RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court!

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 5:34:53 AM

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

Ooops! They just played the entire clip of her supposedly discussing how the appellate courts are supposed to be "the place where policy is written".... except it seems someone trimmed the part of the statement where she added ..."but I don't endorse that position."

Uh huh. Typical.

More typical Republican manipulation, half truths and outright lies to the American People. And they wonder why they're "dead last but finished" in every single demographic polled about which political party they support.

The GOP had better wise the fuck up. This woman votes with conservatives about 95% of the time on the issues. They could really do a whole lot worse than her.

(in reply to MmeGigs)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 5:56:38 AM

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Bita, are there any lawyers running for office or being appointed to a public post who *aren't* "Brilliant Legal Scholars?"

Yes. Barney Frank comes to mind.

quote:

I'm sure if you asked an alchoholic ambulance chaser with mustard on his jacket and who likes to hang out at the dog track if he were a "Brilliant Legal Scholor" he'd say yes. Or a divorce lawyer.

I don't see how you can possibly be sure of such a thing nor what it has to do with the subject at hand. I've read a lot of legal opinions, some of which were brilliant, some of which were down-right assine but most were mediocre and many were boring.

quote:

Why are they always "Brilliant?"

They are not 'always' brilliant.

quote:

With all the "Brilliant Legal Scholors" that have been in our govt and looking at the shape financially of it I'd settle for "Competant Legal Scholors."

Then you should be quite happy with Sotomayer since she exceeds your expectations.

quote:

Bill Clinton thought he was "Brilliant" too. Look what happened to him. How can you be "brilliant" if you can't even do "competant?"

I've never heard Bill Clinton make the statement that he thought he was brilliant. Got a link? Beyond that, I have no idea why you're talking about Bill Clinton when the subject is who is who is up next for the bench, not who was president over 8 years ago.

quote:

That's the problem with "brilliant" they all seem to forget that they work for The People and at some point decide that they'll do what "they" want to do instead of doing the job they were hired to do and are being *paid* to do.

That ranks right up there with 'all' women should be slaves. There is no 'all' when it comes to individuals.

quote:

You try that shit in the "D.P.S." (Dreaded private sector) and you're gone in a week!

I'm sure you are aware the Sotomayer did work in the private sector and she wasn't gone in a week. Or, maybe you didn't know that, but now you do.

quote:

I'd take a pass on this woman who likes to "make policy from the bench" for someone "not quite brilliant", "doesn't like brilliant" or "huh? what's brilliant?"

You don't get a vote on the issue. As for making policy from the bench.. that's cute. Wrong, but cute.

quote:

One person's "opinion" is just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

Some opinions are garnered from research and others from 30 second sound bites. Not all opinions are created equal.

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 6:00:45 AM

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

It's not a cheap shot if it's the truth.

Looks like you'll really like the way she rules against people who are victims of reverse discrimination... which is, considering everything, awfully ironic. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
How is this affirmative action? From what I've heard about her, she's well qualified to take a seat on the Supreme Court, perhaps more qualified than some who are on that bench now.

I get a bit irritated when I see statements like this. It seems to come out any time a nominee isn't a white man. I think it's a cheap shot.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MmeGigs)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 6:14:28 AM

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

You're aiming this prattle at The New York Times?

quote:

More typical Republican manipulation, half truths and outright lies to the American People.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MarsBonfire)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 7:43:55 AM

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It isn't the job of a Supreme court justice to make policy. Their job is to uphold and interpret current laws. She will be making policy from the bench.

Bush didn't think so when he originally appointed her in 1992. I read two of her opinions, one in which she was the majority and one in which she dissented. They were both brillant; on point and insightful. She brings more judicial experience to the bench than anyone in the past 70 years. She's written over 150 opinions, only two of which have been over turned by the SCOTUS (a third is likely to be over turned as well.) That's a pretty damn good record.

When Bush appointed her, the conservatives considered her moderate. When Clinton promoted her, the liberals considered her moderate. I haven't read anything yet that shows such does not continue to hold true. She has ruled on the side of business and on the side of labor. Right now, from my (very) quick review of her opinions, she looks to be 'slightly' left to me but since Souter tends to lean that way as well, it's pretty much a wash.

My gut says this is a good appointment and I can't see anything that would bar her nomination from SCOTUS .. yet.

Hell, the worst thing I can say about her at this point is that she's a Yankee fan but I'm still researching.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Link gives over view and some case names for ease of research for anyone interested.

Bita, are there any lawyers running for office or being appointed to a public post who *aren't* "Brilliant Legal Scholars?"
I'm sure if you asked an alchoholic ambulance chaser with mustard on his jacket and who likes to hang out at the dog track if he were a "Brilliant Legal Scholor" he'd say yes. Or a divorce lawyer.
Why are they always "Brilliant?" With all the "Brilliant Legal Scholors" that have been in our govt and looking at the shape financially of it I'd settle for "Competant Legal Scholors."
Bill Clinton thought he was "Brilliant" too. Look what happened to him.
How can you be "brilliant" if you can't even do "competant?"
That's the problem with "brilliant" they all seem to forget that they work for The People and at some point decide that they'll do what "they" want to do instead of doing the job they were hired to do and are being *paid* to do.
You try that shit in the "D.P.S." (Dreaded private sector) and you're gone in a week!
I'd take a pass on this woman who likes to "make policy from the bench" for someone "not quite brilliant", "doesn't like brilliant" or "huh? what's brilliant?"
One person's "opinion" is just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

Nice post Popeye.

My opinion is that there is rampant abuse in our court system as a whole. Adherence to facts and law, and ruling accordingly, is lacking in so many proceedings, as is the lack of impartiality. We hear of an important case from time to time in which jurists actually do the job they were elected/appointed to do but most typically, in the thousands of run of the mill cases that go through our courts daily, there is abuse.

More of my opinion is that we need to begin again to educate the populace in re their collective rights and powers as jury members. The history and practice of the doctrine of "jury nullification" is long. Very long. Like Magna Carta long. In essence it vests the ultimate power in the courtroom with the jury and they were enabled and expected to rule not only on the facts but on the law itself. Thus citizens were the real lawmakers and activists. In todays courtrooms if an attorney, or a pro se litigant, mentions anything relating to jury nullification they are frequently put in jail for contempt of court.

Yet more of my opinion is that we'd all be better off if we eliminated judicial immunity. In short that means that judges are not held personally accountable for their poor, or improper, rulings and decisions. They have nothing at stake when they rule. Specifically there is little real motive for them to rule properly because there is no penalty if they don't.

I suggest everyone spend some time in a local courtroom as a spectator to see what really goes on. Some of the behavior of judges is completely beyond the pale.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 8:11:53 AM

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

What Conservatives are trying to say is that no matter how high one`s climbed,no matter how much one`s achieved,no matter what position and/or status one has earned on their own,if you`re not white(or a male,or Christian),somehow you`re benefiting from affirmative action.Doesn`t matter who you are,not even if you were 1st nominated by a republican.

It also implies one`s not qualified or that white people are somehow,victims.All selfish ,ignorant bullshit,but there it is.

This woman was twice already been confirmed by the Senate,yet there are some "Senators"(cons )who now claim they need to "study" her.lol

This bugaboo is planned and meant for the republican base,mostly to raise money
and to stir them up.The reactions are canned(not real)and the outrage is fake.They are just going through the gyrations.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Sanity)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 9:31:22 AM

Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire
They could really do a whole lot worse than her.

This is true. Considering who she is replacing and considering the alternatives it could have been a lot worse. She's not a great choice but at least he didn't go overboard even though he has big majority to confirm in the Senate. At least we'll now have someone on the bench watching out for the "right racial mix" whatever the fuck that is.

(in reply to MarsBonfire)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 10:40:11 AM

Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It isn't the job of a Supreme court justice to make policy. Their job is to uphold and interpret current laws. She will be making policy from the bench.

Bush didn't think so when he originally appointed her in 1992. I read two of her opinions, one in which she was the majority and one in which she dissented. They were both brillant; on point and insightful. She brings more judicial experience to the bench than anyone in the past 70 years. She's written over 150 opinions, only two of which have been over turned by the SCOTUS (a third is likely to be over turned as well.) That's a pretty damn good record.

When Bush appointed her, the conservatives considered her moderate. When Clinton promoted her, the liberals considered her moderate. I haven't read anything yet that shows such does not continue to hold true. She has ruled on the side of business and on the side of labor. Right now, from my (very) quick review of her opinions, she looks to be 'slightly' left to me but since Souter tends to lean that way as well, it's pretty much a wash.

My gut says this is a good appointment and I can't see anything that would bar her nomination from SCOTUS .. yet.

Hell, the worst thing I can say about her at this point is that she's a Yankee fan but I'm still researching.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Link gives over view and some case names for ease of research for anyone interested.

Yes, excellent. In as much as she is reported to have pissed-off both sides...she's my kinda girl.

(in reply to BitaTruble)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 10:47:59 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

My opinion is that there is rampant abuse in our court system as a whole. Adherence to facts and law, and ruling accordingly, is lacking in so many proceedings, as is the lack of impartiality. We hear of an important case from time to time in which jurists actually do the job they were elected/appointed to do but most typically, in the thousands of run of the mill cases that go through our courts daily, there is abuse.

Rampant abuse? I'd be curious to know what evidence you're basing that on. My impression's pretty much the opposite - the courts get it right most of the time, and every now and then do something pretty bizarre, which makes for some sensational headlines that people seize on as anecdotal evidence that the entire judicial system is out of control. I'm just not seeing what you're apparently seeing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
Yet more of my opinion is that we'd all be better off if we eliminated judicial immunity. In short that means that judges are not held personally accountable for their poor, or improper, rulings and decisions. They have nothing at stake when they rule. Specifically there is little real motive for them to rule properly because there is no penalty if they don't.

That's exactly the point. The idea was to make federal judges immune from the whims of whatever party happens to be in power at any particular time, as well as the emotional overreactions of the hysterical mobs. They're not supposed to be directly accountable to public opinion, they're supposed to be guided by an adherence to upholding the law as they interpret it. They're supposed to be motivated by their conscience, their sense of professional ethics, and their oath to the Constitution. The public's chance to screen the judges for competency and integrity is during the appointment and confirmation process, through their elected legislators. If the legislators somehow get it spectacularly wrong, there is a mechanism in place to impeach a federal judge, but the fact that the public doesn't agree with some of their decisions is, in and of itself, not sufficient grounds to impeach. And that's exactly the way it ought to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
I suggest everyone spend some time in a local courtroom as a spectator to see what really goes on. Some of the behavior of judges is completely beyond the pale.

Like what? That's a pretty strong statement.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to UncleNasty)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 10:53:21 AM

Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

How is this affirmative action? From what I've heard about her, she's well qualified to take a seat on the Supreme Court, perhaps more qualified than some who are on that bench now.

I get a bit irritated when I see statements like this. It seems to come out any time a nominee isn't a white man. I think it's a cheap shot.

Do not be irritated just take it as is not what you wish. It is as pure affirmative action as it can be: from the pool of qualified candidates an individual is chosen based on national origin and gender.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:05:38 AM

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

It is as pure affirmative action as it can be: from the pool of qualified candidates an individual is chosen based on national origin and gender.

....how do you know? i've yet to see any argument that suggests she wasn't picked for any other reason other than competency. You come across as suggesting that if any candidate happens to be a woman, say, then that is affirmative action. Which presupposes that all Supreme Court Justices are natuarally men.........i wonder if you see the flaw in that?

(in reply to awmslave)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:07:21 AM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

I am amazed that no one has mentioned her Hispanic woman would make a better ruling than a white man comment
Had a white man made the coresponding statement his nomination would already be over.
It is blatantly racist and sexist

(in reply to awmslave)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:10:54 AM

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline

Not to worry awmslave... presidential rotation...in the works, and has been for quite some time, proposed by a leading GOP...allowing a foreign born to become president...you can start praticing your Austrian accent. Hast-La-Vista-Bebe.

(in reply to awmslave)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:21:06 AM

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline

`yup, typical GOP....just like the intentional misleading thread title......
for what purpose...to garner attention????? Something to Slam her on.....hey, the Pres chose her......her quififcations speak for themselves. What, did the OP think Mr. Obama was going to consult the CM message board first.

(in reply to MarsBonfire)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:21:57 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am amazed that no one has mentioned her Hispanic woman would make a better ruling than a white man comment
Had a white man made the coresponding statement his nomination would already be over.
It is blatantly racist and sexist

Yeah, that's a good point. She's going to have some explaining to do on that one. I'll be very interested to see how she deals with it. I don't think it's going to be enough to torpedo her confirmation, but she can expect a hammering.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:22:18 AM

Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

It's not a cheap shot if it's the truth.

Looks like you'll really like the way she rules against people who are victims of reverse discrimination... which is, considering everything, awfully ironic. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
How is this affirmative action? From what I've heard about her, she's well qualified to take a seat on the Supreme Court, perhaps more qualified than some who are on that bench now.

I get a bit irritated when I see statements like this. It seems to come out any time a nominee isn't a white man. I think it's a cheap shot.

Look, when federal court decisions are made it does not always change or necessarily affirm existing law. Most federal courts cases involve a return to the lower court on merits without overturn and WITHOUT opinion which is how our legal federal judgments are termed.

When cases are overturned or new precedent is created then we get opinions and they are ALL written opinions and almost exclusively because of the discovery of a consitutional requirement. for it. Those returned on their merits have the remainder of any trial to conclude or at the sentencing stage.

As a result, one could argue that this case law is as yet truly unsettled and because there was a Hispanic applicant involved in the Ricci v. DeStefano case currently before the SPCOUS, she may have voted in support of test invalidation to GET this case before the court and before she might be considered for it.

Many want to assume motives on an idealogical basis and as with Souter and others are often very surprised. It is very possible that Sotomayer voted as she did knowing this case needs to go up the chain.

Like I say, if she has genrally pissed-off both sides...she's my kinda girl.

(in reply to Sanity)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:32:33 AM

Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

...how do you know? i've yet to see any argument that suggests she wasn't picked for any other reason other than competency.

I do not know. I just follow the very transparent and obvious (behind the scenes) logic. Perhaps we will know for certain many years from now when the president's historical facts will be released and biographies will be written. My comment was not politically motivated; just an observation. It is your right to wish and imagine there was no better candidate. How do you know? For me "positive" wishful thinking is no virtue.

(in reply to ienigma777)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:54:24 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am amazed that no one has mentioned her Hispanic woman would make a better ruling than a white man comment
Had a white man made the coresponding statement his nomination would already be over.
It is blatantly racist and sexist

Bama, not true, "Hispanic" isn't a "race" it's an ethnic group. So it isn't "racist" to be fair.
I don't know enough about this woman yet to be calling my congressman and senators and telling them "yea" or "nay".
If she comes out under questioning and says that she'll never "legislate from the bench" I think that'll set a lot of minds at ease.
That's something any judge should never do.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 11:58:13 AM

Posts: 497
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
How is this affirmative action? From what I've heard about her, she's well qualified to take a seat on the Supreme Court, perhaps more qualified than some who are on that bench now.

I get a bit irritated when I see statements like this. It seems to come out any time a nominee isn't a white man. I think it's a cheap shot.

I agree. Especially seeing as she brings more judicial experience to the bench than anyone in the past 70 years.

(in reply to MmeGigs)

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/27/2009 12:00:27 PM

Posts: 497
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

It's not a cheap shot if it's the truth.

Except that it's not the truth. And you have yet to offer anything solid to say otherwise, except showing your own blatent discrimination, and trying to project that discrimination onto others.

It's quite sad, really.

Cheap shots are for people that have no argument. You have no argument. Everyone here knows it.

(in reply to Sanity)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.080