ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Must've been a black guy or an asian who finished 1st because of affirmative action....
It wouldn't surprise me at all.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Funny how she was nominated by both Bush 1 and Clinton and was confirmed. Now the RT. is whining about her and trying their best to discredit her. Where was all the contempt when she was nominated by GB 1.
The Bush's are all morons aren't they.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
She wasn't nominated for the Supreme Court before. She gets more attention now. What was said before is irrelevant. She is a racist. She is a sexist. Should a racist, sexist be eligible for the Supreme Court? The answer is clearly no.
She's neither a racist nor a sexist. Those who call her racist are almost always white men (with a sprinkling of women). Those who defend her come from every race, gender, etc. She said nothign racist or sexist. This comment of hers:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group."
Her point of course was that white men took an awfully long time to reach some common sense decisions when it comes to minorities and women. But, also, conveniently, conservatives seem to generally leave out the last part of her sentence -- "who hasn't lived that life." That's disingenuous at best. At any rate, frankly a bunch of white men calling her a racist or sexist is not going to be meaningful to a broad audience.
I think you should think about what i wrote Harry. No where did i trash Bush 1. All i said was it was ok when he nominated her, but now its not. Straighten out and fly right.
Sotomayor was appointed by Bush I, but she wasn't a Bush I pick. She was a Moynihan pick. The way it worked IIRC, was there were (my numbers may be off, but I think this is correct) 7 judges to be appointed, and the dems and pubs agreed to pick 5 (by the pubs) and 2 (by the dems). Sotomayor was one of the Dem picks that Bush I agreed to appoint. So while she was indeed appointed by Bush, she was not a Bush choice.
Sotomayor should be given an up or down vote on her merrits. If she is qualified (I think she is), then she should be appointed. The process is not supposed to be political. Only procedural. While I personally have some issues with the "empathy" ideology, and do think her "latina" comments need to be explained, her qualifications seem perfectly appropriate for the job. I think she'll make it, as she probably should.
Remember, Obama voted against Alito and Roberts. On what grounds I wonder? Each was certainly qualified, and I can only suspect that Obama voted against them because he didn't like their ideology. That is not how it's supposed to work. Of course, he's now expecting everyone else to do what he didn't do, when he was a senator, and that's follow the rules. Politics as usual.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
I think you should think about what i wrote Harry. No where did i trash Bush 1. All i said was it was ok when he nominated her, but now its not. Straighten out and fly right.
Sorry, what I meant was "the bush's are considered morons by the left wing therefore this women was nominated by a moron, do we really want a women on the SC who the moronic bush seemed to admire, morons usually admire other morons"
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Sotomayor should be given an up or down vote on her merits. If she is qualified (I think she is), then she should be appointed. The process is not supposed to be political. Only procedural. While I personally have some issues with the "empathy" ideology, and do think her "latina" comments need to be explained, her qualifications seem perfectly appropriate for the job. I think she'll make it, as she probably should.
I don't think she should. She is supposed to uphold the law. The Civil Rights Act is part of that. Said Civil Rights Act makes frequent comments on it being illegal to show "discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin". It's clear to me that she will violate this as a judge.
I don't think she should. She is supposed to uphold the law. The Civil Rights Act is part of that. Said Civil Rights Act makes frequent comments on it being illegal to show "discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin". It's clear to me that she will violate this as a judge.
We'll figure all that out during the hearings. From where I'm standing though, and at this point in time, her qualifications are worthy. She should explain herself, her decisions, ideology, etc, and then people can decide. Remember, to the winner goes the spoils, and since Obama is the winner, he gets to pick the judges. The senate is not supposed to vote for, or against her because of politics. Only her merrits as a judge. I'm not going to say she shouldn't be on there, because I disagree with her, cuz you're not supposed to do it that way.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Re: Sotomayor a product of affirmative action
Linear Mode
