[tomder55]

The SCOTUS oath of office :

"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."(Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code)

[Dare81]

The real shame here is you actually believe this. Maybe you should get out more.



Name one.



And that matters how exactly?





I suppose you want the blindfold off?

Name one I will name 10

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a li and quor store and practice robberies.

They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

. Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.

But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.

[Dare81]

So then if I am a white male defendant I should ask for a white male judge because he lived it first-hand ?


You always manage to toss in those ad hominems .
I bet you are of the opinion that a quote such as hers is not racism because she is a member of a PC approved minority and in her case it is only a reflection of racial and ethnic pride. But a white person gets no pass saying something simular.

To answer your question ....Since the discussion is about a justice for SCOTUS then Clarence Thomas comes immediately to mind. He had the "life experience " simular if not harder than justice Sotomayor.
But was that the standard by which the Democrats view him ? Do they think he is a fine judge because of these life experiences ? No ;the racist white Democrats in the Judiciary Committee trashed him during confirmation and the left continues to ridicule him today. Since he doesn't cow-tow to liberal orthodoxy then clearly he is not in that exempt group.

Another jurist that comes to mind is Miguel Estrada . His life experiences did not seem to matter to the left. The Dems used the filibuster to keep him off the bench.

Not only is she racist ;she is also biased and sexists. But my biggest beef with her so far is that she thinks that policy is made from the bench. That is an instant disqualifier . Perhaps she wants the constitution scrapped in the Chavez, Morales, Correa mode.

Read her full statement , a white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.But you are two busy listening too rush

[Dare81]

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into accouNT.

NOW WHO SAID THAT HMMM
Justice sam alito

[speechlesstx]

Name one I will name 10...

Try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on.

But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.

You're a spunky one are you? I love it when people who don't know a thing about me accuse me of being a racist. Stick around and open your mind and perhaps you'll learn something.

[Dare81]

Try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on.



You're a spunky one are you? I love it when people who don't know a thing about me accuse me of being a racist. Stick around and open your mind and perhaps you'll learn something.

As I said you will defend rush all day long.

[tomder55]

As I recall ;the Dems. Especially the despicable Ted Kennedy opposed Alito for some papers from Alito's Princeton days in the 1970s... papers from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton "that had no mention of Alito at all. Yet Kennedy tried to link them to Alito. They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice) Nowhere do you hear them mention that Sotomayor's address was published in a La Raza(the race ) paper.

Fat Teddy asked Alito the following question :
“The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are symbolized in the four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: 'Equal Justice Under Law,' "
“Will the nominee be fair and open-minded, or will his judgment be tainted by rigid ideology? Is he genuinely committed to the principle of equal justice under law?”

You would think with all that empathy Alito displayed in the quote you provide the answer would be self evident... right ? No need to question him further... right ?

But of course the big difference between Alito's and Sotomayor's comments is that never does Alito claim that he would make "BETTER " decisions than someone from a different race or ethnic group because of these experiences. This of course begs the question ;what is so unique about her life experiences besides her race ? She appears to have the same or better American tale as countless others(more on that below) .
In Alito's answer (if you bother to listen to the complete line of questioning during this part of his hearings) Alito said it is not his place to bend the law. So empathy or not, the law is the law and a justice is supposed to apply it as written.

I don't know if you have ever ,or can ,serve as a juror .If you have ,you may recall that when you are sworn in you were instructed to throw out all preconceived ideas, beliefs, experiences and prejudices and deliberate solely on the evidence presented and the law.
But I guess jurors are held to higher standards than a judge.

I just have to wonder where is her empathy for Frank Ricci ;a white New Haven firefighter .....or does her empathy only apply to minorities ? He has an American tale also .He is someone who struggled his whole life with learning disabilities and dyslexia(that were not helped with his public school education ....at least Sotomayor had the advantage of going to private schools).Yet though hard work he made it into a community school(not Princeton) where he studied fire science so he could follow his dream of being a fire fighter.

He started at the bottom of the New Haven fire dept.,and spent his spare cash buying text books so he could study and be ready for the liutenants exam . He quit a 2nd job so he could study for the test.

When the tests were finally administered he placed 6th which should've easily qualified him for promotion. But the tests were tossed out because no blacks passed it. Ricci and others sued.

Sotomayor wrote a terse dismissal of the suit that lacked any substance and certainly no "empathy" . A fellow Clintoon hispanic appointee to the court ,Judge Jose Cabranes,wrote to SCOTUS that the dismissal ignored the serious constitutional issues at stake.
SCOTUS will reverse another Sotomayor decision at the same time that she will be confirmed to be an associate justice to SCOTUS. How fitting .The case will be dismissed not because of empathy to Ricci ;but because the New Haven law is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.

Actually ;I take it back... Ricci has had a harder time of it. Sotomayor led a charmed life spending her childhood in private school environments, early adulthood amongst the Ivy League elites, and most of her adulthood as a wealthy corporate attorney .

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor's comment :"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

Obama yesterday on Sotomayor's comment : "I'm sure she would have restated it,"

Why if there is nothing wrong in her statement ?

BTW ,your constant referring to Rush Limbaugh is getting boring. I do not have the radio on when his program airs. I think linking us to Rush ads as much to the discussion as if I were to make reference to Keith Olberman every time I addressed your replies.

[Dare81]

As I recall ;the Dems. especially the dispicable Ted Kennedy opposed Alito for some papers from Alito's Princeton days in the 1970s ....papers from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton "that had no mention of Alito at all. Yet Kennedy tried to link them to Alito. They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice) Nowhere do you hear them mention that Sotomayor's address was published in a a La Raza(the race ) paper.

Fat Teddy asked Alito the following question :
“The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are symbolized in the four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: ‘Equal Justice Under Law,' "
“Will the nominee be fair and open-minded, or will his judgment be tainted by rigid ideology? Is he genuinely committed to the principle of equal justice under law?”

You would think with all that empathy Alito displayed in the quote you provide the answer would be self evident .....right ? No need to question him further .....right ?

But of course the big difference between Alito's and Sotomayor's comments is that never does Alito claim that he would make "BETTER " decisions than someone from a different race or ethnic group because of these experiences. This of course begs the question ;what is so unique about her life experiences besides her race ? She appears to have the same or better American tale as countless others(more on that below) .
In Alito's answer (if you bother to listen to the complete line of questioning during this part of his hearings) Alito said it is not his place to bend the law. So empathy or not, the law is the law and a justice is supposed to apply it as written.

I don't know if you have ever ,or can ,serve as a juror .If you have ,you may recall that when you are sworn in you were instructed to throw out all preconceived ideas, beliefs, experiences and prejudices and deliberate solely on the evidence presented and the law.
But I guess jurors are held to higher standards than a judge.

I just have to wonder where is her empathy for Frank Ricci ;a white New Haven firefighter .....or does her empathy only apply to minorities ? He has an American tale also .He is someone who struggled his whole life with learning disabilities and dyslexia(that were not helped with his public school education ....at least Sotomayor had the advantage of going to private schools).Yet though hard work he made it into a community school(not Princeton) where he studied fire science so he could follow his dream of being a fire fighter.

He started at the bottom of the New Haven fire dept.,and spent his spare cash buying text books so he could study and be ready for the liutenants exam . He quit a 2nd job so he could study for the test.

When the tests were finally administered he placed 6th which should've easily qualified him for promotion. But the tests were tossed out because no blacks passed it. Ricci and others sued.

Sotomayor wrote a terse dismissal of the suit that lacked any substance and certainly no "empathy" . A fellow Clintoon hispanic appointee to the court ,Judge Jose Cabranes,wrote to SCOTUS that the dismissal ignored the serious constitutional issues at stake.
SCOTUS will reverse another Sotomayor decision at the same time that she will be confirmed to be an associate justice to SCOTUS. How fitting .The case will be dismissed not because of empathy to Ricci ;but because the New Haven law is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.

Actually ;I take it back...Ricci has had a harder time of it. Sotomayor led a charmed life spending her childhood in private school environments, early adulthood amongst the Ivy League elites, and most of her adulthood as a wealthy corporate attorney .

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor's comment :"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

Obama yesterday on Sotomayor's comment : "I'm sure she would have restated it,"

Why if there is nothing wrong in her statement ?

BTW ,your constant refering to Rush Limbaugh is getting boring. I do not have the radio on when his program airs. I think linking us to Rush ads as much to the discussion as if I were to make reference to Keith Olberman every time I addressed your replies.

I am not here to entertain you, if you think my replies and constant referring to rush is getting boring then quit reading my replies.As for kieth I think he is in the same boat as rush.

The answer to your half a page reply is this read her statement in context and don't forget this last part

A white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.

[excon]

They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice)

Hello tom:

You need to put your listening ears on.

excon

[excon]

Hello again:

I cannot stress enough that your Supreme Court, in the name of Antonin Scalia, weakened YOUR RIGHT to counsel just the other day. He did it because he doesn't like what the founders wrote. He doesn't believe in original intent. HE decided HIS decision was better. He did it because he has EMPATHY for the COPS!!

This is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON STEROIDS!!

To wit:

The case.. . at Mr. Montejo's preliminary hearing, the judge ordered a public defender appointed, but the police continued to question him before the lawyer arrived. He agreed to show them where the murder weapon was thrown.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia argued essentially that since Mr. Montejo had been read his Miranda rights, his continued answers were a valid waiver of counsel. Justice Scalia explicitly revoked the court's 1986 ruling in Michigan v. Jackson that a prisoner could waive his rights to counsel only in the presence of the lawyer, or by initiating contact with the police.

That ruling recognized that many prisoners cannot knowingly relinquish their right to counsel unless a lawyer helps them understand the protections they are giving up and the jeopardy they face.

Without any real evidence, Justice Scalia dismissed this approach as unworkable and wrote that “its marginal benefits are dwarfed” by the possibility that the guilty might go free.

I don't care HOW you try to spin it, it's about the COSTS and BENEFITS to society of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Don't you get it Righty's?? If costs and benefits are the measure, society would benefit a WHOLE lot if we got rid of every single one of those pesky freedoms...

No, you don't get it, do you?? But, they better not try that cost/benefit crap when they talk about guns, huh?? You guys are pathetic.

excon

[speechlesstx]

As i said you will defend rush all day long.

And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.

[galveston]

Ex, I simply don't understand your position at all.

You constantly say that you fully support the US Constitution, but you support a candidate for SCOTUS that has shown by her own words and past decisions that she is NOT an original intent judge.

Let's not derail the discussion by bringing up those already on the Court. They are already there, for good or bad.

I should think that for you, and others, to be consistent, would INSIST that any candidate be "original intent".

But I guess not.

[excon]

Ex, I simply don't understand your position at all.
I should think that for you, and others, to be consistent, would INSIST that any candidate be "original intent".

Hello Gal:

What you righty's don't understand is EVERYBODY has a bias, and EVERYBODY reads the Constitution differently.

To wit: The Fourth Amendment says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated...

I KNOW what it means and what it says. You folks, on the right, however, don't agree. In fact, you support every single dilution of those rights that ACTIVIST judges have put in place over decades... And, there have been dozens and dozens...

For ME, I'm happy to have a justice who's empathy's lie with MY kind of people.

excon

[galveston]

Hello Gal:

What you righty's don't understand is EVERYBODY has a bias, and EVERYBODY reads the Constitution differently.

To wit: The Fourth Amendment says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated....

I KNOW what it means and what it says. You folks, on the right, however, don't agree. In fact, you support every single dilution of those rights that ACTIVIST judges have put in place over decades.... And, there have been dozens and dozens...

For ME, I'm happy to have a justice who's empathy's lie with MY kind of people.

excon

OK, so you DON'T want a judge who adheres to original intent.

And your argument for this is that judges in the past have NOT been original intent.

So you are not really interested in whether the Constitution is upheld, but rather that a judge that might favor YOU be appointed.

You have clarified your position.

Thanks.

[Dare81]

And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.

You want to look at rush's statement in context but not at sotomayor's.Nice.

[tomder55]

Ex he agreed to continue to answer police questions after he was appointed council... that is his right also .He was clearly instructed on his Miranda rights .All Scalia did was write a majority opinion that reversed a bad call by a previous court.

[excon]

All Scalia did was write a majority opinion that reversed a bad call by a previous court.

Hello again, tom:

That is what I'd expect from somebody, who along with Antonin Scalia, is only too happy to weaken the rights of a CRIMINAL... It's judicial activism exemplified. But, like I said earlier, the tune changes when speaking about the Second Amendment...

YOU say it's bad law... but, an array of former state and federal law enforcement officials and judges, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, have reached the opposite conclusion. In an amicus brief, they said that the Jackson ruling “has done far more to promote effective law enforcement than to undermine it” and warned that abandoning its bright-line standard would make it harder to ensure that a defendant's constitutional rights are respected.

In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the 1986 opinion, which he wrote, was designed to ensure the right to counsel at every critical stage of prosecution. The court has now put the fairness, integrity and credibility of the justice system at unnecessary risk. doesn't mind if his Constitutional rights are violated

You say it's bad law because YOUR empathy lies with the COPS! MINE lies with the Constitution. I stand by my statements!

excon

PS> Yes, I used quotes from the NY Times.

[tomder55]

A person still has the right to request a lawyer, and as soon as he does, the police have to stop interrogating him. But if the person decides to confess he doesn't have to wait for his lawyer .

Michigan v Jackson was the example of the judicial activism.Nothing in the Constitution says the a suspect must have his lawyer present in order to waive his right to talk with the police. Montejo v Louisiana corrects Steven's misread of the 6th amendment .

[speechlesstx]

You want to look at rush's statement in context but not at sotomayor's.Nice.

I see you're still making assumptions and avoiding the challenge.

[speechlesstx]

Dare, the Dems can't seem to agree on how to interpret her "wise Latina" remark, why should we?

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with a large Puerto Rican constituency, refused to concede that Sotomayor chose her words poorly, predicting on ABC's “This Week” that “she'll stand by the entire speech. I think that she will show that the speech, when you read it, says rule of law comes above experience,” said Schumer, who as a member of the Judiciary Committee will participate in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Pressed by host George Stephanopoulos, Schumer added “the specific sentence there is simply saying that people's experiences matter and we ought to have some diversity of experience on the court. And I think that's accurate.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a fellow Judiciary Democrat, suggested the debate over Sotomayor's statement may be taking it more seriously than she intended it, though Feinstein herself seemed torn between defending it or apologizing for it.

“I'd say that one statement, probably made with a sense of a smile, you know, that 'here I am, I can do better' – I don't have a problem with it. It's not – it's not the right thing to say. It's not the right thing, but I don't think she meant it that way either,” Feinstein said on CBS's “Face the Nation” on Sunday. She also called Sotomayor's word choice “inartful,” though, telling host Bob Schieffer “there's one word, Bob, in the statement. It's the word 'better.' That a Latina woman who has gone through these experiences – that her views would be better. And without that one word, it's a perfectly fine statement. And I understand what she meant by it.”

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, whose recent party switch makes him the junior-most Democrat on Judiciary, played down the comment. He told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace it “didn't stand out all that much in context” of the speech. And his interpretation of its meaning echoed Sotomayor's controversial phrasing. “I think she meant that somebody with her experience has something to add,” he said. “The diversity and the point of view of Latina woman is significant. It adds to the mix.”

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont tried to turn the tables on Republicans using the remark to question Sotomayor's fitness for the bench, pointing to former President George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court. During his 2006 confirmation hearings, now-Justice Alito said “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account.”

... Leahy asserted “it would be ridiculous to think somebody's life experience doesn't affect them.”

They know it's a problem, so why should we let it go?