Sotomayor Discussion

[ClydeR]

All things Sotomayor.

I'll start the discussion with a question. Does it bother anybody else that if Sotomayor is confirmed -- a big if -- then there will be only one protestant on the court, even though the majority of Americans are protestants? And that one protestant is very old.

When I was in elementary school, we were taught over and over that it was the protestant ethic that spurred the spirit of capitalism in the United States and Europe. We seem to be getting away from that.

[Back]

Yeah I farted. Jealous?

[ClydeR]

John Yoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo), who did highly respected work while he was in the Bush Department of Justice, says that Obama nominated Sotomayor solely because she was an hispanic woman.


President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows that empathy has won out over excellence in the White House. Sotomayor has sterling credentials: Princeton, Yale Law School, former prosecutor, and federal trial and appellate judge. But credentials do not an excellent justice make. Justice Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, had an equally fine c.v., but turned out to be a weak force on the high court.

Obama had some truly outstanding legal intellectuals and judges to choose from—Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood come immediately to mind. The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

More... (http://blog.american.com/?p=1187)

[MrTastyHead]

The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race.

So they should have not chosen her because she is hispanic, then?

[Ravenstorm]

So they should have not chosen her because she is hispanic, then?

Didn't you know? Every appointment that isn't of a straight, white, Christian male is because of <fill in the minority>. It's reverse discrimination, that's what it is.

And no, no italics because that is so obviously fucking sarcasm that anyone who didn't realize that is a moron who should shoot themselves in the head so the collective IQ of humanity can go up.

[Keller]

Recap of conference call with the white house: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/sonia_sotomayor_call.php#more

[Gan]

John Yoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo), who did highly respected work while he was in the Bush Department of Justice, says that Obama nominated Sotomayor solely because she was an hispanic woman.

Same was said for Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP VP candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election (sans the hispanic part).

[ClydeR]

Same was said for Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP VP candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election (sans the hispanic part).

Yes, there was a poll in this forum, and we unanimously agreed that McCain picked her primarily because she was a woman. I don't remember any other poll where we all agreed unanimously on any issue. But after the nomination, she proved that she was worthy of being vice president, even president.

[ClydeR]

Questions about Judge Sotomayor’s health are undoubtedly going to come up as opponents search for any reason to question her fitness for the job. So the American Diabetes Association has done a pre-emptive move, coming out with a public statement today (here (http://www.diabetes.org/for-media/pr-sotamayor-nomination-5-26-09.jsp)) applauding the choice of Sotomayor, who has was diagnosed with diabetes as a child. The association says that she should be evaluated on her qualifications as a judge, not on stereotypes or “misinformation” about diabetes.

More... (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/should-sotomayors-diabetes-be-considered-in-the-nomination-process/)

I think inquiries into her health are perfectly acceptable. People inquired about McCain's health during the presidential election. If it's okay for Democrats to ask that question of presidential candidate, then it's okay for Republicans to ask the same question of a court nominee.

[ClydeR]

A lot of liberals are criticizing Senator Inhofe's statement about the Sotomayor nomination.


In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

More... (http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7e05dd04-802a-23ad-4a12-c10340b047af)

They say that Inhofe never asked any of the previous white male nominees if they would be unduly influenced by their race and gender. It's perfectly understandable that Inhofe never asked that question of white men because there's reverse discrimination against white men.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think inquiries into her health are perfectly acceptable. People inquired about McCain's health during the presidential election. If it's okay for Democrats to ask that question of presidential candidate, then it's okay for Republicans to ask the same question of a court nominee.

I doubt very many people in congress know the differences between the types of diabetes that exist, let along what it means to have IDDM, so they'll probably leave her health mainly alone. Unless they want to get wtfpwn'd asking things like, "You have diabetes, but you're at a normal weight. HOW?!"

[Parkbandit]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Sotomayor_s_Socialist_Yearbook_Quot.jpg

Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884—1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

Another Comrade to help bring about the change and hope we all need!! It's downright comical at this point.

[Lumi]

Yes, there was a poll in this forum, and we unanimously agreed that McCain picked her primarily because she was a woman. I don't remember any other poll where we all agreed unanimously on any issue. But after the nomination, she proved that she was worthy of being vice president, even president.

I just want a reminder that you said that. In case I ever forget why I think you're a massive waste of air and flesh.

[ElanthianSiren]

Palin sure made sure that I voted republican, dontchyaknow.

...or at the very least made sure that I cringed to vote at all last election.

[Keller]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Sotomayor_s_Socialist_Yearbook_Quot.jpg

Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884—1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

Another Comrade to help bring about the change and hope we all need!! It's downright comical at this point.

COLLEGE STUDENT HAS LIBERAL SYMPATHIES!!!!!1111 OH NO!

I agree that it is comical, but I think we're laughing at different things.

[Parkbandit]

I just want a reminder that you said that. In case I ever forget why I think you're a massive waste of air and flesh.


:rofl: @ u thinking ClydeR is anything more than a non-funny Colbert.

[Parkbandit]

COLLEGE STUDENT HAS LIBERAL SYMPATHIES!!!!!1111 OH NO!

I agree that it is comical, but I think we're laughing at different things.


Liberal /= Socialist

[Keller]

Liberal /= Socialist

Let me rephrase then:

COLLEGE STUDENT HAS SOCIALIST SYMPATHIES!!!!111 OH NO!!

You pussies (i.e. Republicans) can't have it both ways. You can't say, "colleges are bastions of socialism that teach our children the wrong things!" and then be surprised, shocked, and dismayed that a graduating student from the pinacle of undergrad Ivory Towers (i.e. Princeton) includes a quote from a socialist.

It's downright comical at this point. I'm not opining on whether she is qualified or not -- but I am just saying that breaking out her college yearbook to "prove" she's a socialist hand-selected by Obama to aid in the Obamshevik Revolution is absurd. Give me something within the last 20 years -- you know, the years when kids mature into adults.

[Parkbandit]

Let me rephrase then:

COLLEGE STUDENT HAS SOCIALIST SYMPATHIES!!!!111 OH NO!!

You pussies (i.e. Republicans) can't have it both ways. You can't say, "colleges are bastions of socialism that teach our children the wrong things!" and then be surprised, shocked, and dismayed that a graduating student from the pinacle of undergrad Ivory Towers (i.e. Princeton) includes a quote from a socialist.

It's downright comical at this point. I'm not opining on whether she is qualified or not -- but I am just saying that breaking out her college yearbook to "prove" she's a socialist hand-selected by Obama to aid in the Obamshevik Revolution is absurd. Give me something within the last 20 years -- you know, the years when kids mature into adults.

Given that logic, bring this back up when "you know" you mature from being a kid to an adult. I don't debate with children.

[Keller]

Given that logic, bring this back up when "you know" you mature from being a kid to an adult. I don't debate with children.

That's an awful lot of words to just say, "You're right, Keller."

[Parkbandit]

That's an awful lot of words to just say, "You're right, Keller."

Actually, it was an awful lot of words to just say, "You are an immature little prick, boy." I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough.

:)

[BriarFox]

Actually, it was an awful lot of words to just say, "You are an immature little prick, boy." I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough.

:)

Nice return to ad hominems to avoid addressing Keller's point about redundant outrage. I give you a tarnished silver trophy of an open-mouthed man with multiple stab wounds.

[Parkbandit]

Nice return to ad hominems to avoid addressing Keller's point about redundant outrage. I give you a tarnished silver trophy of an open-mouthed man with multiple stab wounds.


Obviously, the exchange was well above your intelligence level... had you followed the logic you probably wouldn't have posted.

But hey.. it's what we've come to expect from you, isn't it.

[Mikalmas]

Obviously, the exchange was well above your intelligence level... had you followed the logic you probably wouldn't have posted.

But hey.. it's what we've come to expect from you, isn't it.

Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you is obviously just not intelligent enough to understand, or they're a prick.

[BriarFox]

Obviously, the exchange was well above your intelligence level... had you followed the logic you probably wouldn't have posted.

But hey.. it's what we've come to expect from you, isn't it.

Actually, let me demonstrate what we've come to expect on the PC:

Person1 makes a good point.
ParkBandit disagrees, with minimal support.
Person1 reiterates initial point with further support and clarification.
ParkBandit insults Person1's mother, hygiene, and dog.
Person2 tells ParkBandit that he's being a jackass.
ParkBandit electronically pees on the tomb of Person2's father.
Person1 and Person2 throw up their hands in the air and move on.
ParkBandit hovers over the refresh button, waiting to erect a yet-higher edifice of incendiary epithets.
Time passes.

In case you needed clarification, we're now at the last two points.

[Lumi]

:rofl: @ u thinking ClydeR is anything more than a non-funny Colbert.

That's an awfully nice way of stating my opinion. :rofl: @ u for thinking I don't see him for exactly what he/she/it is.

The quote I selected was a gem, even by ClydeR standards.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm just wondering why nobody has asked yet when she admitted to being a socialist.

I can slap up a GWB quote like this one:
"Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens. But we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."

It doesn't make me a republican.

To be fair, I don't know if she ever admitted to being a socialist :shrug:

[Keller]

I'm just wondering why nobody has asked yet when she admitted to being a socialist.

I can slap up a GWB quote like this one:
"Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens. But we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."

It doesn't make me a republican.

To be fair, I don't know if she ever admitted to being a socialist :shrug:

I don't know of anyone who has claimed she admitted to being a socialist.

[ElanthianSiren]

Then I'm misunderstanding what the big deal is and this:


Liberal /= Socialist

in response to you.

If she's not a socialist, why do we care that she found a socialist quote inspiring?

[Parkbandit]

Actually, let me demonstrate what we've come to expect on the PC:

Person1 makes a good point.
ParkBandit disagrees, with minimal support.
Person1 reiterates initial point with further support and clarification.
ParkBandit insults Person1's mother, hygiene, and dog.
Person2 tells ParkBandit that he's being a jackass.
ParkBandit electronically pees on the tomb of Person2's father.
Person1 and Person2 throw up their hands in the air and move on.
ParkBandit hovers over the refresh button, waiting to erect a yet-higher edifice of incendiary epithets.
Time passes.

In case you needed clarification, we're now at the last two points.


I'm sorry once again that you simply didn't grasp Keller's and my back and forth. Here.. out of the kindness of my big ol' heart, I'm going to dumb it down so even someone with your limited intellectual capacity MIGHT be able to understand. Please follow along:

PB: Sonya's a socialist
Keller: Big deal, she was in college. Every kid in college is a socialist. You don't become an adult until you hit 35+.
PB: Fine, then let's have this discussion when you are an adult
Keller: Curse you for turning that around on me!!!

[Parkbandit]

Then I'm misunderstanding what the big deal is and this:

in response to you.

If she's not a socialist, why do we care that she found a socialist quote inspiring?

Obviously, you don't. To me, it shows a pattern that Obama is surrounding himself with socialists, driving an agenda.

Then again, I'm not socialist leaning.. so it's a road I'd rather this country not travel down.

[Keller]

Then I'm misunderstanding what the big deal is and this:



in response to you.

If she's not a socialist, why do we care that she found a socialist quote inspiring?

I said she had liberal sympathies. PB objected to me calling a socialist a liberal, so instead of arguing with him (which we all know turns bad quickly), I just rephrased the sentence.

[ElanthianSiren]

Obviously, you don't. To me, it shows a pattern that Obama is surrounding himself with socialists, driving an agenda.

Then again, I'm not socialist leaning.. so it's a road I'd rather this country not travel down.

Socialist leaning influences in a democratic republic don't trouble me, no, but I can understand where you're coming from. I felt the same way regarding Alito's proud membership in the CAoPU and his consideration for SCOTUS.

[Parkbandit]

Good news is.. she's guaranteed to be confirmed. HOPEFULLY, they will drag it out over the summer so the current SCOTUS has to reject her ridiculus ruling regarding the reverse racism case. That should be fun to watch.. and when it's overturned, her ratio of cases being overturned by SCOTUS will be at 66.6% which clearly should show people that Obama is the Anti-Christ.

[Mikalmas]

That's a little unfair and misleading to say 60% of her rulings have been overturned. She has issued over 380 rulings on the bench, 5 of which made it to the SCOTUS. Three of 5 were overturned, for the 60% you're quoting; however, considering ALL her rulings, 0.79% of her decisions have been overruled by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the "average" of the SCOTUS overturning cases nationwide is higher than 60% (with the national average in the 04-05 court session being 73%): http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016


Without arguing the merits for or against her confirmation, the facts are the facts.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah ... We live in a growing socialist republic...

Of my butt.

[ClydeR]

Rush Limbaugh said the nomination of Sotomayor was reverse racism.


So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. 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.

More... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/26/limbaugh_obama_sotomayor_are_reverse_racists.html)

[Ignot]

Actually, let me demonstrate what we've come to expect on the PC:

Person1 makes a good point.
ParkBandit disagrees, with minimal support.
Person1 reiterates initial point with further support and clarification.
ParkBandit insults Person1's mother, hygiene, and dog.
Person2 tells ParkBandit that he's being a jackass.
ParkBandit electronically pees on the tomb of Person2's father.
Person1 and Person2 throw up their hands in the air and move on.
ParkBandit hovers over the refresh button, waiting to erect a yet-higher edifice of incendiary epithets.
Time passes.

In case you needed clarification, we're now at the last two points.

You forget to mention the part where he insults someone's intelligence because he is insecure about his own. I think it usually happens after insults to mother, hygiene, and dog but before peeing on tomb,

[Stanley Burrell]

Rush Limbaugh said the nomination of Sotomayor was reverse racism.

Say it ain't so!

[Apotheosis]

I'm actually not terribly opposed to Sotomayor... frankly, I'm pretty sure most of her "radicalism" is being taken out of context..

in addition, one can never tell how a Supreme Court Nominee will rule based on past Judgement... she might be a sleeper conservative... we never know

[ClydeR]

Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.

More... (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

I've noticed before that Obama pronounces words like foreigners would. Like Pakistan. It's pak'-uh-stan, but he calls it pok'-ee-ston, which is very Unamerican. And he pronounces Sotomayor so-toe-my-or', when a normal American would say so-toe-my'-er or even sot'-uh-may'-er.

I hope the Republicans won't stand for Unamerican pronunciations in the confirmation hearings.

[Stanley Burrell]

el oh el

[Keller]

We should just call her Sonya from the Block and avoid mingling Sonya Sotomayer and any iteration of the letters t-h-o-n-g in the same sentence, please.

[radamanthys]

Obama had better choices. Why did he pick her? Her only other qualification- as opposed to the better choices- was her race.

Differentiation in consideration of a human being solely due to race is racism, flat out.

There are certain roles in the world that should not suffer the quality penalty that is inherent within affirmative action. SCOTUS should be above that. Justice is blind, you know? Brown vs. Board was a bunch of white guys- don't think that just because there's no representation that it immediately means OMG RACIST.

Us whites are not all racists, you know. I'm against racism- in every form. I'm all for merit. Which is why, to some degree, I find this appointment distasteful.

[Stanley Burrell]

And more importantly, who/what/when/where/why/how in the fuck did Clarence Thomas get scooped up?

[radamanthys]

And more importantly, who/what/when/where/why/how in the fuck did Clarence Thomas get scooped up?

*shrug*

[Keller]

Obama had better choices.

Who?

And why?

[TheWitch]

Obama had better choices. Why did he pick her? Her only other qualification- as opposed to the better choices- was her race.

Differentiation in consideration of a human being solely due to race is racism, flat out.

There are certain roles in the world that should not suffer the quality penalty that is inherent within affirmative action. SCOTUS should be above that. Justice is blind, you know? Brown vs. Board was a bunch of white guys- don't think that just because there's no representation that it immediately means OMG RACIST.

Us whites are not all racists, you know. I'm against racism- in every form. I'm all for merit. Which is why, to some degree, I find this appointment distasteful.

Well said.

It's ironic, too, that questioning her abilities as a jurist, and therefore fitness to serve FOR LIFE on the Supreme Court, will only produce squeals of racism - from the very same people supporting the racism that led to her appointment in the first place.

And here in my home state, we have our senior Senator threatening the opposition. "They will block this at their own peril."

Yes, that's the team spirit.

I've already written him about this, not that I'm kidding myself into thinking it will matter, but I fell better for having done it.

[Mikalmas]

Obama had better choices. Why did he pick her? Her only other qualification- as opposed to the better choices- was her race.

Differentiation in consideration of a human being solely due to race is racism, flat out.

Us whites are not all racists, you know. I'm against racism- in every form. I'm all for merit. Which is why, to some degree, I find this appointment distasteful.

Curious...who do you consider "better choices," and why?

She graduated at the top of her class from Princeton and Yale Universities, two of our nation's best and most prestigious institutions of higher learning. She was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. She was a prosecutor in the New York District Attorneys Office. She was a private practice attorney. She served 6 years on the US District Court (appointed by George HW Bush) and Eleven years on the US Court Of Appeals (Appointed by Clinton to the second highest court in the Country) for eleven years.

How much more qualified can a person get?

[Warriorbird]

Certainly more qualified than a certain nominee with the first name Harriet.

[Jorddyn]

It's downright comical at this point.

Yes, yes it is.

[Parkbandit]

That's a little unfair and misleading to say 60% of her rulings have been overturned. She has issued over 380 rulings on the bench, 5 of which made it to the SCOTUS. Three of 5 were overturned, for the 60% you're quoting; however, considering ALL her rulings, 0.79% of her decisions have been overruled by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the "average" of the SCOTUS overturning cases nationwide is higher than 60% (with the national average in the 04-05 court session being 73%): http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016


Without arguing the merits for or against her confirmation, the facts are the facts.

Show me where I said 60% of her rulings have been overturned? You say I'm being a little unfair and misleading, when in fact it's you. Here's my post.. the same one you quoted. I'll bold the part that you clearly missed (or just chose to blissfully ignore):


Good news is.. she's guaranteed to be confirmed. HOPEFULLY, they will drag it out over the summer so the current SCOTUS has to reject her ridiculus ruling regarding the reverse racism case. That should be fun to watch.. and when it's overturned, her ratio of cases being overturned by SCOTUS will be at 66.6% which clearly should show people that Obama is the Anti-Christ.

[Parkbandit]

You forget to mention the part where he insults someone's intelligence because he is insecure about his own. I think it usually happens after insults to mother, hygiene, and dog but before peeing on tomb,

I've never insulted your intelligence because I am insecure about my own.. I've insulted your intelligence because you yet again have zero to add to any political thread.

[Parkbandit]

I'm actually not terribly opposed to Sotomayor... frankly, I'm pretty sure most of her "radicalism" is being taken out of context..

in addition, one can never tell how a Supreme Court Nominee will rule based on past Judgement... she might be a sleeper conservative... we never know

What exactly in her 300+ case rulings makes you think she might somehow be conservative?

[Latrinsorm]

What exactly in her 300+ case rulings makes you think she might somehow be conservative?It would defeat the purpose of being a sleeper to let on before she got to the SC, wouldn't it?

[Keller]

Show me where I said 60% of her rulings have been overturned? You say I'm being a little unfair and misleading, when in fact it's you. Here's my post.. the same one you quoted. I'll bold the part that you clearly missed (or just chose to blissfully ignore):

So 99.21% of her cases have not been overturned by SCOTUS.

I think that clearly shows that her opinions are clearly reasoned and within the bounds of established precedent.

[Parkbandit]

So 99.21% of her cases have not been overturned by SCOTUS.

I think that clearly shows that her opinions are clearly reasoned and within the bounds of established precedent.

99.21% of her cases weren't heard by SCOTUS. I'm surprised this is confusing to you.

[Jorddyn]

99.21% of her cases weren't heard by SCOTUS. I'm surprised this is confusing to you.

Which means that they weren't appealed to that level, or that they were and SCOTUS refused to hear them. Cases overturned by the Supreme Court versus total cases or cases heard by the Supreme court versus total cases is a much more telling metric than cases overturned by the Supreme Court versus cases heard by the Supreme Court.

[Keller]

99.21% of her cases weren't heard by SCOTUS. I'm surprised this is confusing to you.

There are two categories:

(1) Cases overturned by SCOTUS
(2) Cases not overturned by SCOTUS

As it is impossible to have a case overturned by SCOTUS that is not heard by SCOTUS, I will take it that you understand that cases not heard but SCOTUS are also not overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm glad you agree with me.

[Apotheosis]

What exactly in her 300+ case rulings makes you think she might somehow be conservative?

She upheld a ban on federal funding of abortions.

[Jorddyn]

There are two categories:

(1) Cases overturned by SCOTUS
(2) Cases not overturned by SCOTUS

As it is impossible to have a case overturned by SCOTUS that is not heard by SCOTUS, I will take it that you understand that cases not heard but SCOTUS are also not overturned by SCOTUS.


Is it just me, or does SCOTUS just seem like a dirty word?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Is it just me, or does SCOTUS just seem like a dirty word?

"I told him I'd even do that tongue-thing that he likes so much to his scotus."

[Xaerve]

Can someone remind me again how the FUCK Keller passed the bar exam?!

[Kembal]

Show me where I said 60% of her rulings have been overturned? You say I'm being a little unfair and misleading, when in fact it's you. Here's my post.. the same one you quoted. I'll bold the part that you clearly missed (or just chose to blissfully ignore):

You know, based on your quote, the math makes it obvious.

She's had 5 cases heard by the Supreme Court. 3 have been overturned. That'd be 60%.

If her opinion were to be overturned in the New Haven case, that'd be 4 out of 6, or 66.6%.

Even then if one ignores whether that's the best metric to use or not, it's still a better record than overall. The overall reversal rate is 75% in the past few years. Here's a link: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/some_thoughts_o.html

[Parkbandit]

.....

Clearly you missed the 666 reference to the Anti-Christ.

So many dumb fucking people on this forum.

[Kembal]

.....

Clearly you missed the 666 reference to the Anti-Christ.

So many dumb fucking people on this forum.

I took it as a throwaway aside considering your views on religion and assumed you were trying to make a serious point about the reversal rate being high.

I mean, that'd be the point of bolding the words "her ratio of cases overturned by SCOTUS" and the percentage number in your reply to Mikalmas. As opposed, say, to bolding the words "Obama is the Anti-Christ" if that was the sarcastic takeaway from your post.

[Parkbandit]

I took it as a throwaway aside considering your views on religion and assumed you were trying to make a serious point about the reversal rate being high.

I mean, that'd be the point of bolding the words "her ratio of cases overturned by SCOTUS" and the percentage number in your reply to Mikalmas. As opposed, say, to bolding the words "Obama is the Anti-Christ" if that was the sarcastic takeaway from your post.

I should have bolded them.. for the humor impaired. My bad.

Back on topic... sure didn't take the White House long to accuse people questioning Sotomayor's record of being racists.. much like I said they would when the annoucement was made.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.

He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

Read more: "White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23016.html#ixzz0GlSRgqUw&A

Gingrich was responding to a quote from Sotomayor "“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 wonder if there would be any problem with a white guy saying "“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 latino woman who hasn’t lived that life,”

I keep forgetting that it's only racism if a white guy says it.. curse those rules!

[Ravenstorm]

Gingrich was responding to a quote from Sotomayor "“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 wonder if there would be any problem with a white guy saying "“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 latino woman who hasn’t lived that life,”

I keep forgetting that it's only racism if a white guy says it.. curse those rules!

I realize it's against GOP policy to actually do more than just parrot back talking points, but you might want to read the full speech that quote comes from. It's amazing how context changes things.

[Ravenstorm]

Edit: I'll even help by supplying a link (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-wrongly-claim-sotomayor-said-latinas-are-better-than-white-men/) to explain your... I'll be kind and call it an error. There's a link to the entire speech on that page.

[Ignot]

So many dumb fucking people on this forum.

Seriously and I'm not trying to be a dick but I think it might be helpful for you if you just took a week off from looking at the PC. I think you are heavily obsessed with this message board and it isn't healthy. Just try it and when you come back maybe you will be less irritable.

[Mabus]

While I find a few of her comments troubling I am in support of advancing the nomination and seeing her become a justice. Barring some bombshell or revelation of sincere sinister content I doubt I will change my mind. Elections have consequences.

I do find it humorous that this "post racial" president would pick a nominee based even partially on race. Politics trump all else for him.

"They sensed what I’d come to know from a lifetime of experience: that whatever preconceived notions white Americans may continue to hold, the overwhelming majority of them these days are able—if given the time—to look beyond race in making their judgments of people." -Obama

Way "to look beyond race in making" "judgments of people", fella.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously and I'm not trying to be a dick

http://alexsah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/epicze4.jpg

[Keller]

Obama had better choices.

Who and why?

[TheWitch]

Among those under consideration are California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood. MSNBC.com

There's the who.

As to why any of the other five would have been a better pick than Sotomayor, as far as I'm concerned, isn't even the point.

Unless they've all ruled in favor of racial discrimination.
In which case, she's just as good a pick as any, I suppose.

[Keller]

There's the who.

As to why any of the other five would have been a better pick than Sotomayor, as far as I'm concerned, isn't even the point.

Unless they've all ruled in favor of racial discrimination.
In which case, she's just as good a pick as any, I suppose.

So as long as there are other human beings in the world, then Sotomayor was selected due to race?

[TheWitch]

So as long as there are other human beings in the world, then Sotomayor was selected due to race?

How on earth did you get that from what I posted?

Wow.

[Keller]

How on earth did you get that from what I posted?

Wow.

I asked who was better than Sotomayor and you just cut and paste a list of people you know very little about.

When responding to Why, you said Why (someone is a better appointee than Sotomayor) is not even the issue.

[Gan]

Actually she eluded to the idea that anyone of the above mentioned would be better if they had not made a questionable ruling based on racial discrimination (Firefighter case).

You'll have to excuse Keller, his perception of what other people say is somewhat skewed. Oh, and he thinks he's always right, most of the time.

:lol:

[Keller]

Actually she eluded to the idea that anyone of the above mentioned would be better if they had not made a questionable ruling based on racial discrimination (Firefighter case).

You'll have to excuse Keller, his perception of what other people say is somewhat skewed. Oh, and he thinks he's always right, most of the time.

:lol:

What was the ruling that the 2nd circuit panel made?

[Gan]

Why do I care?

[Keller]

Why do I care?

You'd like to be informed.

[Parkbandit]

Fact: Sotomayor will get confirmed.

Fact: She's taking the seat of someone with the same political leaning. It's a wash.

Fact: It could have been much worse for conservatives and no chance of much better.

Fact: Republicans will cower down to the threat of Democrats calling them racists and vote for her passage.

Like I stated early on.. Obama could pretty much nominate anyone he wanted to and they would get confirmed. Put her through the confirmation and let's move on.. there are far more important things to be worrying about right now.

[ElanthianSiren]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Among those under consideration are California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood. MSNBC.com

There's the who.

As to why any of the other five would have been a better pick than Sotomayor, as far as I'm concerned, isn't even the point.

Unless they've all ruled in favor of racial discrimination.
In which case, she's just as good a pick as any, I suppose.


Having lived in Michigan under Granholm, the idea of the Senate trying to confirm her scares the hell out of me.


I feel most likely that the DeVos/Amway folks, still pissy about 2006, would see to it that the confirmation process was as long, drawn out, and tedious as possible, knowing full well she'd be confirmed anyway. I feel this way because around 2005, the same people started sending me unsolicited review letters about how horrid Granholm is, due to my having attended a school they helped found. I don't need to hear about how often Granholm picked her nose while in office and how it's a public health hazard that she'd bring to the SCOTUS! For the record, yes, I did note the address was spam and block it.

Most importantly, however, Granholm's never been a judge. That makes me a little uneasy, despite the law experience she does have. To me, it'd be like promoting someone to neurosurgeon when they'd only just completed the prereqs for med school. I opposed the Meyers nomination for the same reason, among other things. The lack of written opinions doesn't allow Congress or the American public to draw conclusion about a candidate's legal foundation.

Short recap: I don't feel she'd be a better candidate. I confess to not being well informed about the others that you listed.

[ClydeR]

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, who is widely regarded as one of the biggest political geniuses in the United States today, said that it is okay for Republicans to continue to attack Sotomayor.


The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court?

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347199490860831.html)

[ClydeR]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called President Obama's choice for the U.S. Supreme Court a racist, suggesting on his Twitter feed that her comments on being a Latina woman should force her to withdraw from consideration.

The Republican made two comments Wednesday afternoon about Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the 344,548 followers on his feed.

More... (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/gingrich-condemns-court-pick-racist/)

That's even stronger than what Rush Limbaugh said. Rush said Sotomayor was a "reverse racist."

[ClydeR]

Do we really want a judge on the Supreme Court who eats pig feet? Aren't Republicans correct to suggest that he diet might affect her court decisions? And doesn't it bother you that she was speaking a foreign language?


Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.”

This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.

More... (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/critics-focus-on-sotomayor-speech-in-la-raza-journal-2009-05-27.html)

Republicans need to stop this nominee.

[Mabus]

That's even stronger than what Rush Limbaugh said. Rush said Sotomayor was a "reverse racist."
I wonder why I even respond to a puppet, but you are incorrect. Limabugh did call her a racist:

“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,”

That is one quote. He also called her a "hack".
Rush Limbaugh: Sonia Sotomayor a 'reverse racist,' 'hack' - Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22983.html)

To state that one race would be better then another race does have racist overtones.

Did she make a public racist comment? Yes, in my estimation.

If we take her comment and switch the places of "white male" and "Latina woman" and have it said by a white male it would be considered racist. That is the test I applied.

Does this, or her "make policy" quote, disqualify her? No. They are troubling, but not disqualifying. She has the education, experience and ability to sit on the court. I agree with the other posters that have stated it would be best to get this done quickly and cleanly.

[TheWitch]

Short recap: I don't feel she'd be a better candidate. I confess to not being well informed about the others that you listed.

And to be completely honest, I'm not either.

I'm not going to latch onto to Sotomayor's statements about "being in a better position to judge than a white man because she's Latina", because that was taken out of context. I would suggest a little more savvy in the future while in the speech writing process, however, to avoid leaving huge doors open like that.

Gan got the point of that other post, though.

This is the most succinct overview of that situation I could find.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/

That should have been enough to remove her from consideration, IMO.

[Warriorbird]

The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along.

Noteworthy portion often neglected.

[Mikalmas]

I'm not sure I see your reasoning for saying that article should have disqualified her. She was one judge of a three judge panel who issued the ruling. Furthermore, the whole circuit, by a vote of 7 to 6, voted to NOT hear the case as a whole. So 7 out of 13 judges were involved in that decision. I'm not sure I follow why everyone acts as if she single-handedly handed down that ruling.

I also don't get why a person's ability to perform a job should be based on a written test. I think it was silly in the first place for New Haven to use that as its testing rather than some merit-based system where people's actual job performances were factored in. The right seems to be all gung-ho for "earning what you get", after all. It was a poor decision to use some written test to determine promotions just as it was a poor decision for the 2nd circuit (as a whole circuit, because they were ultimately all involved) to not elaborate on their ruling (though they did say they upheld the written decision of the lower court).

[Keller]

Here is a link to the opinion upon which the 3 judge panel, including Sotomayor, unanimously issued a per curium opinion: http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/file/ricciusdc.pdf

I'm curious whether you are advocating (1) that the analysis in that opinion is incorrect or (2) that the 2nd circuit should overturn Title VII.

[TheWitch]

Here is a link to the opinion upon which the 3 judge panel, including Sotomayor, unanimously issued a per curium opinion: http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/file/ricciusdc.pdf

I'm curious whether you are advocating (1) that the analysis in that opinion is incorrect or (2) that the 2nd circuit should overturn Title VII.

I read the opinion, and was promptly reminded why just taking the LSAT was enough reason for me to NOT go to law school. Even my prodigious efforts at run-on sentences, double negatives and propensity for the use of fifty cent words where the nickle version would have sufficed nicely cannot hold a candle to the skill necessary in such in the legal profession.

In a word, I disagree with the opinion.

[Methais]

Fact: Republicans will cower down to the threat of Democrats calling them racists and vote for her passage.

Maybe they should (they probably already did, I haven't been keeping up this week) label her as the racist, since she likes to talk about how latina women make better judges than white males.

Then there's the whole "The court of appeals is where policy is made....doh I shouldn't be saying that on camera, har har har." thing that I'm sure everyone's too chicken shit to bring up too, even if it would be useless.

[radamanthys]

Basically, other judges wouldn't make the considerations she would.

For her, she's inherently Latino first, a judge second. She's certainly proven this over the years with her advocacy towards her demographic. The means behind her nomination was based upon her history and heritage. Her law qualifications don't mean jack shit. Her considerations will be biased. I expect a judge to be radamanthine (adj.- Strictly and uncompromisingly just.) in her jurisprudence. I don't want compassion, I don't want nice. I want strict. Just. Fair. Impartial. Blind.

She's a democrat, a Latino, and would make a very capable politician and advocate for her community. I would respect her, she deserves that; A SCOTUS appointment she does not.

[Warriorbird]

How many of her opinions have you read or have you just gone off right wing stuff sourced as well as PB's last article?

Reading agitprop about her Title 7 decision is only going to make you feel one way.

Was Bush a Christian first and a President second because he said he prayed to God before every foreign policy decision? I was no fan of Bush but I still thought he was President.

She was not the one I would have chosen first... but she's certainly not Harriet Myers level.

[Latrinsorm]

I expect a judge to be radamanthine (adj.- Strictly and uncompromisingly just.) in her jurisprudence. I don't want compassion, I don't want nice. I want strict. Just. Fair. Impartial. Blind.I want natural perfectly pink toenails, but wanting something doesn't make it possible. Humans suck at being just and impartial, but humans can be really good at being compassionate; do you want 100% of nothing or 20% of something?

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. You're lucky, Rad. I'm sure Latrin could've gone in on a Socratic tangent asking what 'just' is and how exactly you're so 'just'.

[radamanthys]

Compassion is one-sided in the legal field. Compassion towards one is unfair to the other.

Do you see my point, though? And the nature of my concern?

[Parkbandit]

I want natural perfectly pink toenails, but wanting something doesn't make it possible. Humans suck at being just and impartial, but humans can be really good at being compassionate; do you want 100% of nothing or 20% of something?

What the fuck? Humans can be trained to be impartial and just.. and to keep their personal feelings away from their decisions. I don't want a judge that has empathy or is compassionate.. that isn't their role. Their role is to interpret the law and make a decision based upon that law.. not to base their opinion on how they feel on that fucking day.

[Parkbandit]

Compassion is one-sided in the legal field. Compassion towards one is unfair to the other.

Do you see my point, though? And the nature of my concern?

You are correct.. don't let the hippies fuck with you.

[radamanthys]

http://www.lobalized.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/a226_p2.jpg

Welcome to New America.

[Methais]

How many of her opinions have you read or have you just gone off right wing stuff sourced as well as PB's last article?

All I really know about her other than what she said (like "court of appeals is where policy is made....", hispanic women make better judgements than white men, etc.) is that she threw out the recent case with the firemen promotion thing, where nobody got a promotion because no blacks passed the test. Though I don't doubt that if she could have gotten away with it, she would have heard the case for just the latino guy and dismissed the rest.

Maybe I'm crazy for thinking a judge should put the law first and their beliefs second when ruling on cases.

Know who we really need in the supreme court? Harry Stone:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/435495203_e739a405df.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Do you see my point, though? And the nature of my concern?Oh yes, please don't feel that I was trying to trivialize your concerns (if it wasn't clear, toenail polish is serious fucking business for me). I just wanted to urge you to be practical.

Also, as in the case of the term "progressive", I suggest an alternative definition of compassion, or to be more precise an alternative target: it can be the case that a person is compassionate towards humanity itself rather than one or the other side of it. I get this tenor from President Obama's statements, whether this lady truly demonstrates this sort of compassion is beyond my observational powers.
Humans can be trained to be impartial and just.. and to keep their personal feelings away from their decisions.They can be certainly trained to believe that, but you can train people to believe just about anything.

Does this feel ultra bizarro to anyone else?

[Warriorbird]

Thing is, Rad... folks like you and Parkbandit get these ideas fed to you where these notions of 'just and unjust' are direct and simple. Few appeals court cases are. Almost no Supreme Court cases are.

The way that most Republicans have identified this nominee is through a few quotes, mostly out of context, and a case in which she could arguably be termed to NOT have legislated from the bench by NOT overturning existing law.

[radamanthys]

Thing is, Rad... folks like you and Parkbandit get these ideas fed to you where these notions of 'just and unjust' are direct and simple. Few appeals court cases are. Almost no Supreme Court cases are.

The way that most Republicans have identified this nominee is through a few quotes, mostly out of context, and a case in which she could arguably be termed to NOT have legislated from the bench by NOT overturning existing law.

I don't listen to Rush, I don't watch O'Reilly, I don't read Drudge. I don't feed from the trough, as you so eloquently posed the metaphor. I hear the news, and I make a judgment. I hate pundits. I hate politicians.

And Latrin- a semantic shift won't help here. Neither will a good coat of pearl red. hehe.

There's a clear divide between fair and compassionate. Fair is the guy who saves the bus full of felons and dooms his grandmother. Compassionate is the judge who has a heart; Who feels pain at the sight of a crying child and alters their decision based upon their emotions. I want a judge who can look at a dismembered corpse of a puppy and say with a straight face: "sorry, the law is constitutionally sound".

Further, if you're looking for compassionate towards humanity, don't choose this candidate: she's biased towards the minority demographics, particularly her own. This is a popular mindset these days, but it's counter-productive. We need someone closer to un-biased. Why are people hounding her with claims of racism? Think: if someone touted the white-team as much as she does her own demographic? Her counterpart on the other side of the bais-line would be a klansman.

Let me remind you all: the person's race doesn't mean jack-all about their ability to advocate and make fair decisions. The Warren court in '54 for Brown vs Board was a bunch of old white guys. Not that it should be all old white guys- it's not relevant. They just need impartiality and an extremely solid knowledge of the law. Both qualities above all else. Rags to riches story? Blow. Minority? Blow. They don't matter. They're actively irrelevant.

And not for nothing, but she's also highly politically biased. She's a politician, not a judge. It'd be like giving Pat Robertson a SCOTUS seat. It's silly.

[TheWitch]

One thing that struck me (again) while reading the opinion on the firefighter case:

As a member of one of the classes originally defined as "protected" in Title VII (women), I'm patently offended by the idea that if 80% of women can't pass a test, then there's something wrong with the test. For two reasons.

Why isn't there something wrong with me, that led to me failing? Why is the presumption automatically that there was bias against me (women) when writing the test? What if I and nine of my friends who were also taking the test stupidly went girls night out the night before and drank 50 gallons of mango margarita and showed up still half blasted and all failed? And only 5 other women were taking the test, making the failure rate of women 66%, below the standard. Somehow it's the test writers and administrators fault we failed?

In the firefighter case opinion, it read to me like the plaintiff(s) had spent considerable time, effort and money preparing for the exam - and passed. The firefighters that failed claimed to have no access to the prep information, none of the stuff was in the firehouse, etc. And it is somehow the tests fault they chose not to make the effort to pass? Disgusting.

I'm also insulted by the idea that I shouldn't be expected to perform to the same standard as other groups, without the bar being lowered. The implication to me is the "protected" class is too stupid to perform to the standard of the white male (presumably the devil at this point) so therefore instead of trying to improve their performance, the standard should be lowered and they should be given special treatment, because women/blacks/etc. simply cannot be expected to achieve at the level of a white male. Isn't that inherently flawed, and racist, in itself?

[Gan]

fuck whitey

[Warriorbird]

One thing that struck me (again) while reading the opinion on the firefighter case:

As a member of one of the classes originally defined as "protected" in Title VII (women), I'm patently offended by the idea that if 80% of women can't pass a test, then there's something wrong with the test. For two reasons.

Why isn't there something wrong with me, that led to me failing? Why is the presumption automatically that there was bias against me (women) when writing the test? What if I and nine of my friends who were also taking the test stupidly went girls night out the night before and drank 50 gallons of mango margarita and showed up still half blasted and all failed? And only 5 other women were taking the test, making the failure rate of women 66%, below the standard. Somehow it's the test writers and administrators fault we failed?

In the firefighter case opinion, it read to me like the plaintiff(s) had spent considerable time, effort and money preparing for the exam - and passed. The firefighters that failed claimed to have no access to the prep information, none of the stuff was in the firehouse, etc. And it is somehow the tests fault they chose not to make the effort to pass? Disgusting.

I'm also insulted by the idea that I shouldn't be expected to perform to the same standard as other groups, without the bar being lowered. The implication to me is the "protected" class is too stupid to perform to the standard of the white male (presumably the devil at this point) so therefore instead of trying to improve their performance, the standard should be lowered and they should be given special treatment, because women/blacks/etc. simply cannot be expected to achieve at the level of a white male. Isn't that inherently flawed, and racist, in itself?

The issue isn't so much the stupidity of the situation... but whether a town being stupid should result in the immediate overturning of Title VII.

I think the job of overturning it should probably fall to the legislature.

[Parkbandit]

Thing is, Rad... folks like you and Parkbandit get these ideas fed to you where these notions of 'just and unjust' are direct and simple. Few appeals court cases are. Almost no Supreme Court cases are.

The way that most Republicans have identified this nominee is through a few quotes, mostly out of context, and a case in which she could arguably be termed to NOT have legislated from the bench by NOT overturning existing law.

Thing is, WB... folks like you and Latrinsorm get these ideas fed to you where these notions of 'just and unjust' are impossible and you have to rely on your feelings of who whitey is trying keeping down to really get to what is right and wrong.

The way that most Democrats have identified this nominee is because she has a great American life story. Add to the fact that The One nominated her and you have a recipe for the perfect judge. It just FEELS right! Sure she has said some wacky things, but Clarance Thomas is a big dumb idiot who got through.. we should be able to get Sonya through as well.

[Parkbandit]

Does this feel ultra bizarro to anyone else?

Oh, it's always ultra bizarro when you post.

[Keller]

The issue isn't so much the stupidity of the situation... but whether a town being stupid should result in the immediate overturning of Title VII.

I think the job of overturning it should probably fall to the legislature.

Pretty much.

[Warriorbird]

Thing is, WB... folks like you and Latrinsorm get these ideas fed to you where these notions of 'just and unjust' are impossible and you have to rely on your feelings of who whitey is trying keeping down to really get to what is right and wrong.

The way that most Democrats have identified this nominee is because she has a great American life story. Add to the fact that The One nominated her and you have a recipe for the perfect judge. It just FEELS right! Sure she has said some wacky things, but Clarance Thomas is a big dumb idiot who got through.. we should be able to get Sonya through as well.

Not so much. She's more experienced than Harriet Myers was. She's got a relatively solid judicial record. I was bothered by the firefighter case as well until I had it explained by far better legal minds than mine.

[TheWitch]

The issue isn't so much the stupidity of the situation... but whether a town being stupid should result in the immediate overturning of Title VII.

I think the job of overturning it should probably fall to the legislature.

Title VII was passed in 1964, and has been amended since, but largely reads in a very antiquated way versus where we are as a country now.

While I don't for a second believe that racism/sexism/etc. no longer exist, I think the issues are certainly different now than they were 45 years ago, or even ~30 years ago when some key amendments were added.

This business of enforcing Title VII has in reality become insulting to the very people it seeks to protect, and it appears it can be used to somehow justify reverse discrimination.

Maybe it is time to shake its foundations, and revisit its protections in a way that refects the "protected" classes as being truly equal, not just equal in lip service.

[Keller]

Title VII was passed in 1964, and has been amended since, but largely reads in a very antiquated way versus where we are as a country now.

While I don't for a second believe that racism/sexism/etc. no longer exist, I think the issues are certainly different now than they were 45 years ago, or even ~30 years ago when some key amendments were added.

This business of enforcing Title VII has in reality become insulting to the very people it seeks to protect, and it appears it can be used to somehow justify reverse discrimination.

Maybe it is time to shake its foundations, and revisit its protections in a way that refects the "protected" classes as being truly equal, not just equal in lip service.

Are you saying the 3-judge panel should have ruled in a manner inconsistent with the law?

[TheWitch]

Are you saying the 3-judge panel should have ruled in a manner inconsistent with the law?

Honestly, Keller, I didn't make it far enough into the study of law to say whether that's what I'm suggesting or not, since I don't really know if that's within their perview to do. From my vague recollections from undergrad Con Law classes, it is but I'm really not sure.

What I do know is that I've always been made uncomfortable by Title VII, for the reasons I've already stated.

[Keller]

Honestly, Keller, I didn't make it far enough into the study of law to say whether that's what I'm suggesting or not, since I don't really know if that's within their perview to do. From my vague recollections from undergrad Con Law classes, it is but I'm really not sure.

What I do know is that I've always been made uncomfortable by Title VII, for the reasons I've already stated.

I definitely see why you're uncomfortable with Title VII.

I just don't think that upholding the law as it is written should disqualify a judge from SCOTUS.

[Lumi]

I'm also insulted by the idea that I shouldn't be expected to perform to the same standard as other groups, without the bar being lowered. The implication to me is the "protected" class is too stupid to perform to the standard of the white male (presumably the devil at this point) so therefore instead of trying to improve their performance, the standard should be lowered and they should be given special treatment, because women/blacks/etc. simply cannot be expected to achieve at the level of a white male. Isn't that inherently flawed, and racist, in itself?

I have no idea what's on this exam, but I find it a little hard to believe that the academic portion of the test is being judged more forgivingly for the female applicants.

I would expect physical components to potentially be judged this way, in general...until I think about the job in question. This isn't professional softball, this is FIREFIGHTING. I don't give a shit if you're a woman or not, if you can't lug the 80 lbs. of gear they wear while carrying an unconscious body out of a burning building...find a new fucking job.

If you can, and you also happen to have a nice rack, fantastic! Suit up ;)

My point is...how are women, as a "protected" demographic, being helped here? Are they allowed to pass the test with a score of 70, while male applicants need a score of 80? I'm a little confused about the logic and practice here...maybe a lot confused :(


I definitely see why you're uncomfortable with Title VII.

I just don't think that upholding the law as it is written should disqualify a judge from SCOTUS.

Ya, pretty much comes down to the fact that a judge's obligation is to uphold the law, even if the law is wrong. They should make a point of saying they feel the law isn't right, and perhaps the people whose job it is to actually address that (legislature) will do so.

[ClydeR]

Everything is coming into place now that a Marine like Pat Roberts had the courage to stand up and say that he will vote No on this controversial nominee and her overly spicy judicial temperament (http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=944593&postcount=86). The non-Marine Senators appear too timid to take a stand before the hearings.


Pat Roberts is the first Senate Republican to say he'll vote against Sonia Sotomayor.

A conservative talk radio host dared the Kansas Republican to oppose the SCOTUS nominee — and Roberts obliged this morning, citing his Semper Fi.

More... (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Pat_Roberts_is_a_no__never_mind_Sotomayors_ethnici city.html)

[Parkbandit]

Not so much. She's more experienced than Harriet Myers was. She's got a relatively solid judicial record. I was bothered by the firefighter case as well until I had it explained by far better legal minds than mine.

You keep bringing up Harriet Myers.. like a parrot. Fantastic! Harriet Myers wasn't confirmed.

Personally, Harriet Myers would have made a far better Judge than Sonya.. but that might be because I don't think judges should be empathetic and should form their opinions based upon the law.

[Mabus]

You keep bringing up Harriet Myers.. like a parrot. Fantastic! Harriet Myers wasn't confirmed.

Personally, Harriet Myers would have made a far better Judge than Sonya.. but that might be because I don't think judges should be empathetic and should form their opinions based upon the law.
She also wasn't a "white male", and that is nothing to sneeze at according to Sotomayor.

[TheWitch]

I have no idea what's on this exam, but I find it a little hard to believe that the academic portion of the test is being judged more forgivingly for the female applicants.

I would expect physical components to potentially be judged this way, in general...until I think about the job in question. This isn't professional softball, this is FIREFIGHTING. I don't give a shit if you're a woman or not, if you can't lug the 80 lbs. of gear they wear while carrying an unconscious body out of a burning building...find a new fucking job.

If you can, and you also happen to have a nice rack, fantastic! Suit up ;)

My point is...how are women, as a "protected" demographic, being helped here? Are they allowed to pass the test with a score of 70, while male applicants need a score of 80? I'm a little confused about the logic and practice here...maybe a lot confused :(



Ya, pretty much comes down to the fact that a judge's obligation is to uphold the law, even if the law is wrong. They should make a point of saying they feel the law isn't right, and perhaps the people whose job it is to actually address that (legislature) will do so.

Lumi, I wasn't necessarily referring to the firefighters exam when I made those observations, I was speaking in more of a general sense. If you read the opinion on the firefighter case, there's an entire discussion in there about test results being subject to an "adverse outcome" standard, to which I was referring. Basically, a protected class' test score must reach a certain passing percentage or the test itself is held suspect as being discriminitory. I think (not positive about this) that this test standard was part of an amendment to Title VII.

The part I bolded is exactly why I can't get behind this nominee. Assuming she had no authority in a circuit court to find the application of this law to be unconstitutional in this case, she (and the other two, not just her) could have at least written an opinion upholding the law yet pointing out its flaws in this application. They chose not to do so, and for me that is a damaging ommission.

[ClydeR]

Republican Senator "Big John (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8)" Cornyn told NPR that comments by Rush Limbaugh about Sotomayor were "terrible" and "not helpful under any circumstances."

I've got news for Senator Cornyn. What's terrible is making these outrageous attacks against Rush, when all Rush is trying to do is inform the public. I bet Cornyn hasn't even listened to Rush's comments in context. Context is everything. Cornyn needs to apologize immediately.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/terrible_of_limbaugh_gingrich.html

[Lumi]

Republican Senator "Big John (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8)" Cornyn told NPR that comments by Rush Limbaugh about Sotomayor were "terrible" and "not helpful under any circumstances."

I've got news for Senator Cornyn. What's terrible is making these outrageous attacks against Rush, when all Rush is trying to do is inform the public. I bet Cornyn hasn't even listened to Rush's comments in context. Context is everything. Cornyn needs to apologize immediately.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/terrible_of_limbaugh_gingrich.html

He should apologize for not using harsher language. Rush == waste of perfectly good oxygen the rest of the world could be breathing.

[Lumi]

Lumi, I wasn't necessarily referring to the firefighters exam when I made those observations, I was speaking in more of a general sense. If you read the opinion on the firefighter case, there's an entire discussion in there about test results being subject to an "adverse outcome" standard, to which I was referring. Basically, a protected class' test score must reach a certain passing percentage or the test itself is held suspect as being discriminitory. I think (not positive about this) that this test standard was part of an amendment to Title VII.

Gotcha, Rheisia. Makes sense then.


The part I bolded is exactly why I can't get behind this nominee. Assuming she had no authority in a circuit court to find the application of this law to be unconstitutional in this case, she (and the other two, not just her) could have at least written an opinion upholding the law yet pointing out its flaws in this application. They chose not to do so, and for me that is a damaging ommission.

Would you rather a nominee who had NOT upheld the law, rather than one who did so and failed to point out how stupid the law she was forced to uphold was? :(

The thing that gets me is, there's all this arm-waving about her "empathy", about judging with her feelings instead of the law, yet the big case people point to as evidence of how evil she is contradicts that. O.o

[Warriorbird]

You keep bringing up Harriet Myers.. like a parrot. Fantastic! Harriet Myers wasn't confirmed.

Personally, Harriet Myers would have made a far better Judge than Sonya.. but that might be because I don't think judges should be empathetic and should form their opinions based upon the law.

Thanks for pretty much ending the discussion.

:)

Presidents should totally get the attorney who does their wills and works on the state they govern's lottery commission as Supreme Court justices.

[radamanthys]

Thanks for pretty much ending the discussion.

:)

Presidents should totally get the attorney who does their wills and works on the state they govern's lottery commission as Supreme Court justices.

How did that end the discussion? This isn't a team sport here.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks for pretty much ending the discussion.

:)

Presidents should totally get the attorney who does their wills and works on the state they govern's lottery commission as Supreme Court justices.

Yes, yes.. that must be all she did.

In the summer of 1969, between her second and third years of law school, Miers worked as a clerk for Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lieff, the San Francisco law firm founded by "King of Torts," the eccentric attorney, Melvin Belli. Miers was immersed in tort law. Her supervisor was Robert Lieff, then a partner in the Belli firm and later a founder of the nationally prominent plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. In a 2005 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Lieff stated that Miers "saw what we did for people who needed to get a lawyer and were only able to get a lawyer by a contingent fee." [6].

After graduating from law school, from 1970 to 1972, Miers was a law clerk for the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Joe E. Estes. She was admitted to the bar in Texas 1970 and has not been admitted to the Washington DC bar.

In 1979, after she made partner in her law firm, she became an evangelical Christian after having had a series of long discussions with Nathan Hecht, her close friend and colleague at the firm. [7]

In the late 1990s, while Miers was on the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, she helped create and fund a Women's Studies lecture series named after pioneering Texas lawyer, Louise B. Raggio, who was a mentor to Miers (see [1])[8].

From 1972 until 2001, Miers worked for the Dallas law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp (and predecessor firms prior to mergers). She was the first female lawyer hired by the firm and later became its president. When the merger that created Locke, Liddell & Sapp took place in 1999, she became the co-managing partner of a legal business with more than 400 lawyers. In 2000 the firm settled a lawsuit which accused the firm of having "aided a client in defrauding investors"[9] for $22 million; according to the Class Action Reporter, Miers "said the firm denies liability in connection with its representation of Erxleben. 'Obviously, we evaluated that this was the right time to settle and to resolve this matter and that it was in the best interest of the firm to do so,' Miers said."[9]

As a commercial litigator, she represented clients including Microsoft and the Walt Disney Company.

In 1986, Miers became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association. In 1992, Miers became the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has also served as chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal and as the chair of the ABA's "Commission on Multi-Jurisdictional Practice".

In 1989, Miers was elected to a two-year term as an at-large member of the Dallas City Council. She did not run for reelection in 1991 after a restructure of the city council converted Miers' at-large seat, elected by voters citywide, into a single-district seat.

Miers met George W. Bush in January 1989 at an Austin dinner, an annual affair held for legislators and other important people. Nathan Hecht, a mutual friend and Miers' date, made the introduction. Miers subsequently worked as general counsel for Bush's transition team in 1994, when he was first elected Governor of Texas. She subsequently became Bush's personal lawyer and worked as a lawyer in his 2000 presidential campaign.

While head of the State Bar of Texas, Miers joined an unsuccessful effort to have the American Bar Association maintain its then-official position of neutrality on abortion. The ABA had adopted abortion neutrality at its 1990 annual meeting in Chicago. By the summer of 1994, at its annual meeting in San Francisco, the issue was again pending before the ABA assembly. Miers, who had not been involved in the Chicago meeting, supported ABA abortion neutrality in San Francisco on two grounds. First, the State Bar of Texas was statutorily prohibited from taking positions on political issues. Second, Texas had made bar membership an attorney licensure requirement, thus forcing all Texas attorneys to support financially the ABA's position, regardless of their personal convictions. ABA neutrality on abortion was defeated at the San Francisco meeting. The association has remained supportive of the pro-choice position ever since.

Since September 1994, Miers has contributed to the campaigns of various Republicans (at about the same time she began to work for George W. Bush), including Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Phil Gramm, and Pete Sessions, with recorded contributions to Republican candidates and causes totaling nearly $12,000. Her earlier political history shows support for the Democrats during the 1980s, with recorded contributions to Democratic candidates and causes, including the Democratic National Committee, the Senate campaign of Lloyd Bentsen and the 1988 presidential campaign of Al Gore, totaling $3,000. Her last recorded contribution to a Democratic cause or campaign was in 1988. Ed Gillespie said that she was a "conservative Democrat" at the time.

In April 2007, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell announced that Miers was returning to the firm.[10] In her new role at the firm, Miers has registered with the United States Department of State as an agent for the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Embassy of Pakistan.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

[Keller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

You lucky son'uva bitch.

I was so ready to pounce!

[Parkbandit]

You lucky son'uva bitch.

I was so ready to pounce!

Sorry.. I'm not a plagiarist

LIKE YOU.

[4a6c1]

I wish we could vote for about this. Dosnt seem fair. :-/

It seems just as important if not more than the president's job.

Somebody smart explain to me the reasons politicians get to choose this.

[radamanthys]

Checks and balances. The electorate can be stupid, too. Look who's president...

[Gan]

Thanks for pretty much ending the discussion.

:)

Presidents should totally get the attorney who does their wills and works on the state they govern's lottery commission as Supreme Court justices.

fail indeed...

[Parkbandit]

So... not being bold on one case involving racism and a couple of out of context quotes is all the present nominee did?

Lots of judicial experience from Miers there too.

...fail.

NEWSFLASH DUMBFUCK: Miers didn't get confirmed. She withdrew her name. Your constant dwelling on her is a retarded comparison.. but I guess that's the only kind of comparisons you have.

I would consider it a fail.. but from you, it's just the same ol' same ol'.

[Mikalmas]

I wish we could vote for about this. Dosnt seem fair. :-/

It seems just as important if not more than the president's job.

Somebody smart explain to me the reasons politicians get to choose this.

Um, Article II of the Constitution dictates that the president selects a Supreme Court Justice with the advice and consent of the United States Senate: "The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. "


So, the answer is that's the way it was written by the founders and how it has been done since the Constitution was ratified.

[Warriorbird]

Folks have suggested that Sotomayor should not be confirmed for questionable reasons that largely amount to political grandstanding. The last candidate not to be confirmed seems like a pretty logical comparison. Then you dropped the idea that Miers was 'more qualified' than experienced judge... which if you took your blinders off would be hilarious. Then you Wikipedia-d real hard! If you put up every former bar association president who's represented big clients in the country you'd have a vast legion of potential justices... and if they hadn't been judges yet they'd also be less qualified than Sotomayor.

...yeah.

[Parkbandit]

Folks have suggested that Sotomayor should not be confirmed for questionable reasons that largely amount to political grandstanding. The last candidate not to be confirmed seems like a pretty logical comparison.

She withdrew her nomination... not a pretty logical comparison at all actually since Sonya won't be asking for her nomination to be withdrawn. Try Roberts for a comparison.


Then you dropped the idea that Miers was 'more qualified' than experienced judge... which if you took your blinders off would be hilarious.

Wait, where exactly did I ever state that Miers was more qualified than Sotomayor? If you can actually get that quote from me, that would be fantastic. Because I stated that Miers would make a better judge doesn't mean she was more qualified for the position. Perhaps in the future, instead of making shit up that is obviously wrong, maybe you could actually read the thread?


Then you Wikipedia-d real hard!

Better than you just making shit up, don't you think?


If you put up every former bar association president who's represented big clients in the country you'd have a vast legion of potential justices... and if they hadn't been judges yet they'd also be less qualified than Sotomayor.

...yeah.

Yeah indeed. I think I've illustrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that your streak of being wrong continues. You are like the Cal Ripken Jr. of the PC.. only he actually accomplished something with his streak.

[Parkbandit]

Folks have suggested that Sotomayor should not be confirmed for questionable reasons that largely amount to political grandstanding. The last candidate not to be confirmed seems like a pretty logical comparison. Then you dropped the idea that Miers was 'more qualified' than experienced judge... which if you took your blinders off would be hilarious. Then you Wikipedia-d real hard! If you put up every former bar association president who's represented big clients in the country you'd have a vast legion of potential justices... and if they hadn't been judges yet they'd also be less qualified than Sotomayor.

...yeah.

I'll actually help you out boy, since I doubt you could actually find the quote you think you "got" me with:


You keep bringing up Harriet Myers.. like a parrot. Fantastic! Harriet Myers wasn't confirmed.

Personally, Harriet Myers would have made a far better Judge than Sonya.. but that might be because I don't think judges should be empathetic and should form their opinions based upon the law.

Yea.. that's exactly like I stated that Miers is "more qualified" than Sotomayor, isn't it. A good lawyer you will never, ever make. Try something where your assumptions and embellishments won't get you in trouble.

Wait.. actually you might make a good scumbag lawyer that chases ambulances all over the place. They generally make a good living until they are caught.

[Warriorbird]

Because I stated that Miers would make a better judge doesn't mean she was more qualified for the position.

Here in PC-land we just luuuv semantics! Keep on with the rationalization train!

[Parkbandit]

Here in PC-land we just luuuv semantics!



Her in the PC-land we just luuuuv making shit up.

[Latrinsorm]

There's a clear divide between fair and compassionate.I don't know, man, you were the fellow who very recently took a pessimistic stance on whether we could even determine rights, correct? If we can't even get that, how in the world could we hash out how to act or behave "fairly"? I'm not disagreeing with the quoted statement, I'm just not convinced we can act upon a standard of "fairness". There certainly is one, don't get me wrong, I just don't think humans can really follow it. Wouldn't it be a weird coincidence if we could?

I'm also not convinced that impartiality is the key to good judicial behavior. Judges, especially SC justices, are above all interpreters. You say you want someone able to unemotionally state that a law is constitutionally sound, but the Founders did not write unemotionally. They wrote with high-arcing rhetoric, appeals to emotion and basic human dignity; does it even make sense for someone to approach that as a robot?
...instead of trying to improve their performance, the standard should be lowered and they should be given special treatment, because women/blacks/etc. simply cannot be expected to achieve at the level of a white male. Isn't that inherently flawed, and racist, in itself?One of the major flaws in the theory of "hard work = success" is that not everyone starts from the same place (socially, scholastically, etc.). There are still people today in positions of power who think a woman doesn't belong in the workplace after a certain age, regardless of the position she has achieved. The playing field is not level, but we can to some degree level it with apparently discriminatory legislation or regulation.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but they can make a better.

[radamanthys]

I don't know, man, you were the fellow who very recently took a pessimistic stance on whether we could even determine rights, correct? If we can't even get that, how in the world could we hash out how to act or behave "fairly"? I'm not disagreeing with the quoted statement, I'm just not convinced we can act upon a standard of "fairness". There certainly is one, don't get me wrong, I just don't think humans can really follow it. Wouldn't it be a weird coincidence if we could?

I'm also not convinced that impartiality is the key to good judicial behavior. Judges, especially SC justices, are above all interpreters. You say you want someone able to unemotionally state that a law is constitutionally sound, but the Founders did not write unemotionally. They wrote with high-arcing rhetoric, appeals to emotion and basic human dignity; does it even make sense for someone to approach that as a robot?One of the major flaws in the theory of "hard work = success" is that not everyone starts from the same place (socially, scholastically, etc.). There are still people today in positions of power who think a woman doesn't belong in the workplace after a certain age, regardless of the position she has achieved. The playing field is not level, but we can to some degree level it with apparently discriminatory legislation or regulation.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but they can make a better.

A robot judge would be dispassionate and fair. It would also be as harsh as its programming (the letter of the law). Nobody would have any advantage, an accusation against the rich/powerful. Nobody would have any disadvantage, an accusation against the poor/nobodies. Isn't that the ideal? I have a feeling that for many liberals it goes much further than that, which scares the hajeebus outta me.

You say that there certainly is a standard of fairness. I argue that it will never exist so long as people are different. It can't. The able/unable, smart/stupid, and other such margins are too much a necessity for a well-functioning society. The Court should be a bastion to which nobody is treated with any deference or disrespect- that's the traditional belief. Hence the ever-present Justice, with blindfold, scales and sword.

Discriminatory legislation is always made in an attempt to 'make things better'. In the past, we 'didn't want no niggers at our drinking fountains'. It was an earnest attempt by some misinformed people to improve their own definition of society.

Aren't you proposing that we do the same thing? Why discriminate at all? Why hire someone, like Sotomayer, with the express intent to discriminate?There's a reason the bombastics are shouting 'kkk' and 'racist'.

Not for nothing, but if you give the government the right to do stuff like this, there'll eventually be a backlash, and shit's gonna get bad again. What happens when the Hispanics outnumber the whites? Do whites, then, get the same accords? Can I, someday, be a protected class?

You just can't battle unfairness with more unfairness. Lock the KKK and Black Panthers together in a room, what happens?

[Latrinsorm]

Isn't that the ideal?I would say no, why else would we have the expression "spirit of the law" to go alongside the letter? Our Constitutional ideals are expressly human, our legislators are human, we're human, how can it make sense to have a robot judge?
Aren't you proposing that we do the same thing?As I got into a little before, I don't know whether Ms. Sotomayor embodies the qualities President Obama says she does or the qualities a radical caricature suggests she does. Certainly I wouldn't condone a racist of any sort in a position of power, but I'm more interested in the general objection you have to compassion in this office.
What happens when the Hispanics outnumber the whites? Do whites, then, get the same accords? Can I, someday, be a protected class?I would hope that by 2020 or whenever whites becoming a minority is projected to occur we would no longer need such legislation; however, I would not advocate repealing it until we had overwhelming empirical evidence that we didn't.

[radamanthys]

I would say no, why else would we have the expression "spirit of the law" to go alongside the letter? Our Constitutional ideals are expressly human, our legislators are human, we're human, how can it make sense to have a robot judge?As I got into a little before, I don't know whether Ms. Sotomayor embodies the qualities President Obama says she does or the qualities a radical caricature suggests she does. Certainly I wouldn't condone a racist of any sort in a position of power, but I'm more interested in the general objection you have to compassion in this office.I would hope that by 2020 or whenever whites becoming a minority is projected to occur we would no longer need such legislation; however, I would not advocate repealing it until we had overwhelming empirical evidence that we didn't.

For the sake of debate, I'm illustrating a perfectly just judge. You don't want just; you seem to advocate that the justice department's inherent responsibility to *enforce* equality is greater than their need to treat everyone equally. Is that really what you believe?

On compassion:
A child rapist's rights are violated. He is not afforded due process. Should there be shown compassion, or should his rights be upheld? The constitution is clear on this. A 'compassionate' judge would lean otherwise. Their job is mainly to uphold the given rights of the entire citizenry. I don't think she's qualified, as her bias prevents that. She would make an excellent legal advocate, though.

The one fear that liberals have with a Justice, at least that which is largely reported by the media, is that Judge's view on Roe vs Wade. Where a judge shouldn't let her passionate religious affiliation to alter her judgement, neither should she use her cultural affiliation. Her constituency is the United States of America, not the Hispanic women, not the minorities, not La Raza. The United States. I don't trust her to rule with compassion towards all people. If the Duke case were to come before her, I doubt that she would have given the lacrosse players a chance, even though they were innocent.

As per the aforementioned legislation: We don't have overwhelming evidence that they are needed. Can you say for 100% certainty that the problems facing minorities in this country are (read: not were) caused by white men? I know I haven't really been up to the "white guy quota" on my repression of the proletariat. I gotta get on that, hehe.

[Warriorbird]

Some folks still seem to have the illusion that the court isn't political.

[radamanthys]

Some folks still seem to have the illusion that the court isn't political.

Some people have the illusion that it should be.

[Warriorbird]

Of course not. Pragmatically though, there's been politics in it since Marbury v Madison.

[radamanthys]

Of course not. Pragmatically though, there's been politics in it since Marbury v Madison.

So much for Hope and Change. Y'all got snowed.

[Warriorbird]

Uhh... how was he saying he wouldn't be political or suddenly not hold his own ideals?

McCain's about the only Republican who's stepped up to be bipartisan in years and Rush wants to throw him out of the party.

We're not getting a justice that hates gay marriage, wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and supports torture.

Bush wanted a chance to get Alberto Gonzalez on the court before he left office.

I'm definitely not complaining about Obama's actions here, all though Sotomayor wouldn't be my first choice, the idea of Gonzalez on the court strikes me as profoundly un-American.

[Back]

Checks and balances. The electorate can be stupid, too. Look who's president...

What are you trying to say here? You do not approve of democracy? Our education system? That totalitarianism that you approve of is good?

[radamanthys]

Uhh... how was he saying he wouldn't be political or suddenly not hold his own ideals?

McCain's about the only Republican who's stepped up to be bipartisan in years and Rush wants to throw him out of the party.

We're not getting a justice that hates gay marriage, wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and supports torture.

Bush wanted a chance to get Alberto Gonzalez on the court before he left office.

I'm definitely not complaining about Obama's actions here, all though Sotomayor wouldn't be my first choice, the idea of Gonzalez on the court strikes me as profoundly un-American.

I don't disagree with many of her values, the three aforementioned are clear examples. I also think a Bush Conservative in the position would have been much more disastrous.

Her bias is the main issue, here.

[radamanthys]

What are you trying to say here? You do not approve of democracy? Our education system? That totalitarianism that you approve of is good?

a.) I approve of democracy. I believe it is the people's right to elect who they elect. I'm free to call the people idiots, if I care to.

b.) The education system is flawed, but had nothing to do with my point.

c.) I'm the absolute opposite of that (hint: libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian). You've apparently not read anything I've written; The alternatives to that would speak to your character, which I'm currently not insulted enough to highlight.

[Parkbandit]

I don't disagree with many of her values, the three aforementioned are clear examples. I also think a Bush Conservative in the position would have been much more disastrous.

Her bias is the main issue, here.

FYI: No such thing as a Bush Conservative.

[Parkbandit]

Uhh... how was he saying he wouldn't be political or suddenly not hold his own ideals?

McCain's about the only Republican who's stepped up to be bipartisan in years and Rush wants to throw him out of the party.

We're not getting a justice that hates gay marriage, wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and supports torture.

Bush wanted a chance to get Alberto Gonzalez on the court before he left office.

I'm definitely not complaining about Obama's actions here, all though Sotomayor wouldn't be my first choice, the idea of Gonzalez on the court strikes me as profoundly un-American.

It was because he was latino, isn't it. Why are you such a racist?

[radamanthys]

FYI: No such thing as a Bush Conservative.

Heh, true. I should change that in my personal lexicon. Might take a bit.

[Warriorbird]

FYI: No such thing as a Bush Conservative.

Agreed.

[Back]

a.) I approve of democracy. I believe it is the people's right to elect who they elect. I'm free to call the people idiots, if I care to.

b.) The education system is flawed, but had nothing to do with my point.

c.) I'm the absolute opposite of that (hint: libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian). You've apparently not read anything I've written; The alternatives to that would speak to your character, which I'm currently not insulted enough to highlight.

We have the right to free speech in this country and thats a great thing.

To denigrate a majority for their choice is sour grapes. Dare I say it?

We live in a new time, lad. Anarchy died with the Sex Pistols.

[Parkbandit]

To denigrate a majority for their choice is sour grapes. Dare I say it?


Wait.. so anyone who is nominated by the President and is criticised is because of sour grapes?

Good to know. I'm sure that must have been the reason against any Bush's nominees.

[Back]

Wait.. so anyone who is nominated by the President and is criticised is because of sour grapes?

Good to know. I'm sure that must have been the reason against any Bush's nominees.

You said the same when Bush did not win the popularity vote.

Suck on that.

[Parkbandit]

You said the same when Bush did not win the popularity vote.

Suck on that.

Feel free to post that quote. You might be referring to the multiple times I told you to cry less when you constantly complained about Bush "stealing the election"... which for anyone with a 5th grade education knows.. was incorrect on your part.

[radamanthys]

We have the right to free speech in this country and thats a great thing.

To denigrate a majority for their choice is sour grapes. Dare I say it?

We live in a new time, lad. Anarchy died with the Sex Pistols.

I sure do, that's why I'm able to be sitting here in my chair, criticizing the president.

I love the liberal holier than thou, 'it's our turn' attitude. You can see it on Pelosi's face (at least you could a couple months ago, when I last saw her on television). It's almost sad: In Obama, many people expected a savior and they got a politician. People voted for and received exactly what they got from Bush- no surprises. I liked that about him- he was was he was, and he wasn't good enough to really lie- at least without people seeing through it.

Did I say I was an Anarchist? We don't live in a new time, we live in the same old times we've always been living in. Nothing has changed, we're the same humans, by and large, that used to roam the planes with spears. We just have better diets.

[TheWitch]

The playing field is not level, but we can to some degree level it with apparently discriminatory legislation or regulation.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but they can make a better.

So, you're all for continued racism and sexism not just in practice but in the laws of the country, as long as that racism and sexism is perpetrated against white males.

The playing field does not need to be level.
Equality does not mean equal outcome.

Equality does mean access to the tools needed to succeed, and you will fail at convincing me that there are signifcant actual blocks against people making the necessary effort. Some may have to try harder than others, but you will also fail at convincing me that there's something wrong with that. Because some white males will have to try harder, too. That is the way the world (should) works. Effort should equal success, not skin color or biology.

That so many people in this country accept, and support, a law that basically says that the ones who perform poorly should be the standard, not the ones that perform well, is extremely backwards.

[Gan]

We have the right to free speech in this country and thats a great thing.

To denigrate a majority for their choice is sour grapes. Dare I say it?

We live in a new time, lad. Anarchy died with the Sex Pistols.

:lol:

(quoted for posterity)

[Latrinsorm]

The playing field does not need to be level.Never hit a hill chasing down a fly ball, I take it, but that's beside the point. I didn't say the playing field needed to be level, I said we can (and later that we ought to) level it to some degree.
So, you're all for continued racism and sexism not just in practice but in the laws of the country, as long as that racism and sexism is perpetrated against white males.Until white males are no longer by far the dominant demographic, yeah, especially since the white male ideology is still in some cases repressive.
That so many people in this country accept, and support, a law that basically says that the ones who perform poorly should be the standard, not the ones that perform well, is extremely backwards.This is not what the law "basically" says. The law basically says that the ones who perform poorly cannot and should not be held solely accountable if an environment exists that is slanted against them. Notice how there is no mention of blaming white people. Not everything in the world is a direct and intentional result of someone's behavior.

[Stanley Burrell]

Obama appointing a white person would have been reverse-reverse racist because such a hypothetical individual would be a decoy; one that would serve to prevent reverse racism from being put on display, which in return is racist. It is also racist if you approve or disapprove of the Sotomayor pick, because you are either supporting reverse racism or are being racist against minority justices.

What we really need is a lesbian Jewish Native American in a wheelchair Independent party candidate so that things can be more clear cut. And we can have long-winded discussions on an Internet forum about it.

[radamanthys]

Never hit a hill chasing down a fly ball, I take it, but that's beside the point. I didn't say the playing field needed to be level, I said we can (and later that we ought to) level it to some degree.Until white males are no longer by far the dominant demographic, yeah, especially since the white male ideology is still in some cases repressive.This is not what the law "basically" says. The law basically says that the ones who perform poorly cannot and should not be held solely accountable if an environment exists that is slanted against them. Notice how there is no mention of blaming white people. Not everything in the world is a direct and intentional result of someone's behavior.

Racism doesn't solve racism. Racism creates more racism. Nobody wants to feel like less of a person because of their race, regardless of their color. And it breeds nothing but hostility and resentment, however it is played.

The only real solution is to not consider race. At all. Especially on a governmental level. You say impossible? I say not. I say that racism will exist in people's hearts regardless of the law- those that are racist will become more-so with this mentality legislated. Those that aren't may feel resentment towards minorities. That leads to discrimination.

You see the militant behavior that racism causes in entities like the black panthers. How would you like the majority demographic to begin to display that same militant behavior? Would that fare well?


And fwiw, what you're describing is using racism to fight discrimination. It's racist by the exact definition of the word: considering a race more able or entitled to something by the merits only of their race.


Why can't we just treat everyone equally, again? Isn't that the goal? Isn't that how it should be?

[Warriorbird]

Seperate but equal much?

[radamanthys]

Seperate but equal much?

Not even close.

[Warriorbird]

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.
To the argument… that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
-William Rehnquist, "A Random Thought On The Segregation Cases."

...

[Latrinsorm]

Racism doesn't solve racism.The number of black college students has roughly doubled in the past 15 years. What do you attribute this to?
You see the militant behavior that racism causes in entities like the black panthers. How would you like the majority demographic to begin to display that same militant behavior? Would that fare well?I would say the primary cause of militism in black movements was militant behavior on the part of certain white people as opposed to racism.
Why can't we just treat everyone equally, again? Isn't that the goal? Isn't that how it should be?It is the goal, not the solution. It would only work as a solution if we could posit that on average a member of an allegedly disadvantaged group was not disadvantaged in any way compared to the average member of the dominant majority. Can you honestly take that position?

[radamanthys]

The number of black college students has roughly doubled in the past 15 years. What do you attribute this to? It is the goal, not the solution.

I attribute it to the fact that the number of black college students has doubled. There's no way to prove causation. I could tell you that it's because of the number of Starbucks in urban centers. The correlation would be the same as anything else. Too many factors for any rational consideration.


I would say the primary cause of militism in black movements was militant behavior on the part of certain white people as opposed to racism.

Militant behavior of whites against blacks doesn't equate to racism?


It would only work as a solution if we could posit that on average a member of an allegedly disadvantaged group was not disadvantaged in any way compared to the average member of the dominant majority. Can you honestly take that position?

It's the goal. If we implement that solution, we achieve the goal.

Poor whites aren't accorded the same consideration?

I've seen the educational system from both sides. I did the 'inner city' school thing and the 'suburban school' thing. I guarantee you this: it has nothing to do with the quality of teachers. Swap the teachers at both schools, and you'd see the exact same performance. The only disenfranchised group in this situation is the urban teachers who have to deal with the poor quality of student. It's not money spent, either. Large urban schools typically spend more per student and have more available resources (ESL, SLP, special ed, etc) than small suburban schools.

I really want to know how, exactly, the minority kids are disadvantaged. The ones who come from middle and upper class families as well as lower. Something that prevents them as a whole from success.

[Latrinsorm]

I attribute it to the fact that the number of black college students has doubled. There's no way to prove causation. I could tell you that it's because of the number of Starbucks in urban centers. The correlation would be the same as anything else. Too many factors for any rational consideration.You won't investigate the cause(s) of an extremely measurable number changing, but you're supremely confident in a cause (or creator) of a nebulous and hazily measurable position like societal racism?
Poor whites aren't accorded the same consideration?Not this consideration, no. I'll be happy to endorse the government taking our money to help them out for other reasons, though! :)
I really want to know how, exactly, the minority kids are disadvantaged. The ones who come from middle and upper class families as well as lower. Something that prevents them as a whole from success.I wouldn't say "as a whole", I would (and did!) say "on average". On average, minority kids are disadvantaged due to a mostly but not completely historical system of repression and marginalization. This is the only rational explanation for why [on average] women make 80 cents on the dollar (or whatever it is now), why black kids [on average] don't get as many science degrees, etc. etc.

[radamanthys]

You won't investigate the cause(s) of an extremely measurable number changing, but you're supremely confident in a cause (or creator) of a nebulous and hazily measurable position like societal racism?

You gave credit where credit wasn't necessarily due.


Not this consideration, no. I'll be happy to endorse the government taking our money to help them out for other reasons, though! :)

That's wrong. Certifiably wrong on a moral level. And illegal, according to any number of civil rights laws that have been passed.


I wouldn't say "as a whole", I would (and did!) say "on average". On average, minority kids are disadvantaged due to a mostly but not completely historical system of repression and marginalization.

So, you're not combating current societal racism, but past societal racism. Basically, white males have to pay (literally) the burden for the sins of our forebears.


This is the only rational explanation for why [on average] women make 80 cents on the dollar (or whatever it is now), why black kids [on average] don't get as many science degrees, etc. etc.

That's not the only rational explanation, not in the least. I could say that women need more flexibility due to childcare restraints, and thus are less likely to make a career. Black kids don't get as many science degrees? Of course not, they're only 12% of the population.


You remove all fault from the individuals. Do you not think that any of these inherent problems are due to the current culture within these communities? That some of them might be self-inflicted, and thus self-correctable?

If there was an inherent caste system within the US, I'd agree with you. They would need the boost. But these communities are not isolated. They are still part of the greater whole of society, and thus are accorded the same possibilities of success. If there were no rich or even middle class blacks, I'd agree. But there are.

What you are advocating is racism. Against me. :-/

[Warriorbird]

You remove all fault from the individuals. Do you not think that any of these inherent problems are due to the current culture within these communities? That some of them might be self-inflicted, and thus self-correctable?

You really think that it's 'women's fault' and they have a 'troubled culture'?

[radamanthys]

You really think that it's 'women's fault' and they have a 'troubled culture'?

No. Women aren't a minority, last time I checked. Except in China. They eat their female young over there.

And given college grad rates, women are demolishing men. That problem will self-correct.


You know, part of me is flabbergasted that I'm being rebutted for pushing equal rights. Just sayin'.

[Warriorbird]

Only thing in the defense of the civil rights laws is, left alone, 'equal rights' aren't particularly equal.

[TheWitch]

One should simply look to the White House to see that the degree of racism and discrimination that existed 45 years ago when Title VII was passed simply does not exist.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all: I'm talking about degrees.

We have a black president, who was largely supported by white voters. And in the Obama, I think we have proof that effort can be made by the disadvantaged, and they can succeed.

I agree with Radamanthys, the issues at this point don't lie with society as a whole so much as they within the separate communities, communities that lack a structure that encourages achievement and in fact denigrates it. The Obama himself recognized this on the campaign trail. Whether he still wants to go there has not been made clear.

No one under the age of 45 has been alive pre-Title VII, including me. The perpetrators of the discrimination rampant prior to that are 70+, if you figure they had to be at least 25 at the time of Title VII being passed to have been in a position to perpetrate racism in the workplace.

So again, I'll ask what Radamanthys asked. How long does this go on? And how does discrimination now, somehow undo discrimination past?

[Gan]

Until we cough up the mule and 40 acres, and give Texas and California back to Mexico.

Arrrriba!

[Parkbandit]

Until we cough up the mule and 40 acres, and give Texas and California back to Mexico.

Arrrriba!

What about the Indians?

Then we need to address the Jews, Irish, Japanese, Germans, Italians, Muslims, Roman Catholics, etc... any group that has been oppressed ever by anyone.

[Warriorbird]

One should simply look to the White House to see that the degree of racism and discrimination that existed 45 years ago when Title VII was passed simply does not exist.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all: I'm talking about degrees.

We have a black president, who was largely supported by white voters. And in the Obama, I think we have proof that effort can be made by the disadvantaged, and they can succeed.

I agree with Radamanthys, the issues at this point don't lie with society as a whole so much as they within the separate communities, communities that lack a structure that encourages achievement and in fact denigrates it. The Obama himself recognized this on the campaign trail. Whether he still wants to go there has not been made clear.

No one under the age of 45 has been alive pre-Title VII, including me. The perpetrators of the discrimination rampant prior to that are 70+, if you figure they had to be at least 25 at the time of Title VII being passed to have been in a position to perpetrate racism in the workplace.

So again, I'll ask what Radamanthys asked. How long does this go on? And how does discrimination now, somehow undo discrimination past?

Still satisfied with your 80%?

That's the simple counterpoint here.

Is the role of courts to legislate what the legislature won't? That's not what conservatives typically argue.

[TheWitch]

Still satisfied with your 80%?

That's the simple counterpoint here.

Is the role of courts to legislate what the legislature won't? That's not what conservatives typically argue.

That 20% isn't worth enough to me to demand white males take a 20% pay cut. I don't want to be given a job, just because I'm female, and not because I'm the most qualified for the job.

I prefer to practice what I preach: I work for what I earn. If I was in a situation where a male counterpart was getting paid more to do the same job I was doing, and everything else was equal including education, experience, tenure, benefits, and ect., I would deal with that myself - not expect the government to step in on my behalf.

As to what "conservatives typically argue", you would do well to stop trying to cram everyone in neat little boxes of "conservative" and "liberal", "Democrat" or "Republican".

And frankly, my concern isn't for me - I am after all a protected class and if I wanted to demand the government give me something it doesn't owe me and that I don't necessarily deserve, I could. My concern is for my children, who had the grave misfortune of being born white males.

[Lumi]

My concern is for my children, who had the grave misfortune of being born white males.

Sucks, that.

[Keller]

the grave misfortune of being born white males.

You couldn't pay me enough to be anything other than a white male.

I think Chris Rock put it best, "White people are like: 'We're losing everything. We're fucking losing. Affirmative action, illegal aliens, we're fucking losing the country!'

Losing? Shut the fuck up. White people ain't losing shit. If y'all are losing, who's winning?

lt ain't us.

lt ain't us. Have you driven around this motherfucker?

Shit, there ain't a white man in this room that would change places with me.

None of you would change places with me.

And l'm rich!

That's how good it is to be white.

There's a white, one-legged busboy in here right now that won't change place with my black ass. He's going, 'No, man, l don't wanna switch. l wanna ride this white thing out. See where it takes me.'"

[Latrinsorm]

That's wrong. Certifiably wrong on a moral level. And illegal, according to any number of civil rights laws that have been passed.In this world, we are often left with only wrong choices. As I said earlier, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, but we still have to make a choice.
So, you're not combating current societal racism, but past societal racism. Basically, white males have to pay (literally) the burden for the sins of our forebears.It is important to keep in mind that the cause(!) of such payment is not guilt on the part of contemporary white males, but simple process of elimination. Minorities need a better shake and we have finite resources, ergo the majority is going to get a worse shake.
Do you not think that any of these inherent problems are due to the current culture within these communities? That some of them might be self-inflicted, and thus self-correctable?I think most of them are due to the current culture, but I also think that it is hugely incorrect to describe the current culture as "self-inflicted". It's only been 60 years since Jackie Robinson, 40 years since MLK. If cultures are anything, they are not swift to change. As an aside, I'm again very puzzled at the way you can ferret out causation so nimbly in some cases but are totally flummoxed in others.
They are still part of the greater whole of society, and thus are accorded the same possibilities of success.What is your explanation for the statistically relevant discrepancies in the average success of black kids versus white kids?
That problem will self-correct.When? How many minorities have to suffer wrongly until your supposed free market corrects itself?
And in the Obama, I think we have proof that effort can be made by the disadvantaged, and they can succeed.This proof only has strength if someone was arguing that no minority could succeed. As far as I'm aware, no one has said as much in this thread.
So again, I'll ask what Radamanthys asked. How long does this go on?At least until the aforementioned discrepancies are smaller. Maybe when women make 90 or 95 cents on the dollar we can revisit the question.
And how does discrimination now, somehow undo discrimination past?One cannot undo the past. What one can and ought to do is redress past grievances, especially those that continue to affect millions of people every day.

[Latrinsorm]

p.s.

"One should simply look to the White House to see that the degree of racism and discrimination that existed 45 years ago when Title VII was passed simply does not exist."

Clearly Title VII had nothing to do with it!! It was all a big coincidence. :yes:

[Jorddyn]

You couldn't pay me enough to be anything other than a white male.

Not even for one night? :whistle:

[radamanthys]

In this world, we are often left with only wrong choices. As I said earlier, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, but we still have to make a choice.It is important to keep in mind that the cause(!) of such payment is not guilt on the part of contemporary white males, but simple process of elimination. Minorities need a better shake and we have finite resources, ergo the majority is going to get a worse shake.I think most of them are due to the current culture, but I also think that it is hugely incorrect to describe the current culture as "self-inflicted". It's only been 60 years since Jackie Robinson, 40 years since MLK. If cultures are anything, they are not swift to change. As an aside, I'm again very puzzled at the way you can ferret out causation so nimbly in some cases but are totally flummoxed in others.What is your explanation for the statistically relevant discrepancies in the average success of black kids versus white kids?When? How many minorities have to suffer wrongly until your supposed free market corrects itself?This proof only has strength if someone was arguing that no minority could succeed. As far as I'm aware, no one has said as much in this thread.At least until the aforementioned discrepancies are smaller. Maybe when women make 90 or 95 cents on the dollar we can revisit the question.One cannot undo the past. What one can and ought to do is redress past grievances, especially those that continue to affect millions of people every day.

The government has the responsibility to intervene when rights are being infringed on- it's their greatest and sole responsibility: to protect everyone's rights. No rights are currently being infringed upon, not institutionally. Offenses are taken to the courts.

In your system, civil rights will be infringed upon.

You really don't want the civil rights of the majority infringed upon- all the progress made will be destroyed when bitterness and contempt take over.

You can debate the relative success of minorities in this country until you are blue in the face. If a people (and especially a person) wants to succeed, they can- it's America, it's the American Dream. It doesn't matter how hard it is- not in the eyes of the institution. It was hard for the Irish. It was hard for the Germans and Japanese after WWII. The government has to be fair (actually fair, not "more equal than others" fair). End of story.

And as to the discrepancies: as you so aptly said, cultures are slow to change. It's coming along- give it time. I'll illustrate that line for you: You're gonna say that it's the fault of previous years. I will say current culture. That's just how it is.

[Stanley Burrell]

You couldn't pay me enough to be anything other than a white male.

I think Chris Rock put it best, "White people are like: 'We're losing everything. We're fucking losing. Affirmative action, illegal aliens, we're fucking losing the country!'

Losing? Shut the fuck up. White people ain't losing shit. If y'all are losing, who's winning?

lt ain't us.

lt ain't us. Have you driven around this motherfucker?

Shit, there ain't a white man in this room that would change places with me.

None of you would change places with me.

And l'm rich!

That's how good it is to be white.

There's a white, one-legged busboy in here right now that won't change place with my black ass. He's going, 'No, man, l don't wanna switch. l wanna ride this white thing out. See where it takes me.'"

http://www.jokeroo.com/video/funny/white-eddie-murphy.html

[Daniel]

You know, part of me is flabbergasted that I'm being rebutted for pushing equal rights. Just sayin'.

Either you're stupid or you're just being extremely disingenuous.

We're not even two generations removed from formal institutionalized racism in this country and you're acting as if the White Man is getting a bad shake because someone is trying to undo hundreds of years of institutionalized racism.

To wit: You aren't pushing for equal rights, you're pushing for the status quo which entails racial inequality. They are not one and the same.



But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

[Latrinsorm]

In your system, civil rights will be infringed upon.

You really don't want the civil rights of the majority infringed upon- all the progress made will be destroyed when bitterness and contempt take over.In any viable system of government, peoples' rights will be infringed upon, because people cannot coexist. I can't carry around a switchblade, etc. I'm also confused... government-mandated affirmative action is what we already have. Bitterness and contempt have not taken over, and you agree that the situation is improving.

Now, of course I don't want anyone's rights infringed upon, but again, the universe is not well-suited for human rights. The universe for all its magnificence and beauty blows, and regardless of what I want I sometimes have to endorse choices that are wrong (though hopefully the least wrong).
If a people (and especially a person) wants to succeed, they can- it's America, it's the American Dream.It is a dream that is not well-manifested in reality. No one springs into existence from nothing; everyone has a past. There is no "debate" over whether minorities on average do poorly, it is a well-documented fact. You honestly believe this is due to a lack of desire?
It's coming along- give it time.What is your explanation for how it's coming along? If you refuse to investigate the mechanism(s), how can anyone take your criticism of a particular mechanism seriously?

[Warriorbird]

Being white is awesome. I just got let off a speeding ticket likely solely because I used y'all in a sentence.

(posted from a Whataburger in Alabama)

[TheWitch]

After perusing a couple other threads that were circling the bowl of "YOU!" "NO YOU!!!" it occured to me that this thread ran for several days, and no one descended into personal attacks.

So, whether you care or not, I just pos repped pretty much everyone in this thread because it's really cool to have a discussion once in while that doesn't degenerate into name calling.

Which prompted me to look at my own rep, and for this person:


neg, Republicans to Repeal... 05-31-2009 03:14 PM You are the most ignorant bitch to post on the PC ever.

I wish you would have signed that so I could pos rep you too, for staying out of a discussion you clearly could not have without stooping to ad hominem attacks. Good job.