I've posted the same thing a few times, but it really doesn't matter. They'll call her a racist because she didn't legislate from the bench and then say she legislates from the bench in the next breath. It works because there are people that are willing to fall for it. This is what twits like basso are counting on with every word he posts here. He knows he can't win on merits and they do too. This is exactly why Bush/Cheney said 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence so often. They knew people who weren't really paying attention would fall for it. Don't be a sucker, Lynus.
if she only made the remark once, that'd be one thing. however, she made it multiple times, so her characterization of it as being (i'm paraphrasing) an off-the-cuff characterization that fell flat, is in fact, a lie, and she's perjured herself before the committee. not that they have that high a standard in the senate, but do we want to place a know, confirmed, perjurer on the SCOTUS?
The problem is that your paraphrase misrepresents the content of her comments. You can't change the meaning of someone's words, then use the changed meaning as evidence that the person lied. Since she made it clear in her remarks that this is something she said multiple times in a speech she often gave, I doubt that she tried to imply it was a one-time thing in the same breath.
I wasn't referencing anything about "activist judges." I just really don't agree with her decision on that issue. Discrimination is still discrimination, and we're never going to move forward if we can't have a color blind, merit-based system. Personally, I'd welcome a liberal judge on the SC. It'd help us to stop being such idiots on things like the drug war and gay marriage. I'd just rather not have someone who supported discrimination, whether it was ten times or once or whatever.
She wasn't "supporting" discrimination. That's just what these asses want you to think. What she was doing was doing her job to the letter of the law, regardless of personal feelings. And what they're doing is trying to hit her coming and going. It's ridiculous.
But your opinion here seems to assume that her vote on that case was because she disagrees with you. Instead, her vote on the case was based on her interpretation of existing law and precedent, and she never really answered the question of whether she personally agrees with you or not. In addition, I think the people who supported the city's decision in that case would argue with your conclusion that they were practicing discrimination. Assuming you agree with that, it might be more accurate to state that you'd rather not have someone who is against discrimination by their own definition if they support it according to yours.
Interesting. Sort of like how you didn't falsely accuse me of bashing DS kids once. Or how you didn't ignore rimbaud's thorough owning of you on that only once. Or how you didn't plagiarize only once. Or how you didn't run away only once. Or how you didn't win an argument here on merits even once. But maybe it's just your Down's Syndrome acting up. Let me help you out. Click here.
Strange... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...earings-complete-transcript-day-3-part-3.html If you watch/read the hearings, almost all the senators take a few moments to banter with Sotomayor. Franken was following up on a previous reference to Perry Mason and then got to serious questions about net neutrality and the right to privacy.
Wasn't Sotomayor's original remark about a Latina being likely more able to make a correct decision than a white male judge in the specific context of a decision about discrimination against a minority? This seems to have been lost in all the generalizations... That seems kind of obvious and isn't even an exclusive pronouncement just an indication of likelihood.
+1 Nice comment, it is amazing how the truth gets buried in the noise machines on the right and left.
You didn't agree with the OUTCOME of the decision that the 2nd Circuit panel reached - with respect to the legal issues involved, which very specifically dealt with: the level of showing of possible liability a state actor must show w/respect to disparate impact claims under Title VII to justify a race-based remedial measure... ...I doubt you (nor any of the esteemed senators, and certainly not others) have much familiarity with the case law and statutes according to which the case was decided, I sure don't.
What about when Tom Coburn made the reference to Desi Arnez, "you got some splainin to do" who is really hung up on race?
You're welcome. I voted for Dean Barkley, the Independence Party Candidate, and don't regret my vote. I don't like Franken or Coleman but I don't think the Perry Mason discussion is a big deal at all. Personally I'm glad he finally showed some humor as his Senate campaign was pretty much joyless and boring. As Rimrocker notes too if you read the complete transcript he did ask Sotomayor about more substantive issues like how she would define "judicial activism." I still have a low opinion of Franken but I don't think this is something to get worked up over.
I know some people would say this is not a big deal, but ask yourself, how many senators would say "git' r' done" while questioning a southern white guy?
it's a joke! Have you ever said that? I have and almost everyone that speaks to me has said it! It was totally in the context of 1950s and 60s television shows not dredged up out of some dark corner of his mind.
There is no reason why basso would do differently than he has. It is more fun for him to take one comment, isolate it, and pretend like that is the total of Franken's questioning than to actually look at context in an honest way. It would be silly for any of us to expect anything different from the flee-er of honest debate.
