Monday, July 13, 2009

The SCOTUS Hearings

Is it simply naive of me to wonder if being Latina or having grown up poor should be better for our Supreme Court, as I'm hearing today on television?
What are your thoughts?


Ducky's here said...

Senator Whiteside pretty much nails it

Anonymous said...

Chief Justice Roberts, though he cast himself as an "umpire" during his confirmation hearings. Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that "[i]n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

What WHiteside claims is not true ducky. Roberts voted w/Ricci. Is Whiteside a demogogue and a liar? Yep.

Anonymous said...

Can't you tell the difference between fact and rhetoric, ducky? I guess not...

Anonymous said...

It is worth remembering that judges of the United States have shown great courage over the years, courage verging on heroism, in providing that sanctuary of careful attention, what James Bryce called "the cool dry atmosphere of judicial determination," amidst the inflamed passions or invested powers of the day.

Cool dry judicial determination over the sopping wet moisture of empathy and inflamed passion? If the speaker of this line were sincere, he'd be forced to vote AGAINST the nominee.

Z said...

Ah, Ducky, that's so easy. I heard his remarks.
No 'litmus test', huh? you leftwingers crack me UP! OH, my gosh, BUSH COULD HAVE NO LITMUS TEST..that was the big mantra! Suddenly, we have a judge nominee who has to have been poor, worked hard, is Puerto Rican, a woman, sensitive, empathetic, ...well, it's laughable. TO READ THE LAW?
Thanks for posting that..everyone should see what THE HONORABLE man who should have his brains washed out with soap said.

Whiteside is all that, apparently,FJ.
Facts need not's all sound bites in the leftwingy world.

Z said...

"the right wing justices".."SOME UMPIRE"..

Does this dope sit in for Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann when they're busy sharpening their claws?

Maggie M. Thornton said...

My thought is many, many millions of us lived the same life without the benefit of affirmative action to get us into university with lower test scores.

Maggie M. Thornton said...

Whitehouse ends with her life experience and her empathy. In her prior rulings, she had no empathy for the victims of the felon's she wanted to give the right to vote to, she had no empathy for the victims of killers that she wanted to keep out of the electric chair - and she said that capital punishment violates the "state of humanistic thinking today, she has no empathy for the baby she wants to allow to be aborted in the last trimester - abortion with no restrictions, and she had no empathy for the New Haven Firefighters.

The comment about her wisdom as a Latino woman - not out of context. She repeated it at least 7 times, using almost or exactly the same words.

Who can justify allowing felons to vote?

Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.

Jungle Mom said...

What happened to being color blind?

Anonymous said...

Being latina makes her just as qualified as being a white male makes me qualified. Racial differences and backgrounds should not play into who gets nominated for the supreme court. Only their previous decisions and writings matter.

P.S. Your Word Verification is "lemings", lol. Too perfect.

Ducky's here said...

Magge, my guess is that you would have gotten torn apart at Princeton.

Ducky's here said...

See Maggie, you whine like a child because something didn't get ruled your way. That's why we have to have a few points of view represented.

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think Whiteside meant plaintiff not prosecution. I believe Ricci and the other firefighters who brought the case were plaintiffs, and the court found in their favor.

In the Keloh case, it was the liberals on the court who found against the plaintiffs who were regular citizens, and private property owners, and in favor of the city who were using eminent domain to seize their property for a private developer.

Justice Kennedy redefined "public use" to mean "public purpose", justifying seizing private property for the benefit of a private development and tax revenue to the city. Thereby IMO and many legal experts, perverting the original meaning and intention of eminent domain.

So much for "the little guy". The four conservatives dissented. These right wingers, how dare they interpret "use" to mean "use"! Tsk, tsk.

So Ducky, with all due disrespect, you as usual are all wet, (perfect for a duck), and as for the Senator, he's really good at gobbledygook.

To Z's question. Growing up poor has nothing to do with being exemplary in one's chosen field. It's commendable to overcome those disadvantages, but doesn't in and of itself, guarantee excellence in judgement, or competence.

But, as Senator Feinstein said, it's a great story. Well, that's nice. So? I guess image really is everything, and of course there are quotas to fill right? As long as they're liberal. It's deja vu all over again.


Brooke said...

And here I thought justice was colorblind.

I seem to recall that the left eviscerated Thomas for being a token of identity politics, yet Sotomayor is lauded for her comments.

Once again, imagine if a white male nominee had said he was better qualified to make a SCOTUS decision than a minority woman. Would the shit EVER stop hitting the fan?

It amazes me that the left will overlook ANY offense when it is committed by one of their own.

christian soldier said...

My thoughts-posted this morning:

Z-I believe it was your wish for a list of our BEST to honor:
The list of the BEST who died in July serving this country - no fanfare like M.Jackson by the 'royals' in government:

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand how being Latino qualifies her in any way. Like others have said....Apparently justice isn't colorblind. It's a shame that it has an effect either way.

Z said...

Thanks, Mags...I thought it was WhiteHOUSe, not WhiteSIDE like Ducky said. Thank GOD this guy won't come nearer to the WH than his name. I don't think Sotomayor is an affirmative action entry; I think her test scores were high.
I have no problem with the intelligence, I have a problem with the way the left is so bent on FEELINGS and EMPATHY and BACKGRUOND and POVERTY and GENDER and the rest..
I think our Court is safer with really bright people who love America and support ONLY the constitution as written, and its amendments.

Hi ,Kris! LEMINGS, huh? Perfect!! HA!! The other day, there was some muslim topic at a blog and another commenter said "My verification is BEHEAD...!" :-)

Jen, JM and Brooke..I simply don't get it, either. might have been me, but I doubt it. I can barely bring myself to read their names or see their beautiful faces. What I've often said, and this might be what you mean, is that we MUST at LEAST look at them and pray for them....after what they did for us. It hurts me so deeply I have to bring myself to look at them and I find myself apologizing to them in my mind.

Joe said...

I wonder why Ducky did not respond to the fact that Senator Whiteside did not tell the truth about Chief Justice Roberts in his remarks?

Sotomayor is neither more nor less qualified to serve on SOTUS by virtue of her up-bringing.

Compared to Judge Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, she is a magnificent light-weight...about as judicially limp as they come, but nontheless qualified, I'm afraid. She will no doubt be confirmed.

Joe said...

By the way, Ducko, "you would have gotten torn apart" and " whine..." are not carefully thought out, contra-arguments. Do you have any?

Anonymous said...

You're right Z, it is Whitehouse, I should have paid closer attention. That's what I get for using Ducky's reference.


Anonymous said...

Face it girls. Men are Pigs! They can't help themselves. That's what makes us Latina gals so much superior to white males. No dumbsticks!

Anonymous said...

I am not comfortable with someone who trumpets her credentials as an activist judge. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine whether a law is constitutional or not, but this lady seems to be the sort who will use a seat on the court to rewrite the law according to her own taste. She is anti-second amendment, and favors special treatment for minorities. We have had enough of the ill effects of that , and don't need someone on the bench who will do her best to open that can of worms again.

Anonymous said...

It's all about fidelity to the law. Especially if they're white rapists with dumbsticks. I've got NO empathy for those types!

Anonymous said...

Do I oppose racial preferences? What do YOU think?

Z said...

um..Alice....on the video you link, she says "Cultural differences built into tests"..BUILT INTO TESTS? Meaning, on purpose? Do you BUILD INTO something accident? What's she implying? And what CULTURAL DIFFERENCES? I'm very curious. How can a question about American history, for example, be culturally different in one part of America than the other?

And, I guess I have to take it back; She did NOT have the test grades needed to get in...she really WAS Affirmative Action. oh,.
Well, I have to check Thomas' grade situation, too......I believe I heard he was embarrassed later because he'd scored so well in university yet people THOUGHT he was an affirmative action HIRE later on.....the pitfall of "You can't have it both ways", I think.

The Descovic video is tough...that's a lot of years to spend in prisonwhen you were innocent. The six years he could have had cut when DNA was clearly showing his innocence is TERRIBLE...four days late and he had another SIX YEARS? It might be the rules, but where is HER EMPATHY?
Obama? you goofed.

WhiteHOUSE....I used WhiteSide because of Ducky, too.........
who cares!?
just so we know.

JINGOIST said...

As usual, I'm thoroughly disgusted at the Democrats (radicals) in these hearings. Not much has changed for these verminous creatures where race is concerned. The party of slavery and Jim Crow is squarely in the race business.

Whether it's Sonia the magnificent discriminating against white men based on their race, or the Democrats thinking that ONCE AGAIN race-based discrimination is okey dokey with them...I'm DISGUSTED!

BTW, how many times does this woman have to be reversed before the left figures out that this woman is a judicial lightweight? I know, I know, it doesn't matter to them.

BTW-for you lefties out there-race based justice is INJUSTICE!

Always On Watch said...

if being Latina or having grown up poor should be better for our Supreme Court

In a word, NO.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the hearings today. Besides, it's summertime, and I need to be outside and getting some exercise.

If you are a white male, you'll be a loser with Sotomayor on the bench of SCOTUS.

shoprat said...

True is gained in many ways and the path that teaches one wisdom will make a fool of another. Poverty has trained many souls and caused others to weaken. Neither gives advantage.

Anonymous said...

To the ancients, being born to wealth was a curse, not a boon. Just look at what happened to Pericles' ward and nephew, Alcibiades.

Rousseau sent all of his five children to the orphanage to prevent his own children from being "spoiled" by the trappings of French society.

Anonymous said...

Necessity is the mother of invention. Wealthy children do not nearly come face to face with the challenges of necessity as do poor ones.

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

Anonymous said...

...which likely explains Sotomayor's "success" despite (or rather because of) the adversity she faced as a youth. Intellect is nothing w/o the will to apply it... the earlier and more frequently, the better.

Leslie said...

The whole point would seem to appoint judges who know the law and who are able to interpret it without bias; whether they grew up poor, white, latino, black, asian, rich, or whatever other label a person may place upon them.

Every human being carries some sort of baggage due to past experiences. The issue is to become victorious over the experiences, not let them rule your life nor define you.

The fact that the "vetting" of this candidate for the supreme court is still in production goes to show just how far we have declined in the mush that is called: political correctness, racism, entitlement, and socialistic pandering.

WomanHonorThyself said...

The whole point would seem to appoint judges who know the law and who are able to interpret it without bias; whether they grew up poor, white, latino, black, asian, rich, or whatever other label a person may place upon them...NOT ACCORDING TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!

Law and Order Teacher said...

Isn't it interesting that in today's political climate we have regressed to the point that your background is now enough to qualify you. The concept of a meritocracy is out the window apparently.

Weren't the various civil rights acts put into law to ensure that anyone regardless of background, is able to achieve according to his/her own talents?

Now we are back to a pedigree, albeit color/race, that automatically qualifies one for office. It worked with Obama, it will work for Sotomayor.

We might as well feed those civil rights laws into the shredder. The bad old days of race trumping everything are back. Shame.

Z said...

Fj.....I like Rousseau the more and more you tell us about him.

L& encapsulated EVERYTHING all these (mostly) wise people have said here..thanks.


MK said...

Putting aside the racism of this woman, this might be hard to believe, but we in Australia are envious of your appointment process.

At least you folks get to see what sort of person is going to get the job and ask her some questions. Out here, us peasants are not allowed such luxury. Any leftist scumbag can be appointed and will lord over us till they feel like stopping.