Do you think Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed by congress?

[gasguy98]

I'm not saying she's unqualified educationally or from a experience perspective. I'm saying her blatant and unabashed re ord of racial bias disqualifies her for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Absolutely,

The conservatives (are there any left in government) should "Bork" this nomination.

 

[allvol123]

murder...


I'd say so long as they are considered "qualified" to be a high level appeals judge then ideology (unless way off the chart) is not the criteria.

Elections have consequences. I think the Senate's role is to determine if she's qualified, not if she's who they would have picked.

She's received ratings of highly qualified by most if not all rating groups. She's been endorsed by virtually every law enforcement group. I don't like her "empathy" credentials and think it's a terrible way to pick a judge but don't see enough here to say she's not qualified.

You are saying at some point is a criteria. Just not down with her racism. She does not have to be who they would pick in order to be confirmed. A history of remarks like hers should be taken into account.

 

[SGMVols]

It doesn't matter...she will get confirmed whether we like it or not...and I don't like it.

 

[KingNick865]

I honestly have no idea why she shouldn't be confirmed. It's not like that comment was so blatantly racist or anything like that. Maybe a poor choice of words, perhaps. Besides, her comment does have a little truth to it.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I honestly have no idea why she shouldn't be confirmed. It's not like that comment was so blatantly racist or anything like that. Maybe a poor choice of words, perhaps. Besides, her comment does have a little truth to it.

If we're thinking of the same comments, you're lost or LG level homeristic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KingNick865]

If we're thinking of the same comments, you're lost or LG level homeristic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Oh, you mean this one....?

“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,”

Then yes, we're thinking of the same quote.

 

[volinbham]

You are saying at some point is a criteria. Just not down with her racism. She does not have to be who they would pick in order to be confirmed. A history of remarks like hers should be taken into account.

I don't think her comments are sufficient to bar her from the court. Her ruling record is relatively even-handed in race-related matters.

I certainly don't like the implication of her comments though.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Oh, you mean this one....?


Then yes, we're thinking of the same quote.

Implying that white maleness leads to lesser decisions, which is, last I checked, blatant racism.

If that was the long and short of it, you might have a point, but it wasn't, so you don't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KingNick865]

Implying that white maleness leads to lesser decisions, which is, last I checked, blatant racism.

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

Couch as you wish, but that is not what she said. Age clearly stated that one lifestyle leads to better judicial decisions, which is garbage and irrelevant.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kptvol]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Please.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Yes, choosing which set-aside you want to use must be very difficult.

 

[allvol123]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

Using that idiotic "logic" that she stated and you agreed with, you could turn it around and say the white male would more times than not reach a better decision because he has lived a life surrounded by smarter people and better teachers. What utter garbage in either direction.

 

[volinbham]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

:blink:

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

No.

 

[gsvol]

Her character is severly flawed. Qualifications aside she should not sit on the bench.

Character matters. Character matters very much.
She is quite despicable you know, being an outspoken racist and all.

Remember Robert Bork?

Remember also she was a moral defender of FALN terrorists who seemed to have wanted to form a Castro style government on the island of Puerto Rico.

Being terrorist friendly is nothing new for the current regime in Washington by any means.

 

[gasguy98]

Oh, you mean this one....?


Then yes, we're thinking of the same quote.

Let's not forget she has made this comment, or a variation of it, 7 different times.
Let us not forget her snide comment about courts not making "policy", which implied that her courts DO make policy. She is an activist and can't see past ethnicity in her opinions.

If these things are not scary enough to disqualify this nut, why go through the whole "recommendation of the Senate" thing?
Again I cite Robert Bork. The conservatives should fight this to the end. Hell, they have nothing better to do.

 

[gasguy98]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

Wow, that is one hell of a presumptive statement.
Go tell that to Antonin Scalia

 

[KB5252]

No, she didn't say that a white male's decision wasn't as good as hers. She said that her experiences as a latina woman, which, well, let's just say it, is much more difficult than living as a white male.

Basically, she implied that her background, and the environment she grew up in, gave her more life experiences than a white male who had lived in the suburbs and went to a private school, which is how a lot of justices grew up.

Maybe you should read what she said a couple of times. If this is what she meant then she did a terrible job of articulating it, articulation is very important when you sit on the SC.

 

[OrangeYankee]

Unfortunately, we have a blatantly activist judge that is qualified. However, choice of nominees is the prerogative of the president and one of the "spoils of war," and the only thing the senate is there for is to make sure some completely unqualified individual is given the keys to the house (Harriet Miers comes to mind). That was why the handling of nearly all of Bush's nominees (except for the obvious stated previously) was infuriating. With all that said tho, I see nothing on Sotomayor that makes her unqualified and should be confirmed, no matter how much it pains me to say that. It is up to us citizens to make sure we put a guy into office that won't put activists or people who allow foreign law to trump our own into the courts.

 

[gasguy98]

Unfortunately, we have a blatantly activist judge that is qualified. However, choice of nominees is the prerogative of the president and one of the "spoils of war," and the only thing the senate is there for is to make sure some completely unqualified individual is given the keys to the house (Harriet Miers comes to mind). That was why the handling of nearly all of Bush's nominees (except for the obvious stated previously) was infuriating. With all that said tho, I see nothing on Sotomayor that makes her unqualified and should be confirmed, no matter how much it pains me to say that. It is up to us citizens to make sure we put a guy into office that won't put activists or people who allow foreign law to trump our own into the courts.

The Democrats sure didn't feel that way with Robert Bork 20 years ago.