Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Ravi, May 27, 2009.
.: United States Senator James Inhofe :: Press Room :.
Would it be so horrible if that was said everytime there was a white male nominee?
What about a white female nominee?
Pretty sounding gibberish that means opposition to policies that might be excessively beneficial to those groups, of course.
what the heck does that statement mean from Inhofe? would he actually say that if it were ANOTHER WHITE MALE SC justice nominee?
sheesh....white, republican men are feeling a tad threatened i suppose????????
And policies that might be excessive beneficial to "those groups" is the function of the SCOTUS? Is the SCOTUS charged with making policies? Or interpreting laws?
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Hildita, sweetie, your first post was dumb, and they've not improved since. I personally oppose Sotomayor on the grounds of her failure to protect student free speech; however, the distinction between policy creation and interpretation is effectively meaningless in certain respects. Both play a critical role in the formation and continued existence of whatever policies might be analyzed. And the SCOTUS does typically analyze the various consequences and purposes of specific policies, obviously.
Well, pal, even Sonia has some dissonance over that.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a court of appeals is where policy is made. She then immediately adds: And I know I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we dont make law. I know. O.K. I know. Im not promoting it. Im not advocating it. Im you know.
Maybe Obama can make a student his next SCOTUS nominee, if you think that's what it will take to bring some sensitivity to your special interests.
You deserve every single ounce of disrespect shown to you..
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVNGzI7aFQs]YouTube - Republicans weep Alito tears[/ame]
now you have the "audacity" to bitch because a Republican voices concerns HYPOCRITE
So she doesn't tote the party line. Who gives a fuck? She lacks the means to engage in any legitimate policy creation, and considering the Supreme Court's majoritarian nature, she'd lack the means to implement "extreme" interpretations.
Yeah, my "special interests" just happen to include the First Amendment. Crazy shit, I know.
The party line being what? Racial quotas? Whose party line is that?
Separate names with a comma.