Thread: Obama chooses Judge Sonia Sotomayor-will she be fair?

Originally Posted by bigtex

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

I doubt Obama would use a physician who had a 60% error rate but he wants to stick Americans with someone who makes more mistakes than correct choices.

Originally Posted by reptile09

This idiot states that latina women are far wiser at making decisions than white men. Is that why so many latinas are pregnant by the time they reach 14 and are dependent on welfare, WIC, food stamps, etc., with 8 illiterate, illegitimate children by the time they are adults?

I love these comments because they are SOOOOO TRUE!!!!!

Hey Jack,

I think your point of view is way in the minority in this forum. Racism, Reverse Discrimination, Sexism, and Prejudice is frowned upon which is why Obama's pick is crap since her own words and actions show she approves of these methods.

Yep, but the MAJORITY also voted for Obama and look where that left us.

jack58 wrote:

Most Americans with a common sense understand what she's saying. If Republicans are going to use this it will certainly make for entertaining television watching her own every single one of them. Is this all Karl Rove's buddies have?

jack58: Do you believe in E-Verify? And open borders? I think the white man comments are racist and I know latinos personally can be racists.

Related Post:
Sotomayor's Socialist Yearbook Quote
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-157425-.html

(Do not trust our liberties to elected officials!)

Originally Posted by jack58

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Originally Posted by bigtex

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

I doubt Obama would use a physician who had a 60% error rate but he wants to stick Americans with someone who makes more mistakes than correct choices.

Sotomayor's reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present. Is that all the Repubs have?

So you think it's okay to add another incompetent judge to the Supreme Court, even though her reversal's are slightly lower. Incompetence is still just that.

Try using that theory in the operating room. According to you, it's okay if your surgeon only amputated the wrong body part 60% of the time, because that's better than 75% or 90%.

Come on, the appointment to the Supreme Court can affect all Americans lives, not just one, as in my scenario, and that's why it's important to get the right judge/surgeon.

BTW, I'm not a member of the GOP but your snipes at that group are pretty telling. I haven't noticed anyone going after Libs/Democrats on this forum since we all have our own political affiliations, it might be nicer of you to stick to the issue and play nice. JMHO

Good points VMonkey56 and Snake Oil,

I'm more conservative than republican. And VM56, I thought ONLY WHITE MEN COULD BE RACIST I'm shocked .....

Originally Posted by jack58

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

The relativism of this statement troubles me more than anything. Her attitude that two wise people will not necessarily reach the same conclusion is at odds with the long-standing belief of Western Civilization that the Truth (with a capital T) can be determined absolutely through logic and reason. Her racial remark merely reflects this relativist attitude, and in all likelihood finds its origin in Marxist liberation theory.

The history of this country, in particular, is built on absolutes: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Would two wise people disagree over this statement? Or try to insert shades of gray in these ideals? If two wise people can come to the conclusion that the above statement is true, wise, and absolute enough to be self-evident, than Sotomayor shows herself most unwise when stating there can never be a shared wisdom that transcends our individual backgrounds and touches our shared human nature.

If Sotomayor would argue that she might come to a different conclusion about our declaration of independence (since she believes wisdom can never truly be determined and no facts can be concretely said to be wise), then she is unAmerican (what else could you call opposition to the Declaration of Independence?) and also a threat to our liberties.

You tell me.

On a side note, I'm not a republican, so I don't know what your sweeping generalizations are about. It does not reflect wisdom, but a coarseness of thought and lack of subtly, Jack. Your glib support of majority rules further underlines a lack of reflection, considering that that particular knife cuts both ways.

Originally Posted by jack58

Originally Posted by jamesw62

sorry to disappoint you jack, but in my mind those comments stand
and since they are racist and sexist.. i dont appreciate it.

thats my opinion and im standing that way

Again, the Republicans are in so much trouble now that they wouldn't even dare denying Sotomayor the position. Doing so would be shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans have become irrelevant and the American people will by and large stand by Obama's picks.

I DO agree with this. the GOP is in a no win situation.
and its a shame that when they expose the truth they will be called evil, racist or anything else

I have seen racism from many people in my life so have many others here.

But a fascism country and an international judge lawyer is bothering me a bit so I hope it is bothering others here.

Why do we need an international lawyer on our highest court? Tell me once again.