Comments

1
Seemingly ALL of their talking points are either flat-out wrong, taken out of context, or quotes that conservative Justices said themselves in so many words. The whole debate is a travesty.
2
"So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1."

It sure is cool how you left out the part about how one of the major discrimination lawsuits she threw out was one where whites were the ones claiming discrimination. Great "journalism"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/pol…

"As a lawyer, she joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, two Hispanic civil rights groups that advocate for vigorous affirmative action. As a judge, she has repeatedly argued for diversity on the bench by alluding to the insights she gleaned from her Latina background.

In one of the few cases dealing with the subject that she helped decide on the federal appeals court, Ricci v. New Haven, she ruled in favor of the city’s ’s decision to discard the results of an exam to select firefighters for promotion because too few minority firefighters scored high enough to advance. White firefighters who had scored well on the discarded test sued, and the Supreme Court heard arguments on the case in April."

3
Neato Bandito!

Sotomayor wants to let felons who are IN PRISON have the right to vote!

CELEBRATE DIVERSHITTY

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may…

Sotomayor would let prisoners vote

By | Friday, May 29, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Judge Jose Cabranes, who like Ms. Sotomayor was appointed by President Bill Clinton, didn't find the matter to be so clear. His majority decision against the criminal felons, in favor of the state, comprised 36 tightly reasoned pages. Particularly compelling is the fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed to help further the aims of the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment specifically allows states to deny the vote to those convicted of crimes.

Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It's as if she thinks black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than that they are denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is the convicts' own actions, their crimes - not any state-based racial discrimination - that make those felons ineligible to vote.

As almost every state has done since the United States was founded, New York forbids currently incarcerated or paroled prisoners from voting. Some states go even farther by prohibiting some felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. New York's law is not so stringent. It only applies to felons still under criminal sentences. It equally applies to all felons, black or white.

There is growing evidence that Judge Sotomayor believes some races are more equal than others. She said in a 2001 speech that she would expect a Latina judge to reach the right decision more often than would a white male judge. Her dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki is another example of her taking racial grievance-mongering to absurd new depths. They are depths unbefitting a Supreme Court justice.
4
Why are so many people afraid of a minority on the SCOTUS?
5
@4 - maybe because often times they seem so prone to make so many stupid and race-based descisons
6
Golly, growing up in America as a Latina, in the projects, didn't learn English till age 9, was one of the only Latinos at Princeton in 1972, she couldn't write well when she got there and fixed it with remedial studies and graduated summa cum laude, went on to be on law review, served as prosectutor who was tough on crime, then as commercial law litigator in high end NY firm, then trial judge, then appellate judge, and in all that long career all they can find is one or two decisions on which to disagree?

And the charge is she has thought about race in America, and values her life experience?

Que bueno. Viva Sotomayor!
7
Rump conservatives are despicable, wrong-headed, and immoral people, that's all. Sotomayor is the future of America, and frankly she looks like a bright one.
8
@3
"Neata Bandita," not "Neato Bandito."

De nada.
9
@5:

Did you miss this part of the report?

"Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."
10
The right looks just like they have always been perceived. Racist and sexist. It really gets under their bases skin when someone of color achieves a position of power. Republicans have courted the racist vote for many years. Well, that's about all they have left. All their extreme behavior is a show for the base. And any woman who Obama appoints won't get the red carpet anyway. But what they fail to see is the country is changing. It's leaving them in the dustbin of history. Go on and rant. Democrats don't mind.
11
10
you girls seem to be the ones doing all the ranting.

12
BTW

watch yourselves disagreeing with the NYT;

It is Liberal Blasphemy
to contradict
the Secular Humanist Godless Heathen Holy Book...
13
Just goes to show that once again the New Whore Times is no bastion of liberalism.
14
All this effort to keep one liberal justice from replacing another, leaving the court balance exactly where it is.

I wonder if they are really anticipating a vacancy from one of the conservative justices, and once that happens, the court is now tipped to the left.

Look at this thread. 13 responses and 5 are by the same person ranting about Sotomayor's horrific opinions on RACE (queue scary music.) Keep it up. It just plays right into the wackjob theme the right is currently dancing to.
15
14
re: all this effort

We on the Right like to stay on top of our game; because it isn't a game, it's what we are.
Perhaps if teh gays took a page from the Right they wouldn't have been caught flat on their asses counting wedding invitations while Prop 8 was being passed...
16
Wouldn’t it just be a hoot if everything they’re saying were actually true, and she ended her opening statement at her confirmation hearing by standing up, raising a fist and screaming “!Muerte a América!”
17
Uh-oh. The Repukelicans have uncovered this undated photo of Sotomayor from her university years.

No es muy bueno.
18
hooray another toadlike turd-worlder
19
@12 - It's funny, the only people who use wording such as yours to describe the NYT are those like you.

I bet you rail about the librul media too huh?
20
Keep it up republicans.
Do you not grok that there are 20 states where Latinos are the largest minority?

Now that CO & NM are firmly Democratic, AZ TX and UT even NH has lots of Latinos (!!) and they won't be far behind.
Not to mention state legislative districts in places like Franklin and Benton counties in Washington Sate:

"44% -- The percentage of New Mexico’s population that is Hispanic, the highest of any state. Hispanics also make up more than a quarter of the population in California and Texas, at 36% each, Arizona (30%) and Nevada (25%)."
"20 -- Number of states in which Hispanics are the largest minority group. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming."

Every slice of the electorate counts. You right wingers are firming up Latino support for Democrats, and firmly branding in their minds the truth that the Republicans are at bottom racista y muy porcina -- like that fat pig Rush.

Muchas gracias amigos derechistas!
21
Well, white liberal bleeding hearts, don't say you were not warned that your cities will be turned into third-world shitholes by the latrino invaders. Mark my words one day you will wake up and regret what you did, and your children and grandchildren will hate you for what you did to destroy their futures.
22
Anthony,
I agree with you and Goldstein. But, would that then Sen. Obama have used that same logic when voting against Roberts and Alito? He remarked that he had had no complaint with 95% of Roberts' and Alito's decisions but that the other 5% are impact making and that was why he voted against their confirmations. That same logic is being applied to Sotomayor by the GOP and other Senators. That is why the other 22% in this case are THAT important. In fact, Ricci vs. New Haven IS huge. I believe the SC will side with Ricci and Sotomayor will be confirmed. But, she'll be a centrist not an activist at best on the Court.
23
Wonderful, sure is unusual to have a fucking jew tell us what to think about divershitty, so rare, how amazing.
24
@15 Um yeah, you on the right sure stayed right on top of your game: Let's see: Dems control the house and the senate and the Presidency. For all your squawking, you won't be able to keep Sotomayor from the court, and your racist bigoted Jabba the Hut spokesperson is burning every bridge to the Hispanic voting blocks in this country every day you keep up this ridiculous charade of only wanting a justice who leads by logic.

If us gays took a page from the right, the entire gay rights movement would have collapsed and turned to dust.
25
"racist bigoted Jabba the Hut spokesperson"

- From your accurate description I take it you are referring to Ms. Sotomayor.
26
#25 - funniest post in thread
27
24
I forget,
how many queer Supreme Court justices do you have now?...
28
20
What Slog doesn't get is that the Right doesn't act based on polls or political calculations.
We do what we think is right for America, even if it is unpopular.
Doing so lets you sleep peacefully at night, no matter what the current political score is.

Dan loves to bray that he is "winning".
And he is.
Gay Marriage is all but inevitable.
Decadence and moral corruption are easy products to sell,
they practically sell themselves.

The Right does not oppose the institutionalization of homosexuality because it is a winning political strategy.
We oppose it because that is what is best for America.
29
Obama, Holder, Sotomayor = Apefirmative Action hires
30
Let me get this straight: Sotomayor is racist because she agreed with three white judges not to force the New Haven Fire Department to promote anyone?

No white people got promoted.
No Hispanic people got promoted.
No black people got promoted.

But a dyslexic white guy who "studied hard" and got a high score on the written test demands that the federal court force the NHFD to promote him.
31
C'mon, Republicans know fuck-all about the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee for chrissake. And Sotomayor herself was first appointed to the US District Court by George H. W. Fucking Bush.

And as for this whole "activist judges" claptrap: Bush v. Gore, motherfuckers. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.