GOPer's war on latinos and women

[Ravi]

In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."

.: United States Senator James Inhofe :: Press Room :.

 

[brewerboy]

In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."

.: 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?

 

[Agnapostate]

Pretty sounding gibberish that means opposition to policies that might be excessively beneficial to those groups, of course.

 

[Care4all]

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????????

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Pretty sounding gibberish that means opposition to policies that might be excessively beneficial to those groups, of course.

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

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 don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — 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.

 

[WillowTree]

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

 

[Agnapostate]

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 don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

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.

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.

Yeah, my "special interests" just happen to include the First Amendment. Crazy shit, I know.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

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 don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

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.

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.

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?

 

[Agnapostate]

The party line being what? Racial quotas? Whose party line is that?

Uh, the party line being the popular conception that there's a deep gulf of separation between policy "creation" and "interpretation."

 

[WillowTree]

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????????

If you weren't so stupid you would see the stupidity in that statement!

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Then she's the one fostering that perception, since she has not been bashful about saying it.

 

[Care4all]

this is ALL to raise money....the GOP will have numerous members voting for her, when all said and done, but they are using this as a TOOL for those that can be tooled, in to giving them their money, but in the end, as said, my bet is that republicans help confirm her.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

The decision came from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court last May, regarding Lewis Mills High School student Avery Doninger. While running for Senior Class Secretary, Ms. Doninger found reason to object to the school's cancellation of a "jamfest" event, and characterized those who scotched the event as "douchebags" on her off-campus LiveJournal blog (she also characterized a school official in that same blog posting as getting "pissed off"). The school officials, in turn, took umbrage, prohibited Avery from running for Class Secretary, and disregarded the plurality of votes she received, anyway, as a write-in candidate. Avery sued the school officials, and the Federal District Court supported the school. Avery appealed to Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court.

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Sotomayor's Court proceeded to affirm the District Court's ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school's right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students "shared values," which include not only the importance of free expression but a "proper respect for authority".


Statism is a bitch.

I think white males have been more deferential to free speech and the rights of the accused.

 

[Ravi]

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????????

I think they are...and it's interesting that his message is that females and/or latinos can't think objectively.

 

[Agnapostate]

Statism is a bitch.

So is repetition.

 

[Care4all]

The decision came from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court last May, regarding Lewis Mills High School student Avery Doninger. While running for Senior Class Secretary, Ms. Doninger found reason to object to the school's cancellation of a "jamfest" event, and characterized those who scotched the event as "douchebags" on her off-campus LiveJournal blog (she also characterized a school official in that same blog posting as getting "pissed off"). The school officials, in turn, took umbrage, prohibited Avery from running for Class Secretary, and disregarded the plurality of votes she received, anyway, as a write-in candidate. Avery sued the school officials, and the Federal District Court supported the school. Avery appealed to Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court.

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Sotomayor's Court proceeded to affirm the District Court's ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school's right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students "shared values," which include not only the importance of free expression but a "proper respect for authority".


Statism is a bitch.

I think white males have been more deferential to free speech and the rights of the accused.

Were there any WHITE male judges that also agreed with her opinion? Certainly one judge of appeals can not and does not make this "decision" on their own?

 

[del]

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????????

I think they are...and it's interesting that his message is that females and/or latinos can't think objectively.

what a load of shit. he said nothing of the kind.
rave on, rav, rave on.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

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.

Oh, no. Some high school kid lawyering up over her free speech rights being violated over the use of the word "douchebag" tops anything I could do for absurdity.

Leave it to a trial lawyer to go to the wall over that.

How old are you?