Off Topic- Sotomayor Hearings

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]
Sk,

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

Put up, or shut up.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[Zeitgeist]

KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV]
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.
[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

I also agree with this.

And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV]
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.
[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

I also agree with this.

And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV]
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.
[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

I also agree with this.

And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV]
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.
[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

I also agree with this.

And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV]
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.
[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

I also agree with this.

And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.

[Author]

Posts