|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: New Supreme Court Nominee S. Sotomayor... |
 |
|
Apparently more race-class-and-gender slice-and-dice divisive politics. And now CNN is moving to call the Republicans "racist" for opposing her...
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON -- The Republican Party risks further alienation from Hispanics by challenging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic, and third woman, on the Supreme Court... |
CNN Reports
The most sickening thing about leftists' politics today, besides their intolerance for an opposition, is that "the historic, first African-American president," "the first African-American attorney-general," "the first Hispanic" and "the third woman on the Supreme Court," etc. pass as merit.
Compensatory, hyperemotional, racist politics at their finest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno. As I've said before, the contemporary Left didn't exactly invent the practice of doling out appointments based partly on cultural identity. You can bet that when Kennedy made his selection for VP, the advantages of balancing out "East Coast Ivy Leaguer" with "gruff-talking Texas redneck" crossed his mind at one point or another.
And I don't think it's a total coincidence that, when Thurgood Marshall retired, the man GHWB picked to replace him just happened to have the same skin colour.
I think I would make an issue of it if I thought that an otherwise totally incompetent person were being nominated, simply because they had politically advantageous pigmentation or genitalia. I don't know enough about Justice Sotomayor to know if that's what's happening here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me be clear: the President won the election and it remains his prerogative to nominate whomever he pleases; and I generally support the idea of nominating qualified women to the Supreme Court.
But it also remains the Senate's role to check executive powers here, just as it remains the Republicans' role to oppose the Democrats while in power. And I disagree and am offended by the way the left has moved to disarm these processes here, by implying that any criticism against S. Sotomayor, just as, last year, any criticism against B. Obama, is necessarily "racist."
The left and its smug reverse-racism, especially as it appears in CNN's reporting, continues to sicken me.
As far as her qualifications, I prefer to take a pass on CNN and allies' race-class-and-gender triumphalism and wait for ABA's judgment on the matter...
| Quote: |
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has begun its peer-review of nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
We believe the review of Judge Sotomayor's credentials for this important position in our Third Branch will add the important perspective of lawyers and judges with whom Judge Sotomayor has worked. The ABA Standing Committee's review process includes the following elements:
All members of the ABA Standing Committee participate in the evaluation. Hundreds of lawyers, judges and members of the community who know Judge Sotomayor professionally will be interviewed by members of the ABA Standing Committee. Those interviewed will be asked to assess Judge Sotomayor on three key criteria: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.
Two panels of legal scholars from respected law schools will examine the nominee�s legal writings for quality, clarity, knowledge of the law and analytical ability. The reading teams are composed of professors who are recognized experts in various substantive areas of the law.
Another panel of pre-eminent lawyers with Supreme Court and appellate experience also will examine the nominee's legal writings from the perspective of practitioners who are familiar with appellate practice at the highest level.
Finally, Judge Sotomayor herself will be interviewed at length by members of the Standing Committee regarding her professional qualifications.
After this comprehensive evaluation is completed, the findings will be assembled into a report for review by each member of the committee who will then individually evaluate the nominee as either "well-qualified," "qualified," or "not-qualified." The majority rating constitutes the official rating of the ABA Standing Committee.
The Standing Committee's independent peer review will provide the Senate with a thoughtful, thorough evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's professional credentials for serving on the nation's highest court as the Senate fulfills its constitutional role in the confirmation process. |
ABA Standing Committee
My own prediction: she will most likely receive a "qualified," or less likely, a "not qualified" endorsement -- I think B. Obama does his homework and, further, given what I have so far heard, I anticipate we can rule out "well-qualified." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When she was nominated for the appeals court, she was rated as "well-qualified" by a substantial majority. I predict she will have the same rating this time. Why are you so hung up on what CNN and those dreadful leftists think? Is any Hispanic woman, no matter how well qualified, "more race-class-and-gender slice-and-dice divisive politics" ? And where did CNN call the republicans racist? I can't find it in the article you linked. And what is this nonsense about it being the Republicans role to oppose the Democrats? Isn't it their role to promote what they see as being in the best interests of the country? Opposition for the sake of opposition is just nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
My own prediction: she will most likely receive a "qualified," or less likely, a "not qualified" endorsement -- I think B. Obama does his homework and, further, given what I have so far heard, I anticipate we can rule out "well-qualified." |
Really? You're ready to rule out "well-qualified" so quickly?
I personally know as little about this woman as the rest of you, but I agree that the ABA evaluation will probably be the most trustworthy of any evaluation methods.
But personally I'm displeased right now with just about the entire court (save maybe J. Roberts, who sometimes will place principles before politics, and isn't stained by the atrocity of Bush v. Gore), so my expectations are not very high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| the atrocity of Bush v. Gore... |
so true.... a supreme court decision that doesn't set a precedent.... ridiculous.
Looking purely at her education record she looks very intelligent.
Bush H.W. also promoted her, so repubs can't complain too much. Looks like she's going to get it for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you actually read Bush vs. Gore, Kuros? If so I would be interested to see you brief it for us here, or at least summarize the issue, the evidence, the analysis, and the decision.
Your own version, of course. I have no more time for Google views and neverending outrage via op-ed, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, everything I've seen about this individual implies that she is highly educated, possessed of substantial experience, and very well qualified.
I do, however, take some issue with the fact that it's more or less crystal clear that her gender and race did play a role in her nomination. We all knew Obama would nominate a woman, a minority, or both, and that's precisely what he did.
This is exactly the problem with the kind of "It's okay to take race and gender into account as a positive factor, as long as the race isn't caucasian and the gender isn't male," system that our nation seems to have adopted (some people -- such as Senator Boxer -- even boarderline demand it). It takes what in all honesty seems to be a very reasonable candidate like Sotomayor and (unfairly) tarnishes her nomination with exactly the sort of implications Gopher's post mentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Did you actually read Bush vs. Gore, Kuros? If so I would be interested to see you brief it for us here, or at least summarize the issue, the evidence, the analysis, and the decision.
Your own version, of course. I have no more time for Google views and neverending outrage via op-ed, etc. |
| Quote: |
Facts:
� 2000 election came down to FL's results, decided to well under 1,000 votes
� Candidate who was behind was auto entitled to a recount (b/c of narrow margin of result)
� Machines had counted some ballots more than once, and some ballots, but not all, had been counted by hand
� Ballots in Lake County were not manually counted, while ballots in Orange County were manually counted
� (Voters had filled in Gore in pencil, and wrote in his name, or Lieberman's, in the write-in slot; in Lake Co these ballots were discounted, but in Orange county they were upheld as votes for Gore)
Issues:
� Bush's argument:
○ there was recount after recount after recount, and still Bush was ahead
○ Some uncounted ballots ARE NOT EQUAL to other uncounted ballots
� Gore's argument:
○ there were ballots that had never been counted, and some that had never been counted by hand
○ Wanted manual recounts in 4 FL counties
Rules:
� FL Law, to sustain challenge must show
○ Rejection of a # of legal votes/Acceptance of a # of illegal votes,
○ Sufficient to change OR place in doubt the result of the election
� FL Law, A legal vote must be sufficiently clearly marked to show the clear intent of the voter
Reasoning/Holding:
� The standard was not unequal on its face, but there was too generalized a standard
� A state must, at least in some circumstances, avoid arbitrary mistreatment of voters when a fundamental right is implicated
○ Must be specific standards to ensure equal application (otherwise Constitutional violation)
○ Absence of these standards has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects
� . . . If it has a differential impact, or presents a substantial potential risk of disparate impact
� When the State legislature vests the right to vote for President in the people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental (heightens judicial scrutiny)
� A right can be fundamental under the Constitution, even if it is revocable at the complete discretion of a branch of the state gov't
|
Those are my notes, they're a bit hard to read (but that's true of most law students) but maybe its hard to grasp the irony of this decision from them.
The real problem is that Bush v. Gore side-stepped Washington v. Davis, which states that disparate impact is not enough to establish a Constitutional violation, there must also be discriminatory intent (IOW, if a gov't action happens to burden the black population more than the white population, its not unconstitutional unless there's some evidence of discrimination). Note that Washington v. Davis was erected by conservatives (not to make it a partisan binary, but I'm simplifying things b/c this can get a little technical), but the 4 conservatives + Kennedy decided to side-step it, and then state that their decision held no precedent. In other words, they made the law of their choosing for one decision, this time only. 5 GOP appointees to appoint a GOP candidate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Article about Gingrich's attack on Sotomayor, accusing her of racism.
| Quote: |
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Wednesday charged that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism," Gingrich wrote in a post on his blog.
"A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," he added.
Gingrich was referring to a comment Sotomayor made during remarks at the University of California, Berkeley's annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture.
"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," Sotomayor said.
Gingrich's comment came a day after conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a "racist."
Responding to Gingrich's post, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sotomayor's opponents should be "exceedingly careful" in their criticisms. |
I have to admit, I agree with Gingrich that her words in this case were very racist, and further that Gingrich is absolutely right when he said a white man saying something comprable would probably be driven right out of the runnings. Gibbs' response is also total rubbish. Certain members of the hispanic community have tried to defend her words by saying she was just admitting she had a different background and that could lead to different conclusions, but that's not what she said. She claimed her background -- and her race and gender -- would allow her to reach outright better conclusions than, specifically, a white man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Really? You're ready to rule out "well-qualified" so quickly? |
Well-qualified for the left's instant mythmaking, Kuros.
This poor, discriminated-against, Hispanic woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps all the way to the Supreme Court! With just a nudge from the Messiah himself...!
I bet she grew up in a log cabin and never told a lie, too.
Thanks for briefing Bush vs. Gore. First serious presentation of the thing I have seen yet. You use "differential impact" and "disparate impact," in your notes. Is that merely your notes or do those represent two distinct legal concepts?
________
Fox: you are onto something. Those leftists who embrace the race-class-and-gender dogma complain, bitterly and unrelentingly, that white males have historically rejected all non-white-male identity-groups' equality, sameness, full citizenship, what-have-you.
They claim they merely want equality.
On the other hand, they have pushed forward systematic compensatory race-class-and-gender discrimination via "affirmative action" for decades now.
Further, as S. Sotomayor's words, above, show, they also continue to insist that each race-class-and-gender identity-group has its own race-class-and-gender-determined worldview, interests, and politics, and that others, especially whites, cannot possibly represent them because they are so different.
Voila.
As a leftist writer I am now reading mocks H. Kissinger's contradictions, perhaps in their own minds at least they have reconciled these irreconcilable tracts and told themselves they are onto something consistent...(ha ha, smug laugher)
Last edited by Gopher on Wed May 27, 2009 7:42 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Identity politics drive me crazy.
| Quote: |
| Murgu�a said Hispanics are �extremely excited� about the nomination. �This is a monumental moment for the Latino community. It�s a milestone moment,� she said. |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23016.html
How the fu%k does she know? Has she asked all? Are all Hispanics the same? Really? A rich, white Argentine has the exact same political/social/cultural outlook as an illiterate Mexican hill person? Really?
I spend 80% of my time awake (give or take) in the company of Hispanics. Not a single one has mentioned this nomination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, she said that? And even before I read that quote, i was skeptical. I'm definitely not blown away by her, and she does not seem "moderate".
But she'll more than likely be confirmed due to the balance in Congress right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a context to the infamous quote.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-wrongly-claim-sotomayor-said-latinas-are-better-than-white-men/
| Quote: |
The full text of her 2001 speech is right here. It shows that these readings are complete fabrications.
Read in context, it�s clear that Sotomayor was merely saying that it�s inevitable that a judge�s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases. As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed �complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.�
�I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations,� she said � the opposite of what critics claim she said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
| Quote: |
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group
As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "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."
The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
|
I don't trust World Net Daily at all. But if this is true... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
