You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Tue, 26th May '09 8:09 AM

SO WHAT??

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSEO14165620090525?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews like this makes a difference. China is the key as they are in the monitary field now. Belive Nancy is tere. Peraps she can talk them into tightened the screws on N. Korea-think???


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Tue, 26th May '09 10:43 AM

Well, Obama has gotten the focus off his embarrassment about this and his reversals on the things that made his left so very unhappy last week. He has named is Supreme Court pick and they will be pleased and it will get the headlines.. She has a hard-luck story an take nothing away from the things she has overcome to get where she stands today. S he has proven though by her decision at the lower court level that she believes it is her job to rule in favor of minorities not the Constitution-guess that is empathy She dismissed the case of the white firefighters and one Latino who were not promoted because no blacks passed the test so no one was promoted. The firefighters have taken their case to the Supreme Court and hopefully her decision will be reversed before she gets there. There is no doubt she will be confirmed as it is unstoppable-said her colleagues consider her a bit of a bully and she does not do well with building consensus. Too bad he had to READ his nice words about her. The fact that there will be more picks to come really scary to me-Linda

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Wed, 27th May '09 12:13 AM

Linda, but you shouldn't be afraid of change. Nothing remains the same, even rocks erode. Be very brave and welcome your new challenge. President Obama's choice is not as liberal as you think; which strikes an excelleent balance. Remember we are are not red states, blues states, or purple states as our very intelligent, thoughtful, President said "We are the United States". What an excellent agenda our President has to bring this country back to what our Founding Fathers laid in the blueprint. Consider it a part of your growth in order to form a more perfect union.
Change is constant.

madamec8
Madamec8  (Level: 82.6 - Posts: 893)
Wed, 27th May '09 1:11 AM

Resistance is futile -- nanu nanu

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 2:11 AM

Yes, change can be good but would rather not jump off a cliff and take my kids and grands with me- If your are talking about the court pick I said before that I appreciate her fight. Would just suggest that those who are questioning her lay off the personal but perhaps bring in the fireman (White) who is dyslexic and hired special tutors to pass that test some might have empathy there. In SAVING baseball she forced team owners to recognize the players as free agents and negotiate their salaries accordingly. We all know baseball players hardly make enough to feed the kids Of course she was young when she said a young Latino woman bring with he rthe richness of her life experience would make far wiser decisions than a white man. (just imagine the outcry if the statement reversed had been said by a white man.) Believe that is in the same category as Wanda at the press dinner saying she hoped a white man's kidneys would fail. At least the kidney joke person was a comedian not a person about to sit on our highest court. With a story like that people even questioning her will have to be careful as the Latino vote already precarious and would be a wash-out if they boxed her into a corner. She is a sure thing barring any huge scandal in her past. The scary part is Obama knew that and if you believe his picking her because she is the best jurist and not a wise political move I indeed have an island for sale. Every judge has personal experience but it is their job to decide the law without favoring either side as she alluded to in saying they legislate at some taped conference. Her views are fine for an elected official who represents a group of people and can be voted out- Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 27th May '09 4:35 AM

Well, Linda, it will be interesting to see how this nomination plays out. This apparent racist element is quite troubling. I await her explanations of these matters as well as an examination of her legal acuity.

larefamiliaris
Larefamiliaris  (Level: 135.2 - Posts: 877)
Wed, 27th May '09 5:03 AM

Damn - I thought this was a Miles Davis thread.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 5:57 AM

I have learned that things are only "racist" if they are said by white people otherwise they are humorous or written off as taken out on context blah blah blah. She will get in it is just a matter of how much damage those who question her do to themselves. Also though equally convinced that certain groups :will vote for a "snake oil salesman" no matter how far he has driven our country into the ditch Linda PS are you keeping an eye on old Roland Burris? Big troubles in little Chicago city LOL Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 27th May '09 6:18 AM

Yup, Linda, this latest article on Burris is an eye opener.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/recordings.wiretaps.burris.2.1019307.html

Better to be in France where locally a corrupt a mayor of a village just hanged himself in the local prison. With village funds he had bought $5 million euros of valuable paintings for his home and the village itself has a 40 million euro budget deficit. A real criminal enterprise at village hall apparently.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 6:38 AM

Speaks strongly to the reason Fitzpatrick brought his investigation of Blago to light early. EVERY incoming president has the right to fire federal prosecutors-and it might have crossed Fitxpatrick's mind that digging around in Illinois politics that his head might be on the line.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 3:01 PM

Hilary really looked STRESSED at her press conference saying that there will be consequences to N. Korea's actions-looking for a strong resolution out of the UN-that certainly will be meaningful She is hoping N. Korea will return to the 6 party talks-unproductive for a very long time. Hint: they aren't going to do anything cooperative unless China cuts off their fuel and food supplies. China is fast emerging as the country the US was in the early 5os-place where other countries look to for loans and power. Dunno...things shift maybe it is time..

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 27th May '09 3:25 PM

Yup, Bill will be grounded, but this admin will not do anything about Iran or North Korea.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 3:45 PM

Things are heating up in Pakistan too Gesus what is that guy doing in Vegas raising money for Harry Reid and promoting his "green thing"??

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:23 PM

Andy

Out of all due respect and the fact that I owe you !.25 euros from our BB bet, the statement
"....but this admin will not do anything about Iran or North Korea.", I would like to
know your opinion as to:

1. What would the McCain administration do if they had been elected?

2. What would the Bush administration do (again) if they were still in power?

and

3. What would you do?

I am just curious.

Bo

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:35 PM

As Nancy would say, "They Lost!"

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:39 PM

Bo, I don't know what anyone would do in his shoes, but I am reading that Obama has given a pass to Iran (he has declared hands off till 2010) while putting the screws to Israel, and I can't see where Iran has given us anything in return for a free path to nuclear arms.

I think the US should be in active negotiations against Iranian nuclear ambitions and I think we should not take the Israel card off the table. So keep up the pressure and unleash Israel.

I am more hopeful about N Korea inasmuch as its neighbors don't want that nutty country to have the bomb. Too early to tell what the Obama response is, but don't forget that we got here because of the naiveté of Jimmy Carter and company. Same kind of thinking back in power.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:45 PM

This is coming from a Fox contributor so plug your ears and start the la-la-la. Not exact in wording but N. Korean might listen if we encouraged Japan and S Korean to go nuclear or acted like we were going to encourage it-scary I now but you know how crazy thhose right-wingers are LOL

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:49 PM

oh wait..didn't aying something like that kill Goldwater in politics? At some point he has to quit campaigning and blaming Bush.- maybe blame Carter andwork from there. The economy is certainly looking much like the Carter economy so that might work.

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:50 PM

Or we can blame it on Eve. She ate the damn apple.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 27th May '09 7:59 PM

This is total opinion, but it is based on 1994.

I don't think the U.S. can do anything alone against N. Korea.

The N. Korean military is MUCH larger than ours. Were it not for the sudden (?) death of Kim Il Sung, we would have been unwillingly at war July, 1994. I've told the story before, but just to remind. My son was in the Marines and stationed in S. Carolina. He called me and told me he was shipping out overseas any moment, we were (secretly?) at defcon 2, and get to S. Carolina as quickly as possible, because it most likely would be our last chance to see each other. The N. Korea military was 1 Million strong, and he truly feared the U.S. would lose this time. I left that night from Dallas. By the time I got to S. Carolina, Sung had died, and his son was in power and not so inclined to go to war with us.

I hope he is still not inclined and it's just so much beating of the chest, especially with the rest of the world not approving of him.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 27th May '09 8:03 PM

Mrbo - here's the sad part.

Had Eve NOT eaten that forbidden fruit (whatever it really was), and nobody else had either up until my existence, I'll be dadblast - it probably would have been ME that ate it now, in spite of how much I hate snakes.....and most fruit. Sigh.......

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 27th May '09 8:46 PM

For anybody who would like an analysis of North Korea's nuclear ambitions and the reasons why -- much more insightful than our own Andy's typical knee jerk bellicosity -- I would recommend the piece entitled "Fearful Pride: North Korea's Second Nuclear Test" by Manuel Garcia, Jr., a physicist formerly with the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory. It is posted at Counterpunch with the articles dated May 26, 2009 at www.counterpunch.org. Garcia states that North Korea already is a member of the nuclear club so its futile to talk about stopping the North Koreans from developing a nuclear weapon. He also contends -- quite correctly in my view -- that North Korea has no intention of using nuclear weapons because its leadership fully understands it will be annihilated if it does -- when all the North Korean ruling elite want is to be left alone and to maintain its power within its realm. Garcia argues -- again, in my view convincingly -- that it is entirely rational for the North Korean elite to develop nuclear weapons as this will likely make Americans think twice before attacking this member of the supposed "axis of evil".

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 28th May '09 4:01 AM

Wrong again, TSK.

We have reached this point because of the naiveté of Clueless Jimmy, Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton who negotiated a deal that sent oil shipments to North Korea in exchange for their promise to stop developing nuclear weapons. Of course, they somehow forgot to include a sufficient verification clause. So North Korea continued to develop nuclear arms in secret and we were taken to the cleaners for almost a decade.

I was encouraged when the Bush administration switched to six party talks from direct negotiation after early on it discovered North Korea's cheating that like Pakistan's selling of nuclear tech went undiscovered during the Clinton years. Linda is correct that the Japan card is the next one to play in this scenario. China does not want Japan to have nuclear weapons, but in response to North Korea's bomb, Japan will want to nuclear weapons as well.

Bellicose, TSK? Not at all.

Diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force is just empty words, apparently the kind of diplomacy you prefer.

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Thu, 28th May '09 5:38 AM

Yep, Collioure.
Have these people not learned from the 1930s appeasement policies?
Substitute 'Hitler' in the previous post and it almost runs word for word ................

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Thu, 28th May '09 5:43 AM

And doesn't the previous poster realise that, at the very least, North Korea's intentions towards South Korea are hardly benign?
Some 100,000 US, Brits & allies died in the last confrontation, including friends of mine.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 5:47 AM

The FOX contributor was pointing out I believe that everyone is watching N. Korea much like they watched Hitler and the US did nothing. N. Korea has nothing much to sell except this nuclear ability thing. China iss the only one who can possibly control them and China fears a nuclear Japan. Thus if we at least posture with Japan (They would have to amend their constitution to arm nuclear) it might cause N. Korea to stop testing and advertising -Linda

diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Thu, 28th May '09 5:46 PM

A wise White woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black male who hasn't lived that life.




caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:00 PM

Diva ROCKS !!

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:08 PM

She was speaking very specifically about hearing race and gender discrimination cases. She was saying that her life experience as a minority and a woman gives her insight into those types of cases. I'd say that was a good thing.

Justice Alito said the same thing during his confirmation hearings - that his family's immigrant experience informs his decisions on the bench. Nobody batted an eye.

Please, don't form an opinion based on one sentence taken out of context. Read what came before and after instead of making up your mind based on a sound bite.

Of course, if you've already formed the opinion and are just looking for stuff that seems to back it up, carry on.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:16 PM

It's a racist statement, Donna, which has nothing to do with the law.

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:31 PM

Smoke ROCKS!!!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:31 PM

Palma just pointed out how racist it would be if it were reversed. If the Republican lawmakers are smart they won't touch it and leave it to the right wing talk show and pundit guys. They need to stick to her decisions and call the white dyslexic fireman who hired tutors to pass the promotion test but was not promoted because no black people scored well and the test was discarded. This judge dismissed it and an issue was made by a Latina fellow judge that she had not given it proper consideration. He put his objection in writing and the case should soon be decided by the Supreme Court. There is also a ruling she made on something to do with gun laws residing with the states. It they stick to the issues, they will make their point as she will get through regardleses and getting on a personal level makes them look bad as she did herself by this statement. Anything you say that you have to start a lenghty explanation to defend becomes an issue and is noticed. MO

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:36 PM


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:44 PM

Donna Dearest, show me some context that doesn't make the statement racist.

We have laws covering racial discrimination. She is saying that because of her background she will decide them based on her personal LATINA experiences and not based on law.

R-A-C-I-S-T by any standard.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:45 PM

LOL in depth analyses doesn't matter a bit to most people. If they did they would be concerned about China being uneasy about our debt and the doulde down poker style spending. They don't. They hear what she said. She will get through as the Democrats have the votes. Obama has pretty much dared the GOP to go after her and in so doing make fools of themmselves. Hope they don't and settle for making a point or two that might count in upcoming elections-

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:53 PM

I believe her message was the exact opposite of racist. Please do her the respect of reading the whole thing and then tell me you think it's racist:

"In our private conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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 Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. 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 [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:55 PM

BTW, the speech was delivered at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law and published in 2002 in a law journal.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:56 PM

Maybe Andy will read it but the woman who was so happy that she would not have to make her mortgage payment or pay her bills when Obama won or her counterpart won't

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 28th May '09 7:56 PM

There are no skin colors in the law, Donna.

And there's no excuse for her statement. It's out of bounds.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 28th May '09 8:21 PM

It's out of context is what it is. This is one of those agree/disagree things again. If you've been able to convince yourself that her speech is racist, it's certainly not in my power to dissuade you. How odd that no one called her on it when she made it, or in the eight years since.

The right plays the race card against a person of color. What a shock.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Thu, 28th May '09 9:10 PM

ERR eight years ago she was not going to be a shoo in for the Supreme Court. Relax she's in LOL Linda

diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Thu, 28th May '09 9:32 PM

Given that as an appellate justice, she sided with a Republican colleague 95% of the time, I'd say SHE could be a right-winger.

The fact is that when her cases make it to the Supreme Court they're mostly overturned.. But there is the current case..


In 2003, the New Haven fire department had several vacancies for new lieutenants and captains. Candidates for promotion had to take a written and oral test. Candidates had three months to prepare. Ricci gave up a second job to study. Because he is dyslexic, Ricci paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He studied 8 to 13 hours a day. And he succeeded. Ricci's exam ranked sixth among the 77 candidates who took the test.

But New Haven's civil service board ruled that not enough minorities earned a qualifying score. The city is more than a third black. None of the 19 African-American firefighters who took the exam earned a sufficient score. The city tossed out the exam. No promotions were given. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued New Haven for discrimination.

In 2006, a Federal District Court ruled that the city had not discriminated against the white firefighters. Judge Janet Bond Arterton argued that since "the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," no harm was done.

But in reality, the decision meant that Ricci and other qualified candidates were denied promotions because of the color of their skin. This is the essence of discrimination. The exclusion of a person from earned advancement because of his or her race. The Ricci case exemplifies decades of faulty policy that mistook equal opportunity for equal outcome.

When the case came before the three-judge panel of the New York federal appeals court, Arterton's ruling was upheld in an unsigned and, as the New York Times described it, "unusually terse decision." One of the judges who upheld the ruling was Sotomayor.

Judge Jose Cabranes' dissenting opinion noted that the ruling "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal" and "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," concluding that the "perfunctory" actions of the majority in their decision "rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

As Slate's Emily Bazelon wrote, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed."

In April, the Supreme Court took up the case in oral argument. The ruling is expected in June. Most legal scholars expect Ricci to prevail. But the debate over affirmative action will continue.

Discrimination against white males, termed "positive discrimination," is at the essence of affirmative action law and policy.

Affirmative action made sense at its inception. Rampant discrimination against minorities and women only began to subside in the 1960s. Much, though not all, has changed. Now it comes to us to decide whether affirmative action should change as well.

Add to this Sotomayors quote about Judges making law, her other racist comment as well as other court cases and opinions, i.e.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html
Sotomayor ruled against a teen's right of free speech in another case..

Or rather Sotomayor upheld the right of the school to punish a student for daring to speak against it's administrators outside of the School..

Obama chose her for her minority status. In exactly the same vein as The Messiah, you can't attack her policy, her beliefs, her plainly stated quotes, her racism, her court decisions without being called a racist or a right winger.

But Hey!
A wise White woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black male who hasn't lived that life.

Of course she'll be annointed.







diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Thu, 28th May '09 9:42 PM

I just hope that she doesn't get Thomased!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_219.gif





collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 3:43 AM

Excuse me, Donna, but I asked you to show me the context that doesn't make her statement racist, and you conclude with a ridiculous remark that the "right is playing the race card against a woman of color."

No, no, no, the right seeks race-neutral law. The law is and should be COLOR BLIND.

Sotomayor makes reference to two respected judges of long ago who apparently permitted forms of racism.

Well, we don't have Supreme Court judges like that in this day and age, and she is saying that she as a Latina woman will favor reverse discrimination presumably in favor of Latinos, women and other minorities.

Is there some other way to read her statement?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 8:46 AM

I gave you the context but you choose not to recognize it. Once again, she was speaking SPECIFICALLY about discrimination cases. It has nothing to do with the law (duh) being colorblind, it has to do with the fact that she has experienced discrimination in her own life and career, so she understands it better than someone who has never experienced it. I don't know about you, but I understand things better when I've been through them myself, and I was always told that learning from experience is a good thing. Pretty much the definition of wisdom, isn't it?

Thomas said his life experience would inform his work, Alito said when he looks at discrimination cases he thinks of his own family, and no one screamed racism. If we don't WANT the life experience and understanding of people of all races and both genders to deepen and broaden the wisdom of the court, then what's the purpose of having them in the first place? Supreme Court appointments should be about more than trolling for minority votes in the next election, they should be about infusing the court with the same richness and variety we see in our nation, with having a voice there for every citizen. Isn't that the point?

I think it's dishonest and desperate to take a dozen words out of a whole speech and tarnish this remarkable woman with such nasty accusations. To overbalance her impressive resume (which, incidentally, will make her the most experienced judge on the bench - indeed, the most experienced in about a century) with one sentence taken out of context is what's ridiculous in my view. Her story is one that should make every American proud, and trying to ruin her by calling her racist disgraces us all.

Let me say here that I never heard of her until a month ago, and don't know any more than a quick google will toss up. What's most impressive about her hefty dossier is that this one stale sentence is all President Obama's obstructionist opposition have been able come up with. I'm content to wait for the process to reveal more about her before I can say whether I think she should be confirmed. She could turn out to have a nanny or a tax problem, but from here she looks great.

Wait for the hearings, I'm sure someone will ask her about it early on. Not that I expect her response to open many minds.





caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 9:40 AM

She needs to be asked about it but in a respectful way. Diva has the issue correct. White males are discriminated against simply because they are white and male and the law has supported that going back many years in the name of Affirmative Action.-the white firefighters case makes that very clear. Had a husband who passed the police lieutenants test scoring far higher than any minority group but they were promoted and not him-over 30 years ago. I have 2 sons who have been passed over for jobs and school admissions for that same reason. This judge obviously believes that Affirmative Action still needs to exist. It is my fervent hope that the current Supreme Court does NOT agree with her Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 10:47 AM

Oddly enough I support what Linda said. I believe the balance has been struck. I now believe that a persons merits should come first not the color of their skin. I know everyone will come down on me for this. In my area I see an absurdly high number of African American women in positions of authority than I do any other group. I live in a city where the racial mix is pretty close to 50-50. I would venture to say that there is reverse discrimination in this area. That is just stating a fact, I think there has to be a balance and affirmitive action has its place, however in some places the balance has shifted.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 11:54 AM

Yeah, pity the poor downtrodden white man.

I definitely don't think a balance has been reached, but I don't think affirmative action programs are the answer either. They were useful and effective in their time for what they were, as a way to get the doors open, but they've outlived that time and may now be more problem than solution.

Anti-discrimination laws are on the books now and should be rigorously enforced. Unfair hiring and promotional practices, regardless of who the victim may be, should be punished to a prohibitive extent - make it hurt enough to not be worth it. If injustice is done it should be addressed in the courts.

Naturally, dismantling affirmative action would release a flood of litigation, which is a really good reason to have people on the bench who know what discrimination is and recognize it when they see it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 12:02 PM

Sorry any "white guilt"I was supposed to carry with me to my deathbed was purged from me a very long time ago-

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 12:29 PM

That's what I figured.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 12:35 PM

Totally agree with Linda, I am unemployed at present and it seems to me, enough balance has shifted that I no longer have white guilt. I am not crying victim either, I just think that the racial equality "card" has been pulled enough. I also think that at least in the city I live in enough opportunities are out there for all people of color including latinos. The seem to have even more entitlement programs than Americans. I don't know how that happened but it is a fact. I was at a government agency where there were almost more hispanics than anyone else applying for entitlement programs paid for by US taxpayers. Now figure that one out. We are supposed to feed these people and they take jobs away. I am sorry but I am not sure this is fair.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Fri, 29th May '09 12:52 PM

I agree with Smoke, there was a time and place for affirmative action but no longer. It served it's purpose and we have learned many useful things from it.

I don't have any "white guilt" either, I think discrimination is wrong just because it is.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 1:17 PM

No, Donna, she is saying that because of her life experiences she would treat such cases differently than would a white male - and in Ricci she already has.

I haven't called her a racist, but her statement is clearly racist. The burden is on her to explain what she meant.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 1:40 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/ it is things like this that is making something that should not be about race be just that A Robert Kennedy guy who worked with the old Black Panther party said these guys were simply thugs)-couple that with the huge amounts of money going to ACORN to an old funeral home in New Orleans as its address being the same as a whole bunch of other groups and the books being ClOSED to public viewing-gets really contentious-racism works both ways Linda

diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Fri, 29th May '09 2:22 PM

Yeah Smoke-that quote was published in the Berkeley LA RAZA LAW JOURNAL of which Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR (National Council of La Raza)

Let's take a look at what they advocate!

La Raza is more than a civil rights advocacy group; in earlier days it would have been considered a subversive group. First, consider that La Raza means "the Race" and also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.


10. La Raza supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

9. La Raza supports in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding US citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

8. La Raza opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

7. La Raza sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars, including the "Aztlan Academy" in Tucson, AZ, the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, AZ, and Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn.

6. La Raza gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), which the late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized as "a radical racist group... [and] one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

5. La Raza opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

4. Former La Raza president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach advisor said this:

"US English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to US English the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. La Raza also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."

3. La Raza is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves-in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes.

2. La Raza has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

1. The National Council of La Raza means The National Council of "The Race," for God's sake."

"I would hope that a wise White woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black male who hasn't lived that life."

Viva La Blanco Raza
American Diva








caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 2:43 PM

Diva, all I can say is WOW

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 4:38 PM

Dropping those charges is clearly racial politics, Linda.

Enter a Supreme Court nominee who perhaps plays the same ugly game.


smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 4:41 PM

Gee, that sounds like it might even amount to something. Maybe even as controversial as Thurgood Marshall being a member of the NAACP and Louis Brandeis being a Zionist. I'll have to check it out through an unbiased source. And speaking of sources, I seem to recall not so long ago my daughter was quite spitefully and publicly accused of plagiarism for posting a joke, for no other reason than to be mean to her because she's my daughter. I won't go so far as to accuse anyone, I'm happy to call it an oversight but cut and paste opinions ought to be credited. It's always helpful to look at things in context, don't you think?

La Raza doesn't sound so subversive from a more impartial source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_raza

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 4:48 PM

Sorry, I picked up the link for the term, not the organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_La_Raza

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 4:53 PM

All diversions from Sotomayor's racist statement, Donna.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 4:54 PM

I don't consider it a diversion because I don't consider the statement racist, Andy. Agree to disagree, please.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 5:31 PM

Of course, you don' think it's racist, Donna.

You're on the Left. You probably think all the racists are conservatives, and that you Lefties can't possibly be racists.

Well, you have your own brands of racism, and they're no more admirable than the rightwing brands.

IMO they all stink.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 29th May '09 5:35 PM

That's not what I think, Andy. Please don't tell me what I think.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 5:40 PM

I don't know what you think then, Donna, but Sonia's statement is clearly racist. If she had wanted to say that she would view discrimination cases impartially, there many other ways to say it. She clearly wants to view them quite differently and not necessarily impartially, and in Ricci she has.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 5:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052902324.html?nav=rss_nation/special Obviously someone in the White house thought it might sound racist but what do they know??

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 29th May '09 5:41 PM

"I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor," Gibbs said at the end of his daily briefing.

LOL - this guy needs to be replaced by a professional.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.6 - Posts: 754)
Fri, 29th May '09 6:07 PM

One white guy in a room full of 50,000 Mexicans would muse, "Here I am with all these minorities."

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 8:44 PM

The only thing is Collieure why do use labels all the time. Especially when you don't ever take a stand either way. You play both side equally well from over there in France. It must be easy for you as an expatriate to name call people here in the states. Why is Smoke a leftie when she is trying to extoll the virtues of equality? I was arguing for fairness, the color of ones skin should not matter on a job interview. All else being equal the most qualified person should get a job. I just don't understand our immigration policy sometimes, especially when they are receiving entitlement monies and are not legal citizens of US. Actually, that isn't their fault so much as is our immigration policy which I don't really understand. If we can't employ all of US citizens why are we allowing emigration from Mexico that further deteriotes our job market?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 9:06 PM

Since the election more people have acquired labels then after any other election. For someone who was going to unify see polarization to the point of almost hatred. That is only my opinion which I am sure makes me a racist-

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Fri, 29th May '09 9:33 PM

Just one more thing before I say Good Night. Did anyone else notice that TOTUS blocked the PICK'S head but, of course, that is NOT an issue none of you noticed and were annoyed yet again. LOL

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 9:41 PM

Why do you hate him so much. He is so benign compared to Bush. Let him do something truly evil or bad other than teleprompter b---s---. You are not giving him a chance, lets face it the other guys were doing us no good for 8 very long years. Give him a chance, sure we don't have money but people have to be able to work. I never heard anything from McCain how he was going to keep Americans working. That is the key, if people aren't working they can't buy goods and services it really is that simple. FDR was right.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.6 - Posts: 754)
Fri, 29th May '09 9:43 PM

>If we can't employ all of US citizens why are we allowing emigration from Mexico that further deteriotes our job market?<

Would "white people" work at all those jobs "minorities" are so willing to do for minimum wage?

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 10:00 PM

At this point in time - Absolutely - . I really don't even question it anymore when we have over 10% unemployment and people run out of unemployment. They will have to support their families, also what do you think keeps minimum wage so low?


bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 29th May '09 10:08 PM

Sorry, to go on but I used to feel the same way. Until it hits home in your life and you see the infra structure crumbling. If someone will take a job for lower than the expecting wage it lowers wages for all jobs. Especially underskilled minimum wage jobs, that are sometimes back breaking work. Also it is admirably that people are willing to work so hard at a lesser wage. However when that same money buys far more goods and services in their homeland, that is a different story. Their culture is such that they bond together live cheap and send the money home thereby driving wages down. It is wrong no matter which way you look at it. If we were in a place where we could afford this fine but we are not anymore.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Fri, 29th May '09 10:52 PM


Collioure

There are no skin colors in the law, Donna. And there's no excuse for her statement. It's out of bounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andy,

I have a solution that may help you agree with Donna. Why not have 9 computers or robots sit on the Supreme Court then Lady Justice won't see any color! or

What do you think about Rush Limpballs likening her to David Duke, a well known racist.? That's some BS.
Sonia Sotomayor is not a racist, in my estimation, and neither were her words. If you could walk in her shoes do you think you might change your mind.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.6 - Posts: 754)
Sat, 30th May '09 1:18 AM

The immigrants didn't "steal" minimum wage jobs from the whites. Few if any "self-respecting" whites would take jobs cleaning bathrooms ("Ewwwww!), roofing ("Man, it's hot up there in the summer!"), dishing out fast food to too-often rude customers, doing hot, sweaty landscaping work--so immigrants gladly scooped them up. Whites don't consider these jobs worth their energies or worth their time. The white h.s. grads want at least $15/hr. indoor jobs at a desk in an ac office, shuffling papers, answering the phone, greeting besuited customers, and looking important.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 30th May '09 1:26 AM

Where in the h--- do you live lady. There are plenty of people around here that will do those jobs. I think that is just bull----. There are people who will do those job, but if companies or individuals know they can get cheaper labor they will. That is what drives down minimum wage. I just don't think anyone should be here illegally period. I also don't think some of the ones who have visas should stay. Not when we can't employe people who were born and raised here. People who are looking for any job, including cleaning toliets and landscaping. That is just such BS saying no one wants to work unless it is inside for $15.00 an hour. What planet are you from?

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.6 - Posts: 754)
Sat, 30th May '09 2:12 AM

If you had looked at my profile, you'd find out I live in the Chicago suburbs. Masses of Mexican immigrants are moving in to certain ones and are taking precisely those jobs I mentioned, since the whites won't do them -- not enough of a living wage, too demeaning, and no benefits. The community I work in is heavily multicultural (every flavor on the planet). My corps of library volunteers reflect that, our library patronage reflects that, and the writing group that I am facilitator of reflects that. Immigrants are not favored by companies and restaurants; immigrants are often the only applicants for low-paying jobs.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 2:20 AM

I've actually never met anybody who needs a job NOT willing to take those jobs, and I've known alot of poor white people. However, in my experience, the key word here is "approximately" something like the word NEED. If there's a way around it without going to jail, I've seen some pretty extreme attempts at avoiding them, including exploiting other people. As far as I go, I think you are both partially right on this one, and to me it seems like one of those battles where both people are part right so the battle goes on endlessly. But that's just my opinion.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:50 AM

Bobo, Donna is a Lefty because she says so.

Beverly, you are surely allowed to see skin colors. However, the law says you can't act on them.

The Left in the US conveniently excuses all the forms of racial discrimination that they practice.

Unfortunately it appears that Ms Sotomayor by her word and by her deed practices this disgusting racial politics.





caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:30 AM

The whole "Affirmative Action" thing makes her not alone in this. Andy. When the discrimination is against white males in particular it even havs a name-"Positive Discrimination". That is why I have been watching the Supreme Court for a long timed before this woman was even mentioned. Some people would not be in the public eye if they could not stoke the fires of racial discrimination. Caught snippets of some kind of crusade the Rev. Sharpton is leading because some off-duty police officer (Black) was running down the street with his gun shooting at a man who had been trying to break into his car. He was shot by police -Sad but the Rev. Sharpton now sees a "pattern" of black police officers being shot and am sure won't be happy until there is a riot or at least an unruly protest that he can then step in and calm. Think about it: How could Bobby Rush win any office if racism was made the platform of his campaign? . Some politicians thrive on racism as that is the only way they could possibly win or be appointed. Not saying this woman is a racist but she was appointed as a political move-hard to impossible to challenge because anyone doing so would surely be called a racist. It needs too be pointed out about her decision on affirmative action so the citizens can decide in future elections if we as a country still need to hire and admit to universities etc with that as a determiner. Linda

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:52 AM

Hmm, trying to remember the last riot here in the US. I remember "tea parties" but no riots.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:12 AM

LOl that is because the Revs Jackson and Sharpton step in an calm them down before they get out of hand or at least covered by the press. You must have missed the gay folks in Ca. which certainly looked like rioting in some form-car windows broken etc. That, however, was a different "CAUSE"" We are no longer one people but a bunch of people who have causes and think our rights have been violated and proceed from there . Surprised you even noticed the "Tea Parties' at all as not much press coverage. Other than a couple of signs that some didn't like don't believe anything that occurred could be classified as "civil disobedience".

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:13 AM

Linda
Most people on this thread are calling Judge Sotamayer; at least from what I've seen. However as my mom used to say... if a man thinketh within his heart then so is he. That to me means any s/he who harbors grudges against others for any reason in On the other hand, if s/he feels they heart is pure then there is no reason to worry. In either case the old adage ...Actions speak louder than words is applicable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why should our President bomb N. Korea? We are in 2 wars which Georgie boy left us with; not to mention a failed economy. You're complaining about the economy. Bombing N. Korea would cause more economic hardship; plus we don't have the manpower. Do you know how manytroops are on the border of N/S Korea? There are thousands. If we do that we'll only cause more tensions in the middle East and the World. President Obama is trying to restore our image as well as fix our economy. Certainly, you don't believe the schizophrenic Kim Young IL want's to annihilate himself. He's being propped up on pillars to enjoy the rest of his life since his illness. N. Korea is looking for attention only, in my opinion to be placated for more money.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:26 AM

Never said he should Bomb N. Korean-just noted no one is paying attention to his nice words. Also noted that any resolution the UN makes doesn't mean diddley. . Find it interesting that some left organizations are calling him to task for the drone strikes in Pakistan-calling it targeting of innocent people or some such thing. The rubber has hit the road on foreign policy as it will further down the road with the economy.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:29 AM

not much US rubber hitting the road these days, eh?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:42 AM

Beverly, I'm not calling Judge Sotomayor anything, but it appears to me that she supports and practices racism on the bench. No one here has offered any other interpretation of her remark.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Sat, 30th May '09 7:09 AM

It's a good thing there are seven judges, if racism is your concern she would have to get her "agenda" past all the other judges. I don't think there is much to worry about here.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 7:19 AM

I don't have any concern other than that the cases are decidedly impartially based on the law.

Judge Sotomayor is obviously qualified and very intelligent.

I am waiting to see how the Supreme Court deals with the Ricci case from New Haven. If they agree with her decision to rule on a technical point and thereby sidestep the racism inherent in the city's action, I'll take a step back. And if they reverse her and rule that the city acted in a racist manner, she will need to publicly acknowledge her error.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Sat, 30th May '09 7:38 AM

Nope, wonder how good he'll be in running auto companies as he has never run any business. His auto "Task Force' contains not one person who has experience in the auto industry dunno...

And to answer your question, Beverly, don't believe there is much he can do bout N. Korean period-hubris of both him and the UN to think or say they can. China has emerged as the world power because they saved money and pretty much have the US by the ba--, as we depend on them to loan for this double down poker debt that is in the making China could have some effect on N. Korea's action dunno if they will or not ...

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 8:02 AM

Linda, China did send the signal they would impose some sanctions, later they renegaded so at this point no one knows. Still there's Japan and S. Korea and hopefully the international community will chime in.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.3 - Posts: 21602)
Sat, 30th May '09 8:28 AM

LOL haven't researched this yet but seems our ridiculous Congress is in the process of drafting something to "PUNISH" China for monetary manipulation not quite sure how they believe China should be PUNISHED though. Think much earlier in this thread said that a Fox contributor said we could posture with Japan to seem like they are considering arming themselves with nuclear weapons-would require a compete change in Japan' Constitution. Look at the support Obama is getting from the "world community" in Afghanistan and agreeing to take Gitmo guys- actions or inaction speaks volumes )


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus