18
   

Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

 
 
contrex
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:35 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas think tags that I applied are "search terms"... Way to go, Einstein!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:15 pm
@High Seas,
Do you have any proof about affirmative action? My understanding is that she got into undergraduate school (Princeton) with help from affirmative action, but, due to her achievements, didn't need it after that. Btw, she is white.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:22 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

Since i have never listened to a conservative talking point in my life; you are incorrect in your assumptions. I merely read the article from the New York times which had the transcript for a speech she gave in the late 90's. I disagreed with statements she made in her speech of which i already stated and have no desire to repeat and also I have seen nothing to rebut anything i have stated so I have not changed my mind. I am not saying she won't be a good judge, she very well might be a good judge. I just think she showed a biased in favor of her own race concerning judges.


But you fail to understand that she is a judge and has been a judge for 17 years. There is no evidence in her judicial record to demonstrate any bias in favor of her own race.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:26 pm
@Debra Law,
revel wrote:

Since i have never listened to a conservative talking point in my life ...

I just think she showed a biased in favor of her own race concerning judges.


This is some pretty awkward rationalization of something... (given that you give no reason that you think she showed any bias).

At least you are amusing.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:37 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
Nah, Revel, this alleged academic star only got admitted to graduate school because of affirmative action (counted 3 times, as a female, as a hispanic, and as a person of color) ...


And you know this to be factual, how, High Seas? Are you a staff member of that university's admittance office?

I'm always surprised at how these people can whine about how unfair affirmative action is when there was affirmative action for whites and pretty much whites only for, what, a couple of hundred years or so.
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 02:54 pm
Having Sessions leading the attack on Sonia is really funny. He was largely rejected for the federal bench because of his extreme racism.


A TAINTED LEADER: In what may be the biggest strategic blunder since Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chose Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as his running mate in the 2008 presidential election, Republicans selected Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as their point person on the Sotomayor hearing. Sessions, whose own nomination to the federal bench was rejected by the Senate in 1986, has a long history of controversial statements about race. He once quipped that he "used to think [the KKK] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." He routinely referred to an African-American attorney who worked for him as "boy," and he once warned that attorney to "be careful what you say to white folks" after Sessions overheard him chastising a white secretary. Yesterday, at Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Sessions wondered aloud how Sotomayor could have voted differently than another judge of "Puerto Rican ancestry." So, it's odd that conservatives would pick this man as their leading voice against the first Latina nominated to the Supreme Court. The selection suggests that Senate conservatives wholeheartedly embrace Sessions' views on race.

--americanprogressaction.org
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 03:23 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
I just think she showed a biased in favor of her own race


What "race" is that?

Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 04:14 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

Quote:
I just think she showed a biased in favor of her own race


What "race" is that?




You appear to be responding to my post, but I did not make the quoted statement.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 02:17 am
@Debra Law,
You appear to be responding to my post, but I did not make the quoted statement. wrote:
You appear to be responding to my post, but I did not make the quoted statement.


No, you're right, it was Revel.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 06:52 am
I have noticed a tendency in this thread to pick apart word choices instead of addressing the underlying statement. Perhaps "race" was the wrong word to use. I just meant she appears to have a bias in favor of minorities being on the bench because of their experiences and the effect it would have on the courts verses non minorities because they do not have those same experiences.

She is suppossed to follow the laws already written regardless of any experiences she may have experienced and the same goes true for any judge. I heaven't seen any indication that she wouldn't though.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 07:03 am
@revel,
Quote:
Perhaps "race" was the wrong word to use. I just meant she appears to have a bias in favor of minorities being on the bench because of their experiences and the effect it would have on the courts verses non minorities because they do not have those same experiences.


The problem is that she doesn't "appear" to have any kind of bias on the bench; at least not to anyone who isn't prejudiced. She has a long record and there is no rational evidence for your feeling.

Can you name a prominent Hispanic-American in public service that you don't feel this way about?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 07:15 am
@revel,
revel wrote:
She is suppossed to follow the laws already written regardless of any experiences she may have experienced and the same goes true for any judge. I heaven't seen any indication that she wouldn't though.

So you're just scared of her, or what?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 07:33 am
@DrewDad,
No I am not scared of her; I think she will make a good judge after watching her the last few days on and off.

I expressed an opinion of some statements she made in a speech a few days ago here on this thread of which I disagreed and I stated why and ever since I have been getting quite a bit of flack but no credible rebuttal. I guess it is past time to let it go, it is just that i keep reading replies that either misconstrue something i said or wild accusations of racism being thrown my way and I have hard time walking away since they come from people I have come to respect on these threads.

This is the article I was referring to:



"A Latina Judge's Voice"

Guess it is time to just accept that there are now going to be those who think I am a big racist and just let it go; probably will end up just leaving in a few weeks or something since the very people making the accusations of racism are those who I have felt in common with everywhere else. I don't have a really thick skin. I am somewhat disappointed as well. I'll see in a few days. (probably more information than you wanted, just thinking as I write..)
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 07:42 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The problem is that she doesn't "appear" to have any kind of bias on the bench; at least not to anyone who isn't prejudiced. She has a long record and there is no rational evidence for your feeling.


ebrown, I didn't say she had/has any kind of bias on the bench. I said she appears to a have a bias for who would serve on the bench of which the evidence is her own words in the link above.

Quote:
Can you name a prominent Hispanic-American in public service that you don't feel this way about


I haven't really kept up with judges whatever their race or nationality (whatever word is used) is so I could not really answer your question. But I have nothing against any person of whatever race or ethnicity ECT in any kind of service or anthing else. I merely was curious about Obama's pick and saw that article and read it and formed an opinion based on her own words she uttered in the speech i left another link to up above.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 07:54 am
@revel,
Quote:
I just meant she appears to have a bias in favor of minorities being on the bench because of their experiences and the effect it would have on the courts verses non minorities because they do not have those same experiences.

Perhaps you could point to where in her speech you think she says this revel.

She says there should be more minorities on the bench because there are so few now but what specifically is wrong with diversity in courts? She is not advocating that all judges be minorities that I can see. Judges that come from different perspectives allow for a wider viewpoint of the court as a whole. I see nothing wrong with that. What do you see is wrong with it?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 11:29 am
It is interesting, deserving of debate, that the white male is not considered part of a special interest group. He seems to be allowed to freely take shots at women and members of minority groups, alleging bias, etc. Maybe there should be a presumption that a white male nurtures bias, racism, etc., in favor of white males in general.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 12:16 pm
@Advocate,

OK.
U get the presumption started.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 03:04 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

It is interesting, deserving of debate, that the white male is not considered part of a special interest group. He seems to be allowed to freely take shots at women and members of minority groups, alleging bias, etc. Maybe there should be a presumption that a white male nurtures bias, racism, etc., in favor of white males in general.



Conservatives appear to believe, if a minority takes a slot in a military academy or a university, then the slot was taken away from a deserving white male by a less deserving minority. Case in point are the writings of Pat Buchanan. His columns reek of bigotry and racism in favor of white males in general.

In his most recent column, Buchanan urged the GOP disregard the Hispanic vote and go after the WHITE conservative vote:

"These are the folks [white conservatives] whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back."

In another column, he railed against the dwindling numbers of WHITE Americans of European decent (via an evil he identified as Ethnonationalism). He wrote:

Quote:
Observing the lightning breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chinese take ethnonationalism with deadly seriousness. American's elite regard it an irrelevancy, an obsession only of the politically retarded.

After all, they tell us, we were never blood-and-soil people, always a propositional nation, a nation of ideas. Our belief in democracy, diversity, and equality define us and make us different from all other nations.

Indeed, we now happily predict the year, 2042, when Americans of European ancestry become a minority in a country whose Founding Fathers declared it set aside for "ourselves and our posterity."

Without the assent of her people, America is being converted from a Christian country, nine in 10 of whose people traced their roots to Europe as late as the time of JFK, into a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Tower of Babel not seen since the late Roman Empire.


The city farthest along the path is Los Angeles, famous worldwide for the number, variety, and size of its ethnic and racial street gangs.

Not to worry. It can't happen here.


In another column, Buchanan wrote about the DUMBING DOWN OF THE U.S. NAVY due to minority admission practices of the academy.

And here, Buchanan wrote:

Quote:
Thus, Sotomayor got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review -- all because she was a Hispanic woman. And those two Ivy League institutions cheated more deserving students of what they had worked a lifetime to achieve, for reasons of race, gender or ethnicity.

This is bigotry pure and simple. To salve their consciences for past societal sins, the Ivy League is deep into discrimination again, this time with white males as victims rather than as beneficiaries. . . .

That were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court.


A sampling of the reader comments following this column is demonstrative of the a disturbing mindset:

james wrote:
America the rewarder of mediocrity will be turned into a 3rd world country if this continues. Good piece Pat


Epiminondas from Atlanta wrote:
So, my white friends, where do you think this is going to end? Do you think your grandchildren (assuming they will be white) are going to end up living in a nation that is friendly to them? If you are a liberal white person, you have already answered this question by consigning your grandchildren to multicultural hell. You'll please pardon the rest of us who no longer support this corrupt government and will be going our own way.


Kevin from Georgia wrote:
How can one argue with Pat's points. But rest assured many white males brainwashed with white guilt will find a way. How else can one explain Obama's election.


Paul from Baltimore wrote:
In 1960 Presidential candidate "racist" George Wallace(Gov Alabama) said "If the civil rights bill becomes law, every major city and the entire US educational system will be destroyed". The US educational system is dead and every major city in the US is in ruins.


joeyinempirestate wrote:
AA hurts whites, by depriving them of positions they rightfully earned, but it harms minorities even more, by elevating them to positions for which they are not qualified. Now more than ever, we need articulate folk like Pat to tackle these issues without fear of being labeled racist. We are losing our country.


norb from chicago wrote:
This will be the first country in the history of the world that will bankrupt itself by following the dreams of idealistic idiots passing laws that make a Chihuahua a German Shepard.


Robert Lee from Tempe, AZ wrote:
THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE IN AMERICA TODAY IS TO BE BORN "WHITE MALE".


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32264&page=1#c1



mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:40 pm
@Debra Law,
So now you believe that Pat Buchanon speaks for ALL conservatives?
Or even a large percentage of them?
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 05:48 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So now you believe that Pat Buchanon speaks for ALL conservatives?
Or even a large percentage of them?


He was a case in point. If you do not agree with Buchanan's columns referenced above, please respond to them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:07:52