Obama chooses Supreme Court judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Netto Azure

Netto Azure

«The Ashen Knight»
Retired Staff
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068467.stm

US President Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the country's Supreme Court.
Ms Sotomayor, 54, who has now to be approved by a Senate vote, would be the first Hispanic to take the position.
She would replace Justice David Souter, who announced his retirement from the top US court earlier this month.
Mr Obama said he had chosen Ms Sotomayor after an "exhaustive" process, and paid tribute to her as an "inspiring woman".
He said she would bring a "depth of experience and a breadth of perspective" to the role.
Observers say any nomination Mr Obama makes is likely to be approved because the Democrats dominate the Senate.
If approved, Ms Sotomayor would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Well shows how much of a Pragmatist President Obama is. :p
 
Last edited:
Now the fun begins as conservatives look for reasons why she shouldn't become a Supreme Court justice.
 
Oh jsut let her people! I see no issue.
 
About time. I don't see anything wrong with her and I see no issue here. And to quote the gadfly, the fun now begins as conservatives look for reasons to kick her out.
 
They currently have a "wait and see" attitude, so the volcano's dormant for now.
 
the gadfly said:
Now the fun begins as conservatives look for reasons why she shouldn't become a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

See my post above yours. Seriously I think that's the only reason they're all getting butthurt...
 
domesticshorthair said:
As long as she's a good judge, does her job well, etc, I see nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I feel the same way, if she does well at being a judge, I see no problem with this. Its not because she is Hyspanic and a woman, if it is then people have the wrong attitude.
 
GOP walks fine line on opposing Sotomayor

The Republican Party risks further alienation from Hispanics by challenging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic, and third woman, on the Supreme Court.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed.

Sotomayor is a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, named to that post by President Bill Clinton when she was a U.S. District Court judge, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The barbed comments about Sotomayor began almost as soon as the announcement was made at the White House on Tuesday.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a "reverse racist" on his show. Limbaugh, who is known for stirring up controversy, said he hopes Obama's nominee fails.

"Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the court," he said. "Do I still want to Obama to fail as president? Yeah. ... He's going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country."

Limbaugh's attacks aside, many influential Hispanic leaders were optimistic and warned the GOP against rushing to conclusions before she pleads her case before the Senate, which must confirm her.

"I do think Republicans have to be very careful and not oppose this nomination just for the sake of it," said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "Because when you think about that the length of time the Latino community has waited for this nomination, it's been a long time."

"If they just out of sheer ill-will ... try to block the nomination, that's going to have a big backlash in the Hispanic population," Wilkes warned. "And we won't have to do anything except sit back and watch them destroy themselves, because it's really going to be that bad."
Click to expand...

Do the Republicans want to commit political suicide or not? :O

Also Here, but no one reads it tho~

US Federal Judges Could Hinder Obama's Agenda

Obama's ambitious agenda will be scrutinized and second-guessed by conservative federal judges.

As they charge through the eventful first 100 days, President Obama and his allies are racking up legislative victories. Soon they will have to win the votes of a new audience: men and women in black robes. As the former constitutional-law professor surely knows, that can be a tough crowd. Here's the core constitutional fact: a progressive president and Congress now face a conservative judiciary, for the first time since 1937. Obama's ambitious agenda, if enacted, must go before federal courts—where judges can rewrite or strike down key provisions. From the TARP bank bailout, to climate change "cap and trade," to health-care reform, new laws could face an array of judicial doctrines recently honed by conservative lawyers. We can't know for sure, and carefully crafted laws usually withstand judicial scrutiny. Still, imagine if Hillarycare had passed in 1994. Does anyone think the Rehnquist Court would not have vivisected those parts it found unpalatable?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Silly conservatives, do you really want the Latino community to hate you more than they already do?

Anyway, Hispanic woman. Sweet. xD It's about time.
 
Conservatives (especially the right wing)... can be real asses sometimes. Left wing conservatives aren't always stupid, but right wing conservatives are always morons.
 
Melodyfree said:
Silly conservatives, do you really want the Latino community to hate you more than they already do?

Anyway, Hispanic woman. Sweet. xD It's about time.
Click to expand...

Hispanic and Latino are not interchangable it is just a common misconception because the major of Latinos in the United States are Spanish speakers. In actuality Hispanic is a subcategory in Latino because French, Portuguese, and Italian speakers like Spanish speakers are also considered to be Latinos as well.

I still think this is an great accomplishment though that an Hispanic woman become a Supreme Court Justice though. I hope this woman does a good job at forefilling her role as a Supreme Court Justice though.
 
Last edited:
Limbaugh and Gingrich are already calling her a racist, with that remark she said that Latina judges would do better than their white counterparts. I personally think both are in the wrong. First, why would she say something like that, even now. That's the most dumbest thing you could do, even when Obama brought you up to face the conservatives...she shouldn't have said that. Couldn't she not say something stupid?
 
As a white guy, what the hell do we have to deal with anyway compared to everyone else? Not that it means we don't deserve anything, but at the same time, different perspectives are needed, especially when the bench is mostly made of... just that. White guys. Old white guys. Old Republican white guys. And you know they only have one point of view among them.
 
I see in the near future American's kissing thier right to bear arms goodbye.
 
I just learn more about the situation. I think they are both wrong on what they said though I am not actually sure if it is actually consider 'racist' for that matter. To tell you the truth there is a whole misconception of what race is when you look at it for a scientific point of view and the measuring of skulls.

It is some type of discrimination, but I think when the media refers to it as being 'racist' it is referring to Hispanic or Latino as being race which is another misconception in the United States as being a race. Everyone is also implies 'racism' against 'White' and 'Latinos' and are you all aware of that there are White Latinos as well as Afro-Latinos, Indio-Latinos, and Asian-Latinos (meaning East, Central, and West Asia), because the Spaniards though they conquered territory of the Americas which were Central America, South American, West of what is present-day United States, and Florida and a mixture took place with the Native Americans there as well as the slaves they brought from Africa to the Americas and some parts of Europe and during the imperalism period the Spainards took control some Asian and some part of African countries as well. There were also The same can also apply to the Portuguese and French as well.
 
Last edited:
I see this has nothing to do with racism.

* Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. They are expected to appeal the case to the Supreme Court in June. She might not recuse herself from the case if the Senate approves her.

This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, which said that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

* Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported on May 28 that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

If you remember last year the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.
 
Last edited:
I see in the near future American's kissing thier right to bear arms goodbye.
Click to expand...

Yes, one Supreme Court judge will infect the others and take away your precious right for your children to shoot themselves with stuff bought from Wal*Mart to protect them from being shot in the first place. : (
 
I don't know anything wrong with the statement of thinking the "Hispanic woman knowing more than the old white man", we have more than enough "old white men" in Washington that a Hispanic woman would be more than welcome. But seriously, I hear people talk like that all the time, and half the time when a minority or someone says White man, they don't actually mean "Caucasian Man", and thinking that someone who has lived a life more than sheltered, one view (of the stereotyped rich white guy, who was rich all his life) life, would have less of a world view than someone who fought themselves out of poverty and experienced both worlds. I mean, you can say law is law and should be fallowed like a impartially like a machine, but because the law is something to be interpreted, someone with a wider view and experience should be a judge. Plus even then, every supreme court judge in the history of the US has had their own opinions, as it is human to have an opinion. Basically, Republicans are all crying "liberal judge", which is the same argument they were going to make anyways, now they can just put a name to it.

These weak-lined arguments really can't be influencing anyone over other than the republicans that would have hated her anyways. So I don't know what they're doing other than hurting their party some more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom