Obama's Pick For Supreme Court

[guywithashovel]

I think they were leaning towards picking a woman or a minority, and my understanding of the reasoning behind it was that so the court would be representative of the judiciary as a whole. Nowadays, the lower courts have more women and minorities on them, and they wanted the Supreme Court to represent that.

That's what I read in a news article, anyway.

And in any sense, it seems pretty obvious to me that her sex and national origins were not the only things considered. She has quite a bit of experience in law and in the judiciary. Now, many people probably don't agree with her views, but that doesn't mean she was picked just because she is female and Hispanic.

[AFPheonix]

Yep. The new cool thing to do is look over the white male. And it is because of "reparations" or "equal opportunity" or "affirmative action". Employers are even afraid of employing a white male because a woman or minority can sue and call racism or sexism. If a white male goes to do that, it gets brought up that the ratios aren't right for male vs female, white vs black or whatever.

....Except that we just got 2 white guys nominated and installed into SCOTUS.

Old white guys just have more competition these days, is all.

[blas87]

I was against Sarah Palin because she's a fucking idiot floozy who permeates the stereotype of "bimbo".

And for the record, a lot of people who were against Obama was because every single red blooded redneck always believes that the democrats are going to take away their guns. Some of them are racist rednecks, others were just brought up to believe that every liberal is a hippy. And a lot of the richer types of Republicans were calling Obama a Socialist who was going to try to redistribute all the rich people's money.

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm a female voter.

I'm unsure about how I feel about Ms. Sotomeyer.

I still have mixed feelings about Sandra Day O'Connor.

Does this make me an anti-female?

Do I care if she's Latina? No, not really.

Do I care if she's female? Again, no.

There have been women on the SCOTUS. It's not that big a deal that she's a woman.

I want to read more about her decisions as a judge. See what she thinks about on certain topics that are blowing in the wind.

If I don't like what I see, I'm going to oppose her. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. Woman or not.

I'd do the same thing with a man be him white, black, homosexual, heterosexual.

ETA:

Judge Sotomayor, along with 2 other judges, ruled against white and hispanic firefighters in their pursuit to get promotions they thought should be theirs. Why were they denied these promotions? Out of the 118 people who were taking written exams, the 28 black firefighters in on the exams failed miserably. Actually, the United States Supreme Court is hearing this case far in advance of Judge Sotomayor even getting to sit on the panel. Here is the article:

As read on ABC News dot com.

Another article about the firefighter case along with a ruling by Judge Sotomayor on gun control and the good chance it might go to the Supreme Court after Judge Sotomayor may or may get there (it is written to Libertarians, so read if you want).

Even the pro-abortionists are worried about her!

[Talon]

And for the second part: a lot of the mainstream media would make you out to be. Just like if you were against Palin, you were sexist. Or against Obama, you were a racist.

That's the mainstream media for you. Hinting at racism/sexism makes a much sweeter headline than the boring but reasonable "I oppose them for their views/decisions". Asking the media to be substantive is like asking children to eat vegetables instead of chocolate.

But for the record Blas is right about Palin. She couldn't even get the job description of the Vice-President right... more than once. Apparently in the modern Republican party, ignorance is your best asset.

[Tanasi]

What about Kennedy and Scalia? They aren't spring chickens, either.


And for the second part: a lot of the mainstream media would make you out to be. Just like if you were against Palin, you were sexist. Or against Obama, you were a racist.

No they're not but I've not heard any rumors or what not concerning their retirement. It seems with the liberal set if you disagree with their agenda then you're some sort of "ist". For a supposedly all inclusive bunch they certainly exclude a lot.

I think they were leaning towards picking a woman or a minority, and my understanding of the reasoning behind it was that so the court would be representative of the judiciary as a whole. Nowadays, the lower courts have more women and minorities on them, and they wanted the Supreme Court to represent that.

That's what I read in a news article, anyway.

And in any sense, it seems pretty obvious to me that her sex and national origins were not the only things considered. She has quite a bit of experience in law and in the judiciary. Now, many people probably don't agree with her views, but that doesn't mean she was picked just because she is female and Hispanic.

Picking someone with a lifetime appointment because they're "something or other" to represent "someone or other" is flat out wrong because they're representing that group and excluding the rest. Shouldn't the best person for the job be nominated??? This nominee might be the best, I've not made up my mind, I certainly disagree with her opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to state and local governments.
I guess we'll never know who was considered for this seat or why, I would certainly expect the great and wonderful Obammy's folks say he was looking for the very best and that's the only criteria.

I was against Sarah Palin because she's a fucking idiot floozy who permeates the stereotype of "bimbo".

And for the record, a lot of people who were against Obama was because every single red blooded redneck always believes that the democrats are going to take away their guns. Some of them are racist rednecks, others were just brought up to believe that every liberal is a hippy. And a lot of the richer types of Republicans were calling Obama a Socialist who was going to try to redistribute all the rich people's money.

I had a big long response to your missive but it started sounding preachy so I decided to be brief.

1. Don't believe what you see and hear on TV. They're not reporting all the facts. Sarah Palin didn't get to her current position by being dumb. A lot of what was attributed to her she never said. Particularly the "I can see Russia from my house."
2. Is not voting for someone that you fear might take away something from you not a legitimate reason??? Would you vote for someone whose platform is that all female blonde 20 somethings must wear a chastity belt until married???
3. Not all liberals are hippys but all hippys are liberals.
4. Since when is being rich evil??? Don't you aspire to be rich??? If you become rich then will you be evil???
5. BTW taking from someone to either keep for yourself or give away is stealing and especially so when coersion is used. The reason governments don't like the mob is they don't like the competition.

Also in earlier comments you've professed a dislike of GWB and that he was dumb. I don't deny that he's made mistake but ask your parents and grandparents how things were when Mr. Peanut was president and LBJ.

[kiwi]

A lot of what was attributed to her she never said. Particularly the "I can see Russia from my house."

Your right she didn't say that, she did however say in an interview with Katie Couric

"They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

now that in itself is not such a stupid statement, but when it is put into context, that being her answer to the questions on complete lack of foriegn policy experiance, it becomes an incredidbly idiotic answer....

[Tanasi]

Your right she didn't say that, she did however say in an interview with Katie Couric

"They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

now that in itself is not such a stupid statement, but when it is put into context, that being her answer to the questions on complete lack of foriegn policy experiance, it becomes an incredidbly idiotic answer....

Do you know for a fact that you can't see Russia from an Alaskan island??? No she didn't/doesn't have a lot of foriegn policy experience but how many state governors do? How many US Senators have FP experience??? I'd say the list is mighty short would wouldn't have included the great and wonderful Obammy. If traveling around the work and glad handing the local war-lords qualifies then yes he has some, heck I have more FP experience than he I've been shot at by asians, europeans and arabs.
Palin isn't an extemporanious speaker and she doesn't interview well and frankly that bothered me a little, but when you listen to the great and wonderful Obammy hemming and hawing after being asked questions he wasn't prepared for kinda balances the scales. Obama gives great speaches and interviews well when extensively prepared and interviewed by friendly reporters, I wonder how he'd do if interviewed by O'Reiley, Hannidy or Limbaugh??? There's a reason he and other politicans of his ilk won't give Fox News the time of day, they know they'll be asked hard questions they don't want to give answers to and can't expect the interviewer to softball them or spin their answer.
If we're going to keep this sub-thread going we need to spilt off or start a new one as we're getting off subject.

[kiwi]

Do you know for a fact that you can't see Russia from an Alaskan island???

That is completely besides the point

A few years ago Australia has some terrible forrest fires that were so bad we could see them in New Zealand (and no you can't see Aussie from NZ) but our countries are over 1340 miles apart and we still got smoke and ash in Auckland, along with our sky turning orange for 2 days.

Does that give me experiance on how to fight a forrest fire? Just because I can SEE the fire, doesn't mean I then become a firefighter. Just like, Palin being able to see Russia does not make her a politician with foriegn policy experiance.

[Rapscallion]

If we're going to keep this sub-thread going we need to spilt off or start a new one as we're getting off subject.

Well said.

Rapscallion

[PepperElf]

i thought the contraversy would be over her stance on the second amendment, claiming the right to bear arms wasn't for the states..... meaning that citizens don't ahve the right to own guns....

to me.. if they can do that... that means they can claim ANY amendment wasn't for citizens at all... including free speech, voting rights...


to me... you can't just pick and choose what rights you want to uphold. if you're going to uphold the constitution you have to uphold ALL of it, not just the parts you like.

[Greenday]

to me... you can't just pick and choose what rights you want to uphold. if you're going to uphold the constitution you have to uphold ALL of it, not just the parts you like.

That hasn't been true since it came into effect. New amendments get added. There have been multiple ones taken away from the Constitution and rightfully so.

[PepperElf]

it depends on what they decide to be "rightfully so"

because i always figure... when the government starts taking away rights... it's best to be wary on how many they take away. because eventually they might start taking away human rights if it's against their agenda.

it's happened before in the US... look at Mcarthyism.

[Tanasi]

i thought the contraversy would be over her stance on the second amendment, claiming the right to bear arms wasn't for the states..... meaning that citizens don't ahve the right to own guns....

to me.. if they can do that... that means they can claim ANY amendment wasn't for citizens at all... including free speech, voting rights...


to me... you can't just pick and choose what rights you want to uphold. if you're going to uphold the constitution you have to uphold ALL of it, not just the parts you like.

As I understand her opinion is that the 2nd Admendment only prohibits the federal government from denying firearms, yet state and local governments are free to do as they will. Meaning even though the US Federal government can't keep you from owning a gun as afirmed by the 2nd admendment, the prohibition doesn't apply to other governments under whom you fall.
My state's constitution also has a firearms afirmation but reserves the wearing of firearms.
I agree you either support the whole thing or none but for some who are currently in power and have been in power would just as soon wipe their ass with the constitution.

I currious as to what her rate of overturned decisions is???

[Tanasi]

That hasn't been true since it came into effect. New amendments get added. There have been multiple ones taken away from the Constitution and rightfully so.

Actually there is no way to remove admendments (as it's written) once they've been added but it is possible to add another amendment that in effect repeals a previous admendment. Such as when the 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed by the 21st amendment.
Now a constitutional convention could remove and add to the constitution but it still has to be radified by the states. The danger there is the whole constitution is up for grabs. So depending upon your opinion of whom is currently in power then it could be good or bad.