Sotomayor

@Grouch,

Grouch;65382 wrote:

More qualified based on what grounds? Because she has been an insignificant judge longer? Her current appointment and most of her experience is actually very limited in scope to mostly business and corporate law, and she has poor reviews from her legal peers.

When you are talking about the Supreme Court, ALL other judges are "insignificant". Alito, Roberts, Thomas, the whole lot of 'em. When you're at the mountaintop, all other climbers are below you.

She has more experience sitting on the bench than any other person on the Court right now. Go ahead, look it up. Seriously. As "insignificant" as you may think it is (you are insignificant compared to a judge, btw... try telling one off in court if you don't believe me), she has judicial experience, more than the guys that DID get confirmed.

I can post positive legal reviews... as many, if not more than your poor reviews. Of course, I can do the same with a car... a boat... an airplane... you get the picture.

Besides, I am LOVING the sound of the GOP's whimpers as they hold that hacksaw to their leg, trying to build the muster to start sawing. Newt and even His Holiness the Limbaugh of Rush have had to shove the Edsel into reverse. It's incredible watching them eat themselves.

http://www.enginevoodoo.com/images/drgordon.jpg

Soto... mayor... is a... ra... cist...

Absolutely and positively entertaining.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;65410 wrote:

When you are talking about the Supreme Court, ALL other judges are "insignificant". Alito, Roberts, Thomas, the whole lot of 'em. When you're at the mountaintop, all other climbers are below you.

She has more experience sitting on the bench than any other person on the Court right now. Go ahead, look it up. Seriously. As "insignificant" as you may think it is (you are insignificant compared to a judge, btw... try telling one off in court if you don't believe me), she has judicial experience, more than the guys that DID get confirmed.

I can post positive legal reviews... as many, if not more than your poor reviews. Of course, I can do the same with a car... a boat... an airplane... you get the picture.

Besides, I am LOVING the sound of the GOP's whimpers as they hold that hacksaw to their leg, trying to build the muster to start sawing. Newt and even His Holiness the Limbaugh of Rush have had to shove the Edsel into reverse. It's incredible watching them eat themselves.

Soto... mayor... is a... ra... cist...

Absolutely and positively entertaining.

Again absolutely nothing about why she is good, and everything trying to downplay why she sucks.

I expected more. Looks like liberals and creationist have something in common. :frown:

1 Reply

@Grouch,

Grouch;65421 wrote:

Again absolutely nothing about why she is good, and everything trying to downplay why she sucks.

I expected more. Looks like liberals and creationist have something in common. :frown:

Who on the bench RIGHT NOW has more judicial experience than her?

You have eight Justices to choose from. Choose wisely. I expect your next response to have one of the eight in it in reference to this.

She is good because she has job experience. There isn't much more to say in that respect. She is top of her class and regarded as a judicial moderate. She sits on a Court of Appeals, which might I add is not very far below the Supreme Court. She also comes nominated by both Republican and Democrat leaders, and ones as far apart politically as you can get these days. That alone speaks volumes.

What you are doing is downplaying why she is good and saying nothing about why she sucks. All you have said revolves around two words: "racist" and "insignificant". Again, compared to any judge (especially one who comes out of an Ivy League school at #1) , you are insignificant... so I'd be reluctant to throw around that word. You also focus on only thirty or so words from a speech of about five-thousand. Speaking of creationists, when they do such a thing, we call it "quote mining". If you wish to use this snippet as an argument, please post up the ENTIRE quote.

If you want to see what she is doing and has done, go here: Decisions and enter the term "Sotomayor". That will bring up her cases within the 2nd. There are over six hundred of them. I'd recommend reading a few, seeing what the deal is and whatnot. You might be surprised.

2 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

Who on the bench RIGHT NOW has more judicial experience than her?

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

She is good because she has job experience. There isn't much more to say in that respect.

Except for the fact that you are created essentially a false dilemma

She is top of her class and regarded as a judicial moderate. She sits on a Court of Appeals, which might I add is not very far below the Supreme Court. She also comes nominated by both Republican and Democrat leaders, and ones as far apart politically as you can get these days. That alone speaks volumes.

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

What you are doing is downplaying why she is good and saying nothing about why she sucks. All you have said revolves around two words: "racist" and "insignificant".

Ricci v. DeStefano. Her case, she ruled against white people being racially discriminated. Its currently being heard by the Supreme Court and it is believed that her decision is going to be reversed.

And there is no getting around, or excusing her claim that a female Hispanic would reach better judgments than a White male. That is racist and sexist, flat out.

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

Again, compared to any judge (especially one who comes out of an Ivy League school at #1) , you are insignificant... so I'd be reluctant to throw around that word.

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

You also focus on only thirty or so words from a speech of about five-thousand. Speaking of creationists, when they do such a thing, we call it "quote mining". If you wish to use this snippet as an argument, please post up the ENTIRE quote.

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

If you want to see what she is doing and has done, go here:

Decisions and enter the term "Sotomayor". That will bring up her cases within the 2nd. There are over six hundred of them. I'd recommend reading a few, seeing what the deal is and whatnot. You might be surprised.

1 Reply

@Grouch,

Some interesting blog entries from SCOTUSblog on the issue-

Judge Sotomayor and Race by Tom Goldstein

Judge Sotomayor and Race | SCOTUSblog

The Politics of the Sotomayor Nomination by David Strass

The Politics of the Sotomayor Nomination | SCOTUSblog

The Dynamic of the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by Tom Goldstein

The Dynamic of the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor | SCOTUSblog

Tom Goldberg and some other members of the blog went over Sotomayors opinions. Here are some clips from their blog. You can read the full articles at SCOTUSblog

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

"Ricci v. DeStefano. Her case, she ruled against white people being racially discriminated. Its currently being heard by the Supreme Court and it is believed that her decision is going to be reversed."

So if one of her decisions on race is reversed by the Supreme Court, that means she arrived at her decision in that case thru racism? I disagree with that insinuation. And anyway, what if her decision is overturned by a 5/4 decision with all the liberals dissenting? That would actually be evidence that she's not out of the mainstream for a Democratic nominee.

"You might learn, that she doesn’t think white people can be discriminated against and doesn’t believe in the 2nd Amendment?"

From where do you draw these conclusions? They seem vague. Do they come from court cases?

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

If you read the facts about the case which clearly you've taken no interest in doing, absolutely. And if the decision is over turned 5/4 then its a clear sign that the liberal judges are equally as racist or believe when an otherwise racist act occurs against a white person, its not actually racist.

Why does it seem like none you have read about a single case of hers?

Sonia Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Problem The Foundry

The Hill Blog Blog Archive Judge Sotomayor’s 2nd Amendment Problem (Rep. Paul Broun)

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

I've read a little about the case. It's about whether a city has a legal right to nullify and reformulate it's own firefighter test if it thinks the test may illegally discriminate by race. What the case comes down to is whether or not the city had a good enough reason to determine that their original test might be discriminatory. I've read that the law places the bar pretty low/ presumes discrimination whenever a test causes a disparate impact on minorities. I don't have an education in law. But i have to wonder, are you objecting to her ruling because you don't like her conclusion or because you find it legally flawed? The fact that a previous court had made the same ruling and Sotomayor's three judge panel unanimously upheld it suggests to me that the latter isn't true. If the supreme court's liberals also agree with her ruling, i'd take that as further evidence that her decision is legally justifiable.

However, you say that if the liberals on the Supreme Court agree with her, then they're racists too. That says a lot about you. If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

As for the 2nd amendment, your own links state that a panel of conservative judges reached the same decision that she did.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

NotHereForLong;65434 wrote:

However, you say that if the liberals on the Supreme Court agree with her, then they're racists too. That says a lot about you. If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

Yes, its says that I am for equality. Not for giving assistance or special treatment educated grown adult who are an minority because they can’t perform on a standardized test.

NotHereForLong;65434 wrote:

As for the 2nd amendment, your own links state that a panel of conservative judges reached the same decision that she did.

Yes there are conservative judges on it who chose to uphold an unconstitutional law. Good think they aren’t nominated for the Supreme Court right.

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;65375 wrote:

Conservative to English translation: I don't like the law because it conflicts with my faith, therefore the law is wrong.

Wrong again. It has more to do with my belief in the people speaking and the government listening.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;65422 wrote:

She is good because she has job experience.

Yes, she has job experience. One of her exceptional experiences is to deny the appeal of a dyslexic firefighter who went through great personal efforts to pass the test to achieve a promotion and was not promoted because no black candidates for the promotion could pass the test. Thus, no one was promoted.
That with her proclamation of superiority based on her heritage over white men disqualifies her.

1 Reply

@g-man,

g-man;65443 wrote:

Wrong again. It has more to do with my belief in the people speaking and the government listening.

Roe v. Wade

Shall we go through it again?

0 Replies

@g-man,

g-man;65444 wrote:

Yes, she has job experience. One of her exceptional experiences is to deny the appeal of a dyslexic firefighter who went through great personal efforts to pass the test to achieve a promotion and was not promoted because no black candidates for the promotion could pass the test. Thus, no one was promoted.
That with her proclamation of superiority based on her heritage over white men disqualifies her.

Did she follow the law in her judgment? Did her judgment follow the letter of the law in that case? Regardless of how you feel about the law and/or the ruling, did it adhere to the laws by which the case was brought about?

Research and think carefully. You can't have this both ways, hate to tell you that.

0 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65434 wrote:

If a judge reaches a decision that you don't like, you make accusations against their character.

Jones received death threats after Dover.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know