Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
79 replies to this topic

#31 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:19 PM

Of course it does

http://www.loc.gov/r...hamendment.html

murph i think you need to reevaluate what you perceived as my intent with that post.

#32 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:19 PM

I thought that was a womens clothing store

#33 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:19 PM

considering american law is based off a constitution and a bill of rights written over 250 years ago, I think that yes the demographics and professions (white, male, slaveowners) of the writers have a lot of bearing actually on the laws and decisions today.

unless of course you believe that this small, unrepresentative group of elites with the equivalent of modern day middle school educations somehow managed to come up with a set of pure, egalitarian laws that absolutely transcend gender, racial, and economic inequality more than two centuries later.

in that case i would encourage you to study for your upcoming test in 8th grade civ


Sotomayor isn't TALKING about the white male slaveowners that wrote the Constitution you stupid farking nitwit. It's just a strawman that you and CWG have contrived to again make people that look at a statement like that and see blatant racism, but you somehow turn it around and attempt to make US the racists. Stick to cruising bars Fiz.

#34 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:24 PM

Sotomayor isn't TALKING about the white male slaveowners that wrote the Constitution you stupid farking nitwit. t's just a strawman that you and CWG have contrived to again make people that look at a statement like that and see blatant racism, but you somehow turn it around and attempt to make US the racists. Stick to cruising bars Fiz.

i haven't said a thing about what sotomayor said.

i was simply pointing out your attempt to flip it around and play victim showed how unbelievably ignorant you are about the legal history of your own country.

believe me, I yearn for the day I can interact with you and not have to remind you how blindingly stupid you are, but I feel it is my duty, nay privilege, to berate you into educating yourself.

#35 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:28 PM

i haven't said a thing about what sotomayor said.

i was simply pointing out your attempt to flip it around and play victim showed how unbelievably ignorant you are about the legal history of your own country.

believe me, I yearn for the day I can interact with you and not have to remind you how blindingly stupid you are, but I feel it is my duty, nay privilege, to berate you into educating yourself.


All I've talked about is what Sotomayer has said...CWG was the one introducing the strawman with you joining in with some tobacco sticks of your own to help prop it up.

Keep yearning Fiz...you've still got a lot of life experience and growing up to do.

#36 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:32 PM

All I've talked about is what Sotomayer has said...

of course, when you said this

Flip the statement...imagine a white male saying the same thing with the appropriate racial portions reversed.

which would imply you think something like this didn't happen. of course, a very small minority of white males basically gave themselves voting rights and kept a large portion of the population enslaved. This happened. you don't seem to grasp that.

furthermore....

The demographic makeup of the authors...yes...that has nothing to do with decisions made today. But you can keep being disingenuous if you so choose.

this isn't about sotomayor obviously, just you trying to appear like you know something, which I quickly pointed out you don't.

just because you're pretending to be condescending doesn't disguise the fact you're backpedaling.

#37 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:33 PM

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges do and SHOULD affect their judicial decision-making. "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," she said. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."


All I did was take her statement and showed how it is as true for her as it was for the people that wrote the Constitution. You tried to tell us that for some reason, only the female Hispanic can have this kind of mindset.

#38 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:36 PM

g5jamz if you want to know anything about the supreme court, how it was formed, how it reaches decisions, and how it is influenced by the past, you should pick up this book

Posted Image

it's written for an audience that can get through newsweek and nothing else so you should be able to handle it but if you have trouble then i would suggest this

Posted Image

#39 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,900 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:37 PM

Sounds to me like everybody is arguing over whether or not it is right for a person to use their entire life experiences as a guide on how to perform their job duties and thus mold their decision making processes.

Sort of like what all human beings do.

#40 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:41 PM

Sounds to me like everybody is arguing over whether or not it is right for a person to use their entire life experiences as a guide on how to perform their job duties and thus mold their decision making processes.

Sort of like what all human beings do.


no what detractors are really afraid of is that a non white in power might use that position to make things better for people like her (minorities) instead of knowing her place like other non whites on the bench (thomas) and keeping the status quo.

they fear this because conservative politicians have been using code language to signal incoming racist as poo policies forever, back when nixon won the south by alluding to jim crow laws by describing himself as a fan of conservative southern values *wink wink

#41 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...ref=mpstoryview

Well she's a Yankees fan so I'm gonna have to really vet this one out.

#42 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,081 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:56 PM

You douche, a lot of the reasons there have been amendments to the Constitution is to expand the rights the nation guarantees to people other than white male landowners. It has EVERYTHING to do with court decisions today. Our nations history has been based on how many freedoms the nation was ready for at any particular time, and that truth is not going away.

Can you not take a minute to actually learn about the history involved with the crap you pretend to know about?


The point is that CONGRESS legislates, not the Supreme Court.

#43 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,900 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...ref=mpstoryview

Well she's a Yankees fan so I'm gonna have to really vet this one out.



Lost my support. Obviously intelligence is lacking there.

#44 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

I'm just going to ignore the O' Reilly jingoism and go with the simple fact that the originating document of the nation that your argument relies upon was created as a way to legislate a specific world view that stated that rich white males are the only people that can be counted on to make the hard decisions, and leave it at that.

In a perfect world all this stuff would work great. Reality has proven that from time to time other balances are needed. People who think that our method of government is flawless, or never needs to be shaken up (except when teh terroristz are attacking!), are a bit out of touch with reality.

#45 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,889 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:43 PM

The point is that CONGRESS legislates, not the Supreme Court.


That is the way it is supposed to be. But they are hung up on rich white male stuff at the moment. Let them get it all out.

Obama is going to get rid of the rich part as soon as possible, so they will have to bark up another tree.

Let's see...
If a terrorist is in this country from Gitmo and wasn't read his rights in Iraq when captured,
The rich white males on the court would say....
The latino woman would say.......something base on how she grew up.

Looks like a good deal to me.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com