Would it look or be good for Obama to withdraw Sotomayor's nomination?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ArchiveGuy

Not true (though I find it interesting that you continue to conveniently ignore this huge set of data that resoundingly refutes your assertion).

It’s not interesting. It’s the same shit that American conservatives have been throwing at the wall for sixty years - The Big Lie. Find your target, choose your paint, and start handing out brushes.

See “flip flopper”, “activist”, “socialist”, “un-American”, “Communist”, “ultra-liberal”, etc.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Interesting thing is that the NYT today has an article headlined Sotomayor Rose on Merit Alone, Her Allies Say but which then goes on to say repeatedly that she benefited again and again from her status as a Latina woman.

Her generational timing, too, was fortuitous. She was an accomplished Latina lawyer at a time when officials sought to diversify the white power structure by promoting more blacks, Latinos and women.

After several years of lackluster leadership, the board needed a new direction. As well, Ms. Conovitz said, the Cuomo administration sought more blacks, Latinos and women.

In 1992, Ms. Sotomayor entered a prestigious sweepstakes, submitting an application for federal judge. In what is a recurring theme, two friends say it was an almost accidental elevation. “She didn’t talk about the next step being a judgeship,” said Dawn Cardi.

But familiar patrons made her case and her timing was good. Senator Moynihan had made it clear he wanted more female and minority candidates.

She comes off as sincere and hardworking, though.

[Magiver]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not interesting. It’s the same shit that American conservatives have been throwing at the wall for sixty years - The Big Lie. Find your target, choose your paint, and start handing out brushes.

See “flip flopper”, “activist”, “socialist”, “un-American”, “Communist”, “ultra-liberal”, etc.

I linked her own words to cases she was involved in. It’s clear that she believes Title VII is an excuse to discriminate after the fact, without challenge. It’s clear she believes in activist judges. It’s clear she thinks her racial background is not a neutral influence on her decisions.

She sees no problem discriminating against someone based on a quota system and is therefore a poor choice for a Supreme Court Judge. Her career is based on her birth certificate and this appointment is no exception.

I provided an argument based on her case and her words. Your post was 100% rhetoric.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Magiver

I linked her own words to cases she was involved in. It’s clear that she believes Title VII is an excuse to discriminate after the fact, without challenge. It’s clear she believes in activist judges. It’s clear she thinks her racial background is not a neutral influence on her decisions.

That shit is clear to you and Rush Limbaugh, but nobody else.

[Magiver]

@Captain_Carrot

That shit is clear to you and Rush Limbaugh, but nobody else.

I based an argument on her cases and what she said. You haven’t.

[Bender44]

@Magiver

I based an argument on her cases and what she said. You haven’t.

Should I be the one to say it this time?

WHAT CASES?

[Gangster_Octopus]

I think it is time for all of us to concede victory to Magiver so we can move on.

[Squink]

Obama’s got to dump Sotomayor now.
National Review has just revealed that she’s a slanty eyed asian.
This is worse than brown skin alone!
Judging by the cover picture, the girl might even be a Buddhist!

[42fish]

@Squink

Judging by the cover picture, the girl might even be a Buddhist!

So Obama’s really a closet Buddhist instead of closet Muslim? Dang, I can only keep up with one of these godless* heathen types at a time.

*Hey, if it ain’t Judeo-Christian, it may as well be godless.

[Early_Out]

OMG!! Sotomayor has defended Scalia:

The speeches also reveal she has spoken highly of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she introduced during a September 2001 event at Hofstra Law School as a powerful thinker who has spoken about the role of federal judges in “illuminating ways.”

“I understand Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence to begin with a proposition that we should all agree to — namely, that judges should try to interpret the law correctly, and without personal or political bias,” Sotomayor said.

(Source)

I may have to rethink my support for her nomination!

[Early_Out]

I also find her membership in B.J.'s Wholesalers troubling…

[Fear_Itself]

@Magiver

It’s clear she believes in activist judges.

But, you believe in activist judges! You have demonstrated you only object to judicial activism by liberals.

[Frank]

@Gangster_Octopus

I think it is time for all of us to concede victory to Magiver so we can move on.

Even Limbaugh and Gingrich have moved on to Plan B. For some reason, the racist argument wasn’t flying. Go figure.

[Paleface]

@Kalhoun

I believe a female hispanic viewpoint is valuable when interpreting law.

Yeah, she demonstrated just how “valuable” the hispanic viewpoint is as she joined in the dismissal of Ricci, without comment. ( I suppose not commenting was the “smart” thing to do, as the SCOTUS will probably reverse Sotomayor’s appellate court, which puts her “valuable” viewpoint at odds with SCOTUS. What will it be… 4 out of 6 decisions that went on to SCOTUS will have been overturned?) Anyways, when reading and comprehending the written law, why is a particular ethnic viewpoint any more valuable than another ethnic viewpoint? It’s not, that is unless the law is being “interpreted” for empathy.

@Captain_Amazing

While some of her comments are troubling, it hasn’t risen to the level where withdrawing her name would be appropriate or politically smart.

That’s just because she isn’t a white conservative nominee that made a comment about reaching a better conclusion than a minority. Had she been, the same people currently defending Sotomayor, would be demanding the head of the conservative nominee.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Paleface

Anyways, when reading and comprehending the written law, why is a particular ethnic viewpoint any more valuable than another ethnic viewpoint?

If every restaurant on my street was a burrito shop, I’d be thrilled when an Ethiopian restaurant opened up. If every child in my class were an atheist, I’d be overjoyed to enroll a Jewish kid. If everyone in my gaming group were a man, I’d be very happy when a woman joined.

Monoculture is boring. In government, it’s worse than boring: it doesn’t represent what’s going on in the nation at large. It’s not that one particular ethnic viewpoint is more valuable than another, it’s that a multiplicity of backgrounds is better than a set of very similar backgrounds.

That’s just because she isn’t a white conservative nominee that made a comment about reaching a better conclusion than a minority. Had she been, the same people currently defending Sotomayor, would be demanding the head of the conservative nominee.

Oh, for pity’s sake. Take that bone out of your nose and try posting again.

Daniel

(link)

[Saint_Cad]

His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

The last nominee to be honest was Bork and we all know what happened to him . . . but of course that was not a political move to further left-wing ideology.

[DSeid]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If every restaurant on my street was a burrito shop, I’d be thrilled when an Ethiopian restaurant opened up. If every child in my class were an atheist, I’d be overjoyed to enroll a Jewish kid.

What if the Jewish kid was an atheist, huh? Huh?

[tomndebb]

@DSeid

What if the Jewish kid was an atheist, huh? Huh?

Sephardim or Mizrachim?

[Gyrate]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Take that bone out of your nose and try posting again.

If a conservative poster had written something that racist, you liberals would be howling for…

…nope, can’t type it without giggling.

[Paleface]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If every restaurant on my street was a burrito shop, I’d be thrilled when an Ethiopian restaurant opened up. If every child in my class were an atheist, I’d be overjoyed to enroll a Jewish kid. If everyone in my gaming group were a man, I’d be very happy when a woman joined.

Well, you may be thrilled, overjoyed and very happy, but that doesn’t explain why, when reading and comprehending the written law, one particular ethnic viewpoint any more valuable than another ethnic viewpoint?

Monoculture is boring. In government, it’s worse than boring: it doesn’t represent what’s going on in the nation at large. It’s not that one particular ethnic viewpoint is more valuable than another, it’s that a multiplicity of backgrounds is better than a set of very similar backgrounds.

But when it comes to something like reading and comprehending the written law, culture, background or ethnicity should not enter into the equation.

Oh, for pity’s sake. Take that bone out of your nose and try posting again.

No need to post again. My comment was accurate and you know it. As for your “bone in the nose” comment, I must thank you. When people make such comments, they usually consider themselves to be quite clever. That lends me enough insight into their personality to make the pragmatic decision to not waste any more of my time by engaging them in any future postings.

Thank you very much.