True.
She would seem to be in keeping with what Obama said on the campaign trail about not having litmus tests for his appointments.
Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
True.
She would seem to be in keeping with what Obama said on the campaign trail about not having litmus tests for his appointments.
has she done any anal scenes?
No she has never shown much interest in porn.Now Clarence Thomas he loved porn.Long Dong Silver as I remember was his favorite.Really lol.
I disagree. This is not a matter of subjectivity. You either try to interpret law and the Constitution and be part of the Judiciary, or you overstep that boundary and become Legislative.
Congrats to her,she has made history.
Fuck all the haters.:thefinger
Fuck all the haters.:thefinger
No offense, but that kind of thinking is exactly why we are sliding into mediocrity. I don't care what a person's race, color, religion, size, shape, anything are... but they need to be intelligent and understand their job, and that should be the ONLY reason to put someone in a position. I think she is intelligent, but I have concerns about her understanding the role she will have as a life-appointed member of the Supreme Court. That is not "hating", that is called being a good citizen.
Last time I checked, it was still legal (although barely) for citizens to think on their own. Problem is, most people just choose not to!
No offense, but that kind of thinking is exactly why we are sliding into mediocrity. I don't care what a person's race, color, religion, size, shape, anything are... but they need to be intelligent and understand their job, and that should be the ONLY reason to put someone in a position. I think she is intelligent, but I have concerns about her understanding the role she will have as a life-appointed member of the Supreme Court. That is not "hating", that is called being a good citizen.
Last time I checked, it was still legal (although barely) for citizens to think on their own. Problem is, most people just choose not to!
Once again,congrats to her.
She made HISTORY.
Fuck all the haters!:thefinger
I bet if we started naming some cases you would think some were activist and I wouldn't and I could name some that you thought were just interpreting the consitituion and I though were activist.
I always wonder if people when they say follow the constitution what they mean really.Is it that it has to be written exactly in the constitution or the right doesn't exist.It was written as just basic road map of how to balance competing interests IMO.I't can't possibly cover every situation ,it couldn't in the 1780s and it has never been able to and needs to be interpreted and re-interpreted all the time to keep pace with the changes society has seen.
I would really be interested though in some of your examples of activism by the supreme court.
Are they the ones conservatives talk about the most like Rowe V wade or was Brown Vs education activist or just finding rights that should have been found by previous courts?
And what about the legal theory of precedent known as "starry decisis" (not sure on the spelling lol) that says you must give lot of weight to prior decisions as a judge (something Sontomayer is known to do btw).That means if a case like Rowe v wade was to be overturned that would almost certainly be called activist move by many (including me).
It almost sounds like the way some think you don't even need a court ,that you just read the constitution and its all laid out ,it's not like that.The thing is very vague and delibertly so.
We really can't just totally go by the concepts of the 18th century and documents written with quill pens can we.
We were a country then that had slaves,women couldn't vote,etc etc.
I think the founders would think our govt was serving us very poorly if we had not adapted somewhat and improved and learned but held to the ideas of personal liberty ,which we have.They would not say you have to do it exactly as we said we should do it in 1785 lol.
Show us where the SCOTUS has a quota mandate.
I don't doubt that she's capable of doing the duty. However, why didn't they just come out and say "white males need not apply"? Their veiled attempts to hide their (obvious) prejudice was pretty much blatant. The only problem I have is, what if Einstein wanted to apply? Should Einstein not have applied because of his skin color and because he had a pecker? They got their Marshall and their Thomas, so who's next? Well, it has to be an Asian, right? Whatever. I just hope Obama is only 4 so we can move on to real "change."
I don't doubt that she's capable of doing the duty. However, why didn't they just come out and say "white males need not apply"? Their veiled attempts to hide their (obvious) prejudice was pretty much blatant. The only problem I have is, what if Einstein wanted to apply? Should Einstein not have applied because of his skin color and because he had a pecker? They got their Marshall and their Thomas, so who's next? Well, it has to be an Asian, right? Whatever. I just hope Obama is only 4 so we can move on to real "change."
Couldn't be something less sinister like Obama viewing her record and experience as the most extensive?
I guess "real" change was Alito and Roberts??:1orglaugh Dude, you should honestly consider stand-up (if you're not already a comedian).
Couldn't be something less sinister like Obama viewing her record and experience as the most extensive?
I guess "real" change was Alito and Roberts??:1orglaugh Dude, you should honestly consider stand-up (if you're not already a comedian).
No, the "list" that the major cable news and even standard television news comprised of basically was all females and people of color.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Albert Einstein? I'm pretty sure that he's dead. I don't think dead guys (or gals) can be on the Supreme Court.
And if you mean when he was alive, Einstein being Jewish, wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Hell of even being considered for the SCOTUS. That and the fact that Einstein had no legal background, as far as I know. But even if he had, read the sign of that time: No Jews Allowed.
Ohh-kayyy:dunno:
Of his short list (which included both genders and almost all races) he picked the one who's record was most extensive.
Sounds to me like you're the one harping on an unfounded race card here.
Did other races whine this much when Bush appointed Alito and Roberts???
What did his short list look like??
Trust me, when you have dug yourself eye level to the ground...stop digging.:2 cents:
I knew he was a Jew, but surely you see my premise. Replace him with Newton or Hawking for all I fucking care. Get the point?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7480719&page=1 So there was a "token" white male in there.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I knew he was a Jew, but surely you see my premise. Replace him with Newton or Hawking for all I fucking care. Get the point?
I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the point is you believe this spot was reserved for an Hispanic, preferably one who was also a female. And even if a brilliant White male was available, he wouldn't have been considered, simply because he was a White male. That about it?
I don't think Sotomayor is unqualified for the position, whether I agree with her politics and decisions or not. And I do think that her nomination was based on more than just her qualifications. I believe that her race and gender did play a part in the decision, as well as her politics to some measure. But time has proven that Presidents who try to guess the exact politics of a Justice often get it wrong.
Back to your point, do I think that an equally qualified White male would have gotten equal consideration given the demographics of the Dems vs. the Repubs now? Can't say that I do. The Dems scored big points with Hispanics and women. And they let the Repubs hang themselves with both groups by opposing her.
Hate to break this news, but who had the highest grades in law school was never the way to get on the SCOTUS. And on the 7PM report, there'll be a story on how life ain't fair. Sorry. :dunno:
I find some sad humor in the irony that the same people who are patting themselves on the back for being progressive enough to put the first Hispanic on a High Court are some of the same ones who had a problem with the "Mexican-ness" of Alberto Gonzalez.
Wrong. Nobody on the Left had a problem with Alberto Gonzalez being Hispanic. Find me one Democrat who said anything like that. (you can’t because you are completely making it up)
Just like Fox news and many on the right, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
What we had a problem with was the undisputable fact that Alberto Gonzalez was incompetent to run the Justice Department and was little more than a political hack with a law degree.
Just like Fox news and many on the right, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
What we had a problem with was the undisputable fact that Alberto Gonzalez was incompetent to run the Justice Department and was little more than a political hack with a law degree.
Uh, there were more than a few references to their issue with his descendants being "illegal" immigrants to this country.
Funny how revisionist history works.
Similar threads
