- This topic has 255 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
SK in CV.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM #430386July 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM #429662
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
July 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM #429879Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
July 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM #430171Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
July 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM #430243Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
July 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM #430401Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
July 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM #429702Zeitgeist
ParticipantSK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”
“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
July 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM #429918ParticipantSK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”
“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
July 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM #430209ParticipantSK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”
“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
July 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM #430281ParticipantSK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”
“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
July 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM #430441ParticipantSK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: “In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny,” close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.”
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it’s not acceptable.”“After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: ‘In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,’ close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.”
“You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words ‘Adarand,” ‘Equal protection’ and ‘Strict scrutiny’ are completely missing from any of your panel’s discussion of this decision?”
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
July 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM #429717Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=SK in CV]This morning, Sessions said:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.
“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.[/quote]
SK: If I were guessing, I’d say that Sessions remarks need to be contextualized and laid alongside Sotomayor’s comments regarding her “rich Hispanic heritage” and how that heritage informs not only her views, but her views as opposed to an older, white judge who may not have the same “richness” of experience and therefore not be as able as she when adjudicating. She has offered this viewpoint on more than one occasion, so that door is clearly open in terms of taking issue with the comment(s) and making an issue of them.
Given that Justice and justices (of the Supreme Court) are supposed to be impartial, it’s a fair line of questioning.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the “Ricci v. New Haven” decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
July 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM #429933Participant[quote=SK in CV]This morning, Sessions said:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.
“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.[/quote]
SK: If I were guessing, I’d say that Sessions remarks need to be contextualized and laid alongside Sotomayor’s comments regarding her “rich Hispanic heritage” and how that heritage informs not only her views, but her views as opposed to an older, white judge who may not have the same “richness” of experience and therefore not be as able as she when adjudicating. She has offered this viewpoint on more than one occasion, so that door is clearly open in terms of taking issue with the comment(s) and making an issue of them.
Given that Justice and justices (of the Supreme Court) are supposed to be impartial, it’s a fair line of questioning.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the “Ricci v. New Haven” decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
July 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM #430224Participant[quote=SK in CV]This morning, Sessions said:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.
“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.[/quote]
SK: If I were guessing, I’d say that Sessions remarks need to be contextualized and laid alongside Sotomayor’s comments regarding her “rich Hispanic heritage” and how that heritage informs not only her views, but her views as opposed to an older, white judge who may not have the same “richness” of experience and therefore not be as able as she when adjudicating. She has offered this viewpoint on more than one occasion, so that door is clearly open in terms of taking issue with the comment(s) and making an issue of them.
Given that Justice and justices (of the Supreme Court) are supposed to be impartial, it’s a fair line of questioning.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the “Ricci v. New Haven” decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
July 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM #430296Participant[quote=SK in CV]This morning, Sessions said:
You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.
“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.[/quote]
SK: If I were guessing, I’d say that Sessions remarks need to be contextualized and laid alongside Sotomayor’s comments regarding her “rich Hispanic heritage” and how that heritage informs not only her views, but her views as opposed to an older, white judge who may not have the same “richness” of experience and therefore not be as able as she when adjudicating. She has offered this viewpoint on more than one occasion, so that door is clearly open in terms of taking issue with the comment(s) and making an issue of them.
Given that Justice and justices (of the Supreme Court) are supposed to be impartial, it’s a fair line of questioning.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the “Ricci v. New Haven” decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.