Out of context quotes aren’t going to save you. She’s going to be confirmed. Long live Roe.
As mentioned before, that was taken out of context, and even Orrin Hatch had to say that Sotomayor is not a racist, this is BTW even after Hatch heard before the out of context quote.
Clearly only the right wingers that are willing to ignore context are the ones that continue to sound silly. And as a Hispanic I have to say that even my few conservative relatives will not ever support those Republicans.
Keep it up Rush, Newt and [del]Greedo[/del] Tancredo!
Just wait until you get a load of Obama’s next SCOTUS nominee. You will be begging for another Sotomayor.
No love for Beck? 
He tries so hard to be part of the club!
They essentially punted the ball, which I believe was the point of the dissenting judges comments. The fire fighters who pursued this into the higher courts weren’t interested in the cities POV nor do I see where the “fear of being sued” is justification for not promoting them.
There was no ball to punt. From my previous cite:
Essentially, you wanted them to go beyond the scope of the question at hand and “fix” what was perceived as an essential “unfairness”. How is that not judicial activism? You’ve been asked this several times and continue to evade the question.
And “fear of being sued” is a perfectly legal justification for putting aside a strategy for assessing promotions that makes the city vulnerable to potential lawsuits (because of a perfectly plausible suspicion of bias). Nobody is claiming it’s not an unfortunate and precarious set of circumstances, or that it was resolved in the best or most satisfying way possible. But for all the railing against Empathy from the righties, it’s curious that this case is a perfect example of how emotions surrounding a case can cloud the legal specifics being dealt with.
Now you’re in a closed loop of judicial logic. If every minority claims they will sue then the excuse to revise the hiring criteria to avoid a lawsuit becomes a legal mulligan. A city can then continue to revise their hiring process to get the results they want and wear people down who can’t afford to fight it. This was a discrimination suit, pure and simple.
I take it, then, that you’re saying that conservatives have found court cases showing her making racist decisions. Is that what you’re saying? If so, please cite the cases in question. (Magiver’s example seems to me pretty clearly proven not to be decided by racism–you’d have to be a real Usual Suspect to call it a racist decision).
No, I am saying what I said - the idea that Latinas are better qualified by default is a racist statement.
Perhaps it would make things clearer to you if you consider the following. Racist, or not?
- Too bad McCain wasn’t elected instead of Obama. He would have made a better decision. Of course, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black man who hasn’t lived that life.*
Regards,
Shodan
If that statement is in the context of nearly the entire freakin’ government being run by black men for hundreds of years, then I’d consider it poorly phrased but accurate and not racist.
I think that you, intentionally or not, misunderstood my question. It is this: do you agree that so far, no conservative has been able to find a court case in which Sotomayer ruled in a racist fashion?
So you now agree that Obama was less qualified than McCain? Interesting.
Is that the standard you want now - unless a judge can be shown to have ruled based on racism (instead of merely making racist statements), they are not disqualified from the Supreme Court (and presumably, other public offices)?
I (and Barack Obama) don’t agree. I think it is legitimate to explore a judge’s philosophy - how his or her background might lead him or her to ignore certain facts, and make rulings based on personal prejudice.
Obviously you disagree.
Regards,
Shodan
ETA: Better be sure to spell her name with the correct vowel, or Liberal gets all upset. 
Again, I can’t tell whether you’re misreading me intentionally or unintentionally. Or maybe you’ve got an awesome conspiracy theory by which black men have controlled the government for hundreds of years.
I’ve suggested no such standard. I’ve simply asked a question. Once you answer the question, I’ll have a sense of how to proceed: do I ask for a cite, or do I ask you to explain the implications of your answer?
That’s not what they do in Appelate Courts. You generally can’t just disagree with the original judge’s dec and ask the next higher court to retry the whole damn thing. You look for grounds for Appeal, generally a legal or procedural question. Appelate Courts generally have no business rehearing the factual matters, just the legal or procedural matters.
Taking the blind Republican standpoint.
If a Bush nominee had said he could do a better job than a Latina that nominee would have been withdrawn within 5 minutes.
OK, more rational
I think this nomination will define how the Republicans will respond to the near 60/40 split. Do they do what the Demos did in 1987 and bork her just on political ideology grounds? Dig in their heels and fight the leftward swing of SCOTUS and focus on the ADVICE and consent aspect like the Demos did with Bush? There’s not a chance in hell that the Reps will win, but will we go down fighting or sit passively by and start looking at Senate elections 2010?
I think we’re going to puss out like we did on the bailout objections. Please let’s bring back the Bull Moose Party 
I understand the point your making but the logic in the case is missing. The core of the case is discrimination. What you’re saying is that the court ruled the city was right to withdraw the promotions based on the idea they might be sued for discrimination. That logic left the train station when they got sued for discrimination.
The case is simple. The city used a testing system to screen candidates for promotion. Everybody had an opportunity to prepare for the test in advance. The test was given and the results were set aside. The applicants who scored highest were denied promotion based on their race in a defacto quota system. Either the system was fair and open to normal job competition or it wasn’t.
Sure you have. Unless one can point to some cases she has decided on racist grounds (and the Usual Suspects will simply deny that it was, to their last breath and beyond), then you are suggesting that a judge is not to be disqualified based only on having made racist statements.
Well, you don’t need a cite - her racist statements have been cited and quoted several times. And I have already explained some of the implications of this.
But just to clarify, since you seem to have an unfortunate tendency to stop reading my posts beyond the first sentence, I am rejecting your assumption that only court cases can be used to reject (or accept) a nominee.
A nominee who has made statements to the effect that any one race is superior to another, and/or who has described her tendency to ignore facts in making her judicial decisions, is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
We have had enough racists and buffoons on the Court - another one is not needed.
That particular quota is over-filled.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, since Sotomayor is not guilty of either of these charges, she still seems fit for the court, your desperate need to introduce race to every discussion, notwithstanding.
Third time’s a charm, usually–but this third time you misinterpret me yet again. I never made any such assumption. I simply asked a question. For the third time. I will interpret your failure to answer as acknowledgment that no court case demonstrating a racist decision on her part has yet been found, and proceed to the next question:
Stipulating that your interpretation of her statement is correct (i.e., that she’s admitting to making racist decisions), how do you reconcile that with the acknowledgment that there are no court cases that demonstrate such racist decisions? Do you suggest she’s just not yet had the opportunity to make racist decisions, but she will as soon as she gets the chance? Do you suggest that she’s been overruled every time she’s tried to make a racist decision? How do you account for what seems to be a disparity between your interpretation of her words, and her actual record on the bench?
Edit: to be clear, I have a very easy way of reconciling this disparity: I think you’re no better at interpreting her words than you are at interpreting mine. I think you’ve applied the same talent for misrepresentation to her as you have to me.
No, you incorrectly cast the situation before the city.
The City used a testing system to screen candidates for promotion. The results of that test, by the rules the federal government has promulgated, established that the test violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, the City set aside the test, since it was inherently discriminatory, as shown by the disparate results.
The applicants who scored highest were denied promotion because they did well on an illegal test. This is unfortunate, but it is not the result of reverse discrimination.
Now I’m not saying that’s the only way to view the situation, but that is how the district court viewed it, and is why the district court, and the Circuit Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit under Title VII by the firefighters. How the Supreme Court views the situation is yet to be seen.
Fortunately for the Supreme Court, and for the United States, the current nominee has not done any of these things.
But you and the “Usual Suspects” can continue to attempt to cast things along these lines if you like. Fortunately, most intelligent people can see where you are wrong. 