|
|
Soaps Boards :: Supreme Court pick
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.
lovesit![]() |
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court is not subject to affirmative action. I am white, female, & Christian and you know what - I am fine with Scalia, an Italian Catholic male, & Thomas, a black male who is also Catholic, making rulings. The idea that the court, & the people of the U.S., is better served b/c its positions are filled based on race, gender, etc. is absurd & dangerous. I am a huge fan of the two white guys George W. appointed. Two things he got right. Thank you for pointing that out about Thomas. I didn't want to rant, so I left him out of it. I, too, am fine with what we have. I have the same make up as you, but I would feel no safer if the SC was made up of only white Christian women. I sincerely hope Sonia pulls through and does not fulfill some fears. She must rule according to the book, not her heritage or based on what she wants future laws to be. Overall, I think she will be fine. I actually think she is just what the dems fear - a weak liberal who will not actively counter the conservatives. Which really doesn't matter, as long as she votes liberally. I also hope she thinks before she speaks from now on. |
alwaysEJ![]() |
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas |
alwaysEJ![]() |
Quote lovesit: Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court is not subject to affirmative action. I am white, female, & Christian and you know what - I am fine with Scalia, an Italian Catholic male, & Thomas, a black male who is also Catholic, making rulings. The idea that the court, & the people of the U.S., is better served b/c its positions are filled based on race, gender, etc. is absurd & dangerous. I am a huge fan of the two white guys George W. appointed. Two things he got right. Thank you for pointing that out about Thomas. I didn't want to rant, so I left him out of it. I, too, am fine with what we have. I have the same make up as you, but I would feel no safer if the SC was made up of only white Christian women. I sincerely hope Sonia pulls through and does not fulfill some fears. She must rule according to the book, not her heritage or based on what she wants future laws to be. Overall, I think she will be fine. I actually think she is just what the dems fear - a weak liberal who will not actively counter the conservatives. Which really doesn't matter, as long as she votes liberally. I also hope she thinks before she speaks from now on. Souter was a 'weak' liberal who often voted as they would have him, but didn't offer much in the way of leading the court in a liberal direction & wrote few noteworthy opinions. It doesn't help that that high court is likely about to reverse one of her opinions. Thomas & Scalia are giants, & they need someone to counter them, & I don't think that's what they'll get with her. Roberts will be a giant himself, I believe. |
wannazach![]() |
I was in no way being racist or sexest nor implying that is the reason she was chosen. That is not and never should be the reason she was picked. She was chosen on merit alone. My intent was to express the fact that finally a quailfied person is considered no matter what their sex or race is. We all know that it has not always been that way. In fact the majority of men in this country would have wanted a white male in the position no matter how many women were more quailified. It is finally getting like the old cigarette commercials for women. "You've come a long way baby" and I could not be happier. |
lovesit![]() |
Quote wannazach: I was in no way being racist or sexest nor implying that is the reason she was chosen. That is not and never should be the reason she was picked. She was chosen on merit alone. My intent was to express the fact that finally a quailfied person is considered no matter what their sex or race is. We all know that it has not always been that way. In fact the majority of men in this country would have wanted a white male in the position no matter how many women were more quailified. It is finally getting like the old cigarette commercials for women. "You've come a long way baby" and I could not be happier. I hope you are happy in the end, as well. I really do. But you must understand about the represntation of the people and the SC...the two have nothing to do with each other. You stated you want better representation from the SC, and you should not be awarded that. But yes, women do deserve a place in the SC, as long as they are better than the man they are chosen over. I think it is somewhat unfair to say most men would want a white male instead of her. Most articles I read, left and right, had quotes from mainly men who expressed respect, and when they voiced concern they gave valid reason even some dems agreed with. My point, I do not think you should be happy a woman was appointed SC. You should be happy a well qualified individual was appointed, which you stated you believe her to be. Just don't lump her sex/race in as a qualification, is all I'm getting at. Question...What does GAS stand for? I can't read it. |
cats meow![]() |
OMG, lovesit, you are as bad as i was with stcardinalfan |
cats meow![]() |
i hope this is not a dumb question, when something is brought before the SC, doesn't it come down to their interpretation of the law?? isn't that why they sometimes disagree? |
alwaysEJ![]() |
Quote cats meow: i hope this is not a dumb question, when something is brought before the SC, doesn't it come down to their interpretation of the law?? isn't that why they sometimes disagree? Appeals courts review verdicts made by lower courts and they also weigh in on the Constitutionality of laws. There are many levels of appeals courts in our system, the S.C. being the final one. They choose which cases they review & reject many every year. They are a federal appeals court, which means they should not, & usually do not, hear cases that are not federal matters - those are left to the states, & each state has their own Supreme Court. Their guide is the U.S. Constitution. They are not bound by any state's constitution. They can overturn laws if they deem them to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, just as they can overturn the verdicts of lower courts if they deem the original verdict to be in violation of either existing law or the U.S. Constitution. Matters that are not mentioned in the Constitution are not the territory of the S.C., at least they should not be, b/c in hearing a matter that should be decided by the states, they are violating the Constitution, which says that the federal govt., of which the S.C. is a major branch, will not become involved in issues left to that states - which is everything not explicitly covered in the U.S. Constitution. One of the battles between the 9 justices is which cases they will hear - those with a more liberal view of the Constitution are more willing to hear a variety of cases, while the more conservative justices argue that the S.C. has no business hearing a case that involves a matter that should be left to the individual states. |
lovesit![]() |
Quote cats meow: i hope this is not a dumb question, when something is brought before the SC, doesn't it come down to their interpretation of the law?? isn't that why they sometimes disagree? Yes, it is solely based on their interpretation. That is why it is so huge she admitted her Latino bias. It is only natural for any person to have a bias, but they have to overcome it and base their interpretation on the book, not their bias. For her to openly say she will change her rulings based on her heritage...well, you know my opinion on that. GAS=gasoline. Who would have thunk it? |
alwaysEJ![]() |
online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html |
Plot-Twister![]() |
Quote alwaysEJ: Quote wannazach: Quote cats meow: i am very excited with obama's choice for supreme court justice, sonia sotomayor, from what i read, she sounds like she will bring allot to the table I could not be happier with the choice although each of the ladies that were consiedered were extremely qualified. It is going to be so nice to have a woman as well as a Latino on the bench. For far to long the postiion has been open only to men. It is high time that that thinking is over and done. They desperately need more than just one token female on the bench. Each race and sex needs to be represented in order to help assure that each America no matter who they are will be represented fairly. I think she will do a wonderful job for us. I mean really, it don't take much to be better than the disgraceful Thomas has been during his term imo. But Thomas is the token black on the court Thomas was born into poverty. His father left his family when he was two. His family was homeless at one point after a fire destroyed their house. He is a direct descendant of slaves. If we're going to swap sob stories - which SHOULD NOT propel anyone to the Supreme Court - Thomas has one every bit as inspiring as Ms. Sotomayor. Were he not conservative, he'd a hero to liberals rather than someone to mock & ridicule. They hate him b/c he's so smart he takes the liberals on the court to the woodshed all the time. Clarence Thomas is a genius. Even some liberals are doubtful of this woman's ability to match wits with Thomas & Scalia. Read a few of their opinions (bring a dictionary) and then read a few of hers... You know, if he was not a sexual harrasser, I would be all for him, even though I disagree with many of his stances. I don't think that being a "genius" allows one to sexually harrass a woman. Further....I do think there is something to having a representation of the people on the SC. Perhaps I am incorrect, but different races bring different things to the table. Remember the standardized testing hoopla a few years back? Where it was found that black teens were actually at a disadvantage when it came to the same test that was given to white teens? Same thing here. |
cats meow![]() |
i remember watching those hearings with anita hill, fell on the ice, had a broken leg and had nothing else to do, it was riveting, she was very credible, i don't think anyone could make up what she had to say, way too many details and to have to testify on national TV, who would want to do that to themselves? i NEVER thought for a minute he wouldn't get confirmed, people get away with crimes all the time, can you say OJ or robert blake? |
cats meow![]() |
G. Gordon Liddy: Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating' |
wannazach![]() |
Quote cats meow: G. Gordon Liddy: Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating' Posted: 29 May 2009 03:07 PM PDT He calls her a racist too. Keep it up guys. LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad.... beautiful Oh isn't it beautiful though. But mind you, it is not called discrimination when it is directed from a man especially a white man toward a woman. This is the exact thing I posted about happening earlier in this thread but was told oh no, she would not be discrimated against and that the men in Washington were pulling for her. What a crock of $hit. If it were not for all the sexist men in this country, Hillary would have won the nomination and the presidency. I heard the exact same scenerio echoed everywhere about Hillary and that time of the month during the primaries. Men are SO afraid of women in power. Now isn't it just a hoot that all these men know what it is like to have that time of the month? |
wannazach![]() |
For those who care I would like to share some of the info attained by me from the Democrat National Committee: |
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.