http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54P2IS20090527

that was the first thing i have read on her.....i dont think i like her....wait...nope i dont like her. that whole latina versus white male thing doesn't sit right with me. someone who needs to talk about their ethnicity in that way is most likely.....













































racist.....

Wouldn't you say that off the cuff remarks are more telling than legal opinions, which are carefully worded, and well thought out? Those statements, which I'm assuming were verbal, were obviously not filtered properly.

she must not have been using a teleprompter....maybe obama can hook her up

The legal opinions are the best indicator of what she'll do on the bench.

Fish on...

Todd

I found a more complete version of the quote...it gets better:

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.”

I have to agree with Marsha so far I don't see a good reason not to confirm her appointment.

I have read some but obviously not all of her opinions and they don't seem out of line.

A more complete version of the other quote...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -- S. Sotomayor, October 2001

"I hope" was missing the first go-round. I can't argue with you guys that this is a reason to reject her confirmation. I guess it just bothers me more than most....................PP posters.

The whole point I was getting at when starting this thread was this:

1. She's going to be confirmed...get used to it now.

2. She's eminently qualified, and there's not really much question about that.

3. The Republicans really...REALLY...need some of the hispanic vote back if they hope to ever get back in any semblance of power.

4. Will the R's in the Senate ignore 1-3, and act like they have been the past three months?

I don't know the answer...but the answer to that question will have plenty to do with how long it takes them to get anywhere again.

Fish on...

Todd

And here's the quote from a speech in real context delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

The repubs leave all this out when playing the racist card. It's stuff like this that make me go..... figures.

I'm not sure all those sugary words she poetically waxed helps your argument. You may want stop when your ahead. I know emotions and sugar go along ways with the limp wristed left but y'all need to look at the substance of the statement.

This is coming from me, a guy who thinks she should be confirmed...but I could be convinced otherwise.

.."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."

WTF does that mean?

I bet lil'english peter would have her latina arse drawn and quartered for such a racist remark....but since he's a df'r who cares.

Having a decision reversed by the SCOTUS doesn't mean that you aren't "SCOTUS smart" Hank... it just means that the majority... which just so happen to be conservative on the Court disagreed with your ruling.

This isn't for you Hank... but to those who've regurgitated it in this thread.

The whole "activist judges legislating from the bench" BS IS nothing but a right-wing talking point. Whether you heard it on talk-radio, saw it on FOX News or read it in the Weekly Standard is pretty much irrelevant. You're just parroting.

Anyone know what the reversal rate of the SCOTUS is?

Here's a hint...nearly 75% of the cases they take are reversed. That's why they take them, most of the time.

Anyone know what Judge Alito's reversal rate is?

Guesses?

OK...another hint.

100%. Every time one of his opinions was reviewed by the SCOTUS, they reversed him.

Every time.

Is this really the measuring stick the Republicans ought to be thinking about?

One more hint...no.

Fish on...

Todd

I didn't say that EVERY decision goes down ideological lines now did I?

I will help you just this one, last time. You ascribe your righteousness to "people voting for Obama based on his skin color."

I should point out, how do you know what all the voters for Obama were thinking and how did they manage to conspire on such a scale? You may find this painful, but great insight sometimes comes at the expense of great pain. Have a nice day.

"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.[1]

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for one's own failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another."

Don't go using facts, like the ones I put above...they don't work.

Ridiculous catch phrases trumpeted by the right wing radio and TV loudmouths are far easier to remember, and even if those hearing them, not to mention those spouting 'em, don't even know what they mean, they know if they say 'em, and their listeners hear 'em, then they must be bad.

Very bad.

Fish on...

Todd

"Wouldn't you say that off the cuff remarks are more telling than legal opinions, which are carefully worded, and well thought out? "

Nope. Carefully worded and well thought out legal opinions are what we want. And I think most of us wouldn't be employed if off the cuff remarks were more important than our on the job performance.

Don't bother explaining Hank, it does no good. Just like talking to a wall sometimes. Spin, spin, spin, it still is what it is. It is about following the Const to some and changing the Const to the others. "Activists" dont follow the const and use terms like "living" or "evolving" to allow themselves, without the legislature, to change it to fit their view of the world. Others believe that the const covers what each of us is entitled in this country. After that we use the legis to change things(if we decide it is needed. Sometimes the legis needs to have decision thrown back because they dont follow the const. That has nothing to do with "activist". It is just the opposite. So the spin should stop there(though it probably wont).
I agree Todd that ones activist decision is anothers great decision. Just different views of the same situation I guess but the bottom line is the Const and does it follow it.
Last thing is this.....I have many lib and rep friends that I hunt with. We get in the occasional pol discussion at camp. The libs always have this thing about talk radio(suprise surprise, we hear it here as well).
We were at elk camp last year and that got brought up. One of my on the ball(non-redneck/hick) rep freinds piped up about who around the fire had ever heard talk radio. Not one of the reps had ever listened to anyone on talk radio, but two of the libs had tuned into everyones fav fat windbag.
Makes you go hmmm. I am starting to think that most of that guys listeners are libs who just cant make it through the day without something to complain about. I see you with your lib buddies....."Did you hear what he said this morning?" "I cant believe it." "Those damn rep." Rush does not speak for most of us sorry. Niether does Hannity, Coltier or whoever else you guys like to listen to to get you feathers all ruffled.
How about you guys drop the admin new talking point and stop tuning in every week and maybe these blowhard will just go away. But without them to poitn to you would loose your boggyman so it probably wont happen.

Most of the country is already bundled around the center...I think that's why the politicos, of both stripes, spend so much time picking around at the extreme edges just so they can find something to distinguish themselves from the "other guys"...and all of them end up alienating most everyone else when they do it.

Most folks also tend to be at least somewhat partisan about their party of choice, so if they mention how little they like the extreme position of the "other guy", even if it's a relatively trivial matter and represents only a small part of his politics, they immediately get labeled as "extreme" the other way...while they don't likely agree with the either extreme end of the spectrum.

Fish on...

Todd