Political Forums

Sabz5150 · 05-27-2009, 09:32 PM

Well, Bam's made his nomination and we all "No" how the GOP will vote. Honestly I'm beginning to think this is a train and that there is not much way to avoid this train wreck. Of course I'm talking about the minority trying to "shut the Senate down in every way" if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's judicial nominees.

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Republican leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

Numpty · 05-29-2009, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally stated by Sabz5150

Well, Bam's made his nomination and we all "No" how the GOP will vote. Honestly I'm beginning to think this is a train and that there is not much way to avoid this train wreck. Of course I'm talking about the minority trying to "shut the Senate down in every way" if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's judicial nominees.

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Republican leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

Will someone please Assasinate Gordon Brown is what I say

Sorry

g-man · 05-31-2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by Sabz5150

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

Sounds like you object to the opposition opposing.
Didn't hear much of this complaint as Robert Bork and Justice Thomas were being ripped apart.
What asset is there for the GOP to vote "yea" on?

I doubt you have a serious concern. The republican party has no one who is courageous enough to subject him or herself to the media attacks and barrage of personal attacks that would certainly follow any serious criticism of Sotomayor. Besides, Harry Reid has issued his warning to anyone who dare vote against or speak ill of Cinderella.
A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men. But those will quickly be silenced.
This woman has been selected based on bigotry. The short list consisted of 5 women. No men were even considered. The fact that 80% of her decisions have been reversed by the supreme court is disregarded.
She is chosen due to her ethnicity and her interesting "life experiences". Nothing to do with her qualifications.
Qualifications matter in this job. "Interpretation of law".
Sympathy nor empathy have any place in the function.
The justice statue has a blindfold for a reason.

NotHereForLong · 05-31-2009, 11:35 PM

Valedictorian of her high school. Went to Princeton on a full scholarship. Then Yale law school on scholarship. Assistant district attorney from 1976 to 1984. In 1984- entered the private practice as a civil litigation lawyer. 1991- nominated by the first George Bush to be a judge on a US District Court. 1997- nominated by Clinton to a Court of Appeals.

So that's 15 years as a lawyer and 18 years as a judge. 33 years in the legal system total, in a number of different roles.

By contrast, Thomas had 17 years experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court and just 2 as a judge. Alito had 30 years of experiance when he was nominated and 16 as a judge. Anthony Kennedy had 27 years of experience

Sotomeyor has more experience than any of them. She's perfectly qualified.

"This woman has been selected based on bigotry."

She's been chosen in part because she's a woman and hispanic. But (unlike Thomas), she was also chosen because she's qualified and has a pretty moderate record.

"A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men."

You've been watching too much Fox News or listening to too much Limbaugh. They don't give the news. They spin it. Get your head out of your ass.

Sabz5150 · 06-01-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally stated by g-man

Sounds like you object to the opposition opposing.
Didn't hear much of this complaint as Robert Bork and Justice Thomas were being ripped apart.
What asset is there for the GOP to vote "yea" on?

Really?

Quote:

Originally stated by Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 04/12/2005

I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees.

Quote:

Originally stated by John Ensign (R-NV) 05/11/2005

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

Quote:

Originally stated by Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 05/08/2005

History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.

Tagged "watchthis" for a reason.

This is what was said when Bush was shoving Roberts and Alito through. Wanna talk about your "activists"? Look no further than those two. Wasn't there talk of a "nuclear option" thingamajig... something about nixing the filibuster? Wouldn't that have left a nasty scar?

This is why I like Obama. He's doing it right and having fun with it. Not the "let's ride the roller coaster, daddy!" type of fun... this is more of a Saw sort of fun.

Quote:

I doubt you have a serious concern. The republican party has no one who is courageous enough to subject him or herself to the media attacks and barrage of personal attacks that would certainly follow any serious criticism of Sotomayor. Besides, Harry Reid has issued his warning to anyone who dare vote against or speak ill of Cinderella.
A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men. But those will quickly be silenced.
This woman has been selected based on bigotry. The short list consisted of 5 women. No men were even considered. The fact that 80% of her decisions have been reversed by the supreme court is disregarded.
She is chosen due to her ethnicity and her interesting "life experiences". Nothing to do with her qualifications.
Qualifications matter in this job. "Interpretation of law".
Sympathy nor empathy have any place in the function.
The justice statue has a blindfold for a reason.

Why do they call it a tea party when all they drink is kool-aid?

You bit on to the so-called 80% (it's actually 60) reversal rate, but that number means jack. If you take everything she's done into consideration, it's more like 2%. But the rightwingnutosphere doesn't feed its drones that information...

Also, the "life experiences" bit was mirrored by Alito during his Senate hearings. But of course that's just another piece of outta' context. We call it "quote mining" when the creotards do it.

I want the GOP to pull a stunt. Please do. It'll show their hypocrisy from sea to shining sea and they'll all but lose any chance of gaining seats in 2010. Ol Normie is already costing you guys a pretty penny... politically and financially. Can their camel bear another straw?

Live or die. Make your choice.

Sabz5150 · 06-01-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally stated by NotHereForLong

Valedictorian of her high school. Went to Princeton on a full scholarship. Then Yale law school on scholarship. Assistant district attorney from 1976 to 1984. In 1984- entered the private practice as a civil litigation lawyer. 1991- nominated by the first George Bush to be a judge on a US District Court. 1997- nominated by Clinton to a Court of Appeals.

So that's 15 years as a lawyer and 18 years as a judge. 33 years in the legal system total, in a number of different roles.

By contrast, Thomas had 17 years experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court and just 2 as a judge. Alito had 30 years of experiance when he was nominated and 16 as a judge. Anthony Kennedy had 27 years of experience

Sotomeyor has more experience than any of them. She's perfectly qualified.

"This woman has been selected based on bigotry."

She's been chosen in part because she's a woman and hispanic. But (unlike Thomas), she was also chosen because she's qualified and has a pretty moderate record.

"A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men."

You've been watching too much Fox News or listening to too much Limbaugh. They don't give the news. They spin it. Get your head out of your ass.

Psst. She isn't far-right.

Grouch · 06-01-2009, 03:08 PM

Bush Jr. Nominated the first Hispanic so this bull**** that she is important because of that is just garbage coming from the Dems.

She's already proven to be both a sexist, racist and have apparently little care for the actual role of a judge (hint, its not to make policy). While her credentials are great, her actions prove her to be unfit. Out side of settle the baseball strike in 95 she has made no name for herself, and many of her peers are already questioning her abilities and behavior behind the bench.

But Obama has the government in his hand, and has already eluded to the press that it would not be a good idea to try and disrupt or dispute he confirmation.

Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made, it is not one based on merit or outstanding work.

Sabz5150 · 06-01-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by Grouch

Bush Jr. Nominated the first Hispanic so this bull**** that she is important because of that is just garbage coming from the Dems.

She's already proven to be both a sexist, racist and have apparently little care for the actual role of a judge (hint, its not to make policy). While her credentials are great, her actions prove her to be unfit. Out side of settle the baseball strike in 95 she has made no name for herself, and many of her peers are already questioning her abilities and behavior behind the bench.

But Obama has the government in his hand, and has already eluded to the press that it would not be a good idea to try and disrupt or dispute he confirmation.

Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made, it is not one based on merit or outstanding work.

Actually, in some cases it IS the responsibility of a judge to make policy. Roe v. Wade? Excellent example. Whenever you have two disputing parties at that level, you're gonna wind up setting policy one way or another.

The sexist and racist schpeel is nonstop banter from the Right. Remember... Jones was "one of theirs" (their own words) before denounced as an activist who received death threats all because of one little bit of "policy" setting in Dover.

Don't believe the hype.

NotHereForLong · 06-02-2009, 05:32 AM

"Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made"

Are you serious? Part of the reason she was chosen was because she hasn't made many rulings on hot button social issues and she generally sided with the conservative side when she did.

From wikipedia:

"Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[8] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[8] – not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years.[12] Sotomayor's circuit court rulings have led to her being considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal[39][65] and other sources and organizations.[39][52][65][66][67][68] Several lawyers, legal experts, and news organizations, however, identify her as someone who has liberal inclinations.[69][70][71] In any case, the Second Circuit's caseload typically skews more towards business and securities law rather than hot-button social or constitutional issues.[12] Sotomayor has tended to write narrowly-formed rulings that rely upon close application of the law rather than import general philosophical viewpoints.[12] Sotomayor's influence in the federal judiciary, as measured by the number of citations of her rulings by other judges and in law review articles, has increased significantly during the length of her appellate judgeship and has been greater than that of some other prominent federal appeals court judges.[72]

Sotomayor was a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts.[59] In October 2001, she presented the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley School of Law;[11] entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice", it was published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal the following spring.[73] In the speech, she discussed the characteristics of her Latina upbringing and culture and discussed the history of minorities and women ascending to the federal bench.[74] She said the low number of minority women on the federal bench at that time was "shocking".[31] She then discussed at length how her own experiences as a Latina might affect her decisions as a judge.[74] In any case, her past background in activism has not necessarily influenced her rulings: a study of 50 racial discrimination cases brought before her panel showed that 45 of them were rejected, with Sotomayor never filing a dissent.[31]"

Doesn't sound that "partisan" to me. The Republicans would be spinning almost anyone Obama had chosen as "the most partisan of a choice as has ever been made".

05-27-2009, 09:32 PM	#1
Sabz5150 Blinding you with science Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,113	Sotomayor Well, Bam's made his nomination and we all "No" how the GOP will vote. Honestly I'm beginning to think this is a train and that there is not much way to avoid this train wreck. Of course I'm talking about the minority trying to "shut the Senate down in every way" if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's judicial nominees. We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate. History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Republican leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor. What say you, ladies and gentlemen? __________________ 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?

05-31-2009, 11:35 PM	#4
NotHereForLong Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 102	Re: Sotomayor Valedictorian of her high school. Went to Princeton on a full scholarship. Then Yale law school on scholarship. Assistant district attorney from 1976 to 1984. In 1984- entered the private practice as a civil litigation lawyer. 1991- nominated by the first George Bush to be a judge on a US District Court. 1997- nominated by Clinton to a Court of Appeals. So that's 15 years as a lawyer and 18 years as a judge. 33 years in the legal system total, in a number of different roles. By contrast, Thomas had 17 years experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court and just 2 as a judge. Alito had 30 years of experiance when he was nominated and 16 as a judge. Anthony Kennedy had 27 years of experience Sotomeyor has more experience than any of them. She's perfectly qualified. "This woman has been selected based on bigotry." She's been chosen in part because she's a woman and hispanic. But (unlike Thomas), she was also chosen because she's qualified and has a pretty moderate record. "A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men." You've been watching too much Fox News or listening to too much Limbaugh. They don't give the news. They spin it. Get your head out of your ass. Last edited by NotHereForLong : 05-31-2009 at 11:43 PM.

06-01-2009, 03:08 PM	#7
Grouch Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 122	Re: Sotomayor Bush Jr. Nominated the first Hispanic so this bull**** that she is important because of that is just garbage coming from the Dems. She's already proven to be both a sexist, racist and have apparently little care for the actual role of a judge (hint, its not to make policy). While her credentials are great, her actions prove her to be unfit. Out side of settle the baseball strike in 95 she has made no name for herself, and many of her peers are already questioning her abilities and behavior behind the bench. But Obama has the government in his hand, and has already eluded to the press that it would not be a good idea to try and disrupt or dispute he confirmation. Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made, it is not one based on merit or outstanding work. Last edited by Grouch : 06-01-2009 at 03:11 PM.

06-02-2009, 05:32 AM	#9
NotHereForLong Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 102	Re: Sotomayor "Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made" Are you serious? Part of the reason she was chosen was because she hasn't made many rulings on hot button social issues and she generally sided with the conservative side when she did. From wikipedia: "Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[8] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[8] – not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years.[12] Sotomayor's circuit court rulings have led to her being considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal[39][65] and other sources and organizations.[39][52][65][66][67][68] Several lawyers, legal experts, and news organizations, however, identify her as someone who has liberal inclinations.[69][70][71] In any case, the Second Circuit's caseload typically skews more towards business and securities law rather than hot-button social or constitutional issues.[12] Sotomayor has tended to write narrowly-formed rulings that rely upon close application of the law rather than import general philosophical viewpoints.[12] Sotomayor's influence in the federal judiciary, as measured by the number of citations of her rulings by other judges and in law review articles, has increased significantly during the length of her appellate judgeship and has been greater than that of some other prominent federal appeals court judges.[72] Sotomayor was a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts.[59] In October 2001, she presented the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley School of Law;[11] entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice", it was published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal the following spring.[73] In the speech, she discussed the characteristics of her Latina upbringing and culture and discussed the history of minorities and women ascending to the federal bench.[74] She said the low number of minority women on the federal bench at that time was "shocking".[31] She then discussed at length how her own experiences as a Latina might affect her decisions as a judge.[74] In any case, her past background in activism has not necessarily influenced her rulings: a study of 50 racial discrimination cases brought before her panel showed that 45 of them were rejected, with Sotomayor never filing a dissent.[31]" Doesn't sound that "partisan" to me. The Republicans would be spinning almost anyone Obama had chosen as "the most partisan of a choice as has ever been made".