^
Oh they always "act respectful", but Biden's insinuations through his questions were disgusting and insulting.

This is the same tap dance each party goes through with the other side's nominees.

7/15/2009 11:18:25 AM

^ the republicans are burning a lot of bridges with the spanish community though with what can be construed as attacks on Sotomayor's racial background.

I really am too young to care to much about Thomas' hearing or the Anita Hill issue, but that comes off more as a personal attack to me than a racial attack.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2009 2:18:26 PM

I remember Anita Hill.

It was all about the excitement of pubes on a cola can.

Good TV!

7/15/2009 2:24:04 PM

^^ and ^ It was a "high-tech lynching."

7/15/2009 4:33:20 PM

That wise Latina woman comment was really annoying and racist, and it's also bullshit.

Latina women are overall way less educated than white men. And I would expect the person with the most education to make the better decision. I can't value richness of experience over education. Sure, there are plenty of well-educated Latinas just like there are plenty of white dudes walking around with a "richness of experience."

If you wanna claim superior decision-making skills for your community based on race and some notions about richness of experience, then go right ahead, but I say we cut any and all public programs aimed at young Latina girls. Apparently, they're doing great. They're superior! Not at-risk at all...

7/15/2009 4:45:27 PM

^

Personally I would have preferred Barack Obama choose someone _less_ educated, as this article argues:

Quote :

"Why didn’t Barack Obama (Harvard Law) cast his net more widely? He certainly could have. He didn’t even have to choose a lawyer. The Constitution sets no qualifications for Supreme Court justices. That’s right. None. The person does not have to be any particular age or a citizen or even live in the United States. In theory, Obama could have selected from any of the 6.77 billion people on the planet. So who does he come up with? A Yalie. I have nothing against Yalies. And they have nothing against each other. One Yalie, George H.W. Bush (Yale undergrad; he didn’t go to law school) appointed Sotomayor to the federal district bench, and another Yalie, Bill Clinton (Yale Law), appointed her to the federal appeals bench. I assume that when Sotomayor is confirmed, the three will get together and sing the Yale fight song, written by Cole Porter and containing the immortal words, “Bulldog, bulldog, bow wow wow.” (It took Cole Porter to write that?)"

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

7/15/2009 5:03:16 PM

^^

Quote :

"And I would expect the person with the most education to make the better decision."

Then you should just love Chief Justice John Roberts:

Quote :

"Roberts attended Notre Dame Elementary School, a Roman Catholic grade school in Long Beach, and then La Lumiere School, a Roman Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana and was an excellent student and athlete. He studied five years of Latin (in his four years) and some French, and was known for his devotion to his studies. He was captain of his football team (he later described himself as a 'slow-footed linebacker'), and was a Regional Champion in wrestling. He participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the Executive Committee of the Student Council. He was also valedictorian. He attended Harvard College graduating with an A.B. in history summa cum laude in three years. He then attended Harvard Law School, and was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated from law school with his J.D. magna cum laude in 1979."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

7/15/2009 9:49:13 PM

I'll throw my 2 cents in:

The arguement for Sotomayor getting approved is that her education is good...yale law...and she has experience.

The arguement against her are a handful of rulings and writings that shows she has racial tendacies, and maybe a judicial activist.

Republicans have the upper hand again to me. The arguement against her should COMPLETELY rule her out. There are thousands of Yale law grads out there, why pick her? Politics, thats why. Dems are sucking up to Hispanics....putting politics above the people once again.

Personally, after hearing the firefighter testify today, I wouldnt want her to step into the court room again.

7/16/2009 11:45:37 PM

except for all those republicans today who said that her judicial record is "in the mainstream". their big criticism are things she said outside the courtroom.

7/16/2009 11:47:06 PM

Quote :

"The arguement for Sotomayor getting approved is that her education is good...yale law...and she has experience. The arguement against her are a handful of rulings and writings that shows she has racial tendacies, and maybe a judicial activist."

so.... her experience shows that she is a moderate and thoughtful judge on the bench, but some out-of-context quotes, having nothing to do with what she's done on the bench, prove she's an activist judge? ok, got that.

Quote :

"Personally, after hearing the firefighter testify today, I wouldnt want her to step into the court room again."

so, we're swayed by perhaps a little personal empathy with the firefighter? Maybe you saw another white guy up there talking about how he was being harmed by P.C. politicians and minorities, and you couldn't help but see yourself in his shoes?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2009 11:51:15 PM

good to know she'll be confirmed before the recess

7/17/2009 12:13:56 AM

and the political theater ends until the next nomination. same thing happened with roberts and alito -- democrats raised a big rhetorical stink, but at the end of the day, they just disagreed with their opinions but could not show how the candidate was unqualified. Thus, there was no grounds to vote against approval.

Only the disingenuous douchebags among us think there is a difference between sotomayor and roberts or alito. Now, Harriet Miers was clearly unqualified based on the abject stupidity she put up on display during her hearings. Nominating her was about as dumb as trying to push Sarah Palin into national office.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 12:17:20 AM

I think it's hilarious that, had Sotomayor sided with the firefighter in the one case that is the basis for not approving her, she would have been an activist judge siding with a serial litigant. But of course Republicans LOVE that, right? RIGHT?!?

7/17/2009 12:22:50 AM

I find it a little funny that so many people want to keep Sotomayor out because she was shown to be "wrong" in the firefighter case by the Supreme Court decision.

Was that decision unanimous? No. Four out of five justices dissented. Should we throw them out? I mean, they were shown to be wrong, god damn it. They have no business deciding supreme court cases when they have such terrible judgment.

Of course, at one time or another, all of the justices have had dissenting opinions. So really we should get rid of the lot of them.

7/17/2009 12:55:43 AM

but.... but...... RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWRRRRRSOCIALISTLIBERALACTIVISTKILLWHITEY

7/17/2009 1:56:40 AM

I'm sorry, but her comments were NOT taken out of context. The more you look at the words around the quote, the more it fits in line with what people are saying.

First she says "lots of white guys before made bad decisions." Then she says her quote. What more context do you need? Face it, she said something stupid.

7/17/2009 8:01:36 AM

ok, yes, it was a stupid thing to say, especially for someone who ever, ever thought she may be defending her comments during a Supreme Court confirmation hearing..... which might explain why she didn't think it was a big deal to say them at the time.

She said, though, that she is invited to make speeches all the time on the topic of "what it's like to be a Latina judge" and stuff like that. She gets invited to women's schools and predominately minority schools, and they want to hear speeches about what it's like to be a poor woman and/or minority and end up a powerful judge. If she simply said "well, there's no difference, really. we're pretty much all the same", then 1) she would be lying, and 2) she wouldn't be invited to give speeches to inspire young people.

The firefighter brouhaha is ridiculous. It was one case out of ~3600 she ruled on. Her appeals panel simply held up a lower court's decision by a 2-1 ruling based on previous precedent of the application of the law, which is their job. The Supreme Court barely decided to overturn that decision, 5-4, and establish a new precedent, which, not coincidentally, is also their job.

7/17/2009 9:39:13 AM

^^ The comments were taken out of context. The reason they "fell flat" is because the right is trying to take it out of context. It's easier to just say this, than to try and explain what the context is of a well-know Hispanic person's memorial ceremony.

7/17/2009 10:21:46 AM

^^

And more so, what is the problem with what she said? I still want to know. Do people really believe that if you speak about being "latino" versus "white," it's purely a "racial" or "racist" statement?

For example, take this CNN article:

Quote :

"In her speeches, she often discussed her "Latina soul" and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views."

Quote :

""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/

Apparently -- it's not just race that makes her wiser. Oh, no. It's those traditional dishes as well. A white male "who hasn't lived that life?" Well, what if he did?

Racism, by definition, means that a person of one race is inherently inferior -- no matter what they do -- to a person of another race. If she believed that a latina woman would out-do a white man no matter his life experiences, or hers, then that would be racism. But to just believe that your particular cultural background leaves you better equipped to handle the world than a different one -- that's not racism; everybody believes that on some level.

Everybody has prejudices; everybody believes they're special. The grand rule of politics is that you don't state your prejudices out loud. Sotomayor broke that rule -- but how harshly should she be punished for it?

I say she shouldn't be punished at all. Our lives would be much better if our public officials had more leeway to speak their minds, without fear of being scrutinized to death by ignorant partisans with a third-grade mentality and a chip on their collective shoulder.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM. Reason : foo]

7/17/2009 10:23:35 AM

Quote :

"so many people want to keep Sotomayor out because she was shown to be "wrong" in the firefighter case by the Supreme Court decision"

I'm not troubled because the Supreme Court reversed her. I'm troubled that she would agree to deny qualified fire-fighters a job because of racial considerations.

7/17/2009 10:23:36 AM

those aren't the grounds she agreed on the case. The city was worried that under a strict application of Title VII, they had a legitimate and real chance of being sued by the minority firefighters, and losing that case.

Sotomayor's decision wasn't to "deny qualified firefighters a job", it was to uphold the ruling that yes, the city had a legitimate concern of losing a lawsuit based on the wording of Title VII, and was therefore legally in the clear to do what they did. The Supreme Court decided that a lot has changed since the 1960's, so maybe those legal protections are not necessary any more, so they set a new precedent, which only they can do.

7/17/2009 10:31:39 AM

^^

So she should rule based on her personal feelings and not based on the law? I'm confused. I thought activist judges were what we didn't want.

7/17/2009 10:32:46 AM

oh so she decided to deny the white people jobs out of the love in her heart i get it

7/17/2009 10:37:56 AM

^^^^ The supreme court reverses on average about 60% of the cases they hear (because they get to choose what they hear, and they only listen to interesting cases I guess). IIRC, Alito had a decision reversed by the SC (i'll have to check on this, but i'll probably just wait for someone to correct me).

^ haha, are you kidding? They weren't ruling on whether the whites and hispanic should get the job. They were ruling on whether the city was right to attempt to preemptively seek compliance with title VII of the equal employment opportunity act.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 10:38:31 AM

yeah, the deciding vote was from Alito.
You know.... the Italian-American son of immigrants who stood up for the Italian-American (Ricci? really? couldn't have found a Russo or a Giordano?) fire fighters.

..... just sayin'

7/17/2009 10:43:07 AM

^ maybe the Republicans are crusaders of investigating potential racial bias in judges, except when those racial biases help white people? It would fit their MO.

7/17/2009 10:50:37 AM

Quote :

"I'm not troubled because the Supreme Court reversed her. I'm troubled that she would agree to deny qualified fire-fighters a job because of racial considerations."

The title of this thread

the thread that YOU MADE

is "Obama Nominates Liberal Activist Judge for SC".

You have spent god knows how long railing against this woman for not taking what would have absolutely been a 100% "activist" position. It would have been legislating from the bench. You claim to be against this. And that's why I feel like banging my head on my desk.

7/17/2009 11:56:56 AM

It's my understanding that nobody got the promotions; the case wasn't a selective denial of "white people." And for the record: I have zero sympathy. Firefighter or not, it's a government job. If you don't like bureaucracy go to the private sector. It's not like firefighters are underpaid.

7/17/2009 9:54:43 PM

Quote :

"it was to uphold the ruling that yes, the city had a legitimate concern of losing a lawsuit based on the wording of Title VII, "

OK Fine.
Her decision had nothing to do with her personal support of affirmative action. She simply didn't want the city being sued. In her heart she really didn't want to do this to the white fire-fighters, but she had no choice. Once she is on the Supreme Court, she will be in a position to help get rid of these onerous and un-needed racial quota laws...right?

7/17/2009 10:26:21 PM

Quote :

"She simply didn't want the city being sued."

She didn't "want" anything, presumably. She saw the city's actions, she listened to the legal justification for those actions, she reviewed the original law and past court cases, and decided that the city was acting within its legal right to discard the test results for fear of lawsuit.

Quote :

"Once she is on the Supreme Court, she will be in a position to help get rid of these onerous and un-needed racial quota laws...right?"

uhh, yeah? considering that's pretty much what the Supreme Court did do?
So?

7/17/2009 10:49:58 PM

^how can you not be convinced by his begging the question?????

7/17/2009 10:55:38 PM

I can't believe the quality of some of the people we have elected to Congres.... Jeff Sessions, if we didn't already know, is such a douchebag.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111208388
Lindsay Graham surprised me, though

7/28/2009 7:06:37 PM

It's done.

8/6/2009 4:01:56 PM

I'm fucking sick of seeing this bloated latina woman's face all over the news. Also, I'm fucking sick of hearing about how wonderful and historical a day it is appointing a "Hispanic Woman" into the supreme court. If some liberals think her qualifications, history, and judgement make her a sound appointee candidate worthy of beating out others for the position; than fine. Favoring her and thinking her top attribute making her worthy of being on the supreme court is simply being Latina if fucking a load of PR Liberal Hippy affirmitive action garbage and pandering of the democrats to the minority crowd.



[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 8:45 PM. Reason : k]

8/6/2009 8:44:31 PM

Is there any ethnic group you don't hate?

8/6/2009 8:59:39 PM

do Presbyterians count?

8/6/2009 9:02:05 PM

Can't wait for her first "wise" decision as a S.C. justice.

8/7/2009 10:03:03 AM

if a white man is picked because he is white does he make a sound?

8/7/2009 10:06:32 AM

Quote :

"pandering of the democrats to the minority crowd"

Kinda like the only reason Palin got the VP nod?
Kinda like the new leader of the Republican Party?

Its a sad dance that both parties play.

8/7/2009 10:28:18 AM

It seems like as soon as yelling at health care debates became the new hot topic, no one cares about this any more.

9/2/2009 11:00:51 PM