You know, people throw around "racist" way too much. I am so sick and tired of calling someone a racist for stating what is true. Reminds me of the whole Macaca incident. Anyway, the idea of taking out empathy from the court system is down right scary. You want a draconian system. If our history was without empathy in the justice system...poor people wouldn't get a court appointed lawyer, degregagtion and jim crow laws would still exist, and warrants wouldn't be required. All of these things came about from a justice that included empathy for those who have been victimized. To see their perspective. Here's some quotes for you by the way: "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." "To separate [Negro children] from others of their age solely because of their color puts a mark of inferiority not only on their status in the community but upon their little hearts and minds," "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." The writers of these are Abe Lincoln, Earl Warren, and Oliver Wendall Holmes. 3 of the greatest men in American History who shaped what our country is today. All were considered to be "empathic" men. What you propose is to replace justices with computers. Now, I am not saying judges should feel sorry for people and bend the law or the outcome accordingly. That's not what is the goal. The goal is that laws are not justice. Laws can be unjust. And if you don't understand that, then you truly are demonstrating yourself ignorant of history. All you have to do is look at the Civil Rights movement, or even how Gandhi BROKE the law and used the empathy of the british court system to free a nation from tyranny without bullets to see what justice is really made of. Anyone who says that empathy doesn't belong in the court system is supporting a system which perpetuates injustice. Conservative or liberal, you have to consider that.
She is a member of La Raza, end of story! What Obama, David Duke wasnt available? Jerimiah Wright? Oh wait, the media wanted him to pick a latina so he went with one that was a racist
You are taking a few sound bites and running with them. You are totally ignoring her judicial record, which is pretty moderate.
Beign a member of La Raza doesn't make anyone a racist. This thing is a bunch of ignorant non-Spanish speakers taking the literal translation of the term La Raza and running away with it. It's r****ded. Groups like LULAC or La Raza or the NAACP are what surface when the majority tramples the rights of the minority. Go educate yourself.
Please expound on all the horrible racism of La Raza since you are such an expert. Also show how during her years of judicial experience any connection to La Raza has affected her decisions from the bench. Otherwise your fingers are typing, but nothing of use seems to be coming out.
This is a tangent but just curious about what you mean by "calling someone a racist for stating what is true. Reminds me of the whole macaca incident."?
Weighing in on this late but I think this is yet again something that has been blown out of proportion and won't amount to much. The context of Sotomayor's statement was to a Hispanic law group so it shouldn't come as a surprise that as a Hispanic Judge she would make a statement regarding why it is important to have hispanic judges. Also if you look at her rulings she hasn't always ruled in favor of minorities. I recall that scotusblog said that in 45% of cases she has ruled against minorities. I can't find a link to that specifically but in a scotusblog overview of her record they note: [rquoter]However, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that dismissed claims brought by a disabled black woman, who alleged that her employer did not give her the same accommodations for her disabilities that it provided to white employees, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was similarly situated to the white employees. Similarly, in Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co., 368 F.3d 123 (2004), she wrote an opinion holding that an employee alleging racial (as well as gender) discrimination had not proven she was the victim of discrimination when her employer declined to create a position for her when the employer had never created a position for any particular employee. [/rquoter] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ So while what she said probably wasn't the wisest thing to say her record doesn't indicate that she is so emphatic or biased as to be unable to rule impartially on issues regarding gender or race.
When people can't argue their point, they come out with the troll crap. Kind of cowardly to say the least, but you shouldnt expect anything else from a debate board on a basketball message board La Raza(the race), kkk, black panthers all preach hate and promote separatist sentiments. All should be looked upon the same.
Seriously dude, get some sun light or something. You don't know how much that makes you sound like this guy......
If someone is monkeying around, and you call them a monkey, just because they have dark skin doesn't mean you are a racist. Just because Fuzzy Zoeller makes a joke about fried chicken doesn't mean he's a racist. Just because A judge says minorities can empathize with minorities more then white people because they understand what it's like to feel racism - doesn't mean they are a racist. I just am saying that people pull the "racist" card so easily. "You people" is a racist saying? C'mon. I am so sick of the whole PC thing, it drives me nuts. Racism is a serious charge...and shouldn't be made lightly or you know what, it does a disservice to real racism. Like firing someone for the color of the skin. Or when someone beats someone up for their race or beliefs. Let's stick to going after racists, not people who say things that are a bit insensitive to others.
So if you back a politician you adopt everything they stand for? Are you telling me that you have never backed a politician that you disagreed with on an issue? I have backed many politicians that I disagreed with on issues. I agreed with them more often than I agreed with the other candidate. That does not mean that I adopted everything they said as my own belief pattern.
You have no clue what La Raza is, what it means, or what it does as an organization. Yet you keep spouting off. Ignorance seems to suit you well.
that guy was wearing a bright yellow shirt and was from the enemy camp. I mean, to this day, I still don't get why that was a big deal. I really think liberals place this "race" card so often. Anytime you make a snide remark or a joke and the person is dark skin, it's a racial remark. It's too much. I think minorities need to get over this stuff. It's a waste of time, energy, and productiveness. Look, I don't want to get into the whole thing again. I shouldn't have brought it up. But I am very anti-PC, and very pro-free speech. So calling someone a racist...no matter which party is doing it to which side, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is David Duke a racist? Sure. I won't argue that. But then isn't Al Sharpton? At the end of the day, pretty much everyone has racist tendiencies and reactions. If you don't think you do, you can take this test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research/
So wearing yellow means you can call someone a name with historical racial connotactions? Wait - why? If you're pro free-speech, why do you have problem with people accusing people of racism? Isn't that part of that free speech you should be defending? Or is it OK to make a racial remark, but not OK to say someone else made a racial remark?
