^
Whatever, troll. I'm angry at your stupidity and childishness. If you weren't a troll, you'd've stopped responding to me by now. But you enjoy trolling. You have to get the last word -- to always leave the trap set. You're the one that built a crappy straw-man. Don't you understand why so many people dislike you and other trolls in the Soap Box? Your incessant use of straw-men is so fucking annoying, that you ruin threads -- you fucking trolls ruin the Soap Box. Ever notice how "debate" or "serious" threads do better in Chit Chat or the Lounge? That's because of assholes like you. You are a fucking clown. Shut the fuck up.

Quote :

"And what basis do you have for claiming Sotomayor is a racist? That's right, you have no real basis, because you have no idea what you're talking about."

This statement, in the context she said it, is 100% proof that either misspoke and never recanted the statement, or that she is a racist:

Quote :

"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."

Period.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 5:41:53 PM

YOU GOT DAT 190% PROOF SHE IS RACIST

6/29/2009 5:48:29 PM

Quote :

"Don't you understand why so many people dislike you and other trolls in the Soap Box? Your incessant use of straw-men is so fucking annoying, that you ruin threads -- you fucking trolls ruin the Soap Box. Ever notice how "debate" or "serious" threads do better in Chit Chat or the Lounge? That's because of assholes like you. You are a fucking clown. Shut the fuck up."

Amen! Preach it, Brother Willy, preach it!

6/29/2009 6:08:32 PM

You just have to ignore some of the people on here. They don't really respond to reason or facts, they are emotionally damaged individuals who just try to bait people who don't agree with them.

6/29/2009 8:27:37 PM

No pink tacos for Sotomayor

Quote :

"Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, ripped the decision, arguing in a written statement that the high court had interpreted "the critical protections of Title VII in a way never intended by Congress when it passed this landmark law.""

Quote :

"Leahy argued that the "narrow decision is likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families. It is less likely now that employers will conscientiously try to fulfill their obligations under this time-honored civil rights law. This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces." "

This Patrick Leahy guy must be the biggest douche if he seriously believes this shit. Bullshit like reverse discrimination, affirimitive action, and people like Al Sharpton throwing the race card about shit in which race may have nothing to do with the issue; is what keeps "racism" alive in our country. Otherwise I think it would die out except for remote pockets like redneck village deep south USA and random other ignorant people who really don't have much power to begin with.

Quote :

"The reversal of Sotomayor was expected because a majority of the current court are Republicans who believe governmental decisions should be made on a color-blind basis. Beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have taken aim at affirmative action, and the Republican justices have concurred. "

Why does this need to be a "partisan issue"??? In this case I would have to say then that Republicans are 100% right. Gov't decisions for jobs, promotions, or contracts should be color-blind.

I really can't decide which i disdain more affirmitive action or our gov't turning every issue into a partisan hackout. Should not our politicians and judges act on what they think is right; not what Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney tells them is the "correct party-line" response.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/powe.new.haven/index.html

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : a]

6/30/2009 12:03:21 PM

Quote :

""And what basis do you have for claiming Sotomayor is a racist? That's right, you have no real basis, because you have no idea what you're talking about." This statement, in the context she said it, is 100% proof that either misspoke and never recanted the statement, or that she is a racist: Quote : "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." Period."

Go back and reread the thread. You still obviously have no idea what you're talking about. This stuff was covered within the first 5 pages.

And you know you're a winner when you have hooksaw on your side, lol.

^ when was the last time we actually heard anything from Al Sharpton? Even Jesse Jackson can't rile up the media like he used to.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2009 5:25:22 PM

Are you kidding ^

damn i wish i could remember but there was an incident the last month or two. cause i remember thinking to myself well "u think al sharpton would have lost his soapbox with obama as president"

6/30/2009 9:18:04 PM

I can't remember if I've said so already in this thread or not, so rather than re-read the damned thing, I'll risk posting it again:

I don't see why anybody is even bothering to act upset that Barack Obama appointed a liberal judge. It's how the world works. If George W. Bush were president and appointing a judge that fell on his side of things, the tables would be turned almost perfectly 180 degrees. It's obnoxious. Liberal presidents nominate liberal judges, conservative presidents nominate conservative judges, and so on ad infinitum. Some of you people are such slavish devotees to the talking points that I honestly don't doubt that you'd walk off a bridge if so instructed by your party leadership in the press or otherwise.

I tend to think that a balanced supreme court is a good supreme court. At the moment, we have a pretty balanced one. One "liberal judge" is replacing another. The status quo endures. Who did you expect him to nominate, pretell?

7/1/2009 12:17:37 AM

Grumpy, you're making far too much sense.
Get out of here with that shit!

7/1/2009 12:32:38 AM

^^ A jurist who is more concerned with proper application of the law as it relates to the Constitution than with "empathy." Is that too much to ask?

7/1/2009 1:54:54 AM

^^^seriously

7/1/2009 1:56:35 AM

^^^^ Sotomayor is not really all that liberal, when you look at her record. It's the right-wing media trying to maintain their persecution complex that is trying to paint her as more left than she really is.

^^ The entire purpose of judges is to interpret the law, otherwise robots could do their job. Only a fool would discount human emotions for such a position.

7/1/2009 3:16:30 AM

I don't give a shit that she's liberal.

What i do care about is Obama's Affirmitive Action based strategy or happy diverse P.C. rationale that led him to skip over possibly more qualified candidates in order to pick a female Hispanic judge to appease his base. The next thing you know he will be nominating a gay Jewish asian guy for his 2nd pick.

7/1/2009 7:37:46 AM

it's not like he she's more experience than anyone else currently sitting on the bench or anything.

also, at what point would you say "ok THIS woman/minority/homosexual/non-christian is a valid pick and not an affirmative action pick"? when you agree with their views?

7/1/2009 8:01:03 AM

Quote :

"conservative presidents nominate conservative judges, and so on ad infinitum. "

Who actually turn out to be liberal judges

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .]

7/1/2009 8:12:26 AM

Quote :

"What i do care about is Obama's Affirmitive Action based strategy or happy diverse P.C. rationale that led him to skip over possibly more qualified candidates in order to pick a female Hispanic judge to appease his base. The next thing you know he will be nominating a gay Jewish asian guy for his 2nd pick. "

This is pure gibberish. The supreme court pick has never been someone people would agree was the "most qualified" and even before people cared about the coloreds or the women, they had to balance picks between northerners and southerners.

It's hilarious though that you think there is some magical scale or test out there for the "best" supreme court pick. Looking at Sotomayor's education and judgements, no reasonable person could say she wasn't very well qualified.

7/1/2009 9:16:18 AM

Unfortunately, Obama chose to mention her gender and cultural background during her appointment. Had he not done this, I don't think there would be an ounce of credibility to AA reactions.

I think each justice's race and gender affects their own personal jurispudence to some degree, and I think it's important to have a diversified court (relative to actual population demographics, preferably).

That doesn't mean I think someone less qualified should be appointed due to their race or gender. However, I do think that every demographic is represented among the qualified pool of candidates, and for this particular job it's necessary to consider race when selecting among equally qualified candidates.

7/1/2009 10:04:18 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, Obama chose to mention her gender and cultural background during her appointment. Had he not done this, I don't think there would be an ounce of credibility to AA reactions."

are you fucking kidding me?

7/1/2009 10:25:46 AM

Not to worry, I wasn't kidding you.

Whew! Isn't that a relief?

7/1/2009 10:40:08 AM

So because she is not white, and this was pointed out, she must not be qualified? Does this mean that a white person would be inherently more qualified?

When the past white judges were picked, were there no other more qualified people?

7/1/2009 10:51:22 AM

^^politicians and pundits were saying that obama would have an affirmative action pick before he said a word about his candidates.

7/1/2009 10:54:52 AM

Quote :

"So because she is not white, and this was pointed out, she must not be qualified? "

He pointed out her race and gender as qualifications.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason : grammar]

7/1/2009 11:32:42 AM

Why aren't they? The supreme court deals with race and gender issues, this only helps give the body more perspectives.

It's not like she is being appointed to FEMA or something where race and gender typically don't matter to your job.

7/1/2009 11:49:58 AM

I know, I just said that.

It was just not tactful of him to mention it. In the eyes of many, applying her gender and race as qualifications makes her seem less qualified in practical jurisprudence.

7/1/2009 12:08:07 PM

The panic-ridden but majority-control democrats once again unleash the politics of personal destruction...

Quote :

"Sotomayor Backers Urge Reporters to Probe New Haven Firefighter By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling. On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci. This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill. To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction," said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. "If they were smart, they'd keep a low profile.""

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71660.html

7/11/2009 10:20:54 AM

id feel more comfortable if all the justices were old white men who believed the world was 6 thousand years old.

and hate japs

[Edited on July 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM. Reason : !]

7/11/2009 10:26:33 AM

nm. has more detail in the actual article.

[Edited on July 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2009 2:16:47 PM

jeepers we're gonna wipe the left slam out of office in the next election at this rate. retaliatory voting is nothing to scoff at

7/11/2009 2:23:48 PM

^^^^ Umm... trying to paint Sotomayor as a racist extremist who hates white people is part of the right's politics of personal destruction. That's their point with calling Ricci, it's an emotional appeal to the reactionary naive whites who are watching, but don't know how the judicial system works.

7/11/2009 2:44:31 PM

Quote :

"it's an emotional appeal to the reactionary naive whites who are watching, but don't know how the judicial system works."

Do you really think whites are reactionary and naive when it comes to evaluating this most famous of her cases? As for knowing about the judicial system..how much do you need to know to see how wrong her decision was in denying test-passing white firefighters because not enough blacks passed the test?

7/11/2009 11:17:28 PM

It might be helpful to know that the town of New Haven did that, not Sotomayor.

7/12/2009 1:56:49 PM

did anyone actually expect Obama to nominate someone who would pay attention to that pesky old Constitution and the rule of law?

7/12/2009 7:59:04 PM

There's no way he'd get someone who would interfere in his goal of concentration camps for capitalists!

7/12/2009 8:01:24 PM

can't forget he has to kill whitey

7/12/2009 10:35:23 PM

Quote :

"It might be helpful to know that the town of New Haven did that, not Sotomayor. "

But Sotomayor had to pass legal judgement on whether the action of the town of New Haven was legal...and the Supreme Court correctly said that she was wrong. It was wrong to put together your fire dept, not on qualifications, but on race.

I frankly don't care what color the firemen are that put out my house. But I would hope they passed their fire-fighting tests.

7/13/2009 1:05:41 AM

Obama's next supreme court pick will be a jewish homosexual asian solely due to the sole qualification of furthering the "diversity" of the supreme court.

7/13/2009 11:47:03 AM

Anyone watching the confirmation hearings?

7/13/2009 2:06:47 PM

Are you kidding? Hell naw

7/13/2009 3:38:49 PM

Quote :

"Obama's next supreme court pick will be a jewish homosexual asian solely due to the sole qualification of furthering the "diversity" of the supreme court. "

it's not like sotomayor has any other qualifications or anything. he basically picked the first latina he saw.

7/13/2009 4:35:39 PM

the first Latina with 15 years judging experience and salutatorian at Princeton Law, yes

7/13/2009 4:38:55 PM

[Edited on July 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM. Reason : dubs]

7/13/2009 4:43:52 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huyApqmCqq9U5Hw9jP5IYR1gSQEwD99EEME00

Quote :

"Sotomayor pushes back hard on racial bias charges She also defended her most frequently criticized ruling: a decision by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year to dismiss the claim of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who alleged racial discrimination after being denied promotions. ... "The issue was not what we [the 3 judge panel] would do or not do, because we were following precedent," she said. ... Leahy was first to ask about the "wise Latina" comment that has sparked so much controversy. ... Sotomayor backed away from perhaps the most damaging words that had been brought up since Obama nominated her seven weeks ago... She called the remark "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat." ... "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," Sotomayor said. "I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences." "

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2009 5:22:40 PM

It's hilarious that this guy, Jeff Sessions, was grilling Sotomayor today on her racial biases
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/14/sessions

Quote :

"Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is leading the charge against Sotomayor becoming the nation’s first Latina Supreme Court justice. Twenty-three years ago, the Senate rejected Sessions’ confirmation to the federal bench, in part because he called the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American” and “Communist-inspired."

Quote :

"For example, he called the KKK something he had once admired, except that he had learned that they were pot smokers. He used to say things that were jokes. He called a white civil rights lawyer a traitor to his race. He was said, during his confirmation hearings, to have called a black assistant attorney general—assistant attorney to the state of Alabama “boy” in a derogatory manner towards African Americans. After he failed to be appointed, he then led another voting rights investigation, which was again overturned in the early ’90s, when he was the attorney general of Alabama. He was again and again accused of looking into the voting fraud among blacks in the state but not among whites. He was accused of not looking into the church burnings that crossed the state of Alabama in the early ’90s. And all of these things led to a record which people have said, at best, was insensitive to race. In fact, Senator Kennedy, who was on the Judiciary Committee at the time, as now, said he was grossly insensitive to race and he should not have been appointed. So, this was the beginning of the problems for Sessions. And when I wrote the piece in 2002, we had just had a moment where Trent Lott had said that Strom Thurmond should have been more successful in his run for presidency in 1948, which, of course, was at the helm of a segregationist party. And it kind of cracked open what was left of segregationist Republican ideologies. And Sessions came up just behind Trent Lott as one of the more insensitive to race members of his party. "

but i guess it's ok to have racist bigots in Congress, as long as they were elected, presumably by a state full of other racist bigots

7/14/2009 8:19:40 PM

ha, nice

Quote :

"At his Senate confirmation hearing, Sam Alito used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making (video is here): "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" . . . . 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." Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined (.pdf) began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic. Did Alito's Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs? Has anyone raised that question? Given that he himself said that he "do[es] take that into account" -- and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent 6 straight hours today being accused by GOP Senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants -- why isn't that question being asked about Alito's vote in Ricci? Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing? Since he's obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him "sympathetic" so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor's ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn't everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP's alleged judicial principles?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/13/alito/

7/14/2009 11:53:39 PM

Jeff Sessions is a snake. I listened to him on C-SPAN at an initial press conference a month ago speaking very cordially about Sotomayor and how his staff was dedicated to reading her 3600-odd cases one by one, and then forming an informed judgment about her.

Now, presumably 3600 cases later, Sessions rails at her about the same 'wise latina' comment he knew about on day one. The tone of his questioning was that comment had settled his opinion about her.

Or, put another way: this isn't a confirmation hearing, it's political theatre, the Republicans see it as an advantage to get the same old talking points circulating about in the press. No surprises, but it's a pitiful display nonetheless. It'd be nice if for change a ranking member of a judiciary committee (of either party) could take his job seriously instead of playing for the cameras.

Surely there must be some real questions worth asking, that aren't in the 'playbook', since this woman will in all likelihood be confirmed and will have a tremendous amount of power. I think I'd rather hear her opinion on every amendment to the Constitution, in sequence, in excruciating depth, one by one, than listen to her prevaricate about a commencement speech.

Moreover the controversy is ridiculous. Everybody believes inherently that background matters, otherwise why pick a latina woman at all? Oh, ok, so Obama is playing identity politics -- boo hoo. Reagan got this train rolling when he made a _campaign promise_ to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court in 1980. And nominate a woman he did.

And frankly, I don't think it's identity politics, nor do I think Sotomayor is wrong to believe her background gives her superior judgment. Guess what? It's the very _definition_ of cultural pride to believe that your heritage makes you in some way superior. I think we're all a little hooked on feel-good melting-pot therapeutic diversity. That's bullshit. We can all live together, but that doesn't mean we all have to believe we're on equal footing with one another. To do so is the very essence of multi-cultural political correctness.

I expect a justice to respect the principle of equality under the law, not to respect the principle of innate equality of cultures.

7/15/2009 12:37:25 AM

Quote :

"Or, put another way: this isn't a confirmation hearing, it's political theatre"

yeah, I think I heard commentators on NPR say about 6 times today something along the lines of "We can all agree that it would be impossible to get perfectly rational robots on the Supreme Court, but we certainly could get robots to run these confirmation hearings to the same effect as they are run now"

7/15/2009 12:41:37 AM

^^^ lol

7/15/2009 2:02:16 AM

You want political theater? Try the Clarence Thomas hearings--during which Joe "Doofus" Biden, with help from his pals, solidified his reputation as an A-1 asshole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yfARRF9Co

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4RlAJX_Pdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k98Rsr2cZys

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

7/15/2009 3:32:40 AM

well to be fair, you sorta have to harp on a single point when the woman simply will not answer the question satisfactorily.

7/15/2009 9:09:49 AM

^^ huh? Biden was pretty respectful in those videos.

7/15/2009 10:38:14 AM