Sotomayor Refuses to Renounce 'Wise Latina' Word

[hanimmal]

Okay, the real meat of the defense is that 60% of the cases before the Supreme Court get overturned anyways. But THAT 60% is not the same as Soto's 60% son. The Supreme courts 60% is for ALL cases before them, from MANY lower court judges. But Soto hits the high water mark of 60% overturn ALL BY HERSELF!! They lead you to believe that the Supreme Court % is an average...it is not. Soto's is the average and that is a HORRENDOUS number to have and be considered for the Supreme Court.
It's a statistical trick they are spinning in the defense.

It's also WHY they were overturned. Stuff does get overturned for all sorts of TECHNICAL reasons, but not with SOTO. It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again.
Now this seems all a bit abstract, but let me tell you this, I would MUCH rather have Alito hear my case than Sotomayor. It's that simple. This is STRICTLY stacking the bench to weaken the Constitution, which is a "progressive" goal....Obama.

Soto disregards the Constitution.....period. The fact that Obama picked her gives me another reason not to like his administration. He doesn't really care about the Constitution, just stack the bench with as "progressive" a candidate that he can get away with.

You have to give the man some credit, he spent all his college years to get a juris degree specializing in Constitutional law. So he has to care somewhere, even if he spent the entire time learning how to maneuver around it.

I want to see the Supreme court Judges that said they overturned them due to her

Stuff does get overturned for all sorts of TECHNICAL reasons, but not with SOTO. It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again

.


You know at one time due to the laws of our land that women were not aloud to vote? And Black people were considered property. You get the point. Without peoples viewpoints being used to alter the documents the smart money is on to hold up for a looong time we would be right up there with the freedoms in some of the countries we are fighting.

 

[CrackerJax]

Now here is a column from Richard Cohen who if you follow politics at all, know he is on the left. Even he gets it......

Richard Cohen: Sotomayor will not be a standout jurist

Richard Cohen • July 21, 2009


A political ad that lucky New Yorkers get to see on television begins with "A million lawyers in America" and goes on to wonder about certain no-bid contracts in nearby New Jersey that will not concern us today. But every time the ad runs, I cannot help thinking about Sonia Sotomayor: A million lawyers in America and Barack Obama chooses her for the Supreme Court.


Don't get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of which there has not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any, and lacks intellectual brilliance, unless it is disguised under a veil of soporific competence until she takes her seat on the court. We shall see.
In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely, as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice "who will continue to move the court forward in protecting ... important civil rights." He cited cases involving 8nthe shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man -- in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?
What, though, about a jurist who can advance the larger cause of civil rights and at the same time protect individual rights? This was the dilemma raised by the New Haven firefighters' case. The legal mind who could have found a "liberal" way out of the thicket would be deserving of a Supreme Court seat. As an appellate judge, Sotomayor did not even attempt such an exercise. She punted.
She was similarly disappointing on capital punishment. She seems to support it. Yet it is an abomination. It grants the government a right it should never have, one that has been abused over the years by despots, potentates and racist cops. It is always an abuse of power, always an exercise in arrogance -- it admits no possibility of a mistake -- and totally without efficacy. It is not a deterrent and it endorses the mentality of the killer: Human life is not inviolate.

 

[TreesOfLife]

So he has to care somewhere

Keep telling yourself that...

 

[Hayduke]

First off let me say this: I really do not have an opinion one way or another on this judge...cuz I do not care enough to study up on all of the nuances and jargon that comes with law...it has to do with my least favorite species next to fungus gnats...humans.


I often get lured into these threads by what I find to be ridiculous statements made by the "conservatives" on here...which I find to be wholly oxymoronic....pothead republicans...well I guess it makes as much since as the Log Cabin repukes and blue collar, union or farm workers in Kansas voting against their best interests...

Okay, let's use a bit of logic and actual CORRECT statistical analysis, shall we?

Ok choose your voodoo...a "t" test? Chi squared? z-test? the f-distribution? ANOVA?...the mean of the mean of the means? Statistics can be used to say just about whatever you want...but I do not think this is what you meant

Your article from the left leaning Huffington (and that's fine) already confirms my foundational point....which you "thought" smelled. It did not...so give me a bit of credit (she does have a 60% overturn rate).

Ok credit given...not everything that stinks is sh1t...I like brussel sprouts!

Okay, the real meat of the defense is that 60% of the cases before the Supreme Court get overturned anyways.

I think it is actually 75%...which makes her BETTER than most.

Besides...It is the whole point of the system.

The fact that she had anything to do with it...(remember Appellate court!) means it was already controversial...the fact that it went to the highest court in the land for further review...even more so...The cases that were overturned...conservative judges sided with her! But conservatives feel like it is their turn to bitch and moan...point is her overturn rate is lower than the average.

But THAT 60% is not the same as Soto's 60% son. The Supreme courts 60% is for ALL cases before them, from MANY lower court judges. But Soto hits the high water mark of 60% overturn ALL BY HERSELF!! They lead you to believe that the Supreme Court % is an average...it is not. Soto's is the average and that is a HORRENDOUS number to have and be considered for the Supreme Court.
It's a statistical trick they are spinning in the defense.

The supreme court does not here cases willy-nilly from lower court judges...and NO NO NO NO the statistical spin is being done by either you, or I imagine FOX and FRIENDS (EIB)...So if it were an "average" we would be talking about the "statistics" you mentioned earlier...so say one judge has a case reversed...100% reversal rate for this guy...another has 2 cases...one overturned one not...50% over turned...the average would be 75%....Of course they are not doing this...#of cases overturned/# of cases heard. Soto's is just a straight average (what else would you suggest she be compared to for this stat?) # of Soto cases overturned/ # heard...

What are we averaging here anyway...an average is a comparison of different #'s (a mean) we are only looking at, again, cases overturned over cases heard = 3/5....we can extrapolate this into per/100cases and express as 60%

If we were "averaging" we would be comparing overturned to not overturned....kinda like yes/no...so we would have 3 yes/2 no...if yes/no=1...then 3 yes+2 no/(5[yes/no]) = yes(overturned)...but we often express this ratio of win/lost, hit/swing...as a percent.

The only thing misleading about the stat in this case is the way the Fox News is using words to confuse christian conservative sheeple in the heartland...this is a joke!

It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again.


Statistics are a very easy way to mislead the casual reader......

I want a judge who has a heart and a mind....not a robot. Not every case is black and white...the last sentence is indeed...TBT!

You know at one time due to the laws of our land that women were not aloud to vote? And Black people were considered property. You get the point. Without peoples viewpoints being used to alter the documents the smart money is on to hold up for a looong time we would be right up there with the freedoms in some of the countries we are fighting.

Exactly

Now here is a column from Richard Cohen who if you follow politics at all, know he is on the left. Even he gets it......[...]


Don't get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of which there has not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any[...]
In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely

Although she was not this guys first choice...it sure does not sound like he thinks "It's her insistence of injecting her bias into her rulings which get her overturned, time and again."....like I said before I am no scholar of the law or this judge...I think ALL judges suck ass...who do they think they are? anyway...whose bias do you use?

edit: these are Richard Cohen's words "as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice "who will continue to move the court forward in protecting ... important civil rights." He cited cases involving 8nthe shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man -- in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?
What, though, about a jurist who can advance the larger cause of civil rights and at the same time protect individual rights? This was the dilemma raised by the New Haven firefighters' case. The legal mind who could have found a "liberal" way out of the thicket would be deserving of a Supreme Court seat. As an appellate judge, Sotomayor did not even attempt such an exercise. She punted.
She was similarly disappointing on capital punishment. She seems to support it. Yet it is an abomination. It grants the government a right it should never have, one that has been abused over the years by despots, potentates and racist cops. It is always an abuse of power, always an exercise in arrogance -- it admits no possibility of a mistake -- and totally without efficacy. It is not a deterrent and it endorses the mentality of the killer: Human life is not inviolate."

From what I understand...Soto is pretty mainstream...this guy is not...though I may agree with this guy on capital punishment...it is because I do not trust judges or 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty...Just because somebody is an old liberal...does not mean that they are not old racists...the white firefighter thing and latino woman thing suggests covert racism in the foundation of some of their thoughts. Again she sounds quite moderate...what in the world do conservative expect during this administration? Keeping the court balanced is really the most important thing...if it leans to the left with compassion and forward thought we are all better off.

Conservatives just want to reverse Roe v. Wade to protect all those precious babies they care nothing about.

 

[what... huh?]

I am a conservative, and believe that an aborted baby is less of a travesty than the result of neglect in an adult society.


You meant republicans.

 

[Dolce Vita]

i consider myself somewhat of a conservative and i 100% support a woman's choice. its not right for anyone to tell her what she can or cant do with that baby. (i actually thought this would be a republican issue, you know smaller government)

 

[Radiate]

... and believe that an aborted baby is less of a travesty than the result of neglect in an adult society.

I'd rep you for that if my rep meant anything.

Why would anyone want someone who judges with feelings on the Supreme Court? I could understand that sort of thing maybe for a lower court where the cases are isolated and personal, but the Supreme Court's decisions affect ALL of us. I don't want decisions that affect me based on her life experiences or her personal feelings. If you want to use your personal feelings in a decision, you better have a personal understanding of the situation. Such a thing is impossible for decisions that affect the entire country. Better yet, give me an example of a situation where a judgement based solely on logic and reason is inferior to one based on feelings, compassion, and personal experiences.


And what's all this talk about wanting diversity? Is the work of the Supreme Court suddenly less than par because the majority of the justices happen to be white? Don't get me wrong, I've got no problems with ethnic diversity in our public offices. But selecting someone to hold the highest judicial position in the land for life because of the belief that her ethnicity offers some kind of new perspective? That's absurd.


In fact, it's more than absurd. Implying that Sotomayor offers a new perspective that would otherwise not happen in the Supreme Court just because of her ethnicity is racist. Period.

 

[hanimmal]

My personal argument with diversity being good would be back in the times when it was constitutionally ok to say own slaves. Without different opinions those laws would have never been overturned. Our laws have been mostly made by the wealthy white men that helped make our country great, but at the same time there are a lot of laws that need a different perspective.

Like the reason why we are on this website. If left to the letter of the law, we would not ever be able to have our fun.

 

[Radiate]

My personal argument with diversity being good would be back in the times when it was constitutionally ok to say own slaves. Without different opinions those laws would have never been overturned.

Maybe you forgot that Abe Licoln was white? Or maybe you forgot that half of the country abhored slavery, and I'm not just talking about the black, enslaved ones either.

If that isn't proof that differing opinions have zero relevance to skin color, I'm sorry I failed to help you understand.

 

[Radiate]

Like the reason why we are on this website. If left to the letter of the law, we would not ever be able to have our fun.

Last I checked it was the law (namely the 1st Amendment) that allows places like this to exist, despite the fact that a majority of the people in power would change that in a heartbeat if they could.

 

[what... huh?]

Our forefathers were slave owners, and yet they did not address the subject in the constitution... save to say that their vote was 3/5s that of a free man. Imagine that, giving a slave, who does not pay taxes, 3/5's of a vote. Love the framers.


They were as specific as they could be about everything they could be, in laying out the law to govern a society with liberty as the underpinning of all matters worthy consideration.

Slavery was an obvious issue. It was an issue not addressed for a reason. At its core it represented everything our country fought. These men wrote the bill of rights, and whether or not society was ready for it, slavery was abolished on those old white men's intent.

Which is what they are supposed to do... and an example of why they were so brilliant... and why eloquence matters... and prejudice cannot coexist with love of law. Law enforcement perhaps, but not law. You do not change law to suit you, to do so is tyranny. You address law where there is none, and interpret the intent of the men who built the worlds greatest superpower with words. That is the love of law, of country. She would userp law based on racial and sexual prejudice. It is the only thing most people know about a judge. It is illegal for them to try a case with prejudice... and they must recuse themselves if they feel that their personal experience interferes with their ability to be impartial. It is the ONE rule.

Unfit.

 

[liquidice281]

I'm not a huge fan of approval rating systems but take a look here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx

I just wish people would pull their heads out of their asses and actually question whats going on in government. Obama was underqualified as a presidential candidate, and the same applies to Sotomayor. I love how Obama's administration has handed out almost 1 TRILLION dollars to private companies but as soon as he finds out healthcare reform will cost over 200 billion over 10 years, suddenly theres no money to cover that type of expense.

I have nothing against minorities as I'm from a multi-race family -- I just fear the federal government will collapse into another Detroit. If you don't know what I'm talking about -- take a look http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=detroit+city+council&search_type=&aq=f

Dont approve or disapprove someone primarily on their race -- look at their beliefs and experience and service record. Look at the stuff that really matters.....

 

[hanimmal]

Maybe you forgot that Abe Licoln was white? Or maybe you forgot that half of the country abhored slavery, and I'm not just talking about the black, enslaved ones either.

If that isn't proof that differing opinions have zero relevance to skin color, I'm sorry I failed to help you understand.

Then why were we dealing with civil rights issues (Can't walk on side of the street, drinking fountains, schools) into the 60's? The fact is that Slavery was no longer profitable do to technicalogical advances. There were good people, many infact that did strongly oppose slavery, but most laws were not changed to be good, they were changed because it was demanded by the masses.

Last I checked it was the law (namely the 1st Amendment) that allows places like this to exist, despite the fact that a majority of the people in power would change that in a heartbeat if they could.

I was talking about smoking/possessing weed. That is a Federal crime.

Our forefathers were slave owners, and yet they did not address the subject in the constitution... save to say that their vote was 3/5s that of a free man. Imagine that, giving a slave, who does not pay taxes, 3/5's of a vote. Love the framers.

The 3/5 law was for the benefit of the slave owners. They did not want to the north to have too much power and got that passed. They would take all the names of their slaves and vote for them. They were not allowed to actually vote in the south.

They were as specific as they could be about everything they could be, in laying out the law to govern a society with liberty as the underpinning of all matters worthy consideration.

Slavery was an obvious issue. It was an issue not addressed for a reason. At its core it represented everything our country fought. These men wrote the bill of rights, and whether or not society was ready for it, slavery was abolished on those old white men's intent.

Which is what they are supposed to do... and an example of why they were so brilliant... and why eloquence matters... and prejudice cannot coexist with love of law. Law enforcement perhaps, but not law. You do not change law to suit you, to do so is tyranny. You address law where there is none, and interpret the intent of the men who built the worlds greatest superpower with words. That is the love of law, of country. She would userp law based on racial and sexual prejudice. It is the only thing most people know about a judge. It is illegal for them to try a case with prejudice... and they must recuse themselves if they feel that their personal experience interferes with their ability to be impartial. It is the ONE rule.

History is not with you. The way it should be is not the way it is.

I'm not a huge fan of approval rating systems but take a look here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Ob...ic-Groups.aspx

I just wish people would pull their heads out of their asses and actually question whats going on in government. Obama was underqualified as a presidential candidate, and the same applies to Sotomayor. I love how Obama's administration has handed out almost 1 TRILLION dollars to private companies but as soon as he finds out healthcare reform will cost over 200 billion over 10 years, suddenly theres no money to cover that type of expense.

I have nothing against minorities as I'm from a multi-race family -- I just fear the federal government will collapse into another Detroit. If you don't know what I'm talking about -- take a look http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f

Dont approve or disapprove someone primarily on their race -- look at their beliefs and experience and service record. Look at the stuff that really matters.....

ABSOLUTELY!

I am a half mexican from Detroit. I disagree with the whole not qualified part though.

 

[CrackerJax]

hayduke....ur nuts.....

 

[what... huh?]

The 3/5 law was for the benefit of the slave owners. They did not want to the north to have too much power and got that passed. They would take all the names of their slaves and vote for them. They were not allowed to actually vote in the south.

I just mentioned it because it is the only place memory serves them even mentioned...

History is not with you. The way it should be is not the way it is.

History is with me, as is the present. Your solution to what you see as imbalance is a wobbly wheel.

There is one rule. Do not pre-judge, use only admissible evidence to make a ruling. The one single rule.

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”


FFS.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Then why were we dealing with civil rights issues (Can't walk on side of the street, drinking fountains, schools) into the 60's? The fact is that Slavery was no longer profitable do to technicalogical advances. There were good people, many infact that did strongly oppose slavery, but most laws were not changed to be good, they were changed because it was demanded by the masses.

I was talking about smoking/possessing weed. That is a Federal crime.

The 3/5 law was for the benefit of the slave owners. They did not want to the north to have too much power and got that passed. They would take all the names of their slaves and vote for them. They were not allowed to actually vote in the south.

Actually it wasn't for the benefit of the slave owners, it was for the benefit of the North. If the South had been allowed to count each slave as a whole person they would have had drastically higher levels of representation in the House of Representatives, and thus a bigger voice in the governance of the nation.

The only reason why they agreed to it, was because they also were able to get it so that for tax purposes the same method of counting held true, but if you look at the arguments made by the northern delegates you will see that they argued that slavery deprived a man of 40% of his worth as a man, and thus it was fair to count them only as 3/5ths of a person.

History is not with you. The way it should be is not the way it is.


ABSOLUTELY!

I am a half mexican from Detroit. I disagree with the whole not qualified part though.

I think you made a illogical statement, maybe you're having a bad night, too.

 

[CrackerJax]

The main cause of the Civil war was..... drum roll...... money! (as usual). History tries to concentrate on the slave issue and would lead one to conclude that slavery was abhorrent to the North. That is simply not true. The war was quite unpopular in many parts of the North. The Emancipation proclamation was not an overnight success and Lincoln was certainly one of our most UNPOPULAR sitting Presidents ever! So what turned the war around? Like most wars, changes of command and better utilization of supply.

 

[hanimmal]

Actually it wasn't for the benefit of the slave owners, it was for the benefit of the North. If the South had been allowed to count each slave as a whole person they would have had drastically higher levels of representation in the House of Representatives, and thus a bigger voice in the governance of the nation.

The only reason why they agreed to it, was because they also were able to get it so that for tax purposes the same method of counting held true, but if you look at the arguments made by the northern delegates you will see that they argued that slavery deprived a man of 40% of his worth as a man, and thus it was fair to count them only as 3/5ths of a person.

The south wanted them to be counted as a full person so that the white slave owners could use their slaves names and get full votes from it, while the north did not want them counted at all. That is why it is called the 3/5 compromise.

I think you made a illogical statement, maybe you're having a bad night, too.

Too true I think my eyes were bleeding at this point.

 

[Hayduke]

I am a conservative, and believe that an aborted baby is less of a travesty than the result of neglect in an adult society.


You meant republicans.

Yes I did...sorry

i consider myself somewhat of a conservative and i 100% support a woman's choice. its not right for anyone to tell her what she can or cant do with that baby. (i actually thought this would be a republican issue, you know smaller government)

Yup

Why would anyone want someone who judges with feelings on the Supreme Court? I could understand that sort of thing maybe for a lower court where the cases are isolated and personal, but the Supreme Court's decisions affect ALL of us.

Good point

Obama was underqualified as a presidential candidate
-- I just fear the federal government will collapse into another Detroit. If you don't know what I'm talking about -- take a look http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=detroit+city+council&search_type=&aq=f

You are probably right ...but G.W. Bush? And no matter what...this is the direction the country is going. It should have happened already, but we borrowed more money to delay the inevitable...I am learning to grow food now also as this is the skill I think is the most important of all.

hayduke....ur nuts.....

...yeah, I know....................................

 

[twostarhotel]

the news today is a disgrace to humanity, and does nothing but force ideas that were picked and chosen to keep us retarted , putting bad energy into the collective energy fields that effect us all. why does cnn have a show called black in america!? are they pointing out and continuing, the racial separation? hey by the way your still black? and we all know what that means right? fuckin bullshit, the vicitimization will never end if you continue to recognize yourself or others as the victim. sotomayor has become a victim and lindsay graham is a fuckin douche who has thrown back at her ten times the amount of racial comments and attitude, but he gets praised. even though her original comments were talking about noone but herself