Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Sotomayor nominated to Supreme Court
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Sure, except that her gender and ethnicity are infinitely less important.

If we're to assume that she will interpret in a particular way because of her gender or ethnicity, instead of actually looking at her history and ideals, then we are prejudiced in a dangerously stupid way.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 9:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
Sure, except that her gender and ethnicity are infinitely less important.

If we're to assume that she will interpret in a particular way because of her gender or ethnicity, instead of actually looking at her history and ideals, then we are prejudiced in a dangerously stupid way.
Absolutely! I know you were just simplifying this before, but it's better to openly make it part of your argument so no-one can call you on it.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 9:59 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Ahhh, we've come so far as a nation.

some bonehead wrote:
...Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English...

...But one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch....
Post Wed May 27, 2009 1:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
theodora



Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 429
Location: Boulder, CO
 Reply with quote  

Well, we didn't seem to have trouble pronouncing "Barack," although the emphasis is on the final syllable there.

Everyone at work was calling her Soda-meyer.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 2:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Once we get a nominee's name, it is really difficult to sift through the bullshit and determine how a potential judge would rule. People talk about these individual cases while ignoring the complexities of the actual cases and why the judge came to the decision he/she came to.

And then these several cases get used as an outline of how the nominee will rule.

I think Supreme Court nominations and the hearings that follow are insanely interesting. I remember watching replays of the Bork hearings and loving it. Clarence Thomas not so much.

This is one area where I am fairly conservative. I think Scalia is wildly entertaining and I agree with him much of the time.

I look forward to her responses. I hope she gets some good questions.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 2:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
I think Scalia is wildly entertaining and I agree with him much of the time.

I agree with half of this statement.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 2:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

I also think Obama is kind of making the right move to go with a more moderate liberal. Supposedly his rational is that she is very precise, and good at making her case, and the idea is to try and flip Justice Kennedy over on some of the liberal issues. Because honestly, what would our dear Super Liberal be able to do on the current court? A liberal consensus builder is infinitely more useful I think. And then if one of the conservative judges leaves, that's when you can really influence the bench.

I suspect his next judicial appointment will be the one that is much more liberal.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 2:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
I also think Obama is kind of making the right move to go with a more moderate liberal. Supposedly his rational is that she is very precise, and good at making her case, and the idea is to try and flip Justice Kennedy over on some of the liberal issues. Because honestly, what would our dear Super Liberal be able to do on the current court? A liberal consensus builder is infinitely more useful I think. And then if one of the conservative judges leaves, that's when you can really influence the bench.

I suspect his next judicial appointment will be the one that is much more liberal.


yeah I'm with this.

And also what tommi said. I find most of the lay interpretations of Sotomayor's record that I have thus far encountered to be sorely lacking in seriousness. Although what tommi said about agreeing with Scalia -- I'm not with that. Dude would be entertaining to me if fury generated enjoyment.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 2:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

What infuriates you about Scalia? I'm not trying to derail the thread or have a debate, but I hear people say stuff like that all of the time with little justification. Do you just disagree with an originalist interpretation or is there something else about his decisions that bothers you?


If anyone else wants to field that, go ahead. mean?
Post Wed May 27, 2009 3:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
If anyone else wants to field that, go ahead. mean?

Quickly, before I go home for the day.

He doesn't infuriate me. I find him amusing. But he sets out to infuriate people. He is extremely "unprofessional" for a Supreme Court justice. He insults other members of the court in his opinions. His opinions are sarcastic.

I also think that "originalist interpretation" is a bunch of hogwash. The Constitution was created by a series of compromises. A bunch of different people played a part in creating it. Who is the "originalist" that we are interpreting? Madison - who was adamant about church/state separation? There is no one ""originalist interpretation."

Scalia is a conservative, who will rule in a way that is in line with how he thinks the world should work. He couches this in "originalist interpretation" simply to attempt to make his viewpoint seem better than the other side.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 3:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

i've read opinions he's written but i have only "studied" a couple and it was several years ago. so i can't cite you sources. meaning that yeah this is basically my only-semi-informed impression.

but i think the dude bases his rulings in large part on how he can stick it to the underdog. i find that to be ... contemptible.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 3:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Yeah he definitely likes to infuriate and be the rockstar of the court. But he has always seemed to be very consistent in his interpretation (flag burning for example) and has also been willing to recuse himself even when his vote would affect the outcome favorably to the side he would have taken.

I disagree that he uses originalism as a means to progress conservatism or rule whatever way he wants the world to be. I don't even think most of his detractors charge him with that. Do you have any examples of this or does it just come from the larger connotations among liberals about Scalia and conservatism in general?

As far as originalism goes, I don't think it is as difficult as you seem to think it is. Obviously the intent of the Founding Fathers differed as they came from different ideologies even back then, but I think the basic notions behind why the constitution and the bill of rights say what they say and how they were intended to govern our governent is still attainable. Also originalism should take into context the differeng opinions of the founding fathers when drafting the constitution.

I think it is possible to look at all of that and come to a decision about what the original intent really was, even if there were disagreements in coming to those specific amendments or other parts of the constitution.

Or maybe I just see it the way he does and I justify it to myself. Either way, I'm way nerdy about this stuff as I think it is absolutely crucial and talked about very little in comparison to the other branches.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 4:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:19 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon