Thread: Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Should be a state matter.

This is always a flake out answer to important matters our country has to deal with. For example if we left civil rights to the states instead of the federal government becoming involved such as with the civil rights act, we might still have separate but equal in the south.

Some states need to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality by the others via the federal government.

Yes, because it was the south who came up with the 3/5ths compromise...
Never mind the intentions of the founders were clear in the Articles of Confederation...later...reluctantly, did the constitution come around after the need was understood for LIMITED federal government for the union.

The Fed exists to serve the states.....not the other way around.

I personally find the lazy, somebody else will deal with it sentiment of my generation to be a putrid excuse for an existence. At some point we collectively have to realize that we are no smarter than the generations before us...and in fact....we are lacking.

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by Consultant

IMHO, if the government is going to fund one position, they should fund the opposite as well. Like funding political campaigns. We have public funding of both democrat and republican campaigns. Why not pro and anti-abortion materials and programs?

Says Mr. Say No to the Fairness Doctrine.

There isnt anything fair about the fairness doctrine. Why should our government be in charge of dictating what is and isnt heard on the radio and how much of it? They shouldnt.

You (not you personally, just people in general) dont like listening, to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Fox News, etc.... dont listen. All media is biased, it's just a matter of which side they are leaning towards.

Rock,

The Fairness Doctrine, as it stands now, could apply only to over-the-air broadcasts, i.e. traditional radio. Those are by necessity granted under FCC wireless broadcast licenses.

CNN, MSNBC, etc. are cable television shows. The Fariness Doctrine does not apply to them.

If Congress passes a new Fairness Doctrine law, and Obama signs it, then the rules might change as Blake stated above. I am talking about the present state of the law.

and in that form is seems strangely pointed....Any law should effect all media forms the same...then again if it isnt sedition why is the government even involved?

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Consultant

I heard on the news that when her cases have been taken to the supreme court that her ruling was overturned 80% of the time.

Which is bullshit. What you are referring to, is the lame ass Washington Post headline, and Fox News spin, which stated 60% of her cases that went up to the Supreme Court and were ruled on, were reversed. Now if you actually researched on the "red meat" that you heard on Limbaugh, or Hannity, Beck or any other tool on the radio, you would have learned that the Supreme Court reverses something like 70%-75% of the cases that they hear. She has been part of thousands of cases, she wrote around 375 opinions, of those opinions 6 have been heard by the Supreme Court, 5 ruled on, 3 out of 5 have been reversed.....60%. That reads to me that her cases beat the average by 10%-15%.

Originally Posted by Consultant

I also heard on the news that she tried to dismiss the case of the firefighters who claimed reverse discrimination and that another Latino justice scolded her for it.

Please tell us about this case, I doubt you know anything about it. But here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano Tell me how she is unqualified...

Originally Posted by Consultant

I'm sure she's qualified, legally, but I question her aptitude for making constitutional decisions.

How do you come to your conclusion that she hasn't the "aptitude"? Her "batting average" is better than Sam Alito's in regards to case reversals by the Supreme Court. Alito had two of his decisions heard by the Supreme Court and both were reversed.... 100%

Originally Posted by Consultant

Her story is inspiring and incredible - how she got where she is today - but that is not criteria I would consider important for becoming a supreme court justice. IMHO.

With your infinite wisdom and far reaching knowledge, please do tell what your thoughts are in regards to Sam Alito's "aptitude"?

Funny - I heard both of those bits on my way out of the car, where I was listening to ABC News Radio or whatever the local Clear Channel rock affiliate plays between music sets. I work while Hannity and Rush and Beck are on.

I made it clear that "I heard" these things...

With regard to the other bits and pieces of your post - I admit that I didnt study up on Supreme Court ruling percentages prior to my post, so you are probably right. I also dont have the time or desire to fact check you all over the place.

She's going to be confirmed, nothing anybody can do about it.

She did help save Baseball from the strike - so she's got that going from her.

Regarding the firefighter case - the City messed up and she should have ruled on it...that is my layman's opinion. Just because no blacks passed the test and some whites and one hispanic did - doesnt mean they cant hand out promotions, that's some of the clearest quota keeping...ridiculous.

Why wouldnt she take the opportunity, in the Circuit Court to deal with the difficult constitutional issues at play? Why would she issue an extremely brief, un-signed opinion that basically rubber-stamped the District Court below her? Was that a good decision? The Surpeme Court seems to disagree and have taken up the case. I like Jose Cabranes' view...and he makes a good point when he says "the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

She punted...hoping to keep it out of the big ring, and it failed.

If the ruling is upheld or struck down is almost irrelevent. Why would she shirk her duty to handle the legalities and constitutional issues that are at the heart of the case?

I'm not a lawyer - and I have no doubt that the Pro-bama lawyers that we do have here will side with her and explain in legalese why she did what she did...but I'm (PERSONALLY) not buying it.

Then there's the whole issue of her opinion of white men...

If a white male judge had said "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" what would happen? When Sonia was talking about Sandra Day O'Connor's quote "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." - Sonia Sotomayor said "I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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."

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society,”

I dont give two rippin shits about the richness of her experience as it relates to interpretation of our founding documents. And that doesnt make me a Republican, a Rush wanna-be, or a right wing sheep...

Now go ahead - google Alito and Unqualified or something else that will invalidate my concerns.

The difference is I know I'm crazy...you think you're not!

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Was it a specific case or subject that quote about a latina versus a white man was referring to?

I don't think there is much debating that someone who grew up poor in the streets and made it to the top is going to reach a better conclusion about how to fix it versus someone who grew up in little town suburbia and made it to the top. Perhaps she was referring to a similar situation.

I give two whits of her background so long as she regards the constitution as the fundamental document that must be upheld in the cases she would oversee as as supreme court judge.