Political Forums

Grouch

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.

Sabz5150

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.

__________________
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

Experience doesn’t = excellence. Come on, you must know that. The same works in any profession, just because you have been doing it a long time doesn’t make you great at it.

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.

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.

Wow, that’s a poor attempt at an ad hominem.

And it is in a direct response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying that a wise man and I wise woman would reach the same conclusion. That is the whole quote. Please if you think its out of context demonstrate how it is.

“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,
“
And you should too. You might learn, that she doesn’t think white people can be discriminated against and doesn’t believe in the 2nd Amendment?

NotHereForLong

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

"Following up on Kevin’s post yesterday, this is the fourth post summarizing Judge Sotomayor’s civil opinions, which continue to seem fairly consistent with the views of Justice Souter."

"Having comprehensively reviewed her opinions (on abortion), my view is that the marginally related cases she has decided do not provide any genuine insight on how she would rule on questions related to a constitutional right to abortion, but they do show a level of balance that indicates that her decisionmaking is not driven by pro-choice or pro-life views."

"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

"As I’ve said before, I also think that opponents had relatively little to work with. Judge Sotomayor’s record actually shows genuine balance, so it’s easy to answer claims that she is a liberal ideologue with lots of opinions that don’t fit that mold."

NotHereForLong

"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?

Grouch

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)