Political Forums

g-man

Because Roe vs Wade was decided by a court and became law, does not make it the "correct" manner to have handled it.
Law, concerning the destruction of living beings should have been put up for referendum.
The court should have decided only on that case and then had the policy set by the people via vote.
But, they knew where that would have led.
Cowards on the right, fearing the press, knees shaking have cost a lot of lives. Makes one hope for the existence of hell.

__________________
'A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.. And how many want out.'
Tony Blair

Sabz5150

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

__________________
You can’t crap all over Darwin and stem cell research and global warming, then come crawling back to science when you want Tamiflu.

So if humans evolved to have bigger and better brains, why are there still creationists?

Grouch

Its a Judges job to see if a law is constitutional, that is what a supreme court justice does. That is what Roe V Wade did, it said that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional because they violated the right to privacy and due process. It only made policy in that clarified how far these rights extend. And no decent judge should have the gall to say, "its our job to make policy". That's exactly not their job.

See you're not providing any reason why she is good choice. all you're doing is trying to down play why she sucks.

If a white man said the opposite of what she said, he would be lambasted for life his legal career done and rightfully so. You know that is true, but for some reason we are sheeple for wanting to hold her to the same standard. You'll have to explain that one if you wish to be taking seriously.

Grouch

Learn to quote.

NotHereForLong

"Learn to quote."

I was quoting you from memory and i misquoted you slightly. You wrote, "Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made". I wrote, "the most partisan of a choice as has ever been made". I was going to apologize for misquoting you but the truth is, it was such a dumb statement either way that it makes little difference. The right wing echo chamber is attacking Sotomayor because she's the nominee. It's comparable to what they did during the Democratic presidential primary elections. They slammed Hillary Clinton as a femi nazi and turned her into a negative caricature the entire time it seemed she had the nomination in the bag. And then when it became obvious that Obama would beat her, they portrayed Obama as extreme left wing and compared Clinton favorably to him. This is the same thing. If Obama retracted the Sotomayor nomination, they'd compare her favorably with whoever he chose next.

"It only made policy in that clarified how far these rights extend."

But nevertheless, that is making policy. It is what it is. It's stating the obvious. The legislative and executive branches make the law but when the law is unclear or when it might violate the constitution, the decision usually falls to the court of appeals and they decide. In that sense, they make policy. I don't find that particularly controversial. Sotomayor's answer seems to have been in response to a question about why legal defense funds look for ppl with court of appeals experiance. And as soon as she made that statement, she qualified it to show that she didn't mean what you seem to think she meant.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"If a white man said the opposite of what she said, he would be lambasted for life his legal career done and rightfully so."

I assume you're refering to her "wise latina" quote. I can see how this quote would be construed as racist. But i think it's clear when you read the speech that what she meant was that judges are all influenced by their experiances no matter how impartial they try to be, and that a female hispanic judge is more likely to make the right decision on some minority and gender issues. She didn't qualify the quote properly. But i'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I disagree with the practice of trying to pigeonhole someone as racist due to one quote they make out of one very casual speech they've made in their lifetime.

NotHereForLong