I am in my car waiting for a coworker to leave work, car pooling. Anyway on the radio they were talking about how proud hispanics are because of sotomayor got confirmed and how proud blacks are proud because of obama and since obama picked sotomayor hispanics and blacks are going to get along better. Really now ask yourself if you are hispanic or black, has your life really gotten any better since obama or sotomayor? Have things truely imporved for you and your family? Also this changes nothing between blacks and hispanics. They both hate each other still. Concur?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- i am going to end up exploding this week because of sotomayor
I am neither, but I would think people would be encouraged by positive role models.
It's progress, whether you like the policies they make or not, or whether they make an immediate impact.
It's progress, whether you like the policies they make or not, or whether they make an immediate impact.
Since when is racism progress?Pug wrote:
It's progress.
we'll all toast over a beer
We have two minorities elected/appointed to high level offices. How exactly is that racism?mikkel wrote:
Since when is racism progress?Pug wrote:
It's progress.
Well, 1.5 minorities.Pug wrote:
We have two minorities elected/appointed to high level offices. How exactly is that racism?mikkel wrote:
Since when is racism progress?Pug wrote:
It's progress.
Progress isn't having minorities in government. Progress is having the best people in government regardless of race.Pug wrote:
We have two minorities elected/appointed to high level offices. How exactly is that racism?mikkel wrote:
Since when is racism progress?Pug wrote:
It's progress.
Racism is differentiating between races in a context where race is irrelevant.
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?mikkel wrote:
Progress isn't having minorities in government. Progress is having the best people in government regardless of race.
Racism is differentiating between races in a context where race is irrelevant.
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
I think you just thoroughly missed my point.Pug wrote:
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?mikkel wrote:
Progress isn't having minorities in government. Progress is having the best people in government regardless of race.
Racism is differentiating between races in a context where race is irrelevant.
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
Prove to me there are better people then who we got, or the system is flawed.mikkel wrote:
I think you just thoroughly missed my point.Pug wrote:
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?mikkel wrote:
Progress isn't having minorities in government. Progress is having the best people in government regardless of race.
Racism is differentiating between races in a context where race is irrelevant.
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
I think that's your point no?
Wow.Pug wrote:
Prove to me there are better people then who we got, or the system is flawed.mikkel wrote:
I think you just thoroughly missed my point.Pug wrote:
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
I think that's your point no?
He won the electionPug wrote:
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?mikkel wrote:
Progress isn't having minorities in government. Progress is having the best people in government regardless of race.
Racism is differentiating between races in a context where race is irrelevant.
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
Sotomayor was appointed
The system is broken, to a degree, because Sotomayor was accepted even though she will most likely not follow the intent of the Constitution in rulings.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. How can a judge interpret the law if they do not look at what it meant when it was created. Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
I think I was talking about positive role models, irregardless of whether they are in politics or not.
If I misunderstood you...you want to explain?
If I misunderstood you...you want to explain?
Sure, that's a debatable opinion (I agree BTW), but how is it racism when we empower Congress to approve the appointments?nickb64 wrote:
He won the election
Sotomayor was appointed
The system is broken, to a degree, because Sotomayor was accepted even though she will most likely not follow the intent of the Constitution in rulings.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. How can a judge interpret the law if they do not look at what it meant when it was created. Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
He chose her coz she wasPug wrote:
Sure, that's a debatable opinion (I agree BTW), but how is it racism when we empower Congress to approve the appointments?nickb64 wrote:
He won the election
Sotomayor was appointed
The system is broken, to a degree, because Sotomayor was accepted even though she will most likely not follow the intent of the Constitution in rulings.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. How can a judge interpret the law if they do not look at what it meant when it was created. Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
1. Female
2. Latina
That is not racism, but she is a racist.Pug wrote:
Sure, that's a debatable opinion (I agree BTW), but how is it racism when we empower Congress to approve the appointments?nickb64 wrote:
He won the election
Sotomayor was appointed
The system is broken, to a degree, because Sotomayor was accepted even though she will most likely not follow the intent of the Constitution in rulings.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. How can a judge interpret the law if they do not look at what it meant when it was created. Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
And, as others have said, she was only chosen because she: 1)is a woman, 2)is Hispanic/Latina, and 3)is quite likely to rule exactly how Obama would want.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-08-07 15:48:57)
I don't believe he's saying that. Whether or not our currently elected people are the best is irrelevant, but those who tout "Wow, we have a black president and a female, Hispanic Justice" as being "progress" are utter fools.Pug wrote:
Prove to me there are better people then who we got, or the system is flawed.mikkel wrote:
I think you just thoroughly missed my point.Pug wrote:
Ok, so Obama didn't win the election?
Ok, so Sotomayor wasn't appointed and accepted by Congress?
The whole system, which has worked fine electing/appointing white people in the past, suddenly is flawed?
Prove it.
I think that's your point no?
SEREMAKER wrote:
we'll all toast over a beer
you've been well-schooled in talking points, nick. are you telling me we need to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, written oh so many years ago? if you do, i'd agree. you miss one point about Constitutional law though - the document can be amended by popular vote. as for judges legislating from the bench, and in particular this judge, please cite examples of how she has. by every account she's voted with her peers over 90% of the time. and that's the thing about talking points nick - if you're gonna use them, cite them.nickb64 wrote:
Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
It can indeed be amended, and has been. We should adhere to the intent behind these amendments, and the Supreme Court, and the government as a whole, should not step into places that are none of their business, such as abortion.burnzz wrote:
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/21025/piswasser.jpgSEREMAKER wrote:
we'll all toast over a beeryou've been well-schooled in talking points, nick. are you telling me we need to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, written oh so many years ago? if you do, i'd agree. you miss one point about Constitutional law though - the document can be amended by popular vote. as for judges legislating from the bench, and in particular this judge, please cite examples of how she has. by every account she's voted with her peers over 90% of the time. and that's the thing about talking points nick - if you're gonna use them, cite them.nickb64 wrote:
Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change? Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
OP: Obama will get at least 1, maybe 2 more before the end 2012.
Lol, wow this went all fuckity.DesertFox- wrote:
I don't believe he's saying that. Whether or not our currently elected people are the best is irrelevant, but those who tout "Wow, we have a black president and a female, Hispanic Justice" as being "progress" are utter fools.Pug wrote:
Prove to me there are better people then who we got, or the system is flawed.mikkel wrote:
I think you just thoroughly missed my point.
I think that's your point no?
Here was my point...
Here's an opportunity to have a good role model for minorities. That is progress. Meaning: here's someone who isn't Michael Vick.
Not: Progress is having minorities leading this country. It overrides everything else.
Apologies for the train wreck.
Second.
I do not believe Obama and Sotomayor got their positions because of their race. That is plain stupid. I believe in the system basically works. The voters would not vote for someone just because they were black. And the senators confirmed Sotomayor. They had the option of not doing so...but they did. Therefore, race had little to do with why they were chosen.
Third.
If Sotomayor getting the bench isn't WHY the system is flawed. If you believe the system it IS flawed, then Sotomayor is the RESULT of this flaw. And if you believe race was the ONLY reason why they voted for Sotomayor, then see the second point.
Fourth.
If you don't believe having minorities leading the country is progress (my gauge is not related to race), you can't argue someone got their position based on race alone. If they did get in on race alone...wouldn't you think it WOULD be progress? After all who is perpetuating the race card in by arguing "based on race alone"?
Fifth.
re: nick "she is racist". That might be true. But this isn't my point. Here's an opportunity for her to hopefully not suck. Hopefully by not sucking, she'll be a role model. And "ruling as Obama wants". Judges have been appointed this way - they usually have the same views as the president who puts them up for approval.
Sixth.
Mikkel - Sorry if I wasn't clear. I thought you were saying the voters and senators are racially biased towards minorities. Or something else. Need a little help there...
Legislating from the bench works both ways. You can say Sotomayor might favor straying away from constitutionalism, but then again, constitutionalism is equally as much judicial activism as its opposite is.nickb64 wrote:
The system is broken, to a degree, because Sotomayor was accepted even though she will most likely not follow the intent of the Constitution in rulings.
Here's a case example of how interpretations of the Constitution change with time.nickb64 wrote:
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. How can a judge interpret the law if they do not look at what it meant when it was created. Many judges like Sotomayor insist that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Contracts, which is what the Constitution basically is, do not change in meaning over time, so why should the meaning of the Constitution change?
Separate but equal. Initially, it was seen as constitutional for races to be served with separate facilities. Plessy vs. Ferguson set this precedent.
50 years later, it was ruled unconstitutional with Brown vs. the Board of Education.
This is just one of many famous examples of how the Constitution changes with time in terms of interpretation.
They basically already do with respect to interpretation of law. This is done with both constitutionalism (limiting the scope of laws to strict interpretations of the Constitution) and with its opposite (adapting laws to modern concerns).nickb64 wrote:
Judges should not be able to essentially rewrite the law of the land, as that is the job given to Congress.
This is true not only of our judicial branch but also those in other countries like Canada.
I don't get how someone with a permanent life long position is capable of "legislating" .. from the bench or otherwise. There a real and important reason that or true legislature has to answer to voters. If you don't see the danger in someone making rules without accountability it's hopeless.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Eh a lot of things sound good on paper.Kmarion wrote:
I don't get how someone with a permanent life long position is capable of "legislating" .. from the bench or otherwise. There a real and important reason that or true legislature has to answer to voters. If you don't see the danger in someone making rules without accountability it's hopeless.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- i am going to end up exploding this week because of sotomayor