The Paulinator
Spreading the seed
What gets me is that the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.
The first point made of this nominee is about what she looks like
The first point made of this nominee is about what she looks like
Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
Congratulations Justice Sotomayor!!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32312026/ns/politics-white_house?GT1=43001
:thumbsup:artysml: :crowdgrin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32312026/ns/politics-white_house?GT1=43001
:thumbsup:
artysml: :crowdgrin
What gets me is that the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.
The first point made of this nominee is about what she looks like
Excellent point. Let's face facts: She was nominated to score points. Period. She also has admitted on several occasions to pushing social agendas from the bench... not a great pick for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the US if you ask me. There's a REASON why Lady Justice is supposed to be "blind" and this chick don't fit the mold.
Who made that point?? If it wasn't the person who nominated her...the suggestion moot.
Of course it was points for the person who nominated her... President Barack Hussein Obama. Who did you think?
Congratulations Justice Sotomayor!!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32312026/ns/politics-white_house?GT1=43001
:thumbsup:
Congrats Sonia,you've come a long way baby!:thumbsup:
I may be wrong, but did you say that about W. Bush trying to shore up the white guy vote? Because both Roberts ( a lot less) and Alito had less Judicial experience when they were nominated. Double standard perhaps?
So..it should be easy enough for you then to point me to B.H. Obama quote indicating the first consideration he used was how she looked.
I'll wait....
Even republicans who voted against her acknowledged it was great thing to see some diversity.
But then again they are the party that really needs to try to score some points with some people like hispanics and women maybe more as well as they would like to maybe win some elections again.:1orglaugh
"Diversity" is a red herring and doesn't mean sh!t in this instance. What DOES matter is that a justice interprets the law fairly and does not try to make policy from the bench. THAT is her problem.
The judicial system was placed apart and equal to the other two to protect our Constitutional rights from impingement from lawmakers and the executors, not to promote an agenda.
You people enamoured with her are not using LOGIC, you're using your EMOTION.
The judicial system was placed apart and equal to the other two to protect our Constitutional rights from impingement from lawmakers and the executors, not to promote an agenda.
You people enamoured with her are not using LOGIC, you're using your EMOTION.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
jasonk282
Banned
How is someone who is from Spain not considered Hispanic?
I guess using that logic, Italians are not Italians, French are not French, Germans are not Germans, Poles are not Poles they are just all Europeans because they are on the European contintent. So using that Logic Mexicans are not Mexicans nor are Canadians Canadians, but since they are both on the North American Contintent they woule be Americans? Is that how your logic works?:dunno:
Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that historically denoted a relationship to the ancient Hispania (geographically coinciding with the Iberian Peninsula). During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain. :nanner:
Seems to me last time I checked that Portgual is on the Iberian Peninsula.
I guess using that logic, Italians are not Italians, French are not French, Germans are not Germans, Poles are not Poles they are just all Europeans because they are on the European contintent. So using that Logic Mexicans are not Mexicans nor are Canadians Canadians, but since they are both on the North American Contintent they woule be Americans? Is that how your logic works?:dunno:
Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that historically denoted a relationship to the ancient Hispania (geographically coinciding with the Iberian Peninsula). During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain. :nanner:
Seems to me last time I checked that Portgual is on the Iberian Peninsula.
Not sure what your point is, but go back to Wikipedia and read the next paragraph after.
My point was to counter this idea its dems who need to score points with people.Obama picked her because even as republicans will admit she has all the experience and credentials required,more than most nominees have had.
But diversity and having all branches of govt be somewhat reflective of the people of the United States is also a valid factor to consider.
And the activism arguement is 2 way street.Conservatives can be just as activist.
She is not known for going against precedent and being very activist so I would not worry much.
I'm not sure where you've been or what your understanding is but why do you think founders (Through Art. III, US Constitution) empowered congress to expand from time to time the number of Justices which the SCOTUS is composed of??
I mean if law isn't subject to some interpretation or perspective why have more than one person viewing the same facts then???
Certainly if the reality is how you believe, we should never see split decisions at any appellate level including the SCOTUS , jurors would never deadlock and Judges would never be overturned. But the fact of the matter is all of those things are consistent with how our Judicial system is suppose to work.
Speaking of interpretations, many misinterpret what Lady Justice represents. She merely represents that the law should be equally applied not that the people within the system are drones with no perspective.
Isn't that like the whole concept behind being judged by a "jury of your peers"??
Sorry, your whole post is off base.
But I'm still waiting for that quote that shows Obama's first consideration on Sotomayor was how she looked.
No, I think you misunderstand. I know there are differences of educated opinion on interpretation of law. My MAKING law from the bench is unconstitutional, and she admittedly has engaged in such activity.
Judicial "activism" knows no political ideological boundaries. Sure, there are some from either side. And all must be kept from holding these positions appointed for life, because they push an agenda that will benefit some at the costs of others when their job is to protect as a buffer against the other two branches to protect us ALL from government overstepping it's bounds and becoming tyrannical. I guess they forgot that somewhere along the way in the 20th century... and apparently we have accepted this as "normal" which disturbs me greatly.
Sotomayor was an activist in her personal endeavors. That is completely acceptable...just because you're a judge doesn't mean you don't have personal interests. That's why the recusal remedy is available and has been used in our system many times over.
The SCOTUS exists for one reason and one reason only...to ensure our laws and judicial findings are in keeping with the rights, limitations and responsibilities contained in the US Constitution. Just because that's what they are there for doesn't mean all of our laws are in keeping with the Constitution.
If a law passes and you believe it's unconstitutional....as unconstitutional as it may be it will remain on the books until someone challenges in court.
Back to Sotomayor, I humbly admit I don't know every case she's decided or proffered and opinion....So I'm not in a position to know whether she's a "good" choice or not. I suspect not many here are...
She was nominated and throughout her confirmation hearings no disqualifying act, opinion or ruling was brought forth. That's why she is now a Supreme pending her swearing in.
Nobody really knows how any of them will be totally till they get on the court.many presidents have gotten different then they expected. As you say I have no idea and actually wonder about her.She is a catholic hispanic ,how commited to womans right to choose is she as an example.
Activism though is totally in the eye of the beholder.
Similar threads
