Obama picks Hispanic Woman for Supreme Court.

2009-05-26 05:54:52

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5875

President Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, two sources told CNN on Tuesday.

Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed

Obama plans to announce his nominee at 10:15 a.m. ET Tuesday, sources told CNN.

Obama said Saturday he wants intellectual firepower and a common touch in the next Supreme Court justice and said he doesn't "feel weighed down by having to choose ... based on demographics."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/ … index.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … html?imw=Y

Picking Sotomayor: Bridging the Black-Latino Divide

Time is really reading too much into this. Hispanics didn't vote for Obama because they wanted a minority as President they voted for him based on his views. Also Obama didn't pick Sotomayor to bridge the gap between Latinos and Blacks he did it so he would have somebody to put up for nomination that the GOP would fear fighting against based on her race and gender. Finally Obama isn't going to bridge any gaps between race groups, there are still a strong mutual dislike between blacks and Hispanics for various reasons that cannot be fixed by the courts or President. Beside that this lady does not speak for all Hispanics, she sure as hell doesn't speak for me.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-05-28 20:45:12)

2009-05-26 05:58:16

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

Told you all he would pick her.

(might go find the post...)

2009-05-26 06:00:49

#3

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6940|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
Told you all he would pick her.

(might go find the post...)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!???????????

2009-05-26 06:05:19

#4

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7063|Noizyland

She's a pretty obvious pick. Apparently she's been circled as a potential for some time now.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2009-05-26 06:06:42

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Told you all he would pick her.

(might go find the post...)
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!???????????

No. It was an obvious pick. Take a look at some of his other cabinet choices. He's pleasing as many minorities as possible, don't you think?

2009-05-26 06:07:36

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6818|Global Command

She a tax cheat too?

2009-05-26 06:10:03

#7

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6954|NT, like Mick Dundee

ATG wrote:
She a tax cheat too?

winnar.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-05-26 06:13:59

#8

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6940|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Told you all he would pick her.

(might go find the post...)
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!???????????
No. It was an obvious pick. Take a look at some of his other cabinet choices. He's pleasing as many minorities as possible, don't you think?

He is pleasing almost every tax cheat and lobbyist in Washington

2009-05-26 06:15:04

#9

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6940|USA

ATG wrote:
She a tax cheat too?

damn, got beat to the punch

2009-05-26 06:16:28

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

Either way I think the appointment of Supreme Court justices should be by popular vote of the people, not whichever President is in office at the time choosing, whenever a new one is needed.

It's too much of a conflict of interest to make the Supreme Court impartial or an actual representation of the people imo.

2009-05-26 06:24:29

#11

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6940|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
Either way I think the appointment of Supreme Court justices should be by popular vote of the people, not whichever President is in office at the time choosing, whenever a new one is needed.

It's too much of a conflict of interest to make the Supreme Court impartial or an actual representation of the people imo.

Well welcome to Obamamania, the messiah has a free pass to do whatever he wants, who is gunna call him on it, his beloved media?

2009-05-26 06:50:44

#12

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7063|Noizyland

ATG wrote:
She a tax cheat too?

Show me a member of the American upper classes who isn't.

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Either way I think the appointment of Supreme Court justices should be by popular vote of the people, not whichever President is in office at the time choosing, whenever a new one is needed.

It's too much of a conflict of interest to make the Supreme Court impartial or an actual representation of the people imo.
Well welcome to Obamamania, the messiah has a free pass to do whatever he wants, who is gunna call him on it, his beloved media?

Welcome to Obamamania? More like welcome to 1789. The Supreme Court justices have always been nominated by the President and the nominations have always been those whom the President agrees with politically. I agree it's too much of a conflict of interest but Presidents have alway nominated justices which reflect well on them and what they stand for; this is certainly not a result of "Obamamania". They also tend to nominate potential justices as young as possible as it presumably means it will keep the President's "legacy" alive longer. After all a President is limited to eight years, a Supreme Court justice is for life.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2009-05-26 06:54:42

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

Ty wrote:
Welcome to Obamamania? More like welcome to 1789. The Supreme Court justices have always been nominated by the President and the nominations have always been those whom the President agrees with politically.

Except for Bush Sr. and Souter, but that was a well known mistake on his part. He didn't know who he was voting in. lol

2009-05-26 06:56:27

#14

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7063|Noizyland

Well Bush Senior was a one-term President.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2009-05-26 07:34:59

#15

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6940|USA

Ty wrote:
ATG wrote:
She a tax cheat too?
Show me a member of the American upper classes who isn't.
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Either way I think the appointment of Supreme Court justices should be by popular vote of the people, not whichever President is in office at the time choosing, whenever a new one is needed.

It's too much of a conflict of interest to make the Supreme Court impartial or an actual representation of the people imo.
Well welcome to Obamamania, the messiah has a free pass to do whatever he wants, who is gunna call him on it, his beloved media?
Welcome to Obamamania? More like welcome to 1789. The Supreme Court justices have always been nominated by the President and the nominations have always been those whom the President agrees with politically. I agree it's too much of a conflict of interest but Presidents have alway nominated justices which reflect well on them and what they stand for; this is certainly not a result of "Obamamania". They also tend to nominate potential justices as young as possible as it presumably means it will keep the President's "legacy" alive longer. After all a President is limited to eight years, a Supreme Court justice is for life.

What I mean is Obama could nominate Rev. Wright and he would not be called out for it in the media.

2009-05-26 09:07:54

#16

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6283|Truthistan

AussieReaper wrote:
Either way I think the appointment of Supreme Court justices should be by popular vote of the people, not whichever President is in office at the time choosing, whenever a new one is needed.

It's too much of a conflict of interest to make the Supreme Court impartial or an actual representation of the people imo.

Some states like Texas have elections for judges... its not a very good system. There is a case at SCOTUS right now from Texas where a corporate litigant gave big bucks to a judges winning election campaign and wonders of all shock, the judge sided with his large contributor.

If SCOTUS were elected it would be an absolute circus of lobbyists and special interests.

Looks like Obama's pick will be confirmed. the pick is a woman and a minority and she has experience at the trial court and appellate court levels as a judge. I would say that this pick helps to make the court more representative of the population.

Its a no brainer even if the moral socialists want to keep women at home in the kitchen.

There will be another pick for SCOTUS soon and I would expect that Obama would pick another woman for that one too. Women are 52% of the population but presently there is only one woman on the court... Moral socialists don't want a woman because they are more likely to be pro choice and pro benefits for families... in otherwords they tend to be more pragmatic. IMO.

BTW when Bush 43 picked Harriet Miers for the court she was a throw away pick for a bait and switch in order to deflect criticism for selecting a man to take over Sandra Day O'Connors spot on the court. I think Obama is going to make up for that.

2009-05-26 09:13:12

#17

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6827|Long Island, New York

This won't be the only pick Obama will be making, either. In just his first term out of an expected 2, I'd say he'll be picking 2 more. John Paul Stevens is 89, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has health problems and is getting up there in age and several other justices are over the age of 70.

By the end of 8 years (as I said, assuming he'll be re-elected) I'd say Obama will probably end up picking 3-4 more Justices.

2009-05-26 09:16:54

#18

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6442|what

Poseidon wrote:
By the end of 8 years (as I said, assuming he'll be re-elected) I'd say Obama will probably end up picking 3-4 more Justices.

Which when you think about it, could have huge ramifications on the legal system well after he has left office. If he picks relatively young judges, they could certainly be a thorn in the side or huge benefit to the next government that comes into office.

Anyway, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. Governments don't often reduce their power. lol

2009-05-26 18:07:10

#19

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA

I would hate to bring a case against her...she already professed to being against white men (reverse discrimination), and OPENLY said that her job as a Justice to to "make policy and laws" from the bench.

I thought that's what the Legislative branch was for? Isn't justice suspossed to be blind?

2009-05-26 18:21:24

#20

Man With No Name: جندي; +148|5864|The Wild West

anybody for the right for a woman to have an abortion is considered to be a far left liberal.

2009-05-26 19:52:35

#21

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5900|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

FrankJ wrote:
It was unlikely Obama will nominate anyone who doesn’t hate America and Americans and especially its Constitution, so I don’t know how big a deal to make over Obama’s choice of Sotomayor. It’s not like we could ever get him to do much better. I just wonder what’s the chance of getting him to nominate a reverse Souter. Like Sotomayor will come in saying, “I promise to rule based on whatever will please the New York Times” but soon after she gets in she says, “I’ve decided to make decision based on what’s actually in the Constitution.” And nothing actually in the Constitution should ever please liberals, because the Founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of fruits.

It doesn't matter what gender or race they are, as long as they would uphold the meaning of the Constitution. The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land, not legislate from the bench.
EDIT: Added quote Tags.

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-05-26 20:44:58)

2009-05-26 20:04:30

#22

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6827|Long Island, New York

nickb64 wrote:
It was unlikely Obama will nominate anyone who doesn’t hate America and Americans and especially its Constitution, so I don’t know how big a deal to make over Obama’s choice of Sotomayor. It’s not like we could ever get him to do much better. I just wonder what’s the chance of getting him to nominate a reverse Souter. Like Sotomayor will come in saying, “I promise to rule based on whatever will please the New York Times” but soon after she gets in she says, “I’ve decided to make decision based on what’s actually in the Constitution.” And nothing actually in the Constitution should ever please liberals, because the Founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of fruits.

It doesn't matter what gender or race they are, as long as they would uphold the meaning of the Constitution. The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land, not legislate from the bench.

You know, I had a feeling, but I think this pretty much proves it:

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/su … omination/

Try formulating your own opinions, not copying and pasting off of right wing blogs, k? K. Unless of course you're Frank J, which I highly doubt.

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-05-26 20:05:02)

2009-05-26 20:23:54

#23

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6734|The Land of Scott Walker

Ah yes, we should refrain from reading any articles with which we may agree, lest we not "formulate our own opinions". Pfffff.

2009-05-26 20:24:06

#24

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7004|US

Oh how I love it when people use the demographics of their choices to prove they aren't choosing based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc./sarcasm
These things shouldn't even be a consideration.

Are they a good legal scholar? Will they rule wisely on Constitutional matters? These should be the primary concerns!

2009-05-26 20:26:23

#25

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6827|Long Island, New York

Stingray24 wrote:
Ah yes, we should refrain from reading any articles with which we may agree, lest we not "formulate our own opinions". Pfffff.

way to miss the point entirely Stingray

quite predictable

not only did he use that site's blog post as his own, he didn't even give any credit to them

I know taking the blinders off might be too much to ask of you, but just try it once in a while.

BF2S Forums Obama picks Hispanic Woman for Supreme Court.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Ty wrote:

Ty wrote:

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

FrankJ wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Board footer