moron:

is this racist?

Quote :

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life"

Cause if this is racist, then what she said is racist. If this quote is not racist, then what she said is not racist. Simple as that.

5/26/2009 5:28:14 PM

Quote :

"What's funny is that if you were actually a latina, you'd be able to actually understand what she meant there, rather than mocking it out of context."

I would really, genuinely like an explanation of what you're eluding to, here. If you have some insight on the context of this remark, by all means, then please fill us in rather than letting a pedantic back-and-forth continue. Because on its face, in the most benign case sounds like a pompous self-aggrandizement, and at its worst, sounds like a hint of ugly racism. "My experiences as a latina allow me to make better judgments than that of a white male."

5/26/2009 5:31:23 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't say or imply in any way that one race is racially inferior to any other."

Yes it clearly does. She clearly says that she hopes that a hispanic female would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. Why would she hope that? Why did even mention "white male"?

Look at what she fucking said: "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."

5/26/2009 5:32:58 PM

I'm curious what you think the context of the quote is?

Because i'm going to presume you're not naive enough to take an EarthDogg post from The Headquarters of the Conservative Underground at face value.

If so, then you and people who think like you are the exact reason the media in the US is so messed up. How about doing some critical reading and understanding on your own, instead of relying on me, EarthDogg or THe COnservative Underground to spoon feed you.

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

Here's the full text of the speech in which she made the quote btw

Why didn't the Conservative Underground quote this from her:

Quote :

"They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life."

Do republicans not believe that you can work hard, despite your background, and succeed in America?

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 5:39:39 PM

i found this to be a rather interesting decision.

Quote :

"Sotomayor has rarely written in age discrimination cases.  However, she authored a forceful dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), a case involving a minister who filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after he was forced by his church to retire at the age of 70.  The district court dismissed the claim; on appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which - subject to certain exceptions - prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, had effectively amended the ADEA by providing a defense for ADEA violations.  In her dissent, Sotomayor complained that the majority had “violate[d] a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” when it - unnecessarily, in her view - held that the RFRA was constitutional.  Moreover, she deemed the panel’s decision to remand the case to the district court for briefing on the RFRA issue “a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties.”  Instead, she would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal and held that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits against religious institutions by their leaders."

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

5/26/2009 5:45:54 PM

Quote :

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males... 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."

jeez i didn't realize white males had such large chips on their shoulders

you people are just as bad as the blacks

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 5:47:38 PM

Quote :

"If so, then you and people who think like you are the exact reason the media in the US is so messed up. How about doing some critical reading and understanding on your own, instead of relying on me, EarthDogg or THe COnservative Underground to spoon feed you."

I am simply asking you to be out with your point rather than simply dancing around it, seeing as that quote has been making its rounds around the internet much further than "EarthDogg Conservative HQ."

Meanwhile, even in the "full context," it's still a real eye-roller, pretty much hearkening to straight-up identity politics.

Quote :

"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."

I don't think she's a racist, and I think that the proposition that she was was dubious, but frankly, I think she's insufferable. I stand by my original remarks.

5/26/2009 6:01:26 PM

She very well may be the least racist person on the planet

I still don't see how her comment about latina women being able to make better decisions than white males isn't a completely racist statement

5/26/2009 6:11:00 PM

^^ she was giving a memorial lecture for a latino person titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation". That's not "identity politics."

And I think she's generally right to note that someone's background and the environment they are raised in is going to taint their world view and decisions. That makes perfect sense.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 6:14:13 PM

^ You know, I'd point out how she makes numerous examples of how somehow judges make decisions turning upon race rather than say, prevailing societal norms within this speech, but as we've learned before in this forum, you absolutely hate reading source material, and will bullshit for pages on end.

So, I will simply leave it at that. Another episode of moron bullshitting us. Again.

5/26/2009 6:18:12 PM

That's quite a different tone than a page ago. I'm guessing you realize you were completely wrong... again.

5/26/2009 6:19:23 PM

Sotomayor should more appropriately be described as a chicana. In any event, whether you like her or not, it appears that the media has now found a word it likes even better than "closure": "Sotomayor."

5/26/2009 6:19:57 PM

Quote :

"That's quite a different tone than a page ago. I'm guessing you realize you were completely wrong... again."

Another moron bluster. It takes two pages for you even to cut to the heart of your argument, and from there on out, it's more bullshitting.

yawn.

5/26/2009 6:22:18 PM

OK ..I read her 2001 speech in more detail...

Quote :

"Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population."

Seems like she lives in a world of quotas and skin-counting. She doesn't seem as worried about the competence of judges as their racial mix.

Quote :

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. "

More evidence that the criteria for her decisions will include the race and sex of the litigants. Hopefully she'll throw in some Constitutional Law every once in a while.

5/26/2009 6:37:29 PM

I think the issue that's being danced around goes deeper than this nomination specifically. What sort of decisions that the supreme court will be making do we think will be in any way positively impacted by choosing people in part on their life experiences? What sort of decisions do we think that a white male, a hispanic female and a chinese hermaphrodite will have differing opinions on in the supreme court? In lower courts where we may be looking for and at motivations and behaviors of individuals, sure I could see it playing a role, but this high up the court system?

5/26/2009 6:38:53 PM

Because judges never have to consider cases where race or sex are factors, right?

5/26/2009 6:39:06 PM

Quote :

"Because judges never have to consider cases where race or sex are factors, right? "

They do. And in Ricci v. DeStefano, where she did consider race... she came up with a terrible decision.

But I don't blame Sotomayor, just as I didn't blame Harriet Meiers. The culprits are the presidents who nominated these mistakes.

5/26/2009 6:55:57 PM

Actually, this judge has shown a conservative temperment basing decisions on stare decisis.

Then again, this is what happens when you get yourselves carried away with labels, you cannot even think straight anymore.

5/26/2009 6:57:00 PM

Quote :

"Because judges never have to consider cases where race or sex are factors, right?"

Again though, what decision will the supreme court be making where these differences are relevant? If a hispanic man is illegally searched in Texas, or a woman denied access based on sex, what possible experiences relevant to your race or gender would affect the right decision on that case? Seriously, give me an example where her experiences as a hispanic woman would have any positive impact on her decision making process such that she would make a decision significantly different from any of her peers in the court?

5/26/2009 7:15:22 PM

Quote :

"Again though, what decision will the supreme court be making where these differences are relevant? If a hispanic man is illegally searched in Texas, or a woman denied access based on sex, what possible experiences relevant to your race or gender would affect the right decision on that case? Seriously, give me an example where her experiences as a hispanic woman would have any positive impact on her decision making process such that she would make a decision significantly different from any of her peers in the court?"

Exactly. The law is the law, regardless of the color of your skin. If anything, someone with an "oppressed" or victimization mentality is far more likely to rule out of emotion rather than rule by law. The SC, and all other courts, are there to make sure that the law is enforced properly and that laws do not violate the constitution. But see, this is the "conservative" viewpoint, that the Judiciary should actually do what it was intended to do. Sadly, there is little recourse to fighting an activist court other than amending the Constitution which is virtually impossible.

5/26/2009 7:25:47 PM

One of the things I really admire about President Obama is his refusal to play the victimization game or try to throw his ethnicity out there like it's some type of trump card. The era of race-based politics is over, and by-and-large the populace has turned the page. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Judge Sotomayor ever got the memo. It happens sometimes. These aging baby-boomers like to go with what they know, and often have trouble adapting to new times.

Eh, fuck it. Just what we need, another ideologue in the supreme court. Maybe on matters not relating to race, she can attempt to be objective. One can hope, right?

5/26/2009 7:54:39 PM

I find this pretty disconcerting...

Quote :

"Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009 • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg) • Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted • Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0 • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito) • Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) • Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer) • Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) • Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) • Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) • Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) • Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) • Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) • Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html#cnnSTCText

5/26/2009 8:09:15 PM

omg she's more liberal than the sitting court but agreed with the person she's replacing in all but two cases.

5/26/2009 10:06:48 PM

i only approve of this choice if they make a reality show...

also for reference

Quote :

" ac·tiv·ist [ak-tuh-vist] –noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. –adjective 2. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern. 3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House. "

are there any non-activist judges? or are we changing activist to be just the judges that don't have the same view as the person calling them activist?

5/26/2009 10:21:56 PM

5/26/2009 10:22:02 PM

Her conservative stance on stare decisis means she cannot be an activist judge. If you want to fault her, fault her for being to conservative.

5/26/2009 10:45:27 PM

the NPR piece I heard about this today painted a vastly different picture with that quote, even to the point that I don't even recognize it. What NPR reported I could almost agree with, but what I see here is so massively different that I can't see that I would have agreed with it.

NOW, if a white guy had said that, he most certainly would have been skewered for it. And looking at her quote, I'm a bit miffed by it, because it's not absolutely racist, though I can see how someone might see it that way. Come on, moron, there is a way to see it that way. I'm not sure, though, how she thinks that a "wise latino woman" would come up with better conclusions than a white man. But, I can also see how she might not be saying that. She may, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, be saying that she would hope that would be the case.

But, after reading the speech, there's not a really good way to read that line... Even in the further context provided by moron (i think), it's not too good...

This is also from that speech

Quote :

"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."

And this sounds OK, almost acceptable. But it is miles different from "i would hope a woman would render better decisions..."

lots of rambling

5/26/2009 11:45:08 PM

They did not choose her based on talent. She's had four of her opinions reversed, three of them due to incorrect interpretations of the law.

But of course someone will come out with similar stats for current SC judges

5/26/2009 11:48:05 PM

Quote :

"Her conservative stance on stare decisis means she cannot be an activist judge"

What precedent did she use to screw over the fire-fighters in Ricci v. DeStefano? Oh that's right, it was a unpublished decision. No chance for them to even get a fair hearing.

It's amusing and sad that the next SC justice is going to probably be reversed on a decision just before she is seated.

Given the senate make-up and the lilly-livered republicans, she's probably gonna get in.

But take care Pres. Obama. All eyes will be watching your new judge's actions on the bench. Did you choose the best, smartest and most competent person to carry the banner into liberal activist judging?

5/27/2009 12:02:19 AM

i dunno, but he sure as hell picked a spicy pink taco!

5/27/2009 12:05:32 AM

5/27/2009 12:10:29 AM

I must agree with my conservative friends in this thread. I can not stand to hear any more media dick sucking about the affirmative action move by Obama to put an "Hispanic female" on the bench.

A supreme court judge should be picked for their merits, qualities, and qualifications. Such decision should not be based on achieving some liberal happy unicorns and rainbows diverse supreme court.

If all the people BEST qualified to be on the supreme court were all Asian than so be it. I just can't help to feel that this woman was picked for the PR not her abilities.
This is the one of the top things that bothered me about the Obama election. If you vote for Obama b.c you want "change than so be it. If you vote for Obama b.c you believe in the liberal doctrine than so be it. If you vote for Obama b.c you think McPalin was a fucking joke of a ticket and want the GOP to get a nice slap in the face for a wake up call following George Dubya shitty 8 years than so be it.

I just hated all the people voting just because its a 1/2 black president; or all the attention Obama gets on being a "breaking moment for ethnicities" not on the real qualities that he does possess in order to do his job.

5/27/2009 12:11:50 AM

Quote :

"The greatest practitioners of whatever it is we call "identity politics" in this country have always been white males. The lack of self-awareness of this fact is what is termed unexamined privilege."

- http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/05/rather-obvious-point.html

5/27/2009 1:11:41 AM

Yay, 2 wrongs make a right!

5/27/2009 1:24:47 AM

It's hard for me to get worked up by the identity politics angle. After all it was Reagan who pledged, during his campaign, to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. And he did.

Should the Supreme Court be used as a playing field for so-called identity politics? I don't know. It's not like there's a shortage of qualified jurists in the U.S. All other things being equal, there has to be some deciding factor that isn't related to pure professional qualifications. In that light it's reasonable to pick somebody, once their basic qualifications are established, based on background, life experience, personality, you name it.

It's too simplistic to say "pick the most qualified person!" There isn't some linear scale whereby there's the "most" qualified. What, we're going to dig through law school grade transcripts? Even then I think there would be more than a few equals.

Personally I am not sure what makes a "great" judge, insofar as it's one of the most unaccountable professions there is. Scalia, for all his faults, is probably my personal favorite for his unique philosophy but how many of him are there in the world?

5/27/2009 2:48:50 AM

5/27/2009 6:11:56 AM

Quote :

"I find this pretty disconcerting..."

The number of reversals aren't particularly disconcerting without a comparison to similar judges and their reversal rates. I would actually expect a good chunk of cases that make it to the supreme court get reversed (though I admit I have no evidence one way or the other to back that up.

What is disturbing is the number of times the supreme court faulted her for being way off base in her reasoning and application of the law, regardless of whether they upheld the decision or not. I really don't like the idea of a judge who gets to the right judgements via the wrong path.

5/27/2009 8:04:44 AM

Quote :

"What precedent did she use to screw over the fire-fighters in Ricci v. DeStefano? Oh that's right, it was a unpublished decision. No chance for them to even get a fair hearing. "

She didn't screw over the fire fighters. The ruling in question here is whether the city has the right to disregard an employment test if they feel the employment test is invalid.

Her ruling was a question on Title VII, while it doesn't allow the alteration of individual tests, it does allow the employer employing them to not certify the entire batch.

Oh, and it is a published opinion. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/doc/06-4996-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/hilite/

And if you have the time to look up Lexis Nexis search here. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). You will get all the information you need from the District Court ruling that was affirmed.

Furthermore, the supreme court case hinges largely on whether or not the Appeals Court should have heard the case en banc.


And of course here is the opinion that you have designated as being her's when clearly it is her joining the concurring opinion, not writing her own on why the court denied en banc http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/doc/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/hilite/

And as the Court clearly states in this matter prior court rulings. Take a look and quit talking out of your ass, homes.

5/27/2009 9:30:31 AM

^ Since Obama indicated that Sotomayor should identify with people's hopes and struggles, this should be rendered moot. Or is this empathy selective--(GASP!) could it be?

5/27/2009 9:42:06 AM

are you off the meds again?

5/27/2009 9:43:45 AM

^ I have no need for meds, just making a point. Obama says that law and precedent don't always apply:

Quote :

"Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in '95 percent of the cases.' But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. 'In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

http://www.jaxobserver.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-empathy-v-impartiality/

5/27/2009 9:50:32 AM

Yes, Obama is clearly saying stare decisis has no basis for any court ruling evar.

5/27/2009 9:53:21 AM

^ No, Obama clearly stated that 5 percent of the time, justices should ignore law and precedent and just go with their hearts--who determines which cases fall within this mythical 5 percent?

Furthermore, Obama used this ethereal 5 percent as a justification to vote against Justice Roberts:

Quote :

"When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the 'heart' to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, 'we need somebody who's got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

http://www.jaxobserver.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-empathy-v-impartiality/

But if you're mostly white firefighters, then fuck you. In any event, Joe "Rhetorical Flourishes" Biden said that the Obama administration would get it wrong about 30 percent of the time anyway--so I'm going to just chalk it all up to that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCqqlYTi57A

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 10:01:49 AM

do you have any understanding of the merits of the case outside of biased opinion pieces?

5/27/2009 10:04:15 AM

so was the media like this before o'connor got picked? where they pretty much pick the person for the president?

5/27/2009 10:04:44 AM

^^ I'm simply basing my posts on Obama's own words.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 10:05:23 AM

Why don't you base your points on this selection and not on hypotheticals?

5/27/2009 10:08:44 AM

^ But Obama said that words matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mQ_eCGbdg0

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : I'm trying to make a point. You know, like you do--except without accusing anyone of pedophilia. ]

5/27/2009 10:17:51 AM

you are attempting to say this candidate isn't qualified based upon things obama has said. Why don't you talk about the candidate instead of hypotheticals, or is that too much to ask of you?

5/27/2009 10:21:37 AM

^ Okay, there has been much talk of Sotomayor's background and overcoming hardship. Was this same puff treatment given to Clarence Thomas? You know, he had to overcome being a black man, which many here and elsewhere describe as being a burden.

Discuss.

5/27/2009 10:31:07 AM