Sotomayor is a racist

[TheAnvil 0]

As I said, she seems quite qualified - in spite of her racist remarks.

As I've also said, her decisions seem to be to the right of Souter in many cases from what I've read, so that's a good thing.

I don't find the statements - from what's likely several thousand pages of decisions she's written - offensive at all.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

An implicit admission that the Borkers of Ashcroft, Lott, Pickering, et al are partisan pieces of shit? Thank you Bill. So nice of you. At the time of Borking would have been far, far more timely, but thanks nonetheless.

I think you should try again yourself. The right's response to the Judge's remarks was quite benign. Newt Gingrich - who's been out of office for how long? - seemed to be the first to point out the racism in her remarks (which is undeniable). Some jumped aboard and others did not. As I said earlier - for the seed sown by the left it's a very meager harvest indeed.

The left, in contrast, was quick to scream 'bullshit' and myriad other epithets in defense of her remarks. I don't think any of them addressed the undeniably racist nature of the remarks themselves, but oh well, one might take that as an implicit concurrence.

Party of 'no'...nice mantra the left has come up with. Right along with quoting Rush Limbaugh out of context with regard to hoping the President fails. Incorrect in all regards. Conservatives will continue to vote against socialism and inane spending such as the so-called 'stimulus bill' because it's the right thing to do. Call it 'party of no' if you like. Won't make the policies they oppose any less moronic, nor will it garner conservative votes.

Try again.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,070]

>Disagreeing with the majority is not an attempt to "screw over America."

Of course. And if (for example) the republicans were pushing their own version of health plan reform, so that there was a choice, that would be awesome. Two options to choose from. If they were doing that - if they were disagreeing with the majority and presenting another option, instead of just screaming "NO!" and holding their breaths - they might be recovering from their current abysmal popularity numbers.

Fortunately, that's starting to happen. When even Newt Gingrich starts pushing for discussion on Sotomayor instead of personal attacks, there's hope.

> Arguing against the position put forth by the President, the Speaker, or
> the President Pro Tem is not "screwing over America."

Of course. But hoping the adminstration fails (and working to make that happen) IS "trying to screw over America." Trying to drag everyone down to their level is "trying to screw over America." For as long as that continues - for as long as republican's primary strategy is to drag the other party down instead of build their own up - they'll continue to lose elections.

Again, fortunately, that is starting to change.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

An implicit admission that the Borkers of Ashcroft, Lott, Pickering, et al are partisan pieces of shit?

Don't forget Miguel Estrada, who was pretty unfairly abused by the democrats, in my opinion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,070]

>An implicit admission that the Borkers of Ashcroft, Lott, Pickering, et al
>are partisan pieces of shit?

Yes. Anyone from any party who does that is a partisan hack. Thank you for admitting that the people attacking Sotomayor are "partisan pieces of shit" - I see that as progress.

>The right's response to the Judge's remarks was quite benign.

The title of this very thread - echoed by many in the GOP - is proof positive that that is not the case. In your own words, "partisan pieces of shit" are doing whatever they can to destroy the person instead of discussing the issue. Fortunately the smarter members of the party are starting to take a more productive approach.

>Right along with quoting Rush Limbaugh out of context . . .

Are you claiming that he has NOT said he wants Obama to fail? He has indeed, on several occasions. Hard to defend that one. He's one of the members of the GOP dead-enders who do not want to increase their party's favorability rating above that of the democrats to win elections - he'd rather drag the democrats below the GOP.

Which is fine; he can do whatever he wants. I'm glad at least some GOPers are taking the high road though.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

And if (for example) the republicans were pushing their own version of health plan reform, so that there was a choice, that would be awesome. Two options to choose from.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it.

People who oppose this or that government program are not required to come up with an alternative that achieves the same end. It's possible to simply disagree as to the desirability of that end.

For example, if I opposed US military invasion of Iraq, I am under no obligation to offer an alternate plan for unseating Saddam Hussein. It is actually possible that I might think that meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is not a legitimate use of US military power.

Dissent includes simply saying that you don't think something should be done. Those who wish to silence dissent often resort to your argument, demanding that their opponents come up with alternate means of achieving their ends, and refusing to recognize that a disagreement as to the ends is a perfectly valid position.

In the actual case under discussion here (the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice) it is implicitly obvious, even upon casual reading of the Constitution, that the opposition party cannot offer an alternate choice. Jeff Sessions might think that Miguel Estrada would be a better Justice than Sonia Sotomayor, but he does not have the power to make a nomination.

The president is pretty unlikely to offer up the "alternative" names in nomination. Your demand that someone "offer an alternative" is pretty ridiculous then, don't you think?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,070]

>People who oppose this or that government program are not required
>to come up with an alternative that achieves the same end.

You are absolutely correct. They can just say "no" and not come up with any counter-proposals. Which is what the GOP has been doing, and which is why they have gotten that particular nickname.

It is, of course, up to the electorate to decide whether or not they want people who employ that strategy running the country.

>Those who wish to silence dissent often resort to your argument . .

. . . use catchphrases like "she's a racist" to shut down any intelligent discussion.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

. . . use catchphrases like "she's a racist" to shut down any intelligent discussion.

Hmmm. You mean like when the democrats used that accusation to shut down discussion of Jeff Sessions nomination?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

And if (for example) the republicans were pushing their own version of health plan reform, so that there was a choice, that would be awesome. Two options to choose from.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it.

People who oppose this or that government program are not required to come up with an alternative that achieves the same end. It's possible to simply disagree as to the desirability of that end.
…

Dissent includes simply saying that you don't think something should be done. Those who wish to silence dissent often resort to your argument, demanding that their opponents come up with alternate means of achieving their ends, and refusing to recognize that a disagreement as to the ends is a perfectly valid position.

Are you claiming that the availability of affordable, quality healthcare for everyone in the US is not a desirable end? Government programs aren't the ends; they're the means.

Quote

In the actual case under discussion here (the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice) it is implicitly obvious, even upon casual reading of the Constitution, that the opposition party cannot offer an alternate choice.

Perhaps more than a casual reading is in order. As long as the opposition party is represented in the Senate, nothing stops them from offering alternate choices. The President is bound by the Constitution to obtain advice from the Senate regarding SCOTUS Justice appointments. They do not have the power to nominate, but they certainly have the power to offer alternate choices to the President.

From Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Quote

Your demand that someone "offer an alternative" is pretty ridiculous then, don't you think?

Hardly

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Are you claiming that the availability of affordable, quality healthcare for everyone in the US is not a desirable end? Government programs aren't the ends; they're the means.

There you go with the same tired argument.

"If you want healthcare, then you must support a government program. If you don't suggest a new government program, then you are just a 'naysayer'."


I do believe that affordable, quality healthcare is a desirable end.

I do not believe that a government program will achieve that end.

Therefore, I have no interest in proposing an alternate government program.


In fact, even if a government program could achieve that end, which I do not believe, I don't think that it's appropriate for the government to be doing that.


When your solution to every problem is to create a new government program, it's sometimes hard to conceptualize that people who don't want a new government program, of whatever flavor, are not merely naysayers.

Dissent from the expansion of government is actually a reasonable position.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you claiming that the availability of affordable, quality healthcare for everyone in the US is not a desirable end? Government programs aren't the ends; they're the means.

There you go with the same tired argument.

"If you want healthcare, then you must support a government program. If you don't suggest a new government program, then you are just a 'naysayer'."

I didn't say anything of the sort. Did you even read my post before replying?

Quote

I do believe that affordable, quality healthcare is a desirable end.

I do not believe that a government program will achieve that end.

Therefore, I have no interest in proposing an alternate government program.

No one said or implied that an alternate solution had to come in the form of a government program. In fact, exactly the opposite could be logically inferred from my post.

Quote

In fact, even if a government program could achieve that end, which I do not believe, I don't think that it's appropriate for the government to be doing that.

That's a valid opinion w/r/t policy, but it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote

When your solution to every problem is to create a new government program, it's sometimes hard to conceptualize that people who don't want a new government program, of whatever flavor, are not merely naysayers.

If they are saying "nay" without offering an alternate means to the end (which need not involve a new government program), then yes, they are merely naysayers. They only say "no," without adding anything productive to the discussion.

Quote

Dissent from the expansion of government is actually a reasonable position.

It is, but, again, that's not relevant to the discussion. There is nothing about dissenting from the expansion of government that precludes offering alternate means to the desired end.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

If the proposed "solution" will make the problem worse, then "nay" is actually a very productive contribution to the discussion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If the proposed "solution" will make the problem worse, then "nay" is actually a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Without an alternate solution proposal, it isn't productive. The ends still need to be reached. Saying "nay" doesn't make a solution any closer.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If the proposed "solution" will make the problem worse, then "nay" is actually a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Without an alternate solution proposal, it isn't productive. The ends still need to be reached. Saying "nay" doesn't make a solution any closer.

Your postition, to me anyway, seems to state that a government program will fix the "problem".

Two point. First, you need to prove that there really is a problem. At least to me anyway. Health care most definatly is not a problem in the minds of the voters today however.

Second, you indicate that government "programs" are needed to fix some sort of "problem".

I submit that goverment IS the problem. The latice work of what states mandate, tort laws, and a system where the user does not pay is what is causing the high cost.


So today, your side has claimed the frame for the debate. YOUR side needs to show it is a problem and, that is can be paid for.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And by the way. under the definition used by the lefties, she is a racist. (not that I think that)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Your postition, to me anyway, seems to state that a government program will fix the "problem".

No, that's not what I've said or implied.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Your postition, to me anyway, seems to state that a government program will fix the "problem".

No, that's not what I've said or implied.

How about inferred. Did you infer it?

Maybe extrapolated? Or conceptualize. Did you conceptualize it?

Remster

[TheAnvil 0]

ROFLMFAO. Bill you neglect the key difference between the Borkings of Republican nominees and what's been said about Judge Sotomayor - extant evidence for the charges. And there is NO denying her remarks were racist in nature. Using identical standards as Democrats do when judging Republicans, she'd be considered to be a grand wizard in the KKK. Fit right in with one of the Dem's most senior Senators. 'Tis that fact that just has lefties in a tizzy - they've been caught dead to rights showing their double standard and epitomizing hypocrisy on the issue (not an uncommon thing). If you think what's been thrown at Judge Sotomayor is even CLOSE to what occurred to Ashcroft, Bork, Thomas et al, then your memory is blurred to the point where you might want to get it checked out.

Rush did say he hopes Obama fails - he also said he hopes America succeeds. Tying the two together is ludicrous in all regards. Mr. Limbaugh has explained that repeatedly. ANY conservative hopes that the Obama administration fails MISERABLY in bringing socialism to the U.S. in any manner. Does that mean they hope America fails? Not by a long shot. Absurd.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

The republicans have become the party of "no." Any solution any democrat proposes - they're against it.

Reminds me of Groucho Marx in Horsefeathers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8

Could this be the Anthem of the Republican Party?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How about inferred. Did you infer it?

Maybe extrapolated? Or conceptualize. Did you conceptualize it?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And there is NO denying her remarks were racist in nature.

Care to link to such racist comments? The only quote I've heard was shown in a previous post to have been quoted out of context and wasn't actually racist at all.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

Read again and this time concentrate.

Bah. That never works with liberals. I'll have to edit and go deeper.

I'll break it down specifically for you.

Quote in question (note, this is fully quoted, unlike what the leftists do with Rush Limbaugh stating he hopes Obama fails):

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Now...let's see...how does she identify the people she's comparing. . . how how how praytell. . .by their RACE and SEX. Because of their respective RACES and SEX she contends that one would reach a better conclusion than the other more often than not. What were her DISCRIMINATING factors in reaching this conclusion? In case you missed it...RACE and SEX.

I'm from the Southeast. If I said "I think any white male with the richness of their experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a female who hadn't lived that life" I'd be instantly branded a grand wizard in the KKK. Those fucktards would probably give me an honorary membership with a Catholic exemption for making such a dumbfuck statement. Why? because it's racist and sexist.

Place whatever you want before and after the Judge's quote, the DISCRIMINATING factors remain the same. What were they again? Bah. Liberals will never answer. Its RACE & SEX that she used as DISCRIMINATING factors.

Now, if like me, you believe that like eye or hair color, race has no place in American life or law, you'd find yourself thinking Ms. Sotomayor not really in the clear when it comes to race and sex and discrimination. You'd also realize that she's a damned qualified judge, and like me, hope she gets a quick up or down vote on the Senate floor and not be Borked into oblivion with lies like many people I've mentioned earlier in this thread.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This is the quote that has already been shown to have been taken out of context in order to make it appear to be racist. The full quote was posted in this thread already. If that's the only example of Sotomayer offering racist comments, then the claims of racism seem unfounded.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This is the quote that has already been shown to have been taken out of context in order to make it appear to be racist. The full quote was posted in this thread already. If that's the only example of Sotomayer offering racist comments, then the claims of racism seem unfounded.

It's OK, we all know he is just grasping at straws.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This is the quote that has already been shown to have been taken out of context in order to make it appear to be racist. The full quote was posted in this thread already. If that's the only example of Sotomayer offering racist comments, then the claims of racism seem unfounded.

No problem, counselor - just show us what was taken away from or added to that sentence to make it 'out of context'. THEN you can explain how EITHER sentence is NOT racist/sexist on it's face.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706