PDA

View Full Version : Obama Sotomayor to Supreme Court


HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 07:57 AM
AP sources: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.

His announcement also leaves the Senate four months — more than enough by traditional standards — to complete confirmation proceedings before the Court begins its next term in the fall.

Republicans have issued conflicting signals about their intentions. While some have threatened filibusters if they deemed Obama's pick too liberal, others have said that is unlikely.

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 08:36 AM
Met her once and blown away by her so much that he offered her the job after just four days????? Dejavu all over again, Ms. Palin?

I'm beginning to think Obummer is having an identity crisis and feels his only safe course is repeating the mistakes of the past.

stevieray
05-26-2009, 08:46 AM
Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

ya think?

Infidel Goat
05-26-2009, 08:48 AM
Yes.

Obama made this pick out of thin air just like the Palin pick. It's not like Sotomayor has been on the shortlist that democrats have been talking about for years. It's not like she has tons of experience.

Bad Obama.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 08:55 AM
Don't be so fast to judge ( no pun intended). She may be a pretty good pick and be acceptable to a lot of people on all sides.

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 08:59 AM
The pick may end up being fine. But why the rush? I know there are a ton of bad headlines that Obummer may want off the front pages. I'm not understanding why he'd pick a person after one meeting and four days of contemplation. Especially for something that is permanent.

McCain was pummeled for doing the same thing and Palin was on short lists and initially seemed qualified as well.

dirk digler
05-26-2009, 09:01 AM
Met her once and blown away by her so much that he offered her the job after just four days????? Dejavu all over again, Ms. Palin?

I'm beginning to think Obummer is having an identity crisis and feels his only safe course is repeating the mistakes of the past.

You just like to bitch. She has more judicial experience than Roberts or Alito.

Also you have to be completely stupid to not get that they had a list prepared during the transition because they knew that several of these judges are going to retire.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 09:04 AM
There is something about getting the attention off the other stuff....no one seems to have any worries about North Korea and Iran moving very fast on the nuc's and seems like no responce from Hillary or the Pres.

Its more and more evident that the low level of respect he has in both cases is not going well for the rest of the world.

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 09:04 AM
You just like to bitch. She has more judicial experience than Roberts or Alito.

Also you have to be completely stupid to not get that they had a list prepared during the transition because they knew that several of these judges are going to retire.

Of course, a list is a list. Meeting someone one time and taking four days to decide they are THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB that is permanent seems rash, IMO. He decided this after meeting her one time and taking four days to think about it?

Or if this was mainly a political pick timed for maximum political benefit THEN it makes sense but otherwise, it seems hasty IMO.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:04 AM
"Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy "

What about interpretiong the Constitution?

Hoover
05-26-2009, 09:06 AM
This is why I don't like the pick...

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

dirk digler
05-26-2009, 09:09 AM
Of course, a list is a list. Meeting someone one time and taking four days to decide they are THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB that is permanent seems rash, IMO. He decided this after meeting her one time and taking four days to think about it?

Or if this was mainly a political pick timed for maximum political benefit THEN it makes sense but otherwise, it seems hasty IMO.

Uhhh Bush only interviewed Roberts once and the same with Alito. In fact I would be confident in saying that all POTUS only interview the candidates once because that is probably all the time they have. They do thorough research on these people and they have a list just like an NFL team has a draft board.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 09:10 AM
Uhhh Bush only interviewed Roberts once and the same with Alito. In fact I would be confident in saying that all POTUS only interview the candidates once because that is probably all the time they have. They do thorough research on these people and they have a list just like an NFL team has a draft board.

God save us if Oboma has a Carl Peterson.......

dirk digler
05-26-2009, 09:11 AM
"Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy "

What about interpretiong the Constitution?

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

dirk digler
05-26-2009, 09:12 AM
God save us if Oboma has a Carl Peterson.......

LMAO

Right now Carl is looking pretty good compared to some of Obama's picks especially for Treasury.

NewChief
05-26-2009, 09:12 AM
Uhhh Bush only interviewed Roberts once and the same with Alito. In fact I would be confident in saying that all POTUS only interview the candidates once because that is probably all the time they have. They do thorough research on these people and they have a list just like an NFL team has a draft board.

This is my take on it as well. They already, more or less, have it figured out who will be next in line when a slot comes open. The interviewing and such is just a formality. To act like the decision was reached in 4 days is to take a pretty limited (misguided imo) view on how the process works.

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 09:16 AM
Uhhh Bush only interviewed Roberts once and the same with Alito. In fact I would be confident in saying that all POTUS only interview the candidates once because that is probably all the time they have. They do thorough research on these people and they have a list just like an NFL team has a draft board.

But what worked before may not any longer. Unfortunately, Palin has raised (or lowered) the bar for disastrous and hasty politically motivated picks. That may end up her legacy. Especially for women. Yes, it's unfair and yes, it sucks, but it's going to be true.

RINGLEADER
05-26-2009, 09:28 AM
It's not like she has tons of experience.

According to some reports quoting those who know her that's a fairly accurate statement. This is a political pick.

Brock
05-26-2009, 09:30 AM
The way Obama apparently vets candidates, she'll never make it.

RINGLEADER
05-26-2009, 09:30 AM
Also you have to be completely stupid to not get that they had a list prepared during the transition because they knew that several of these judges are going to retire.

This is true.

I think they knew how they were going for awhile -- hence the constant references by Obama to wanting someone who understands the world more than someone who can make smart legal arguments.

I am really surprised Obama let Biden out there -- dude was just carrying on a conversation with this lady as she was announced. I think he has bad ADD or something.

jjjayb
05-26-2009, 09:41 AM
Did they check her tax returns before they offered her the job?

RINGLEADER
05-26-2009, 09:42 AM
The way Obama apparently vets candidates, she'll never make it.

Quick! Check her taxes!

Some quick "facts" from our friends on the right:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.

--The National Organization For Women is on board, supporting the replacement for the the justice they opposed with the slogan: "Stop Souter Or Women Will Die"

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 09:43 AM
Met her once and blown away by her so much that he offered her the job after just four days????? Dejavu all over again, Ms. Palin?.

How is this differetn from any other nominee of the last 25 or so years?

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 09:46 AM
"Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy "

What about interpretiong the Constitution?

You need intellect to do that, yes?

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 09:48 AM
Quick! Check her taxes!

Some quick "facts" from our friends on the right:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.



Ugh. I haven't read much on her, but I hope she is highly intelligent. I'd prefer that over highly partisan. That's why though I dislike their politics and decisions, I'm ok with CJ Roberts and Scalia, while not so okay (to say the least) with Thomas.

RINGLEADER
05-26-2009, 09:49 AM
You need intellect to do that, yes?

I think he was speaking more to the empathy argument -- something the Obama camp is spamming reporters with right now.

Evidently having juvenile diabetes qualifies you for SCOTUS.

RINGLEADER
05-26-2009, 09:53 AM
Ugh. I haven't read much on her, but I hope she is highly intelligent. I'd prefer that over highly partisan. That's why though I dislike their politics and decisions, I'm ok with CJ Roberts and Scalia, while not so okay (to say the least) with Thomas.

Well this article will depress you then (if you can get past the source and the gossip):

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Its hard to see any questions raised that are not countered with either racist, sexist, or some other label being applied to the person asking the questions. From a pure politics standpoint, this is a smart pick.

NewChief
05-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Well this article will depress you then (if you can get past the source and the gossip):

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

Just to balance it out, here's a counter of the stuff from TNR:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:30 AM
You need intellect to do that, yes?

You need inteelect to get out of bed in the morning and get to work. However the first and foremost qualificatio for this position is to be able to understand the constitution as it's written. But she likes to make racist statements and if that is known to the public she won't be a justice anytime soon.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor,

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 10:30 AM
Well this article will depress you then (if you can get past the source and the gossip):

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085\

I would find it unfortunate if this was strictly a political pick, but that may be what it is. At least it doesn't appear to be quite so bad as another Clarence Thomas.

I'll become more enmeshed in her history over the coming days and will revisit this as appropriate.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 10:44 AM
You need inteelect to get out of bed in the morning and get to work. However the first and foremost qualificatio for this position is to be able to understand the constitution as it's written. But she likes to make racist statements and if that is known to the public she won't be a justice anytime soon.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor,
I don't think that's racist. I think its true -- a judge from a minority background can have a keener realization of the issues that face minorities and the impact of the law on them. We white males have a tendency to not realized how privileged we are.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 10:44 AM
This is why I don't like the pick...

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

Because she dared say openly what both the right and the left know is the reality of our system?

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't think that's racist. I think its true -- a judge from a minority background can have a keener realization of the issues that face minorities and the impact of the law on them. We white males have a tendency to not realized how privileged we are.

And that is important why? The law is the law applied to all equally, not with special allowances because you are of a different nationality heritage.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 10:46 AM
The pick may end up being fine. But why the rush? I know there are a ton of bad headlines that Obummer may want off the front pages. I'm not understanding why he'd pick a person after one meeting and four days of contemplation. Especially for something that is permanent.
uhhhh Bush picked his supreme court pick only 4 days after a justice resigned.

They already have a short list no matter what they say publically.

Donger
05-26-2009, 10:49 AM
I see "vagina" and "minority" were high on Obama's list.

Donger
05-26-2009, 10:57 AM
Heh.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:57 AM
I don't think that's racist. I think its true -- a judge from a minority background can have a keener realization of the issues that face minorities and the impact of the law on them. We white males have a tendency to not realized how privileged we are.

The law doesn't single out different ethnic groups, ergo there is no reason to make any reference to it. What's she gonna do? Rule in favor of an perceived slight on an ethnic group is contradiction to the US Constitution? She said that based on her ethnic backgroud she can make better rulings. She is claiming her ethnic group is superior for being that ethnic group. There are films like this from 30's and 40's, but I couldn't really understand them because they were speaking German.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 10:58 AM
I see "vagina" and "minority" were high on Obama's list.
ROFL So its weird to nominate for the 3rd time only a member of the gender that the majority of the U.S. citizens? It's weird to nominate for the first time ever a member of a non-white "minority" that will be the majority of U.S. citizens in 2030?

Yeah, I don't understand why Obama didn't nominate a southern old white guy.

Donger
05-26-2009, 10:59 AM
ROFL So its weird to nominate for the 3rd time only a member of the gender that the majority of the U.S. citizens? It's weird to nominate for the first time ever a member of a non-white "minority" that will be the majority of U.S. citizens in 2030?

Yeah, I don't understand why Obama didn't nominate a southern old white guy.

I didn't say it was weird. Predictable, but not weird.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 10:59 AM
And that is important why? The law is the law applied to all equally, not with special allowances because you are of a different nationality heritage.
Its never as simple as "the law is the law" for anyone.

banyon
05-26-2009, 10:59 AM
You need inteelect to get out of bed in the morning and get to work. However the first and foremost qualificatio for this position is to be able to understand the constitution as it's written. But she likes to make racist statements and if that is known to the public she won't be a justice anytime soon.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor,

This is the original context (which doesn't make it sound any better, IMO):

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 11:01 AM
I didn't say it was weird. Predictable, but not weird.
Elections have consequenses.

Kerry being a douchbag got us Ailto for at least 20 years.

it's just your turn.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Its never as simple as "the law is the law" for anyone.

So some laws are made to be administered differently for different ethnic groups?

banyon
05-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Tenatively, I would agree with this assessment:

Sotomayor: Latinas Make Better Judges than White Males (updated)
by Ian Reifowitz
Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:42:49 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/202216/006

I really liked Sonia Sotomayor. She is exceptionally qualified, a strong progressive with a great life story, and, while maybe not as young as Clarence Thomas was when he was appointed, at 54 she’s young enough to have a long-lasting impact on the Supreme Court. Then, after reading the poorly researched, anonymously sourced hit job on Judge Sotomayor written by Jeffrey Rosen at TNR (debunked here by Glenn Greenwald), I liked her even more.


Then I read the article in today’s New York Times.

Take a look for yourselves:

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"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," said Judge Sotomayor...(snip)
My eyes nearly bulged out of my head. Did she really say that Latinas would, simply because they are Latinas, be better judges than white males? I looked up the speech so I could read it in the fullness of the context in which the remark was made, which I did. The remark didn't look any better.

I’m sorry folks, but those sentiments reveal prejudice, and render Judge Sotomayor unacceptable as a member of the Supreme Court. In case you need any more convincing, imagine if a white male finalist to be President Obama’s nominee, when talking about judges, had said: "I would hope that a white male would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina." Prejudice is prejudice, and she is prejudiced.

If we are going to be the country, the united people that Barack Obama described in his books and speeches, if we are going to embrace the vision he laid out in his Philadelphia speech on race, then we are going to have to judge each of us by a single standard. That standard must be that we Americans believe that no one, by dint of his or her heritage, is "better" than any one else.

How can we possibly hope to achieve justice, to continue to strengthen trust across ethnic lines and thereby to fight discrimination without holding each of us to that standard. A belief that relates to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, etc. that is unacceptable when a white man expresses it must be equally unacceptable when made by someone who is neither white nor male. It really is that simple.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:04 AM
So some laws are made to be administered differently for different ethnic groups?:doh!:

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:05 AM
This is the original context (which doesn't make it sound any better, IMO):

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
This

banyon
05-26-2009, 11:08 AM
This

Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.

Interesting, I wonder what woman was on the court in 72 to help make that decision?

(directed at the nominee and not at you Reaper)

jiveturkey
05-26-2009, 11:10 AM
But what worked before may not any longer. Unfortunately, Palin has raised (or lowered) the bar for disastrous and hasty politically motivated picks. That may end up her legacy. Especially for women. Yes, it's unfair and yes, it sucks, but it's going to be true.That's because Palin wound up being retarded. If Sotomayor comes across as being retarded then your argument will hold some water.

The bar never moved.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:14 AM
Elections have consequenses.

Kerry being a douchbag got us Ailto for at least 20 years.

it's just your turn.

Just to be clear, you're fine with a SCOTUS judge who is clearly prejudiced against white men?

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Interesting, I wonder what woman was on the court in 72 to help make that decision?

(directed at the nominee and not at you Reaper)
I think that she addresses that point in the remaining sentences of the two paragraphs that I bolded.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:16 AM
Just to be clear, you're fine with a SCOTUS judge who is clearly prejudiced against white men?
Good thing one of those kinds of judges isn't being nominated.

HonestChieffan
05-26-2009, 11:19 AM
Possibly her antipathy is not toward white people alone. If she is prone to favor an ethnic group, is it more likely she would favor hispanics over Blacks and Whites equally?

Im not sure we know enough about her to say she is prejudiced at all, just posing the question.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:20 AM
Good thing one of those kinds of judges isn't being nominated.

Right: “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,” said Judge Sotomayor"

I suppose you'd be fine with a white judge saying the following:

"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 Hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Yes?

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:23 AM
Right: “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,” said Judge Sotomayor"

I suppose you'd be fine with a white judge saying the following:

"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 Hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Yes?
If you want to say that she is prejudiced against old, white judges -- a group not likely to be relevant to specifically consider when it comes to making any ruling -- then that's one thing. But to extrapolate from that quote that she is prejudiced against white people in general... I just don't see it.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:26 AM
If you want to say that she is prejudiced against old, white judges -- a group not likely to be relevant to specifically consider when it comes to making any ruling -- then that's one thing. But to extrapolate from that quote that she is prejudiced against white people in general... I just don't see it.

Was she referring exclusively to a white judge with her quote?

And, please answer my question: would you be fine with a white male SCOTUS nominee stating what I wrote? Yes or no?

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 11:26 AM
Just to be clear, you're fine with a SCOTUS judge who is clearly prejudiced against white men?
No I would not be and where is the evidence that makes her "clearly" prejudiced?

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:29 AM
No I would not be and where is the evidence that makes her "clearly" prejudiced?

"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,” said Judge Sotomayor"

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:33 AM
Was she referring exclusively to a white judge with her quote?Yes, and clearly so. Please see banyon's post (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5792811#post5792811) that contextualizes the comment.

And, please answer my question: would you be fine with a white male SCOTUS nominee stating what I wrote? Yes or no?
Depends on who that male is. I can look past a gaffe (the Obama administration has had some, as I understand). But I wouldn't interpret that comment as indicative of prejudice, per se. I would think that its stupid; the richness of a privileged life as a white male is not likely to allow one to see with increased empathy or whatever. So... yeah, I might be fine with it. Such a comment doesn't seem malicious, just nonsensical (provided that this white male is saying this in the same sort of context that Sotomayor said her comment in).

jAZ
05-26-2009, 11:35 AM
I see "vagina" and "minority" were high on Obama's list.

I guess white penis was high on your list?

Baby Lee
05-26-2009, 11:35 AM
This is the original context (which doesn't make it sound any better, IMO):

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

This

'This' is more scary than the original quote, as it indicates that she views Supreme Court precedent in a sinfully superficial 'did this advance or not advance an agenda' frame of reference. Cardozo and Holmes 'upheld discrimination' . . . well if she says so, guess that statement needs no further expounding or analysis. No discrimination upheld before 1972, . . . that tells the whole story. The incidence, validity or primeness of prior claims is of no relevance.

Seems to suggest that the merits of claims before are are subordinate to the effect of changing policy.

Chief Henry
05-26-2009, 11:36 AM
WHy did she sinlge out "White Men" ? Is that a hate crime ? Thought police anyone :rolleyes:

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 11:36 AM
Just to balance it out, here's a counter of the stuff from TNR:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

Pretty strong rebuttal.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 11:37 AM
Heh.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

Repost...

This is why I don't like the pick...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Because she dared say openly what both the right and the left know is the reality of our system?

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:38 AM
Yes, and clearly so. Please see banyon's post (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5792811#post5792811) that contextualizes the comment.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. This is disturbing: "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Depends on who that male is. I can look past a gaffe (the Obama administration has had some, as I understand). But I wouldn't interpret that comment as indicative of prejudice, per se. I would think that its stupid; the richness of a privileged life as a white male is not likely to allow one to see with increased empathy or whatever. So... yeah, I might be fine with it. Such a comment doesn't seem malicious, just nonsensical (provided that this white male is saying this in the same sort of context that Sotomayor said her comment in).

Would you agree that she seems to have a gender and heritage chip on her shoulder?

banyon
05-26-2009, 11:38 AM
A pretty good analysis of the political considerations to play out here:

Opponents’ first claim – likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. The public expects Supreme Court Justices to be brilliant. Harriet Miers was painted (frequently, by conservatives) as not up to the job. The same claim (absurd to anyone who has talked with him) is still made by the left about Clarence Thomas. By contrast, John Roberts was described as brilliant and Sam Alito as exceptionally smart.

The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices.

The second claim – and this one will be front and center – will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and “judicial activist.” (Put to the side the emptiness of the labels – i.e., that one person’s principle (e.g., a decision invalidating state laws authorizing punitive damages) is another’s “activism.”) There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. In the ideological cases where her rulings have been reviewed by the Supreme Court (for example, Malesko and the pending Ricci case), her views have aligned with the left of the current Court.

The third claim – related to the second – will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees. The three pieces of evidence initially cited for that proposition will be (i) the disposition of the Ricci case (in which a panel on which Sotomayor sat affirmed the dismissal of white firefighters’ claims in a very short and initially unpublished opinion), (ii) a panel appearance in which she acknowledged that appellate judges effectively make policy, and (iii) a speech in which she talked about the role of her gender and ethnicity in her decision making.

These reeds are too thin for that characterization to take hold. The public neither understands nor cares about the publication practices of the courts of appeals. It also is easily able to accept a judge’s recognition of the lawmaking effects of her decisions and the influences of her background. There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.

Finally, critics will characterize her as gruff and impersonable, relying on excerpts from oral arguments and anonymous criticisms in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. Judge Sotomayor’s personal remarks will resolve this question for the public, to the extent it cares at all. But there isn’t any reason to believe that she is anything other than a tough questioner. My impression from her questioning at oral arguments is that it is similar to the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and (in cases in which he was particularly engaged) Justice Souter.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:39 AM
'This' is more scary than the original quote, as it indicates that she views Supreme Court precedent in a sinfully superficial 'did this advance or not advance an agenda' frame of reference. Cardozo and Holmes 'upheld discrimination' . . . well if she says so, guess that statement needs no further expounding or analysis. No discrimination upheld before 1972, . . . that tells the whole story. The incidence, validity or primeness of prior claims is of no relevance.
That's fair. I don't think that she was trying to be comprehensive by any means with that analysis. Perhaps she should have been? The non-bold part of your post is stupid, but the bold part is a good point.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:39 AM
I guess white penis was high on your list?

I'm not POTUS. But, it seems clear that heritage and gender play a very large role in this woman's life. Therefore, Obama either didn't know about it or agrees with it.

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
So white men are now the minority on the Supreme Court?

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
Right: “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,” said Judge Sotomayor"

I suppose you'd be fine with a white judge saying the following:

"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 Hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Yes?

You worry that on the 9 person court, where each person, individually, has NO POWER whatsoever, the interests of white males is underrepresented?

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:42 AM
You worry that on the 9 person court, where each person, individually, has NO POWER whatsoever, the interests of white males is underrepresented?

I wasn't aware that the white males on SCOTUS are only concerned about the interests of white males.

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 11:43 AM
I'm not POTUS. But, it seems clear that heritage and gender play a very large role in this woman's life. Therefore, Obama either didn't know about it or agrees with it.

You've lost me. Knows about or agrees with what? I've no doubt that he knows and agrees that she's a hispanic female. :D

memyselfI
05-26-2009, 11:43 AM
I'm not POTUS. But, it seems clear that heritage and gender play a very large role in this woman's life. Therefore, Obama either didn't know about it or agrees with it.

Surely, you jest? Mr. "Dreams from My Father" would not know something like that?

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 11:44 AM
I wasn't aware that the white males on SCOTUS are only concerned about the interests of white males.

They aren't. Or at least shouldn't be. Has Santomayor said she is "only concerned about the interests of" hispanic females? If so I missed it.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 11:45 AM
Would you agree that she seems to have a gender and heritage chip on her shoulder?
No, I don't agree. Not based on the comments from a single speech. This speech was the 2001 edition of the:

"Honorable Mario G. Olmos Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture <!-- BeginBody --> This annual lecture honors the Honorable Mario G. Olmos '71 who dedicated his life to promoting equality and justice for people from diverse national, economic, racial, and cultural origins. Born on July 24, 1946, in Nogales , Arizona , Judge Olmos graduated from Reedley Junior College and University of California , Berkeley where he was named to Phi Beta Kappa. At Boalt Hall he was an Ayer fellow and a Regents Scholar. Although he was nominated to the California Law Review, he chose instead to work in the community and to recruit students of color to Boalt.


Upon graduation from Boalt, Judge Olmos worked as an attorney at California Rural Legal Services in Madera , and then as a Justice Court Judge in Parlier and Selma . In December 1982, he was appointed to the Fresno County Superior Court, where he was elected presiding judge for three consecutive years. He also served with distinction on the California Judicial Council.


During the 1980's, Judge Olmos became known as a leader who sought to bridge the gap between cultures and races. In 1990 he died at the age of 43 in a tragic automobile accident. After his death, Judge Olmos' family, friends, and colleagues established a trust fund to support a permanent lecture series at Boalt Hall to perpetuate the Judge's abiding commitment to the development of law promoting equality and justice for all people. Past Olmos lecturers include the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Professor Peter Edelman, Joaquin G. Avila, Professor Derrick Bell, the Honorable Thelton Henderson, the Honorable Richard Paez, the Honorable Cruz Reynoso, and Kamala Harris."


Because of the person being honored in this yearly lecture, the subject of race and inequality were two of the most relevant subjects concerning this Sotomayer speech. Its a lecture about race and about being a Judge. She talked about those things on that occasion. I am not aware at this time of a trend.

wild1
05-26-2009, 11:45 AM
'This' is more scary than the original quote, as it indicates that she views Supreme Court precedent in a sinfully superficial 'did this advance or not advance an agenda' frame of reference. Cardozo and Holmes 'upheld discrimination' . . . well if she says so, guess that statement needs no further expounding or analysis. No discrimination upheld before 1972, . . . that tells the whole story. The incidence, validity or primeness of prior claims is of no relevance.

Seems to suggest that the merits of claims before are are subordinate to the effect of changing policy.

this



it's good to see affirmative action applies to the supreme court too, i guess. :rolleyes:

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:48 AM
They aren't. Or at least shouldn't be. Has Santomayor said she is "only concerned about the interests of" hispanic females? If so I missed it.

You seemed to be implying that white men on SCOTUS have particular interest in the interests of white men. Is that not correct?

jAZ
05-26-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm not POTUS. But, it seems clear that heritage and gender play a very large role in this woman's life. Therefore, Obama either didn't know about it or agrees with it.

White penis appears to play a big part in your life, given your postings on this site. You would appear to have a mirror chip on your shoulder. Ah, but your chip is just speaking objectively and directly about complex and sensitive topics.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:52 AM
Apologies if this has already been posted:

Judge Sotomayor's most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:53 AM
No, I don't agree. Not based on the comments from a single speech. This speech was the 2001 edition of the:

"Honorable Mario G. Olmos Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture <!-- BeginBody -->This annual lecture honors the Honorable Mario G. Olmos '71 who dedicated his life to promoting equality and justice for people from diverse national, economic, racial, and cultural origins. Born on July 24, 1946, in Nogales , Arizona , Judge Olmos graduated from Reedley Junior College and University of California , Berkeley where he was named to Phi Beta Kappa. At Boalt Hall he was an Ayer fellow and a Regents Scholar. Although he was nominated to the California Law Review, he chose instead to work in the community and to recruit students of color to Boalt.


Upon graduation from Boalt, Judge Olmos worked as an attorney at California Rural Legal Services in Madera , and then as a Justice Court Judge in Parlier and Selma . In December 1982, he was appointed to the Fresno County Superior Court, where he was elected presiding judge for three consecutive years. He also served with distinction on the California Judicial Council.


During the 1980's, Judge Olmos became known as a leader who sought to bridge the gap between cultures and races. In 1990 he died at the age of 43 in a tragic automobile accident. After his death, Judge Olmos' family, friends, and colleagues established a trust fund to support a permanent lecture series at Boalt Hall to perpetuate the Judge's abiding commitment to the development of law promoting equality and justice for all people. Past Olmos lecturers include the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Professor Peter Edelman, Joaquin G. Avila, Professor Derrick Bell, the Honorable Thelton Henderson, the Honorable Richard Paez, the Honorable Cruz Reynoso, and Kamala Harris."


Because of the person being honored in this yearly lecture, the subject of race and inequality were two of the most relevant subjects concerning this Sotomayer speech. Its a lecture about race and about being a Judge. She talked about those things on that occasion. I am not aware at this time of a trend.

Was she speaking extemporaneously? If not that means she wrote that down, probably read it again, and probably did several drafts. That means it was planned and executed exactly as she wanted to. That's a problem. She should be removed from the job she has now, frankly.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:53 AM
White penis appears to play a big part in your life, given your postings on this site. You would appear to have a mirror chip on your shoulder. Ah, but your chip is just speaking objectively and directly about complex and sensitive topics.

Even if that were accurate, I'm not up for a seat on SCOTUS.

wild1
05-26-2009, 12:00 PM
Even if that were accurate, I'm not up for a seat on SCOTUS.

And neither would she be, if she had been born with a name like Tommy Clark in Humboldt County Iowa.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:04 PM
Was she speaking extemporaneously? If not that means she wrote that down, probably read it again, and probably did several drafts. That means it was planned and executed exactly as she wanted to. That's a problem. She should be removed from the job she has now, frankly.<O:p></O:p>
Whereas the political appointee that okayed a legal memo authorizing torture in spite of many appicable laws in place gets to keep his job?

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:05 PM
And neither would she be, if she had been born with a name like Tommy Clark in Humboldt County Iowa.
We have enough white penis's on the court.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:07 PM
Apologies if this has already been posted:

Judge Sotomayor's most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case.

Obviously she's in the tank for her heritage.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:07 PM
We have enough white penis's on the court.

Is that a lisp?

Anyway, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Is there something wrong with white men, IYO?

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:08 PM
Even if that were accurate, I'm not up for a seat on SCOTUS.

You don't appear qualified to judge the facts of this matter, so your opinions should be disqualified.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:09 PM
You don't appear qualified to judge the facts of this matter, so your opinions should be disqualified.

Your opinion is noted and summarily dismissed.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Is that a lisp?

Anyway, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Is there something wrong with white men, IYO?

It's always about race and gender with some people. You clearly have a major chip.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Obviously she's in the tank for her heritage.

Obviously a mere token. Perhaps she didn't know he was Hispanic?

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:11 PM
It's always about race and gender with some people. You clearly have a major chip.

Yep. I'm glad to see that you're coming around with regard to Sotomayor.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Your opinion is noted and summarily dismissed.

It's because I'm a white man, so you are clearly a racist.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:13 PM
Is that a lisp?

Anyway, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Is there something wrong with white men, IYO?
Old white guys need to start sharing their power with other groups. This isn't 1776.

I don't see how being an old white guy qualifies you for more "stuff" than the rest of the population.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
It's because I'm a white man, so you are clearly a racist.

Nah. I don't discriminate based on race. I don't support liberals, period, regardless of their skin color.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:16 PM
Old white guys need to start sharing their power with other groups. This isn't 1776.

I don't see how being an old white guy qualifies you for more "stuff" than the rest of the population.

Yes, they really do. Perhaps one day we'll have a minority POTUS.

Baby Lee
05-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Old white guys need to start sharing their power with other groups. This isn't 1776.

I don't see how being an old white guy qualifies you for more "stuff" than the rest of the population.

Look at BRC, dipping his tube in the river, trying to change its course.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:21 PM
Was she speaking extemporaneously? If not that means she wrote that down, probably read it again, and probably did several drafts. That means it was planned and executed exactly as she wanted to. That's a problem. She should be removed from the job she has now, frankly.<O:p></O:p>
Yeah, she's obviously not qualified. She's not the President's family lawyer.

Name: Sonia Sotomayor

Age-Birthdate-Location: 54; June 25, 1954; New York, N.Y.
Experience: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present; judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; private practice, New York City, 1984-1992; assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984
Education: B.A., Princeton University, 1976; J.D., Yale Law School, 1979. Quote: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it." — during a 1997 nomination hearing.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 12:22 PM
This is a typical BS pick to pander to the masses of his base.....hsipanic woman...wow.

Nevermind she is on record talking about how law is "created" in the appeals courts.

Baby Lee
05-26-2009, 12:26 PM
This is a typical BS pick to pander to the masses of his base.....hsipanic woman...wow.

Nevermind she is on record talking about how law is "created" in the appeals courts.

http://cache.reelzchannel.com/assets/content/article/lebowski-donnie2.jpg

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:30 PM
This is a typical BS pick to pander to the masses of his base.....hsipanic woman...wow.

Nevermind she is on record talking about how law is "created" in the appeals courts.
and the last man selected was a conservative white guy. Was Bush pandering then?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Yeah, she's obviously not qualified. She's not the President's family lawyer.

Name: Sonia Sotomayor

Age-Birthdate-Location: 54; June 25, 1954; New York, N.Y.
Experience: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present; judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; private practice, New York City, 1984-1992; assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984
Education: B.A., Princeton University, 1976; J.D., Yale Law School, 1979. Quote: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it." — during a 1997 nomination hearing.

We cannot have leaders, legislators, or judges in our governemtn that promote racist ideals. That's who she is based on at least one of her rulings as well as her comments. Even the Daily Kos says it's racist. They've carried more water for Obama than Gunga Din.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:37 PM
We cannot have leaders, legislators, or judges in our governemtn that promote racist ideals. That's who she is based on at least one of her rulings as well as her comments. Even the Daily Kos says it's racist. They've carried more water for Obama than Gunga Din.
Yeah, she's a racist. ROFL

Try selling that in the next election, please...

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 12:44 PM
Yeah, she's a racist. ROFL

Try selling that in the next election, please...

Racist and sexist. But you'll agree with anything as long as it fits your agenda. You are a disease to our society in that regard.

SBK
05-26-2009, 12:46 PM
We cannot have leaders, legislators, or judges in our governemtn that promote racist ideals. That's who she is based on at least one of her rulings as well as her comments. Even the Daily Kos says it's racist. They've carried more water for Obama than Gunga Din.

But she is latina, and she has empathy, which is exactly what we want on the Supreme Court at this time.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 12:47 PM
Racist and sexist. But you'll agree with anything as long as it fits your agenda. You are a disease to our society in that regard.
Coming from you thats high praise.

wild1
05-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Racist and sexist. But you'll agree with anything as long as it fits your agenda. You are a disease to our society in that regard.

frankly i think we should congratulate him, he's gone several posts now without posting something directly copy and pasted from an obama speech or his website

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Quick! Check her taxes!

Some quick "facts" from our friends on the right:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.

--The National Organization For Women is on board, supporting the replacement for the the justice they opposed with the slogan: "Stop Souter Or Women Will Die"

I find this odd. This was posted by Ramesh Ponnuru (I reluctantly admit that he and I graducated together at SM East) at the WaPo forums:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a5543a34c-af92-4736-b81b-4aad0ab02e2eDiscussion%3a563ad1ad-859c-4245-b650-ee1c85d2fc1b

Here's some of what we know about President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She was picked by a president who has announced that he has a pro-abortion litmus test and that he wants judges who will rule with empathy, at least for some groups.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.

We will doubtless learn more about Sotomayor, both good and bad, in the days to come. But based on the early signs it appears that President Obama has made the crassest of political picks.

What do you think?

I'm curious whether Ramesh was plagerizing Ringleader, or whether RL was the same of Ramesh. Or both stole their text from the same place.

Amnorix
05-26-2009, 12:55 PM
We cannot have leaders, legislators, or judges in our governemtn that promote racist ideals. That's who she is based on at least one of her rulings as well as her comments. Even the Daily Kos says it's racist. They've carried more water for Obama than Gunga Din.

Which ruling?

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:56 PM
I find this odd. This was posted by Ramesh Ponnuru (I reluctantly admit that he and I graducated together at SM East) at the WaPo forums:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a5543a34c-af92-4736-b81b-4aad0ab02e2eDiscussion%3a563ad1ad-859c-4245-b650-ee1c85d2fc1b

Here's some of what we know about President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She was picked by a president who has announced that he has a pro-abortion litmus test and that he wants judges who will rule with empathy, at least for some groups.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.

We will doubtless learn more about Sotomayor, both good and bad, in the days to come. But based on the early signs it appears that President Obama has made the crassest of political picks.

What do you think?

I'm curious whether Ramesh was plagerizing Ringleader, or whether RL was the same of Ramesh. Or both stole their text from the same place.

Or Ramesh is Ringleader!

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Nevermind she is on record talking about how law is "created" in the appeals courts.

Have you watched the clip (available in several posts in this thread). She's not saying she looks to make policy there, she is saying that others (left and right activist groups) look to that court as criticial because that's where they believe (and the reality is that) that is where policy is made.

It's a fact that she dared acknowledge publicly.

Her admission isn't a profession that she seeks to use the courts to make policy. It's an admission that both Cons and Libs see that court as the place to make policy.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Or Ramesh is Ringleader!

ROFL

I hadn't thought of that, but that's funny!

That could have been a real possibility (given the KC ties), but from what I've read of RL, it's not. But that would be pretty cool.

Reaper16
05-26-2009, 01:10 PM
Coming from you thats high praise.
True dat. Garcia Bronco is a dickbag of high magnitude.

alanm
05-26-2009, 01:13 PM
"Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy "

What about interpretiong the Constitution?Their rewriting it as we speak.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 01:29 PM
Their rewriting it as we speak.
This neocon didn't get the memo.

Larry Klayman, the founder of conservative groups Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, is praising -- in a qualified way -- the Sotomayor pick, calling the selection "a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama." <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

While I would have liked to see a more conservative libertarian type on the high court, President Obama's selection of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pNew York </ST1:p</st1:State>federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayer, was a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama. Having initially been appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, soon to be justice Sotomayer has previously pledged to follow the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench, and her career as a federal court judge suggests, as a whole, that this is the way she will administer to the law. It is also great to have a highly qualified <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:pLatina </ST1:p</st1:City>on the bench. The Latin culture, with its emphasis on family and family values, will be a welcome addition, as an understanding of real life relationships is important for any jurist. And, as the largest minority in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:pUnited States</ST1:p</st1:country-region>, its time that Latins can take pride that they too are now part of the legal system. On behalf of Freedom Watch and the American people, we wish Justice Sotomayer much success.<O:p</O:p

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 01:54 PM
True dat. Garcia Bronco is a dickbag of high magnitude.

I could push you and that other guy all day like a button. Why don't you and "Can't see the forrest for the trees" read Federalist Paper 10 an get back to me. Then you can agree that Big Chief is the disease of our republic, aka card carrying political party members. And if you carry that card you are part of the problem as well.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 01:55 PM
Coming from you thats high praise.

No it really isn't. In some cultures they would be fighting words.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2009, 01:57 PM
This neocon didn't get the memo.

Larry Klayman, the founder of conservative groups Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, is praising -- in a qualified way -- the Sotomayor pick, calling the selection "a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama." <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

While I would have liked to see a more conservative libertarian type on the high court, President Obama's selection of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pNew York </ST1:p</st1:State>federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayer, was a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama. Having initially been appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, soon to be justice Sotomayer has previously pledged to follow the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench, and her career as a federal court judge suggests, as a whole, that this is the way she will administer to the law. It is also great to have a highly qualified <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:pLatina </ST1:p</st1:City>on the bench. The Latin culture, with its emphasis on family and family values, will be a welcome addition, as an understanding of real life relationships is important for any jurist. And, as the largest minority in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:pUnited States</ST1:p</st1:country-region>, its time that Latins can take pride that they too are now part of the legal system. On behalf of Freedom Watch and the American people, we wish Justice Sotomayer much success.<O:p</O:p

WoW! Impressive!
FW goes after righties too just so you know.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 01:58 PM
Which ruling?

Ricci v. DeStefano, the one she didn't have the balls, pardon the expression, to sign.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 02:01 PM
No it really isn't. In some cultures they would be fighting words.
Sticks and Stones my good man, Sticks and Stones

HC_Chief
05-26-2009, 02:07 PM
Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

That is a f*cking stupid statement; the only thing a SCJ should understand, from a qualifications perspective, is the f*cking CONSTITUTION. They should know it backwards and forwards. They should be able to quote it at length, and identify its application in any given scenario. They should have a career repleat with objective execution.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 03:16 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/affirmative-action-president.jpg

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 03:19 PM
[IMG]

Inexperienced?

Unaccomplished?

Want to try again?

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 03:20 PM
That is a f*cking stupid statement; the only thing a SCJ should understand, from a qualifications perspective, is the f*cking CONSTITUTION. They should know it backwards and forwards. They should be able to quote it at length, and identify its application in any given scenario. They should have a career repleat with objective execution.

This does not exclude empathy.

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 03:24 PM
You won't see many conservatives touting Sotomayor's ruling here (via Wikipedia):

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[43] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".[44]

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 03:25 PM
Love it:

In Pappas v. Giuliani,[45] Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the NYPD could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 03:26 PM
You won't see many conservatives touting Sotomayor's ruling here (via Wikipedia):

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[43] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".[44]
They don't have a chance in stopping this nomination unless some tax thingy comes up and since she is kinda poor as far as lawyers/judges go anyway I doubt there is any issues.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 03:30 PM
and the last man selected was a conservative white guy. Was Bush pandering then?

Why does convervative or liberal matter in this case? See, that is the problem with you on the Left. You want somone to legislate from the bench. Cons want someone to apply the Rule of Law.

All Feisnten and Schumer were worried about with Alito and Roberts was their stance on abortion. Nevermind a judge, according to the law, cannot just take the bench and start overturning rulings based on his own ideals.


But that is exactly what you and Obama and the Left want. You want someone who will ignore the Constitution and legislate based on "feelings".

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 03:32 PM
They don't have a chance in stopping this nomination unless some tax thingy comes up and since she is kinda poor as far as lawyers/judges go anyway I doubt there is any issues.

Sotomayor will sail with little fanfare.

Everybody is saving their gas for the second nomination here in a couple years.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 03:33 PM
Sotomayor will sail with little fanfare.

Everybody is saving their gas for the second nomination here in a couple years.

Obama is President and should get his pick. That being said, I stand by my statement of the kind of nominees the Left desires.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 03:38 PM
So the question that begs to be asked is: if the Repubs vote against Sotomayor in committee for no other reason than she is "pro-choice", will the Dems cry foul and accuse the Right of using a litmus test?

donkhater
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
Well, if we were really living in a land of liberty where the Constitution still meant something, the presidential candidates would have overlapping potential SCOTUS nominee lists.

In other words, the President's oath to uphold and defend the constituiton would actually mean something, so all this hubbub about the political ideology of a court nomination would be practically moot.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Well, if we were really living in a land of liberty where the Constitution still meant something, the presidential candidates would have overlapping potential SCOTUS nominee lists.

In other words, the President's oath to uphold and defend the constituiton would actually mean something, so all this hubbub about the political ideology of a court nomination would be practically moot.

Yep. Which is why I ask every time a judicial nominee comes around, WTF does their personal ideaology matter? Basically what it amounts too is a huge Freudian slip and ego from the politicans. They think they are better and know more than anyone else and they know they cannot operate void of their own personal ideals. Therefore, no one else can. In their mind.

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 04:03 PM
So the question that begs to be asked is: if the Repubs vote against Sotomayor in committee for no other reason than she is "pro-choice", will the Dems cry foul and accuse the Right of using a litmus test?

For the cameras? Probably.

Direckshun
05-26-2009, 04:05 PM
Well, if we were really living in a land of liberty where the Constitution still meant something, the presidential candidates would have overlapping potential SCOTUS nominee lists.

Not necessarily.

Your questions assumes there is but one way to interpret the Constitution that is legit. There are widely variant ways to interpret the Constitution that are legit. Some ways are favored by more conservative people, while other ways are favored by more liberal people.

And that's why we end up with the phenomenon that we have of ideology being relevant.

orange
05-26-2009, 04:53 PM
Sotomayor will sail with little fanfare.

Everybody is saving their gas for the second nomination here in a couple years.

Unless Kennedy (or even less likely, one of the four darkside justices) has health issues, the best Obama can do is tread water.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 05:35 PM
Seems the more I read about this gal the more activist and racist and sexist she appears to be.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 05:42 PM
Seems the more I read about this gal the more activist and racist and sexist she appears to be.
ROFL yeah sure. GEEEZZZ

The neocons are trying to make "activist" the new "liberal" word. Not gonna work right now in this political climate.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 05:46 PM
Great choice from a political POV. I'm not sure how far the republicans want to push the issue on her.

I don't mind her female Latino comment as much as her cases that went to the SC being overturned. What didn't she understand about the constitution in those cases?

One of them was overturned unanimously by the SC. That's a huge swing and a miss. That's worse than starting Grbac over Gannon in a playoff game.

donkhater
05-26-2009, 05:47 PM
If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today. -Thomas Sowell

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 05:50 PM
Great choice from a political POV. I'm not sure how far the republicans want to push the issue on her.

I don't mind her female Latino comment as much as her cases that went to the SC being overturned. What didn't she understand about the constitution in those cases?

One of them was overturned unanimously by the SC. That's a huge swing and a miss. That's worse than starting Grbac over Gannon in a playoff game.
Dude even I know that 75% of cases or a very high # get overturned by the court. They see something there, thats why they agree to hear the case in the first place.

Not going to defeat this based on experience. Better try another angle.

petegz28
05-26-2009, 05:54 PM
ROFL yeah sure. GEEEZZZ

The neocons are trying to make "activist" the new "liberal" word. Not gonna work right now in this political climate.

Well first of all, you will defend any and everything the Left does. Therefore you have 0 objectivity. Secondly I said she was activist, racist and sexist. Her own comments support this.


But don't let the obvious facts get in the way of your peter-puffing the Left.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Dude even I know that 75% of cases or a very high # get overturned by the court. They see something there, thats why they agree to hear the case in the first place.

Not going to defeat this based on experience. Better try another angle.

So it's not a valid question?

petegz28
05-26-2009, 05:55 PM
Great choice from a political POV. I'm not sure how far the republicans want to push the issue on her.

I don't mind her female Latino comment as much as her cases that went to the SC being overturned. What didn't she understand about the constitution in those cases?

One of them was overturned unanimously by the SC. That's a huge swing and a miss. That's worse than starting Grbac over Gannon in a playoff game.

They shouldn't. She is an idiot from what I have read. Having said that, Obama is President and the President should get his pick. Goes with the territory.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 06:04 PM
Dude even I know that 75% of cases or a very high # get overturned by the court. They see something there, thats why they agree to hear the case in the first place.

Not going to defeat this based on experience. Better try another angle.

Here's a synopsis of the case I'm talking about:

SECURITIES FRAUD RULING OVERTURNED BY SUPREME COURT
*Sotomayor wrote the majority decision in 2005 in a securities fraud case involving Merrill Lynch that later was overturned by the Supreme Court in a victory for corporate defendants.
The purported securities fraud class-action case had been brought by a former Merrill Lynch broker who accused the investment firm of fraudulently manipulating stock prices.
Sotomayor reinstated the case, after it had been dismissed by a lower court, ruling that it was not barred by a federal law which makes it harder to bring such lawsuits.
The Supreme Court in 2006 unanimously disagreed with her ruling and held such suits were prohibited by federal law.


http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE54P5SP20090526

I'd just like a CP lawyer type explain why a lower court understood the constituition better than her court.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:50 PM
I don't think that's racist. I think its true -- a judge from a minority background can have a keener realization of the issues that face minorities and the impact of the law on them. We white males have a tendency to not realized how privileged we are.

It's a more important and more self-evident brand of racism than a guy on a messageboard saying Zipadeedoodah, but this place practically erupted when that happened.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:54 PM
She's a scumbag.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:57 PM
No I would not be and where is the evidence that makes her "clearly" prejudiced?

LMAO

http://jrouta.net/images/t-magoo.gif

penchief
05-26-2009, 07:23 PM
She's a scumbag.

I don't know if she is or not. But I know Scalia is.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 07:24 PM
I find this odd. This was posted by Ramesh Ponnuru (I reluctantly admit that he and I graducated together at SM East) at the WaPo forums:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a5543a34c-af92-4736-b81b-4aad0ab02e2eDiscussion%3a563ad1ad-859c-4245-b650-ee1c85d2fc1b

Here's some of what we know about President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court:

--Judge Sotomayor believes that the courts are "where policy is made."

--She has Democratic colleagues who wonder if she has the intellect to be on the high court.

--She was picked by a president who has announced that he has a pro-abortion litmus test and that he wants judges who will rule with empathy, at least for some groups.

--She has a high reversal rate. In one case, the Supreme Court has voted unanimously to reverse her.

We will doubtless learn more about Sotomayor, both good and bad, in the days to come. But based on the early signs it appears that President Obama has made the crassest of political picks.

What do you think?

I'm curious whether Ramesh was plagerizing Ringleader, or whether RL was the same of Ramesh. Or both stole their text from the same place.

RL couldn't have been plagiarizing since he didn't claim those words as his own.

banyon
05-26-2009, 09:16 PM
Here's a synopsis of the case I'm talking about:


http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE54P5SP20090526

I'd just like a CP lawyer type explain why a lower court understood the constituition better than her court.

It sounds like that case was about complex securities litigation involving federal SEC statutes and regs. It doesn't sound like there were any constitutional issues according to your post.

But it's not uncommon, particularly with extremely well funded litigants on complicated issues to get differing results on differing appellate levels.

Primarily in this case the Circuit court and the supreme court are composed of different people with differing beliefs. Would you expect the Warren Court to agree with the Rehnquist Court, or vice versa?

jAZ
05-26-2009, 09:59 PM
RL couldn't have been plagiarizing since he didn't claim those words as his own.
If you use someone else's words without citing the source, it's plagerism, now it might be distributed with permission (ie, GOP talking points), but the point is the same. He claimed the as his own when (if) he used them without citation.

BigRedChief
05-26-2009, 10:23 PM
So it's not a valid question?
Experience? She has more experience than anyone on the SCOTUS before they started their tenure, This isn't the President's family lawyer.

patteeu
05-27-2009, 06:52 AM
If you use someone else's words without citing the source, it's plagerism, now it might be distributed with permission (ie, GOP talking points), but the point is the same. He claimed the as his own when (if) he used them without citation.

He didn't represent them as his own, which is a necessary feature of plagiarism. The fact is that he did attribute them to others when he said that they were "from our friends on the right".

googlegoogle
05-27-2009, 01:13 PM
Interfering in baseball is stupid.

And these court nominees shouldn't ever be given lifetime tenure and we should have the right to vote off bad judges who have gone senile.

mlyonsd
05-27-2009, 08:17 PM
It sounds like that case was about complex securities litigation involving federal SEC statutes and regs. It doesn't sound like there were any constitutional issues according to your post.

But it's not uncommon, particularly with extremely well funded litigants on complicated issues to get differing results on differing appellate levels.

Primarily in this case the Circuit court and the supreme court are composed of different people with differing beliefs. Would you expect the Warren Court to agree with the Rehnquist Court, or vice versa?

I was looking for the legal logic behind her court over ruling a lower one forcing the SC to step in and unanimously shooting the case down. Somebody didn't understand something when it came to Federal law/limits and I'd like to hear the reasoning.

mlyonsd
05-27-2009, 08:39 PM
Experience? She has more experience than anyone on the SCOTUS before they started their tenure, This isn't the President's family lawyer.

It's her judgement through the experience you're talking about I'm questioning. Or isn't that a valid thing to do?

banyon
05-27-2009, 08:41 PM
I was looking for the legal logic behind her court over ruling a lower one forcing the SC to step in and unanimously shooting the case down. Somebody didn't understand something when it came to Federal law/limits and I'd like to hear the reasoning.

After a brief scan of the opinion, it seems that the main issues were the interpretation of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) and whether or not that act preempted state lawsuits on behalf of holders of investment securities.

The statute appears to have been silent and vague on the topic of whether it applied to "holders" of the securities or just "buyers and sellers". Judge Sotomayor appears to have read the statute quite literally, reasoning that because Congress did not include people in the class of "holders" then the act did not apply to them.

The Supreme Court read the statute more broadly, delving into the Congressional purposes behind the act and filling in the assumption that it applied to "holders" as well. Given that it was purely a case of statutory interpretation, it's not surprising that the Supremes did not split on ideological grounds and were unanimous in their interpretation.

This is the syllabus of the decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1371.pdf


Respondent Dabit filed a private securities fraud class action in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction to advance his state-law claims that petitioner, his former employer, fraudulently manipulated stock prices, causing him and other brokers and their clients to keep their overvalued securities. The District Court dismissed his amended complaint, finding his claims pre-empted by title I of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which provides that no “covered class action” based on state law and alleging “a misrepresentation
or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” “may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party.” 15 U. S. C. §78bb(f)(1)(A). Vacating the judgment, the Second Circuit concluded that, to the extent the complaint alleged that brokers were fraudulently
induced, not to sell or purchase, but to retain or delay selling, it fell outside SLUSA’s pre-emptive scope.

Held: The background, text, and purpose of SLUSA’s pre-emption provision
demonstrate that SLUSA pre-empts state-law holder class-action claims of the kind Dabit alleges. Pp. 5–17.
(a) The magnitude of the federal interest in protecting the integrity and efficiency of the national securities market cannot be overstated. The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) anchor federal regulation of vital elements of this Nation’s economy. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b–5, which was promulgated pursuant to §10(b) of the 1934 Act, is an important
part of that regulatory scheme, and, like §10(b), prohibits deception,
misrepresentation, and fraud “in connection with the purchase
or sale” of a security. When, in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
2
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. v.
DABIT
Syllabus
Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, this Court limited the Rule 10b–5 private right of action to plaintiffs who were themselves purchasers or sellers,
it relied on the widespread recognition that suits by nonpurchasers
and nonsellers present a special risk of vexatious litigation that could “frustrate or delay normal business activity,” id., at 740. Pp. 5– 8.
(b)
Similar policy considerations prompted Congress to adopt legislation
(Reform Act) targeted at perceived abuses of class actions— e.g., nuisance filings and vexatious discovery requests—but this effort prompted members of the plaintiffs’ bar to avoid the federal forum altogether.
To stem the shift of class actions from federal to state courts, Congress enacted SLUSA. Pp. 8–10.
(c)
Both the class and the securities here are “covered” within SLUSA’s meaning, and the complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. The only disputed issue is whether the alleged wrongdoing was “in connection with the purchase or sale” of securities. Dabit’s narrow reading would pre-empt only those actions in which Blue Chip Stamps’ purchaser-seller requirement is met. Insofar
as that argument assumes that the Blue Chip Stamps rule stems from Rule 10b–5’s text, it must be rejected, for the Court relied on “policy considerations” in adopting that limitation, and it purported
to define the scope of a private right of action under Rule 10b– 5, not to define “in connection with the purchase or sale.” When this Court has sought to give meaning to that phrase in the §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 context, it has broadly required that the alleged fraud “coincide” with a securities transaction, an interpretation that comports
with the SEC’s longstanding views. Congress can hardly have been unaware of this broad construction when it imported the phrase into SLUSA. Where judicial interpretations have settled a statutory provision’s meaning, repeating the same language in a new statute indicates the intent to incorporate the judicial interpretations as well. That presumption is particularly apt here, because Congress not only used §10(b)’s and Rule 10b–5’s words, but used them in another
provision appearing in the same statute as §10(b). The presumption
that Congress envisioned a broad construction also follows from the particular concerns that culminated in SLUSA’s enactment, viz., preventing state private securities class-action suits from frustrating
the Reform Act’s objectives. A narrow construction also would give rise to wasteful, duplicative litigation in state and federal courts. The presumption that “Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action,” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 485, has less force here because SLUSA does not pre-empt any cause of action. It simply denies the use of the class-action device to vindicate
certain claims. Moreover, tailored exceptions to SLUSA’s pre3
Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) Syllabus
emptive command—for, e.g., state agency enforcement proceedings— demonstrate that Congress did not act cavalierly. Finally, federal, not state, law has long been the principal vehicle for asserting class-action securities fraud claims. Pp. 10–16.
(d)
Dabit’s holder class action is distinguishable from a typical Rule 10b–5 class action only in that it is brought by holders rather than sellers or purchasers. That distinction is irrelevant for SLUSA preemption
purposes. The plaintiffs’ identity does not determine whether the complaint alleges the requisite fraud, and the alleged misconduct here—fraudulent manipulation of stock prices— unquestionably qualifies as a fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale” of securities as the phrase is defined in SEC v. Zandford, 535
U.
S. 813, 820, and United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642, 651.
Pp. 16–17. 395 F. 3d 25, vacated and remanded.

mlyonsd
05-27-2009, 09:11 PM
The statute appears to have been silent and vague on the topic of whether it applied to "holders" of the securities or just "buyers and sellers". Judge Sotomayor appears to have read the statute quite literally, reasoning that because Congress did not include people in the class of "holders" then the act did not apply to them.



So do you think her court reinstated the case because the law was vague, knowing full well a higher court should intervene and make the decision?

dirk digler
05-27-2009, 09:35 PM
Alito had several cases reversed by the SC as well. Where was all the outrage by all those conservatives?

Indeed, one of the darlings of judicial conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito, also had a share of his opinions dismissed or overruled by the Court before he himself was appointed to that bench.

In Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, the Supreme Court rejected Alito's argument that the right to sue to enforce the Clean Water Act was strictly the purview of private citizens and not Congress.

In Rompilla v. Beard, the court reversed a majority opinion that Alito had issued in which he insisted that the demands of legal representation by a death row inmate exceeded constitutional requirements.

And in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court disagreed with Alito's reasoning that it was within the constitution to require those seeking an abortion to notify their spouses.

"The proper focus of constitutional inquiry," the Court noted (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10562), "is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant."

And then there was this Associated Press article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-22-scotus-alito_x.htm?csp=34) from the days of Alito's confirmation battle:As a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has written hundreds of opinions or dissents in his 15 years on the federal bench. A few of those cases have gained a spot on the selective Supreme Court docket; even more have been affirmed or reversed through the prism of high court rulings on other appellate cases.
Alito has lost some close cases in the Supreme Court; two years ago he was soundly rejected in the case of a former elevator operator who was seeking Social Security disability payments.

Some observers contend it would be inaccurate to focus solely on Alito's won-loss record before the high court. The Supreme Court's motivation for choosing a case and its history with certain appellate courts must be factored in.

Judge Edward R. Becker, a Reagan appointee who has served with Alito on the 3rd Circuit, said of the reversals: "We've all had our share."

Cave Johnson
05-27-2009, 09:41 PM
Alito had several cases reversed by the SC as well. Where was all the outrage by all those conservatives?

I had no idea Alito wrote a dissent in Casey. Picking a jurist on record with an abortion-related decision was ballsy by W.

banyon
05-27-2009, 09:43 PM
So do you think her court reinstated the case because the law was vague, knowing full well a higher court should intervene and make the decision?

Typically the rationale in such a ruling is that if Congress made a vague law, then they should be the ones to fix it. She took a very "non-activist" stance in this case with a very literalist interpretation of the statute. I don't know how she could have know the Supreme Court would overrule her, given that the Supreme Court didnt have to grant cert. I disagree with her reasoning in the case too, but it's not a bizarre opinion or anything.

Like her law professor said, it's not unusual for Supreme Court cases to overturn Circuit Court decisions. If they were easy or obvious decisions, parties wouldn't have had to litigate them that far in the first place.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:17 AM
He didn't represent them as his own, which is a necessary feature of plagiarism. The fact is that he did attribute them to others when he said that they were "from our friends on the right".

I must have missed that. If so, that's pathetic attribution, but it definately counts.

If he puts it in a post without at least something like that, and it's not his words, it's plagerism.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 07:42 AM
I must have missed that. If so, that's pathetic attribution, but it definately counts.

If he puts it in a post without at least something like that, and it's not his words, it's plagerism.

OK, so we agree that it's not plagiarism in this case.

Mojo Jojo
05-28-2009, 11:38 AM
Our newest nominee while a member of the 2nd district COA argued that the "Bill Of Rights" does not apply on the state level. This opinion was issued on a Second Amendment case the judges heard. She wrote that state and local governments have the right to ignore the "Bill Of Rights" while passing laws.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 12:40 PM
In the now-famous firefighters' case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)

But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.

Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers' unions that routinely produce students who can't read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools -- and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students' lives.

Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)

So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.

Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.

The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either -- citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That's the sort of sophistry we're taught in law school.)

Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming -- as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC -- that she was merely applying "precedent" to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

To be sure, there is "precedent" for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn't telling: The lower court's dismissal of the firefighters' case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, "Talk to the Hand."

Not only that, but Sotomayor's fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an "empathetic" fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court's denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case "raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit -- and indeed, in the nation."

A "case of first impression" means there's no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, "second impression."

If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.

But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.

Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more "empathetic" than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.

After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!

If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic -- an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.

Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because "he happens to be named 'Estrada' does not give him a free ride."

The truth is liberals couldn't care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.

"Empathy," in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.

-Ann Coulter :clap:

|Zach|
05-28-2009, 12:43 PM
Our newest nominee while a member of the 2nd district COA argued that the "Bill Of Rights" does not apply on the state level. This opinion was issued on a Second Amendment case the judges heard. She wrote that state and local governments have the right to ignore the "Bill Of Rights" while passing laws.

Link?

banyon
05-28-2009, 12:46 PM
Our newest nominee while a member of the 2nd district COA argued that the "Bill Of Rights" does not apply on the state level. This opinion was issued on a Second Amendment case the judges heard. She wrote that state and local governments have the right to ignore the "Bill Of Rights" while passing laws.

Technically, this is correct until the Supreme Court incorporates the Amendment through the 14th. Not all Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated.

orange
05-28-2009, 12:54 PM
Link?

Here's a summary of her appellate opinions. The one that has the right up in arms :evil: today is Maloney v. Cuomo.


Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Mojo Jojo
05-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Link?

Just google Sotomayer and Second Amendment. You can read decisions and analysis.

mlyonsd
05-28-2009, 06:41 PM
Typically the rationale in such a ruling is that if Congress made a vague law, then they should be the ones to fix it. She took a very "non-activist" stance in this case with a very literalist interpretation of the statute. I don't know how she could have know the Supreme Court would overrule her, given that the Supreme Court didnt have to grant cert. I disagree with her reasoning in the case too, but it's not a bizarre opinion or anything.

Like her law professor said, it's not unusual for Supreme Court cases to overturn Circuit Court decisions. If they were easy or obvious decisions, parties wouldn't have had to litigate them that far in the first place.

I was trying to understand if the law was vague enough it could be ruled multiple ways, hence a need for the SC to decide it.

If that was the case I don't see that as activism. From what I've read that's the only flag I've seen and wanted a clarification.

I don't like the fact she was on a board that lobbied the democrats to shoot down Miguel Estrada, but that's hardly against the law, just cheesy. Elections have consequences and this is one of them.

At this point I'd say there's no reason she won't put on the robe.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-28-2009, 10:33 PM
I haven't read through this entire thread but....


Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!

The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.

"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

(Story continues below)




"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."

But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact on her confirmation to the bench.

"She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."

The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.

"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's president and CEO.

La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.

As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

petegz28
05-28-2009, 10:37 PM
She is a dumbass. She doesn't belong aywhere near the SC. Thankfully there will be 8 other people there to tell her to STFU. This is like when Rodman went to play for the Bulls.

InChiefsHell
05-28-2009, 10:44 PM
La Raza...eeeeehhhxcellent...:shake:

orange
05-28-2009, 11:23 PM
You mean she's lost the WorldNetDaily endorsement?

Damn, I was really counting on that one.

KC native
05-29-2009, 12:09 AM
just deleted your garbage because it's worthless

First off, La Raza doesn't mean the race. The Spanish word for race is raza however when La Raza is referenced it refers to people of mestizo heritage (mestizo is Spanish and native american mix which almost all Latinos in this hemisphere have.

Instead of just resuscitating Worldnut's and the rest of the right wing echo chamber's talking points perhaps you should check out what NCLR actually stands for and what they have to say.

http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/
The Truth About NCLR: NCLR Answers Critics
Full Text

NCLR Information

Open Letter to the Public:

Those familiar with the work of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) know that we are the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., and that we are an American institution committed to strengthening this great nation by promoting the advancement of Latino families. Our mission is to create opportunities and open the door to the American Dream for Latino and other families.

We proudly represent nearly 300 Affiliates—community-based organizations providing a range of essential services to millions of Latinos and others in need. Since 1997, NCLR and its Affiliates have helped more than 22,000 low-income Hispanic families purchase their first homes. In addition, NCLR’s network of 115 charter schools provides quality education to more than 25,000 Latino children every year. The health clinics we helped build and the lay health educators we trained provided care and information about prevention and detection of serious illnesses to nearly 100,000 people in 2006. Our Affiliates are working every day to help Hispanic immigrants integrate fully into American society by providing English-language classes, civics courses, and naturalization assistance.

NCLR is also among the most recognized organizations in the nonprofit sector. Our work in the health arena has been honored by the Surgeon General of the United States and numerous professional organizations. Among the many awards NCLR has received, both our former President/CEO and the immediate past Chair of our Board of Directors earned the prestigious Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and The Nonprofit Times has recognized NCLR’s leadership with its coveted “Power and Influence Top 50” award, honoring the top 50 leaders shaping the nonprofit world. In addition, NCLR is featured alongside Habitat for Humanity and the Heritage Foundation in Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, a book that analyzes the practices of 12 nonprofit organizations that have successfully created social change (released in October 2007).

We recognize that some people might be confused about our organization’s name, our mission, and our work. Much of this is understandable. Compared to some of our venerable counterparts in the civil rights and advocacy community, we are a relatively young institution representing Latinos, a historically disadvantaged and often misunderstood ethnic minority. We have a Spanish term in our name, “La Raza” (meaning “the people” or “community”), which is often mistranslated. Furthermore, we are engaged in some of the most controversial issues of our time, which we believe is essential if we are to stay true to our mission.

As an advocacy organization engaged in the public arena, we know that some will disagree with our views. As Americans committed to basic civil rights, we respect anyone’s right to do so.

But it is also clear that some critics are willfully distorting the facts and deliberately mischaracterizing our organization and our work. Recently, we have been the subject of a number of ad hominem attacks that we believe cross the line of civility in public discourse.

At times, we have ignored these attacks, preferring to invest our precious time and resources in our work, believing that the quality of our labors speaks for itself. At other times, we have responded in a civil fashion through private correspondence or by requesting a meeting with a critic so we can discuss our differences. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do this in every case, especially when our private requests for civil discussion are responded to with further unfounded attacks, often echoed in the media as if they were accurate.

So, today we are engaging in an unprecedented step to make sure that the record is as clear and accessible as we can possibly make it. We do so in the interest of full disclosure and in the spirit of complete transparency. We trust that, after reviewing all of these materials, readers will come to their own conclusions about the merits of these and similar attacks to which we have been subjected.

Janet Murguía
President and CEO
National Council of La Raza

http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/
The Translation of Our Name: National Council of La Raza

Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

And this is not just NCLR’s interpretation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:

“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”

Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:

“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”

The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:

“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”

http://www.nclr.org/section/separatist/
Support of Separatist Organizations

NCLR has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations. Some critics have accused MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) of being a separatist organization and denounced NCLR for being a purported “major funder” of the organization. The reality is that in 2003, NCLR provided one chapter of the organization (Georgetown University) with a $2,500 subgrant to support a conference of Latino students—mainly from the Southwest and West Coast—who were attending East Coast colleges but could not afford to travel home for Thanksgiving. These Latino student groups hold mini-conferences with workshops and speakers, bringing together students who are often the first high school graduates and college attendees in their families.

According to its mission statement, MEChA is a student organization whose primary objectives are educational—to help Latino students finish high school and go to college, and to support them while at institutions of higher education. NCLR freely acknowledges that some of the organization’s founding documents, e.g., Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, contain inappropriate rhetoric, and NCLR also acknowledges that rhetoric from some MEChA members has been extremist and inflammatory. In a June 2006 Los Angeles Times op-ed, journalist Gustavo Arellano noted that all of the MEChA members of his class graduated from college and have gone on to successful careers, a rarity at a time when only 12% of Latinos have a college degree. And to the group’s founding documents, Arellano also pointed out that “few members take these dated relics of the 1960s seriously, if they even bothered to read them.”

NCLR has publicly and repeatedly disavowed this rhetoric as we have others that we believe are inappropriate, as we did when we criticized a pro-separatist Latino website for its racist and anti-Semitic views. We will continue, however, to support programs and activities that help more Hispanics enter and finish college.

Throughout its history NCLR has supported numerous initiatives to oppose all forms of unlawful discrimination; for example:

* A series of campaigns in conjunction with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund calling on all Americans to be tolerant of diversity
* Joint initiatives with the National Urban League, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics to identify and denounce hate crimes and other acts of intolerance
* Educational seminars and roundtables to expose and explore the causes of discrimination against Afro-Latinos and Indigenous Latinos, including instances of discrimination perpetrated by fellow Hispanics
* Public service campaigns with the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Children’s Defense Fund, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and other partners to prevent housing discrimination against minorities, families with children, and individuals with disabilities

BigRedChief
05-29-2009, 07:18 AM
Trash her with: Empathy?
Show clip of President H. Bush complimenting Clarence Thomas on his empathy.

Trash her with: Courts make law?
Show Scalia's written opinion(from the SCOTUS) that lower courts make law. Twice.

Trash her with: Background/ethinicity effects outlook on decisions?
Show clip of Alito at his senate congressional hearings talking about how his background and past discrimination is a factor in his decisions.

Your three favorite justices saying the same things? What's next neocons? I would suggest using google before picking the next lets trash her subject.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-29-2009, 09:56 AM
Trash her with: Empathy?
Show clip of President H. Bush complimenting Clarence Thomas on his empathy.

Trash her with: Courts make law?
Show Scalia's written opinion(from the SCOTUS) that lower courts make law. Twice.

Trash her with: Background/ethinicity effects outlook on decisions?
Show clip of Alito at his senate congressional hearings talking about how his background and past discrimination is a factor in his decisions.

Your three favorite justices saying the same things? What's next neocons? I would suggest using google before picking the next lets trash her subject.

I'm hardly a neocon, i like seeing all sides before making an informed decision.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 10:01 AM
If she is in fact a member of the the terrorist organization LaRaza, then she has no business in government period.

KC native
05-29-2009, 10:10 AM
If she is in fact a member of the the terrorist organization LaRaza, then she has no business in government period.

Terrorist organization? ROFL How are they are terrorist organization?

BigRedChief
05-29-2009, 10:56 AM
I'm hardly a neocon, i like seeing all sides before making an informed decision.
uhhh your not making any decisions. You don't have a vote, senator.