Off Topic- Sotomayor Hearings

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[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.

[briansd1]

[quote=Zeitgeist] The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet[/quote]

Who are the elitists? The “landed gentry” or the “dumbed down public school educated turkeys”?

I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.

Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military

[briansd1]

[quote=Zeitgeist] The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet[/quote]

Who are the elitists? The “landed gentry” or the “dumbed down public school educated turkeys”?

I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.

Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military

[briansd1]

[quote=Zeitgeist] The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet[/quote]

Who are the elitists? The “landed gentry” or the “dumbed down public school educated turkeys”?

I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.

Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military

[briansd1]

[quote=Zeitgeist] The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet[/quote]

Who are the elitists? The “landed gentry” or the “dumbed down public school educated turkeys”?

I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.

Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military

[briansd1]

[quote=Zeitgeist] The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet[/quote]

Who are the elitists? The “landed gentry” or the “dumbed down public school educated turkeys”?

I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.

Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Zeitgeist]

Allan,

You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?

Sk,

Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.

[Author]

Posts