DescentBB

Senator Sessions opening statement hits Sotomayor right between her eyes. Unlike Senator Lehmans ass kissing, camp fire lullabye to Ms Sotomayor, Sessions quickly points out her judicial mind set is not suitable for any judge let alone for a position on the Supreme Court.

Al Frankin kissed her ass right into the SCOTUS position.

Schumer had to be the most pathetic. Almost crying! What a put on! Gag me! This is a hearing, not a talent contest.

So you all don't like the American Idol approach to the SCOTUS appointment? (sarcasm)

Insurrectionist wrote:So you all don't like the American Idol approach to the SCOTUS appointment? (sarcasm)

I'd prefer The Joker method, three nominees and one broken pool stick between them....

Have you noticed how Senator Sessions' drawl has gotten more exaggerated and pronounced as the questioning drones on? The more I listen to him and read about him, the more I see that he's a racist and misogynist. He's a hypocrite for the types of questions he's asking of her!

I think Sotomayor is Misandrist towards white men.

Could be........ Maybe the white male cabal in power is starting to quake in it's boots over losing said power and doesn't like it one little bit.

\"Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the fourth day of the hearing that he would oppose any filibuster attempt and that he looked forward to a full Senate vote on Sotomayor before the August recess.

\"She is a good person, [with] a wonderful background,\" Sessions told CNN, but he continued to express concerns that she will be an activist for liberal causes on the Supreme Court.\"

I think his \"shot between the eyes\" was with a BB gun.

bee



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/ ... index.html

A question regarding qualifications…

Something Goob said on the other site, made me think of this. (being more qualified, ‘because’ of being a victim)

When I was asked to serve on jury duty, I was disqualified because I answered the following question with a yes.

“Have you ever been the victin of a violent crime” (murder case)

The reasoning behind disqualification is simple…impartiality. Sotomayer is very proud of her past in regards to discrimination, and would likely to have to hear cases on discrimination. (and already has)

So shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to the highest juror in the country?

I know this has been addressed from different directions, but the Jury Duty thing, really brought it home for me.

It's a valid point I think. Conventional wisdom throughout our culture is we prefer someone removed from an issue to make judgments on it.
We don't want teachers teaching their own children in the public schools, we don't want members of an organization to serve on a jury that decides the fate of the organization etc. etc.

So why should we believe a person of a particular race will have better insight and greater wisdom if they serve as a judge deciding a case that involves potential oppression of their own race? I think judges should recuse themselves in those instances.

I don't think Sotomayor's intent was to say she had superior judgement because of her race, rather that, as a minority, she had insight to the struggles of minorities in general...not quite what it has been twisted into from the rightwing but still poor judgement in my mind because she doesn't necessarily have the life experiences of the average minority considering her resume and education background. She's more upper class than her statement leads you to believe which for me calls into question her ability to use logic instead of emotion to establish her foundations.

So her background is really not about discrimination, but rather Salsa & Flamingo Dancing.

EDIT...

Duh…Flamenco Dancing And I even looked it up too...

Spidey, did you mean this for Flamingo dancing?

Spidey wrote:So her background is really not about discrimination, but rather Salsa & Flamingo Dancing.

I don't know what her background is but she seems to think that just because she is a Latina by birth she automatically has all their credentials. Too bad, I would hope a Supreme Court Judge would not make weak assumptions like that.

And if she really wants to be slave to precedence then someone should tell her that there is no precedence for a Latina on the court....

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think Sotomayor's intent was to say she had superior judgement because of her race, rather that, as a minority, she had insight to the struggles of minorities in general...not quite what it has been twisted into from the rightwing

agree very much with that.

but still poor judgement in my mind because she doesn't necessarily have the life experiences of the average minority considering her resume and education background.

and with this as well.

I am not sure if I can follow you here, though:

She's more upper class than her statement leads you to believe which for me calls into question her ability to use logic instead of emotion to establish her foundations.

I don't think the quote reveals anything about her logical reasoning. Isn't it just a typical politicians way to endear herself to the unwashed masses? "Hey, you can trust me --- I am one of you!" In other words, can you really take what people say in a speech as an accurate reflection what they really think?

Spidey wrote:The reasoning behind disqualification is simple…impartiality. Sotomayer is very proud of her past in regards to discrimination, and would likely to have to hear cases on discrimination. (and already has)

So shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to the highest juror in the country?

Well, it did not apply to Alito. He said in his senate confirmation hearing:

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . . When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

So we have the following:
1. Sotomayor DENYING promotion to members of her own race/cultural background in the Ricci case, and it is interpreted as racial bias.
2. Alito giving the promotion to members of his own race/cultural background in the Ricci case, and the rightwing machine is completely silent, even though he previously said - much more directly than Sotomayor - that he takes his own discimination experiences into account?

So is there any other interpretation of current grilling of Sotomayor other than trying to taint Obama's pick and her SCOTUS position?

Well, you are working off a false premise here, that being my desire to “taint” Sotomayer. I would see it as an issue in the Alito case as well. It was just something that occurred to me, after something Goob said, based on my own personal experience. So I asked a question…and the obvious answer is…it don’t apply to da upper classes!

So let me write that down…liberal tatic #46...base all opposition on Obama bashing.

That fits in well with the Impenetrable Shield of Accusation©…very predictable.

Pandora wrote:

So is there any other interpretation of current grilling of Sotomayor other than trying to taint Obama's pick and her SCOTUS position?

So how would you depict the democrats treatment of Clarence Thomas? Bork? Estrada?

Lets face it. Nomination hearings are a dog and pony show by both sides.

Spidey wrote:Well, you are working off a false premise here, that being my desire to “taint” Sotomayer. I would see it as an issue in the Alito case as well. It was just something that occurred to me, after something Goob said, based on my own personal experience. So I asked a question…and the obvious answer is…it don’t apply to da upper classes!

Sorry, Spidey, if my post came out wrong. I didn't want to imply AT ALL that you would be showing such a bias. I actually think of you as one of the most clearheaded and unbiased voices here.

I just wanted to point out that, if people want to look for racial biases, this should apply to all judges then, but that this is not happening at the moment in public discussion on Sotomayor, which just serves to paint her as an 'activist' judge without any facts to back that up. In fact, when you look at her record, it seems that she is actually the opposite: a defender of the status quo.

Pandora wrote:I just wanted to point out that, if people want to look for racial biases, this should apply to all judges then, but that this is not happening at the moment in public discussion on Sotomayor, which just serves to paint her as an 'activist' judge without any facts to back that up. In fact, when you look at her record, it seems that she is actually the opposite: a defender of the status quo.

Agreed, but Wood hit the nail on the head. nominating a person for the SCOTUS is never about qualifications. its about political ideology, each side wants to make points with their voting base.

Pandora wrote:...

I am not sure if I can follow you here, though:

She's more upper class than her statement leads you to believe which for me calls into question her ability to use logic instead of emotion to establish her foundations.

I don't think the quote reveals anything about her logical reasoning.

For me it shows a departure from logic and a reach into emotion to think her judgement is somehow enriched by tenuously attaching it to her ethnicity instead of her knowledge of the law.

Pandora wrote:Isn't it just a typical politicians way to endear herself to the unwashed masses? "Hey, you can trust me --- I am one of you!" In other words, can you really take what people say in a speech as an accurate reflection what they really think?

I don't think a nominee for the supreme Court should follow the modus operandi of a politician and when reviewing the history of a nominee for the court the things she says regarding law and how she see's it should be taken as a reflection of what they think.

Pandora, I doubt I could ever live up to that compliment, but thanks anyway.

Now Shhhh, or you’ll blow my reputation.

Will Robinson wrote:
I don't think a nominee for the supreme Court should follow the modus operandi of a politician and when reviewing the history of a nominee for the court the things she says regarding law and how she see's it should be taken as a reflection of what they think.

By listening to some of the liberals, DeSoto is saying what she thinks will get her nominated and not what she really believes:

"Georgetown University Law Center's liberal professor Louis Michael Seidman couldn't constrain his anger. "I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today," he posted on Tuesday. "If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified ... . Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse." . . . ."

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2294573/posts