Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Reldorage

Alert and FULLY AWESOME

50 XP

3rd June 2008

0 Uploads

3,328 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote

Another stepping stone laid for a possible bias and racist supreme court judge. Thoughts?

credit: An equally bias report from the NYT.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Sounds good to me!

She's completely qualified, and more leftist than any current sitting judge, even if it's only superficial, which tips things in the favor of moderate progressives, which is always a good thing. There is no such thing as an un-"bias" [sic] judge. All of their decisions will be influenced by their personal ideologies, whether they like it or not, nevermind whether they'd care to admit as much. Might as well pick the one that favors progressive interpretations of the constitution, as far as I'm concerned.

And how is she "racist" exactly?




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

ideally you appoint the best of the best, most knowledgable and fair (neutral) judges to be in the supreme court. People who do a great job at executing the law and constitution regardless of personal opinion or political view.

For that it ptobably wouldn't be really smart to have a congress/senat/administration/whatever place these people in power (unless all branches would have a 75% majoriy perhaps in agreeing on an propised candidate brought forward by an other department which is a relatively neutral, well informed etity).

Regarding Sotomayor: She seems to have the required skilled, I don't care too much about ethnicity, gender,re ligion, sexual preferance opr whatever else (Simply put the best of the best in place, who gives a shit if it's a male or female? Native Northen AMmerican, of european decent, African decent, South American or whatever else?).

Also: How is she racist exactly? :uhm: Any evidence that she puts one race (I guess hispanics) above others (white, black, asian) and thus not executing a a fair and unbiased judgement? Wouldn't she have been casted out if a judge was pointed out to fail to be as neutral and objecive as possible (which is what ALL judges are meant to do... if not you fail at the most important aspect of your job).




Warborg

Revenge was here.

50 XP

2nd August 2002

0 Uploads

1,833 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Reldorage;4960608

Another stepping stone laid for a possible bias and racist supreme court judge. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

you summed it up about right

[QUOTE=Locomotor;4960608] And how is she "racist" exactly?

The fact that she says she is better then a white male every chance she gets.

If she came out and just said I'm a good choice then ok.

Why did she had to say "white"?

I don't know why when a non-white refers to a white as white is it's overlooked most of the time and not flagged as racial. If I went around saying black this or black that then I'm labeled as racial. I'm sorry but it's a 2-way street.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Locomotor;4961849Sounds good to me! She's completely qualified, and more leftist than any current sitting judge, even if it's only superficial, which tips things in the favor of moderate progressives, which is always a good thing. There is no such thing as an un-"bias" [sic] judge. All of their decisions will be influenced by their personal ideologies, whether they like it or not, nevermind whether they'd care to admit as much. Might as well pick the one that favors progressive interpretations of the constitution, as far as I'm concerned. And how is she "racist" exactly?

:uhh::withstupid: :smack:This is why people shouldn't vote. I concur with Donnie.:clap:




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago

Warborg;4962386Why did she had to say "white"?

I don't know why when a non-white refers to a white as white is it's overlooked most of the time and not flagged as racial. If I went around saying black this or black that then I'm labeled as racial. I'm sorry but it's a 2-way street.

Statements such as "I think latina's cna eb a better judge than an (old?) white male" might or might not be signs of racism. BUT there would need to be more proof that that alone. It could simply be a politically incorrect way of saying that she thinks she can do a more objective and thus better job then a (stereotype) old male judge who is very conservative nd clearly has his personal believes control his judgement. For example: gay marriages: legally gays should be - are - equal so they can have civil marriage like any other person and apply for the same benefits it may bring.

Now if a record of her history (rulings) show she tends to favour "non-white" people in her rulings then yes you may add 1 and 1 together and it would eb fair to say that she might be or probably is a racist. But then I say: be a good citizen/media and dig up the evidence that gives her credit and discredit and show us several pieces of seveidence: elf standing and different nature. But I'd trust the justice system tol filter these people out by itself or the justice system itself would be beneath minimum expectations/requirements and thus be overhauled and cleaned out.

And yes, it's a two way street. Any person shold be able to use those words freely. There should be as much (or as less?) of an outcry if a white/black/yellow/pink/purple/red/EnterSillycolorTocoverRaceHere/ said he or she believes said color might do a better job than *enter other color here*. Additional evidence should make clear what the person stands for and if he or she may have used it to offend or discriminate against people.

If a known radicalist who is already believed to discriminate/hate a certain group says such a thing it's almost certainly a racist comment. If a person who never showed any signs of discrimination/hatred said such a thing it's probably a poorly, political incorrect, message.

People shouldn't jump to conclusion too fast. To be certain about a case you need multiple pieces of (propper, selfstanding, undeniable, ...) evidence.

So no, I don't really care what certain media/peopel say about her or any other judge/nominee untill they dig up a whole lot of incriminating evidence to make a very hard and rightfull/justifyable case against her. Or else I simply dismiss it as "she might not favour what I believe to be justice even though I am not a expert! Boohooo" pathetic outcry. Having said that, presidents presenting nominees for such a position is a bit ackward and potentially biased (unfair!) to begin with. All I want is a fair, objective panel of supreme judges who are true experts at their job and who don't give a shit what the administration in power stand or does not stand for.

That would also silence most outcries as the reaction at large would be "you do know that those supreme judges don't give a shit about who's president right now, do you?"




Shintsu

For the glory of Helghan

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

12,926 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago

What I take offense to is the fact that the Hispanic Rights and Women's Rights groups were criticizing the Republican senators who were going to vote no saying they would pay for it if they didn't. Why? Isn't it their right to vote how they want? If the people who elected them didn't like how they voted they won't vote for him, simple enough. Gee, I wonder what Hispanic Rights and Women's Rights groups think about this - not a bias at all. When has it meant you're a racist if you don't like the person for what they do and they happen to not be a white male? Why is the fact that it will be "a historic nomination - the first latino woman on the supreme court" almost bypass any other reasoning? Like just because of that, she should win and if she doesn't it's because racists/sexists kept her down. Think about it. Before the '08 Elections, you could have theoretically said anyone not voting for Hillary who was a Democrat is a sexist. Obviously an untrue statement. But I actually did hear Obama supporters calling Democrats voting for Hillary racist for not voting for him. How? Since when has not liking a person and them happening to be a certain race/gender/religion/whatever had to been the reason why? Were the people not voting for Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney all religion hating atheists? No! What is it in minorities minds that say as soon as someone says "I don't like Sotomayor" that "OH, you're a RACIST! You hate Hispanic people!" I was reading where that was basically what they had accused the Republicans who weren't voting for her were saying. On this same racial issue, I was reading where they had accused the woman who called the police in the whole Gates thing a racist. Saying that because some elderly lady who came up to her and said she though there was a robbery going on at this persons house and the description of the suspects was two black males with backpacks. So she calls the police - like most upstanding people would. Would it have mattered if they were white? NO! But because they're black, it's like a "privileged white woman calling the police on a poor downtrodden black man". Uh, a criminal is a scummy piece of rubbish no matter what color or creed they are. Shouldn't it be a case that ALL of them are called in? Think about how many times white people call the police on other white people and no one says or thinks a thing of it. But the INSTANT a white person calls the police on another ethnicity it turns racial. This racial shit has to stop. They had to release the phone call showing where she didn't even mention race until the 911 operator asked what ethnicity they were and even then she said "I think one of them might have been hispanic". OH MAN, right there - she hates Hispanics. God forbid you actually tell the truth or be accurate. She should've just said "It was two guys." Be like the lady on MadTV - "He looka like a man." Apparently THIS is what people want. People shouldn't be so ready to jump thinking in situations like this that the people are racist. Every white person is not racist! And in the same sense, each minority certainly has racists among them - and that's an aspect that isn't ever covered. Like it's okay for them to be racist - they're a minority. Sounds a lot like "Seperate but equal" to me...




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

Im not getting where she said anything "racist".

But then again, its ok to talk shit about white people, but god help you if you ever call a mexican standing infront of home depot "illegal".




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago
WarborgI don't know why when a non-white refers to a white as white is it's overlooked[/QUOTE] The history of race relations in America would be a good place to start if you want an answer to this question. There are serious cultural connotations bound up with certain racial slurs, whether you acknowledge them or not. [QUOTE=AlDaja]This is why people shouldn't vote.

Hmm? Something wrong with progressive interpretations of the constitution? Are they worse than regressive intepretations?




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

@ Donutz:

The main case that was brought up was the case of several firefighters who were denied promotions to Captain, after passing their promotion exams. The problem was that only whites and one Hispanic passed the exam, and no blacks did. The state threw out the results, because they thought it would be racist to promote just the people who passed. They brought the state to court for reverse racism. Sotomayer turned down the lawsuit, saying that there was no racism against the whites and Hispanic, even though its rather blatant racism, the state decided, willingly, that it would be wrong to promote whites and Hispanics, just because none of the blacks passed the exam. The case went to the supreme court however, the Sotomayer's decision was overruled, which the firefighters winning the case

On the topic of the Supreme Court, the main problem is yes, its appointed by a Judicial committee. The Committees are made to represent whoever is in charge of Congress. The problem then is the committee, no matter what, is either right wing or left wing, and thus will only confirm right wing or left wing judges. Moderates get thrown to the wayside because they don't appeal to either faction, right wingers can't stand one who says Roe v Wade should be upheld, left wingers can't stand one who says that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated under the 14th to the states.

Now, if we have a Congress and President all of the same party (like now for instance), this means that (using this as the example as well, not trying to be biased though, republicans would do the same), Obama would appoint a left wing judge, and he/she would be confirmed by the left wing judiciary committee (which is what happened with Sotomayer), then approved by the left wing congress. Now, right now that's fine, as she is replacing a left winger judge anyways, which still leaves the court at 4 right wingers, 4 left wingers, and one moderate. However, let's say one or two of the right wingers resigned/died. Then Obama could pack in more left wingers, which would change the odds so that any case that comes to the court would sided with on whichever is the left wing answer. Not the correct, or fair answer, but the left wing.

Now, the problem in this, comes from the separation of powers. The point of having the separate branches of government is to try and keep one branch from having too much power. In the days before political infighting like we have nowadays (hell, political parties were barely beginning when the Constitution was made), the idea was sound. The president enforces laws and signs them, Congress passes laws and denies power to the president, the court interprets the laws, and tells the president and congress what they can and cannot pass, but are appointed by the president, and voted in by congress. The whole idea of checks and balances is displayed right there.

But if you have one party in control of Congress, one party in control of the executive, and one party in control of the Supreme Court, you run into the problem that now, there are no checks and balances. Anything can be passed, and supported. Which flies flagrantly in the face of what the checks and balances were supposed to do, specifically, CHECK the power of the branches, and BALANCE what powers were given amongst the 3.

So what are the solutions to this conundrum? Give the power of appointment to the people? No, that doesn't work either. The people would simply elect along party lines, and duly, the court would once again lean left or right.

Honestly, the only solution I could see is that the judicial committee would have to be split exactly down the lines, 50% right wing, 50% left wing, no longer showing whatever the congress leans to at the time. This would at least allow for more centrist appointees to be brought in, as the democrats and republicans would actually have to come to an agreement to pass one through.

But, sadly, that'll probably not happen. And we'll continue to have justices appointed who have little care for interpreting the Constitution, for handing down what is good and fair, and instead, will just push whatever supports their party lines, be they left or right wing.




  • 1
  • 2