Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

Originally Posted by Honu

I somehow managed to grow up to be a productive member of society.

I dare you to reproduce then.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I'm not gunna give you the quote again. If you look at that quote objectively, she's talking about her sex, her race, the male sex, and the white race. She said someone of her sex n' race would be better at something than a male member of a specific race. Yes, we normally do tolerate a sexist-racist statement like this from some members of our society. You choose to continue to do that, and I think people who want an important public service position (like this one) should not be given the pass(unless you want all members of society to get the same pass.) Oh, and yes, I do think she was stupid to say it. Like I said before, I think the statement shows enough subtle sexism, and racism to make her inappropriate for this(mainy because we don't have to settle.) If she is allowed to get on that court, a message will be sent to people of her community (and other ones) that it's o.k. to make a sexist-racist statement if you're a member of a minority group. It's 2009, and it's time to stop giving out that message. Unlike other Liberals, I am not being a hypocrite about this.

And she obviously misspoke....which while we're going in circles here, is incredibly important. And that's where the entire CONTEXT of the speech comes in. It was still a bonehead statement, but it's not like that was her point.

If you're unwilling to take the entire speech in context, just say that. Say that all you care about is the quote you've provided, and you care nothing about its context. Then I can stop arguing it, because if you're being willfully ignorant about what she actually means, then I can't carry on. Trust me, you don't want people to start cherry picking things of yours out and taking them out of context. It'd be awfully easy.

And if she was such a terrible racist, why would she be the dissenting (I repeat, DISSENTING...as in, in the minority) opinion in a case in which doing so meant she had to defend a white man who was dismissed from his job for being a racist.

So if you want to argue about that exact quote as in only the words in it, then we're done discussing it because you refuse to look at the big picture...which is why I call it a scare quote, regardless of who falls for it.

The big picture is that she's not a racist, and she's not a sexist, and this quote has zero to do with her judicial philosophy, and repeating this quote over and over won't change that a bit. It'll rile some people up, but it won't prove a single thing and it still won't matter one iota when she's confirmed, as she rightfully should be.

Her confirmation won't do any of the things you're saying it will, and won't create a groundswell of secret racists who think they can get away with saying anything because Sonia Sotomayor apparently got sneaky and put one over on the country. Please.

If this is all they've got on her, and it is, and it's all anyone falls for in grabbing for straws for a reason to oppose her...then she's a pretty impeccable nominee.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I dare you to reproduce then.

I feel no need to contribute to the population , I never have , I have a happy life with a wonderfull partner . What does reproduction have to do with this thread if I may ask?
Also have you ever looked up the cost of sperm and getting inseminated? I mean it truly is highway robbery to charge what they charge for something that is shot into a sock , spit on the floor and thrown in the trash everyday.

[miraja2]

In my opinion, the argument that starts with the question, "what if a white guy said the same thing," is completely flawed from the start....because a "white" guy actually couldn't say the exact same thing. If a "white" male made a similar statement to the one that she did, but switched around the racial and gender identifiers, it would be a statement with a completely different meaning. Why? Because race and gender are socially constructed categories that can't be easily distinguished from the power dynamics that created them in the first place. Hundreds of years of racial and gender discrimination cannot simply be wiped away when examining the motivations or the realities of these statements.

I understand that many people who are interested in "fairness" simply wish that all people would stop making statements such as she did. That is a noble sentiment. But while claiming that there would be an uproar over a white man making a similar sounding statement is true, it is also utterly irrelevant. People spend too much time attempting to determine if certain people or phrases should, or should not, be labeled as racist or sexist, as if they are absolute categories in which a person or statement must 100% belong or not. That isn't how it works. What she said, and how she said it, may be unfortunate, but it remains a fundamentally different statement than if a "white" guy had made a similar sounding statement.

[Honu]

Ive read a few more articles on other rulings of Sotomayor , there is one where she appoligized to a non-citizen drug dealer for having to give him the mandatory minimum sentence because she felt he was a product of his enviroment and she basically said that she felt bad that he wouldnt be able to rejoin his family sooner.
There is also another interesting ruling concerning a man who was convicted of child molestation years before and the suspicion that he was down loading child pornography onto his computer , the law wanted to confiscate his computer but the judge decided that just because he molested a child before didnt mean that he was downloading child porn .
Her conclusion therefore is that if the collection of pornography come first followed by child molestation, then the two bear a rational relationship to each other, but if they occur in the reverse order there is no logical connection between them

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

Ive read a few more articles on other rulings of Sotomayor , there is one where she appoligized to a non-citizen drug dealer for having to give him the mandatory minimum sentence because she felt he was a product of his enviroment and she basically said that she felt bad that he wouldnt be able to rejoin his family sooner.
There is also another interesting ruling concerning a man who was convicted of child molestation years before and the suspicion that he was down loading child pornography onto his computer , the law wanted to confiscate his computer but the judge decided that just because he molested a child before didnt mean that he was downloading child porn .
Her conclusion therefore is that if the collection of pornography come first followed by child molestation, then the two bear a rational relationship to each other, but if they occur in the reverse order there is no logical connection between them

This is an easy two parter, based mostly on "some articles I've read," which seem to be where everyone is getting their information on her. No wonder everyone's all worked up over nothing....it's like asking Michelle Malkin for advice on bi-partisan reconciliation and using it as your ammo to make a point later.

The first -- so she doesn't think that the war on drugs is effective and that she thinks it's possible for drug dealers to have ended up there based on the economic realities of society. She is far from alone in this country. Agree or not, she upheld the law and handed down a sentence while making commentary on it that had nothing to do with her ruling. In certain circles, this is called doing your job.

The second -- the child pornography one. She said that she didn't think the FBI's affidavit established probable cause for the search just based on his prior offense, but concluded that either way, the agents were justified in searching the home and that the constitutional violation didn't cancel the evidence and that the resulting evidence was therefore legitimate. The guy in question is in prison. This is another example of the kind of thing that may have contributed to her getting a reputation for actually doing her job.

This, of course, is just from some articles I've read.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is an easy two parter, based mostly on "some articles I've read," which seem to be where everyone is getting their information on her. No wonder everyone's all worked up over nothing....it's like asking Michelle Malkin for advice on bi-partisan reconciliation and using it as your ammo to make a point later.

The first -- so she doesn't think that the war on drugs is effective and that she thinks it's possible for drug dealers to have ended up there based on the economic realities of society. She is far from alone in this country. Agree or not, she upheld the law and handed down a sentence while making commentary on it that had nothing to do with her ruling. In certain circles, this is called doing your job.

The second -- the child pornography one. She said that she didn't think the FBI's affidavit established probable cause for the search just based on his prior offense, but concluded that either way, the agents were justified in searching the home and that the constitutional violation didn't cancel the evidence and that the resulting evidence was therefore legitimate. The guy in question is in prison. This is another example of the kind of thing that may have contributed to her getting a reputation for actually doing her job.

This, of course, is just from some articles I've read.

Its good to know that some of us are doing our research and drawing our conclussions from it , it never hurts to have an informed opinon.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is an easy two parter, based mostly on "some articles I've read," which seem to be where everyone is getting their information on her. No wonder everyone's all worked up over nothing....it's like asking Michelle Malkin for advice on bi-partisan reconciliation and using it as your ammo to make a point later.

The first -- so she doesn't think that the war on drugs is effective and that she thinks it's possible for drug dealers to have ended up there based on the economic realities of society. She is far from alone in this country. Agree or not, she upheld the law and handed down a sentence while making commentary on it that had nothing to do with her ruling. In certain circles, this is called doing your job.

The second -- the child pornography one. She said that she didn't think the FBI's affidavit established probable cause for the search just based on his prior offense, but concluded that either way, the agents were justified in searching the home and that the constitutional violation didn't cancel the evidence and that the resulting evidence was therefore legitimate. The guy in question is in prison. This is another example of the kind of thing that may have contributed to her getting a reputation for actually doing her job.

This, of course, is just from some articles I've read.

I will just say this , doing her job is what she what she was put in the position for , appologizing to a guy who helps ruin peoples lives who isnt even supposed to be in this country is just silly , in my opinon.

[Honu]

By the way in her ruling she deemed that the judge who ordered the search warrant didnt have probable cause to issue it because the case against the man years before was for child molestation and not porn.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GBBob

But there was a little more of a solid paper trail that could be attacked than one quote that has been analyzed to death..

Originally Posted by GBBob

Let's talk about Clarence Thomas....forget about pubic hairs and sexual innuendos..hey..it's just the "office"..this man NEVER did sh*t in his life other than be a conservative black man who, ironically, got where he was because of Democratic policies. He by far is the dumbest judge...even traffic court..that I have ever seen. At least Scalia can justify his personal beliefs and judgements by citing the constitution like Oral Roberts does the Bible. That's what makes him brilliant...otherwise he's just Ann Coulter with a beer belly.

so tell me why he shouldn't have gotten the position on the DC court Bob?

give me some hard facts .whyshouldn't i beleive that Miguel was turned down because a republican president was appointing a conservative hispanic

here we have someone that is a minority , and then senate democratc invoke cloture to not even allow and up and down vote on this historic nomination of a hispanic immigrant from Hondorus ---- if it was the other way around we all know what the story would have been in the papers

but the fact is cloture was used only 1 time ever in the history of this country to stop a nominee from getting an up and down vote

Dick Durbin had his hands all over this one

Originally Posted by Honu

I feel no need to contribute to the population , I never have , I have a happy life with a wonderfull partner . What does reproduction have to do with this thread if I may ask?
Also have you ever looked up the cost of sperm and getting inseminated? I mean it truly is highway robbery to charge what they charge for something that is shot into a sock , spit on the floor and thrown in the trash everyday.

Reproduction... productive member...
a hyaaah...(sneeze, excuse please)

A sorry attempt at humor my good lady.

BTW, one has to be very nice to sperm cells.
They need to be chilled, sung to sleep,
and then gently reawakened.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And she obviously misspoke....which while we're going in circles here, is incredibly important. And that's where the entire CONTEXT of the speech comes in. It was still a bonehead statement

Other than having the appropriate sex and/or race to make you happy, why would you want to settle for someone who misspeaks, and makes bonehead statements? Can't he find someone who is better than this, and still satisfies his desire to put a minority and/or a woman on the court? I'm gunna watch a Dodger game soon. There's a guy who does whatever he's asked to do during Dodger telecasts (both at home, and on the road.) He(at one time) had a national gig on Fox, but he misspoke. Funny how she gets a pass(and a better job) even though she's gunna be making important decisions, but male whites(like the guy I referred to) get demoted. Like I said, I see this stuff from Liberals as simple hypocrisy. I have no problem with any minority (male,female, trans whatever) going on the Supreme Court. I just don't want one who said what she said. We can find someone better than this. I think either we ignore all this "misspeaking," or none of it. One, or the other(not easier rules because of someone's sex or race.)

[gales0678]

scuds - help me out , what happened with Miguel Estrada , was that not a national dis-grace?

Originally Posted by gales0678

scuds - help me out , what happened with Miguel Estrada , was that not a national dis-grace?

One thing that hurt was not giving up Estrada's memos
when he was with the Solicitor Generals
office. The office had given up info for other
nominees but for some reason not under Bush.

Estrada was not the only one torpedoed by the Democrats
in that round of bipartisan fighting. That was very nasty.

imo the Democrats could come back and use the nuclear
option that the Republicans threatened back then (if the
liberals were to have carried out yet another filibuster).

Or filibustering could give Obama a chance to find an ultra-liberal
nominee to come back with. And then come back with
P.Soto later when Ginsberg retires.

oops... that was for scuds.
sorry.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

scuds - help me out , what happened with Miguel Estrada , was that not a national dis-grace?

What took place during Hurricane Katrina was a national disgrace. I don't have a problem with the Senate Democrats using a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote on the full Senate floor. Get the votes you need. This is an important part of our system. I think it should be used this time to force OBA to get someone better.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Or filibustering could give Obama a chance to find an ultra-liberal
nominee to come back with. And then come back with
P.Soto later when Ginsberg retires.

oops... that was for scuds.
sorry.

Yes, I can see the Republicans letting a latent racist on the court, because if they filibuster, Oba could nominate a more Liberal person than her. I don't see them filibustering 2 in a row. In fairness to others who have lost jobs due to "misspeaking," I think they should filibuster her. She wouldn't be losing her job. She would be kept from getting one that really she is inappropriate for. Get someone like her, but without the latent racism. Amazing how we have come forward enough to have a minority President, but we still don't want to demand that minorities treat whites etc. with respect. We aren't there yet.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

She said the same sexist stuff in a '94 speech. She left out the "Latina"/"White" adjectives. Same thought, but without race.
It's not just 2001, and it's not explained away by the "misspeaking" excuse.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

She said the same sexist stuff in a '94 speech. She left out the "Latina"/"White" adjectives. Same thought, but without race.
It's not just 2001, and it's not explained away by the "misspeaking" excuse.

With all the hype, and the "magic" this administration has brought to the Capital, the lady will probably be confirmed. But she is(was) a member of
"La Raza" which is a couple of steps down the ladder from the KKK, of which the oldest member of the Democratic leadership proudly served once upon a time! Somebody...nudge Mr. Byrd and have him stand for a round of applause!
FYI......La Raza is a major supporter of Mecha...their motto is "For the Race everything; for the Outside nothing"