Obama nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[Oleg Bach]

I don't like the looks of that lady - not a person that I would want to be judged by..of course it's not about hiring a good judge - it's about appeasing a minority - she might be totally useless as a judge - but that does not matter......and Jezzz - what a nasty face - reminds me of a bitter Mexian maid.

[BubberMiley]

None of them should. She's not a judge at all. She's a racist legislator in a black robe.

I strongly encourage Republicans to continue attacking her for her Latino heritage. Looking at Latino demographics, it's a can't-lose approach. Keep fighting the good fight! We can see the results of all your efforts in GOP poll numbers.

[Oleg Bach]

I strongly encourage Republicans to continue attacking her for her Latino heritage. Looking at Latino demographics, it's a can't-lose approach. Keep fighting the good fight! We can see the results of all your efforts in GOP poll numbers.

Hope that she will not be reviewing Conrad Blacks - case? If so the poor old guy is going to get screwed...Conrad represents the ultimate oppressor - white - intelligent - hard working elitist slave trader ---- further more - What's so good about Latino anyway - My youngest son is dating a great grand daughter of a former Latin American president....and she is all about - who she can turn into a servant - This new appointee...will enjoy making sure that all the toilet washers within the Supreme court building are white...jezzz - a job opportunity for me - this is great!

[Argus]

Love it. Keep that up. It will be nice to see the backlash and the backpedalling from Republicans later on when Hispanics and women react to the extremist, radical right wing attacks.

You don't need to be an extremist to turn her words around and frown at the result had they been uttered by a White man.

“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn’t lived that life,”said Judge Sotomayor.

[jdobbin]

You don't need to be an extremist to turn her words around and frown at the result had they been uttered by a White man.

Republicans will be able to question her on that. However, if they go off the deep end like Democrats did with Bush's selection of Gonzalez, they will face a backlash from the Hispanic community.

[jdobbin]

I don't like the looks of that lady - not a person that I would want to be judged by..of course it's not about hiring a good judge - it's about appeasing a minority - she might be totally useless as a judge - but that does not matter......and Jezzz - what a nasty face - reminds me of a bitter Mexian maid.

You must get punched in the nose a lot when you are out in public.

[sharkman]

I strongly encourage Republicans to continue attacking her for her Latino heritage. Looking at Latino demographics, it's a can't-lose approach. Keep fighting the good fight! We can see the results of all your efforts in GOP poll numbers.

Nice drive by, but are you saying that you aren't concerned with her latino woman can judge better than a white man comment? If a white man said that he would be fired from the bench.

If you aren't concerned about that comment then you must agree that latino women have evolved with superior inherent judging skills.

[sharkman]

You must get punched in the nose a lot when you are out in public.

You aren't allowed to threaten people on this forum. Grow up.

[Smallc]

Tha's not a threat. Not even close.

[sharkman]

In another revelation, it seems that Sotomayor has a high rate of reversals. I don't know off hand what the norm is, but 60% seems quite high.

[bush_cheney2004]

In another revelation, it seems that Sotomayor has a high rate of reversals. I don't know off hand what the norm is, but 60% seems quite high.

Damn...that is high. How many cases in the denominator?

[BubberMiley]

Nice drive by, but are you saying that you aren't concerned with her latino woman can judge better than a white man comment?

Absolutely. That’s because I am aware of how the Right pretty much always takes these quotes out of context and misrepresents them. This is just another example.

She was talking about judicial neutrality and how it is not only impossible for a person to form a perspective that is completely divorced from their personal experience, it is not even desirable. Her point was that, as a Latino woman, she brings a perspective that is different than a white man’s, and there is value in that perspective. She could try aspire to fake neutrality by making decisions based on “what would a white man do?”, but that would be a disservice to everyone.

Here’s the context.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/polit...?pagewanted=all

I know you dislike reading beyond the talking points, but it will help your argument to know what you’re talking about. But I wouldn’t accuse you of deliberately trying to misrepresent the quote, as others have. I think you just don’t know better, as you’ve already demonstrated once today that your reading comprehension is a little crippled:

You aren't allowed to threaten people on this forum. Grow up.

[BubberMiley]

MAJOR PROBLEMS with Judge Sotomayor!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

"I know I shouldn't say this, because it's on tape, but the courts are where policy is made."

Even after repeatedly getting pwned over it, you still enjoy taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them. I guess when you’re desperate to have something stick, you’ll resort to anything.

How come you didn’t include in your quotation what she said immediately after she made the remarks about courts making policy: “I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it”?

I notice today the Wall Street Journal describes her as “moderate.”

So it’s only the people far to the right of the WSJ and the people who don’t like the way Latinos look who are opposed to her.

I just love the sound of the sinking Republican ship. Please continue

[sharkman]

Absolutely. That’s because I am aware of how the Right pretty much always takes these quotes out of context and misrepresents them. This is just another example.

She was talking about judicial neutrality and how it is not only impossible for a person to form a perspective that is completely divorced from their personal experience, it is not even desirable. Her point was that, as a Latino woman, she brings a perspective that is different than a white man’s, and there is value in that perspective. She could try aspire to fake neutrality by making decisions based on “what would a white man do?”, but that would be a disservice to everyone.

Here’s the context.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/polit...?pagewanted=all

I know you dislike reading beyond the talking points, but it will help your argument to know what you’re talking about. But I wouldn’t accuse you of deliberately trying to misrepresent the quote, as others have. I think you just don’t know better, as you’ve already demonstrated once today that your reading comprehension is a little crippled:

Well then thank you for making allowances for my crippledness. You lefties are so thoughtful!

But you are ignoring the words she spoke when she said that a latino woman can judge better than a white man, you've put words in her mouth and she did not say she would judge different, but better. If I am crippled, what does that make you, and those who find nothing wrong with racism?

[BubberMiley]

But you are ignoring the words she spoke when she said that a latino woman can judge better than a white man, you've put words in her mouth and she did not say she would judge different, but better. If I am crippled, what does that make you, and those who find nothing wrong with racism?

You still don’t get it? Okay, the following is what she said when she made the comments you cite, which is what I was paraphrasing.

Please explain how I was “putting words in her mouth.”

Now Judge Cedarbaum … sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." …

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society..…

No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice….The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.…

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. … I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise.

If you read the whole text, it's clear that her words in the quotation you cited were meant to be taken as a joke. I know you sometimes have trouble understand context and humour, but sometimes I wonder if you are just pretending to not understand in order to score character assasination points against people.

Though I agree that can be fun sometimes.

[sharkman]

Whatever, whitey. There is no joke or attempted humor. It seems you are not capable of discussing this topic while using the actual quote about white men that she used. If you ever want to have a serious discussion, let me know.

I can't believe you are so dense that you can't understand why I said you are putting words in her mouth. Are you using again? And I'm sure you can explain away her other controversial comments, there is nothing worse than blind loyalty to a leader, in this case Obama. All you do is come on here and defend everything he does, can you not think for yourself even once?

Edited May 28, 2009 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

I can't believe you are so dense that you can't understand why I said you are putting words in her mouth.

I didn't think you could explain how my paraphrase conveyed something different from the quote I supplied. That's because it said the same thing. I guess when you're caught in a lie, calling people dense is an effective strategy, but it doesn't change the lie.

But I don't even know who this woman is. I'm not defending her; I'm exposing the fact that you are taking one quote completely out of context and making the woman seem like a racist for an inoccuous joke.

I don't know whether she'll make a good Supreme Court justice, but I do know that you (and your ilk) will resort to any level of misrepresentation to assassinate her character. And that's only because Obama nominated her, and you despise Obama.

Talk about blind loyalty.

...whitey?

Edited May 28, 2009 by BubberMiley

[sharkman]

I didn't think you could explain how my paraphrase conveyed something different from the quote I supplied. That's because it said the same thing. I guess when you're caught in a lie, calling people dense is an effective strategy, but it doesn't change the lie.

But I don't even know who this woman is. I'm not defending her; I'm exposing the fact that you are taking one quote completely out of context and making the woman seem like a racist for an inoccuous joke.

I don't know whether she'll make a good Supreme Court justice, but I do know that you (and your ilk) will resort to any level of misrepresentation to assassinate her character. And that's only because Obama nominated her, and you despise Obama.

Talk about blind loyalty.

...whitey?

Okay whitey, I'll try one more time. Listen carefully.

Here is the quote in question:

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

Here is what your version of it was:

Her point was that, as a Latino woman, she brings a perspective that is different than a white man’s, and there is value in that perspective.

Now, compare the two. Notice that you only submit that her perspective would be different than a white man. She submits that her perspective is better than a white man's. You ascribed the word different to her when she didn't say that, therefore you put words in her mouth. Again, this is a really simple concept and you are probably just jerking my chain again like you've done before when you made me provide quotes showing how you were rude to me in the pot thread. Are you having fun again? I told you before I don't consider this to be a game, but maybe you are bored. Take a nice long one for me.

When you compare this controversial statement she made with the one saying how they make policy from the bench, and the judgement about the white firemen, you get a picture of someone who puts race above justice. When you add in someone who's had 60% reversals, it doesn't look good unless you are a blind supporter of Obama.

Obama is not stupid, however, and his decison to pick a Latino woman will get support from them and build his base among them. But he is using race to make decisions instead of looking at the best person alone. If the GOP oppose her he can hit them with the racist stick. Bush did the same thing but the Dems had no reservations about opposing him anyway.

[BubberMiley]

the two. Notice that you only submit that her perspective would be different than a white man. She submits that her perspective is better than a white man's. You ascribed the word different to her when she didn't say that, therefore you put words in her mouth.

Okay...whitey. Now, read the full text I provided in the link. Notice that it includes everything I quoted, as well as the quotation you provided in context. Notice that the meaning of what she said becomes that Latino women (or whomever) can provide a valuable perspective that is different from a white man's. It's all about the context, and that's what I provide. Notice that the quote you provided only really makes sense in that context when read from the perspective that she's making a funny.

You can continue to attack me for my drug use and call me names though. I know that makes you feel better.

Edited May 28, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Smallc]

Wasn't she talkins specifically about two issues (of race and sexuality or something of that nature) when she said what she did? She also followed it up with another statment that really showed that this is all nothing.

[sharkman]

Okay...whitey. Now, read the full text I provided in the link. Notice that it includes everything I quoted, as well as the quotation you provided in context. Notice that the meaning of what she said becomes that Latino women (or whomever) can provide a valuable perspective that is different from a white man's. It's all about the context, and that's what I provide. Notice that the quote you provided only really makes sense in that context when read from the perspective that she's making a funny.

You can continue to attack me for my drug use and call me names though. I know that makes you feel better.

This reminds me of the quote where she claimed policy is made from the bench. Then she realized 1) She shouldn't be saying things like that out loud and 2) she was on tape. All manner of hilarity ensued as she attempted to make light of it but the point is her actual opinion on the matter was revealed for all to see.

But on the quote we're disagreeing about, you say that a) she was making a funny and bee) you have to read the context to get the full meaning. The point is if this had been a white man, and he made the comments from a white perspective, the left would be screaming bloody murder, and rightly so. A racist comment is a racist comment is a racist comment.

To be honest I realize that Obama is going to get pretty much whomever he wants on the Supreme Court, and he's replacing a liberal with a liberal. But I don't like racism or reverse discrimination. And I repeat, what Obama did was pick her for political reasons, not to select the best experienced person, and that is a shame.

Edited May 28, 2009 by sharkman

[stevoh]

If Obama had nominated the pope the repubs would attack him. It doesn't really matter who she is, its who nominated her.

Proof?

Bush Senior had also appointed her to a vital position.

[GostHacked]

This reminds me of the quote where she claimed policy is made from the bench. Then she realized 1) She shouldn't be saying things like that out loud and 2) she was on tape. All manner of hilarity ensued as she attempted to make light of it but the point is her actual opinion on the matter was revealed for all to see.

Well she speeks the truth. The Supreme Court makes a ruling, then becomes policy. I really don't see the problem with her statement.

To be honest I realize that Obama is going to get pretty much whomever he wants on the Supreme Court, and he's replacing a liberal with a liberal. But I don't like racism or reverse discrimination. And I repeat, what Obama did was pick her for political reasons, not to select the best experienced person, and that is a shame.

Bush had problems as well. Miers for example. Every president has had issues with a nominie. And of course it is all political. That is why many of these people are IN politics.

[Guest 4u2nv]

well just take a look at what we had to deal with before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDMuw2iJOYU

[KrustyKidd]

Absolutely. That’s because I am aware of how the Right pretty much always takes these quotes out of context and misrepresents them. This is just another example.

She was talking about judicial neutrality and how it is not only impossible for a person to form a perspective that is completely divorced from their personal experience, it is not even desirable. Her point was that, as a Latino woman, she brings a perspective that is different than a white man’s, and there is value in that perspective. She could try aspire to fake neutrality by making decisions based on “what would a white man do?”, but that would be a disservice to everyone.

Here’s the context.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/polit...?pagewanted=all

I know you dislike reading beyond the talking points, but it will help your argument to know what you’re talking about. But I wouldn’t accuse you of deliberately trying to misrepresent the quote, as others have. I think you just don’t know better, as you’ve already demonstrated once today that your reading comprehension is a little crippled:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

She also said this.......

What she also said ......

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.

Right and wrong out the window, it all comes down to the color of skin and what equipment you have between your legs. What a pick!

In any case, this bigot isn't a swing position at this time so, let Barry have this one and challenge the next one.