smutnut

Boy can this bitch put a spin on double talk! I hope all you people running niche blogs for "nasty bbw latina mature puerto rican roadkill" are taking advantage of this!

Tom_PM

I've been watching the hearings cover to cover.. which means on cspan with no talking head interruptions. SO what are they claiming she spins? And by that I mean, what are the conservative talking heads claiming?

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

LiveDose

Sigus Placementus

__________________

smutnut

Actually I'm listening to it and I'm a democrat, and I haven't heard her give a straight answer to a question yet. She did convince me she's not a reverse racist though so at least that much is good since she should get in anyway.

Tom_PM

Here is a question to mull over. If we dont want varying opinions from varying makes and models of humans, why is "diversity" important?

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

smutnut

We're talking about LAW here, not philosophy or even legislation. She's definitely trying to cover up that she's an activist judge. I don't care as long as she's on my side is all I'm saying.

Tom_PM

Ah well, I'm a person who doesnt believe in the term "reverse racism" since if one race is treating another race based on race, it's racism. Nothing reverse about it ,lol.

On the firefighter thing, she was on a board that reviewed some legalities of it thats all. I know people want to frame it like "She sided with the reverse racism", but thats really distorting it just to cram it into a nutshell/soundbyte/cable news tv banner spot.

I think it's bullshit that they threw out the results "BECAUSE" no african americans had passed it. IMHO thats just tough shit, how can race play a part in that? But oh well, I wasn't there.

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

smutnut

It's like this. I love my views, but I can gaurantee you wouldn't vote for me for President

Tom_PM

Yep, it's law, I agree. But I thought maybe the issue people were stuck on was her "wise latina" comment that was in a speech she gave to a bunch of colleges. Some conservatives have jumped on that and tried to run to the racist/sexist end zone with it.

It's hard to say she's activist or not when she even said she doesnt use that term. I thought Al Franken was good when he said well YOU may not, but almost the ONLY term you EVER hear regarding judges is the word activist.

I'm not going to review a million cases she was on a panel that decided it.. yikes, I have no idea or way to know if she's "activist" really.. thats a tough one to tackle.

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

smutnut

Actually, I'm not trying to cry like a baby, but reverse racism is going to become a real term, because it only applies to people against evil satan white man so to speak. It doesn't matter if you are living in a trailer and flopping burgers at the local Micky D's if you're white you're fucking CIA Satan and I'm saying that's not how I see her thinking so that much is good, but she would still make a better politician than a judge!

smutnut

Funny about this though - CNN seemed to be trying to play this in her favor until just recently so I'm wondering what's been going on. A lot of the midwest must have purchase iphones and opened twitter accounts just recently

IllTestYourGirls

It is pretty simple her appointment is to further divide us so we do not focus our anger at the heart of the problem.

__________________

Tom_PM

Yeah I know people keep trying to cram that phrase down the country's throat. A lot of idiots work for and run the news channels though, how else can you say it? lol. Did you know that in NY state recently, they fired nearly all the white staffers in some newly elected black guys district because he thought there were not enough minorities working there? It was totally buried even in local news, and I never saw it on national news.. only in print.

This was the best thing on news lately though:


edit: hmm maybe I linked it wrong: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BTZ3UCrl4Jo

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

smutnut

Who said that?

Tim

__________________
🍑🍆 Sex Vitamins
This sig for sale!

IllTestYourGirls

oops sorry I cut off the author by accident! Ron Paul said it.

__________________

smutnut

I'll tell you what convinced me about her. I dont' have all the details but I heard she ruled in favor of a white police officer who was handing out racist literature. Like I said, I don't have all the facts, and I would have ruled against him because I don't believe people in public service (INCLUDING POLITICIANS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS) should have those rights like you and I do, but that's what convinced me she wasn't about race.

On the other hand maybe she's more fucked up than any potential supreme court judge yet!

gleem

just the fact they picked a latina proves racism is alive and well... should be most qualified, race/gender should have nothing to do with choosing any impartial judge.

__________________

smutnut

I'll tell you who I miss. I miss SLICK WILLY! Now here was the greatest politician who ever lived. He could lie right to my face while he was committing the act and I would be watching him and still believe he was telling the truth - now that's a politician and that's what you need in office.

If they didn't hit him with that Monica Lewinski shit our country would probably be in good shape right now. We had a great economy and even our foriegn policy was pretty effect minus the black hawk down thing, which he handled rather well as one minor failure. I really think he would have gotten Bin Ladin before anything like 911 happened (at least by him) if not for that republican congress.

Young

I don't see any spinning at all. I see a judge who says that she would judge on a case by case basis. What the fuck does her personal opinion matter? Isn't it the Republicans that were crying about how she lets her personal feelings get in the way?

She's telling them exactly what they want to hear....I will not mix my personal feelings with judgements on the bench. So stop asking the personal questions and get back to her record.

__________________

Young

In 100 cases about racism/discrimination she sided with the complainant exactly 10 times. And 7 out of those 10 times she had a Republican judge who agreed with her judgment. FACT.

You're falling for the right wing bullshit. Don't you think for yourself?

__________________

smutnut

Dude, she's already made the comments and now she won't address them, and this is on CNN were I think they are pretty liberal and in her favor. Like I said I'm a democrat but I think this might be one of Obama's mistakes.

She has in the past stated, and it's been documented and posted of her exact statements, that opinion is part of her work procedure. She's doing nothing but dodging every question

Just my opinion of course.

Machete_

I have watched about 40 minutes of youtube video on the topic. She really tries to spin the majority of the questions, and she is quite good at it. But is that something you want in that kind of position?

In many of her answers it sounded like she was more conserned about following precedence and other cases, than following the actual law.

GetSCORECash

I agrea with your statement, but that's not the world we live in. She was chosen because she is a latina. (that is a woman and a Hispanic)

__________________

smutnut

You would have to kind of see each particular case to understand why though.

smutnut

Yes, exactly! and maybe even trying to spin that in her favor too.

Maybe they all do that anyway and this is the first I'm paying attention to, but I'm just saying (or rather you just did)

Pleasurepays

you don't want diversity of opinions when you are asking someone to apply the Constitution without bias.

you don't need a Harvard Law degree to understand that.

The constitution and its application is not about "personal views", or "personal life experience" or "ethnic background" or "empathy"

And the funny thing is that if i asked everyone is Jerry Falwell should be a Supreme Court Justice... his "opinions" would suddenly become VERY important

tony286

what proof in her decisions do you have that shows she is an activist judge? I found the term activist judge is used when describing a judge that doesnt do what the person calling the judge the activist wants done.

ReGGs

First of all reverse racism is a misnomer. Definition of racism:prejudice or discrimination based on race, plus the power to enforce it. If you are gonna be racist you have to do it from a position of power. Latinos are no more in power than black people. Sure there is one black person and soon to be one spanish person on the supreme court but they are nowhere close to being "In Power". The real power lies in the white male and everyone knows it.

Second of all this lady is more than qualified. She has been on the short list for the supreme court for almost a decade. They even considered her during the Bush years.

Why? Because she is latino and repubs need those votes. Which is exactly why they will confirm her. Works both ways.

gleem

right, hence my statement on picking a latina because she is a latina and not the most qualified, is a racist biased choice. And anyone who disagrees with her as a pick is a racist, anyone who disagrees with the person that picked her is a racist.

I told my wife as soon as I heard the pick that you watch, as soon as the hearings start any pube-ican that stands up and says he doesn't like her will be labeled a racist immediately, and sure enough on NPR (not suprising) Jeff Sessions sound clip of him asking her if she's biased was pre-qualified with "keep in mindThe senator was rejected as a nomination in 86 for making racially insensitive remarks"

racists. facists. We need to vote the entire senate/congress/president out of office and give some 3rd parties a chance, there is no difference anymore.

__________________

gleem

right, hence my statement on picking a latina because she is a latina and not the most qualified, is a racist biased choice. And anyone who disagrees with her as a pick is a racist, anyone who disagrees with the person that picked her is a racist.

I told my wife as soon as I heard the pick that you watch, as soon as the hearings start any pube-ican that stands up and says he doesn't like her will be labeled a racist immediately, and sure enough on NPR (not suprising) Jeff Sessions sound clip of him asking her if she's biased was pre-qualified with "keep in mindThe senator was rejected as a nomination in 86 for making racially insensitive remarks"

racists. facists. Repube's and democraps all the same.

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

No doubt about it.

__________________

smutnut

It's probably a bad term, but it would to me be a judge who tries to change law. Now, I'm not sure who is supposed to be changing and making laws, or who made or changed Pro Choice Laws and who made or changed laws that made slavery illegal (the second I think most people agree with by the way), but I don't think the judges did that. I don't know though. Maybe we need activist judges, but I don't think at the Supreme court level. It's not really black and white maybe but maybe a grey area.

Who knows maybe I just don't like her. What can I say. Although I have started to like her more on a personal level recently

gleem

rac⋅ism  [rey-siz-uhm]
?noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

__________________

smutnut

Actually it might be a misnomer now, but reverse racism will become a term where white people are responsible for every evil in the world. The old grey haired guy sitting up their pulling levers.

ottyhotties

Oh yeah CNN is a bunch of conservative talking heads... panels with three liberals to one if that and when they do throw in a token conservative somehow CNN always finds conservatives (because they aren't conservatives) who can't even articulate mainstream conservative thought.

This selection doesn't move the court in any direction so I'll put no skin in this game. I will say as a board of pornographers our first consideration should be given to her views of pornography before we discuss these other topics. As a center/right conservative and a pornographer I'm happy to see Sotamayer views expressed in Farrell v. Burke & Freeman. She is open to porn legislation and the typical statutory construction descriptions of pornography as being vague and overbroad. Even though she rules against the plaintiff (a parolee with limited rights) her views on porn are all something we can support and in line with how our lawyers in porn often attack porn legislation in courts.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...9.F3d.470.html

gwidomains

Everyone applies bias to their views -- one of the biggest problems is the idea white men have no bias. Everyone has bias. So, clearly it is a charade both liberals and conservatives play -- they want bias to balance views. "Activism" is done by both conservatives and liberals. In addition, Alito, Thomas and Roberts were all praised for their "empathy."

On the selection of judges -- Reagan actually campaigned on promising to appoint the first female S.C. justice, H.W. Bush selected Thomas at 42 y.o. having had very little track record as a judge to the S.C. to replace Marshall. Scalia was undoubtedly selected for his Italian-Catholic background. In addition, there have been other "ethnic" seats on the bench since the turn of the century.

So, Gleem you are uneducated on the topic -- Sotomayor has the most experience of any of the people appointed to the S.C. AND has been on the "short list" for the past 10 years or so given she has almost the same educational background (slightly better grades from the same school -- ironically after Alito joined an organization to keep princeton from becoming coed.) and longer history as a Judge, prosecutitor and private sector lawyer than Alito. So, it's pretty funny that people get upset about arguably the one of the MOST "qualified" S.C. picks in judicial history. In other words, you are full of it up to your ears.

Judges are NOT impartial, there is no reason to pretend that they are.

I'm surprised no one has made an issue of how many Catholics are on the court.

anyway, go to volokh . com if you want real conservative reasoning why not to like Sotomayor as opposed to these random and off-target remarks.


Ironically, for those conservatives, the president is only constrained by the "advice and consent" of senate. So, qualifications really shouldn't be a concern if we want to "strictly" follow the constitution.

Of course, we all bring in outside "experience" and "bias" to help us determine qualifications right?

gleem

excellent point, but it only applies to Latina niche porn

__________________

Pleasurepays

you are totally missing the point. a supreme court judge is not supposed to be biased. obviously you can find hints of bias. you are not supposed to be making decisions based on your own personal biases. you are supposed to weigh the facts and make decisions based on facts.

its not if someone has some bias or not... the point is that they should be aspiring to apply the constitution WITHOUT bias... not giving interviews saying they are more qualified as a female, ethnic minority "to make better decisions" than a white judge.

ottyhotties

Still good news because I've got a crush on Gigi Spice.

smutnut

Dude the difference between Gigi Spice and Sotomayor is the difference between Rosanne Barr and Megan Fox

BobG

I learn everything i know from TV

gwidomains

actually you are totally missing the point -- there is no "judge should not be biased" clause in article II. We all bring our experience and bias to determine how we fell the president should appoint a justice. We all play a game that oh "judges shouldn't be biased."

yeah right. Further, you've fallen into the trap that a "generic" white male sets the standard of bias. Interestingly enough, conservative loved Alito's answers about empathy when he talked about his immigrant experience -- (oddly, it was "shameful" to bring up Alito's participation in groups trying to prevent the private college of Princeton to go coed.)

There is no reason to pretend that judges meet some fake standard of impartiality -- the judges are chosen precisely b/c of their bias -- Roberts, for instance, b/c he is a Federalist.

And more importantly, judges aren't just interpreting the law, constitution etc. they are making it -- but of course, that is another "dirty secret" never to be uttered aloud.

It's all a b.s. charade. Judges are chosen b/c of their bias.

More importantly that is the perogative of the president to chose a nominee, and the Senate to vote up/down (or in practice via the rules in the Senate, try to filibuster to get a new nominee). That's the explicit word of the constitution, and the procedure of the Senate.

All the "qualifications" we are all projecting are meaningless, biased constructs based on our own thought and experiences.

kane

Every nominee in the past has pretty much done what she is doing now. You can't be a person who has accumulated the kind of a career it takes to get to where she (or any nominee) is without having made some questionable decisions. So you spin your answers to make yourself look good.

A typical issue for this is abortion. If you are a conservative judge they may ask you, "If a challenge to Roe V Wade came before you would you overturn it." Of course you can't say, "Hell yeah!" so instead you say, "Without the details of a specific case in front of me I can't say. Right now Roe V Wade is the law of the land."

A liberal judge would answer that question in basically the same way saying, "Roe V Wade is the existing law. We would have to see the merits and details of the specific case before any overturning of the law could take place."

You stick and move, never actually commit to any one stance.

There are times when a judge needs to stand by the law and rule in favor of it and there are times when a judge needs to look at the existing law, realize it is probably either outdated, flawed or just plain wrong and rule against it. The hope is that you can find someone to sit on the court that has the wisdom to see which case is which.

kane

Oh and BTW, she does have a very analesque last name

cykoe6

Typical Marxist who thinks of people in terms of classes or races as opposed to as individuals. It is the collectivists like you who are the real racists. Most of us could care less about race.

__________________
бабки, шлюхи, сила

gwidomains

Whatever, that makes as much sense as saying judges are unbiased.

cykoe6

Very clever retort. I withdraw my point.

__________________
бабки, шлюхи, сила

Pleasurepays

remember all this when your biased police officer pulls you over and charges you will all kinds of crazy shit just because its ok to apply personal bias to the law and he doesn't like the length of your hair.

tell him your totally cool with it and your totally in support of his "personal bias" while doing his job applying what is supposed to be a black and white law.

gwidomains

That's a very poor example, police officers' use their experience and bias all the time to apply the law. I'm guessing you don't get stopped when you are traveling 3 mph over the speed limit.



In fact, in your case above, it is very likely that bias and experience of a judge and/or jury would help you --- as they could see that you might have been charged outside of normal behavior b/c of the prejudicial bias of the officer.

Where, if they strictly applied the law, and you were in violation then they might not have much empathy for your situation.

you want things both ways (bias to determine qualifications beyond the constitutional requirements; yet pretend judges are not selected b/c of their bias), that's why you've brought up an unrelated hypothetical.