Ive already conceded that the word better in her statement is divisive. But better is probably in the context of dealing with decision relating to her people or heritage. It doesnt make the ones who are already on the court the best either, with even less experience, especially Roberts and Alito. Bush got 44%, id said Latino voters are swing voters. Its called politics, I didnt like Roberts or Alito (who was affilited with a very racist organization in college and when he was questioned on it, denied knowing of their racist views) but I damn sure have to live with it. Some how, I have a feeling you will get over it.
Sorry but she said it plain and simple. I've read 3 speeches of hers now and the comment is clear and repeated often. No other interpretation as she specifically references O'Connor in providing a contrasting view. not unless you use only 2004 as a comparison and ignore the trends of the past 20 years. The decline in Republican vote by Hispanics from 2004 to 2008 was less significant than McCain's loss of support in other demographic groups - such as among voters age 18-29, Catholics, evangelical Christians, and women of all ages. Obama even got 20% of the vote among self-identified conservatives, compared to John Kerry's 8% in 2004. McCain's 31% in 2008 was close to the 30% earned by Republican congressional candidates in 2006. For me it's much more than just politics. The Supreme Court makes decisions that impact our lives and the way we do business, etc. Their appointments are lifetime. I don't know yet if I'll get over it if one of her decisions or any other judge has a negative impact on my life. I don't like the process, I don't care for her point of view on key opinions, I think it's okay to say that.
So because there is precedent in a case, a decision shouldnt be overturned because of that. Well there goes any hope of overturning Roe v Wade. You see how that statement makes no sense at all?:huh: Precedent doesnt make a decision in a case stronger, its just a referel point. Alot of precedent has been wrong, an example being Dred Scott case and Plessy v Ferguson. You are right, we have to agree to disagree here.
Its all politics during the process. You are more than in your right to say that you dont like her opinions. But if we are talking about negative impact, that negative impact on the high court gave us George Bush for 8 years, there isnt much more negative impact that I can think of. Scalia is the king of negative impact in my opinion.
I think you missed my statement above about where I believe precedent should be overturned at a higher court. If case law has already been written at that level and in your jurisdiction, then I don't think as a judge, that person should totally re-write law/case law. The only place I believe you can do that is at the very top, but I guess either I didn't explain it well enough, you didn't read through my whole posts, or a combination of the two happened.
there is nothing wrong with her use of "better". maybe divisive, but thats on them, not her. all things being equal, anyone with more relevant experience will make better judgments. she didnt say being hispanic was better or that she is a better judge than whites, but that her judgment will be better in cases where she has more relevant experience.
Appointment for life is the only way to keep them relatively free from influence by their appointers. There is nothing wrong with the process that I see-- the President appoints a judge and the Congress confirms the appointment. But partisan politics has turned it into a political referendum on the judges themselves, as if any judge on the planet is perfect and has no issues that won't bother somebody somewhere. In a time before partisanship became so extreme the Congressional approval was only used to prevent an obviously unqualified doofus (like Harriet Miers) from being appointed. But I see little way to keep politics out of it now. I can tell you one thing . . . the moderates are getting tired of partisan intransigence on both sides of the issue
:lol: I always thought Miers was a sacrificial pawn who Bush never saw as being confirmed . It may have been a plan to get someone like Alito on the court but I cant believe anyone thought Miers had a snowballs chance to pass confirmation.
Of course you missed the part where there the independant accounting firm scooped up ALL the Florida ballots after the USSC decision, counted them, and in a very small paragraph burried in the middle of the USA Today said, "yep, W won" While I will admit the dubya mucked it up pretty good in lots of areas, I'll take those 8 years vs. 8 minutes of Al Gore as the POTUS every time:thumb: Hijack complete, continue on the sonja meterora whatever the hell that hacks name is argument.
