Sonia Sotomayor: Yes or no?

Well, she says that owning a gun is not a fundamental right and that race should play a prominent role in deciding a court case. She's a lunatic and I'm a strict Conservative. Yeah... No, She should be turned away but the senate is too afraid to do that because it'll make Obama look bad.

CruxisXIII

No, the idea of a living constitutionalist (liberal version of judging) is fundamentally wrong, and considering she is a liberal judge, I say she is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic background (I guess you can add in her not being completely insane too...)Z0MBIES

I can't wait to see Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor on the Supreme Court of the United States this fall.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Experience and knowledge has nothing to do with race. The fact that she is Latino does not make her a better judge in any way, shape, or form.Maniacc1

Agreed. People jump the race card immediately without realizing the amount of experience she has.

I notice that in the wiki... She is definitely trying to sell her self as a female minority. I understand diverse backgrounds are important but doesn't that really make a person a good Judge?

[QUOTE="Z0MBIES"]No, the idea of a living constitutionalist (liberal version of judging) is fundamentally wrong, and considering she is a liberal judge, I say she is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic background (I guess you can add in her not being completely insane too...)DudeMXP

I can't wait to see Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor on the Supreme Court of the United States this fall.

I never said she didn't have the qualifications, the main reason the republicans aren't really even making an effort is because they don't want to piss off hispanics and her being accepted won't change the balance. I'm saying that her approach to judging is fundamentally wrong, even if it only applies to very, very few cases, but those few cases (less than 1%) are almost always very important, so that's my reason for saying no. And the examples you gave of the Constitution changing are all through ammendments (Legislative ways), not from cases where the judges and legislating from the bench (they don't like to put it in those terms though).

[QUOTE="DudeMXP"]

No, the idea of a living constitutionalist (liberal version of judging) is fundamentally wrong, and considering she is a liberal judge, I say she is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic background (I guess you can add in her not being completely insane too...)Z0MBIES

I can't wait to see Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor on the Supreme Court of the United States this fall.

I never said she didn't have the qualifications, the main reason the republicans aren't really even making an effort is because they don't want to piss off hispanics and her being accepted won't change the balance. I'm saying that her approach to judging is fundamentally wrong, even if it only applies to very, very few cases, but those few cases (less than 1%) are almost always very important, so that's my reason for saying no. And the examples you gave of the Constitution changing are all through ammendments (Legislative ways), not from cases where the judges and legislating from the bench (they don't like to put it in those terms though).

[QUOTE="DudeMXP"]

[QUOTE="Z0MBIES"]No, the idea of a living constitutionalist (liberal version of judging) is fundamentally wrong, and considering she is a liberal judge, I say she is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic background (I guess you can add in her not being completely insane too...)Z0MBIES

I can't wait to see Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor on the Supreme Court of the United States this fall.

I never said she didn't have the qualifications, the main reason the republicans aren't really even making an effort is because they don't want to piss off hispanics and her being accepted won't change the balance. I'm saying that her approach to judging is fundamentally wrong, even if it only applies to very, very few cases, but those few cases (less than 1%) are almost always very important, so that's my reason for saying no. And the examples you gave of the Constitution changing are all through ammendments (Legislative ways), not from cases where the judges and legislating from the bench (they don't like to put it in those terms though).

She is going to be a great Justice, and again has a impeccable record over her tenured career. And there is no compelling reason to vote against her, everyone knows this. I agree that because she doesn't change the balance of the court, this is probably in her favor.

they arent making an effort because there is little to say apart from that "a latina woman/white male quoteweezyfb

Some Republicans actually support Sotomayor, with that said I don't think this is coming down to a race issue. Simply put, it is widely expected she will be confirmed because she is well supported and there are enough votes. BTW I am aware that the examples I provided are Constitutional Amendments and did not hint otherwise. Using SCOTUS examples, wesimply need to look at Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 where theydecided that "seperate but equal" was constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Fast forward to 1954, where the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision ruled that this was in fact unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Both sets of Supreme Court Justices were looking at the same document but reached different decisions.

She is going to be a great Justice, and again has a impeccable record over her tenured career. And there is no compelling reason to vote against her, everyone knows this. I agree that because she doesn't change the balance of the court, this is probably in her favor.

DudeMXP

Had a feeling you might use Brown v. Board. The answer really lies withing Plessy v. Ferguson being a misunderstanding/contortion of the Fourteenth Ammendment to suit the racist views of the Justices.

Had a feeling you might use Brown v. Board. The answer really lies withing Plessy v. Ferguson being a misunderstanding/contortion of the Fourteenth Ammendment to suit the racist views of the Justices.

Z0MBIES

[QUOTE="Z0MBIES"] Had a feeling you might use Brown v. Board. The answer really lies withing Plessy v. Ferguson being a misunderstanding/contortion of the Fourteenth Ammendment to suit the racist views of the Justices.

DudeMXP

I don't know who she is. o_o

And I hope the Supreme Court dismisses any marriage case before them as it is clearly not their decision to decide because the Constitution clearly states that it is up to the states to determine the morals, and gay marriage, or any marriage issue, pretty obviously falls under the section of morals. Which is why it is being decided on a state by state basis.Z0MBIES

[QUOTE="Z0MBIES"] And I hope the Supreme Court dismisses any marriage case before them as it is clearly not their decision to decide because the Constitution clearly states that it is up to the states to determine the morals, and gay marriage, or any marriage issue, pretty obviously falls under the section of morals. Which is why it is being decided on a state by state basis.DudeMXP

The Constitution determines what powers the state governments have and what powers the federal government has. Regarding the powers of the state, it says that the states have power over health, safety, and morals. The topic of health is in the federal government because it has been decided that the states were not able to adaquately take care of it (only in regards to health insurance), all of the hospital/emergency services are state/locally controlled.
So, according to the Constitution, cases like Loving v. Virginia should have never arrived at the Supreme Court, at best, they should have gone to the Legislature to get an ammendment made. Now many of these ideas would be passed by state legislatures anyways, it may have taken longer, but that is due to the popular government nature, that's a completely different argument however.

Also, after this I'm done, its late, so don't expect a counter.

The Constitution determines what powers the state governments have and what powers the federal government has. Regarding the powers of the state, it says that the states have power over health, safety, and morals. The topic of health is in the federal government because it has been decided that the states were not able to adaquately take care of it (only in regards to health insurance), all of the hospital/emergency services are state/locally controlled.
So, according to the Constitution, cases like Loving v. Virginia should have never arrived at the Supreme Court, at best, they should have gone to the Legislature to get an ammendment made. Now many of these ideas would be passed by state legislatures anyways, it may have taken longer, but that is due to the popular government nature, that's a completely different argument however.

Also, after this I'm done, its late, so don't expect a counter.

Z0MBIES

Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic backgroundZ0MBIES

I hope Repubs keep regurgitating this talking point. Doing so is intentionally ignoring Sotomayor's impressive academic and professional records, which will only further anger the latino community.

Repubs wonder why they have a difficult time attracting non-white voters, well there ya go. :)

[QUOTE="Z0MBIES"]Though she is only going to get in with no troubles only because of her ethnic backgroundLosDaddie

I hope Repubs keep regurgitating this talking point. Doing so is intentionally ignoring Sotomayor's impressive academic and professional records, which will only further anger the latino community.

Repubs wonder why they have a difficult time attracting non-white voters, well there ya go. :)

:lol: This is so true.