Sotomayor reversed: SCOTUS reverses Ricci v. New Haven

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

So glad you feel that way Tom Joad, because you have so much more to learn...

BTW Alpha, how are new ads working out?

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Yorkist

Perhaps you could list the red flags and also the candidates who are as well or better qualified.

Red flags would include:

1. Her statement, in court and on the record, that appeals courts are a place "where police is made."

2. Repeated and prepared public remarks about "wise latino women" being better judges than white males, including accompanying statements that she is not adverse to the idea that this alleged superiority is a result of genetics.

3. Lying about those statements by suggesting she merely chose her words poorly when actually she had used the exact same language in multiple prepared speeches and addresses.

4. Her summary judgment order in the Ricci case, discussed above.

5. Some lawyers and co-workers have accussed her, fairly or not, of being occassionally uncivil and rude to others outside and inside of the courthouse.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

BTW Alpha, how are new ads working out?

"Embedding disabled by request." Try again.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Dufrel

Comprehension check:

Did I say the court would have kept the ruling in place or that Sotomayer would have?

2 different things.

Originally Posted by Dufrel

Sotomeyer (if put on the bench) would probably have kept the ruling in place.

Oh I'm sorry.

How silly of me.

When you said "if put on the bench" I thought you meant the Supreme court bench.

What bench did you mean?

The Boston Red Sox bench?



Or perhaps the Forrest Gump bench?

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Red flags would include:

1. Her statement, in court and on the record, that appeals courts are a place "where police is made."

2. Repeated public statements about wise hispanic females being judges than white males, including accompanying statements that she is not adverse to the idea that this superiority is a result of genetics.

3. Lying about those statements by suggesting she merely chose her words poorly when actually she had used the exact same language in multiple prepared speeches and addresses.

4. Her summary judgment order in the Ricci case, discussed above.

Other Americans don't seem to agree with you on these points, going by the views expressed on this thread. Did you have a list of alternative candidates?

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Yorkist

Other Americans don't seem to agree with you on these points, going by the views expressed on this thread. Did you have a list of alternative candidates?

This is a UK forum with many European posters, and this site is also dominated by the far-left for reasons I won't get into in the US forum. P&CA is an entertaining web forum but it certainly does not represent opinion in the mainstream United States.

As for alternate picks, the judicial world is quite wide and there are many judges to choose from. From the beginning I have suspected that Obama's pick had more to do with promoting diversity than qualifications, and given all the red flags that have now come up surrounding Sotomayor, I would like to see Obama restart the process without considering the skin tone or sex organs of his potential supreme court nominees.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

This is a UK forum with many European posters, and this site is also dominated by the far-left for reasons I won't get into in the US forum. P&CA is an entertaining web forum but it certainly does not represent opinion in the mainstream United States.

As for alternate picks, the judicial world is quite wide and there are many judges to choose from. From the beginning I have suspected that Obama's pick had more to do with promoting diversity than qualifications, and given all the red flags that have now come up surrounding Sotomayor, I would like to see Obama restart the process without considering the skin tone or sex organs of his potential supreme court nominees.

I don't agree that this forum is dominated by the far left, and I also disagree that it does not represent mainstream opinion in the US. From my experience of living in the US and talking to Americans, it fairly represents views across the spectrum.

Your comments about Supreme Court eligibility are interesting. Don't you think that SCOTUS should represent all Americans?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

"Embedding disabled by request." Try again.

Win some, lose some.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

I would like to see Obama restart the process without considering the skin tone or sex organs of his potential supreme court nominees.

Is that how we got seven white males?

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Yorkist

I don't agree that this forum is dominated by the far left, and I also disagree that it does not represent mainstream opinion in the US. From my experience of living in the US and talking to Americans, it fairly represents views across the spectrum.

I note that you are from Yorkshire, in northern England. Where did you reside in the US, and for how long?

Your comments about Supreme Court eligibility are interesting. Don't you think that SCOTUS should represent all Americans?

No, the Supreme court does not and should not seek to "represent" all Americans. Rather, the job of the court is to examine and enforce the legal rights, priviledges and responsibilities of all Americans. If the best way to accomplish that purpose is to have a court consisting of nine elderly white male millionares, that is how the court should be composed.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Is that how we got seven white males?

You would have to ask the Presidents who made those appointments.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

I note that you are from Yorkshire, in northern England. Where did you reside in the US, and for how long?

In Illinois, for two years, on and off. Why?

No, the Supreme court does not and should not seek to "represent" all Americans. Rather, the job of the court is to examine and enforce the legal rights, priviledges and responsibilities of all Americans. If the best way to accomplish that purpose is to have a court consisting of nine elderly white male millionares, that is how the court should be composed.

Well it patently isn't the best way, is it? The best way to enforce the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of all Americans is to have a panel that represents the views and backgrounds of all Americans.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Yorkist

In Illinois, for two years, on and off. Why?

I am trying to figure out where you lived that you think a far-left site like P&CA represents the mainstream in US society. Chicago?

Well it patently isn't the best way, is it? The best way to enforce the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of all Americans is to have a panel that represents the views and backgrounds of all Americans.

No, that is not the way to do it at all. Law is not undergraduate school and courts are not a "marketplace of ideas." The court is applying established rules of law to a set of facts, the attorneys are going to argue about those facts, or how the law should apply to those facts. There isn't a feminist or ethnic viewpoint on the action, and even if there was what the courts do (sending people to jail, inflicting massive fines, ect.) is too important for their actions to be impeded by politicians who want to "promote diversity" at the cost of having a quality judiciary.

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

I am trying to figure out where you lived that you think a far-left site like P&CA represents the mainstream in US society. Chicago?

No, not Chicago. You are the one who is out of whack here, mate. If you think posters like Westerner, gurutoo and yourself, not to mention CockySOB, Dufrel, Justin and numerous others are far left, you are living in a fairy tale.

No, that is not the way to do it at all. Law is not undergraduate school and courts are not a "marketplace of ideas." The court is applying established rules of law to a set of facts, the attorneys are going to argue about those facts, or how the law should apply to those facts. There isn't a feminist or ethnic viewpoint on the action, and even if there was what the courts do (sending people to jail, inflicting massive fines, ect.) is too important for their actions to be impeded by politicians who want to "promote diversity" at the cost of having a quality judiciary.

First of all, who is it that wants to promote diversity at the cost of having a quality judiciary? Secondly, who do you know, lawyer or layman, who is not influenced in his/her decisions and interpretations by his/her background and upbringing? Your patronising tone is misplaced - hauteur is no substitute for experience, which is why you will never find a cocky 20-something on the Supreme Court.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by Yorkist

No, not Chicago. You are the one who is out of whack here, mate. If you think posters like Westerner, gurutoo and yourself, not to mention CockySOB, Dufrel, Justin and numerous others are far left, you are living in a fairy tale.

The posters you are referring to are the exception to the rule here, and some of them, such as Justin and Dufrel, post fairly infrequently. According to polls somewhere between 30% and 40% of the US identifies themselves with the Republican party, and that number is on the rise as we put distance between the Bush administration and the present. How many people do you know on this site support the GOP?

First of all, who is it that wants to promote diversity at the cost of having a quality judiciary?

What do you think results when you choose to nominate a minority/female over the most qualified candidate in terms, of experience, skill, intellectual firepower, ect? You sacrifice quality for "diversity."

Secondly, who do you know, lawyer or layman, who is not influenced in his/her decisions and interpretations by his/her background and upbringing? Your patronising tone is misplaced - hauteur is no substitute for experience, which is why you will never find a cocky 20-something on the Supreme Court.

People are influenced by their background, but that influence most manifests itself in subjective or values decision making. Law is an analytical exercise, not an application of relative values.

I agree with you that experience and expertise is very important in law, which is why Obama needs to restart this process without the "diversity" litmus test.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Alpha

How many people do you know on this site support the GOP?

There seems to be quite a gap between those who support the GOP and those who will say they support the GOP.

[Dufrel]

I am an infrequent poster? Sad.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Dufrel

I am an infrequent poster? Sad.

I envy you.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs...reply&p=679388

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Shit! 3,469 posts! 5.30 posts per day! What a waste of life!

I look at that record like a goddamn alcoholic looks at the pile of empty gin bottles in the bottom of his closet, even as he scans the ads in the newspaper to see what cheap swill the local ABC is lowballing this week. Believe me, it’s a source of major personal embarrassment to me.

Now it's up over 8,000.

I hang my head in shame.

[CockySOB]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

There seems to be quite a gap between those who support the GOP and those who will say they support the GOP.

Someday you might come out of the closet....

[Yorkist]

Originally Posted by Alpha

The posters you are referring to are the exception to the rule here, and some of them, such as Justin and Dufrel, post fairly infrequently. According to polls somewhere between 30% and 40% of the US identifies themselves with the Republican party, and that number is on the rise as we put distance between the Bush administration and the present. How many people do you know on this site support the GOP?

I don't know or care. However, anyone who is deluded enough to believe that Republican support is on the rise isn't going to be interested in facts anyway, are they?

What do you think results when you choose to nominate a minority/female over the most qualified candidate in terms, of experience, skill, intellectual firepower, ect? You sacrifice quality for "diversity."

I have invited you to name a candidate who is more qualified and you have been unable to do so. Case closed.

People are influenced by their background, but that influence most manifests itself in subjective or values decision making. Law is an analytical exercise, not an application of relative values.

I agree with you that experience and expertise is very important in law, which is why Obama needs to restart this process without the "diversity" litmus test.

We are talking about people here, not robots. Everyone is influenced by their background, whatever field they work in. As for the process being derailed by concerns about diversity, from where I'm sitting it is you and others who object to this nominee who have focused on race and gender; everyone else, including Obama, seems more concerned with the candidate's ability, experience and suitability.