Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2019, 11:52:10 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: Grand Mufti of NY, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Print
Author Topic: BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice  (Read 20270 times)
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: May 26, 2009, 10:56:22 am »


I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing and got depressed. God forbid you oppose someone of the same background of a group you're trying to win over politically.  Roll Eyes

This is exactly why this business is seen as a joke by so many. Then again, a lot of the same people will say that they don't like appointments based on background but they'll feel uneasy seeing the situation you described unfold. Nothing like another dose of white guilt for society.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,417
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: May 26, 2009, 10:57:02 am »

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

-another Sonia quote we'll see showing up on FOX & Talk Radio.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,417
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: May 26, 2009, 11:01:03 am »

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: May 26, 2009, 11:16:04 am »

Democrats should hope for the Republicans to oppose her.

I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Question: How will Mel Martinez vote?


If he had any sense, he would try to filibuster it.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,417
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: May 26, 2009, 11:20:14 am »

Also, she ruled against the Hispanic side of the fighter-fighters' lawsuit, funny enough, although for the African-Americans.

Not that I agree with her.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,880
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: May 26, 2009, 11:23:52 am »


I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing and got depressed. God forbid you oppose someone of the same background of a group you're trying to win over politically.  Roll Eyes


If the only reasons they oppose her are ideology and pure obstructionism, then you have every reason to feel depressed.

Unless you think that Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell are concerned about her credentials and intelectual heft.

Let's filibuster this racist bitch!  Who cares if she's qualified, the Dems set the precedent with their childish attempt to block Alito's confirmation.

Also, anyone who refuses to not confirm Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic is a coward.  Were Hispanics upset when Democrats tried to hold up Alberto Gonzales?  Did blacks take umbrage when the Democrats (predictably) tried to reject the first conservative black Supreme Court Justice?  There's a lot of things Hispanics care about, having one seat on the Supreme Court isn't one of them.

Someone missed the memo about not being funny anymore.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,291
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: May 26, 2009, 11:26:16 am »

Let's filibuster this racist bitch!  Who cares if she's qualified, the Dems set the precedent with their childish attempt to block Alito's confirmation.

Also, anyone who refuses to not confirm Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic is a coward.  Were Hispanics upset when Democrats tried to hold up Alberto Gonzales?  Did blacks take umbrage when the Democrats (predictably) tried to reject the first conservative black Supreme Court Justice?  There's a lot of things Hispanics care about, having one seat on the Supreme Court isn't one of them.

Filibuster for the sake of it, or because you actually believe you have the votes to block cloture?
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: May 26, 2009, 11:29:55 am »



If the only reasons they oppose her are ideology and pure obstructionism, then you have every reason to feel depressed.

No, troll, I'm depressed that people like yourself try to guilt Republicans into supporting her because she's a woman and Hispanic.

I've made clear that I don't support holding up any nomination because of ideological differences. That doesn't mean I'll just roll over and accept her because it's historic.

As Vander said, there was no outrage by the Dems when other historic nominees were held up.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,417
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: May 26, 2009, 11:31:32 am »

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: May 26, 2009, 11:34:02 am »

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

They didn't feel enough guilt when they decided to side with Anita Hill...

Again, no outrage over Gonzales either. If we want to play this game about getting on board with historic nominations, just realize that it goes both ways. It's such a shame that this stuff defines politics. It's no wonder why some of us want out...
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,880
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: May 26, 2009, 11:47:51 am »

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

They didn't feel enough guilt when they decided to side with Anita Hill...

Again, no outrage over Gonzales either. If we want to play this game about getting on board with historic nominations, just realize that it goes both ways. It's such a shame that this stuff defines politics. It's no wonder why some of us want out...

Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And I remember that the Republicans bullying the Democrats was actually the norm for the last two decades (Iraq War Resolution anyone? ). Not much whining by Phil I suppose during that period.   
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: May 26, 2009, 11:51:18 am »

I would like to hear details about this case before I state my opinion.  On principle I don't agree with her decision either but I would like to know what led her to it.
Also, she ruled against the Hispanic side of the fighter-fighters' lawsuit, funny enough, although for the African-Americans.

Not that I agree with her.
Logged
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,761
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: May 26, 2009, 12:00:36 pm »

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

Thurgood Marshall would like a word with you.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,491
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: May 26, 2009, 12:05:18 pm »

Great, a centrist judge and former Bush appointee.

Remind me what party is in power again?
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: May 26, 2009, 12:07:08 pm »



Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And if some minority nominee was hilariously unqualified, you'd still be saying that the GOP will suffer among minority groups and you'd love it. Why would we suffer? Well, because we're the party of fat, old, white men opposing a poor minority and too many people are totally concerned with that aspect of the debate.

No comment from you concerning Thomas' nomination. I'm sure you would have hailed that as historic, right?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...what does that have to do with guilting someone to support someone else because of their ethnic/gender background?

And actually some of us were very disgusted with bullying Democrats about their supposed lack of patriotism. I've made that very clear in the past so get a clue before you post your usual nonsense.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: May 26, 2009, 12:22:04 pm »

I'm sure Obama's team has already found an explanation for that. It's a pretty easy find.

FoxNews doesn't seem to be hitting back to hard just yet. I imagine by the time we see BillO or Hanitty tonight we can expect YouTube videos, angry rants and the shaping of the conservative message.

Of course, I spoke too soon. Already pulled a quote where Sotomayor says a Hispanic woman would make better decisions than a white male.

Actually there is no need for elaborate explanation.
Just read Anonymous Liberal's post where he explains what Sotomayor meant:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

(sighs) This is what now qualifies as a big-time litigator in a large law firm.  Roll Eyes

Look, both this genius and the soon-to-be SC justice are correct in a certain sense, but fail to appreciate the nuance between a corollary function and the necessary function of an Appeals court judge.  Or at least that's what her statement originally failed to acknowledge.

The necessary function of an Appeals court judge is to review rulings and decisions mainly made by District Courts (and some other courts in certain situations, including bankruptcy courts, tax courts, even occasionally magistrate courts if the issue is a real live one, etc.).  In reviewing these decisions, using whatever standard of review is applicable (usually under SC precedent), the Appeals court makes a decision applying SC precedent strictly to the specific factual and legal issues at hand.  In other words, at a literal level, the Appeals Court is merely empowered to the function to apply SC precedent in review of District Court rulings and decisions.

Now, as one could easily figure out, the situations where SC precedent and District Court rulings, decisions, etc. overlap are not that common (though more common than you might think).  Henceforth, any decision where the application of SC precedent is not on point leaves open the use of policy to make a judgment (in addition to straightforward applications of law - such as with statutes).  Invariably, all these decisions which do not "merely quote SC precedent and move along" form their own separate universe of interpretation within that Circuit, but fundamentally and most importantly at the theoretical level, all of these decisions are made still strictly follow SC precedent.  This occurs even when different Circuits reach different conclusions (based on different policy) regarding a legal issue.

Therefore, the use of policy in interpreting SC precedent not on point (not to mention Circuit precedent, but it presents less issues) is a function of an Appeals Court judge but it is a corollary function which derives from the necessary and basic function of an Appeals Court judge, as stated above.
Logged
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,761
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: May 26, 2009, 12:30:51 pm »

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.

I'm surprised it wasn't leaked through Twitter.  That seems to be the way the Republicans do things these days.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,880
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: May 26, 2009, 12:32:06 pm »
« Edited: May 26, 2009, 12:35:04 pm by px75 »



Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And if some minority nominee was hilariously unqualified, you'd still be saying that the GOP will suffer among minority groups and you'd love it. Why would we suffer? Well, because we're the party of fat, old, white men opposing a poor minority and too many people are totally concerned with that aspect of the debate.

No comment from you concerning Thomas' nomination. I'm sure you would have hailed that as historic, right?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...what does that have to do with guilting someone to support someone else because of their ethnic/gender background?

And actually some of us were very disgusted with bullying Democrats about their supposed lack of patriotism. I've made that very clear in the past so get a clue before you post your usual nonsense.

1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Thomas was also obviously unqualified. He should have been rejected.

And yes, the Republicans don't enjoy the benefit of the doubt that the Democrats do regarding minorities. That's the price they pay for 40 years of  being the Party of White Resentment.

2)If you really were disgusted by the bullying and patriotism-mongering by the Republicans in 2002, then I applaud you.
But the fact is that identity politics is alive and well, for better or worse. Of course the Democrats will play the Latino card in order to corner the Republicans and paint them as Anti-Hispanic.
It shouldn't be like that, but then again in a perfect world we shouldn't have a racist creep like Sessions judging her or any other judicial nominee for that matter.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.

I'm surprised it wasn't leaked through Twitter.  That seems to be the way the Republicans do things these days.

I guess it was a tad long to be twittered.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,491
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: May 26, 2009, 12:37:12 pm »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: May 26, 2009, 12:47:18 pm »



1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Roll Eyes

Of course you don't have to care about it there which makes it even more hypocritical that you take joy in it being an issue here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

I won't even ask why...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Predictable

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am and always have been.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough but I wouldn't take joy in it like you are (just as I didn't take joy in the fact that calling Dems unpatriotic was popular for awhile).
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,880
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: May 26, 2009, 12:53:56 pm »



1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Roll Eyes

Of course you don't have to care about it there which makes it even more hypocritical that you take joy in it being an issue here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

I won't even ask why...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Predictable

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am and always have been.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough but I wouldn't take joy in it like you are (just as I didn't take joy in the fact that calling Dems unpatriotic was popular for awhile).


1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

2)Thomas WAS unqualified. The American Bar Association said so.

3)If there is some joy in all that, it is coming from seing the Republicans squirm in their seats like the Democrats did for the last twenty years. You know, like when you see a movie villain gets his comeuppance. Wink
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: May 26, 2009, 01:02:49 pm »


1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

Uh, what?

I'm not jumping up and down in joy because I'm tired of people trying to force me into supporting someone because their selection is racially/ethnically historic and you find it amusing that we're in this bind.

You're being a hypocrite because you expect this to be an issue here and want to guilt anyone that doesn't support this woman but don't care to see it our way even though you live in a homogenous country.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why is that?

Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: May 26, 2009, 02:15:09 pm »

Does anyone think Ricci v. DeStefano might derail her candidacy?  I haven't read the opinion yet, but at face value I hate it.
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: May 26, 2009, 02:42:16 pm »

Phil, come on you really think Thomas was qualified?  The only reason he was picked was because Bush had to pick an AA to replace Marshall and an ultra-conservative because you guys were pissed his first pick was a moderate like Souter and the only black guy he could find who fit that description was Thomas.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,880
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: May 26, 2009, 03:12:31 pm »


1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

Uh, what?

I'm not jumping up and down in joy because I'm tired of people trying to force me into supporting someone because their selection is racially/ethnically historic and you find it amusing that we're in this bind.

You're being a hypocrite because you expect this to be an issue here and want to guilt anyone that doesn't support this woman but don't care to see it our way even though you live in a homogenous country.

The racial/ethic angle would be reprehensible IF Sotomayor was unqualified. Since that obviously isn't the case here, it's an added political bonus for Obama and the Democrats. And they should be sued for political malpractice if they don't take advantage of the situation.

In case you don't know, I'm not in a position to guilt anybody into voting for her confirmation. I'm just a guy with a PC, commenting the latest political developments.
If you oppose her because of her judicial philosophy then fine. I'm not going to call you a bigot or anything else. You are entitled to have your opinion. 

And pardon me if I find amusing the situation in which the Republicans are, but their predicament is entirely self-inflicted. How can I not be amused when I see Huckabee rushing so much to blast Obama's choice, that he got her name wrong in his statement (''Maria Sotomayor''). 

And I really don't understand what do you want to say about Thomas. The guy is a living example of tokenism, not surpased until last fall when the world learned of Sarah Palin. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC