NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7676754&page=1

As President Obama's pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor seems, in many ways, tailor-made for President Obama as a Supreme Court nominee. She's a highly educated, vastly experienced, liberal-leaning Hispanic woman with a compelling personal story, a pragmatic view of the law and a keen sense of how her decisions affect people's lives.

Just based on my very shallow investigation of her so far, I dont really think I can, as of right now, say Im a fan.

But Im reserving judgement until Ive fully read up on her.

It's not odd; the forum is rather quiet these days.

She's certainly qualified for the position.

She's certainly qualified for the position.

That she is. I wonder what her stances on the major legal issues though. You know, drugs, gay marriages, etc.

That she is. I wonder what her stances on the major legal issues though. You know, drugs, gay marriages, etc.

Don't care. I'm more interested in her ability to not let those positions interfere with her ability to interpret the Constitution.

She's quoted as saying in a speech "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because the court of appeals is where policy is made."

I don't know if I like that. Actually, I'm pretty sure I don't like that. The courts are not where policy is made, that's the legislature's job.

If he wanted a woman who was also a minority, he could have gone with Janice Rogers Brown. That would have been a good choice.

She's quoted as saying in a speech "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because the court of appeals is where policy is made."

I don't know if I like that. Actually, I'm pretty sure I don't like that. The courts are not where policy is made, that's the legislature's job.

If he wanted a woman who was also a minority, he could have gone with Janice Rogers Brown. That would have been a good choice.

Don't forget the rest of the quote:

"And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know," she continued as the audience laughed. "OK. I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm, you know."

Edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7676754&page=2

Don't forget the rest of the quote:

"And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know," she continued as the audience laughed. "OK. I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm, you know."

Edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7676754&page=2

Now now, Context is socialist. :p

"And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know," she continued as the audience laughed. "OK. I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm, you know."

Ah. My source only had the first half of the quote. That's slightly less worrying, but still, if she's not advocating/promoting it, why would she say it in the first place, especially if it's something she knows she shouldn't say?

On the whole, though, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt for now, since she doesn't appear to be a raving moonbat, and especially since it's still early days and who knows what's going to happen?

Don't forget the rest of the quote:

"And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know," she continued as the audience laughed. "OK. I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm, you know."

Edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7676754&page=2

Ah. My source only had the first half of the quote. That's slightly less worrying, but still, if she's not advocating/promoting it, why would she say it in the first place, especially if it's something she knows she shouldn't say?

bolded above: "...as the audience laughed."

Need another hint? ;)

bolded above: "...as the audience laughed."

Yeah, the audience laughed..so? Given that she's a judge addressing law students from a panel, and not a comedian doing a five minute set at the Chuckle Hut, I'm inclined to take it a little more seriously and not immediately write it off as wacky hijinks.

Yeah, the audience laughed..so? Given that she's a judge addressing law students from a panel, and not a comedian doing a five minute set at the Chuckle Hut, I'm inclined to take it a little more seriously and not immediately write it off as wacky hijinks.
Absurd based on the fact comedy is based on knowing your audience.

Whole bunch of time on an appeals bench. Seems a solid choice.

*prepares activist judge stamp* Inked up and everything. Now we just need her to make the wrong decision somewhere.

She's been supported by Reps before, so does she have a good chance of passing scrutiny?

She's been supported by Reps before, so does she have a good chance of passing scrutiny?

It isn't just about passing scrutiny, it's about the Republicans making a show out of it in an attempt to 'rally the base'. Because that's been working so well the last few years. ;)

She's been supported by Reps before, so does she have a good chance of passing scrutiny?

if republicans had any shame, it would be a walk. after all, just a few years ago an upordown vote was apparently required by the constitution and worthy of the nukular option if not granted. also, seven sitting republican senators voted in favor of confirming her into her current position.

of course, they really don't, so there will be a bunch of whining first.

but on the plus side, they'll probably be powerless to stop it anyway and the inevitably racist and sexist fuss they make will further cement their place as the party of fat southern white men. and a good time will be had by all.

Outstanding pick. Amazing life story. Will miss Souter but Sotomayor seems to have a very broad scope of wisdom.

*gets popcorn (butter & smackdown flavored) and ready to make fun of Senator Jeff Sesions is he starts up his rhetoric and tries to dis America's new sweetheart*

I'm already starting to hear shit that's pissing me off. Like from this article;

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/gop.hispanics/index.html

Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist and CNN contributor, said Obama may be taking the country back to the era of identity politics.

"He didn't play that card in the campaign, he fought against that. And he said we're now at a new place," he said. "And now the question is ... is he taking us back to identity politics saying that someone is a better judge because of their race or their gender or their ethnicity?

Really? Identity politics? Because she's a hispanic woman? She also graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton and got her law degree from Yale. She has more court experience than any other current Supreme Court nominee had upon their selection. If her name was Judy Smith or Fred Parker, would there be any question about whether her race or gender played a role? Hmm?

*releases the Scrotum-seeking attack weasels*

Really? Identity politics? Because she's a hispanic woman? She also graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton and got her law degree from Yale. She has more court experience than any other current Supreme Court nominee had upon their selection. If her name was Judy Smith or Fred Parker, would there be any question about whether her race or gender played a role? Hmm?

*releases the Scrotum-seeking attack weasels*

Didn't you know that's the new line of attack for bigots:

"Judge people on their actions not their identity, it's clear this person is just nominated as a token <whatever> ergo they are not qualified irrespective of their previous actions/achievements."

Same old tune, different lyrics.

I can't say I'd agree with her on some issues, but judging from her biography she seems to be an outstanding and intelligent woman, and is more than qualified for a position on the supreme court. I'm okay with this pick.

I'm already starting to hear shit that's pissing me off. Like from this article;

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/gop.hispanics/index.html



Really? Identity politics? Because she's a hispanic woman? She also graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton and got her law degree from Yale. She has more court experience than any other current Supreme Court nominee had upon their selection. If her name was Judy Smith or Fred Parker, would there be any question about whether her race or gender played a role? Hmm?

*releases the Scrotum-seeking attack weasels*
yeah it seems that only white men are unbiased. the rest of us are tainted by our life experiences.

yeah it seems that only white men are unbiased. the rest of us are tainted by our life experiences.

Yep. John Roberts wasn't selected based on his race or gender because he is a white male. But Sonia Sotomayor was because she is a hispanic female.

I wonder if Alex Castellanos actually listens to what comes out of his mouth. :p

Didn't you know that's the new line of attack for bigots:

"Judge people on their actions not their identity, it's clear this person is just nominated as a token <whatever> ergo they are not qualified irrespective of their previous actions/achievements."

Same old tune, different lyrics.

I too have noticed this.

"You just voted for Obama because he's black! You are a RACIST!"

Ah. My source only had the first half of the quote. That's slightly less worrying, but still, if she's not advocating/promoting it, why would she say it in the first place, especially if it's something she knows she shouldn't say?

On the whole, though, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt for now, since she doesn't appear to be a raving moonbat, and especially since it's still early days and who knows what's going to happen?

Quote mining, it's a favorite tactic of those who don't actually have a real argument.

Quote mining, it's a favorite tactic of those who don't actually have a real argument.

If the source I got the quote from only has half the quote, how is that my fault? Once that was pointed out, I did backtrack the appropriate degree. Quibbling about irrelevancies instead of answering a posed question is also a favorite tactic of those who don't have a real argument

I too have noticed this. "You just voted for Obama because he's black! You are a RACIST!"

On the other anecdotal hand, I've heard a similar, yet different song. 'You didn't vote for Obama because you don't think a black man could be qualified to run this country do you? You're a RACIST!'

For the record, the reasons I think he's unqualified have nothing to do with him being black.

She also graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton and got her law degree from Yale.

I don't know, most of the stories that I've seen (with the caveat that no, I have not read and/or watched every single media source that has mentioned the story)tend to mention her being a Hispanic woman before they mention Princeton or Yale.

She has more court experience than any other current Supreme Court nominee had upon their selection.

Where did you find that out from?

On the other anecdotal hand, I've heard a similar, yet different song. 'You didn't vote for Obama because you don't think a black man could be qualified to run this country do you? You're a RACIST!'

True enough, no doubt.

However, I would argue that a racist tendency to discriminate against Obama is probably greater than racist tendencies to discriminate in favor of him - for one thing, black people are a minority, and there are far fewer of them to be racially biased in favor of blacks than there are non-blacks to be biased against blacks. For another, people focus more on the negatives than the positives.

For the record, the reasons I think he's unqualified have nothing to do with him being black.

Good to know and I certainly wasn't even implying otherwise. :)

True enough, no doubt. However, I would argue that a racist tendency to discriminate against Obama is probably greater than racist tendencies to discriminate in favor of him - for one thing, black people are a minority, and there are far fewer of them to be racially biased in favor of blacks than there are non-blacks to be biased against blacks.

While the bolded portion may be true, based strictly on the numbers, I would argue in turn that out of the people who did vote for him, his race may have been a greater percentage of their motivation to do so(and I have absolutely no concrete numbers to back this up with)than it was for the people who didn't vote for him, as it factors in all the white liberals who couldn't wait to vote for a black man to show how sensitive and un-bigoted they were.

While the bolded portion may be true, based strictly on the numbers, I would argue in turn that out of the people who did vote for him, his race may have been a greater percentage of their motivation to do so(and I have absolutely no concrete numbers to back this up with)than it was for the people who didn't vote for him, as it factors in all the white liberals who couldn't wait to vote for a black man to show how sensitive and un-bigoted they were.

Except if people were truly interested in 'showing' how sensitive and unbigoted they were... voting would have no impact on that. Such people are just as likely to not even vote, or simply lie about who they voted for. After all, all they want is superficial - appearing sensitive and unbigoted - not substantial.

And I still think that racism is more often negative (nonwhite people are wrong, degenerate, criminal, etc etc) than positive (I love white people!). For every person claiming "I don't hate black people, I just love white people" (or vice versa) there's several others spouting off about how inferior non-whites (or whatever) are.

It's always been more effective to spread ideas via instill fear and hate for an enemy, than to simply spread love and joy in being who you are.

While the bolded portion may be true, based strictly on the numbers, I would argue in turn that out of the people who did vote for him, his race may have been a greater percentage of their motivation to do so(and I have absolutely no concrete numbers to back this up with)than it was for the people who didn't vote for him, as it factors in all the white liberals who couldn't wait to vote for a black man to show how sensitive and un-bigoted they were.

alan keyes rather nicely undermines that idea

Except if people were truly interested in 'showing' how sensitive and unbigoted they were... voting would have no impact on that. Such people are just as likely to not even vote, or simply lie about who they voted for. After all, all they want is superficial - appearing sensitive and unbigoted - not substantial.

Not vote? And pass up an opportunity to revenge themselves on the GOP for the past eight years and take the electoral moral high ground?

On a(slightly)more serious note, I think the desire people have to inject themselves into 'the moments' and the desire to say 'I was there, I helped make it happen' would take care of that.

I should take this time while everything is still civil to point out that I am not leveling accusations against any one in particular, just making general observations.

And I still think that racism is more often negative (nonwhite people are wrong, degenerate, criminal, etc etc) than positive (I love white people!). For every person claiming "I don't hate black people, I just love white people" (or vice versa) there's several others spouting off about how inferior non-whites (or whatever) are.

I do think you've nailed this right on the head. Personally, I enjoy the hell out of being white and wouldn't trade it, but it's can be tricky to communicate that sentiment without someone making assumptions.

alan keyes rather nicely undermines that idea

How so? Also, just one of anything does not make for a reliable sample.

It's somehow weird that installing some judge is getting so much attention. Believe me, this is not happening here.

It's somehow weird that installing some judge is getting so much attention. Believe me, this is not happening here.

It's different here. It's not just 'some judge'. It's part of the Supreme Court, essentially the people who decide what is part of our rights as American Citizens, and who isn't. Their decisions can have a huge impact on our lives, almost as much as electing a President. So it's a big deal for a reason.

How so? Also, just one of anything does not make for a reliable sample.

alan keyes is a black man who has repeatedly run for president. how many of these racist liberals who cared oh so much about voting black said they'd vote for him when polled, let alone actually cast ballots for him when given the chance?

I too have noticed this.

"You just voted for Obama because he's black! You are a RACIST!"

No, that doesn't make you racist. It makes you an Orc or an Uruk-Hai.

No, that doesn't make you racist. It makes you an Orc or an Uruk-Hai.

Not a Troll?:p

It's different here. It's not just 'some judge'. It's part of the Supreme Court, essentially the people who decide what is part of our rights as American Citizens, and who isn't. Their decisions can have a huge impact on our lives, almost as much as electing a President. So it's a big deal for a reason.

Here a judge, doesn't matter if he or she is a small local one or sitting at the top, is just doing judgements. They certainly do not create laws but of course they do signalise flaws.

People find it important that the powers are divided here.

On a(slightly)more serious note, I think the desire people have to inject themselves into 'the moments' and the desire to say 'I was there, I helped make it happen' would take care of that.


Heh, you might think so, but when I was younger I skipped a vote and lied and said I was there. Got me the same social benefits and I didn't care that I actually wasn't. I could be less common on that regard though, dunno.

Here a judge, doesn't matter if he or she is a small local one or sitting at the top, is just doing judgements. They certainly do not create laws but of course they do signalise flaws.

People find it important that the powers are divided here.
The powers are divided here, only in a different manner. The thing is, they don't make the laws, but they can declare them unconstitutional, which is a major blow. However, I'm not willing to explain the US seperation of powers in full, so...

The powers are divided here, only in a different manner. The thing is, they don't make the laws, but they can declare them unconstitutional, which is a major blow. However, I'm not willing to explain the US seperation of powers in full, so...

Ok, something as the Council of State here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_State_(Belgium)

Ok, something as the Council of State here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_State_(Belgium)

A bit, but a little more centered towards the correct interpretation of our Constitution, and with only judges, 9 judges. So, when a new Judge is appointed, it's a fairly large decision.

A bit, but a little more centered towards the correct interpretation of our Constitution, and with only judges, 9 judges. So, when a new Judge is appointed, it's a fairly large decision.

Are you talking about SCOTUS?

Are you talking about SCOTUS?

Erm, yeah. What else would I be discussing?:confused:

Are you talking about SCOTUS?

Yes. There's an opening on the panel.

Erm, yeah. What else would I be discussing?:confused:

My bad. I'm slightly sleepy and forgot this subject IS about SCOTUS.:$

My bad. I'm slightly sleepy and forgot this subject IS about SCOTUS.:$

Heh. It's fine. :D