Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court


Guest Aloysius

Recommended Posts

Guest Aloysius

This surprised me.

 

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment

 

I'd assumed that the 2nd Amendment was considered to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment and therefore applied to the states. Maybe I should have read all of the Heller opinion (thanks for trying to correct me way back when, Toop).

 

And I guess precedent is precedent, but it seems a bit disingenuous to cite a case from 1886 as part of an argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. At that time, no one was even talking about incorporation; the Court was instead busy limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment, insisting that it didn't actually require states protect the rights of African-Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Do you realize that not one of these retorts makes sense as a retort? Are you okay? Have you been drinking?

 

I love the first one:

 

You: I never said that.

Me: Yes you did, right here, here, and here.

You: ...Are you saying that I'm not right when I said that thing I just said I didn't say?

 

And the next one:

 

You: If you're for affirmative action, you're a bigoted racist - Klan-like, even - who thinks black people are inferior.

 

I don't even know what to say about that one. Besides, I haven't even mentioned how I feel about affirmative action. But this statement is so ill-informed and crass it's almost as if the person who made it doesn't know what the xxxx they're talking about.

 

The others aren't much better either.

 

But at least we got somewhere. Steve is in favor of race-based hiring. Because he'd like to see judges who are "colorblind when writing the law of the land."

 

Maybe someone else can follow this guy's logic, but I sure as hell can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This surprised me.

 

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment

 

I'd assumed that the 2nd Amendment was considered to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment and therefore applied to the states. Maybe I should have read all of the Heller opinion (thanks for trying to correct me way back when, Toop).

 

And I guess precedent is precedent, but it seems a bit disingenuous to cite a case from 1886 as part of an argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. At that time, no one was even talking about incorporation; the Court was instead busy limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment, insisting that it didn't actually require states protect the rights of African-Americans.

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

 

From a goofy farmer's pov, I don't understand how a right, specifically outlined in the 2nd Amendment, can be

 

 

overridden and negated by a state. By the same logic, the 1st Amendment would also be subject to a state

by state overrule?

 

 

That would be ridiculous - the Amendments would be null and void. And, state law cannot supercede Federal law.

 

 

All so confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize that not one of these retorts makes sense as a retort? Are you okay? Have you been drinking?

 

Ahhh beaten as usual Heck resorts to base insults.

You really aren't as smart as you want us to think are ya?

 

I love the first one:

 

You: I never said that.

Me: Yes you did, right here, here, and here.

You: ...Are you saying that I'm not right when I said that thing I just said I didn't say?

 

Sorry again Heck. If you take a quote that doesn't mean or even say what you represent it as you're just wrong.

 

And the next one:

 

You: If you're for affirmative action, you're a bigoted racist - Klan-like, even - who thinks black people are inferior.

 

Yeah Heck.

I said that is racism and it is.

If a fellow (maybe you??) thinks that people are just unable to live up to a certain set of standards solely because of their color I say that is a clear cut example of racism. That means exactly that one considers those people inferior. Just tell me that isn't true.

I don't even know what to say about that one. Besides, I haven't even mentioned how I feel about affirmative action. But this statement is so ill-informed and crass it's almost as if the person who made it doesn't know what the xxxx they're talking about.

 

I don't need to. I'm describing the situation accurately enough.

So you can tell me if you're against it or not.

I doubt you'll say anything; you rarely do and I know why.

 

 

 

The others aren't much better either.

 

But at least we got somewhere. Steve is in favor of race-based hiring. Because he'd like to see judges who are "colorblind when writing the law of the land."

 

Now Heck if you can or will (I doubt both) tell me why both statements cannot be true. Just do it.

Spare us the lame ass insults and tell me.

Show me you're a brilliant as you boast about.

You'll avoid answering everything else but serioulsy have a go at that.

Lets see that brain in action.

 

Maybe someone else can follow this guy's logic, but I sure as hell can't.

 

Sure you can.

Efveryone who cares to can, you're just in bicker mode.

You don't have the balls to say you're just bullshitting.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh beaten as usual Heck resorts to base insults.

You really aren't as smart as you want us to think are ya? Steve

 

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

 

Excellent point.

 

Heck is now the emperor wearing new clothes.

 

His facade showed glaringly by running away from my serious reply to his challenge about

 

the Ricci case.

 

Guess the bark fell off the phoney Heckletree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
From a goofy farmer's pov, I don't understand how a right, specifically outlined in the 2nd Amendment, can be

 

 

overridden and negated by a state. By the same logic, the 1st Amendment would also be subject to a state

by state overrule?

Originally, the Bill of Rights were restrictions imposed only on the federal gov't. States could limit speech, violate the due process protections of the 4th amendment, etc.

 

But after the 14th Amendment was passed, justices and constitutional scholars began to read the amendment as requiring states to observe the same liberty protections the federal gov't was bound to by the Bill of Rights. However, it was a gradual process, with some arguing for "selective incorporation" - only some of the Bill of Rights also applied to the states, whereas others argued that all of the amendments should be incorporation into the 14th amendment.

 

Somehow, apparently, the 2nd amendment never came up in this debate, or at least its status was never settled. In my admittedly ill informed opinion, it makes more sense to be consistent and impose all of the amendments on the states. But maybe the wording and logic behind the 2nd amendment changes things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally, the Bill of Rights were restrictions imposed only on the federal gov't. States could limit speech, violate the due process protections of the 4th amendment, etc.

 

But after the 14th Amendment was passed, justices and constitutional scholars began to read the amendment as requiring states to observe the same liberty protections the federal gov't was bound to by the Bill of Rights. However, it was a gradual process, with some arguing for "selective incorporation" - only some of the Bill of Rights also applied to the states, whereas others argued that all of the amendments should be incorporation into the 14th amendment.

 

Somehow, apparently, the 2nd amendment never came up in this debate, or at least its status was never settled. In my admittedly ill informed opinion, it makes more sense to be consistent and impose all of the amendments on the states. But maybe the wording and logic behind the 2nd amendment changes things.

 

 

Possibly.

But I'd bet the prevailing attitudes were quite different over a century ago.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If a fellow (maybe you??) thinks that people are just unable to live up to a certain set of standards solely because of their color I say that is a clear cut example of racism. That means exactly that one considers those people inferior. Just tell me that isn't true."

 

You're saying a person is racist if a person is racist, and that's a clear cut example of racism. Is this supposed to be your example of "describing the situation accurately enough?" It's just mindless.

 

It says nothing about affirmative action or policies that take race into account, because none of those policies hold that minorities "are just unable to live up to a certain set of standards solely because of their color." You're making a point about nothing.

 

Affirmative action programs were designed to address past injustices and discrimination and to allow for greater minority opportunity. They're not designed to help minorities because we believe that minorities are inferior because of their skin color and need our help.

 

I mean, seriously. That's what you think affirmative action means? I've gotten no indication otherwise, so I'll have to assume yes. Which is sad.

 

Meanwhile, using race as a criteria in hiring is used to promote diversity in the workplace, or on campus, etc. That's because people believe that there are benefits to diversity for organizations and society as a whole.

 

None of these policies hold that minority groups are genetically or racially inferior and therefore need special help. I honestly can't believe you imagine this to be so, but maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

 

And it doesn't make it any more sense because you underline it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for this: "Ahhh beaten as usual Heck resorts to base insults" I can only laugh once again.

 

It's only a few posts ago when you started your response with, "Again, puss that you are..."

 

Obviously, suggesting that you might have been drinking is far, far worse, and if there's something you can't stand it's base insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Heck - what's your opinion of my answer to your question about why Sotomayor was

 

WRONG with her Ricci decision?

 

I'll bet the rest of the board would like to know.

 

Sotomayor has very serious baggage, and her Ricci decision is a major part of it.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been a conflict the court has avoided, though it is getting close to the time they will have to address it in a formal manner.

 

Various justices have given opinions in dicta over the years, but one really has to go back to U.S. v. Miller to get some guidance, and all it really did was establish that the state could classify weapons as ordinary militia weapons and those that go beyond ordinary...sawed off shotguns was at the basis of this ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer is that you didn't even begin to discuss the Ricci case, and your argument makes no sense. It's over on the other thread. Heck

 

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

 

You didn't read it, then. Of course I discussed the Ricci case. I appraised it in detail of how I would have

 

decided, and tested it with the racial factors reversed, and my decision holds true.

 

Sotomayor, by her own history and past activities and decisions, is a racist, a bigot, a hypocrite, and

 

not very smart. Her decision to favor the dyslexic Hispanic and condone the discrimination of the white firefighters

 

was atrocious, corrupt and mean-spirited, if not just very ignorant, in my appraisal. I'm still waiting for a legit reply.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for this: "Ahhh beaten as usual Heck resorts to base insults" I can only laugh once again.

 

It's only a few posts ago when you started your response with, "Again, puss that you are..."

 

But of course I had a list of shit you refuse to answer.

 

Obviously, suggesting that you might have been drinking is far, far worse, and if there's something you can't stand it's base insults.

 

Actually bring em on.

'Tis all ya got anyway.

 

As for your other statement, you can't be for race-based hiring [in certain situations] and the laws that cover that to be colorblind at the same time.

 

Sure you can Heck.

Can you think of ANY situation in the working world in which race and sex might be a consideration?

C'mon I know you can.

 

Now can you admit that is NOT within the US judicial system?

See the brackets?

That's the part you deliberately left out to make a phony poing.

Now how about an answer....

 

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An answer to what?

 

Steve, you keep pushing this like it's a conspiracy. You try to change the subject by asking another question rather than speak to the original point.

 

As for the sensible questions I can discern, I do believe I've answered them.

 

What would you like me to answer?

 

As for your point about race-based hiring, you've got to be kidding. We're talking about race-based hiring and affirmative action, not the type of race-based hiring as in "We're looking for a Latino man to play the lead in West Side Story."

 

And you stated you were for using race as a consideration in the Thomas appointment, even though he was less qualified. Even after you said that you wouldn't mind if all nine Justices were white men, because it's all about who is the most qualified. Or something.

 

So we're talking about using race as a consideration when there were white applicants with more qualifications, or higher test scores, or to create a diverse student body, etc.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, Really. Heck

 

Heck translation:

 

"I can't find fault with Cal's post, so I will ignore it. And, if pressed, I'll just say

 

he didn't post anything relevant.

 

Then, I'll go back to criticizing Steve and putting him down, while

 

I pretend that Cal's post doesn't exist, or at least, has no merit, for no reason

 

other than I spin in my high chair and stuff happens. Really..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is Heck talking about?

 

"Cal, Really"

 

??? LOL ???

 

As in, Heck bemoans a lack of substantive conversations, etc...

 

then has nothing to offer when at his insistance, his bluff is called,

 

and he has no answer to the contrary of any substance, so he bails,

 

and says Steve is looking like an ass?

 

The butt of the joke is:

 

"Cal, Really".... lol.

 

So much for Heck wanting to have serious conversation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An answer to what?

 

Steve, you keep pushing this like it's a conspiracy. You try to change the subject by asking another question rather than speak to the original point.

 

Heck go read your own words.

You've fought like hell to make the whole thing about what you see as conflicts in the rather moderate opinions I either state or you assign to me.

Really nothing more.

 

As for the sensible questions I can discern, I do believe I've answered them.

 

And I don't.

 

What would you like me to answer?

 

We'll go back later.

 

As for your point about race-based hiring, you've got to be kidding. We're talking about race-based hiring and affirmative action, not the type of race-based hiring as in "We're looking for a Latino man to play the lead in West Side Story."

 

Yes Heck we are. That's a great example of where race based hiring is perfectly acceptable.

Or hiring a woman at Hooters or an ethnic type for an ethnic restaurant, or a gym teacher or scoutmaster.....

I could have played Malcolm X but....

 

But I don't think that is a worthy factor in who gets to be a firefighter or a doctor.

 

I'll even give you an exception.

(and that may be against my better judgement as you tend to go wild if anybody tries to get all rational with you ;) )

I think there are examples in which a black police officer might be more effective.

 

And you stated you were for using race as a consideration in the Thomas appointment, even though he was less qualified. Even after you said that you wouldn't mind if all nine Justices were white men, because it's all about who is the most qualified. Or something.

 

Bingo. "Or something." You really don't know but just want to bicker because it's me.

 

And we have two definitions of "qualified" I see.

I was on jury duty and told that I was required to keep an open mind no matter how the evidence shook out.

I tried very hard to do that though it was really obvious the guy did it.

Had I felt or said that the guy's race made me think he should go down for it OR that I'd be more lenient because of that I'd have been disqualified.

 

So if all 9 white men (or Christians blacks or women) promised (and actually meant) to apply the law honestly and fairly why would I care? What is your problem with it? ~that's a question~

 

 

So we're talking about using race as a consideration when there were white applicants with more qualifications, or higher test scores, or to create a diverse student body, etc.

 

We're talking about all that. Heck.

You're trying to find something in what I say to gripe about and steer the entire conversation that way.

Anyone who can read knows it though those who share your particular political ideology won't admit it ouit loud.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

You know what we're talking about and that type of question is really getting threadbare.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Steve. I'm not bickering for bickering's sake. I'm saying that if your belief is that the Supreme Court should be all about who is the most qualified then you'd have to be against the Thomas pick, as he was hardly the most qualified individual when his nomination came up. You can be for one or the other, but it doesn't make sense to be for both.

 

The reality is that when choosing a nominee there are going to be lots of "qualified" people, and often that's going to be a subjective measure. Some may favor real world experience; some may favor more experience as a judge; some may favor people who have tried cases before the Supremes, or weight that higher. So this idea that there's going to be one person who clearly stands above all and that's the person you should pick no matter what their race or gender isn't the reality of what happens.

 

Then there's the issue of judicial philosophy.

 

As for your question, it doesn't make much sense. Every nominee swears an oath to apply the law fairly. It's not like you're going to get one who says, "Nope, not going to apply the law honestly or fairly. Not me."

 

This idea that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment means she's not going to apply the law fairly, or hasn't in the past, is just nonsense. And when pressed to show where she has applied the law unfairly, you haven't been able to show a single instance where she's put some personal vendetta against whites into her decision. Clearly, all the evidence points to someone who follows the law.

 

As for the idea that it's best for a government in a pluralistic society to be at least somewhat representative of the population, I think when choosing from a host of qualified people it's okay to use race and gender as considerations in hiring in order to achieve some measure of balance, rather than simply having all white men.

 

Does having all white men mean you're going to have a dysfunctional Supreme Court, or do I think that should be illegal? Of course not. But I don't think it's the ideal scenario either.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it, Heck:

 

Sotomayor is a liberal, a radical, and even in her JUDICIAL decisions, she favors Hispanics,

 

and is a member, per the ABA's own info, of La Raza. She is wrong for the court.

 

I am now going to post a new thread on another Hispanic, who was outstanding,

 

who graduated with big Honors, who was as American as apple pie, he was

 

ridiculed, railed against, and summarily blocked by Dems.

 

Why? Politics. He was a Bush appointee to the Appeals Court, and would have been

 

a top nominee for the Supreme Court.

 

You love Sotomayor for her politics. Let's see if you approve of how BUSH's nominee was treated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Steve. I'm not bickering for bickering's sake. I'm saying that if your belief is that the Supreme Court should be all about who is the most qualified then you'd have to be against the Thomas pick, as he was hardly the most qualified individual when his nomination came up. You can be for one or the other, but it doesn't make sense to be for both.

 

Again Heck (and this is really boring) I didn't say that.I said one bothers me less.

I gave you a great example but just don't feel like typing it again for you to ignore.

 

The reality is that when choosing a nominee there are going to be lots of "qualified" people, and often that's going to be a subjective measure. Some may favor real world experience; some may favor more experience as a judge; some may favor people who have tried cases before the Supremes, or weight that higher. So this idea that there's going to be one person who clearly stands above all and that's the person you should pick no matter what their race or gender isn't the reality of what happens.

 

Thomas was qualified.

Your girl is qualified.

 

Then there's the issue of judicial philosophy.

 

No shit.

 

As for your question, it doesn't make much sense. Every nominee swears an oath to apply the law fairly. It's not like you're going to get one who says, "Nope, not going to apply the law honestly or fairly. Not me."

 

Pretty much what Obama has said. They're gonna cut some groupls a little slack annd fu*k over others.

Just to even the playing field.

 

This idea that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment means she's not going to apply the law fairly, or hasn't in the past, is just nonsense. And when pressed to show where she has applied the law unfairly, you haven't been able to show a single instance where she's put some personal vendetta against whites into her decision. Clearly, all the evidence points to someone who follows the law.

 

Spin.

Hey I guess Robert Byrd (who is more qualified than Barak Obama to be president under the Heck rules) said he'd refuse to fight next to a N*****."

Probably what he meant was he felt he had more to offer the armend forces thanks to his experiences.

 

As for the idea that it's best for a government in a pluralistic society to be at least somewhat representative of the population,

 

So are you for or against quotas set asides and affirmitive action? ~question~ it seems it's "for" from the below answer.

 

I think when choosing from a host of qualified people it's okay to use race and gender as considerations in hiring in order to achieve some measure of balance, rather than simply having all white men.

 

So yuu are upset it isn't half female.

Or there are too few evangelist Christioan?

Too many Catholics and Jews.

Right?

 

Does having all white men mean you're going to have a dysfunctional Supreme Court, or do I think that should be illegal? Of course not. But I don't think it's the ideal scenario either.

See above.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotas are unconstitutional, Steve. You should know that by now. As for affirmative action, I think it's nearing the end of its utility as a government program and certainly unconstitutional in certain forms. As for diversity hiring, or in college admissions, it has to meet a certain standard, but I do believe that racial diversity and opportunity yields certain benefits to society, including on college campuses.

 

Your point about Robert Byrd is useless.

 

Your point about what Obama said is a lie.

 

Accusing me of "spin" every time I say something factually accurate should be embarrassing for you, but isn't.

 

And no, I don't have specific identity goals for the Supreme Court. But I wouldn't think having only one woman is ideal. If I were in Obama's shoes I would have selected from a list of qualified women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that Otrauma is using "affirmative re-action discrimination" against Jews

 

for the benefit of Palestinian extremists over in the Middle East right now.

 

Almost makes one wonder if, to a degree, Otrauma is anti-Semite.

 

See? (I wonder when Heck will get tired of making himself sick with

 

spinning in his high chair)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for affirmative action, I think it's nearing the end of its utility as a government program and certainly unconstitutional in certain forms. Heck

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

Well, good for us! We have had some nice influence on you, after all !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...