• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sotomayor: Wise Latina Would Not Have Picked Me

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sotomayor: Wise Latina Would Not Have Picked Me
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · Comments (6) · ShareThis · Print This Story Print This Story

(2009-06-05) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said today that “if President Obama were a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, he would have picked a less controversial court nominee.”

Judge Sotomayor said she doesn’t blame the president for his unwise choice, “after all, as a black male, he can’t be expected to demonstrate much more wisdom than he has so far. He’s certainly sharper than a white male, but the fact remains that he’s male, and has no discernible Latino heritage.”

Although the president and his spokesman have both indicated that the judge misspoke on an occasion in 2001 when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life…”, further research shows that the remark was frequently included in her speeches between 1994 and 2003.

President Obama said he would not comment further on the controversy, “since matching wits with a Latina woman is above my pay grade.”
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
From watching the news on this she appears to be very proud of the fact she's latino and a woman and quite sure that better qualifies her then a white man.
 

Mike

Well-known member
One thing about the ol' gal.................

She could sit on a tombstone and hatch a haint (ghost or goblin).
 

Steve

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
From watching the news on this she appears to be very proud of the fact she's latino and a woman and quite sure that better qualifies her then a white man.

isn't that racism and sexism/sexist behavior ?

rac·ism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrry said:
I still say a white man would be more qualified

The current makeup of the US population is roughly 68% white- 15% hispanic- 12% black- and 5% Asian-- with 53% of the entire population being made up of women- which with all the current layoffs- has now passed up men for making up the majority of the workforce of the country....

So if you were going to have a SCOTUS truly representative of the makeup of the country it would have 5 women- 4 men made up of 7 whites and 2 minority members- with a hispanic and a black ....

Looks to me like if Sotomayor is confirmed- she will fit right into the makeup of the country- except for they will still be short 3 women...

And this is an ever changing demographic:

A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The proportion of Asian Americans would almost double by 2050. Overall, the population of the U.S. was due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase due to immigrants.

Of the nation's children in 2050, 62% are expected to have a minority ethnicity, up from 44% today. 39% are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22% in 2008), and 38% are to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56% in 2008).
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Let's think outside the box for a minute.

OT, by your logic, would it not be better to represent the profile of the defendants/cases that hit the SC?

What are the issues that go to the SC level most often?

For your sake I hope you take the opportunity to properly vet this nomination. In most probability, this will be the first out of 2, maybe 3, that Obama makes.

How are his decisions working out so far? Are you in danger of losing more than you might gain?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Laura Bush Glad Obama Picked Woman for Court

Monday, June 8, 2009 7:55 AM

WASHINGTON -- Former first lady Laura Bush says she's pleased that President Barack Obama nominated a woman for the Supreme Court.


"I think she sounds like a winner and a good nominee,"
Bush said of Sonia Sotomayor, the federal appeals judge Obama picked.


Mrs. Bush said in an interview broadcast Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "as a woman, I'm proud that there might be another woman on the court. I wish her well." She was interviewed in Dallas, where the Bushes moved after their White House tenure.


On another subject, Mrs. Bush said her husband will have no comment on any Obama decisions. He feels that as a former president, "he owes President Obama his silence on issues and there's no reason to second-guess any decisions he makes," Mrs. Bush said.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/laura_bush_sotomayor/2009/06/08/222595.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You do know that this woman also believes that Bush was a great President......

This changes the fact that Sotomayor is a racist nominated by a racist because of her race how?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
I still say a white man would be more qualified

The current makeup of the US population is roughly 68% white- 15% hispanic- 12% black- and 5% Asian-- with 53% of the entire population being made up of women- which with all the current layoffs- has now passed up men for making up the majority of the workforce of the country....

So if you were going to have a SCOTUS truly representative of the makeup of the country it would have 5 women- 4 men made up of 7 whites and 2 minority members- with a hispanic and a black ....

Looks to me like if Sotomayor is confirmed- she will fit right into the makeup of the country- except for they will still be short 3 women...

And this is an ever changing demographic:

A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The proportion of Asian Americans would almost double by 2050. Overall, the population of the U.S. was due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase due to immigrants.

Of the nation's children in 2050, 62% are expected to have a minority ethnicity, up from 44% today. 39% are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22% in 2008), and 38% are to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56% in 2008).

That would be the epitomy of "affirmative action". :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
I still say a white man would be more qualified

The current makeup of the US population is roughly 68% white- 15% hispanic- 12% black- and 5% Asian-- with 53% of the entire population being made up of women- which with all the current layoffs- has now passed up men for making up the majority of the workforce of the country....

So if you were going to have a SCOTUS truly representative of the makeup of the country it would have 5 women- 4 men made up of 7 whites and 2 minority members- with a hispanic and a black ....

Looks to me like if Sotomayor is confirmed- she will fit right into the makeup of the country- except for they will still be short 3 women...

And this is an ever changing demographic:

A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The proportion of Asian Americans would almost double by 2050. Overall, the population of the U.S. was due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase due to immigrants.

Of the nation's children in 2050, 62% are expected to have a minority ethnicity, up from 44% today. 39% are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22% in 2008), and 38% are to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56% in 2008).

That would be the epitomy of "affirmative action". :shock:

Or true "representative government"-- altho I know that doesn't sit well with the "Bubbas" of the rightwingernut movement- that think women should all be kept home- barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or bedroom-- and definitely shouldn't be judged worthy of the equal wages/status of a man even if she can do the job as well or better :???: :( :( :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Where does it say that SCOTUS should be representative?

It doesn't-
BUT

The right to an equal voice in government is the cornerstone of democracy -- without that equal voice, democracy ceases to exist.
The Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to be equally represented to the government of the United States, going no further than its first few paragraphs to establish this concept. Amendments to that Constitution further insure that all adult citizens, including those not so enfranchised by the original document, would have the same equal voice.

Without equal representation, we cannot insure that laws will be made that meet the common good, the common morality or the Common Sense of the people -- only the good of those who are allowed representation. Without equal representation, we cannot even protect against the destruction of the very Constitution which gave us that right.

When the Founders warned against the evils of factions -- special interests and fringe groups -- they knew well that such a maldistribution of power in a democracy would destroy that democracy.

We cannot restrict the right of the people to petition government -- and that right is not quantified in the Bill of Rights. But the guarantee of equal representation demands that such voices be considered in proportion to their numbers, not their dollars or their legal prowess.

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
IT DOESN'T is right. So why add what what isn't meant to be and why try to support that with a piece about the legislative branch?

"Equal Justice Under Law" says nothing about "a representative judiciary" or "empathy", or none of that other crap that Obama and you libs are trying to add. Considering the very reasons that Mr Usurper nominated her, your "Equal Justice" point is actually an arguement against her.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
The right to an equal voice in government is the cornerstone of democracy -- without that equal voice, democracy ceases to exist.

Did they not have the opportunity to vote?

Yep-- and it appears that a majority of the American voters voted for diversity and a more demographically represented country- including the courts...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
The right to an equal voice in government is the cornerstone of democracy -- without that equal voice, democracy ceases to exist.

Did they not have the opportunity to vote?

Yep-- and it appears that a majority of the American voters voted for diversity and a more demographically represented country- including the courts...

Bullshit. They voted for an image and a buzzword without looking who was really behind that image. Have you noticed the case of buyer's remorse as evidenced in the polls?

If racism is wrong, why are you accepting of an appointment based on racist grounds?
 

Mike

Well-known member
According to the Buckwheat crowd, reverse racism is NOT wrong.

It's PAYBACK TIME!!!!!

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top