Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

[Westside Steve]

Steve, you're really struggling here, straying off topic, grasping at straws. Now we're back to Obama's qualifications to be president, as if that's germane here.

 

Gee Heck I thought the fuss was about your own hard line rules for qualification.

I say I don't accept your rules and you bark.

I show you that your boy doesn't accept them and you bark.

I remind you that YOU didn't aceept 'em when Obama ran agaist the traditionally more qualified man and you bark.

 

And I'm inconsistent?

 

I've already told you that I disagreed with Obama's decision to vote against Alito, and particularly Roberts. But we're not talking about the totality of why someone might vote for or against a nominee. We're having a discussion about why you feel that race-based hires are okay in certain circumstances, when certain people do it, but not in others. And the dividing line seems to be party.

 

Nope. Ideology.

 

You've got a minority hire who was certainly less qualified in terms of his resume, and that's okay with you.

 

Again I don't buy your rule. Neither does, oh well, you know...

 

You've got a minority hire now who does have the depth of experience traditionally seen on the court, and that type of hire is not okay with you.

 

All why you've consistently pledged that race-based hiring is a pernicious evil that must never be countenanced.

 

I have? Gosh.

 

So when are race-based hires okay with you?

 

Not stepping in the trap Heck.

 

Wait...

In pro football.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Still avoiding.

 

Why was using race as a factor okay with you in the Thomas case, but not in the Sotomayor case?

 

It's not a hard question. You should be able to answer it without bringing up a different subject.

 

Is your answer, "When the person who benefits matches my ideology?" That seems to be the best you can do so far.

[calfoxwc]

It's an invalid question, Heck.

 

Knock it off. The SUBJECT is Sotomayor.

 

Maybe Al can talk to you about staying on the subject.

 

He can figure out how to lower your chair for you,

 

he's a smart guy !

 

Meanwhile, SOTOMAYOR has been described as a monster on the court,

 

and anti-2nd Amendment wonk, an activist who will put her feelings before

 

interpreting the LAW, and a judge who issues very questionable rulings

 

but does not sign onto them.

 

As in, she doesn't want to be responsible and known for her actions...

 

think about that.

 

So, if Obama gets SOTOMAYOR into the Supreme Court it helps him

 

with a grab for guns. He's pretty deceitful..er... he just "changes" his mind.

 

And SOTOMAYOR will ignore the 2nd Amendment OBVIOUSLY to help him:

******************************

Obama May Grab for Guns by Jillian Bandes President Obama voiced his support for an anti-gun treaty with such wide ranging implications that it could ban everything from assembling guns in kits to repackaging spent shells.

 

The treaty was signed by former President Clinton, but never approved by Congress. It has gained approval in 29 other countries. Obama put his weight behind it during his whirlwind tour abroad late last month.

 

Yesterday’s passage of legislation that revoked the longstanding ban on guns in national parks proved that this treaty would probably fall by the wayside once more, said Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America. But the fact that Obama voiced his support for it speaks volumes about the President’s view of the Second Amendment, after his famous claim to not “take away guns” from law-abiding Americans.

 

The treaty would “pretty clearly would require, without a whole lot of extrapolation, a regulation of all firearms in the United States,” said Pratt.

 

Called the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials,” the legislation’s bans are multitudinous:

 

 

 

The manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place: or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacture.

 

These sweeping regulations could affect everything from BB guns to toy guns, and could even prevent the individual re-loading of guns by the owners themselves. It could potentially require matching insignia on bullets and shells, meaning that re-use of cases would be illegal – a practice that is more common during a recession.

 

The regulations could also affect gun clubs, by banning “association or conspiracy” with illegal gun activities. So if an NRA member commits an offense, clubs or advocacy groups could be liable.

 

The treaty could even call for action against the dealer who sold an offender a weapon. If Mexico calls for the extradition of a gun dealers, the U.S. would be obligated to resolve it by “other means of peaceful settlement” that are yet undefined.

 

In addition to a Presidential signature, sixty-eight out of 100 Senate members are needed in order for an international treaty to be approved in the United States. But the move to overturn the National Parks gun ban gained 67 signatures, meaning passing further gun restrictions is unlikely, said Provost.

 

“You have [senators] who you’re just really surprised are voting pro-gun,” he said.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Still avoiding.

 

Why was using race as a factor okay with you in the Thomas case, but not in the Sotomayor case?

 

It's not a hard question. You should be able to answer it without bringing up a different subject.

 

Well if that's all ya want.

 

It probably isn't a good idea but I never said I was against Sotomayor on that count.

That's just your crimson carp.

 

You see it gives people like you the opportunity to belittle the man.

 

 

 

 

I said what bothers me about her is her statements.

And I can't get you to admit that if a white Republican had said them you'd be outraged and he'd likely be forced to step aside.

How about that while we're on the transparency route?

 

I personally didn't mind it as much because Thomas didn't vow to decide cases based on race or status I guess.

 

I don't know how to be clearer.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

If a white nominee had said that white justices are smarter or better than black justices, then sure, I'd be calling on them to resign. If the white nominee was making the same point that Sotomayor was making I wouldn't. Though I'd say that it'd be hard for a white nominee to make that same point.

 

What she said was inartfully worded, but it's clear from the full text that she's talking about how she disagrees with Justice O'Connor's statement about how a wise man and woman should come to the same conclusion about the law, and I agree with Sotomayor's point - that our backgrounds and upbringing affect our decisions, even judicial ones. The law isn't always clear, and neither is what "wise" means. Her point seems entirely uncontroversial to me. Is anyone really going to suggest that being raised a strict Catholic like Scalia does not affect his judging?

 

Or if you've ever read or heard Thomas talk about his experiences being a black man in a mostly white world, you can see how he came to his opinions on the drawbacks of affirmative action.

 

Your background matters. Hers does. Roberts' does. Ginsberg's does. This is the point Sotomayor was making, and I think she's right.

 

As for your inconsistencies, sure, you said you didn't like her statements, but you also expressed your displeasure (on more than one occasion) that her race and gender were factors in her nomination. And I quoted those back to you. And I agree - they were factors in her nomination.

 

I just pressed you on why you weren't upset when race was clearly a factor in Thomas' nomination - a man who was clearly less qualified in terms of experience and accomplishment when compared to Sotomayor. And your answers were laughable.

 

As for belittling the man, that's twice you've accused me of it. And this will be the second time I'll ask you to find a place where I've belittled the man.

 

Simply mentioning that he lacked the usual qualifications, and then listing those qualifications, is not belittling someone. I've also mentioned his positive qualities.

 

You're trying to make your usual cartoon out of me because that makes it easier to weasel out of your own inconsistencies. But they're still there - race-based hiring is okay with you in some circumstances (when the person agrees with your ideology) and not in others (when they don't).

 

It's an indefensible position.

 

By the way, Thomas clearly does weigh race in his decisions, and never pledged not to. Every justice does. Because it's part of the job. They may come to different conclusions, but they all have to decide cases where race is a factor. This idea that he never took a "vow to decide cases based on race or status" is silly. Nor did Sotomayor take some vow to decide cases based on race or status.

 

That's just more crankery.

 

Now, if you'd like, I started a Ricci thread. You can head over there and tell me why you don't like her decision.

[calfoxwc]

Thomas (you did it again) did not legislate from the bench.

 

Sotomayor will.

 

Thomas never was a radical who stopped another very qualified black person from being a Justice.

 

Sotomayor is a radical whose radical racially-oriented org worked to stop another Hispanic.

 

Sotomayor is a Marxist. Look at her yearbook entry.

 

Thomas never worked to rationalize against the 2nd Amendment.

 

Sotomayor has.

 

She is not qualified to be a Justice, REGARDLESS of her resume.

[Westside Steve]

If a white nominee had said that white justices are smarter or better than black justices, then sure, I'd be calling on them to resign. If the white nominee was making the same point that Sotomayor was making I wouldn't. Though I'd say that it'd be hard for a white nominee to make that same point.

 

I'm askinng you only to use the words replacing only race and sex.

Not spin it for her.

 

 

What she said was inartfully worded, but it's clear from the full text that she's talking about how she disagrees with Justice O'Connor's statement about how a wise man and woman should come to the same conclusion about the law, and I agree with Sotomayor's point - that our backgrounds and upbringing affect our decisions, even judicial ones. The law isn't always clear, and neither is what "wise" means. Her point seems entirely uncontroversial to me. Is anyone really going to suggest that being raised a strict Catholic like Scalia does not affect his judging?

 

If he said it would I suppose you should be concerned.

 

Or if you've ever read or heard Thomas talk about his experiences being a black man in a mostly white world, you can see how he came to his opinions on the drawbacks of affirmative action.

 

Your background matters. Hers does. Roberts' does. Ginsberg's does. This is the point Sotomayor was making, and I think she's right.

 

But that's your spin.

 

As for your inconsistencies, sure, you said you didn't like her statements, but you also expressed your displeasure (on more than one occasion) that her race and gender were factors in her nomination. And I quoted those back to you. And I agree - they were factors in her nomination.

 

Where?

 

I just pressed you on why you weren't upset when race was clearly a factor in Thomas' nomination - a man who was clearly less qualified in terms of experience and accomplishment when compared to Sotomayor. And your answers were laughable.

 

Only after you rewoeded them.

Like when you called Thomas "an ignorant jigaboo" as long as we're writing each others opinions.

 

 

As for belittling the man, that's twice you've accused me of it. And this will be the second time I'll ask you to find a place where I've belittled the man.

 

What, like a half dozen times saying he's not up to your personal standards and only got the job because of color?

 

Simply mentioning that he lacked the usual qualifications, and then listing those qualifications, is not belittling someone. I've also mentioned his positive qualities.

 

Uh yeah?

 

You're trying to make your usual cartoon out of me because that makes it easier to weasel out of your own inconsistencies. But they're still there - race-based hiring is okay with you in some circumstances (when the person agrees with your ideology) and not in others (when they don't).

 

It's an indefensible position.

 

It's a [perfectly honest and reasonable position. You're just bickering for the hell of it.

 

By the way, Thomas clearly does weigh race in his decisions,

 

Which in particular? And in which did he decide some races were more deserving than others?

 

and never pledged not to. Every justice does. Because it's part of the job. They may come to different conclusions, but they all have to decide cases where race is a factor. This idea that he never took a "vow to decide cases based on race or status" is silly. Nor did Sotomayor take some vow to decide cases based on race or status.

 

That's just more crankery.

 

Crankery? You've yet to tell ME which cases racial preferences are right opr wrong .

Unless you think they're correct across the board.

 

Now, if you'd like, I started a Ricci thread. You can head over there and tell me why you don't like her decision.

 

 

 

This kinda started as a Ricci thread too.

But I will.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you accused me of mischaracterizing your opinions, so I quoted them back to you, showing that I didn't. Now you accuse me of rewording your opinions when I quoted your opinions back to you.

 

I said "your answers were laughable." And you said "Only after you rewoeded them."

 

Really? I'm talking about this answer, where, I'm quoting your words back to you. This is rewording them in your book.

 

When you can't refute my points, you call them "spin." And we're back to ad hominem land.

 

And it used to be that I spin because I'm a party hack. But then you found out I don't work for the party. Then you found out that I work under the umbrella of a large corporation. So then you called me a corporate hack. Except that our company has little or no contact with the corporation we work for, and our division has zero contact with the corporation. They simply own us. But don't let that stop you.

 

One ad hominem attack after another.

 

Then we have this, which is fantastic: "like a half dozen times saying he's not up to your personal standards and only got the job because of color?"

 

As if this is about my "personal standards", or if I'd ever framed this as being about my "personal standards." It's about his resume relative to the resumes of not only Sotomayor, but all the Justices on the court.

 

As for the second part, could you be anymore dishonest? Here we have you, a guy who is on and on about people who get things simply because of their color, about affirmative action, and quotas, and how much you disagree with it, and how welfare is a Democratic political bribe to blacks to get their support ...and now you're pretending to express outrage when I point out the obvious reality that Thomas was a race-based hire - a reality you have agreed with in this very thread?

 

This is sad stuff.

 

Clearly, Thomas was hired in part because of his race. No sensible person would dispute that. But in this case you don't "mind it as much because Thomas didn't vow to decide cases based on race or status I guess." And you also don't mind it when Republicans do it because they "want to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."

 

Now you can go ahead and accuse me of rewording you by quoting your own words.

[calfoxwc]

Thomas was the anti-racist.

 

Sotomayor's comments, Heck, are clearly RACIST, and her activities in the past

 

reflect that politics is what matters to her, not the Constitution.

 

Meanwhile, her comments have sparked a firestorm of concern...

[calfoxwc]

I really am amazed - Sotomayor is also one of the lib lawyers who worked to expand home loans to

 

low income folks who couldn't pay for them.

 

Congrats to Sotomayor. Conflict of interest, and caring about white people isn't her bag, racist and arrogant comments about being Hispanic, and anti-2nd Amendment while ignoring the 14th Amendment....

But Heck thinks she's great. ROF,LMAO. But ROFLMAO sadly. Meanwhile,

 

Heck spins in his high chair.

 

May 29, 2009 <H2 class=h2-article>SPIN METER: Sotomayor has conflicting images</H2>Sharon Theimer There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America's power elite.

 

The White House portrays Sotomayor as a living image of the American dream, though its telling of the rags-to-riches story emphasizes the rags, a more politically appealing narrative, and plays down the riches.

 

Branding a complex person in a simplistic way can backfire in the highly charged environment surrounding her coming Senate hearing.

 

Discussions about Sotomayor and her ethnicity, gender and tax bracket carry risks for supporters and detractors. Unartful criticism by Republicans risks offending voters they'd like to win. Democrats, likewise, need to be cautious about how they conduct the debate in a nation uncomfortable talking about matters of race and gender.

 

On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized — and contributed to — the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn't always liked it when others have. She once took issue with a prospective employer who singled her out as a Latina with questions she viewed as offensive yet has shown a keen ethnic consciousness herself.

 

In a California speech in 2001 now under renewed scrutiny, she remarked that, on a court, "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." On Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice.

 

In that same speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice," Sotomayor drew attention to cultural differences between Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans and between Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico and those born on the U.S. mainland, and narrowed her ethnicity beyond American, Hispanic and Puerto Rican to "Newyorkrican."

 

"For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II," she explained.

 

Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren't Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.

 

Afterward, Sotomayor confronted the partner about the questions, rejected his insistence that he meant no harm and turned down his invitation for further job interviews. She filed a discrimination complaint against the firm with the university, which could have barred the firm from recruiting on campus. She won a formal apology from the firm.

 

In speeches, Sotomayor has harkened back to her and her brother's beginnings in a poor Bronx neighborhood, roots that President Barack Obama highlighted in introducing her this week.

 

"Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project," Obama said. "And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her."

 

Yet Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.

 

And Sotomayor's life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.

 

She climbed her way up through New York's Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years — Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. That's the access of a partner in a corporate law firm, not a kid from the South Bronx.

 

She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn't accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.

 

Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor's office.

 

"What I am finding, both statistically and emotionally, is that the worst victims of crimes are not general society — i.e., white folks — but minorities themselves," she told The New York Times in 1983. "The violence, the sorrow are perpetrated by minorities on minorities."

 

The "riches" part of Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story began when she left her low-paying job in that prosecutor's office and joined the Pavia & Harcourt law firm. Her clients included Fendi, maker of luxury purses that she was unlikely to have seen as a child in the Bronx.

 

Still, she kept her hand in the Puerto Rican community — possibly to the point of a conflict of interest.

 

She served simultaneously on New York's campaign finance board and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that took legal action in 1991 to fight what it considered discriminatory redistricting. Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from a finance board discussion of the redistricting battle, despite the involvement of her own advocacy group.

 

Also during this time, Sotomayor served on the state board that makes mortgages available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. She missed nearly a third of the board's meetings during three of those years but apparently still left a mark. Cuomo said Sotomayor's respect for the law, her "life story" and her integrity were deciding factors in his decision to name her to the agency.

 

And when she left in 1992, the agency's board adopted a resolution praising her for defending "the rights and needs of the disadvantaged to attain, maintain, and secure affordable housing appropriate to their need." It went on: "Ms. Sotomayor also served as the conscience of the Board concerning the negative effects of gentrification which can harm communities and create hopelessness and homelessness if individuals and families are displaced."

 

Republicans are scrutinizing her full record and background, but carefully. The White House warned as much earlier this week.

 

"It is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

 

With Hispanics a growing voting bloc, and ethnic sensitivities high, few are willing to be as blunt as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said of her comment that a Latina woman would rule more wisely than a white man: "New racism is no better than old racism."

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Cal Woodward in Washington, Sara Kugler in New York and Jessica M. Pasko in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

And it will all play right into the administration's hands when a perfectly reasonable, moderately liberal judge gets up there and acquits herself just fine.

 

The remaining 20% of the country who identifies as "Republican" is nothing if not easy to play. You've all done exactly what the administration expected, which is to lose your collective shit over a qualified Hispanic nominee, alienating even more Hispanic and female voters than you already have.

 

Thanks, fellas!

[calfoxwc]

She made the racist comments.

 

You can't deny it, I guess Obama is putting lipstick on a pig.

 

Well, it was funny with you libs when Obama said it, so hush.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't think she made racist comments. So I guess I did deny it.

 

She wasn't saying her race allowed her to make better decisions. She was saying her experience as a member of that race allowed her to make better decisions. She could have worded it better, but I'm not worried about it.

 

Go back and read the whole quote. You'll understand.

 

(I'm kidding, of course.)

[calfoxwc]

So, if a Justice nominee who was white, said his EXPERIENCE as a white man would help him make better decisions

 

than a Hispanic women, that's fine by you, Heck?

 

Yeah, libs always get to define what the definitions of words are. Like "is".

 

But the definition changes to whichever advantage they love/hate at the time.

 

Which is, of course, dishonest and hypocritical.

 

But please spin faster in your high chair, it's funny watch

 

you spin and get dizzy and accuse others of making reality go

 

around you in circles.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think there are problems with that quote and she should walk back from it or clarify it in the hearings, but I don't think it was racist. And I agree with her essential point - we're all colored by our upbringing, even justices.

 

 

[We need Tom Tupa]

McArdle:

 

...Posit that everything the critics say about Sotomayor is true; that indeed, everything they say about affirmative action is true. Is this the biggest problem facing America? Is this the biggest problem facing America from Sonia Sotomayor?

 

Given my politics, I am probably not going to like how she rules on many, maybe even most, issues. But almost none of those issues involve racial preferences, which, even if they are a problem, are a small problem for America, affecting fewer people than almost any of the other major policy questions we're debating today. Making race, or racial politics, the central complaint, makes it seem like your biggest policy priority is making sure that not one minority in the land gets anything they don't deserve...

 

Sonia Sotomayor is not manifestly unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, so focusing on affirmative action is completely irrelevant. You can argue with her politics or her legal judgement, and hey, I'm all ears. But the affirmative action complaints aren't advancing our quest to find out whether or not she'd be a good justice. They're just alienating the people you want to convince.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I think there are problems with that quote and she should walk back from it or clarify it in the hearings, but I don't think it was racist. And I agree with her essential point - we're all colored by our upbringing, even justices.Heck

*********************************************************************

Well, at face value, it's a racist comment, but it is possible that you have a point...

 

except the siding with the Hispanic Firefighter, where the other firefighters did better on the test

 

and deserved/earned a promotion.

 

But, because the Hispanic firefighter didn't do as well on the test, for whatever reason(s),

they did not.

 

So, her own actions lend credence to the Hispanic favoritism regardless of law or rights.

 

And that to whatever actual degree, validates concern over the racist perception.

[Westside Steve]

Or as you say, "Im not a fan of affirmitive action especially if a less able person gets a promotion." Well, in this case a less able person got a promotion. Clearly. And you are a fan.

 

Why? Because Thomas doesn't want to "bestow minorities with special privileges." Also because when Republicans do it it's okay: "I'm sure (race) was" a factor in Thomas hiring, you wrote. "I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."

 

Fine Heck.

Lets dissect your spin one at a time.

That's the quote you posted.

 

 

That statement is perfectly true and perfectly accurate.

 

The fact is that if a wrong is done the results can make it less bothersome.

But

It's still wrong.

I gave a similar example before but you were either to dense or dishonest to pay attention.

Hee's another example for you to twist.

 

Stealing is wrong.

Stealing a chicken to feed your starving children doesn't bother me as much as stealing a homeless saxophone players instrument to buy concert tickets.

 

 

The second quote.

So you don't agree?

Does the Republican party want that?

Do you?

Yes or no?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

McArdle:

 

I'd ask in what kinds of cases would McArdle or preferably you would find yourself at odds with her rulings.

 

And please be fair and remember that I never said she was not qualified because of her race or sex.

That's somebody's revision.

 

WSS

 

 

[Westside Steve]

 

And we're back to ad hominem land.

 

And it used to be that I spin because I'm a party hack. But then you found out I don't work for the party. Then you found out that I work under the umbrella of a large corporation. So then you called me a corporate hack. Except that our company has little or no contact with the corporation we work for, and our division has zero contact with the corporation. They simply own us. But don't let that stop you.

 

One ad hominem attack after another.

 

Sir onc can easily be a party hack and not take a paycheck from Howard Dean.

 

I'd still be a bar singer even if I had a day job and was never paid for the music.

 

This is sad stuff.

 

 

Damn.

I feel bad now.

I didn't mean to make you sad.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Man you guys are really beating the hell out of this issue.

Sotomayor will be confirmed and not much can be done about it by the right ,is it really about her or is it about roe vs wade and having another liberal to block it the REAL issue?

 

 

We aren't talking about the issue.

We're bickering.

 

Anyway don't worry.

Abortion will still be legal even if Roe is overturned.

 

WSS

[ballpeen]

Man you guys are really beating the hell out of this issue.

Sotomayor will be confirmed and not much can be done about it by the right ,is it really about her or is it about roe vs wade and having another liberal to block it the REAL issue?

 

The only problem I have with roe is men don't have the same rights as women. It's everybody or nobody.

 

Until that issue is addressed, people are just blowing hot air.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

And please be fair and remember that I never said she was not qualified because of her race or sex.

That's somebody's revision.

 

WSS

 

Unreal. Okay, Steve. Go find me where I said that you think she's not qualified because of her race or her sex. That's not my revision because it never happened.

 

Try and argue like a man just once. Really.

 

This whole thing has been about your inconsistency of supporting the use of race as a hiring criteria in the Thomas case, but opposing the use of race in hiring in the Sotomayor case. And that your reasons for the inconsistency are ridiculous, namely that if the minority shares your view about affirmative action then it's okay. As if the point of minority participation in the highest levels of our government was to find ones that agree with you on affirmative action.

[Westside Steve]

Unreal. Okay, Steve. Go find me where I said that you think she's not qualified because of her race or her sex. That's not my revision because it never happened.

 

You have characterized my position that I'm all for affirmitive action that elevates less qualified people of color to positions they did not earn only when Repub;licans do it and not Democrats. You've bickered that Thomas was less qualiufied but I never ranked on her "qualifications" even under your rigid standard.

 

Try and argue like a man just once. Really.

 

Spare me the snow job just once. Really.

 

This whole thing has been about your inconsistency of supporting the use of race as a hiring criteria in the Thomas case, but opposing the use of race in hiring in the Sotomayor case. And that your reasons for the inconsistency are ridiculous, namely that if the minority shares your view about affirmative action then it's okay. As if the point of minority participation in the highest levels of our government was to find ones that agree with you on affirmative action.

 

More spin.

The whole thing is you rewording for effect a point I never made in order to bicker against it.

It's actually about her own positions and prejudices that may make her unfit to rule the country.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's another issue, of course.

 

I'm just trying to nail down your opinion on race-based hiring. So you're for it in certain circumstances?

[Westside Steve]

That's another issue, of course.

 

So?????

 

I'm just trying to nail down your opinion on race-based hiring. So you're for it in certain circumstances?

 

 

 

I never said it did I? ( even though you've been blaring away at that point for days.)

 

And let's say yes Heck.

There are times when race and sex based hiring is perfectly acceptable.

There.

Allow that to be the basis of your wild goose chase.

 

 

 

So what's your point?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

There indeed.

 

So why are you upset about race and sex being a factor in the appointment of Sotomayor, as indicated by your earlier posts, which I quoted back to you?

[Westside Steve]

There indeed.

 

So why are you upset about race and sex being a factor in the appointment of Sotomayor, as indicated by your earlier posts, which I quoted back to you?

 

But you didn't.

Go back and look at what you quoted and amit it has nothing to do with it.

 

Go ahead.

 

I said there are times when race and sex based hiring is perfectly acceptable.

 

True or false?

 

And I don't thinkl it warrants the tireless badgering.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sure, I did. I quoted your very first post on the matter, which - after expressing your disagreement with her opinion in a case about affirmative action - you then bemoaned that they'd narrowed the "search to women and Hispanics.....

Well just imagine." Remember?

 

Then you've got posts on the ills of affirmative action here, then said "if you believe in affirmitive action and set asides you mseem to be sayng Blacks are actually inferior and need extra points" here, that Sotomayor's "most important qualifications are race and sex" here...

 

"Go back and look at what you quoted and amit it has nothing to do with it."

 

Well, maybe you should go back and look. Clearly it does bother you that race and sex were factors in her hiring.

 

And that's just in this thread. Nevermind all the stuff you've written about affirmative action over the years.

 

Now you're saying "I said there are times when race and sex based hiring is perfectly acceptable." Right, you said that for the first time a few hours ago. As if that's been your position all along.

 

You despise affirmative action and racial set asides, but now you've decided that there are times when it's perfectly acceptable. Got it.

 

Well, if that's the case, I'll ask you the same straight up question again: why were you upset about race and sex being a factor in the appointment of Sotomayor in the posts mentioned above?

[Westside Steve]

Sure, I did. I quoted your very first post on the matter, which - after expressing your disagreement with her opinion in a case about affirmative action - you then bemoaned that they'd narrowed the "search to women and Hispanics.....

Well just imagine." Remember?

 

Uh sorry, are you saing they did not?

 

Then you've got posts on the ills of affirmative action here, then said "if you believe in affirmitive action and set asides you mseem to be sayng Blacks are actually inferior and need extra points" here, that Sotomayor's "most important qualifications are race and sex" here...

 

Yes dear.

I assumed that was your bigoted racist position. Are you saing they aren't inferior and do not need special grading? You can amend your Klan like opinin.

 

"Go back and look at what you quoted and amit it has nothing to do with it."

 

Well, maybe you should go back and look. Clearly it does bother you that race and sex were factors in her hiring.

 

I stated a fact. Right? And it's clear to you I'm pissed how?

 

And that's just in this thread. Nevermind all the stuff you've written about affirmative action over the years.

 

When people see that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time.

I don't think you can deny it.

 

 

Now you're saying "I said there are times when race and sex based hiring is perfectly acceptable." Right, you said that for the first time a few hours ago. As if that's been your position all along.

 

But I never defined those times precisely to make you go apoplectic.

 

You despise affirmative action and racial set asides, but now you've decided that there are times when it's perfectly acceptable. Got it.

 

Dee spised. LOL

 

Well, if that's the case, I'll ask you the same straight up question again: why were you upset about race and sex being a factor in the appointment of Sotomayor in the posts mentioned above?

 

Hers? Nah. I wish she seemed more like someone who'd be colorblind when writing the law of the land. So we don't agree on that one.

WSS