# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Sotomayor named as Obama's pick

## Ernst

_OR 
"Racist dog and pony show, part II"

Welcome to the Obama presidency, where we make important choices based on race and gender...._

Obama nominates Sotomayor to Supreme Court
By David Alexander, Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives with Appeals Court Judge Sonya Sotomayor...

WASHINGTON  President Barack Obama nominated Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, selecting a woman who would be the court's first Latino to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

Obama's choice of Sotomayor, a 54-year-old judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, was unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the high court because Souter, 69, was part of the panel's liberal wing.

The court hands down rulings on such divisive social issues as abortion rights and the death penalty as well as deciding business and property rights cases. Its members are appointed for life but require Senate confirmation.

Conservatives quickly moved to criticize the choice but political analysts said that, barring an unexpected scandal, there was little chance the nomination could be derailed.

Sotomayor, a child of Puerto Rican parents, is most widely known for her decision as a trial judge in 1995 to bar Major League Baseball from using replacement players, ending a nearly year-long strike.

An announcement of the nomination was scheduled for 10:15 a.m. (1415 GMT), the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Hoping to show a consultative approach, Obama had been meeting with key Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, which must vote to approve the nominee, as he weighed a short list of mostly women to replace Souter.

CONSERVATIVE OBJECTIONS

Analysts, noting that Obama, a former senator, voted against Republican President George W. Bush's two Supreme Court nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, said it was unrealistic for him to expect conservatives not to resist his pick.

Some Republicans indicated they planned a fight over the nomination, angered by Obama's decisions loosening limits on stem cell research and eliminating other Bush administration restrictions favored by abortion opponents.

But Senate Republicans would need 60 votes to block the nomination with a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster. To do that, all 40 would have to stand together -- something that is far from guaranteed.

Wendy Long, a counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, called Sotomayor a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written."

Sotomayor has been a Court of Appeals judge in New York since 1998. Before that she served as a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York.

She began her law career in 1979 as an assistant district attorney in New York County, and later practiced law at the firm of Pavia & Harcourt.

Her focus at the firm was on intellectual property issues and international litigation and arbitration of commercial and commodity export trading cases, according to a court biography.

Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in the Bronx in New York City. Sotomayor, who is divorced, excelled as a student and graduated from Princeton University and then Yale Law School.

(Additional reporting by James Vicini and Ross Colvin; Editing by Bill Trott)

----------


## Theatrix

and.............she is a Princeton Grad and a Yale Law school Grad. Graduated at the top of her class. Served as a Federal Judge for 10 years....
It does surprise me however, that an individual of your obvious mental capacity, is actually able to cut and paste an article!

----------


## RA

Read the stickies at the top. No flame.





> and.............she is a Princeton Grad and a Yale Law school Grad. Graduated at the top of her class. Served as a Federal Judge for 10 years....
> It does surprise me however, that an individual of your obvious mental capacity, is actually able to cut and paste an article!

----------


## Theatrix

> Read the stickies at the top. No flame.


Understood....my apologies.

----------


## vpchill

Well it says she was already part of the panels liberal wing. Her credentials are outstanding, Why is race the problem?

Here is where I ask, If Bush appointed John Smith , White Republican from Iowa is this a news story? Why is it when Obama appoints someone of color and different ethnic background? She is well experienced.

----------


## vpchill

Heres where I am coming from....
When a White president promotes a White candidate (Who is qualified or not) to the cabinet or another Govt position it is supposed to be standard?
Yet when a Black president promotes a candidate of different ethnicity (Who is qualified) We make it an issue. You guys dont see the error in this type of thinking?? 

Obama didnt go get shirley and dem from the rib shack. He went and got a judge who is well educated and experienced. Im not understanding the concern here.. He didnt run out and get Jim Jackson as vicepresident. He got someone he thought was qualified. For years non-white candidates werent thought about for those positions. Obama is giving the opportunity to those who are ususally overlooked.
I just dont understand why we still take so much stake in color?

----------


## thegodfather

> Well it says she was already part of the panels liberal wing. Her credentials are outstanding, Why is race the problem?
> 
> Here is where I ask, If Bush appointed John Smith , White Republican from Iowa is this a news story? Why is it when Obama appoints someone of color and different ethnic background? She is well experienced.


He does seem to be keeping in line with the elitist trend in appointing Supreme Court justices. Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc..... While you can sing this race card up and down, it really sounds absurd if you ask me. Conservatives would object the nomination of ANY liberal SC justice, under any circumstances. To try and peg this as a race issue is completely ignorant (meaning you lack KNOWLEDGE of the issue we're discussing). This is not an issue of race, it is an issue of IDEOLOGY. If you were learned enough to understand that difference between a liberal and a conservative then you might not be so quick to play the race card. You sound like Ludacris in the movie Crash, I suppose next you will tell us that the windows on public buses are so large in order to humiliate the black man for having to ride public transportation? 

Being someone who views all people as individuals and views race as a socially constructed dream, just really aggrivates the living shit out of me to hear you yelling about white/black all the time, as if that is what is at the heart of this issue, when it most certainly is not. The mere fact that Obama happens to be black, means that whenever someone "white" opposes one of his actions they are automatically doing it BECAUSE he is black. It couldn't possibly be because he is a bleeding heart liberal with a socialist leaning ideology? 

If you REALLY cared about diversity, maybe we could focus on the fact that 90% of the Supreme Court Justices in this court went to the top 8 university's in the country, which are reserved for people of priviledge and wealth, REGARDLESS OF RACE.

----------


## Kratos

It was a brilliant move for political reasons

she was first appointed by Bush 41

because Sotomayor is a woman of color, and a Hispanic...the GOP can't afford to attack her nomination too hard and appear racist.

Hispanics voted 67% for Obama in the 2008 election...and this is good for his second term.

----------


## vpchill

Godfather I am confused, Did you read my post? I 100% agree with what your saying. I am saying WHY is race an issue. My point also is why is race an issue? If the person is qualified I care not what color they are.

----------


## vpchill

BTW an ignorant person Wouldnt have read the 1st 3 lines of the Thread which refer to race as to why obama made the pick. Do Me a solid, Dont insult me when you havent fully read through everything GODFATHER. 

Just because you went to college, doesnt make you smart. I never make comments to how black people are downed.
I make the point that race should not be an issue and how I feel obama is overley scrutinized because of his race.
I could also care less if your aggrivated.

----------


## D7M

why make it a race issue? 

well, how bout b.c. she already did:

"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,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

----------


## vpchill

> why make it a race issue? 
> 
> well, how bout b.c. she already did:
> 
> "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,"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html




I agree, she is making that statement because people are making race an issue. This is probably in defense of what many (including some on this board) have already said. Why did obama appoint her, Due to race.

I hate that everything always boils down to race. Coming from where I come from , I should hate white people and police. I dont, Ive seen the lighter side. I have seen that no matter what color or ethnic background the color doesnt make the person. She is well educated and has experience, What Im trying to say is if a white person with the same exact credentials got the position would we be having this convo??

----------


## D7M

did you read the link? 

she said that in 2002. 

I'm a white male. I hate when things get boiled down to race as well. it's tougher for me to get a job. 

bet you also didn't know that Sotomayer voted to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out a set of fire department promotion tests because no minority candidates made the top of the list. White firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion are appealing that ruling.

----------


## Kratos

I think everyone wants a level playing field when it comes to race VP, including most white people. White people have had more time to become established on the social ladder, and that's a little unfair.
When things get too slanted to pro minority...white people get frustated because now you've taken away from them to give to someone else. The truth is the advantage of being white is gone and only exists in the minds of minorities now.

I don't think Obama is a racist or this is a racist pick...it's political, and partly because hispanic voters demand to see their people in postions of power, ie a form a racism embedded in society. But, she is qualified and a good pick for Obama, because at the end of the day he's a politician. I think the Obama's and especially Michelle (cause she has trouble holding herself back) need to hold back their desire to do as much for black people as possible. Rather to show a black president can be impartial and therefore race doesn't matter...that will do the best good for the image of black people among non blacks. So far Barrack has done an acceptable job in terms of race, but he should be more careful than a white president not to breed racial frustrations...and that's just how it is.

----------


## D7M

^well said, Kratos.

----------


## vpchill

I agree 100% You couldnt say it anybetter.

No I couldnt get the link Derk I went off the post. Sorry.

----------


## Theatrix

I'm not Hispanic so my opinion is not one of empathy. Rather, I base my opionion on the facts. Hispanics represent approx. 15% of the population in this country, why wouldn't they deserve representation on the Supreme Court.
My distain, by the way, is towards the ideals of an individual who believes that they are born into greatness rather than earn it. Its the idea of elitism by virtue of the color of one's skin that bothers me. If elitism is to be tolerated, then earn it by achieving greatness, accomplish something extraordinary.

----------


## Kratos

> I'm not Hispanic so my opinion is not one of empathy. Rather, I base my opionion on the facts. Hispanics represent approx. 15% of the population in this country, why wouldn't they deserve representation on the Supreme Court.
> My distain, by the way, is towards the ideals of an individual who believes that they are born into greatness rather than earn it. Its the idea of elitism by virtue of the color of one's skin that bothers me. If elitism is to be tolerated, then earn it by achieving greatness, accomplish something extraordinary.


Because maybe some people feel that qualifications, and judicial experience should outweigh or even eliminate as an issue race, gender, or sexuality.

She may be qualified, but was someone overlooked who was better qualified because they didn't fit the race/gender bio that Obama was looking for?

As for every minority group deserving representation...either we're all equal or we're not...you can't have it both ways...and if hispanics feel they are equal to whites, then a white person who is qualified to represent whites is qualified to represent them. Can you come up with a case that the supreme court might see where it would act as an additional qualification to be hispanic? No, of course you can't.

Rather you are saying, the color of the population must be represented in equal numbers...why? That isn't being color blind, now is it?

----------


## Kratos

Supreme Job Opening: Only Women and Minorities Wanted? 
Late last week the biggest legal news in Washington was that Justice David Souter made it official -- he would retire “[w]hen the Supreme Court rises for the summer recess this year.” Thus, after the Court issues its final decision of the term in June, there will be an opening for President Barack Obama to fill, and the President will likely name his pick before then.

But in the aftermath of that blockbuster news, our thoughts didn’t turn to who might be nominated, but rather to what Chief Justice John Roberts must be thinking about why that person will be nominated. That’s not because, like his seven other colleagues and all of legal and political America, the Chief Justice must be wondering who will join him on the bench when the Court is gaveled back into session on the first Monday in October. But, instead, because the Chief Justice must be lamenting the many qualified lawyers and judges who, by all accounts, have no chance of getting the opportunity to set up chambers at One First Street.

You see, in his short four terms thus far, Chief Justice Roberts has been the leading voice explaining that the government should not consider race, and probably not gender either, in making decisions. Indeed, the Chief Justice has pulled no punches in his statements that the Constitution means the government -- say for instance in employment -- must ignore the color of one’s skin and the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

Yet even as the news was breaking that there would be an imminent vacancy on the Supreme Court, it was already all but a certainty that “the next justice would be a “symbolic appointment for that seat on the bench -- perhaps the Court’s first Hispanic member, another woman Justice, or another African-American Justice,” in the words of the Dean of Supreme Court reporters Lyle Denniston.

Indeed, virtually every news story and analysis about the President’s nominee emphasizes what seems to be an inevitable fact about whomever may get the nomination -- the person won’t be white and, almost as certainly, won’t be male.

Take, for example, the headline published online by ABC News earlier this week, which stated that “Diversity, Not Politics, [is] Key to Court Pick.” The story went on to note that both “lawmakers and interest groups are making it clear that they want to see a woman or a minority pick.”

The report quotes Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy as saying: “I would like to see … more women on the Court. Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities.” That was the sentiment echoed by former Judiciary Committee Ranking Member (turned Democrat) Arlen Specter, who the same story quoted as stating, “We need more people to express a woman’s point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African-American.”

Commentators are pushing racial and gender identity politics for the Supreme Court nomination, too. NPR published an opinion piece by Princeton University Provost and Professor Christopher Eisgruber headlined “The Next Justice: No More Mr. White Guys.” Prominent Supreme Court practitioner and SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein posted: “We can say that [the next justice] has to be a woman. The gender imbalance on the Court is absurd, and the [Obama] Administration will like the perceived contrast with President Bush’s failure to address it.”

The unanimity of opinion that the next justice can be neither white nor male prompted Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution, to publish an op-ed in the Washington Post discussing, as the headline put it, “The Best Judges Obama Can’t Pick.”

Wittes asked, “What do Merrick Garland, David Tatel and Jose Cabranes have in common?” His answer: “All are sitting federal court of appeals judges who were nominated by Democratic presidents. All three are deeply admired by their colleagues and are among a small group of the very finest federal judges in the country. And all three have names you probably won't hear often in public discussions about whom President Obama should tap to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter.” Why? Well, Wittes states it pretty bluntly: “Garland: white guy. Tatel: white guy and, at 67, too old. Cabranes: Hispanic, sure, but [a man and] even older.”

This racial and gender identity driven process must be exceptionally frustrating to Chief Justice Roberts. After all, not only has the Chief Justice unequivocally and passionately advanced the constitutional proposition that “[i]t is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race” and gender, and that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race [and gender] is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” and gender, but he has seen identity trump all before. The Harriet Miers debacle was the result of a President -- albeit one from the other political party -- choosing a High Court nominee based on appearance as opposed to substance.

Of course, none of this is to say that eminently qualified female and minority candidates aren’t out there, many already found. But it must trouble the Chief Justice that the real reason any one of them may be nominated isn’t their sterling credentials, deep knowledge or vast experience, but rather their good fortune to be born with the preferable set of genetic traits.

Indeed, after the last election in which neither race nor gender was much of a concern -- or even a barrier -- that the winner would now choose the next justice of the Supreme Court based on minority status or the absence of a Y chromosome should deeply trouble us all.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislati...ies-Wanted.htm

----------


## Kratos

white man out
brown women in
I can feel the progress

----------


## Theatrix

> I think everyone wants a level playing field when it comes to race VP, including most white people. White people have had more time to become established on the social ladder, and that's a little unfair.
> When things get too slanted to pro minority...white people get frustated because now you've taken away from them to give to someone else. The truth is the advantage of being white is gone and only exists in the minds of minorities now.
> 
> I don't think Obama is a racist or this is a racist pick...it's political, and partly because hispanic voters demand to see their people in postions of power, ie a form a racism embedded in society. But, she is qualified and a good pick for Obama, because at the end of the day he's a politician. I think the Obama's and especially Michelle (cause she has trouble holding herself back) need to hold back their desire to do as much for black people as possible. Rather to show a black president can be impartial and therefore race doesn't matter...that will do the best good for the image of black people among non blacks. So far Barrack has done an acceptable job in terms of race, but he should be more careful than a white president not to breed racial frustrations...and that's just how it is.


I'll agree that since Whites have been the controlling influence in this country since its inception, this is becoming more and more alarming to those few who actually believe that there "should be" a class difference. My comment regarding equal representation was meant to be one of fairness regardless of race. It would apply to any group that needs to feel that they have a stake in what is being done in their country. I think Obama has done a good job in seeking out talent, where ever that may be. It would seem the only difference between Obama and many of his predecessors is that that he actually practices the inclusion of all races rather then the exclusion of most in order to keep the good ol boys club in tact.

----------


## Ernst

> and.............she is a Princeton Grad and a Yale Law school Grad. Graduated at the top of her class. Served as a Federal Judge for 10 years....
> It does surprise me however, that an individual of your obvious mental capacity, is actually able to cut and paste an article!


I should clarify. I do not dispute her credentials, but when the "short list" of nominees is so amazingly biased... and then surprise, the nominee meets that race/gender criteria... I feel like it was the driving force behind the decision, rather than based solely upon their merit as it should be. It was more like "pick some minorities/women and then decide which has the credentials to back it up." 

Oh, and you're a jackass.  :Aajack:

----------


## spywizard

> Well it says she was already part of the panels liberal wing. Her credentials are outstanding, Why is race the problem?
> 
> Here is where I ask, If Bush appointed John Smith , White Republican from Iowa is this a news story? Why is it when Obama appoints someone of color and different ethnic background? She is well experienced.



ummm.. she is very qualified.. I think the issue is she makes judicial decisions based on race.. not equality or justice.. 

and if i recall correctly, President Bush promoted and appointed more minorities than any other president.. 

Is she qualified?? yes... is she a racist?? yes..

----------


## quarry206

well first off the reason people attacked the the poster is not flaming them, its because they started it out racist dog and pony show part 2. as if this was only about race... .. which is wrong. she is more than qualified, are there other qualified people out there, i'm sure of it but she is the one they picked...


about her quote, i looked up the whole speech she gave, and though i'm not 100 percent on her one way or another.. i'll have to do more research to decided for myself..
BUT, her comment about making better choices, in context of her speech is a harsh reality of life.. the whole reason we have 9 judges is because they read the laws and put them into context of what they know or have lived.. that is the whole reason there is 9 and not 1.. because we realize people put their own knowledge/opinion/bais into choices...was it a bad choice of words that she should have known was going to be ****** apart.YES, but i think, and this is only making an admitted not fully informed guess, she meant it only as saying choices effecting the Latin community that are of debate. which Hispanics are the largest minority group in America. so more and more politics will have to show them support..

----------


## vpchill

^^^ I agree with Quarry. As I said Im not up to date on her, but Ive read she has the experience. As far as her being racist I cannot judge her off of one comment.

----------


## Kratos

> It would seem the only difference between Obama and many of his predecessors is that that he actually practices the inclusion of all races rather then the exclusion of most in order to keep the good ol boys club in tact.


There must be a social circle somewhere on the planet where that passes for a thought.  :Bs:

----------


## Theatrix

> There must be a social circle somewhere on the planet where that passes for a thought.



LOL...It's unfortunate, but I believe you!

----------


## Kratos

and what's your position on Clarence Thomas?
Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, had never had never argued a case in the high courts, and had been a judge for only a year. Received a split rating of "qualified" from the ABA, a minimal designation. Two committee members voted to give Thomas a "not qualified" designation.

Anita Hill testimony at his confirmation hearing
"He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

to which he played the race card even though she was black

"from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

but of course Obama is the only one to include other races.
I've got an idea...lets just cast people into high level positions like they're playing a part in a movie because it makes minorities feel good about their stake in the country.

----------


## Kratos

and what's your position on Clarence Thomas?
Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, had never had never argued a case in the high courts, and had been a judge for only a year. Received a split rating of "qualified" from the ABA, a minimal designation. Two committee members voted to give Thomas a "not qualified" designation.

Anita Hill testimony at his confirmation hearing
"He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

to which he played the race card even though she was black

"from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

but of course Obama is the only one to include other races.
I've got an idea...lets just cast people into high level positions like they're playing a part in a movie because we must make sure we include every race.

----------


## Kratos

When President Ronald Reagan decided to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court in 1981, he had to turn to Sandra Day O’Connor, an obscure state judge. 

Now more than 200 women are federal district and appeals court judges, representing about a quarter of each bench, according to statistics compiled in 2008 by the American Bar Association. With women now representing 48 percent of the most recent class of law school graduates.

In 1981, just one governor was a woman. Today there are nine including two who resigned to join Obama's cabinet.

Maybe rather then focusing on being PC, we should just focus on picking the best person for the job. Things will equal out in time.

----------


## RA

If they are Americans then they are already represented on the supreme court...

I dont care that shes hispanic...I care that shes far left. I would nominate a monkey that could talk if he or she was a strict constitutionalist.





> I'm not Hispanic so my opinion is not one of empathy. Rather, I base my opionion on the facts. Hispanics represent approx. 15% of the population in this country, why wouldn't they deserve representation on the Supreme Court.
> My distain, by the way, is towards the ideals of an individual who believes that they are born into greatness rather than earn it. Its the idea of elitism by virtue of the color of one's skin that bothers me. If elitism is to be tolerated, then earn it by achieving greatness, accomplish something extraordinary.

----------


## thegodfather

I never said that going to college made me 'intelligent' (depending on what metric you are using to evaluate intelligence and what definition you are running on). 

I certainly think however, that the fact that I have studied Constitutional Law, Political Theory, and Political ideology everyday for the last 4 years, as well as completing an extensive thesis on subject matter under the umbrella of political science, makes my opinion on topics such as these more credible. Thats all....

To address what RA said....

A "strict constitutionalist" is a loaded term. Obama considers himself to be a strict constructionist of the Constitution. Politicians like Ron Paul(whom I agree with on virtually every policy issue) talk all the time about a strict construction of the Constitution, however it really does not exist. The Constituion is open to a wide array of interpretation, and what one person takes away from it another person may not. The lense through which you view the constitution has a very big impact on how you 'construct' it. For instance, originalism and structuralism are two methods of constitutional interpretation. 

The biggest distinction I would make however, between a conservative and a bleeding heart liberal would be whether they view the constitution as the be all end all of documents, or whether they view it was a living constitution, a fluid document that is easily bendable. Liberals tend to believe the constitution is a footnote, whereas conservatives(like myself) view the constitution as the main point.

----------


## Theatrix

> and what's your position on Clarence Thomas?
> Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, had never had never argued a case in the high courts, and had been a judge for only a year. Received a split rating of "qualified" from the ABA, a minimal designation. Two committee members voted to give Thomas a "not qualified" designation.
> 
> Anita Hill testimony at his confirmation hearing
> "He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"
> 
> to which he played the race card even though she was black
> 
> "from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."
> ...


I'm not sure I understand the significance here. It almost appears as if its an issue of them vs us. Was Thomas the token black in your mind or was he qualified to sit? One could argue both sides particularly since he is ultra conservative and black, primum non nocere, a win win.
I choose to see the world as multi cultural. Having lived in many countries, I guess I am just indifferent to any one race of people. This is still about fairness to me. If the woman is as qualified as the next and adds diversity to the mix, then she gets my support. 
She has yet to be vetted and both sides will have their opportunity to expose her qualifications as well as her character. I don't believe we know enough at this point to pin point how she leans.

----------


## Kratos

> he is ultra conservative and black, primum non nocere, a win win.
> 
> I choose to see the world as multi cultural. Having lived in many countries, I guess I am just indifferent to any one race of people.


he's ultra conservative
I count one win
what's the second again?

----------


## Kratos

> Was Thomas the token black in your mind or was he qualified to sit?


As a white law school grad he wouldn't have gone nearly as far. I don't know how you would think all the things in my post above wouldn't have de-railed his supreme court prospects had he been white. So, I'll add a little more.

He couldn't find a job his first year out of law school...he says because he was accepted to yale on affirmative action his degree was worth "15 cents" to employers and it was looked down on...but the other black students in his class didn't have the same trouble or feelings. His grades aren't published  :Wink: 

He found a job when a white Yale Law alumnus (John Danforth) and, at the time, the Republican attorney general of Missouri, traveled to the school to recruit African-American lawyers hired Thomas to work for him.

When Danforth was promoted to the senate, Tomas joined him in Washington...from there he rode the gravy train. 

George H.W. Bush, who nominated him, is an alumnus of the college.  :Wink: 
he was eleveated to be nominated...in fact bush wanted to send him to the supreme court only a month after appointing him a judge...bu.t knew it would be seen as tokenism...so he got a second chance within a year and took it.

So, yeah, I'd say there were better qualified people for the job. He was black and in the right place at the right time.


I think it's a clear example of white men being held to a higher standard...and that's my problem there.

----------


## Kratos

many studies point to the conclusion as much as 10% of the US population is gay

I don't see a gay supreme court justice
for my next appointment I'm feeling a lesbian, asian.
anyone in the ranks I can pass of as qualified that fit that mold
lets kill 3 birds with one stone...hey what's the problem? I've got a quota to fill here.

----------


## thegodfather

There is no need for "diversity" on the courts as far as race/gender/etc go. What you guys are referring to is known as "descriptive representation," which simply means someone from ones own group represents them. For instance, in Congress we find that minority's are much more invested in the political process if they are represented by someone from their own racial/ethnic group. 

However, the courts do not "REPRESENT" anyone. They decide matters of law. Therefore, if 9 White Anglo Saxon Protestants from rich families can effectively decide matters of Constitutional law in this country, what is the problem? The courts is not somewhere that we need or require diversity. We simply require qualified individuals with strong credentials and the ability to interpret the Constitution and decide matters of law.

----------


## Ernst

> many studies point to the conclusion as much as 10% of the US population is gay
> 
> I don't see a gay supreme court justice
> for my next appointment I'm feeling a lesbian, asian.
> anyone in the ranks I can pass of as qualified that fit that mold
> lets kill 3 birds with one stone...hey what's the problem? I've got a quota to fill here.


Nice!  :AaGreen22:

----------


## quarry206

> There is no need for "diversity" on the courts as far as race/gender/etc go. What you guys are referring to is known as "descriptive representation," which simply means someone from ones own group represents them. For instance, in Congress we find that minority's are much more invested in the political process if they are represented by someone from their own racial/ethnic group. 
> 
> However, the courts do not "REPRESENT" anyone. They decide matters of law. Therefore, if 9 White Anglo Saxon Protestants from rich families can effectively decide matters of Constitutional law in this country, what is the problem? The courts is not somewhere that we need or require diversity. We simply require qualified individuals with strong credentials and the ability to interpret the Constitution and decide matters of law.


though i agree with what you are saying "should" be true.. the fact is the SC makes judgment calls based on how they view the law as it corresponds to the knowledge they have on the constitution. and their view is an educated opinion on how they view it....... but it is still an opinion/view point, if it were not that then why do we need 9? we need nine because we realize as humans we put too much of our own personal knowledge or history into our choices. so by that token, we do need people from different back grounds.

and to clarify, to others reading, since some people love to throw words into peoples mouth. I have never said obama is more fair when it comes to race nor do i think we "have" to have a Hispanic in the SC.. 

my only arguement is she is qualified, so though i think their are other qualified people out there, it doesn't mean we need to rip her apart... I notice everybody is ripping the fact she is labeled as a latina female.. instead of just a qualified judge. nobody has brought up anything about her history as a judge. only ripping her because she is being looked at to add diversity. and though i don't think the supreme court "has" to have diversity, i do think we are going to hard on her. instead of the reports who are turning this into a token hispanic issue, instead of a qualified judge.

----------


## RA

Its only a loaded term because libs twist it. When I say it you know what I mean. Not someone who is going to legislate from the bench.




> I never said that going to college made me 'intelligent' (depending on what metric you are using to evaluate intelligence and what definition you are running on). 
> 
> I certainly think however, that the fact that I have studied Constitutional Law, Political Theory, and Political ideology everyday for the last 4 years, as well as completing an extensive thesis on subject matter under the umbrella of political science, makes my opinion on topics such as these more credible. Thats all....
> 
> To address what RA said....
> 
> A "strict constitutionalist" is a loaded term. Obama considers himself to be a strict constructionist of the Constitution. Politicians like Ron Paul(whom I agree with on virtually every policy issue) talk all the time about a strict construction of the Constitution, however it really does not exist. The Constituion is open to a wide array of interpretation, and what one person takes away from it another person may not. The lense through which you view the constitution has a very big impact on how you 'construct' it. For instance, originalism and structuralism are two methods of constitutional interpretation. 
> 
> The biggest distinction I would make however, between a conservative and a bleeding heart liberal would be whether they view the constitution as the be all end all of documents, or whether they view it was a living constitution, a fluid document that is easily bendable. Liberals tend to believe the constitution is a footnote, whereas conservatives(like myself) view the constitution as the main point.

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

Sounds like a racist c*nt!

But yes, it sucks being white now. I don't get jack shit. My mexican friend got a full ride to A&M, just for being a semi-smart mexican. Ended up dropping out. But sure wouldn't want to help me because Im white and have above average grades!  :Chairshot:

----------


## RA

oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.

----------


## quarry206

> oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.


i looked up for that in her past, and i did see where people claimed she has implied something close to that in one of her theses papers. but could not find any text supporting claims... but i will say i have learned other things about her that i have decided for myself i hope she doesn't get appointed because of a view of her past ruling..

her is a good page for people wanting to educate themselves about her general history. and if gives her court case history at the bottom from a view of cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor ... 

as i have said many times before, its not that i approve or dis-approve of any political figure or in this case judge. i only defend the arguments that have no true merit. if you dislike somebody, or disapprove of them do it based on facts not feelings..

----------


## Kratos

> oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.


yeah she doesn't like guns, it was more like
"the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." 

but aren't you happy that the supreme court looks a little more like a 30 year reunion of MTV real world? that's progress, don't stand in the way.

----------


## Kratos

> oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.


Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well. 

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

----------


## RA

The fact that a very far left socialist nominated her would probably be enough for me even if I didnt know anything else. 





> i looked up for that in her past, and i did see where people claimed she has implied something close to that in one of her theses papers. but could not find any text supporting claims... but i will say i have learned other things about her that i have decided for myself i hope she doesn't get appointed because of a view of her past ruling..
> 
> her is a good page for people wanting to educate themselves about her general history. and if gives her court case history at the bottom from a view of cases
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor ... 
> 
> as i have said many times before, its not that i approve or dis-approve of any political figure or in this case judge. i only defend the arguments that have no true merit. if you dislike somebody, or disapprove of them do it based on facts not feelings..

----------


## RA

> "It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."
> 
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html


 

Game, set, match. She sucks.

----------


## SMCengineer

> "It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."
> 
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html


Haha, is she really contending that the Constitution strictly applies to the Federal government? 

And Kratos, Reason's a great magazine and website glad to see you reading it.

----------


## quarry206

hey this is not high jacking the thread.. because i'm asking based on her views..

can somebody better explain to me the actual legal meaning of fundamental right.... i read wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right) definition of it and it seemed weak for a clear cut and dry answer.... so does anybody know one or is it one of those terms that has been miss used so much its been r!pped apart over time it isn't clear anymore....

----------


## Kratos

> hey this is not high jacking the thread.. because i'm asking based on her views..
> 
> can somebody better explain to me the actual legal meaning of fundamental right.... i read wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right) definition of it and it seemed weak for a clear cut and dry answer.... so does anybody know one or is it one of those terms that has been miss used so much its been r!pped apart over time it isn't clear anymore....


sure

A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.

Basically if it is a fundamental right it can't be regulated out of existance. Although, this doesn't make it an absoloute right...ie it can be regulated within reason. For example the right to own property doesn't mean they can't tax you on it. Well the right to a gun doesn't mean you can ride around with machine guns mounted to the hood of your car.

She does not feel gun ownership is protected by the constitution or is a basic right. Although, the supreme court ruled 5-4 in 2008 that it is.

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

You can take this to mean she has said gun ownership is unconstitutional, but there isn't a direct quote as far as I know.

She has confirmed these feelings from the bench through such quotes as gun ownership not being a fundamental right.

----------

