Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on May 29, 2009, 07:50:40 AM
-
White Male Conservatives Still Angry About Sotomayor
by Rachel Weiner
White male conservatives, despite polling showing both the public and GOP insiders disagree, are maintaining that Sonia Sotomayor is an unqualified racist whose nomination is somehow an affront to the Supreme Court.
While a variety of conservatives from different backgrounds have expressed reservations about Sotomayor, angry white conservatives have been consistently over-the-top, offensive and personal in their attacks. The 'racist' claim is based on one out-of-context remark the judge made. These conservatives, meanwhile, focus largely on Sotomayor's own race and the presumption that because she is not white, she must have benefited from affirmative action in every step of her career and thus deprived a more qualified white person of all of her successes.
Pat Buchanan described Sotomayor in a column Friday as an "anti-white liberal judicial activist" as well as a "lightweight" who "covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench."
John Derbyshire, at National Review Online, took admiration for Sotomayor's life story as an intentional insult to him and all other white people:
I get mighty annoyed by the unspoken implication in a lot of commentary that anyone not a member of a Protected Minority must have grown up in a twelve-bedroom lakeside mansion and been chauffered off to prep school with a silver spoon in his mouth. Judge Sotomayor was raised in public housing? So was I. Her mother was a nurse working late shifts? So was mine. When did white working poor people disappear off the face of the earth? Where are the eager listeners to their "compelling stories"?
On Bill Bennett's radio show Thursday, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes suggested that Sotomayor got into Princeton through affirmative action, and went on to suggest that most students probably get "some kind of Cum Laude."
BARNES: I think you can make the case that she's one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.
BARNES: One wonders.
BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don't think you get on affirmative action. I don't know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude's a pretty big deal.
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there's some schools and maybe Princeton's not one of them, where if you don't get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you're a D+ student. [amazing...Mr. Barnes must not have attended college. ::)]
-
There are always going to be people on the far ends of each party who make things worse than they are.
Nonetheless, Sotomayor has made some publicly poor comments that need to be criticized.
If we stop Affirmative Action policies then these criticizms won't come up.
I don't like when anyone is very focused on their own race, I think it could be dangerous when they are in a position to judge others, as we have seen historically.
-
God forbid anyone express displeasure at her being an activist judge and against the 2nd amendment right????
-
Correct, but when people throw out the "she only got in because of AA" thats not fair either...unless they can prove it. Ending Affirmative action is wise for many reasons. In this case, it disarms the right wing commentator from levying that charge. Lets stick to the facts. There is enough substance to criticize and debate in this case. At very least, people should learn that some of her comments are not acceptible (and hopefully they overturn that case of discrimination against the white & hispanic firefighters that she ruled against).
-
You know its funny.WHen Roberts was nominated he was railed against by democrats.Alito was threatned with a filabuster BY OBAMA!I dont understand the uproar over conservatives saying this women isnt qualified.Libs do it to EVERY SINGLE judge that is nominated by a republican.
-
I dont understand the uproar over conservatives saying this women isnt qualified.
Do you think she is qualified, BILLY?
-
Do you think she is qualified, BILLY?
I really wouldnt have the slightest clue about it.Im not a lawyer or know that much about it.It seems that if a liberal is voted in he gets to pick his people.Bush did it with conservatives,Obama is doing it with a radical leftist.I do think she is a racist,but I think Obama is also.So,I just dont care.She is replacing a liberal.
-
Ms. Weiner sounds like she needs a penis.
What Pat Buchanon said was not "controversal", Derbyshire's remark was right on the money. I would like to see Stomayor's thesis on how the 2nd ammendment is not a individual right. If so, then she should not be confirmed. Another person said it best that it shouldn't matter what party a judge is affiliated with...the law has no party affiliations.
Hugo and MB say it all the time...it's just a distraction.
-
Ms. Weiner sounds like she needs a penis.
What Pat Buchanon said was not "controversal", Derbyshire's remark was right on the money. I would like to see Stomayor's thesis on how the 2nd ammendment is not a individual right. If so, then she should not be confirmed. Another person said it best that it shouldn't matter what party a judge is affiliated with...the law has no party affiliations.
Hugo and MB say it all the time...it's just a distraction.
That's right, lets see her views on the constitution. Who gives a rats ass about her race other than Benny???
-
Let's get something straight.
Every judge is an activist judge.
Judges say what the law is.
If a judge is not being an activist judge in defining the meaning of law, then she or he is not doing the job right.
It's always been that way.
Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
-
I think its dangerous when you have judges that are on the extreme of either party.
The main responsibility is to follow the rule of law. When a judge says she is uniquely qualified to do that based on her race, that is concerning to me. The law should be colorblind.
-
i dont know anything about this particular woman but all this is perfectly predictable. they would have been 'outraged' by ANYONE obama chose. who it is has no relevance; the number one priority of the republicans since the election has been to oppose obama, in every possible way, no matter what.
-
Do you think she is qualified, BILLY?
do you think she's the most qualified, 240? or do you think her being hispanic was a bigger factor in her nomination than her so called qualifications?
-
Pat Buchanan described Sotomayor in a column Friday as an "anti-white liberal judicial activist" as well as a "lightweight" who "covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench."
buchanan telling it like it is as usual, we need men like him running this country
-
Certainly people of a political party are going to try to oppose the other party's nominee to some degree. This case gives an opportunity for a discussion on a high court justice making an openly race based remark which may give insight into her true feelings that all people are not necessarily equal and that a specific backround or set of circumstances may be more important than the law itself. That is what I find potentially troubling. Her decision on the firefighters discrimination case backs this concern.
We appoint judges to follow the rule of law without wide latitudes of interpretation. If she is confirmed, and I imagine she will be, I hope there are loud public complaints letting this judge know that many do not like what she said and don't approve of unequal treatment under the law as she decided in the firefighter case.
-
Let's get something straight.
Every judge is an activist judge.
Judges say what the law is.
If a judge is not being an activist judge in defining the meaning of law, then she or he is not doing the job right.
It's always been that way.
Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
I see where you are coming from, but don't you find it troubling to say the least about a issue such as the 2md ammendment was such a close decision and under intense debate?
-
i dont know anything about this particular woman but all this is perfectly predictable. they would have been 'outraged' by ANYONE obama chose. who it is has no relevance; the number one priority of the republicans since the election has been to oppose obama, in every possible way, no matter what.
The liberals were just so welcoming of Alito. Those disgusting vermin had this mans' wife in tears over their lies, nonsense, and slander.
How quick you forget.
-
I don't want some activist on the court, but hard to complain. This is what Americans chose when Obama was elected. It's one of the least talked about consequences of the election.
-
Your right Beach. As much as I disapproved of some of the Bush policies, I never felt he was an activist. Obama is an activist and has pushed an agenda (and made appointments) related to what he feels is fair for the country...perhaps not always what is best, but what is most fair in his opinion. He is certainly a far left democrat, not the moderate many of us were hoping for.
-
I see where you are coming from, but don't you find it troubling to say the least about a issue such as the 2md ammendment was such a close decision and under intense debate?
No.
-
No.
why?
-
do you think she's the most qualified, 240? or do you think her being hispanic was a bigger factor in her nomination than her so called qualifications?
everyone knew obama was going to pick a hispanic woman. Was there any doubt to anyone? He needs 2010 and 2012 hispanic vote, the court does need another woman, and there is no hispanic member despite their major % of population in the USA. it was inevitable.
now, that being said, she has more experience than any candidate in what, 70 years? She's got quite the resume - nobody on the right is complaining about that.
-
everyone knew obama was going to pick a hispanic woman. Was there any doubt to anyone? He needs 2010 and 2012 hispanic vote, the court does need another woman, and there is no hispanic member despite their major % of population in the USA. it was inevitable.
now, that being said, she has more experience than any candidate in what, 70 years? She's got quite the resume - nobody on the right is complaining about that.
Hey 240 - what do you think about her 2nd amendment opinions?
-
Friday, September 5, 2003
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Miguel Estrada, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, withdrew his name from consideration Thursday after spending more than two years in limbo amid partisan wrangling over President Bush's judicial nominations.
Estrada, 42, a Honduran immigrant, would have been the first Hispanic to sit on that court, which sometimes serves as a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He was nominated by Bush in May 2001, but Senate Democrats used a filibuster to block his approval.
"I believe that the time has come to return my full attention to the practice of law and to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family," Estrada said in a letter to Bush.
Estrada did not mention the opposition to his nomination. But Bush slammed Senate Democrats for what he described as their "disgraceful treatment" of Estrada, saying the nomination deserved an up-or-down vote.
"The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history," Bush said in a written statement.
On Capitol Hill, reaction to Estrada's decision fell mostly on partisan lines.
Calling the demise of Estrada's nomination a "dark moment," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, predicted Democrats will reap a backlash from the American public for using a filibuster to kill an appeals court nomination for the first time in history.
Frist also said "all options are open" for Republicans battling two other filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees, including using parliamentary maneuvers and changing Senate rules to make breaking a filibuster easier.
But unapologetic Senate Democrats claimed victory and vowed to continue trying to block any Bush nominees who are, in the words of Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, "far beyond the mainstream."
Estrada's nomination had enough support to pass the Senate, which requires only a simple majority.
But Republicans, despite repeated tries, could not muster the 60 votes needed to block the filibuster by Democrats.
The other two other Bush nominees Senate Democrats are filibustering are Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominated for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
One of the handful of Senate Democrats to break ranks and oppose the filibusters, Zell Miller of Georgia, said Estrada "has become the latest victim of Washington's partisan, obstructionist politics."
"All of the president's nominees to the judiciary should have an up or down vote on the Senate floor. It's that simple. Anything otherwise is un-American and un-democratic," Miller said in a statement.
Estrada, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration, is a partner in a Washington law firm. He emigrated to the United States as a teenager.
Estrada's supporters charged that the Democrats were unfairly blocking a well-qualified candidate because of his conservative views and because they did not want to give Bush credit for nominating a Hispanic.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, accused Senate Democrats of "character assassination" and said their filibuster of the Estrada nomination amounted to a "political hate crime."
Kennedy praises 'victory'
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said the withdrawal was a "a victory for the Constitution."
"It reflects a clear recognition by Miguel Estrada, and, hopefully this White House, that under the Constitution the Senate has shared power over judicial appointments," Kennedy said.
Bush had called the Democrats' action a "disgrace" and vowed to fight until Estrada won approval.
Estrada's Democratic critics said he had not answered questions about several key court cases, including some involving abortion and affirmative action.
They also objected to a decision by the White House not to provide access to documents Estrada prepared when he was assistant solicitor general.
All seven living former solicitors general, including three who served under Democratic presidents, had opposed release of the internal work documents, calling them "highly privileged."
The dispute over Estrada is part of a larger and increasingly bitter struggle over Bush's judicial nominations in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Democrats are under pressure from interest groups in their party's base to hold the line against Bush's conservative nominees.
When they controlled the Senate earlier in Bush's term, Senate Democrats could block nominations in committee. But once Republicans took control after the 2002 elections, Democrats had to resort to the filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver, to thwart Bush's nominations.
Republicans charged that tactic was an abuse of the Senate's "advice and consent" constitutional power on judicial nominations by, in effect, changing the requirement for approval to 60 votes rather than a simple majority.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/
-
Thanks for the article.
This should put to rest the nonsense posted by the likes of Jag, 240, Benny, et al.
The liberals care only that you agree with them, not your color. They want a liberal hispanic, liberal woman, liberal black, and dont give a shit about minority advancement unless they hold radical left views.
Otherwise, the lunatic left does not consider them real minorities worthy of consideration.
-
Hey 240 - what do you think about her 2nd amendment opinions?
LOL ;)
240 - "pendulum"
-
why?
Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?
You tell me.
-
Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?
You tell me.
No not at all, but I vehemently disagree with her interpretation of the 2nd amendment based on the decision she wrote.
-
No not at all, but I vehemently disagree with her interpretation of the 2nd amendment based on the decision she wrote.
That's cool.
That's what makes all this fun. Group right v. individual right, changed circumstances, public safety...that's all fair game in the mix.
-
That's cool.
That's what makes all this fun. Group right v. individual right, changed circumstances, public safety...that's all fair game in the mix.
My biggest thing is that if we say that the 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, amendments are all INDIVIDUAL rights conferred upon the individual, why should we then assume the 2nd amendment is a collective right???
To me, it makes no sense to construe it any other way.
-
My biggest thing is that if we say that the 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, amendments are all INDIVIDUAL rights conferred upon the individual, why should we then assume the 2nd amendment is a collective right???
To me, it makes no sense to construe it any other way.
The SCT has viewed it as a group right for a long time. Only recently has that interpretation changed. Judicial activism at its finest.
-
The SCT has viewed it as a group right for a long time. Only recently has that interpretation changed. Judicial activism at its finest.
The SC never really addressed the issue directly before Heller.
-
I'd be ok with outlawing guns if we could 100% guarantee that criminals would never have access to them.
It only takes 1 person and 1 gun to kill you (at that point statistics don't matter) and there are way too many criminals with guns. I want to have the opportunity to protect myself if someone breaks in my house.
-
I'd be ok with outlawing guns if we could 100% guarantee that criminals would never have access to them.
It only takes 1 person and 1 gun to kill you (at that point statistics don't matter) and there are way too many criminals with guns. I want to have the opportunity to protect myself if someone breaks in my house.
Sorry Shoot - we part ways on this. The 2nd amendment is not about crime alone.
-
I agree that the 2nd ammendment protects this right, but in my mind, I want that right upheld because I don't have faith that some scum bag f-cker isn't going to threaten me or my family. We see enough cases of shooting on the nightly news.
-
The SC never really addressed the issue directly before Heller.
The MIller case laid out the, albeit indirectly, the principle that the 2nd amendment is a group right. Hardly black letter law but the subsequent cases have followed that principle.
-
There are always going to be people on the far ends of each party who make things worse than they are.
Nonetheless, Sotomayor has made some publicly poor comments that need to be criticized.
If we stop Affirmative Action policies then these criticizms won't come up.
I don't like when anyone is very focused on their own race, I think it could be dangerous when they are in a position to judge others, as we have seen historically.
there are a whole bunch of white judges and whites guys in other professions that got moved up the ladder due to knowing someone or having dad grease the way for them..you like a lot of whites always try to play the merit card but refuse to acknowledge that many whites get good jobs due to the above.....by who they know.....in the case of whites, it's not called affirmative action....but when a minority gets a shot.... then suddenly he/she is unqualified, or given something they don't deserve.....George W. Bush and John Kerry were both "D" students in college..yet they ascended to president and runner up respectively....why is that?..because daddy was someone important.....and greased the way for them.....thats how they got in Yale and how they got to run for president..yet you can make an argument that they were both not qualified if you look at the "merits"
-
Dude, I agree about Bush. I don't think he would have gotten where he was without his dad. I see your point but I will add that money is more important than race. To make your generalized statement that whites get a leg up specifically because of their white skin color, implies that all whites would receive that advantage, which is obviously not true. A person would need a wealthy family with connections to get preferential treatment. Historically, that occured mostly with whites, but now occurs with anyone who comes from a wealthy and influential background. Again, it comes down to the most important color....green.
-
Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?
You tell me.
No, I don't believe the 2nd ammendment is exempt from arguement; my point is that it seems(at least from the news etc.) that it is the ONLY one being questioned when the other nine of the bill of rigths has been confirmed as being an individual rights.
-
No, I don't believe the 2nd ammendment is exempt from arguement; my point is that it seems(at least from the news etc.) that it is the ONLY one being questioned when the other nine of the bill of rigths has been confirmed as being an individual rights.
That was my point. It seems extremely ridiculous to argue that the 1st amendment, 4th, 5th, and 6th, are all individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right.