Come January, Republicans are back in power (thank God) and you know what that means? Party time for the freedom-hating, America-hating liberals is all over. No more socialist liberal judges going to the Supreme Court and the mindless sheep in congress (while there are a few left) don't have the votes on lockdown. The party (pun intended) is over. Of course, all of the sudden, the Acting Commander-in-Chief says we must come together. Like the McDonald's commercial says - "I'm lovin' it!"
I think a person from the hispanic background would be wiser than a white man when it comes to certain issue/situations that affect the massive number of hispanics that now live in this country along with african americans. She personally experienced specific racism aimed at hispanics and blacks in her lifetime. How can you call a white man a spic or a nigger? He might know its wrong, but there are dozens of other senarios which the white person wouldn't have the wisedom/experience(Opinion)
I understand now. To be honest, if a White man said that, he would be labeled a racist and it would be taboo for him to say it. But if whites were a minority in america and suffered some form of open oppression (for example whites in south africa, who say this all the time) it would be considered less taboo. I understand your point, and it is a good one. Double standards in society. But you also can not ignore the psychology of humans. They tend to side with those they most relate to.
You're completely misquoting what Sotomayor said, guy. She said she was so "WISE" because of her background. AND that she would be wiser than a white man.
Had a white man said the same things about a latina, you'd be screaming "Racist!" What double standards, and twisting of words here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, the govenment is dumbing down the population and this group is prove. God help you obama freaks. Just look at the policies he is instating and you are to dump to realize it. Did you ever take history in school? LOL
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Its one thing for HW to say Thomas has empathy and its another thing to base your whole pick on that fact. Obama said that was his criteria for picking a judge
There's a difference between having empathy and stating that your ethnicity and gender will cause you to make better decisions than a white male. Big difference.
In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,'
A search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases only three of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.That's a reversal rate of 1.3%!! Only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60% which is not a particularly high number. George Bush's Alito's reversal rate was 100%!! During its 2006-2007 term, the Court reversed 68% of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6% the previous term.
long, the Geneva Convention only protects uniform soldiers or individuals whom their country recognize neither of those things apply to terrorists because they are not recognized by countries and they are not uniformed soldiers.
A search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases only three of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.That's a reversal rate of 1.3%!! Only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60% which is not a particularly high number. George Bush's Alito's reversal rate was 100%!! During its 2006-2007 term, the Court reversed 68% of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6% the previous term.
What the fuck are you talking about asshole? Set off alarms? Are the blacks out stealing instead of studying? If they don't pass it then they don't pass it. Do you want to give them extra points because they are black? Stupid racist.
HAHAHA!! listen at the beginning when young turk says he remembers another person who said something similar. this idiot doesn't remember shit. all this junk is fed to him by the Huff Post for him to spew on this crap show. they also tell him to act as immature as Olbermann too.
If it's not one thing it's another. They will try anything to keep Latinos from becoming successful. Our President is rubbing it in their faces! Look fellasAn intelligent, bright, extremely qualified Latina woman! Shes in.haha yesSHES IN! Im the President and I said shes in. Hmmm who knew Latinos were just as qualified? Hahahahah Thank you Mr. Obama
LOL why? because I speak the truth without insult!? I think you should take a look at yourself if my comment sounds "racist" to you! How many times did they use the word "Hispanic Lady" yes...plenty!! How did you find my comment "racist" again? what part? LOL silly republicans
You are racist because you approve the actions of a racist, racism is the belief that one race is superior to another or that one race deserves special treatment over another,a ruling against the fireman is a racist ruling. And when you support racism, you are in fact a racist, too bad for you. Hopefully you let go of hate someday
lol liberals elected a man who said he would close Guantánamo Bay, hasn't happened.
Liberals elected a man who said opposed the patriot act. But then turns around and and proposes preemptive detention, and his Justice Department makes it impossible for you to sue the government if the government spies on you.
clear what the meaning of libertarian is, and the people that represent the ideology.
People like rand, Friedman, Franklin an Paul are the type that represent the libertarian movement, the current crop of liberals are more like totalitarians and don't even deserve Association.
Just because something is a form of something doesn't mean it's the proper representation.
Doesn't matter my words are wasted on a racist buffoon like you anyway
1 - Liberalism is a very broad set of political ideas that have existed since the European Enlightenment. There is no such thing as a "proper representation" of liberalism.
I reiterate, don't throw words around you don't know the meaning of.
2 - Not supporting an obvious case of white racial nepotism (New Haven) does not make me a racist. Taking sides when you don't know the facts and supporting one side just because of race makes you sound prejudiced.
1 using that definition for liberalism, you completely dodge accountability for you're ideology, very weak minded of you.
2 Nepotism? This is not about nepotism, this is about changing a test,there's nothing racist about academic standards, the fact that you try to misrepresent this in attempt to hide your racism is hilarious though.
liberal >adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one's own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favorable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favoring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience. >noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
Liberalism is a political philosophy as varied as any other with extremes to the "left" and the "right." Ron Paul is as liberal as Ted Kennedy, they just come from different ends of the liberal spectrum and have different ideas of how to make society more free and equal. Liberalism is liberalism.
lol how is Obama proposing preemptive detention, seizing private industry and denying you the ability to sue the government if they spy on you not fascism?
no evidence? LOL for every suppose it conservative example of fascism, I can show you a liberal example of fascism, your holier than thou attitude is what is truly not supported by the evidence
Obama is not "seizing private industry." Thats a very distorted opinion that is not supported by facts. Partial Nationalization is an emergency measure used when there is a major threat of failure in a critical industry. The measure is temporary and the powers the government possesses as a majority share holder are very limited. If he was seizing those industries then he would be taking 100% control of them. The practice is closer to socialism than fascism also.
incorrect federal bailout money has given government, a 60% stock in GM government mandate has also been the driving force in firing management and hiring new management such as Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.
that is in fact government seizure of business, as they GM no longer control hiring and firing decisions
Thats partial nationalization. The dismissal of GM's president was part of the same deal as the government buying 60% of the companies stock. Seizure means taking by force. GM asked for the governments assistance, as has every other industry that has been givin a bailout. Obama said today that the government will take a hands off approach to its position as majority shareholder. Congress also gets a say in how the government deals with GM. GM does still control hiring and firing also.
One man being appointed to GM by the majority shareholders in Washington does not mean that GM has lost control of hiring and firing. This isnt the first time anything like this has happened either. A similar plan emerged during the S&L Crisis.
I do also question the decision to appoint Brian Deese, but only time will tell if he was the right choice. He can always be replaced anyway.
Brian Deese has absolutely no business being a pointer to this position,he has no experience in business whatsoever, but then again, you don't care about hiring the best man for the job, which is obvious by your championing of this racist being appointed to the court
I agree that Brian Deese is a questionable choice.
Sonia Sotomayor is a very good choice for the court. She has spent 19 years in the federal courts, and her record shows her to be, at worst, a liberal leaning moderate. The only conservatives pushing that line about her being a racist are unelected talk radio hosts and bloggers who quote a line from a 2002 essay out of context.. Andrew Sullivan, a real independent conservative, basically laughed out loud at the charge.
for you to call her a moderate is absurd, although I am aware it is a commonly used tactic of the left these days to claim that some of their more extreme choices are moderates in an attempt to water down the meaning of it
There are CONSERVATIVES calling her a moderate. Its the general consesus of many, on both sides, that she is a liberal leaning moderate. Her appointment won't change the makeup of the court anyway. Your just grabbing at straws.
they are not conservatives,you people try to say that McCain and Lindsey Graham are conservative which couldn't be a bigger joke, what a real conservative says that I might be interested until then. You don't have a legitimate ground
Not real conservatives!? John McCain and Lindsey Graham are not real conservatives!? So who should I listen to then? That oxycontin popping, reactionary fool Rush Limbaugh, that dishonest whiner Glenn Beck or maybe that plastic, vapid she-man Ann Coulter?
That attitude is what turned the party of great liberals like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt into the radical, reactionary party of small minded buffoons that make up the GOP today.
1 - At least my comment on Limbaugh was completely factual and didn't ignore the last 40 years.
2 - Where?
4 - Supporting a judge's decision because its based on LAWS and not supporting what FDR did makes me a hypocrite?
Then does supporting the party that called the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and has for decades tried to dismantle it not make you a hypocrite as well considering your past comments?
lol you are pathetic, McCain and Graham are in no way true conservatives,McCain Feingold and McCain Kennedy come to mind as obvious representations of this, as well as the fact that an incredibly large amount of voters felt there was no real difference between McCain and Obama after watching the election debates.
You are a short sighted narrow minded fool who can't even use proper grammar,lol
"That attitude is what turned the party of great liberals like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt into the radical, reactionary party of small minded buffoons that make up the GOP today. "
-Proving my point.
Change v. McBush. That was how people saw Obama and McCain.
bigboss686 - You wrote 3 paragraphs and didnt deny that Conservative Republicans are hypcrits at all! Instead, you tried to change the subject. LMAO!
I'm happy to see that at least one Conservative Republican undestands that his party is a bunch of hypocrits! And that is another reason why they lose elections! Thanks. :D
lol, liberals elected a man who said he would close Gitmo within the first year. Mmm, has a year already passed? Mmm, did he issue an executive order to START closing it on his first day in office?
bigboss686 = Moron
BUT, I do agree with you regarding preemptive detention. Highly unconstitutional.
see you in a year when he still hasn't done it, or else he'll use his preemptive detention to no doubt Cage's adversaries and deny them freedom of speech within those very walls.
After all, what do you expect from a man who's political ideology is reminiscent of the fourth Reich, preemptive detention, seize private business, make it impossible for you to sue the government if they're spying on you, No doubt you admire greatly Obama's German efficiency.
"After all, what do you expect from a man who's political ideology is reminiscent of the fourth Reich, preemptive detention, seize private business, make it impossible for you to sue the government if they're spying on you, No doubt you admire greatly Obama's German efficiency"
"fourth Reich" What is the fourth reich? You mean third, but it is funny how you fucked that up. And for all that preemptive, seizing private, and govt spying, those all reek of Republican/Bush policy of the past years
what are you slow? Hitler had the third Reich,Obama is instituting the fourth,what you want some kind of fucked up movie sequel name? maybe third Reich 2 The sequel, now it's in color.lol
Yes indeed, those do reek of Bush, isn't it nice to know that Obama is keeping things business as usual. Through proposals for preemptive detention an denial of legal protection against spying.
Face it, liberals you took by a Svengali named Obama
a person can't be paranoid when the evidence says they are correct, I suggest you buy a dictionary so that you understand how to use that word properly
"what are you slow? Hitler had the third Reich,Obama is instituting the fourth,what you want some kind of fucked up movie sequel name? maybe third Reich 2 " No dumbass, you said it reeks of the fourth reich. That is why I said do you not mean third.
Do you remember this movie with Richard Pryor and John Candy about how to spend 30 millions in 30 days? I think is an adaptation of Brewster's Millions... Whatever, the point is: only the politician you run for none of the above, saying that he does try to trick you to get your vote and he is "an ass hole"... O.k, that might be a bit too much cynical, but there is a point.
torture is against the constitution, the 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment aka torture. even if they are foreign nationals, the geneva conventions still forbid torture.
I'm a libertarian you moron,I never supported the patriot act or any other attempt to shred the Constitution.
As far as torture those people are foreign nationals and are not covered under the Constitution,
I wouldn't take a holier than thou attitude if I were you. Bush was bad, but Obama is worse, after all. Obama is the one that just recently proposed preemptive detention.
Please educate yourself and do some traveling, so you actually learn something about the world
if you're going to make a statement like that. My friend, then you absolutely cannot support Obama's choice for the Supreme Court.
After all, if torture goes against the spirit of the Constitution then a judge who rules for and believes that the tyranny of the majority in the state has a right to deny you your protection under the Constitution is just as bad.
After all, if a state can legislate away your protection under the Constitution you've lost your rights anyway.
ah yes democracy, one of the four other steppingstones on the way to an oligarchy.
America was never supposed to be a democracy it was always supposed to be a constitutional republic, if you don't know the difference I will be happy to explain it to you
Actually the problem is that the vote you're talking about amended the constitution of california itself. Its hard to say that a constitution is unconstitutional with a straight face.
Well, I think she competent... This is the most important issue there. I do not support but I do not oppose ;)
But, tyranny of the majority is something that make my worry a little bit. And this is one of the reason a country need a good constitution. It's help to reduce the problem. You have a very good one but it will never eliminate the risk...
A good information system also help, and I think this is a more important issue, right now, then who are the judge at the supreme court.
the issue of these judges is an issue that encompasses all those things, after all. The problem with the judiciary last 40 years of the judiciary has been ranting right's, something they are not in title to do.
The judiciary can only say no, they have no power to empower.
After all, this woman is going on, the highest court in the land, and she believes that a state has the right to override your constitutional rights, which destroys all of them
nope, it does not cover people on US soilunless they are a CITIZEN.
If that were the case foreign nationals could sneak on to US embassies and not be deported or thrown out.
You are right that Bush broke his oath to defend the Constitution, but as far as the firing squad, you better put Obama right beside him, because what he proposes is far worse than Bush
You should be ashamed of yourself! You know so little about your Constitution it's scary! You wouldn't pass a Citenzship Exam if you were an alien trying to EARN your citizenship.
Google "Citizenship test", look up question 84 on the first page that comes up on google. Scroll down to the answer.
You fail. You have no right to call yourself an American.
You should be ashamed of yourself! You know so little about your Constitution it's scary! You wouldn't pass a Citenzship Exam if you were an alien trying to EARN your citizenship.
Google "Citizenship test", look up question 84 on the first page that comes up on google. Scroll down to the answer.
You fail. You have no right to call yourself an American.
You are such an idiot, my statement holds true, because the question goes.
Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) *LIVING* in U.S.
even under that definition you have to have demonstrated some kind of a residence.
Before you wag your finger like to know what all you really should know it all, but then again your type have never been much for intellectual excellence lol
84. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) living in U.S.
Now, Guantanamo is a base at Cuba... So it could be, technically, called a special territory and/or a base in a foreign country. This made an open debate if it is in the U.S or not. This is a boring and it is on technicalities... It also mean it is be a bit of Cuba's job to enforce the right of prisoner (This is how to piss off a lot of peoples in long term).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
when you quote this the words turned to ashes, you already violate them. By demanding academic changes that discriminate against a man with a learning disability, and the Hispanic community by demanding the rules be changed.
You are racist against Hispanics, the mentally handicapped and whites, nice list you have going there
I have not demanded academic changes. I have simply said that the decision in New Haven was correct, under your definion in fact, because it was based on existing federal and state LAW. On its surface it also appears to be a case of white racial nepotism.
You cannot argue that an individual should follow the law and then make exceptions because you disagree with that law. The law should be followed even if it is unfair. If you dont like the law, try and change it.
Judicial activism means a judge makes a decision that you oppose POLITICALLY. It is a term used by political pundits, on both sides, to politicize the courts.
The New Haven decision was based on existing LAWS passed by LEGISLATORS. There were two other judges involved also and the decision was unanimous.
With statements like this it's like you're in a misconception that you can put time limits on legislative and judicial activism,lol
judges have the obligation to not enforce bad law, when something violates the Constitution is judicial activism. Every time a judge or reiterates this fallacy.
Judicial Review - The power of the courts to annul the acts of the executive and/or the legislative power where it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution.
Virtually every modern democratic state gives its courts this power. The only judges in the US who actually have this authority are the 9 justices of the US Supreme Court.
Laws do sometimes have time limits. Thats why congress had to renew the Patriot Act in 2005.
I should be on the supreme court. I have no empathy for anybody whatsoever. bring me one of your boohoo crybaby cases and I'll shoot it down just cuz it's fun to shatter someone's hopes and dreams. life isn't fair and neither am I.
A judge should be like a Vulcan. She has emotions just like anyone, she just supresses them. And she sure doesn't consider them a badge of honor when interpreting law.
theres a difference between comparing samuel alitos own experiences with sotomayors racist tirades and talk of how hispanics are better than whites but liberals are so brain dead and biased they think if a conservative judge relates to people hes a racist but if a racist hispanic womans says shes better than all whites shes just relating to her background
Stop teaching your children to be empathetic... I mean seriously if it is such a bad thing we should stop right... after all what if they want to pursue a career in politics or justest.. you don't want to limit their options. Empathy is one of the things that separates us from the animals... Is it not?
Actually I do have a kid that is going into politics and he is doing quite well empathy and all. Just because you are empathetic does not mean that you will not come to your conclusions based on the law.
You know what the problem is? People keep forgetting that even the most authoritative people - people with high power - are only human. Therefore, they can make verbal mistakes when speaking. Everyone does it, and they will do it. It's called being human. She might have said something wrong (though most of it was out of context), but she is human. Does one slip-up make someone the worst person of all? Highly unlikely.
And donottake, be a troll somewhere else. No one wants you here, so get lost.
But what she said had nothing to do with race. She meant - if you read the entire quote - that because of her past and what she had to go through, that she as a latino woman would better understand what many immigrants go through than a white man who has NOT lived such a life. Any half-brained person could point this out, even with the quote by itself.
True, "Any half-brained person could point this out"... heheh. But you're missing the point.
Immigrants have one point of view, and non-immigrants have another. Neither point of view is truly 'better' than another, especially when it comes to a neutral interpretation of law.
I understand what you say, but I also understand what she meant. It's because she knows about the life of an immigrant that she would put the law as it should be into the court. Needless to say, there are several cases where immigrants get the short end of the stick.
But her views are conservative, as far as I know. And from what I've been hearing, there were many cases where she put the law before her own beliefs, contradicting what she believes, in a sense. That's a judge I can trust in court
so you can trust a judge who says that your rights under the Constitution can be voided by any State?
You do realize that if the state can deprive you of your rights under the Constitution the Constitution becomes completely worthless and your rights can be sacrificed at the whim of anybody.
Come on lets keep it real. your own words you just spoke. did you really mean what you said. do the words that come from your lips mean what you were thinking, or were you making conversation. Because the words spoken by this judge, who my be sitting on the highest court in the land. should not be making policy, but should be upholding constitutional laws. dr. martin luther king said judge a person on their character and not the color of their skin. this should not be made a race issue
Sotomayor's support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
The New Haven case began when the city did a review of their Firefighter Officer exam and found that no Blacks had ever passed the exam. The city decided to change the exam so it would be more fair. A white firefighter then sued claiming "reverse racism." Judge Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling against the white firefighter.
I agree with her decision. It was well within the laws of New Jersey.
How am I a racist because I agree with that decision? It was a fair legal decision based on the laws of the city of New Haven and the state of Connecticut. If I was a racist I would be rallying against the case despite what the law says, not for it.
Does my thinking OJ Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife also make me a racist?
I don't know Rock and I don't give a shit about him. If you want to beat your chest and say "I want one of these and one of those, etc." then do it across the board of you even want anyone to believe you really believe in that rubbish rather than cherry pick to discriminate against whites. And I don't give a shit somebody says "I'm white I whites need to step aside for non-whites." Any guilty white can step aside if he so chooses but don't push your racist views on others.
At Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: "(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law I know." She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
Sotomayor will be excused because the lamestream media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Why is her membership a problem. you are taking the tranlation to literal. It does not mean race in that way. NCLR is no worse than the united way. LGTB org. are for the advance ment of LGTB's are you going to say theu are racist or i guess sexist would fit better. Quit reading your forwarded emails and learn a little bit more. before you start making baseless claims.
From what I understand NCLA is the Latino version of the NAACP. It is the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy group in the US. It is also non-partisan.
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn't lived that life."
Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Libs, on the otherhand, never take responsibililty for their actions or racism and bigotry. All we get out of libs are excuses
And Simpson is innocent because they tried him for one night where he killed two people and did not look at all of the other nights he did not kill anyone.
You are part of the same racist group that wanted to crucify Imus, a radio shock jock, for trying to be funny and saying a couple of words about some black women basketball players. Big fucking deal. All of you fuckers went ballistic. Now we have a bonafide lib racist on the Supreme Court and all you fuckers can do is make excuses for her. "Oh, she meant this", "Oh, it's out of context", "Oh, she is non-white what is the big deal". Take responsibility for once.
oohh so im racist for disagreeing with a racist comment lol
pls read watch the video.. it actually shows a white conservative say almost exactly the same thing.. and i didnt see anyone kick up a fuss about that
lmanr, you are right. They bloody neocons are cannot tell what racism. By nature, they are racist and have always benefited from the imbalance and unequal system that racism help shape. Republican nominated justices expressed the same sentiments like Judge Sotomayor, but in their hypocrisy, they would conveniently forget those examples. It is also interesting when they show condescending admiration for the achievement of a minority as if it is uncharacteristic for minorities to be overachievers
Come January, Republicans are back in power (thank God) and you know what that means? Party time for the freedom-hating, America-hating liberals is all over. No more socialist liberal judges going to the Supreme Court and the mindless sheep in congress (while there are a few left) don't have the votes on lockdown. The party (pun intended) is over. Of course, all of the sudden, the Acting Commander-in-Chief says we must come together. Like the McDonald's commercial says - "I'm lovin' it!"
Mikey77B 1 year ago
I hate TYT, these people are so stupid, they are on the wrong side of every issue.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Well, guess it sucks to be a republican like you.
hughes7520 1 year ago
When the GOP takes a two thirds majority in 2014,impeachments will flow faster than blood in Transylvania.
rentslave 2 years ago
I think a person from the hispanic background would be wiser than a white man when it comes to certain issue/situations that affect the massive number of hispanics that now live in this country along with african americans. She personally experienced specific racism aimed at hispanics and blacks in her lifetime. How can you call a white man a spic or a nigger? He might know its wrong, but there are dozens of other senarios which the white person wouldn't have the wisedom/experience(Opinion)
Coolflames101 2 years ago
that may be, but what would say if a white guy said that because of his background, he would be a wiser choice.
hint0122 1 year ago
I dont understand your question. White guy said what?
Coolflames101 1 year ago
if a white man said he would would be a better choice since he is a white man, what would have happened then?
hint0122 1 year ago
I understand now. To be honest, if a White man said that, he would be labeled a racist and it would be taboo for him to say it. But if whites were a minority in america and suffered some form of open oppression (for example whites in south africa, who say this all the time) it would be considered less taboo. I understand your point, and it is a good one. Double standards in society. But you also can not ignore the psychology of humans. They tend to side with those they most relate to.
Coolflames101 1 year ago
Czenk,
You're completely misquoting what Sotomayor said, guy. She said she was so "WISE" because of her background. AND that she would be wiser than a white man.
Had a white man said the same things about a latina, you'd be screaming "Racist!" What double standards, and twisting of words here.
arslp 2 years ago 2
Does Alito say how "wise" he is.
In no way does he call himself SO "Wise" because of his background;
OR that he would be wiser than a latina.
Czenk, comparing apples and baking soda, dude.
arslp 2 years ago
Why assume there is only the one point to compare? Come on, ignoramus.
usucdik 2 years ago
Your sweet words are so compelling.....
dik.
arslp 2 years ago
why do people insist on quoting obama by just making things up?
bengraham21 2 years ago
Yep
A Black man in power makes a lot of White people crazy.
It's a FACT!
imbeachasbro 2 years ago 6
hes half white and half black
hint0122 1 year ago
purrrrfect
fanagot 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, the govenment is dumbing down the population and this group is prove. God help you obama freaks. Just look at the policies he is instating and you are to dump to realize it. Did you ever take history in school? LOL
frostytx 2 years ago
WOW.
ain't this a bitch!!!?
If a liberal had said that, there would have been WWIII in this bitch!
HYPOCRISY!!!!
diah4 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its one thing for HW to say Thomas has empathy and its another thing to base your whole pick on that fact. Obama said that was his criteria for picking a judge
pcarlton3 2 years ago
She's more qualified than Thomas.
blockthis08 2 years ago 6
Oh my god;the last sentence-Cenk admitted BOTH SIDES demonize and use word games against the other-----HE'S GROWING UP RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES!!;
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
There's a difference between having empathy and stating that your ethnicity and gender will cause you to make better decisions than a white male. Big difference.
natureboy1972 2 years ago
Those racist hijos de puta.
araknafobia720 2 years ago
Sam Alito is a hard-core fascist.
dizzymasekela 2 years ago
alito=conflict of interest
Mediterraneanblue9 2 years ago
What qualities are conservatives looking for in a Supreme Court nominee?
Cruelty, bigotry and status quo
u2beandme 2 years ago
incorrect
bigboss686 2 years ago
Try citing a source for your definitions?
winonatechie 2 years ago
In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,'
jblcva 2 years ago
The Court of Appeals does set policy. Judicial Policy, also known as precedent. The lower courts follow the precedents set by the Court of Appeals.
The same rule applies to the Supreme Court. When it sets a precedent all lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, have to follow that precedent.
Judicial precedent is the same thing as judicial policy. The two terms are interchangeable.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Some of the decisions this woman hands
down are overturned. Why post someone
who will be legislating from the bench.
Clarence Thomas is a fair judge. 5-4
ruling on the 2nd ammend slam dunk.
I don't like the way the court is headed.
jblcva 2 years ago
A search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases only three of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.That's a reversal rate of 1.3%!! Only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60% which is not a particularly high number. George Bush's Alito's reversal rate was 100%!! During its 2006-2007 term, the Court reversed 68% of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6% the previous term.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Quote from Lynx787.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Jbl - "Most" of the decisions this woman made have been overturned? you say...
Source please?
Hannity or Rush not acceptable!
DillonX 2 years ago
Did you hear Rush, Sean make that
statement? I don't listen to radio. I
listen to the CD player.
jblcva 2 years ago
long, the Geneva Convention only protects uniform soldiers or individuals whom their country recognize neither of those things apply to terrorists because they are not recognized by countries and they are not uniformed soldiers.
Leftist judicial activism does not change that
bigboss686 2 years ago
Comment removed
jblcva 2 years ago
A search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases only three of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.That's a reversal rate of 1.3%!! Only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60% which is not a particularly high number. George Bush's Alito's reversal rate was 100%!! During its 2006-2007 term, the Court reversed 68% of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6% the previous term.
Lynx787 2 years ago
Typical Republican behaviour, nothing new.
ZandRTheFlop 2 years ago
Justice Alito is a Lib, obviously.
No wait, I'm CON-fuzed...
...
marcomariaz26 2 years ago
Well put Cenk. Them fuck'n puckr'd up stuffed up narrow minded conservative little SMALL MEN!
renesaso454 2 years ago
have a long!!! way to go with to catch up to the puckr'd up stuffed up narrow minded liberal little SMALL MEN!
bigboss686 2 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about asshole? Set off alarms? Are the blacks out stealing instead of studying? If they don't pass it then they don't pass it. Do you want to give them extra points because they are black? Stupid racist.
donottake 2 years ago
HAHAHA!! listen at the beginning when young turk says he remembers another person who said something similar. this idiot doesn't remember shit. all this junk is fed to him by the Huff Post for him to spew on this crap show. they also tell him to act as immature as Olbermann too.
friction00815 2 years ago
FYI: Sotomayor is not an immigrant. Puerto Ricans are born as U.S. citizens.
vwestlife 2 years ago
Haha that was funny Cenk- thanks!
Susieshepherd 2 years ago
If it's not one thing it's another. They will try anything to keep Latinos from becoming successful. Our President is rubbing it in their faces! Look fellasAn intelligent, bright, extremely qualified Latina woman! Shes in.haha yesSHES IN! Im the President and I said shes in. Hmmm who knew Latinos were just as qualified? Hahahahah Thank you Mr. Obama
Picassolifeart 2 years ago
you must be a racist, just like him then, too bad for you
bigboss686 2 years ago
LOL why? because I speak the truth without insult!? I think you should take a look at yourself if my comment sounds "racist" to you! How many times did they use the word "Hispanic Lady" yes...plenty!! How did you find my comment "racist" again? what part? LOL silly republicans
Picassolifeart 2 years ago
You are racist because you approve the actions of a racist, racism is the belief that one race is superior to another or that one race deserves special treatment over another,a ruling against the fireman is a racist ruling. And when you support racism, you are in fact a racist, too bad for you. Hopefully you let go of hate someday
bigboss686 2 years ago
Nice try but no burning cross..LOL sorry.
Picassolifeart 2 years ago
The best word to describe Conservatives Republicans is ... HYPOCRIT! I've been calling them hypocrits for years. How much more evidence do we need?!
Americans dont elect hypocrits. And that is why Conservatives lose elections!!! :D
halette20001 2 years ago
lol liberals elected a man who said he would close Guantánamo Bay, hasn't happened.
Liberals elected a man who said opposed the patriot act. But then turns around and and proposes preemptive detention, and his Justice Department makes it impossible for you to sue the government if the government spies on you.
Liberal= HYPOCRITE
bigboss686 2 years ago
You call yourself a libertarian and then call liberals hypocrites. Libertarianism is a type of liberalism.
Don't throw around words you don't know the meaning of.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
clear what the meaning of libertarian is, and the people that represent the ideology.
People like rand, Friedman, Franklin an Paul are the type that represent the libertarian movement, the current crop of liberals are more like totalitarians and don't even deserve Association.
Just because something is a form of something doesn't mean it's the proper representation.
Doesn't matter my words are wasted on a racist buffoon like you anyway
bigboss686 2 years ago
1 - Liberalism is a very broad set of political ideas that have existed since the European Enlightenment. There is no such thing as a "proper representation" of liberalism.
I reiterate, don't throw words around you don't know the meaning of.
2 - Not supporting an obvious case of white racial nepotism (New Haven) does not make me a racist. Taking sides when you don't know the facts and supporting one side just because of race makes you sound prejudiced.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
1 using that definition for liberalism, you completely dodge accountability for you're ideology, very weak minded of you.
2 Nepotism? This is not about nepotism, this is about changing a test,there's nothing racist about academic standards, the fact that you try to misrepresent this in attempt to hide your racism is hilarious though.
bigboss686 2 years ago
liberal >adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one's own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favorable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favoring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience. >noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
-DERIVATIVES liberalism >noun liberality >noun liberally >adverb.
-ORIGIN originally meaning 'suitable for a free man': from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free man'.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
hooray for you and verbal gymnastics, doesn't change the fact that you still want to have it both ways. In an effort to dodge responsibility
bigboss686 2 years ago
Liberalism is a political philosophy as varied as any other with extremes to the "left" and the "right." Ron Paul is as liberal as Ted Kennedy, they just come from different ends of the liberal spectrum and have different ideas of how to make society more free and equal. Liberalism is liberalism.
Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism = "right."
Modern/Social Liberalism ="left."
How am I having it both ways?
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Modern Conservatism = Christian Fundamentalism and Fascism
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago 5
A part of me wants to argue against that, but sadly that is true for a large part of the conservative movement in America today.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
lol how is Obama proposing preemptive detention, seizing private industry and denying you the ability to sue the government if they spy on you not fascism?
bigboss686 2 years ago
there is no evidence of this. Stop watching glenn beck.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago
no evidence? LOL for every suppose it conservative example of fascism, I can show you a liberal example of fascism, your holier than thou attitude is what is truly not supported by the evidence
bigboss686 2 years ago
Obama is not "seizing private industry." Thats a very distorted opinion that is not supported by facts. Partial Nationalization is an emergency measure used when there is a major threat of failure in a critical industry. The measure is temporary and the powers the government possesses as a majority share holder are very limited. If he was seizing those industries then he would be taking 100% control of them. The practice is closer to socialism than fascism also.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
incorrect federal bailout money has given government, a 60% stock in GM government mandate has also been the driving force in firing management and hiring new management such as Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.
that is in fact government seizure of business, as they GM no longer control hiring and firing decisions
bigboss686 2 years ago
Thats partial nationalization. The dismissal of GM's president was part of the same deal as the government buying 60% of the companies stock. Seizure means taking by force. GM asked for the governments assistance, as has every other industry that has been givin a bailout. Obama said today that the government will take a hands off approach to its position as majority shareholder. Congress also gets a say in how the government deals with GM. GM does still control hiring and firing also.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
if GM still controls the hiring and firing, but how do you explain Brian Deese?
GM didn't hire them. He was appointed by Obama sorry logic and reality proves you wrong again
bigboss686 2 years ago
One man being appointed to GM by the majority shareholders in Washington does not mean that GM has lost control of hiring and firing. This isnt the first time anything like this has happened either. A similar plan emerged during the S&L Crisis.
I do also question the decision to appoint Brian Deese, but only time will tell if he was the right choice. He can always be replaced anyway.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Brian Deese has absolutely no business being a pointer to this position,he has no experience in business whatsoever, but then again, you don't care about hiring the best man for the job, which is obvious by your championing of this racist being appointed to the court
bigboss686 2 years ago
I agree that Brian Deese is a questionable choice.
Sonia Sotomayor is a very good choice for the court. She has spent 19 years in the federal courts, and her record shows her to be, at worst, a liberal leaning moderate. The only conservatives pushing that line about her being a racist are unelected talk radio hosts and bloggers who quote a line from a 2002 essay out of context.. Andrew Sullivan, a real independent conservative, basically laughed out loud at the charge.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
for you to call her a moderate is absurd, although I am aware it is a commonly used tactic of the left these days to claim that some of their more extreme choices are moderates in an attempt to water down the meaning of it
bigboss686 2 years ago
There are CONSERVATIVES calling her a moderate. Its the general consesus of many, on both sides, that she is a liberal leaning moderate. Her appointment won't change the makeup of the court anyway. Your just grabbing at straws.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
they are not conservatives,you people try to say that McCain and Lindsey Graham are conservative which couldn't be a bigger joke, what a real conservative says that I might be interested until then. You don't have a legitimate ground
bigboss686 2 years ago
Not real conservatives!? John McCain and Lindsey Graham are not real conservatives!? So who should I listen to then? That oxycontin popping, reactionary fool Rush Limbaugh, that dishonest whiner Glenn Beck or maybe that plastic, vapid she-man Ann Coulter?
That attitude is what turned the party of great liberals like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt into the radical, reactionary party of small minded buffoons that make up the GOP today.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
If you think McCain and Grant have more in common with Roosevelt and Lincoln Then you have absolutely no perspective on history.
perhaps they should be like the dem's of today such as Robert Byrd, the kkk member, or how about Al Gore, in college he hung out with Joseph Phelps.
Or how about the most beloved monster in history, FDR, he interned the Japanese.
Enjoy your history lesson, you really needed it
bigboss686 2 years ago
1 - Robert Byrd left the KKK decades ago and has apologized for his past actions. That doesn't make them right.
2 - Guilt by association is a dishonest way to attack people.
3 - Do you expect me to defend the Japanese Internment? Its the greatest stain on FDR's legacy and there was no reason to have done it.
4 - None of that has anything to do with my post. Don't change the subject when you can't make an honest response.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
1 relevant because you brought up Limbaugh's pill problem.
2 Relevant because you've done it
3 relevant because it points out your hypocrisy
4 relevant because statements made in your previous post
bigboss686 2 years ago
1 - At least my comment on Limbaugh was completely factual and didn't ignore the last 40 years.
2 - Where?
4 - Supporting a judge's decision because its based on LAWS and not supporting what FDR did makes me a hypocrite?
Then does supporting the party that called the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and has for decades tried to dismantle it not make you a hypocrite as well considering your past comments?
4 - How? Your just trying to dodge the question.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
5 - John McCain and Lindsey Graham are still conservatives and will be no matter how hard you want them not to be.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
lol you are pathetic, McCain and Graham are in no way true conservatives,McCain Feingold and McCain Kennedy come to mind as obvious representations of this, as well as the fact that an incredibly large amount of voters felt there was no real difference between McCain and Obama after watching the election debates.
You are a short sighted narrow minded fool who can't even use proper grammar,lol
bigboss686 2 years ago
"That attitude is what turned the party of great liberals like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt into the radical, reactionary party of small minded buffoons that make up the GOP today. "
-Proving my point.
Change v. McBush. That was how people saw Obama and McCain.
Wow, I forgot a comma!
Thrasher9996 2 years ago 3
"lol suck my balls, you want to be Texan meth addict,?"
"or get your gay midget hooker to? teach you how to type proper grammar, you worthless uneducated, trailer trash "
"You are a short sighted (COMMA) narrow minded fool who can't even use proper grammar,lol (PERIOD SPACE SPACE LOL EXCLAMATION)"
Insults are the last bastion of the ignorant, and guess what your left with? Insulting me on my profile and complaining about MY grammar.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
You using a straw man.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You using a straw man.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
bigboss686 - You wrote 3 paragraphs and didnt deny that Conservative Republicans are hypcrits at all! Instead, you tried to change the subject. LMAO!
I'm happy to see that at least one Conservative Republican undestands that his party is a bunch of hypocrits! And that is another reason why they lose elections! Thanks. :D
halette20001 2 years ago
of course Republicans are hypocrites because they act like nothing more than the Liberals we have now, they are not a true opposition party.
They are not true conservatives/libertarians, if I were you I would be more concerned over the monstrous hypocrisy shown by the people you champion,
bigboss686 2 years ago
Irony: at it's finest.
Zeelxx 2 years ago
lol, liberals elected a man who said he would close Gitmo within the first year. Mmm, has a year already passed? Mmm, did he issue an executive order to START closing it on his first day in office?
bigboss686 = Moron
BUT, I do agree with you regarding preemptive detention. Highly unconstitutional.
politicalfarce 2 years ago
see you in a year when he still hasn't done it, or else he'll use his preemptive detention to no doubt Cage's adversaries and deny them freedom of speech within those very walls.
After all, what do you expect from a man who's political ideology is reminiscent of the fourth Reich, preemptive detention, seize private business, make it impossible for you to sue the government if they're spying on you, No doubt you admire greatly Obama's German efficiency.
bigboss686 2 years ago
"After all, what do you expect from a man who's political ideology is reminiscent of the fourth Reich, preemptive detention, seize private business, make it impossible for you to sue the government if they're spying on you, No doubt you admire greatly Obama's German efficiency"
"fourth Reich" What is the fourth reich? You mean third, but it is funny how you fucked that up. And for all that preemptive, seizing private, and govt spying, those all reek of Republican/Bush policy of the past years
facefullofcum 2 years ago
what are you slow? Hitler had the third Reich,Obama is instituting the fourth,what you want some kind of fucked up movie sequel name? maybe third Reich 2 The sequel, now it's in color.lol
Yes indeed, those do reek of Bush, isn't it nice to know that Obama is keeping things business as usual. Through proposals for preemptive detention an denial of legal protection against spying.
Face it, liberals you took by a Svengali named Obama
bigboss686 2 years ago
Just because you're paranoid...
lol..
marcomariaz26 2 years ago
a person can't be paranoid when the evidence says they are correct, I suggest you buy a dictionary so that you understand how to use that word properly
bigboss686 2 years ago
"what are you slow? Hitler had the third Reich,Obama is instituting the fourth,what you want some kind of fucked up movie sequel name? maybe third Reich 2 " No dumbass, you said it reeks of the fourth reich. That is why I said do you not mean third.
facefullofcum 2 years ago
Do you remember this movie with Richard Pryor and John Candy about how to spend 30 millions in 30 days? I think is an adaptation of Brewster's Millions... Whatever, the point is: only the politician you run for none of the above, saying that he does try to trick you to get your vote and he is "an ass hole"... O.k, that might be a bit too much cynical, but there is a point.
therrydicule 2 years ago
torture is against the constitution, the 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment aka torture. even if they are foreign nationals, the geneva conventions still forbid torture.
SilentRevolution09 2 years ago
after reading these comments i some how feel stupider >.>
lmcdowall 2 years ago
lol
econchick 2 years ago
I'm a libertarian you moron,I never supported the patriot act or any other attempt to shred the Constitution.
As far as torture those people are foreign nationals and are not covered under the Constitution,
I wouldn't take a holier than thou attitude if I were you. Bush was bad, but Obama is worse, after all. Obama is the one that just recently proposed preemptive detention.
Please educate yourself and do some traveling, so you actually learn something about the world
bigboss686 2 years ago
O.k, may be torture is not cover by the constitution... But it still goes against the spirit of it.
therrydicule 2 years ago
if you're going to make a statement like that. My friend, then you absolutely cannot support Obama's choice for the Supreme Court.
After all, if torture goes against the spirit of the Constitution then a judge who rules for and believes that the tyranny of the majority in the state has a right to deny you your protection under the Constitution is just as bad.
After all, if a state can legislate away your protection under the Constitution you've lost your rights anyway.
bigboss686 2 years ago
That's how voting works, except in the 2000 election, but otherwise, what the majority votes for is what gets passed.
jfrsnjhnsn 2 years ago
ah yes democracy, one of the four other steppingstones on the way to an oligarchy.
America was never supposed to be a democracy it was always supposed to be a constitutional republic, if you don't know the difference I will be happy to explain it to you
bigboss686 2 years ago
Actually the problem is that the vote you're talking about amended the constitution of california itself. Its hard to say that a constitution is unconstitutional with a straight face.
K1ngmaker 2 years ago
Well, I think she competent... This is the most important issue there. I do not support but I do not oppose ;)
But, tyranny of the majority is something that make my worry a little bit. And this is one of the reason a country need a good constitution. It's help to reduce the problem. You have a very good one but it will never eliminate the risk...
A good information system also help, and I think this is a more important issue, right now, then who are the judge at the supreme court.
therrydicule 2 years ago
the issue of these judges is an issue that encompasses all those things, after all. The problem with the judiciary last 40 years of the judiciary has been ranting right's, something they are not in title to do.
The judiciary can only say no, they have no power to empower.
After all, this woman is going on, the highest court in the land, and she believes that a state has the right to override your constitutional rights, which destroys all of them
bigboss686 2 years ago
I thing the custom actually protect my against her in short term ;)
therrydicule 2 years ago
The constitution covers ANYBODY on US soil, not just US citizens. Guantanamo Bay is Us soil. Just like US Embassies are US soil.
Bush broke his oath to protect and defend the constitution.
In my opinion the punishment for treason during wartime is death by firing squad.
politicalfarce 2 years ago
nope, it does not cover people on US soilunless they are a CITIZEN.
If that were the case foreign nationals could sneak on to US embassies and not be deported or thrown out.
You are right that Bush broke his oath to defend the Constitution, but as far as the firing squad, you better put Obama right beside him, because what he proposes is far worse than Bush
bigboss686 2 years ago
You should be ashamed of yourself! You know so little about your Constitution it's scary! You wouldn't pass a Citenzship Exam if you were an alien trying to EARN your citizenship.
Google "Citizenship test", look up question 84 on the first page that comes up on google. Scroll down to the answer.
You fail. You have no right to call yourself an American.
politicalfarce 2 years ago
You should be ashamed of yourself! You know so little about your Constitution it's scary! You wouldn't pass a Citenzship Exam if you were an alien trying to EARN your citizenship.
Google "Citizenship test", look up question 84 on the first page that comes up on google. Scroll down to the answer.
You fail. You have no right to call yourself an American.
bigboss686 2 years ago
You are such an idiot, my statement holds true, because the question goes.
Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) *LIVING* in U.S.
even under that definition you have to have demonstrated some kind of a residence.
Before you wag your finger like to know what all you really should know it all, but then again your type have never been much for intellectual excellence lol
bigboss686 2 years ago
No you don't have to have demonstrated residence AT ALL!
Even illegal immigrants have all their constitutional rights.
If a russian spy flying over Alaska is shot down and captured, he has Constitutional rights.
Having constitutional rights doesn't make them citizens, and it doesn't mean they can't be deported, incarcerated or executed for their crimes.
You are just very confused about what the Constitution is. It's ok, inbred retards are protected by it as well. Don't worry.
politicalfarce 2 years ago
84. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) living in U.S.
Now, Guantanamo is a base at Cuba... So it could be, technically, called a special territory and/or a base in a foreign country. This made an open debate if it is in the U.S or not. This is a boring and it is on technicalities... It also mean it is be a bit of Cuba's job to enforce the right of prisoner (This is how to piss off a lot of peoples in long term).
therrydicule 2 years ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The rights of man are universal and apply to all.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
/watch?v=FBMcosPMjDw&
u2beandme 2 years ago
when you quote this the words turned to ashes, you already violate them. By demanding academic changes that discriminate against a man with a learning disability, and the Hispanic community by demanding the rules be changed.
You are racist against Hispanics, the mentally handicapped and whites, nice list you have going there
Thrasher9996
bigboss686 2 years ago
I have not demanded academic changes. I have simply said that the decision in New Haven was correct, under your definion in fact, because it was based on existing federal and state LAW. On its surface it also appears to be a case of white racial nepotism.
You cannot argue that an individual should follow the law and then make exceptions because you disagree with that law. The law should be followed even if it is unfair. If you dont like the law, try and change it.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
please learn what the word nepotism means because unless the higher-ups were related to the applicants nepotism does not apply.
You also make the mistake of assuming that just because a law exists that it is just, not the case at all
bigboss686 2 years ago
Judges must enforce the law, whether it is just or not. If you don't like the law, try and change it.
Isn't that your position? That a judge must follow the letter of the law and not "legislate from the bench?"
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
enforcing judicial activism is still judicial activism,
bigboss686 2 years ago
Judicial activism means a judge makes a decision that you oppose POLITICALLY. It is a term used by political pundits, on both sides, to politicize the courts.
The New Haven decision was based on existing LAWS passed by LEGISLATORS. There were two other judges involved also and the decision was unanimous.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
With statements like this it's like you're in a misconception that you can put time limits on legislative and judicial activism,lol
judges have the obligation to not enforce bad law, when something violates the Constitution is judicial activism. Every time a judge or reiterates this fallacy.
bigboss686 2 years ago
Judicial Review - The power of the courts to annul the acts of the executive and/or the legislative power where it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution.
Virtually every modern democratic state gives its courts this power. The only judges in the US who actually have this authority are the 9 justices of the US Supreme Court.
Laws do sometimes have time limits. Thats why congress had to renew the Patriot Act in 2005.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You using a straw man.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You using a straw man.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
v=QwiQlx8W2R8
Minionuup 2 years ago
Italians still are a minority....
Dentarthurdent54 2 years ago
I should be on the supreme court. I have no empathy for anybody whatsoever. bring me one of your boohoo crybaby cases and I'll shoot it down just cuz it's fun to shatter someone's hopes and dreams. life isn't fair and neither am I.
friction00815 2 years ago
A judge should be like a Vulcan. She has emotions just like anyone, she just supresses them. And she sure doesn't consider them a badge of honor when interpreting law.
chrisbord 2 years ago
theres a difference between comparing samuel alitos own experiences with sotomayors racist tirades and talk of how hispanics are better than whites but liberals are so brain dead and biased they think if a conservative judge relates to people hes a racist but if a racist hispanic womans says shes better than all whites shes just relating to her background
jogeryjogo 2 years ago
Stop teaching your children to be empathetic... I mean seriously if it is such a bad thing we should stop right... after all what if they want to pursue a career in politics or justest.. you don't want to limit their options. Empathy is one of the things that separates us from the animals... Is it not?
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
If your kid is a judge, then maybe he/she should get into practice because that's his job.
chrisbord 2 years ago
Actually I do have a kid that is going into politics and he is doing quite well empathy and all. Just because you are empathetic does not mean that you will not come to your conclusions based on the law.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
I did say judge, not politics, didn't I? :)
"Just because you are empathetic does not mean that you will not come to your conclusions based on the law."
Not arguing that. That's a straw man. Politicians LOVE straw men.
chrisbord 2 years ago
You know what the problem is? People keep forgetting that even the most authoritative people - people with high power - are only human. Therefore, they can make verbal mistakes when speaking. Everyone does it, and they will do it. It's called being human. She might have said something wrong (though most of it was out of context), but she is human. Does one slip-up make someone the worst person of all? Highly unlikely.
And donottake, be a troll somewhere else. No one wants you here, so get lost.
ThatCriticDouche 2 years ago 2
A slip up is one thing, an entire speech extolling empathy and race over dispassionate, neutral jurisprudence is...another.
chrisbord 2 years ago
But what she said had nothing to do with race. She meant - if you read the entire quote - that because of her past and what she had to go through, that she as a latino woman would better understand what many immigrants go through than a white man who has NOT lived such a life. Any half-brained person could point this out, even with the quote by itself.
ThatCriticDouche 2 years ago
True, "Any half-brained person could point this out"... heheh. But you're missing the point.
Immigrants have one point of view, and non-immigrants have another. Neither point of view is truly 'better' than another, especially when it comes to a neutral interpretation of law.
chrisbord 2 years ago 2
I understand what you say, but I also understand what she meant. It's because she knows about the life of an immigrant that she would put the law as it should be into the court. Needless to say, there are several cases where immigrants get the short end of the stick.
But her views are conservative, as far as I know. And from what I've been hearing, there were many cases where she put the law before her own beliefs, contradicting what she believes, in a sense. That's a judge I can trust in court
ThatCriticDouche 2 years ago
I'm inclined to think she'd be OK on SCOTUS. She may be a little racist, but only a little is OK.
chrisbord 2 years ago
After what she's been through, I wouldn't blame her. But I just hope that, being very educated, it wouldn't get to her head.
ThatCriticDouche 2 years ago
so you can trust a judge who says that your rights under the Constitution can be voided by any State?
You do realize that if the state can deprive you of your rights under the Constitution the Constitution becomes completely worthless and your rights can be sacrificed at the whim of anybody.
This woman is a fascist, nothing more
bigboss686 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cover your mouth with your hand
2. Make a wish
3.Close your hand (fist)
4. Hold your hand at heart for 5 seconds
5. Send this to 3 more videos
6. Tommorrow will be the best day ever
it actually worked
Money- you will find a wad of $200 in cash
BunnyRwars 2 years ago
Come on lets keep it real. your own words you just spoke. did you really mean what you said. do the words that come from your lips mean what you were thinking, or were you making conversation. Because the words spoken by this judge, who my be sitting on the highest court in the land. should not be making policy, but should be upholding constitutional laws. dr. martin luther king said judge a person on their character and not the color of their skin. this should not be made a race issue
bossduff 2 years ago 2
Sotomayor's support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
donottake 2 years ago
The New Haven case began when the city did a review of their Firefighter Officer exam and found that no Blacks had ever passed the exam. The city decided to change the exam so it would be more fair. A white firefighter then sued claiming "reverse racism." Judge Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling against the white firefighter.
I agree with her decision. It was well within the laws of New Jersey.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
I'm sure you'd feel the same way, if this was African Americans being turned down.
Also, who cares what ethnicity these people are I want the best qualified person if my house is on fire, to be there dragging me out.
You're just a racist
bigboss686 2 years ago
How am I a racist because I agree with that decision? It was a fair legal decision based on the laws of the city of New Haven and the state of Connecticut. If I was a racist I would be rallying against the case despite what the law says, not for it.
Does my thinking OJ Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife also make me a racist?
Does my not liking rap make me a racist?
Does my opposition to amnesty make me a racist?
Maybe you should look in a mirror.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
You using a straw man.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
And you are a racist. Just be man enough to admit it. Blacks can't pass the exam then they have no business being promoted.
Nobody takes you racist dumbocrats seriously. Why don't you bitch about the NBA or NFL not having enough whites you racist asshole.
donottake 2 years ago
Ask Chris Rock why there are so many black in the NBA or the NFL.
Also ask him why there are so few blacks in the NHL.
(:
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
I don't know Rock and I don't give a shit about him. If you want to beat your chest and say "I want one of these and one of those, etc." then do it across the board of you even want anyone to believe you really believe in that rubbish rather than cherry pick to discriminate against whites. And I don't give a shit somebody says "I'm white I whites need to step aside for non-whites." Any guilty white can step aside if he so chooses but don't push your racist views on others.
donottake 2 years ago
I don't know whats more shocking.
The fact that you keep up that reverse racism crap or that you don't know who Chris Rock is.
Famous black comedian? Starred in I Think I Love My Wife and Lethal Weapon 4?
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Fuck off slimy republican cunt... Go poke your eyes out... oops.. I mean go listen to your god Rush Limbaugh and jack off to his man boobs.
fl1ckmasterflex 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shove a redhot poker up your racist lib ass.
donottake 2 years ago
At Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: "(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law I know." She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Obama's America, that is so yesterday.
donottake 2 years ago
The Court of Appeals does set policy. Judicial Policy, also known as precedent. The lower courts follow the precedents set by the Court of Appeals.
The same rule applies to the Supreme Court. When it sets a precedent all lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, have to follow that precedent.
Judicial precedent is the same thing as judicial policy. The two terms are interchangeable.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Sotomayor will be excused because the lamestream media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
donottake 2 years ago
Why is her membership a problem. you are taking the tranlation to literal. It does not mean race in that way. NCLR is no worse than the united way. LGTB org. are for the advance ment of LGTB's are you going to say theu are racist or i guess sexist would fit better. Quit reading your forwarded emails and learn a little bit more. before you start making baseless claims.
jeremiahdrigg 2 years ago
From what I understand NCLA is the Latino version of the NAACP. It is the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy group in the US. It is also non-partisan.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
doesn't really mean much, after all, the NRA and the Brady campaign both claim to be nonpartisan as well.
bigboss686 2 years ago
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn't lived that life."
Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Libs, on the otherhand, never take responsibililty for their actions or racism and bigotry. All we get out of libs are excuses
donottake 2 years ago
it only sounds wrong because youre picking one sntence out of a broader point she was trying to make
YoungTon22 2 years ago
And Simpson is innocent because they tried him for one night where he killed two people and did not look at all of the other nights he did not kill anyone.
donottake 2 years ago
okay. now i understand. cause if that means the same thing to you than youre an idiot! nevermind. and OJ was found innocent so that didnt make sense
YoungTon22 2 years ago
exuces the pun but it is not always white and black.. there is a grey area
plus it seems u only want to look at one part of the qoute and not the context it was made in
Iamnr 2 years ago
You are part of the same racist group that wanted to crucify Imus, a radio shock jock, for trying to be funny and saying a couple of words about some black women basketball players. Big fucking deal. All of you fuckers went ballistic. Now we have a bonafide lib racist on the Supreme Court and all you fuckers can do is make excuses for her. "Oh, she meant this", "Oh, it's out of context", "Oh, she is non-white what is the big deal". Take responsibility for once.
donottake 2 years ago
lol
oohh so im racist for disagreeing with a racist comment lol
pls read watch the video.. it actually shows a white conservative say almost exactly the same thing.. and i didnt see anyone kick up a fuss about that
Iamnr 2 years ago
lmanr, you are right. They bloody neocons are cannot tell what racism. By nature, they are racist and have always benefited from the imbalance and unequal system that racism help shape. Republican nominated justices expressed the same sentiments like Judge Sotomayor, but in their hypocrisy, they would conveniently forget those examples. It is also interesting when they show condescending admiration for the achievement of a minority as if it is uncharacteristic for minorities to be overachievers
sammyade 2 years ago