GOPer's war on latinos and women

[WillowTree]

Really? Did you read the OP? Why they are bringing up her gender or ethnicity is beyond me...you know damn well a white male wouldn't raise these comments.

I've no idea if she's a racist or not, but if they are going to accuse her of being one the burden of proof is on them. Why would I just assume by their accusations that she is a racist?

Like I said, Ravir.. if I drew a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Indeed, I've read quite a bit about her so far. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not falling over in orgasms just because she's got a vagina.

And, I'll tell you like I'm telling this fucking noobster... I'll show you EXACTLY how the same thing happened to Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. Acting like your pussy is aching now that it's happening to YOUR nomination is a joke. Just say the word, Ravir... You may not remember anyting farther back than the last mcdonalds monopoly game but I assure you that THIS is necessary for lifetime appointments.

mmkay...show me, soggy. Show me how Roberts, Alito and Thomas were judged on their race or gender.

Hey! Ravi,, honey.. sotomayor judged herself on her race and her gender.. she said she would make better decisions than a white man..

 

[Yurt]

She wasn't trying to be PC so you and other scared white Republicans would accept her. So she included the race, which is part of background.

Again, if you don't think peoples backgrounds have anything to do with the rulings they make, you are hopelessly naive.

strawman...

the issue here is NOT that backgrounds have little or nothing to do with how people make rulings, it is her comment that her background should enable her to make better rulings than white men who have not lived her life. you are advocating that white people then make better decisions concerning white issues, since they have lived that life. you're so hypocritical, you can't even see what it is you are actually advocating, all you see is a democrat and therefore you blindly defend no matter what.

Yes. Peoples backgrounds allow them to make better, or worse, decisions than other people. Racism is likely one of those issues where one needs to experience it to really get the full effect of it, especially nowadays. There are so many people who claim that it doesn't exist anymore, that its just imaginary, that we live in a perfect utopian color blind society where the only racism is against us poor white folk, that yes, we really need people who have actively experienced racism in positions of power.

And what the hell is a "white issue"?

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.


is the above a true statement? should the above be a factor in picking a judge?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Speaing of gratuitous racial pablum.

Everybody knows Puerto Ricans hate blacks and blacks hate Puerto Ricans.

How do blacks come out ahead on this nomination?

 

[Shogun]

The words of her OPINIONS, do. The words she made while making a speech reflecting that, no shit sherlock, background effects decisions, doesn't.


Thomas was accused of COMMITTING A CRIME. If you don't understand the difference between that and a speech, you really are far gone.

yea, ACCUSED. Was he CONVICTED? No? Then here.. let me make a point.. I'm ACCUSING you of chopping up toddlers for soup. HOLY SHIT!


Is she applying for a job as a judge, or for a talk show host? Her duties as a judge are what matters, not her talks around the country.


Again, I'll post link for link showing this same shit happening to Alito, Roberts and Thomas. And, as a matter of fucking fact, it IS her entire package that matters. This includes the shit she says outside of the robes. But, hey.. I guess your stupid ass would insist that David Duke's outlook only matters when he's wearing official attire!



What exactly does what happenened to other justices have to do with what we are talking about here? Oh right. Nothing at all. Go back to grade school, bitch.


Actually, it proves that you are nothing more than a crybaby bitch who can't take it when THE EXACT SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM HAPPENS TO YOURS.

Clearly, you shouldn't be telling anyone to go back to school you nubsauce motherfucker.



Fish metaphors? Umm creative, I suppose. I guess you have to stoop to shit like that when your points are so obviously inadequate.

Indeed, given how much you are backtracking after we see that Alito dealt with the same shit I guess you WOULD sit there and let your little pussy bleed and feel sorry for yourself! I KNOW dude! it's so INADIQUAT to point out the very same thing happening to Judge Alito!





Myers went to Southern Methodist. Sotomayor went to Yale and Princeton. Myers was white house counsel. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench.
Just a wee difference between those things, you uneducated hack.


ahhh.. so it takes someone from YALE to fill the SCOTUS shoes, eh? Please, tell me more about A RANGE OF PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE!





Wow....it happened in the past, so that makes it justifiable to do it now? Thats your argument? Surely even you can do better than that



yes, bitch, in fact it does. We didn't pull punches with the last three fucking judges and we are not going to now just because your limp wristed faggot ass wants to cry foul.


enjoy your newly stomped mudhole brought to you by Shogun Brand (tm) Mudholes!





stupid motherfucker.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

White men wrote Roe v. Wade.

 

[WillowTree]

Speaing of gratuitous racial pablum.

Everybody knows Puerto Ricans hate blacks and blacks hate Puerto Ricans.

How do blacks come out ahead on this nomination?

I did not know that!

 

[Yurt]

nothing he said was wrong, why don't you be honest and post the whole thing, you bitch all the time when someone posts something out of context....

"Without doubt, Judge Sotomayor's personal life story is truly inspiring. I congratulate her on being nominated. As the U.S. Senate begins the confirmation process, I look forward to looking closer at her recent rulings and her judicial philosophy.

"Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. 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."

Did he wonder if Alito would be able to rule fairly without undue influence from his own personal race, gender, or political preference?

stop playing stupid, you've won the game....

she made race an issue, NOT the senator....she made her race a factor and said she was better able to make a decision than a white male....

Try 8 posts ago, moron.

you didn't make it clear that it was her full quote....why don't you LINK to it? nearly everyone gives a link when they give a full quote....let's see the LINK....

and from what i can see of what you posted as allegedly being her full statement, she did in fact bring her race up. you said she did not.

Yes, actually I did. And you don't need the link, its from a blog.

No, I did not say she never brought her race up. But nice try there.

yes you did...you claimed other people, including the senator made it an issue or brought it up, not her....

she made race an issue, NOT the senator....she made her race a factor and said she was better able to make a decision than a white male....

Umm, no, she didn't. Try reading her full remarks.

another epic fail nik....nice going, its funny how you always proclaim that others fail when you virtually constantly fail

 

[Yurt]

stop playing stupid, you've won the game....

she made race an issue, NOT the senator....she made her race a factor and said she was better able to make a decision than a white male....

That's not what she said. Talk about taking something out of context, you've gone over the edge and out and out lied.

ravi, i suggest you back up your comments and show how i lied. if you do not, it will clearly mean you're full of meadowmuffins....

still waiting ravi.....or are you baking your fresh batch of meadowmuffins?

 

[Shogun]

Really? Did you read the OP? Why they are bringing up her gender or ethnicity is beyond me...you know damn well a white male wouldn't raise these comments.

I've no idea if she's a racist or not, but if they are going to accuse her of being one the burden of proof is on them. Why would I just assume by their accusations that she is a racist?

Like I said, Ravir.. if I drew a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Indeed, I've read quite a bit about her so far. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not falling over in orgasms just because she's got a vagina.

And, I'll tell you like I'm telling this fucking noobster... I'll show you EXACTLY how the same thing happened to Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. Acting like your pussy is aching now that it's happening to YOUR nomination is a joke. Just say the word, Ravir... You may not remember anyting farther back than the last mcdonalds monopoly game but I assure you that THIS is necessary for lifetime appointments.

mmkay...show me, soggy. Show me how Roberts, Alito and Thomas were judged on their race or gender.

You probably shouldnt let Mani see this post or he'll make fun of your laughable twist and dance on the subject of NOMINEE QUOTES. Again, no one is criticisng her for being a woman OR latina. It's her quote that you find yourself being hilariously disengenous in defending.


but hey... YOU asked for it..


Not another white man!
Bush's Roberts pick leaves the high court -- which symbolically represents an entire branch of the federal government -- with only one woman and one racial minority. That's absurd and wrong.
Not another white man! - Salon.com


White men: Bush surprised many when he named Roberts, ignoring pleas for diversity. When confirmed, Roberts will be among six white men on that bench, a historically exclusive group in that sense.
CNN.com - Court vacancy fights: One down, one more to go - Sep 29, 2005

 

[Sinatra]

Her statements alone require closer investigation of her actual qualifications for this position - and the fact Obama has chosen her also invites closer investigations of his motivations.

She declared her own experience as superior of a white man. Could that not be racist? Perhaps - perhaps not - but it deserves a closer look.

Did she not help to block the advancement of firemen based in great part on issues of race? A decision that even a liberal judge appointed by the Clinton administration strongly admonished her for? That deserves a far closer look as well.

She may be a United States Supreme Court Justice. To question her motivations, her reasoning, her basis for legal decisions, is both responsible, and expected - not racist, or gender bias.

Anyone else grown tired of the politics of division that are so often utilized by Leftists - where America is constantly divided against rich and poor, White and other, straight and other, male and other...and on and on and on....

 

[Ravi]

Like I said, Ravir.. if I drew a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Indeed, I've read quite a bit about her so far. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not falling over in orgasms just because she's got a vagina.

And, I'll tell you like I'm telling this fucking noobster... I'll show you EXACTLY how the same thing happened to Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. Acting like your pussy is aching now that it's happening to YOUR nomination is a joke. Just say the word, Ravir... You may not remember anyting farther back than the last mcdonalds monopoly game but I assure you that THIS is necessary for lifetime appointments.

mmkay...show me, soggy. Show me how Roberts, Alito and Thomas were judged on their race or gender.

You probably shouldnt let Mani see this post or he'll make fun of your laughable twist and dance on the subject of NOMINEE QUOTES. Again, no one is criticisng her for being a woman OR latina. It's her quote that you find yourself being hilariously disengenous in defending.


but hey... YOU asked for it..


Not another white man!
Bush's Roberts pick leaves the high court -- which symbolically represents an entire branch of the federal government -- with only one woman and one racial minority. That's absurd and wrong.
Not another white man! - Salon.com


White men: Bush surprised many when he named Roberts, ignoring pleas for diversity. When confirmed, Roberts will be among six white men on that bench, a historically exclusive group in that sense.
CNN.com - Court vacancy fights: One down, one more to go - Sep 29, 2005

Pardon me for not making myself clear...show me where they were judged by those voting on their confirmation for their gender or race. The retard in the OP most definitely gets to vote.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Speaing of gratuitous racial pablum.

Everybody knows Puerto Ricans hate blacks and blacks hate Puerto Ricans.

How do blacks come out ahead on this nomination?

I did not know that!

I'm going to upgrade your street smarts.

 

[Ravi]

Speaing of gratuitous racial pablum.

Everybody knows Puerto Ricans hate blacks and blacks hate Puerto Ricans.

How do blacks come out ahead on this nomination?

I did not know that!

I'm going to upgrade your street smarts.

I didn't either...do black PRs just commit suicide?

 

[WillowTree]

mmkay...show me, soggy. Show me how Roberts, Alito and Thomas were judged on their race or gender.

You probably shouldnt let Mani see this post or he'll make fun of your laughable twist and dance on the subject of NOMINEE QUOTES. Again, no one is criticisng her for being a woman OR latina. It's her quote that you find yourself being hilariously disengenous in defending.


but hey... YOU asked for it..


Not another white man!
Bush's Roberts pick leaves the high court -- which symbolically represents an entire branch of the federal government -- with only one woman and one racial minority. That's absurd and wrong.
Not another white man! - Salon.com


White men: Bush surprised many when he named Roberts, ignoring pleas for diversity. When confirmed, Roberts will be among six white men on that bench, a historically exclusive group in that sense.
CNN.com - Court vacancy fights: One down, one more to go - Sep 29, 2005

Pardon me for not making myself clear...show me where they were judged by those voting on their confirmation for their gender or race. The retard in the OP most definitely gets to vote.

well, insomuch as sotomayor judged herself on her race and gender why shouldn't the rest of them..every good lawyer knows when you open the door the rest is fair game is it not???

 

[Nik]

strawman...

the issue here is NOT that backgrounds have little or nothing to do with how people make rulings, it is her comment that her background should enable her to make better rulings than white men who have not lived her life. you are advocating that white people then make better decisions concerning white issues, since they have lived that life. you're so hypocritical, you can't even see what it is you are actually advocating, all you see is a democrat and therefore you blindly defend no matter what.

Yes. Peoples backgrounds allow them to make better, or worse, decisions than other people. Racism is likely one of those issues where one needs to experience it to really get the full effect of it, especially nowadays. There are so many people who claim that it doesn't exist anymore, that its just imaginary, that we live in a perfect utopian color blind society where the only racism is against us poor white folk, that yes, we really need people who have actively experienced racism in positions of power.

And what the hell is a "white issue"?

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.


is the above a true statement? should the above be a factor in picking a judge?

How am I supposed to know what the speaker hopes or doesn't hope...

 

[Nik]

The words of her OPINIONS, do. The words she made while making a speech reflecting that, no shit sherlock, background effects decisions, doesn't.


Thomas was accused of COMMITTING A CRIME. If you don't understand the difference between that and a speech, you really are far gone.

yea, ACCUSED. Was he CONVICTED? No? Then here.. let me make a point.. I'm ACCUSING you of chopping up toddlers for soup. HOLY SHIT!

Yes, he was accused. And so they looked at the evidence. Your issue with this is what, exactly?

Is she applying for a job as a judge, or for a talk show host? Her duties as a judge are what matters, not her talks around the country.


Again, I'll post link for link showing this same shit happening to Alito, Roberts and Thomas. And, as a matter of fucking fact, it IS her entire package that matters. This includes the shit she says outside of the robes. But, hey.. I guess your stupid ass would insist that David Duke's outlook only matters when he's wearing official attire!

And again, I'll point out that past actions isn't a justification for future ones.

What exactly does what happenened to other justices have to do with what we are talking about here? Oh right. Nothing at all. Go back to grade school, bitch.


Actually, it proves that you are nothing more than a crybaby bitch who can't take it when THE EXACT SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM HAPPENS TO YOURS.

Clearly, you shouldn't be telling anyone to go back to school you nubsauce motherfucker.

I am not Sotomayer, so its not happening to "my" nomination, you dumbshit.

Fish metaphors? Umm creative, I suppose. I guess you have to stoop to shit like that when your points are so obviously inadequate.

Indeed, given how much you are backtracking after we see that Alito dealt with the same shit I guess you WOULD sit there and let your little pussy bleed and feel sorry for yourself! I KNOW dude! it's so INADIQUAT to point out the very same thing happening to Judge Alito!

Backtracking? No. And just because I am defending Sotomayer doesn't mean I am a woman, retard.

Myers went to Southern Methodist. Sotomayor went to Yale and Princeton. Myers was white house counsel. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench.
Just a wee difference between those things, you uneducated hack.


ahhh.. so it takes someone from YALE to fill the SCOTUS shoes, eh? Please, tell me more about A RANGE OF PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE!

No, it doesn't take someone from Yale. But it takes someone from a school with a little more intellectual clout than Southern Methodist.

Wow....it happened in the past, so that makes it justifiable to do it now? Thats your argument? Surely even you can do better than that



yes, bitch, in fact it does. We didn't pull punches with the last three fucking judges and we are not going to now just because your limp wristed faggot ass wants to cry foul.


enjoy your newly stomped mudhole brought to you by Shogun Brand (tm) Mudholes!





stupid motherfucker.

You are conflating "pulling punches" with acting in a responsible manner. But thats not surprising, really.

 

[Yurt]

Yes. Peoples backgrounds allow them to make better, or worse, decisions than other people. Racism is likely one of those issues where one needs to experience it to really get the full effect of it, especially nowadays. There are so many people who claim that it doesn't exist anymore, that its just imaginary, that we live in a perfect utopian color blind society where the only racism is against us poor white folk, that yes, we really need people who have actively experienced racism in positions of power.

And what the hell is a "white issue"?

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.


is the above a true statement? should the above be a factor in picking a judge?

How am I supposed to know what the speaker hopes or doesn't hope...

what a wuss....you defend her statement but can't say boo when the statement is by a white guy....

 

[Yurt]

That's not what she said. Talk about taking something out of context, you've gone over the edge and out and out lied.

ravi, i suggest you back up your comments and show how i lied. if you do not, it will clearly mean you're full of meadowmuffins....

still waiting ravi.....or are you baking your fresh batch of meadowmuffins?

how are those meadowmuffins ravi...

 

[Big Black Dog]

OK, everybody... Here's the real deal. Sotomayor could be the biggest dirtbag on the planet and wear t-shirts that proclaimed herself as a "racist" and do anything else you might think is bogus BUT she will get confirmed, and confirmed quickly because there isn't enough "Power of No" on the Repub side of the aisle to stop her nomination. She's in. Time to start hacking about something new...

And let's quit chipping teeth about Newt Gingrich... I believe he's going to be the next President!

 

[del]

How do you interpret his remark?

her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

i interpret it as a reasonable question about her abilities as a jurist.
singular. solo. pertaining only to sonia sotomayor.

Right. Just like she is so dumb, and such a bully, and so hot around the collar.

I mean its not like she went to YLS. Or Princeton. Or has been a federal judge for a number of years. Or like people have actually cited something, anything, of hers to support that proposition.

Why no issues of race and gender when Alito was nominated? Why didn't conservatives wonder about whether he was selected since he was a white male? This seems an extremely reasonable thing to wonder about considering there have been over a hundred white males on the USSC, and no latinas.

lighten up, francis.