New Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:By the way, which username is Sotomayor posting under???

National Politics is one of the topics that is viewable by guests.

D'oh! (we really need a Homer Simpson emoticon!)

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:But even then...da law's da law. If a Hispanic is in the wrong, I want a judge to say so, not a judge who says, "Well, you know, they've lived a hard life and I know what that is like, and I know they killed that person, but they've had a hard life, so the sentence will only be probation."

Please forgive the ambiguitous hypothetical situation I just described. It was only off the top of my head...

Of course it's da law. She would also be one of the nine...

Has anyone found, heard or said anything about her worse than this "sympathy" comment?

Bueller? Roe? Wade?

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:But even then...da law's da law. If a Hispanic is in the wrong, I want a judge to say so, not a judge who says, "Well, you know, they've lived a hard life and I know what that is like, and I know they killed that person, but they've had a hard life, so the sentence will only be probation."

Please forgive the ambiguitous hypothetical situation I just described. It was only off the top of my head...

Of course it's da law. She would also be one of the nine...

Has anyone found, heard or said anything about her worse than this "sympathy" comment?

Bueller? Roe? Wade?

Well, I haven't heard of any pubic hairs left on coke cans yet...but I do think her comment about how a Hispanic Woman can come to a better decision than a white guy NEEDS clarification. What context was it said in? Just in text, it looks pretty bad. If the shoe was on the other foot and a white guy said that white people can come to better decisions than Hispanics...whoa...look out...can of worms!

Here's a little trivia for ya'...which President has nominated the most justices?

do do do do do do do...

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Here's a little trivia for ya'...which President has nominated the most justices?

do do do do do do do...

Who was Ronald Reagan?

Rhenquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Here's a little trivia for ya'...which President has nominated the most justices?

do do do do do do do...

Who was Ronald Reagan?

Rhenquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy

Negative. George Washington did, followed by FDR.

So Sotomayor will have empathy while reviewing the rule of law ... are you freakin' telling me that Scalia does not let his crazy right wing thoughts affect his view of the rule of law? Please every Justice has some sort of potential bias.

Right now the only thing I want to know about Sotomayor before the confirmation hearings is has she paid her taxes. With Obama's luck on picking people that is the only current thing I want to know.

I will let the confirmation hearing sort out her "policy" and "better decision" comments meaning. I just hope tough questions are asked in the confirmation hearings, I don't care which side asks the questions, just that they are asked. Right now it is just right wing vs left wing posturing.

Bman wrote:So Sotomayor will have empathy while reviewing the rule of law ... are you freakin' telling me that Scalia does not let his crazy right wing thoughts affect his view of the rule of law? Please every Justice has some sort of potential bias.

I love you folks ... this posts gets red lined on the shindex ... that is laughable. Meta your shindex is a funny funny thing.

Bman wrote:

Bman wrote:So Sotomayor will have empathy while reviewing the rule of law ... are you freakin' telling me that Scalia does not let his crazy right wing thoughts affect his view of the rule of law? Please every Justice has some sort of potential bias.

I love you folks ... this posts gets red lined on the shindex ... that is laughable. Meta your shindex is a funny funny thing.

Dude, don't blame me for the whole thing... It's all those secessionist sympathizers. The shindex is what it is. I tried to say something the other day about the way people score and who they choose to give negative marks. The first rule of warfare is never make yourself a target. It seemed to me you can't say shit without someone bumping you down. I know I've given you a few minus' because of some of the name calling you did. Hehe, I thought you could have come up with more creative names! I've also given you several positive marks, more than the negatives.

I imagine mine as an ice cold beer. I don't want to spill any! I guess that makes me a centrist-populist!

Not upset ... I just find it funny ... it is kind of like watching Comedy Central ... I am trying to see how high of a negative shindex I can get ...

Like if I say HI ... I love Rush Limbaugh ... lets see what that does. lol

Bman wrote:Not upset ... I just find it funny ... it is kind of like watching Comedy Central ... I am trying to see how high of a negative shindex I can get ...

Like if I say HI ... I love Rush Limbaugh ... lets see what that does. lol

Well, we can help you get there. I kinda thought you had a hidden agenda! hehe. I gave you a negative on this post because you flip flopped!

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

10 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

LTRT wrote:Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

10 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

WOW... that is a surprise...

the test itself is something i havent seen yet. that could be part of the decision. and i think she was one of four who voted as she did, and they did so knowing it would then go to the supremes. it may not have been a dumb move, i think alot of cases get there for that same reason dont they? i dont see it as a big dealbreaker thing, except those desperately looking for a dealbreaker.

I also look it at like this...if memory serves the decision was 5-4, so on the surface there are 4 justices that think like she did/does.

hmmm and were the other 4 also hispanic women?

floridafun wrote:the test itself is something i havent seen yet. that could be part of the decision. and i think she was one of four who voted as she did, and they did so knowing it would then go to the supremes. it may not have been a dumb move, i think alot of cases get there for that same reason dont they? i dont see it as a big dealbreaker thing, except those desperately looking for a dealbreaker.

I would be interested in seeing the test myself. If it tested firefighting techniques or management, it's hard to imagine it being biased in any way. And in most places promotions are completely subjective. At least they had a measurable tool in place.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:the test itself is something i havent seen yet. that could be part of the decision. and i think she was one of four who voted as she did, and they did so knowing it would then go to the supremes. it may not have been a dumb move, i think alot of cases get there for that same reason dont they? i dont see it as a big dealbreaker thing, except those desperately looking for a dealbreaker.

I would be interested in seeing the test myself. If it tested firefighting techniques or management, it's hard to imagine it being biased in any way. And in most places promotions are completely subjective. At least they had a measurable tool in place.

That's what it was... firefighting techniques, management etc. They decided to use the test, administered the test, then realized that no minorities qualified for promotion and decided that the test wasnt fair because it exposed THEM to litigation.

Congrats to her, she got confirmed today.