TexasCHLforum.com

People on the far left tend to be very crafty. I'm pretty sure that the majority of academia leans left. After all, there is a "college of liberal arts" at every university!
As far as Sotomayor, I gotta say, it's nice to hear educated, articulate responses coming from a Senate hearing - even if I don't agree, I can appreciate the position.

It beats "I don't recall".

Problem is, she appears to lean so far the left, you'll need a spatula to pick her up off the ground.

This thread is getting quite humorous.

I have seen no evidence of the woman being stupid. I have seen little evidence that she leans to the far-left, and can only conclude that folks think that she does solely because she was nominated by the anointed one (who does lean so far left that he must be right again...).

I also noted a comment about her 60% record on rulings being overturned by the SCOTUS. If you will note, as she states she rules according to the law. In the cases where she has been overturned it has been almost exclusively due to new precedents being established by SCOTUS. Looking at her record, it almost makes me believe that she is actually a text-book definition of what one would consider conservative. But putting that term in the same breath as an Obama-nominee would be blasphemous.

Purplehood wrote: Looking at her record, it almost makes me believe that she is actually a text-book definition of what one would consider conservative.

As long as you discount her racist statements, racist judgements and racist associations.

bdickens wrote:

Purplehood wrote: Looking at her record, it almost makes me believe that she is actually a text-book definition of what one would consider conservative.

As long as you discount her racist statements, racist judgements and racist associations.

I don't believe being "conservative" precludes bigotry in any way.

Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

Purplehood wrote:Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

It is not pride, it's bigotry.

However, it is socially-acceptable bigotry. If a white man were to have a record of making the same sort of comments suggesting that a white middle class man would make better judgments than a minority woman, then it would be considered glaringly bigoted, maybe racist or sexist. But we give minorities a pass when they are bigots.

I have a problem with a bigot on the high court. I have a bigger problem with a large proportion of the American people thinking it's ok for minorities to be bigots.

and -

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2009/06/02/oba ... f-context/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sorry if there is language issue - but this is some of the comments that have been made by this person.

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

It is not pride, it's bigotry.

However, it is socially-acceptable bigotry. If a white man were to have a record of making the same sort of comments suggesting that a white middle class man would make better judgments than a minority woman, then it would be considered glaringly bigoted, maybe racist or sexist. But we give minorities a pass when they are bigots.

I have a problem with a bigot on the high court. I have a bigger problem with a large proportion of the American people thinking it's ok for minorities to be bigots.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...isn't it?

LM230023 wrote:and -

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2009/06/02/oba ... f-context/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sorry if there is language issue - but this is some of the comments that have been made by this person.

Carbolic Smoke is not a real news source. Please, let's keep it real. I don't think Sotomayor is worthy of being on the SCOTUS, but let's not put (dirty) words in her mouth that she didn't say. I really hope you were trying to be funny.

preacher wrote:

LM230023 wrote:and -

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2009/06/02/oba ... f-context/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sorry if there is language issue - but this is some of the comments that have been made by this person.

Carbolic Smoke is not a real news source. Please, let's keep it real. I don't think Sotomayor is worthy of being on the SCOTUS, but let's not put (dirty) words in her mouth that she didn't say. I really hope you were trying to be funny.

that is a link given to me and I shared such. With that said - once again I am out of here. This is a site for a chosen few and only those chosen whose opinions agree with members of the "click".

Purplehood wrote:find her educated and articulate.

Neithere of which is a valid indicator of intelligence.

Purplehood wrote:She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

Which also does not indicate intelligence, and may actually serve to indicate a decided lack.

The U.S. Constitution contains the oath of office of the President, only.

I looked around for oath's of office, Senate and Judges. I found these somewhere in the internet.

28 USCS 453: Oaths of Justices and Judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath
or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

"I, ------, 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 ------ under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. So help me God."

and this, for U.S. Senators.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God"


In the Senate Judicial hearings, only Sotomayor, as a Federal judge, took an oath of office to be impartial. The Senators took an oath to support and defend the Constitusion of the U.S., etc. The Senators did not swear to follow their political party's agenda, but that is what they are doing, both sides. In the case of the Republicans, the party of NO, being wholesale against the President and any Democrat, or Democratic Party idea.The Republicans would be against anyone nominated by the Prez. It is more important to follow the party line and mindlessly goosestep, without thinking, to be against any Democrat party idea. That is not defending the Constitution, it is defending policies of the Republican party.

The Democrats are not much better, if at all. The Democrats are all voting for Sotomayor. Why? Cause she is a Democratic party nominee. The Republicans are all voting against Sotomayor. Why? Cause she is a Democratic party nominee. Nothing like being partial.

As far as the Supreme Court overturning 60% of her decisions is meaningless. Why? Because if the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, it goes not further. It is affirmed, They agree with the lower court. For the 60% to be a valid statistic, a count of all appeals of Sotomayor's decisions, whether heard by the Supreme Court or not is needed, total count not just the ones heard by the Supreme Court. Again, not all appealed cases are heard by the Supreme Court.
Example:
1) 100 cases are appealed to the SCOTUS.
2) They decide to hear 10 of those cases.
3) They decide to overturn 6 of those cases they heard.
That is 6% overturn rate of the original 100 appealed cases not 60%.

How does she compare with all the other judges?

Questioning someone's intelligence because of a disagreement does not mean they are unintelligent. Her academic credentials and accomplishments alone show she is very intelligent. She has the papers to proved it.

I am not interested in the outcome of the Sotomayor nomination since it is already decided. The televised hearings are a stage for the Republicans to try to make her look bad and the Democrats to affirm her nomination.

She exhibited a decided lack of continuity of thought during the hearings. Beyond mere evasiveness. If she makes it, she's home free, however, as law clerks do most of the work anyway. And they only hire the best and the brightest at the Supreme Court. That's not always the case with the judges.

LaUser wrote:Her academic credentials and accomplishments alone show she is very intelligent. She has the papers to proved it.

In my experience ranging from high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates, education and intelligence are two very different things. Further, although I have seen a positive correlation between intelligence and success in the private sector, I have not noticed a discernable relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector. Therefore, I don't believe her papers prove much of anything.