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

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 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 8:14:24 AM

MarsBonfire

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

La Raza is racist the same way that NAACP is racist.

An interesting remark. Now should that be interpreted as support or criticism of both?

Cubes are to square holes as spheres are to round holes.

Now should that be interpreted as support or criticism of both?

K.

They have an extra dimention to their existence?

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 9:23:12 AM

KaineD

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Sotomayors' quote, claiming she believes that she's wiser than a white man, is common knowledge by now. There's no reason to provide "evidence" of that.

If you're unaware of it you're simply behind the times, out of the loop.

Unaware of the facts.

You have failed in dealing with that quote in full, in its actual context. Do not project your own lack of knowledge onto other people. Either you are unaware of the full quote, or you are ignoring it.

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 9:30:00 AM

KaineD

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Kaine, it really doesn't matter what I say, you're going to believe what *you* want to believe anyway.
Like I said, I was *"for"* Justice Sotomayor until it became public that she was a member of "La Raza".
I'm trying to keep an *open mind* about this whole thing.

I use the example of the I.R.A. and Sein Fein because I am much more familiar with those groups due to my upbringing and heritage and there are many similarities between Sein Fein and La Raza. I don't want anyone in a public position who is a member of groups like that.

What if Obama chose a man or woman for the SC of Irish descent wo belonged to Sein Fein? You wouldn't have a problem with that?
La Raza advocates usurping our laws on immigration. They don't have a problem with millions of illegal aliens using phoney social security numbers which is a federal felony, just using the number alone, you don't even have to be in possesion of the card.
Try that yourself. You'd be charged and put on trial. Federal felonies are a certain disqualifier for U.S. Citizenship.But, La Raza would have us believe otherwise.
You tell me what La Raza's *agenda* is.

How can we possibly trust that Sotomayor being a member of La Raza who believes in such things would uphold our laws on immigration and illegal aliens?
And how do you think she feels about "amnesty" for illegal aliens when most Americans are against it?
La Raza "believes" in "amensty" for illegal aliens, but only for a certain group of people. Oh, if it suited their purposes they'd probaby come out and say they favored it for "Russians", "Brazilians", etc as well.
I don't have that trust anymore, do you? And another comment she made which is very disturbing, "wait till you see *my* brand of justice!"
We can't have people in public office like that *especially* in judgeships!
President Obama made a mistake with this and he needs to come out and admit it to the American People.

It doesn't really sound like you're trying to keep an open mind.

It sounds like you already made up your mind, and you don't need evidence to verify what you already believe, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says or what evidence is supplied to contradict what you think. You have yet to provide any evidence as to why being a member of La Raza should be an issue. I'm not asking you to do anything difficult. The fact that you refuse to post any kind of source or evidence speaks volumes about how intellectually weak your opinion and argument is.

It is extremely difficult to take you seriously when you make comparisons to between La Raza and Sein Fein. Could you be a little more specific? In what regards is La Raza in any way similar to Sen Fein? As another poster has pointed out, Sein Fein has been the political arm of a terrorist organization. Which terrorist organization is La Raza part of? You need to be more specific about what your actual problem with La Raza is.

I think the problem here is, that you can't even tell us what La Raza's agenda is. Your complaints about them are very general, and you make claims about them that you don't back up with any reliable news sources.

I think you need to do better to prove your case.

We're waiting.

< Message edited by KaineD -- 5/31/2009 9:34:36 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 9:54:24 AM

Sanity

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

I'm not going to argue the obvious with you. The sun rises in the east, and in its full context the statement in question is a blatantly racist statement.

Further, Sotamayor ruled as a circuit court judge that it's perfectly legal to deny promotions to whites because of their skin color, and she was obviously nominated to the supreme court specifically because she's a non-white.

It should be obvious to everyone by now - racism surrounds judge Sotamayor as well as Barack Obama (can you say 'Jeremiah Wright'?). And yet you and your ilk continue to support something as ugly as racism only because you think that people like Obama and Sotamayor will make laws and distort the constitution in ways which suit your extreme political agendas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Sotomayors' quote, claiming she believes that she's wiser than a white man, is common knowledge by now. There's no reason to provide "evidence" of that.

If you're unaware of it you're simply behind the times, out of the loop.

Unaware of the facts.

You have failed in dealing with that quote in full, in its actual context. Do not project your own lack of knowledge onto other people. Either you are unaware of the full quote, or you are ignoring it.

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/31/2009 10:32:37 AM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to KaineD)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 10:01:53 AM

Sanity

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

Whites aren't shitting on anyone, look at the political landscape. That argument is intellectually lazy...

And whites aren't really much of a majority any longer anyway, and I seriously doubt that when white do become the minority here in a few years that it will suddenly be PC for us to form organizations for the advancement of white people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

I dunno, Popeye. If whites were an opressed minority that was constantly being shit on by the majority, I think the idea of their banding together to effect political and social change would be appropriate. Instead, by being a part of the privlidged mainstream, and starting your all white group... you'd just be guilty of being a duchebag. (Hypothetically speaking, of course.)

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MarsBonfire)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 10:38:49 AM

KaineD

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I'm not going to argue the obvious with you. The sun rises in the east, and in its full context the statement in question is a blatantly racist statement.

Further, Sotamayor ruled as a circuit court judge that it's perfectly legal to deny promotions to whites because of the color of their skin, and she was obviously nominated to the supreme court because she's a non-white.

It's way beyond obvious by now - racism surrounds her as well as Barack Obama. And yet you and your ilk continue to support something as ugly as racism only because you think that people like Obama and Sotamayor will make laws and distort the constitution in ways which suit your extreme political agendas.

There is nothing obvious about what you're saying at all. It's all your own personal biases and projections.

It's clear to me that you have not read her full statement.

“Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

If you'd take your blinders off and read that, it's clear that she's actually stating that she believes people of different backgrounds can understand the values and needs of people from different group.s The tiny snippet you keep touting is horribly out of context.

Here, her meaning is clear.

Have another stab at proving that she's "obviously a racist".

Keep revealing your own prejudices.

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 10:52:42 AM

Sanity

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

Nonsense and bullshit.

If a white Republican nominee had said anything like, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" there would be riots were he to be seated, and rightfully so.

It should be no different for her.

Ah, but it is different.

Anyone unaccepting of HER racism is accused of racism... as a part of some kind of an insane doublespeak sort of defense.

Anti-racism is now racism.

Hmm, yeah... here we are.

In her world it's alright to deny white men promotions because they are white - the richness of her experiences have taught her that.

And she calls her discrimination "Wisdom".

And you go along with it...

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/31/2009 11:05:32 AM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to KaineD)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:06:40 AM

KaineD

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

You are still focusing on the little snippet that serves your personal agenda, instead of addressing the overall context.

She states practically in the same breath as your snippet - "I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable."

And "As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

How is that racist?

Why do you fail to address these quotes?

It's all about context. Or does the word context mean nothing to you?

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 148

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:09:14 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I'm not going to argue the obvious with you. The sun rises in the east, and in its full context the statement in question is a blatantly racist statement.

• Top Republican senator says stop calling Sotomayor a 'racist'

WASHINGTON – The top Republican involved in the confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee says he would prefer his colleagues refrain from calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist.

Sen. Jeff Sessions said Sunday that he would prefer fellow Republicans stop attacking Sotomayor over remarks about her background as a daughter of Puerto Rican parents.

CNN Political Ticker

(CNN) — A top Senate Republican is taking aim at recent statements from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich suggesting Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist."

"I think it's terrible," Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered" Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

.................The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office.
"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it’s appropriate. I certainly don't endorse it. I think it’s wrong," he said.

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 149

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:14:11 AM

Sanity

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

Words mean things, Kaine. And there's a larger context, as well - which you are ignoring.

She said she's wiser than a white.

Claiming that statement isn't racist takes some incredible mental gymnastics on your part... and the context doesn't take away from what she said in any way.

And her ruling against the White firemen backs it up, backs up the idea that she may in fact be a racist.

Then there's the fact that she's a member of a group that favors Hispanics over Whites...

It really doesn't look good - but nothing that Obama touches does.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to KaineD)

Profile

Post #: 150

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:29:45 AM

KaineD

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

Do I have to point out the whole damn thing point by point?

"“Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement."

Okay, just to make sure you are following along.

She is setting up here that she doesn't believe that a wise old man and wise old woman would reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. It's a pretty common sense and reality based assessment. Our backgrounds do lead us into different lives and opinions.

"First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

The second part of this is the quote you keep bringing up, while totally missing the point.

How many white men are on the supreme court?

It wouldn't make sense for a white man to state "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience..." because his experience and background isn't largely different from the people already on the Supreme Court. HER background is different. She's talking about balance. When you take the WHOLE quote from beginning to end into context, she's talking about the balance of people of different backgrounds coming to better conclusions.

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case."

Here she points out the old prejudices.

", like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

Here, she points out that white men on many occasions are perfectly capable of understanding the needs of people from different groups.

You are right Sanity in that words do mean things.

And it doesn't make any sense for a person you believe to be racist to state "I believe we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable."

Re-examine your own prejudices. You're going to have to do an awful lot better if you want to prove she's this horrible racist that hates white people.

< Message edited by KaineD -- 5/31/2009 11:31:31 AM >

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 151

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:33:43 AM

Sanity

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

The sun rises in the East, Kaine.

I'm done with this.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to KaineD)

Profile

Post #: 152

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 11:38:12 AM

KaineD

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

Good.

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 153

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 5/31/2009 1:07:19 PM

Jack45

Posts: 220
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Whites aren't shitting on anyone, look at the political landscape. That argument is intellectually lazy...

And whites aren't really much of a majority any longer anyway, and I seriously doubt that when white do become the minority here in a few years that it will suddenly be PC for us to form organizations for the advancement of white people.

That is a good post you made.
Whites are now about 65% of the population. After they changed the immigration law in 1965 it was just a matter of time till the elite got what they wanted. A nation sans Whites.

It may amuse you to learn that back in the 1980s there was the NAAWP, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. The media called it a "HATE GROUP."

When people who see the demographics do any kind of dissemination of information on the topic it is ALWAYS called, "Hate."

This Sotomayor is a person who is down with her peeps.
Just like every other single group in this nation, other than the White folks. I respect tribalism, I just feel that sometimes the outcome may not be SAFE for people who are of Euro heritage.

In California, despite their differences, black and latino students will join together to beat down White students.
Now I guess that is a good thing in one way, working together, but I think it isn't good for the Euro heritage types.

AG Holder said Whites were "cowards" for not talking about race, yet if we do Napolitano says we are "extremists" who need to be watched by the FBI.

I think that there is something bad going on in this nation and we are not supposed to talk about it.
That isn't right.
The immigration time bomb needs to be dealt with.

Mark Krikorian's book on immigration is reviewed here

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 154

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 1:58:28 AM

KaineD

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

I like how this ridiculous thread has been abandoned.

(in reply to Jack45)

Profile

Post #: 155

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 4:00:38 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

I like how this ridiculous thread has been abandoned.

Does that mean you're not coming to Saturday night's Klan meeting?

(in reply to KaineD)

Profile

Post #: 156

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 7:11:22 AM

Sanity

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Gonzalez wasnt a member of La Raza, his appointment was praised by them. I have never seen anyone in the GOP even acknowledge their support. you know full well from the campaign that you cant stop anyone from supporting an issue or candidate.

In the immigration fight several in the GOP slammed La Raza. Heres one. Im sure if you look for the "leader of the GOPs" (as apponted by the left wing media) he would have ranted against them as would anyone against open borders.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863

Good post.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to CruelNUnsual)

Profile

Post #: 157

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 8:29:24 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Gonzalez wasnt a member of La Raza, his appointment was praised by them. I have never seen anyone in the GOP even acknowledge their support. you know full well from the campaign that you cant stop anyone from supporting an issue or candidate.

In the immigration fight several in the GOP slammed La Raza. Heres one. Im sure if you look for the "leader of the GOPs" (as apponted by the left wing media) he would have ranted against them as would anyone against open borders.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863

Good post.

Praising a false statement, Sanity? Why?

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 158

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 8:32:04 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack45
It may amuse you to learn that back in the 1980s there was the NAAWP, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. The media called it a "HATE GROUP."

It doesn't amuse me. That organization was a front for klan wizard David Duke. Duke didn't get away with it then and you can't get away with it now.

(in reply to Jack45)

Profile

Post #: 159

RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! - 6/4/2009 10:12:49 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
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.

Actually 3 of the 5 opinions that she has penned that have made it to the SCOTUS have been overturned, with a fourth very likely (the firefighter case).

Which raises an interesting question. Should she be allowed to judge whether or not her own ruling was constitutional? It is quite possible she will be sitting on the bench (depending on how fast the advise and consent process proceeds), when the firefighter case comes before the court.

She has a great life story, and has a brilliant mind, it is her possible positions on judicial activism that bring about some concerns for me. Undoubtedly, she will be confirmed (unless some major skeleton pops out of a closet before then). The hearings should be entertaining and infomative, especially considering the new precedents (such as, political and religious ideology being reason enough to oppose a nominee) that were introduced under the last administration.

Another little hickup could be the fact that she would become the 6th member of the court that is Catholic, I am not sure if that will be a sticking point or not, but it is another line of attack to watch for.

I wish you well,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to BitaTruble)

Profile

Post #: 160