PDA

View Full Version : Legal When I get a case about discrimination I have to (consider how my family suffered it)


jAZ
05-27-2009, 11:28 PM
Kaboom.

What a vetting disaster.

:shake:

This is going to kill any chance of confirmation...

"My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. ...when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. ... But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." "

As if pissing off the immigration crowd isn't enough...

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them."


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/index.html

KC native
05-27-2009, 11:32 PM
I see what you did there. Well played sir.

blaise
05-27-2009, 11:41 PM
Who was saying that would kill her chances to begin with? I must have missed the supposed outrage.

petegz28
05-27-2009, 11:43 PM
Thing is, my ancestors didn't come here illegally. There is a difference. So are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants? And the laws are the laws. I don't care who a judge admires or how they feel. Law is law and judges are to enforce not create law.

KC native
05-28-2009, 12:01 AM
Who was saying that would kill her chances to begin with? I must have missed the supposed outrage.

Thing is, my ancestors didn't come here illegally. There is a difference. So are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants? And the laws are the laws. I don't care who a judge admires or how they feel. Law is law and judges are to enforce not create law.

Follow the link. Don't just read what he posted.

Direckshun
05-28-2009, 12:11 AM
Gotta love Greenwald.

You should do that post justice and post the entire thing.

blaise
05-28-2009, 12:21 AM
Follow the link. Don't just read what he posted.

I did. I'm saying I wouldn't have been outraged by her comments. So what, she's saying she can consider various factors in a case. I don't really care what Alito said because I don't care what she said. My point is I didn't see any outrage over her comments to begin with so who cares if someone else said something similar. Like I said before, I guess I missed the alleged outrage.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 12:28 AM
...the supposed outrage about her empathy remark is grossly overstated, and so who gives a rats ass what Alito said.

Well, I'll take you at your word, and credit you for recognizing that the suggestion that she's been any sort of activist judge is bogus.

You appear to be in the minority among the vocal movement conservative crowd.

|Zach|
05-28-2009, 12:48 AM
http://www.centerfieldtechnology.com/promos/inside_homerun.gif

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 07:50 AM
ROFL we need a really good "owned" pic about right now.

also this argument that she has had 3 opinions overturned out of 5 says she's an idiot when it comes to the law. welllllll

Alito had every single decision he made that went to the Supreme Court overturned.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 08:39 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/Sonia-Sotomayor.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 08:44 AM
ROFL we need a really good "owned" pic about right now.

also this argument that she has had 3 opinions overturned out of 5 says she's an idiot when it comes to the law. welllllll

Alito had every single decision he made that went to the Supreme Court overturned.

Judging, from how the SC has drifted from the Constitution restraining the Federal govt including, that we're supposed to have black robed dieties with life tenure on this court ( Hamilton, Marshall, Story rear their heads here), having opinions overturned isn't something I'd hang my hat on for an argument. Unless you're a statist who's into bossing the whole country around. Then it's understandable.

wutamess
05-28-2009, 09:00 AM
Thing is, my ancestors didn't come here illegally. There is a difference. So are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants? And the laws are the laws. I don't care who a judge admires or how they feel. Law is law and judges are to enforce not create law.

No... your "ancestors" took and enterprised Native Americans and Africans illegally.

~ You took it there.
We're all non-natives... if you look at it.

Baby Lee
05-28-2009, 09:04 AM
No... your "ancestors" took and enterprised Native Americans and Africans illegally.

~ You took it there.
We're all non-natives... if you look at it.

Half of my ancestors ARE Native American, and the other half immigrated early in the 20th Century from Britain, so . . .

blaise
05-28-2009, 09:10 AM
No... your "ancestors" took and enterprised Native Americans and Africans illegally.

~ You took it there.
We're all non-natives... if you look at it.

You know his ancestors?

blaise
05-28-2009, 09:13 AM
I am so glad this hypocrisy was pointed out, especially since we all know only conservatives use petty tactics to try and thwart Supreme Court Justice nominations.

Only conservatives. What a shame they do that.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 10:01 AM
also this argument that she has had 3 opinions overturned out of 5 says she's an idiot when it comes to the law. welllllll

Alito had every single decision he made that went to the Supreme Court overturned.

Is that true?

I've heard cries of some on the left that the critics on the right are acting racist. For the most part I've dismissed it as little more than politics on both sides.

But I have to say that the one case I heard made was from someone who wasn't calling anyone a racist, but simply pointing out that if a white person had said the things that Sotomayor had said about how her background shapes her views... that no one would care, but when a minority ever suggests such a thing they are spotlighted and the worst is assumed.

It's certainly a double standard that's demonstrated by the Alito quotes here.

That many on the vocal right have tried to dimish her intelligence by among other things suggesting she's incompetent because she's overturned "a lot" by the USSC, all the while Alito was overturned more often (assuming true) adds to that observation that when a white person does it or says it, no one notices or cares... when a minority does, it's held up against them.

I still don't know that it's outright racism, but it's certainly political with a racial double standard.

Sadly that's not the worst I've seen out there. The guy telling people that proper promunciation of her name isn't natural english. WTF?!

jAZ
05-28-2009, 10:03 AM
I am so glad this hypocrisy was pointed out, especially since we all know only conservatives use petty tactics to try and thwart Supreme Court Justice nominations.

Only conservatives. What a shame they do that.
When it's used, it should destroyed by the facts as is in this case, and when it is used again and again and again in the media, it should be routinely destroyed by the facts (from both sides).

Unfortunately, the media often lets this stuff stand under the new journalistic principle of "we don't care if there can only be one set of *facts*, we will operate as if it's possible there are two".

blaise
05-28-2009, 10:05 AM
Is that true?

I've heard cries of some on the left that the critics on the right are acting racist. For the most part I've dismissed it as little more than politics on both sides.

But I have to say that the one case I heard made was from someone who wasn't calling anyone a racist, but simply pointing out that if a white person had said the things that Sotomayor had said about how her background shapes her views... that no one would care, but when a minority ever suggests such a thing they are spotlighted and the worst is assumed.

It's certainly a double standard that's demonstrated by the Alito quotes here.

That many on the vocal right have tried to dimish her intelligence by among other things suggesting she's incompetent because she's overturned "a lot" by the USSC, all the while Alito was overturned more often (assuming true) adds to that observation that when a white person does it or says it, no one notices or cares... when a minority does, it's held up against them.

I still don't know that it's outright racism, but it's certainly political with a racial double standard.

Sadly that's not the worst I've seen out there. The guy telling people that proper promunciation of her name isn't natural english. WTF?!


Right, it's racially motivated.

wutamess
05-28-2009, 10:25 AM
You know his ancestors?

Yes... Matter of factly I do.

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 11:07 AM
Is that true?
Yes, but it was only 2 decisions/cases.

Another way to look at it is that She was involved or wrote opinions on over 3,000 cases in 12 years. Only 3 got reversed.

orange
05-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Thing is, my ancestors didn't come here illegally. There is a difference. So are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants? And the laws are the laws. I don't care who a judge admires or how they feel. Law is law and judges are to enforce not create law.

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.

...

Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).

- Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White