I have never thought her comments were racist or sexist. I do think she is way too wrapped up in her own experience and to her perceived benefits of them. I have discussed her opinions on more than a few cases and haven't seen too much rebuttal so it makes me wonder what the left/Dems/whatever really know about her point of view or if "she's qualified" is enough. Pragmatic? Yes, moreso than Alito or Roberts but what does she think is going to occur in real life as a result of her ruling on the firefighter case? Doesn't get much more pragmatic than that, does it?
I thought her qualification was based on academia,case ruilings, and adherence to the law. Not her politics, which you seem to be implying as a litmus to just dems/left or however you want to describe them. You are also cherry-picking case ruilings, as I have just posted one where she adhered to the law and premise of free speech, which has a real life implications of what people can do in their private time, no matter who there employer is. Be fair VBall, be fair.
There has been very little discussion from her supporters on her rulings. It's not about her "politics". She is a Democrat, was nominated by a Democrat, and is being roundly supported by the left. I don't know how else to describe the situation. It's not bad, just what is. Academia? I am sick to death of Ivy League Catholics on the SC, no matter what party they are affiliated with. I have discussed 3 different rulings in this thread, all of which have implications to people, business, and the concept of fairness. I do not believe she has made ALL bad decisions but I would like to see her supporters discuss the ones she has made instead of throwing the "approach with caution" flag up or stick to the "she's really qualified" mantra.
You can describe it as that, I still say she more of a pragmatist than the previous to. There was also very little discussion on Roberts and Alito ruilings, (the few that they had compared to her), but plenty of talk about identity and qualification. i dont see the difference in the discussion, other than you emphasizing that she is supported by the left through politics instead of qualifications. When the same happened with the other 2. I have discussed them,thats why i posted that ruiling dealing with free speech and fairness. I dont necessarily agree with her view, but she has a point.To further get into that ruiling with the firefighters we would have to have a debate on affirmative action, I really dont want to go down that road on in this forum, we could PM each other on that if youd like.
I understand that. I just think that she was just rah-rahing the hispanic crowd like speakers do. "I don't have to be as good as the WASP's, I can be better!" "YAAAAYYYY!!! When you make a speech in Boston, you root for the Red Sox, even if you aren't really a fan. Same thing. Which is why it makes no sense for the Republicans to put on a full-court press over Sotomayor. Or the next relative moderate that Obama appoints. It's not like he's going to say "OK, I'll appoint Newt Gingrich instead". One day he may appoint a really liberal judge to balance the four really conservative judges there. Then like the boy who cried wolf, the Republicans may not be listened to, because they have automatically opposed all appointments. Plus, it gives Obama no incentive at all to keep appointing moderates if they are going to all-out oppose him anyway.
Bwaaaahaaaaaa how do you get anywhere flappin' that one left wing of yours. Circles, boy ya flyin' in circles. That was freakin' funny..........almost spit beer on the monitor.
if you think Sotomayor is a flaming liberal, then you simply don't know squat about politics. Trust me, before he is done Obama is likely to add one that is far left to appease the left end of the democratic party, Then you will understand.
