Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: LurkerNoMore on July 14, 2009, 06:42:07 AM
-
Looks like the SC appointment will be going through.
-
I've always wanted a SC judge that has admitted that her color and race will help her "see" things from a different perspective.
Awesome.
-
I've always wanted a SC judge that has admitted that her color and race will help her "see" things from a different perspective.
Awesome.
Look, this is what is to be expected from Obama. Elections have consequences. Its not like he was going to appoint a Scalia or Alito.
Nothing Obama does at this point will surprise me other than actually maybe him opening up an Econ 101 book and actually grasping basic concepts.
-
Wow,with 60 votes in the senate a democratic nominee will get through the hearings.What an incredible accomplishment.The dad thing is,she wil be just another anti-white racist that Obama loves.
-
See this is standard that the PC crowd have been striving for. You can nominate a minority for a high position no matter how unqualified or controversial that person may be, and no one will speak up out fear of being labeled a racist.
-
I was expecting a bit more new excuses from around here instead of the same old tired ones.
-
I was expecting a bit more new excuses from around here instead of the same old tired ones.
Who gives a fuck what you think, your a liberal hack.
-
You apparently do. Or else you wouldn't have responded.
Nice show of insecurities here. Thanks for playing.
-
I was expecting a bit more new excuses from around here instead of the same old tired ones.
What excuse? She admitted that her being a "latin woman" would help her make her decisions.
-
What excuse? She admitted that her being a "latin woman" would help her make her decisions.
And the part about "different from a white man" is what got your panties in a twist isn't it?
-
And the part about "different from a white man" is what got your panties in a twist isn't it?
Lurker, your idiocy knows no bounds. Seriously, you are a fool.
Lets say you are before this woman in a contract dispute with a vendor or customer. Lets say that vendor or customer is of hispanic background.
Are you going to feel comfortable with her presiding over your case given that you are white and the vendor is hispanic?
-
And the part about "different from a white man" is what got your panties in a twist isn't it?
She didnt say different,she said "better".If I say Im different from a hispanic thats fine.If I say Im better then a hispanic thats racist.She is a racist and has been her whole life.
-
Hilarious!!!! :)
-
"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said.
just state it oj no need for the drama ::)
-
She didnt say different,she said "better".If I say Im different from a hispanic thats fine.If I say Im better then a hispanic thats racist.She is a racist and has been her whole life.
So the only reason Thomas is still on there is because he can't do a "better" job than a white man?
HAHA you guys are morons ready to whine about anything.
-
And the part about "different from a white man" is what got your panties in a twist isn't it?
Good try in putting words in my mouth to skew the conversation. I said no such thing.
She said that by being Latina and her background (whatever that is) will give her a better "insight" into the law. To me that means she is, at best, going to let her empathy and ethnic background guide her decisions and, at worst, letting her racial bias get in the way of handing down the letter of the law.
-
So the only reason Thomas is still on there is because he can't do a "better" job than a white man?
HAHA you guys are morons ready to whine about anything.
Go answer my question fool.
Would you feel comfortable being before this judge if you are in a contract dispute where the other litigant is hispanic?
-
Good try in putting words in my mouth to skew the conversation. I said no such thing.
She said that by being Latina and her background (whatever that is) will give her a better "insight" into the law. To me that means she is, at best, going to let her empathy and ethnic background guide her decisions and, at worst, letting her racial bias get in the way of handing down the letter of the law.
And you don't think it will?
How is this different from someone Prolife allowing their opinion to influence their judgement?
Can you show a link from her past history where this has happened?
-
Go answer my question fool.
Would you feel comfortable being before this judge if you are in a contract dispute where the other litigant is hispanic?
If the actions were warranted it wouldn't matter who was the sitting judge.
-
You apparently do. Or else you wouldn't have responded.
Nice show of insecurities here. Thanks for playing.
glad to be on your team lurkernomore :D
-
And you don't think it will?
How is this different from someone Prolife allowing their opinion to influence their judgement?
Can you show a link from her past history where this has happened?
Who knows. But instead of keeping her mouth shut she talked shit about it. She's openly admitted that she is a Affirmative Action case and wasn't up to to the standards of those at the school she attended. She said that because of her being a Latina and because of her background that it would give her a better look into things.
She said it, not me so it's out there and it is something to think about.
-
Who knows.
Apparently you do. Otherwise your prior comments was nothing more but irrelevant remarks. Once again.
-
Apparently you do. Otherwise your prior comments was nothing more but irrelevant remarks. Once again.
doh,,, ;D
-
She'll be confirmed. Not a surprise.
-
Apparently you do. Otherwise your prior comments was nothing more but irrelevant remarks. Once again.
::)
She admitted it. So, going by what she said, we all should know.
I'm not putting words in her mouth, I'm just going by what she said.
-
::)
She admitted it. So, going by what she said, we all should know.
I'm not putting words in her mouth, I'm just going by what she said.
And? You placed your opinion in her words there?
What about when she repeatedly denied she would allow her life experience to govern her judicial rulings, saying that "I do believe that judges must apply the law and not make the law,"
You seem to skip that part. Selective judgement?
-
And? You placed your opinion in her words there?
What about when she repeatedly denied she would allow her life experience to govern her judicial rulings, saying that "I do believe that judges must apply the law and not make the law,"
You seem to skip that part. Selective judgement?
I'm not placing anything. She said that her being Latina and her life experiences would guide her her on the bench. Plain and simple.
So she gives a canned answer such as the one you typed, but her own words in an off the cuff engagement tell us that she will use her Latina/background heritage and experiences to guide her on the bench.
So she said her life experience and ethnicity would guide her rulings but then she quickly denies it once it ruffles a lot of feathers.
It seems that you seem to skip the part where she says, clear as day, that she will let her background and ethnicity guide her rulings.
Selective judgement?
-
Wasn't there also a video of her floating around where she said she legislates from the bench?
-
Here is an article from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1243360988-F4qNaj3TJFXhvjbuifY9gQ (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1243360988-F4qNaj3TJFXhvjbuifY9gQ)
“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,”
"This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Food for thought.
-
Wasn't there also a video of her floating around where she said she legislates from the bench?
I think you're referring to her comment that the appellate court is where policy is made. When asked about that during the hearing she said the full context of her comment was the "policy" reflected in the text of the statute.
-
She is going to legislate from the bench. She seems to be a very poor choice for the Supreme Court, as well.
Her dealings with the firefighters and that whole ordeal links directly back with the quotes from my previous post. She has already shown her colors.
-
She is going to legislate from the bench. She seems to be a very poor choice for the Supreme Court, as well.
Her dealings with the firefighters and that whole ordeal links directly back with the quotes from my previous post. She has already shown her colors.
I think she's going to be a liberal activist. But she's replacing a liberal so it's not going to shake anything up. This is one of the important "election consequences," but there was very little talk about it. Wasn't discussed much at all during the debates. Tried to raise the issue on the board several times. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=224219.0 Most of them crickets threads. :)
But I will say after listening to her that Obama could have done a lot worse.
-
I think she's going to be a liberal activist. But she's replacing a liberal so it's not going to shake anything up. This is one of the important "election consequences," but there was very little talk about it. Wasn't discussed much at all during the debates. Tried to raise the issue on the board several times. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=224219.0 Most of them crickets threads. :)
But I will say after listening to her that Obama could have done a lot worse.
That's scary to me, but I get your point. And yes, it is one of those "things" that the winner gets to do. 3 yards and a cloud of dust, so to speak.
And I didn't step foot on these boards until 3 months ago so it's not my fault for the tumble weeds.
-
you guys are ntuz ;D i think lurkernomore is the only sane one here in representiving our latin, woman, friend here she came from poor,,raised to the top isnt that the american dream and she is living it :'( its what we all aspire to and she is a good role model with values, laws, education, among other things.
-
you guys are ntuz ;D i think lurkernomore is the only sane one here in representiving our latin, woman, friend here she came from poor,,raised to the top isnt that the american dream and she is living it :'( its what we all aspire to and she is a good role model with values, laws, education, among other things.
We are talking about the law and not letting your background, ethnicity and whatnot get in the way of handing down fair judgments.
-
We are talking about the law and not letting your background, ethnicity and whatnot get in the way of handing down fair judgments.
sure,,but yet look at all the folks on the supereme court,,they all went through hardship in life
-
Honestly jock, she admitted she legislates from the bench. I know a lot of judges do, but do we really need another one?
-
Honestly jock, she admitted she legislates from the bench. I know a lot of judges do, but do we really need another one?
what she saids and does are two different things,,,obama who I voted does the same thing yet no one is crying foul,,,
-
See jock the difference is when they are in the spotlight they say one thing, but behind closed doors they say another. I personally trust what they say behind closed doors.
-
See jock the difference is when they are in the spotlight they say one thing, but behind closed doors they say another. I personally trust what they say behind closed doors.
She also said we dont have a right to self defense.
-
We are talking about the law and not letting your background, ethnicity and whatnot get in the way of handing down fair judgments.
Then 90% of all judges - especially civil court and child court judges - would need to step down.
-
Then 90% of all judges - especially civil court and child court judges - would need to step down.
Lurker, do you agree with her that we dont have a right to self defense.
-
Lurker, do you agree with her that we dont have a right to self defense.
You have to link me to her exact quote on that and I will judge it then.
-
You have to link me to her exact quote on that and I will judge it then.
-
We need justices that will closely follow the letter of the law and our constitution. It seems Sotomayor is not that person. Her repeated words in speeches about her race & gender giving her a better perspective is very concerning for a supreme court judge. I'd like to see far left and far right candidates thrown out, we don't want extremists as supreme court justices.
I'm not sure how leftist Sotomayor is, but she is in favor of affirmative action and her actions and speeches follow suit. If you look at her history, she has brought issue with Princeton University for not having enough Hispanic teachers. I do not understand any justice that voted against the firefighters...the tests were verified as fair, those guys should have received the promised promotions from day 1. Anyone who does not support equal rights & fairness for all can remove themselves from the judicial branch as far as I'm concerned. We need a movement to end Affirmative action now.
All that said, however, she will be nominated because we have 1 party dominance right now.
-
We need justices that will closely follow the letter of the law and our constitution. It seems Sotomayor is not that person. Her repeated words in speeches about her race & gender giving her a better perspective is very concerning for a supreme court judge. I'd like to see far left and far right candidates thrown out, we don't want extremists as supreme court justices.
I'm not sure how leftist Sotomayor is, but she is in favor of affirmative action and her actions and speeches follow suit. If you look at her history, she has brought issue with Princeton University for not having enough Hispanic teachers. I do not understand any justice that voted against the firefighters...the tests were verified as fair, those guys should have received the promised promotions from day 1. Anyone who does not support equal rights & fairness for all can remove themselves from the judicial branch as far as I'm concerned. We need a movement to end Affirmative action now.
All that said, however, she will be nominated because we have 1 party dominance right now.
He heart is in the right place...........right? :-\
-
ITS NOT A ONE PARTY DOMINATION ::),,its about what american people want and need right now someone who can provide HOPE to the american people by the american people. someone who can stand up up in a lonely forest and speak for all among us for the great good sotomayor can do that for the minority and can make history as the first hispanic/latin woman to do it,, She is a voice of resasoning among a crowd of nothingness,,,
We need justices that will closely follow the letter of the law and our constitution. It seems Sotomayor is not that person. Her repeated words in speeches about her race & gender giving her a better perspective is very concerning for a supreme court judge. I'd like to see far left and far right candidates thrown out, we don't want extremists as supreme court justices.
I'm not sure how leftist Sotomayor is, but she is in favor of affirmative action and her actions and speeches follow suit. If you look at her history, she has brought issue with Princeton University for not having enough Hispanic teachers. I do not understand any justice that voted against the firefighters...the tests were verified as fair, those guys should have received the promised promotions from day 1. Anyone who does not support equal rights & fairness for all can remove themselves from the judicial branch as far as I'm concerned. We need a movement to end Affirmative action now.
All that said, however, she will be nominated because we have 1 party dominance right now.
-
ITS NOT A ONE PARTY DOMINATION ::),,its about what american people want and need right now someone who can provide HOPE to the american people by the american people. someone who can stand up up in a lonely forest and speak for all among us for the great good sotomayor can do that for the minority and can make history as the first hispanic/latin woman to do it,, She is a voice of resasoning among a crowd of nothingness,,,
Hysterical! I hope that was joke.
-
nope
Hysterical! I hope that was joke.
-
Like 333386 said, jock I really hope you aren't serious. This country needs justices who rule on law and not precedent, and who don't let their personal bias' get in the way.
-
law dont mean squat its how you feel inside for the american people,,think about this law is NOT CONREATE it can be molded and skewed no matter what is written down in the end its up the judge the land of the law who , ,"feels" what is wrong do you guys even know that the supereme court can change anything.
Like 333386 said, jock I really hope you aren't serious. This country needs justices who rule on law and not precedent, and who don't let their personal bias' get in the way.
-
law dont mean squat its how you feel inside for the american people,,think about this law is NOT CONREATE it can be molded and skewed no matter what is written down in the end its up the judge the land of the law who , ,"feels" what is wrong do you guys even know that the supereme court can change anything.
Ok, this is totally a gimmick account. Come on.
-
Jock, while I respect your opinion that is completely not how the judicial system works...it would be an absolute disaster if it was. We must have transparent rules that apply to all.
In my previous post, I don't mean to insinuate Sotomayor is extreme, from what I've heard, most of her decisions seem to fall in the mainstream judicial opinions. This firefighter case really bothered me. I just listened to the Hispanic firefighter that was denied the promotion...complete bullshit. I can't believe their case wasn't won unanimously.
-
shootfighter WE know,,,its now how the judicial system works as common american people,,but they supreme court people do what as they wish they have more power to things into place than the president itself,,the fire fighter case may bother you but it does not bother the AMERICAN people as much as you think if it did bother us so much we would riot as you know society can change america also back in the day we used to riot against the system now we just sit behind our computers dont do sheit I mean literally shit,,,like I meiton we are a generation of nothingness we dont bother to fight for what is right and wrong so I know that sotomyer will be a supreme court judge its not about the money its about the power that once obama has in place he will go to her over and over,,,obama is doing this for his own good not for the general public,,if anything happens to obama he knows he can go back to sotoymyer is 15,,20,,and on and on for a favor if he ever go sued for anything
Jock, while I respect your opinion that is completely not how the judicial system works...it would be an absolute disaster if it was. We must have transparent rules that apply to all.
In my previous post, I don't mean to insinuate Sotomayor is extreme, from what I've heard, most of her decisions seem to fall in the mainstream judicial opinions. This firefighter case really bothered me. I just listened to the Hispanic firefighter that was denied the promotion...complete bullshit. I can't believe their case wasn't won unanimously.
-
(http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/justice.jpeg)
Do you know why she is has a blind fold on?
-
so she does not know who is doing her,,, ???
(http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/justice.jpeg)
Do you know why she is has a blind fold on?
-
Great picture Kazan. That should have posted along with these hearings, to re-emphasize the importance of equal justice for all under the law.
-
Great picture Kazan. That should have posted along with these hearings, to re-emphasize the importance of equal justice for all under the law.
If nothing else, Sotomayor proved that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts will embarass her on the bench.
-
so she does not know who is doing her,,, ???
LOL!
In many ways this is true.
-
If nothing else, Sotomayor proved that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts will embarass her on the bench.
maybe not. she could be the one embarassing those old windbags.
-
maybe not. she could be the one embarassing those old windbags.
Ha ha! Even liberal law professors say she is a lightweight on con law issues.
-
so she does not know who is doing her,,, ???
Did you actually make it past the 5th grade?
-
Liberal Law Professors are against Sotomayor...do you agree with them?
Liberal Law Professors Against Sotomayor?
At least one liberal law professor was “completely disgusted” by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony. In an online debate on the Federalist Society’s website, Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman writes:
I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q…
-
I think that if anyone on this website who supports that fat Horatio Sanz in a wig looking moron, had taken a few courses in constitutional law, or any law for that matter- they would be forced to either disclaim their support, or admit they were only supporting her because of her color, or because Obama appointed her.
Even the liberal justices I cant stand ideologically are qualified as competant and experienced jurists. Sotomayor is a horrible pick- not just based on comments regarding race and judicial activism, but because shes BAD JUDGE WHO DOESNT KNOW THE LAW.
What people need to realize is that the Supreme Court is a court of LAW. There are no trials, there are no witnesses, there is no evidence. The justices base their decisions on the case briefs, the procedural history of the case and the attorneys arguing before them on both sides. The fact that this woman may be somewhat biased in favor of minorities doesn't even bother me that much, because the LAW is the LAW. Judicial activism and lacking a basic command of the constitution is reason enough not to confirm her alone.
With that being said, shes going to be confirmed anyway. So fuck it. it doesn't really matter.
-
Did you actually make it past the 5th grade?
no,,but by the time you post again sotoymer shold be on the supree court judge panel,, :D
-
no,,but by the time you post again sotoymer shold be on the supree court judge panel,, :D
I figured you never made it out of grade school, you act like child.
-
I figured you never made it out of grade school, you act like child.
fella,,do you even know who you are talking too I have my connection in washington I donated millions of dollars to compaigns they know me well have lunches and all
-
fella,,do you even know who you are talking too I have my connection in washington I donated millions of dollars to compaigns they know me well have lunches and all
Considering your grammar and spelling, it must be the mental disabilities lobby you work for.
-
fella,,do you even know who you are talking too I have my connection in washington I donated millions of dollars to compaigns they know me well have lunches and all
What your point? That you are proving the elected officials of this country are retarded?
-
fella,,do you even know who you are talking too I have my connection in washington I donated millions of dollars to compaigns they know me well have lunches and all
Awesome Gimmick right here, folks.
-
Look at all of getbig's right wing loonies crying about Sotomayor in this thread. Don't worry, you'll have another 30+ years to whine about her while she presides on the Supreme Court. ;D
Even "JOCK" aka "gh15" is taking the mental midgets to school.
-
Look at all of getbig's right wing loonies crying about Sotomayor in this thread. Don't worry, you'll have another 30+ years to whine about her while she presides on the Supreme Court. ;D
Even "JOCK" aka "gh15" is taking the mental midgets to school.
Ha ha, even liberal lawyers say she is a lightweight.
-
Ha ha, even liberal lawyers say she is a lightweight.
Nobody cares what a few jealous lawyers are saying. She has more judicial experience than any nominee in the last 100 years.
You and those "liberal lawyers" can eat some cheese with your WHINE for the next 30 years while Judge Sotomayor presides on the SC bench. ;D
-
Nobody cares what a few jealous lawyers are saying. She has more judicial experience than any nominee in the last 100 years.
You and those "liberal lawyers" can eat some cheese with your WHINE for the next 30 years while Judge Sotomayor presides on the SC bench. ;D
This why no one takes you seriuosly, you don't give a shit that 6 out 10 rulings she made that went to the supreme court were reversed. Thats a 40% success rate, if I had a 40% success rate at my job I would be out on my ass. You don't care that she makes racist comments. All you care about is that it pisses of republicans.
People like you are why this country is going to hell in a handbag, you don't care about America all you care about is you "side " winning