Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow
Can you say Clarence Thomas. If she had any pro life comments in her past the left would have eating her up by now.

And who is making such argument?

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

LOL...no sir, she has said many things in her life but people are focusing on a few comment. The woman is highly accomplished and she can express the fact that she has a unique background.She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

That is absolutely the silliest thing you have ever said. I haven't seen even one tiny piece of evidence that anyone cares that she is Latino or a woman (here or anywhere). What some are perturbed with is the fact that those qualities were used as qualifications when maybe they shouldn't be. Get off the emotional log flume and try and the follow the discussion on its merits and not your predisposition to think all Pubs are evil.

another case of Republicans getting up in arms over a "woman in power" and a minority at that. let the criticisms flow

You're still on that stupid claim aren't you? I may disagree with saden often when it comes to politics, but I believe he's pretty intelligent and educated on such matters.

You, on the other hand...it amazes me how nearly every time you post in a thread about politics how ignorant you are. Just stuns me. Where do you come off claiming that Republicans hate women in power? What proof do you have?

By the way, do you remember which party was sitting in the White House when the first female Supreme Court Judge was selected?

Do the names Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Spellings, Elaine Chao, Gale Norton, Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Margaret Chase Smith, Kay Orr (country's first female governor), Jodi Rell, Jeannette Ranking (first congresswoman), Marsha Blackburn, or Jean Schmidt ring a bell at all?

I think you mean well and it's great you like to be involved in the whole political process...but it's just not your forte. I think I could speak Aramaic more eloquently than you could speak politics. You're probably better off just sitting on the sidelines and letting saden and 70Chip debate each other

Your incompetence is staggering. Sandals are shoes but expecting you to know that would be asking too much. It's like you enjoy the taste of your own foot.

If sandals were shoes they wouldn't be called sandals. Better my foot than the liberal BS that flows out your mouth.

If sandals were shoes they wouldn't be called sandals. Better my foot than the liberal BS that flows out your mouth.
I think you both are right on this one. Back in those days there were no shoes and everything was a sandal. As time passed shoes took the place of sandals and sandals just became a type of shoe. Now that I said that why are you guys even debating if its a shoe or sandal and calling each othe names in the process. We all get heated about things but lets try and not to call each other names so we can enjoy debating these subjects. I'll start by saying if I have offended any lately I'm sorry.

That is absolutely the silliest thing you have ever said. I haven't seen even one tiny piece of evidence that anyone cares that she is Latino or a woman (here or anywhere). What some are perturbed with is the fact that those qualities were used as qualifications when maybe they shouldn't be. Get off the emotional log flume and try and the follow the discussion on its merits and not your predisposition to think all Pubs are evil.
better talk to trample about that. and i really don't think all republicans are evil. Colin Powell is a fine man. and i admire Cheney for his commitment to public service. my point is exactly what you are saying later in your post. lets talk about her qualifications, or lack of, instead of her skin color.

better talk to trample about that. and i really don't think all republicans are evil. Colin Powell is a fine man. and i admire Cheney for his commitment to public service. my point is exactly what you are saying later in your post. lets talk about her qualifications, or lack of, instead of her skin color.
Didn't you bring up the skin color issue?

If acknowledging race/sex as a determining factor in the rule of law doesn't contradict the blindness of justice, I don't know what does. I agree with Justice O'Connor.

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

I couldn't find evidence in a quick search but I do not believe either Roberts or Alito have a history of over 83% of their rulings that appeared before the Supreme Court being overturned.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.



The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.
So give me an example of a man and a women both have the same case (to the T) where a women or the man for that fact get a different ruling from a court because of their gender.