Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[BradH]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

yea...and she's a member of La Raza ("The Race"), which is a questionably racist group in and of itself (known to support initiatives like returning certain states of the Southwest to Mexican rule).

Huh? NCLR is more like an ACLU for hispanic people.

http://www.nclr.org/section/reconquista/

[PETA]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

I won't quite sign off on that statement. Her murky abortion stance kind of flies in the face of that as well.

could bite the liberals in the ass.... perhaps she recognizes that innocent life is valuable, begins at conception and that our society owes a duty to protect that innocent life... we may find out in the coming years.

Originally Posted by BradH

Huh? NCLR is more like an ACLU for hispanic people.

http://www.nclr.org/section/reconquista/

lol

http://www.truveo.com/La-Raza-de-Aztlan/id/516280433

Originally Posted by vinnie97

yea...and she's a member of La Raza ("The Race"), which is a questionably racist group in and of itself (known to support initiatives like returning certain states of the Southwest to Mexican rule).

questionably?

Come on... ever heard of Northern Structure? Nuestra Familia? Nuestra Raza? The gangs are the eqivalent of the IRA to Raza's Sinn Féin.

La Raza supports reconquista.. they claim they do not. I've read thousands of pages of prison literature (hand written by initiates, elders etc - you should see it - amazing stuff - no white paper left on a page) from NR/NF and Structure. It is all about the notion that they are an oppressed race that is suffering in an apartheid regime occupying their territory... Aztlán. If they could overthrow the US so they could run their heroin/cocaine and extortion companies in peace... all would be well according to them.

Now... no way in hell do I buy Sotomayor buying into that crap. She's said some stupid shit and I doubt her impartiality big time but I do not think she's on board with the Aztlán reconquista fools.

She is owed harsh criticism. Think of the shit storm Alito and Roberts faced on nothing more than what the left thought their opinions would be on as yet unheard cases. Sotomayor is being criticized on comments she made that at their kindest can only be regarded as remarkably injudicious.

[vinnie97]

^Well, questionably due to their public denial but their literature obviously proves otherwise.

That issue should totally be brought up in the hearings and she should publicly denounce any association with it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

That issue should totally be brought up in the hearings and she should publicly denounce any association with it.

Agreed - I think that would be very important to do.

[vinnie97]

Oh yea, this racist is ready to push us further in the direction of reverse racism. In addition to the recent supreme court overturning of the firefighter decision, now this has come to light:

Group Sotomayor advised fought job tests

Of course, guilt-ridden, American-loathing liberals love this kinda' shit (not calling out any names). Screw qualifications, all that matters is if you meet the racial quota for the month.

Wow, this country is getting slammed into the ground by useful idiots.

[vinnie97]

More proof of her racism in her litigation for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education fund:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-50936242.html

A close exploration of her PRLDEF years could help explain, for example, why she gave such short shrift to the Ricci case, in which she summarily denied the rights of a group of white firefighters who had earned promotions in a testing situation reminiscent of the ones PRLDEF and Sotomayor had challenged in the past.

If her membership in La Raza weren't enough...

It's too bad the Repubs didn't explore this further to better paint a picture of her worldview and how it has shaped her decision-making, which repeatedly shows that race trumps qualifications. Lady Liberty ain't smiling.

[J. Fees]

vinny whats the point of arguing if we know that you are gonna roll with a hard right stance. we already know your point of view on every subject, you know where you stand, and what do you have to prove or gain insight on?

[vinnie97]

I just hope someone will see the idiocy of some of these ideas.

What does it matter where I stand? I try to pass on these nuggets of information that reveal the character of this judge, not the half-truths and lies that she is spouting in the hearings.

Given your silence on the matter, I take it you agree with her particular breed of racial activism. There's nothing constitutional about exulting one race over another.

Your making it personal does everyone a disservice. I can't help it if "hard right" is the most logical stance most of the time.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

vinny whats the point of arguing if we know that you are gonna roll with a hard right stance. we already know your point of view on every subject, you know where you stand, and what do you have to prove or gain insight on?

Dang Fees, I don't know if this is a right/left issue but a "correct" issue. I don't want "any" judge ruling the highest court in the land based on anything other than the law as it is written. I don't want them ruling based on their personal beliefs or their right-wing/left-wing agenda. That's not the purpose of the Supreme Court.

As you can see from all of the reports about Judge Sotomayor's previous rulings, she is an "activist judge". That's not the way to change things here in the United States. We have a legislative branch for a reason. If you want laws changed (take your pick: Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, expansion of affirmative action, etc., etc.) then go to the legislative branch and get the laws changed or amended. Purposely ruling against current written law and/or "interpreting" law any other way than it was written, for the purpose of furthering your own agenda is the exact reason that our government was created with 3 branches. That is what an activist judge is.

Of course, if your one of those America haters who thinks everything about the U.S. needs to be changed... Then you would love her!
I mean who really wants to go through all of that trouble to have the people actually vote on stuff! that's sooo last century!

SO MUCH FOR BLIND JUSTICE!!

[J. Fees]

i just don't see unilateral conservatism as the answer, which is what it seem like you guys like to promote. If you think things are going to be able to stay the same, with the same interpretations, then how do you feel about brown vs board of education? 1789 is different that 1889 or 2009. What we are fighting within most muslim countries is radical conservatism, and thats an example that scares me.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

i just don't see unilateral conservatism as the answer, which is what it seem like you guys like to promote. If you think things are going to be able to stay the same, with the same interpretations, then how do you feel about brown vs board of education? 1789 is different that 1889 or 2009. What we are fighting within most muslim countries is radical conservatism, and thats an example that scares me.

Feez religious fanatacism turned into a political movement isn't conservatism. Your wrong about both.

Conservatism espouses the principles of classical liberalism... it lauds individual liberty, responsibility and freedom of conscience. Whereas jihadists... don't.

As for the court... a judge who explicitly promotes using one's empathy and experience rather than relying exclusively on the law in order to render her decisions is a partial judge who is trying to play legislator.

Activist decisions... the duty of the court is to clarify the law not to craft it into their version of what Congress must have wanted. That means that sometimes a legitimate law will yield a horribly unjust result. The judge must permit that result because that's their job. Its the job of Congress to fix it. Sotomayor doesn't accept that check on her branch's sphere of authority.