked on almost all issues.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...

What are the 3 branches of government sir?

 

[jrh72582]

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...

What are the 3 branches of government sir?

legislative, executive, and judicial. judicial is easily the least important, based on the content of the articles. read them. and again, you cannot convince people that you're smart simply by insulting everyone else. but keep doing it. you're really good at insults.

 

[Mcgician]

You want my opinion based on FACTS, here it is:

I think that arguing over the credentials of a supreme court judge to this extent is ridiculous. A supreme court judge is quite insignificant, so arguing their credentials and holding them to the status of, say, a congressman or president, is silly. Their power is discussed in article 3 of our great law. Articles 1 and 2 are for the powers and duties of the president and congress. Articles 1 and 2 are quite long and detailed. Article 3 is quite spartan because as John Jay stated quite clearly, the supreme court is an insignificant part of our government. Their sway and power is quite limited. One judge can accomplish nothing. There remains a system of checks and balances so that the court remains neutral and deadlocked on almost all issues.

As I said, Jay actually resigned from the supreme court because he could not influence the direction of the US as much as what he wanted to. Should I provide written citation for my argument or can I assume that you have the faculties necessary to engage in such research yourself? Basically, I'm asking whether I should spoon-feed you (versus the ideal option - you feeding your damn self).

The only thing you've spoon fed ANY of us so far is left wing bullshit- and extreme bullshit at that. There's no need for me to post links or youtube videos to prove my point because Trees of Life and others already have! Besides, you're so jaded in the way you think, you're incapable of looking at anything political fairly, what good would it do?!

I ultimately believe that arguing over Sotomayor's statement is absolutely inane and uttely useless. She's practically a supreme court judge already and will have no impact upon our system. So to focus on ONE statement as a matter of banning her from the court (when we all make and believe such statements as regards to our own race) is frickin' ridiculous. It makes no sense

It makes no sense? To hold people at their OWN WORDS? Sorry, but that is NOT too high a standard in my book to hold someone to. She didn't just say it once, or even as a joke. She said it, she meant it, and did so REPEATEDLY. If a conservative judicial nominee had said the exact same thing, he or she would be crucified by you same libs that are willing to give her a pass. You believe her, and take her at nothing more THAN HER WORD. I do not. I also don't take lightly her non-chalant joke about "the court makes policy". I find that extremely disturbing. The Supreme Court decides cases of extreme Constitutional importance, and ANYONE that is nominated to preside as one of its constituents should be examined with a fine tooth comb. Her words and her actions are extremely conflicted. Knowing the importance of the position to the nation's future, and precedents, having to take someone simply at their word, TO ME, simply is not enough. IMO, she's a racist. Not only does she not belong on the SC, but she doesn't belong as a judge in ANY court!

Oh, and while you are willing to give the likes of those with your own ideology a pass when it comes to forming judgements about them, you are quick to judge people like me, and all but come out and call me a racist. You sir, are a hypocrite. That is all. Have a nice day.

 

[Bill Gates]

Too much bandwidth for shit that has nothing to do with the reason we are all here. Roll a fatty, put on some music and enjoy the rest of your life.

 

[Mcgician]

Too much bandwidth for shit that has nothing to do with the reason we are all here. Roll a fatty, put on some music and enjoy the rest of your life.

If you don't like political threads, why did you click on one? This seems more the thread you'll enjoy.


https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/212754-chill-bro-mentality-pot-culture.html

 

[Dolce Vita]

ya know i don't think its to big of a deal its a democratic judge replcing a democratic judge. and the supreme court of Pennsylvania is a higher court anyway. but i think she will be obamas puppet (just like al franken)

 

[robert 14617]

Definitions of racism on the Web:

• the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
• discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
• The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon race
• en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism
• racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
• racist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

if it walks like a duck......

 

[Dolce Vita]

Definitions of racism on the Web:

• the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
• discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
• The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon race
• en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism
• racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
• racist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

if it walks like a duck......

and talks like a duck...

 

[robert 14617]

and talks like a duck...

so we agree

 

[Mcgician]

ya know i don't think its to big of a deal its a democratic judge replcing a democratic judge. and the supreme court of Pennsylvania is a higher court anyway.

Judges should be difficult to identify politically, as the Constitution does not change. If they would merely refer to that instead of supining on their own, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The problem I have with liberal rulings (most of the time) is that they aim to change the intent of the principles the founding fathers laid down for us in the original drafting of the Constitution. For example, the "right to bear arms" is EXPRESSLY defined in the Constitution as an individual's right. Sotomayor's, is that that only applies to the police and military. Anybody wanna show me where the hell it says that!?!? Anybody?? Bueller??? I love this country, and I believe in the Constitution our founding fathers drafted. Changing it to suit one's personal beliefs IMO, is NOT NEGOTIABLE. That's what pisses me off the most. That other guy a few posts up even went so far as to say that the judicial branch of the government was the LEAST IMPORTANT of the 3 government branches. Unbelievable!!! Seriously, that has to rank of the most idiotic ideas I've actually seen posted in any of the political threads. The importance is monumental. Sotomayor was correct in saying in her assertion that, "the Supreme Court makes policy". What she got wrong is, that it only makes new policy when it goes against the principles ALREADY LAID OUT in the Constitution by the founding fathers.

The Dems have been feverishly looking forward to the day when one of theirs finally got the chance to appoint a SC justice. Why? Because many of their tactics look to change the way America is, and its Constitution. Many of their ideas are so unpopular that they often don't even attempt to change laws, or make new ones through the proper legislative process. It's a whole lot easier for them to change things through the judicial branch. No votes needed. Especially when the court deciding things has people on "their side" appointed FOR LIFE. The amount of 5-4 decisions in the SC is an embarrassment! I struggle to understand how anyone with the amount of schooling they all supposedly have, and experience they have, can come to 2 opposing positions as routinely as they do, and for even 1 second, think that it's not because of political idealogy. How else do explain it?!

And btw, the SC of Pennsylvanis is NOT higher than the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[what... huh?]

So Sotomayor isn't allowed to take pride in her Latino heritage?

Strawman. Have all the pride you like, but when you suggest that it makes you more capable of other races, and other sexes to reach correct verdicts, it becomes... by definition:
rac·ism (r

s

z

m)n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

If I said a wise latina woman is not capable of interpreting the constitution as well as old white men, because it was written by old white men, what would I be saying? What implications would it have? At least that statement has a VALID ARGUMENT supporting its bigoted claim.

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.

Are you fucking serious? This is the SUPREME COURT which interprets the rule of law which governs us all... you don't go "Oh well, there are people who disagree with her, so it will all work out..."

You do not sit idly by and put a RACIST in a position of power because "there are republicans too". You put the BEST Judge in that seat. I am not arguing her interpretation of a well armed militia, SHE IS A FUCKING BIGOT. This isn't "who gets to drive the carpool?"... it is your country. Where is your patriotism? "Well... so long as she is on my side... she can be Hitler."

Disgusting.

 

[Dolce Vita]

Judges should be difficult to identify politically, as the Constitution does not change. If they would merely refer to that instead of supining on their own, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The problem I have with liberal rulings (most of the time) is that they aim to change the intent of the principles the founding fathers laid down for us in the original drafting of the Constitution. For example, the "right to bear arms" is EXPRESSLY defined in the Constitution as an individual's right. Sotomayor's, is that that only applies to the police and military. Anybody wanna show me where the hell it says that!?!? Anybody?? Bueller??? I love this country, and I believe in the Constitution our founding fathers drafted. Changing it to suit one's personal beliefs IMO, is NOT NEGOTIABLE. That's what pisses me off the most. That other guy a few posts up even went so far as to say that the judicial branch of the government was the LEAST IMPORTANT of the 3 government branches. Unbelievable!!! Seriously, that has to rank of the most idiotic ideas I've actually seen posted in any of the political threads. The importance is monumental. Sotomayor was correct in saying in her assertion that, "the Supreme Court makes policy". What she got wrong is, that it only makes new policy when it goes against the principles ALREADY LAID OUT in the Constitution by the founding fathers.

The Dems have been feverishly looking forward to the day when one of theirs finally got the chance to appoint a SC justice. Why? Because many of their tactics look to change the way America is, and its Constitution. Many of their ideas are so unpopular that they often don't even attempt to change laws, or make new ones through the proper legislative process. It's a whole lot easier for them to change things through the judicial branch. No votes needed. Especially when the court deciding things has people on "their side" appointed FOR LIFE. The amount of 5-4 decisions in the SC is an embarrassment! I struggle to understand how anyone with the amount of schooling they all supposedly have, and experience they have, can come to 2 opposing positions as routinely as they do, and for even 1 second, think that it's not because of political idealogy. How else do explain it?!

And btw, the SC of Pennsylvanis is NOT higher than the Supreme Court of the United States.

well obama speaks as though the constitution is holding him back.

 

[Mcgician]

well obama speaks as though the constitution is holding him back.

What's up with the finger dude? Most of what I said was a monologue. The only thing I specifically mentioned that was incorrect (that you said) was that the SC is higher than that of the state of Pennsylvania. WTF?