Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Politics "Latina woman racist"
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Newt Gingrich, on Twitter, calling on Sonia Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Via Ben Smith)
Share via
7
He's a class act. What an impotent ass! I geuss because he was forced to resign as Speaker in disgrace, he thinks everyone should. Sexist pig. I hope he keeps making stupid statements.
8
Oh, this is gonna be delicious!
I hope the Republicans show up to her confirmation hearing honking car horns, wearing sombreros and asking her to drop tha chalupa.
They'll never get another vote from women or Hispanic Americans in our lifetimes!
I hope the Republicans show up to her confirmation hearing honking car horns, wearing sombreros and asking her to drop tha chalupa.
They'll never get another vote from women or Hispanic Americans in our lifetimes!
10
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”—Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001"
Sounds racist, and also it is more of the nauseating "progressive" identity politics of the kind that have turned Seattle into such a shithole.
Sounds racist, and also it is more of the nauseating "progressive" identity politics of the kind that have turned Seattle into such a shithole.
11
When you're done reading Ben, Sullivan, and Ezra Klein again, ThinkProgress says Ted Olsen, of all people, will be taking a couple's case to challenge Prop. 8: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/olso…
12
How can we miss those racist unpatriotic neocons if they won't go wander in the wilderness for 40 years already?
13
Unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
14
Right...
Saying in a speech that:
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."
Is no more racist than if someone like, oh lets say, Alito, had said in a speech:
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
Right?
And no one no where would have raised an eyebrow at it.
Right?
Saying in a speech that:
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."
Is no more racist than if someone like, oh lets say, Alito, had said in a speech:
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
Right?
And no one no where would have raised an eyebrow at it.
Right?
15
Keep it up GOP, at this rate "40 years in the desert" is going to stretch out to a good 80 or 90 - at least.
16
I think the WSJ sums it up best: "Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12433845…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12433845…
17
Espanol to Newt: "latina" already means woman or female. You don't need to say it twice.
@13 Huh? Could you please re-phrase that in a way that doesn't sound so wanna-be scholarly and pretentious? Thx!
@13 Huh? Could you please re-phrase that in a way that doesn't sound so wanna-be scholarly and pretentious? Thx!
18
@13,
Sure he would.
@16,
Not that I think you're in any way reasonable or intelligent, but Sotomayor has handed down opinions that do not reflect her personal opinion, but are a reasonable interpretation of standing law. But don't let the facts stop you.
Sure he would.
@16,
Not that I think you're in any way reasonable or intelligent, but Sotomayor has handed down opinions that do not reflect her personal opinion, but are a reasonable interpretation of standing law. But don't let the facts stop you.
19
@ 16,
So are you people pushing the whole "Latina racist" meme really so un-self aware that you don't realize that you sound like total raving lunatics?
So are you people pushing the whole "Latina racist" meme really so un-self aware that you don't realize that you sound like total raving lunatics?
21
I don't really think the whole "racist" thing is going to be a big issue. I do, however, believe her 60% record of being overturned on appeal will.
22
@18
Really? Of her 7 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 4 were reversed and only 2 were upheld (1 of which was upheld, but its reasoning was unanimously faulted). Not the glowing record of a brilliant legal mind. (One is pending.)
It'll be interesting to see how the pending one is resolved, particularly since it does speak directly to her personal identity politics, specifically Affirmative Action, yet her brief, unsigned, opinion makes no consideration of its Constitutional questions.
But surely the "richness" of her experience lead her to the "correct" view of what the law should be, so why consider the Constitutional questions... right?
Really? Of her 7 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 4 were reversed and only 2 were upheld (1 of which was upheld, but its reasoning was unanimously faulted). Not the glowing record of a brilliant legal mind. (One is pending.)
It'll be interesting to see how the pending one is resolved, particularly since it does speak directly to her personal identity politics, specifically Affirmative Action, yet her brief, unsigned, opinion makes no consideration of its Constitutional questions.
But surely the "richness" of her experience lead her to the "correct" view of what the law should be, so why consider the Constitutional questions... right?
23
@16 I wondered how long it would be before we would see shit creep into the WSJ. Since Murdoch bought the rag I figured it would have begun distorting and lying immediately. Pretty soon there will be no difference between it and the toilet paper known as the New York Post. However, using either one as a source makes one look intellectually retarded. "You_gotta_be_kidding_me": I certainly hope you don't have a college education, because if you do, your money was wasted.
24
@21, 22: Actually, that reversal rate is better than average. Overall the SCOTUS reverses 75% of opinions. (If there's not an interesting question on appeal, they don't accept the case, so it's not surprising that the rate is higher.)
25
Wow clearly a bunch of old white men know EXACT:Y what it's like to be on welfare and need a hearing before an arbitrary cut off, they know EXACTLY whether's it's reasonable or not for a latina woman at a work place to feel oppressed when everyone wears sombreros and gets drunk on cinco de mayo and leave a big burro on her desk, and a bunch of old white men know exactly whether or not it's okay to have segregation in rail cars and whether or not there's any harm to Mr. Plessy.
Bcauseold whiote men have done sooooo many things in our nation that have always been 100% correct.
Oh btw she ruled against the latino guy in the New Haven lawsuit but don't let facts stop you.
Pendejos.
Bcauseold whiote men have done sooooo many things in our nation that have always been 100% correct.
Oh btw she ruled against the latino guy in the New Haven lawsuit but don't let facts stop you.
Pendejos.
26
Context is dead, it's so so dead.
She's speaking on cases pertaining to minority and poverty rights and cultural diversity, says that O'Connor's insistence that it takes any "wise old man or woman" is false in that it implies age and not experience and then says, "but hey, look at me, I bet as someone who lived the life I could probably take a crack at it."
There being little impartiality in the SCOTUS and reams of bias, I can't seem to see how she's wrong in the least.
It's relativistic at worst, but it's mainly her just being boastful. This isn't a strong enough hook to hang the "oppressed white man" hat on.
She's speaking on cases pertaining to minority and poverty rights and cultural diversity, says that O'Connor's insistence that it takes any "wise old man or woman" is false in that it implies age and not experience and then says, "but hey, look at me, I bet as someone who lived the life I could probably take a crack at it."
There being little impartiality in the SCOTUS and reams of bias, I can't seem to see how she's wrong in the least.
It's relativistic at worst, but it's mainly her just being boastful. This isn't a strong enough hook to hang the "oppressed white man" hat on.
27
Eli,
Personally, I could care less what Gingrich says. What interests me is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/pol…
After reading this piece and giving it some thought, it is quite possible that Sotomayor (if confirmed) may disappoint Liberals in the way Souter, Warren and Brennan disappointed Conservatives. G. H. W. Bush appointed Souter and Eisenhower appointed Warren & Brennan.
There have been relatively few Democratic SC appointments in the last 60 or so years (Eisenhower appointed 5, Kennedy/Johnson 4, Nixon/Ford 5, Carter 0, Reagan 3, Bush I 2, Clinton 2 and Bush II 2. That's Republicans have17 appointments vs.the Democrats 6). One is bound to disappoint.
Personally, I could care less what Gingrich says. What interests me is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/pol…
After reading this piece and giving it some thought, it is quite possible that Sotomayor (if confirmed) may disappoint Liberals in the way Souter, Warren and Brennan disappointed Conservatives. G. H. W. Bush appointed Souter and Eisenhower appointed Warren & Brennan.
There have been relatively few Democratic SC appointments in the last 60 or so years (Eisenhower appointed 5, Kennedy/Johnson 4, Nixon/Ford 5, Carter 0, Reagan 3, Bush I 2, Clinton 2 and Bush II 2. That's Republicans have17 appointments vs.the Democrats 6). One is bound to disappoint.
28
@8 is very pertinent. The Republicans have decided to go at her hard, despite the fact that she was originally appointed by a Republican (GHWB, who was a Marxist/Leninist by today's GOP standards), which is going to (a) fail because they don't have the votes and (b) permanently reduce the GOP support among Latinos to nil. Even GWB wasn't that stupid.
@5: she's Puerto Rican, not Mexican. They're not very similar at all. You should read up on it, you might learn something.
@5: she's Puerto Rican, not Mexican. They're not very similar at all. You should read up on it, you might learn something.
29
Unless there's some hideous disgusting "skeleton" in her closet, she will likely be confirmed. The republicans making this a teaching moment on the proper role of the judiciary is laughable (Bush v. Gore anyone?). The republicans have dug their grave. How much deeper is the only question left.
Several weeks ago I had the displeasure of encountering Tom Tancredo, another of the stellar republican racists. I wanted to spit in his face, but alas I restrained myself. It was striking though. He was so small. I figure that he and many of his fellow right-wingers must be compensating for something.
An interesting aside: On MSNBC right now Rachel Maddow is addressing the new republican "talking point" about the issue of Judge Sotomayor's reversals.
At least the republicans are consistent--they'll walk over a cliff together no matter what. If only.
Several weeks ago I had the displeasure of encountering Tom Tancredo, another of the stellar republican racists. I wanted to spit in his face, but alas I restrained myself. It was striking though. He was so small. I figure that he and many of his fellow right-wingers must be compensating for something.
An interesting aside: On MSNBC right now Rachel Maddow is addressing the new republican "talking point" about the issue of Judge Sotomayor's reversals.
At least the republicans are consistent--they'll walk over a cliff together no matter what. If only.
30
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white woman who hasn’t lived that life."
sounds reasonable
sounds reasonable
31
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a black man who hasn’t lived that life."
obviously
obviously
32
@25
Last I checked Justice was not supposed to be ruled by passion but be blind. Judges are supposed to apply the law dispassionately. Legeslators and Executives are the ones who are allowed, even tasked, to exercise passion and compassion. That's why they get to write law and grant pardons.
Last I checked Justice was not supposed to be ruled by passion but be blind. Judges are supposed to apply the law dispassionately. Legeslators and Executives are the ones who are allowed, even tasked, to exercise passion and compassion. That's why they get to write law and grant pardons.
33
@ 27,
True that. My guess is she'll be a swing vote at best, but will side with corporations and wingnuts more often than not.
True that. My guess is she'll be a swing vote at best, but will side with corporations and wingnuts more often than not.
34
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Hispanic who hasn’t lived that life."
35
Wow! Alito's reversal rate was 100% and he's sitting on SCOTUS.
Source: Thomas Goldstein, Scotusblog.com on MSNBC 7:20p.m. MST
@24 your statistic about the 75% reversal rate by Scotus was also confirmed.
Stupid, stupid, stupid republicans. Although it is fun watching them politically kill themselves on what seems a daily basis!
Source: Thomas Goldstein, Scotusblog.com on MSNBC 7:20p.m. MST
@24 your statistic about the 75% reversal rate by Scotus was also confirmed.
Stupid, stupid, stupid republicans. Although it is fun watching them politically kill themselves on what seems a daily basis!
36
"I would hope that a wise heterosexual man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Homosexual who hasn’t lived that life."
Family values and all...
Family values and all...
37
@ 32,
So when Scalia foams at the mouth and rails on and on about the "hummuhsekshal agenda" from the bench, or Clarence Thomas makes some incoherent ramblings about the Bill of Rights that clearly shows to even a lay person that he has no idea what he's talking about, it's just them 'dispassionately' interpreting the law?
You must be a masochist for all the Slog abuse you take. I can't even make fun of you anymore.
I haz a sad.
So when Scalia foams at the mouth and rails on and on about the "hummuhsekshal agenda" from the bench, or Clarence Thomas makes some incoherent ramblings about the Bill of Rights that clearly shows to even a lay person that he has no idea what he's talking about, it's just them 'dispassionately' interpreting the law?
You must be a masochist for all the Slog abuse you take. I can't even make fun of you anymore.
I haz a sad.
38
Mexican/Puerto Rican, and off topic:
NYT story today notes reaction of some guy from Honduras, saying this is great but why no Central American on the Court? Then a Cuban, saying why no Cuban?
Hopefully one day we'll have a Mexican, a Cuban and a Honduran, just like today we have a Kennedy/Ginsberg/Alito/Roberts/Thomas etc.
And check out Celina Sotomayor, two jobs, no husband, in the projects, gets her nursing certificate, buys her kids encyclopedias, gets them into the catholic school (public schools too "rowdy," what a euphemism, war zone more like it) and one kid becomes a doctor and the other a supreme court justice.
Bravo Celina.
NYT story today notes reaction of some guy from Honduras, saying this is great but why no Central American on the Court? Then a Cuban, saying why no Cuban?
Hopefully one day we'll have a Mexican, a Cuban and a Honduran, just like today we have a Kennedy/Ginsberg/Alito/Roberts/Thomas etc.
And check out Celina Sotomayor, two jobs, no husband, in the projects, gets her nursing certificate, buys her kids encyclopedias, gets them into the catholic school (public schools too "rowdy," what a euphemism, war zone more like it) and one kid becomes a doctor and the other a supreme court justice.
Bravo Celina.
40
Oh leave the old white men alone: It's bad enough they were born with inadequate penises, now that they're old their penises don't even get hard anymore, so they have to spend their time on crap like this.
It will be a happy day when we close the lid on the coffin of that particular generation of old white men with penis issues. Maybe they were right about floridation...
It will be a happy day when we close the lid on the coffin of that particular generation of old white men with penis issues. Maybe they were right about floridation...
42
To Casa Latrina @ #10
Basically what Sotomayor is saying is that you don't fully understand someone until you have walked in their shoes.
Because she knows first hand the struggles of Latino people in this country she can better understand where they are coming from.
Most white male judges have had the luxury of preferential treatment and some have also lived a privileged life that has shielded them from the struggles poor minorities have had to face.
How can you "impartially" judge someone if you don't understand someone?
Basically what Sotomayor is saying is that you don't fully understand someone until you have walked in their shoes.
Because she knows first hand the struggles of Latino people in this country she can better understand where they are coming from.
Most white male judges have had the luxury of preferential treatment and some have also lived a privileged life that has shielded them from the struggles poor minorities have had to face.
How can you "impartially" judge someone if you don't understand someone?
43
@42 -
So in order to properly rule on a murder case, the judge has to also be a murderer? Goddamn you are stupid.
So in order to properly rule on a murder case, the judge has to also be a murderer? Goddamn you are stupid.
44
@42
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
That's pretty much the opposite of judging someone based on your understanding of where they are coming from.
Blind justice has been a hallmark of western democracy for hundreds of years.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
That's pretty much the opposite of judging someone based on your understanding of where they are coming from.
Blind justice has been a hallmark of western democracy for hundreds of years.
46
To the retarded persons at 43 and 44,
Ummm, Sotomayor was talking about cases involving minority rights issues NOT murder cases! You took her quote completely out of context!
Geez! Wash that rabid foam out of your mouth!
And if judges really used "Blind justice" then why does a persons previous criminal record come into play during a sentencing?
Jesus also thinks you're as$holes...
Ummm, Sotomayor was talking about cases involving minority rights issues NOT murder cases! You took her quote completely out of context!
Geez! Wash that rabid foam out of your mouth!
And if judges really used "Blind justice" then why does a persons previous criminal record come into play during a sentencing?
Jesus also thinks you're as$holes...
47
Why do the racists and bigots always hide behind anonymous comments and/or white hoods? Cowards! (this might be troll food, sorry)
48
@46
Sentencing occurs separate from and after deliberation and ruling. Furthermore, a persons criminal record is a point of fact (objective) and thus admissible. The defendant either has or has not been found guilty of other crimes. "Understanding where they are coming from" is subjective and therefore not admissible. Incidentally, the Supreme Court does not sentence individuals. It only upholds or reverses the findings of other courts. It does not consider the sentences that those courts hand down as a result of those rulings. Therefore sentencing, and the considerations that contribute to it, are irrelevant to the Supreme Court, which is concerned only with the ruling its self. (Unless, of course, it is hearing an appeal to a ruling on the constitutionality of a law dictating sentencing guidelines.)
Oh... an Jesus KNOWS your an asshole.
Sentencing occurs separate from and after deliberation and ruling. Furthermore, a persons criminal record is a point of fact (objective) and thus admissible. The defendant either has or has not been found guilty of other crimes. "Understanding where they are coming from" is subjective and therefore not admissible. Incidentally, the Supreme Court does not sentence individuals. It only upholds or reverses the findings of other courts. It does not consider the sentences that those courts hand down as a result of those rulings. Therefore sentencing, and the considerations that contribute to it, are irrelevant to the Supreme Court, which is concerned only with the ruling its self. (Unless, of course, it is hearing an appeal to a ruling on the constitutionality of a law dictating sentencing guidelines.)
Oh... an Jesus KNOWS your an asshole.
50
42 said: "Basically what Sotomayor is saying is that you don't fully understand someone until you have walked in their shoes.
Most white male judges have had the luxury of preferential treatment and some have also lived a privileged life that has shielded them from the struggles poor minorities have had to face."
Ok 42, sentence 1: don't judge someone unless you've walked in their shoes.
sentence 2: you do just that. assumptions and judgements left and right.
Funny/ironic
Most white male judges have had the luxury of preferential treatment and some have also lived a privileged life that has shielded them from the struggles poor minorities have had to face."
Ok 42, sentence 1: don't judge someone unless you've walked in their shoes.
sentence 2: you do just that. assumptions and judgements left and right.
Funny/ironic
51
46" To the retarded persons at 43 and 44,
Ummm, Sotomayor was talking about cases involving minority rights issues NOT murder cases!"
Pot calling the kettle black. If a latina woman is more qualified with cases involving minorities then we can assume a white man in more qualified with cases involving white men, that wealthy judges can better understand cases involving the wealthy, etc onward forever...
Ummm, Sotomayor was talking about cases involving minority rights issues NOT murder cases!"
Pot calling the kettle black. If a latina woman is more qualified with cases involving minorities then we can assume a white man in more qualified with cases involving white men, that wealthy judges can better understand cases involving the wealthy, etc onward forever...
52
Hey at 48!
I think you meant to say:
Oh... an Jesus KNOWS "you're" an asshole.
not: Oh... an Jesus KNOWS "your" an asshole.
Obviously you were looking at the hideous reflection of yourself when you wrote that...
and "jane doe" (who I suspect is one and the same with "Fuck The Constitution, Give Me Tribalism!" and "celebrate divershitty"... I'm not being nominated for the supreme court so save your rabid bile.
So much time you devote to Slog with your fancy legal mumbo-jumbo back talk. A washed up/failed lawyer are we?
I think you meant to say:
Oh... an Jesus KNOWS "you're" an asshole.
not: Oh... an Jesus KNOWS "your" an asshole.
Obviously you were looking at the hideous reflection of yourself when you wrote that...
and "jane doe" (who I suspect is one and the same with "Fuck The Constitution, Give Me Tribalism!" and "celebrate divershitty"... I'm not being nominated for the supreme court so save your rabid bile.
So much time you devote to Slog with your fancy legal mumbo-jumbo back talk. A washed up/failed lawyer are we?
53
Isn't it funny how liberals don't have any real arguments and facts to bring to the debate, so they have to resort to insults?
54
Fuck your Jesus shit. Shove your Jesus shit up your Virgin De Guadalupe's and go live in fucking Mexico.
55
Oh dear,
My comment about "A washed up/failed lawyer are we" must have really struck a nerve with "jane doe" (who I suspect is one and the same with "Fuck The Constitution, Give Me Tribalism!", "celebrate divershitty", "Small-Dicked Legal Mumbo Jumbo Talker" and "Mexicans and Catholics are FUCKING STUPID".
Your argument against Sotomayor was flawed from the beginning... Why beat a dead horse with pretend scenarios using your flawed logic?
And in addition to having to correct your, ahem, English (apparently you don't know the difference between the words your and you're) for the last time Sotomayor is Puerto Rican not Mexican- not that it makes a difference to me...
My comment about "A washed up/failed lawyer are we" must have really struck a nerve with "jane doe" (who I suspect is one and the same with "Fuck The Constitution, Give Me Tribalism!", "celebrate divershitty", "Small-Dicked Legal Mumbo Jumbo Talker" and "Mexicans and Catholics are FUCKING STUPID".
Your argument against Sotomayor was flawed from the beginning... Why beat a dead horse with pretend scenarios using your flawed logic?
And in addition to having to correct your, ahem, English (apparently you don't know the difference between the words your and you're) for the last time Sotomayor is Puerto Rican not Mexican- not that it makes a difference to me...
56
Really? I thought she was an American. I'm not sure a Puerto Rican can legally hold that office...
57
Oh, you so got me! Oh, ouch! Gaping prolapsed Asshole @ #26 got me!
That burning in your loins must be pretty intense right now cuz you caught someone refering to Sotomayor as a Puerto Rican instead of Puerto Rican American- oh kudos for you and your smug pendantic sematnic self... We worship thee...
What a dick!
LOL!
That burning in your loins must be pretty intense right now cuz you caught someone refering to Sotomayor as a Puerto Rican instead of Puerto Rican American- oh kudos for you and your smug pendantic sematnic self... We worship thee...
What a dick!
LOL!
58
56 You asked a really interesting question that I myself wanted to know more of, so here's what I found.
1940 -> "With the 1940 U.S. Nationality Act, which became effective January 13, 1941, ratified by the Nationality Law in 1952, the Congress amended the statue on naturalization, expanding the applicability of the jus soli rule to Puerto Rico. Under this Act, all persons born in Puerto Rico after that date are considered U.S. citizens and, therefore, their U.S. citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (In 1917, U.S. citizenship granted to Puerto Ricans was a naturalized legislative or statutory citizenship (Congress can revoke statutory citizenship under certain conditions).)"
http://www.topuertorico.org/history5.sht…
I did not know what "jus soli" meant so I went to wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
So from what I understand she can legally hold any office in the U.S. even if she had been born in Poerto Rico itself.
Hopefully her strong stand for people of color and her strong values based on her Catholic faith and her centrist positions will calm some of the rabid elements in Congress that want to derail her nomination. All in all the more I know about her the more I like. I knew our President would make a middle of the road person (on the lines of O'Connor) and favor a more centrist nomination like Ms Sotomayr.
1940 -> "With the 1940 U.S. Nationality Act, which became effective January 13, 1941, ratified by the Nationality Law in 1952, the Congress amended the statue on naturalization, expanding the applicability of the jus soli rule to Puerto Rico. Under this Act, all persons born in Puerto Rico after that date are considered U.S. citizens and, therefore, their U.S. citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (In 1917, U.S. citizenship granted to Puerto Ricans was a naturalized legislative or statutory citizenship (Congress can revoke statutory citizenship under certain conditions).)"
http://www.topuertorico.org/history5.sht…
I did not know what "jus soli" meant so I went to wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
So from what I understand she can legally hold any office in the U.S. even if she had been born in Poerto Rico itself.
Hopefully her strong stand for people of color and her strong values based on her Catholic faith and her centrist positions will calm some of the rabid elements in Congress that want to derail her nomination. All in all the more I know about her the more I like. I knew our President would make a middle of the road person (on the lines of O'Connor) and favor a more centrist nomination like Ms Sotomayr.
59
@ 57
Um... I think its clear that your - oh!, pardon me!! - you're the "smug pendantic sematnic" one.
But I think the words you're trying to find in that tiny little "brain" are "pedantic" and "semantic".
Glass houses and all... (keep trying though!)
What an ignorant cunt!
ROFLOL
Um... I think its clear that your - oh!, pardon me!! - you're the "smug pendantic sematnic" one.
But I think the words you're trying to find in that tiny little "brain" are "pedantic" and "semantic".
Glass houses and all... (keep trying though!)
What an ignorant cunt!
ROFLOL
60
Hahaha!
My last post to you was a "Gaping prolapsed As$hole" test! You caught all the errors in my post so you just passed with an resounding A++!
Tee hee...
Dear Jesus,
help me to not use cuss words when dealing with pedantic and semantic As$holes like "You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me"...
My last post to you was a "Gaping prolapsed As$hole" test! You caught all the errors in my post so you just passed with an resounding A++!
Tee hee...
Dear Jesus,
help me to not use cuss words when dealing with pedantic and semantic As$holes like "You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me"...
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Privatizing WA Liquor Carries a High Cost, Says Opponent by Cienna Madrid
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (61) RSS