Dolce Vita
Active Member
naa man the finger was for obama lol. you get a
and yeah i went back and read Pa.c.s.a 502, i just thought the commonwealth was the us. my b
Sotomayor Refuses to Renounce 'Wise Latina' Word
- Thread starter TreesOfLife
- Start date
and yeah i went back and read Pa.c.s.a 502, i just thought the commonwealth was the us. my b
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Just curious where are you getting that she is going to ban weapons? Was it something you heard on tv or radio or did you look it up? If so can you point me to it please.
And is anyone that has ever made a racial remark a racist? I don't think that is the case. There are people that have at times said things they wish they could take back, and other times words get taken out of context, and even others people refuse to understand what was actually meant.
If nothing else we need to be more rational. I am a social liberal no question, peoples rights should be what the people we elect look out for, while at the same time positioning the economy to succeed. I don't get why people refuse to see some issues as essentially the same, gay rights, abortion right, gun control, freedom to smoke weed if you want, on and on. It is all about the government getting too far into our lives, due to the people lobbying to get these laws passed.
And cousin to those is the ability for us to breath clean air, have good for us food, not have businesses run every aspect of our lives by taking away all the safeguards we have.
And if they can keep their beleifs I am even willing to deal with them tapping phones looking for random words like assasination, bomb, holy war. But only if they can stay away if it is not a national emergancy.
I was in high school for most of Clinton's term, but I was very involved during Bush's. He started out as a golden child of the nation and anyone that spoke out against him was branded anti-american (see Dixie Chicks). Then as we dems continued to thrash him left and right (Micheal Moore, Comedians, Stewart, on and on) the tide finally turned, and it was ok to bash him in the actual (still pretty fake) news.
Now the Right wingers are following the same gameplan with Obama but taken it up a few notches (they didn't even wait until he messed up) and brought out their hounds (Beck, Covuto, The cranky old guy on am radio.... Mark Levin, on and on) and are doing the same thing. And all you right wingers need to understand that they are brainwashing a good enough portion of you with the same tactics that Michael Moore used on Bush, nothing he does is right and everything is horrible and corrupt.
Take a breath and a step back and do some digging on your own with these things and not just in blogs or in books written by people that care about nothing else other than profits.
And is anyone that has ever made a racial remark a racist? I don't think that is the case. There are people that have at times said things they wish they could take back, and other times words get taken out of context, and even others people refuse to understand what was actually meant.
If nothing else we need to be more rational. I am a social liberal no question, peoples rights should be what the people we elect look out for, while at the same time positioning the economy to succeed. I don't get why people refuse to see some issues as essentially the same, gay rights, abortion right, gun control, freedom to smoke weed if you want, on and on. It is all about the government getting too far into our lives, due to the people lobbying to get these laws passed.
And cousin to those is the ability for us to breath clean air, have good for us food, not have businesses run every aspect of our lives by taking away all the safeguards we have.
And if they can keep their beleifs I am even willing to deal with them tapping phones looking for random words like assasination, bomb, holy war. But only if they can stay away if it is not a national emergancy.
I was in high school for most of Clinton's term, but I was very involved during Bush's. He started out as a golden child of the nation and anyone that spoke out against him was branded anti-american (see Dixie Chicks). Then as we dems continued to thrash him left and right (Micheal Moore, Comedians, Stewart, on and on) the tide finally turned, and it was ok to bash him in the actual (still pretty fake) news.
Now the Right wingers are following the same gameplan with Obama but taken it up a few notches (they didn't even wait until he messed up) and brought out their hounds (Beck, Covuto, The cranky old guy on am radio.... Mark Levin, on and on) and are doing the same thing. And all you right wingers need to understand that they are brainwashing a good enough portion of you with the same tactics that Michael Moore used on Bush, nothing he does is right and everything is horrible and corrupt.
Take a breath and a step back and do some digging on your own with these things and not just in blogs or in books written by people that care about nothing else other than profits.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
You're right. You're right. You're right. Everything you say is right. She's a bigot because of one statement she made. She's a racist because of ONE statement she made. ONE statement. ONE statement.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.
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.
CrackerJax
New Member
The judge has had 60% of her rulings overturned. Nuff said....
Supposed to be least powerful.
The Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts.
This is what we have now.
Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself.
If the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.
robert 14617
Well-Known Member
how many will it take ?
fried at 420
Well-Known Member
sotomizer is a racsist fuck i say one behalf of all white people when i say we accept your apology
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
It isn't ONE statement ONE TIME its over 10 YEARS+...
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12523
Troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12841769?nclick_check=1
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor determinedly sidestepped volleys of Republican questions on abortion and gun rights Wednesday, keeping her demeanor cool and her opinions mostly private as she neared the end of a marathon Senate grilling on the road to all but sure confirmation.
After two long days of questioning by Judiciary Committee senators, Sotomayor had yet to make a slip — certainly not the gaffe that even Republicans concede would be necessary to derail her nomination to be the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the high court. She was due back for still more questioning today.
The appeals court judge, 55, avoided weighing in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice, instead using legal doctrine, carefully worded deflections and even humor to ward off efforts to pin her down.
Appearing more at ease in the witness chair, Sotomayor defused a tense exchange on gun rights by joking about shooting a GOP critic and charmed Democratic supporters with nostalgic praise for fictional attorney Perry Mason.
Republicans, frustrated in their attempts to undercut President Barack Obama's first high court choice, said they were still worried Sotomayor would bring bias and a political agenda to the bench.
"It's muddled, confusing, backtracking on issue after issue," complained Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel. "I disappointed in the lack of clarity and consistency in her answers."
Her rulings — except for a much-debated reverse discrimination case — have not shed much light on her positions either, though she is considered unlikely to disturb the Supreme Court balance in replacing generally liberal Justice David Souter.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html
Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences
Why libertariansand everyone who believes in limited governmentshould worry about Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee
Damon W. Root | May 26, 2009
President Barack Obama's announcement that he wants federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter comes as something less than a shock. For months, Sotomayor's name has topped most lists of potential candidates. With her compelling personal story, which stretches from a Bronx, New York housing project to Yale Law School to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor's likely appointment as the Court's first Hispanic justice nicely complements Obama's own "only in America" narrative.
But when it comes to her judicial philosophy, there are some real causes for concern. In particular, on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law.
Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.
Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranesa liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clintonto issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.
"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 contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:
As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.
Sonia Sotomayor on Gun Rights and Racial Preferences
Why libertariansand everyone who believes in limited governmentshould worry about Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee
Damon W. Root | May 26, 2009
President Barack Obama's announcement that he wants federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter comes as something less than a shock. For months, Sotomayor's name has topped most lists of potential candidates. With her compelling personal story, which stretches from a Bronx, New York housing project to Yale Law School to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor's likely appointment as the Court's first Hispanic justice nicely complements Obama's own "only in America" narrative.
But when it comes to her judicial philosophy, there are some real causes for concern. In particular, on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law.
Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.
Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranesa liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clintonto issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.
"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 contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." 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." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."
As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
Now for why she is racist.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Womens Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.
What is La Raza?
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
The acronym MEChA stands for "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan." or "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan."
MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas," romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan. In its national constitution, MEChA calls for self-determination by its members to liberate Aztlan. MEChA's national constitution starts out: "Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán."
These anti-American "Mechistas" live with the false illusion that they are being racially discriminated against because they are Latinos while totally dismissing the idea that maybe it is their ideology that is being discriminated against.
At the MEChA National Conference on March 15 - 18, 2001, the official "MEChA Philosophy" was ratified. An excerpt from the document states: "as Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan."
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The MEChA Clubs on each of the Santa Barbara high school campuses are not the only ones. MEChA groups exist on 90 percent of the public high school, college and university campuses in the Southwestern United States.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Womens Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.
What is La Raza?
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
The official national symbol of MEChA is an eagle holding a machete-like weapon and a stick of dynamite.
The acronym MEChA stands for "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan." or "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan."
MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas," romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan. In its national constitution, MEChA calls for self-determination by its members to liberate Aztlan. MEChA's national constitution starts out: "Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán."
These anti-American "Mechistas" live with the false illusion that they are being racially discriminated against because they are Latinos while totally dismissing the idea that maybe it is their ideology that is being discriminated against.
At the MEChA National Conference on March 15 - 18, 2001, the official "MEChA Philosophy" was ratified. An excerpt from the document states: "as Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan."
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The MEChA Clubs on each of the Santa Barbara high school campuses are not the only ones. MEChA groups exist on 90 percent of the public high school, college and university campuses in the Southwestern United States.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
what... huh?
Active Member
Well... first of all it was two individual statements and a reiteration, lest you be confused. This wasn't a poor choice of words, it was a reflection of her beliefs. You do understand the term prejudice do you not? You do understand why that is an issue at the Supreme Court level yes?
Here is the thing about the "balance" you referred to earlier. SCOTUS is really unlike anything else. There are no objections. They ARE the law of the land. You presume that because of the affiliation with the party which proposes them, and their voting record, you PRESUME that they will vote along party lines on issues before them. This is why I assume you are young. You do not really grasp who these people are, or how they work. They have not heard 90% of the cases that people hurl as election issues. They interpret the intent of the constitution. That is all. Not the men who wrote it, but the intent for which it was written, signed, and ratified.
Judges "shock" the public all the time in decisions... because the public does not understand that these people are the last barrier to destroying ourselves, and hold it sacredly. That is why they are scrutinized so heavily. That is why GWB's pick was speared by the mob forcing her to resign the bid, a mockery. This is SUPPOSED to happen when someone is PLAINLY WRONG.
This is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than saying black women are incapable of ever being as intelligent and prudent as a white man. None.
It is abhorrent.
what... huh?
Active Member
Couple this with her record on reverse discrimination cases, and you see quite clearly that her racist and bigoted prejudices affect her rulings.
She does not meet the prerequisites to hold this position. You can't be a racist. You can't be a sexist. This is not egalitarianism, this is the promotion of a race or gender based on that criteria alone.
Even if all you are doing is hating white men.
She does not meet the prerequisites to hold this position. You can't be a racist. You can't be a sexist. This is not egalitarianism, this is the promotion of a race or gender based on that criteria alone.
Even if all you are doing is hating white men.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Ever hear of karma? Maybe white men deserve some hatin'
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Wrong! That's the thing about assumptions.
robert 14617
Well-Known Member
wow really .........Ever hear of karma? Maybe white men deserve some hatin'
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Pop in that the case she rules the dude vs Cuomo was from 2004, there was little precident in overturning state gun laws using the federal law.
And her racism charge would be better if she didn'tjudge in favor of the white cop that was pumping out racist posts and letters/emails on his own time that it was his consitutional right to do so on his own time.
Tell you what find a judge that has the qualifications that you would approve to be a supreme court judge and see if out of the thousands of cases they sat over we wouldn't be able to find similar situations.
And her racism charge would be better if she didn'tjudge in favor of the white cop that was pumping out racist posts and letters/emails on his own time that it was his consitutional right to do so on his own time.
Tell you what find a judge that has the qualifications that you would approve to be a supreme court judge and see if out of the thousands of cases they sat over we wouldn't be able to find similar situations.
CrackerJax
New Member
I'll go with Robert Bork who would run circles around Sotomayer in qualifications and actual record of competence.
It's not about the best qualified...one of the inherent problems with ONE MORE Obama nominee. It's more about stacking the bench, which is truly sad and a disservice to the country....thanks Obama.... gosh, he sure is in our corner huh....
It's not about the best qualified...one of the inherent problems with ONE MORE Obama nominee. It's more about stacking the bench, which is truly sad and a disservice to the country....thanks Obama.... gosh, he sure is in our corner huh....