Obama nominates Sotomayor

[John Adams]

So you don't mind that she is racist?

 

She said that she thinks her experiences as a minority make her better-qualified to be a judge than a white man. I would argue with her about that statement but she'd have had to make a lot more statements before (a) I thought she was a racist and (b) I thought she was not qualified.

[Fingon]

She didn't say that latinas make better judges than white males.

 

You, on the other hand, DID say white males make better decisions than latinos because because of our richness of experience.

How do you define a better judge? better decisions... so she did say latinos are better judges than white males.

 

 

 

 

 

PS: i wasn't serious, i was illustrating my point.

[Fingon]

She said that she thinks her experiences as a minority make her better-qualified to be a judge than a white man. I would argue with her about that statement but she'd have had to make a lot more statements before (a) I thought she was a racist and (b) I thought she was not qualified.

And if i said my experience as a white male made me less biased than a minority, wouldn't i be lambasted as racist? Of course i would.

[K-9]

So becuase she has the "balls" to ADMIT and EMBRACE her bias, that makes her a better judge? Are drug addicts, racists and other wonderful cretins that have the "balls" to admit and embrace their feelings also "illuminating and refreshing" to you?

 

No, it makes her more aware of what may affect her decision making processes. That awareness will allow more self-criticism in her thinking. We ALL carry inherent bias, it CANNOT be removed from who we are and how it impacts us on a daily level.

 

Your comment about drug addicts, racists, and other cretins is simply stupid.

[Kevbeau]

She said latinos are better judges than white males. What isn't racist about that?

 

That's one way to look at her statement. As a white male, I find nothing racist or insulting about her statement. They way I read it is that she's touting experience as her main qualification.

[Fingon]

That's one way to look at her statement. As a white male, I find nothing racist or insulting about her statement. They way I read it is that she's touting experience as her main qualification.

Yes, and white males make better decisions because they are less biased than minorities.

[Kevbeau]

Yes, and white males make better decisions because they are less biased than minorities.

 

Alluding to your previous post;

 

"And if i said my experience as a white male made me less biased than a minority, wouldn't i be lambasted as racist? Of course i would. "

 

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but are you calling here a racist for holding what you consider essentially the same position as your own?

[Fingon]

Alluding to your previous post;

 

"And if i said my experience as a white male made me less biased than a minority, wouldn't i be lambasted as racist? Of course i would. "

 

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but are you calling here a racist for holding what you consider essentially the same position as your own?

Yes, your sarcasm meter is indeed broken.

[John Adams]

And if i said my experience as a white male made me less biased than a minority, wouldn't i be lambasted as racist? Of course i would.

 

And?

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, and white males make better decisions because they are less biased than minorities.

 

Actually, she wasn't saying that. She was talking about wise people and unwise people, wise men and wise women, people that have had rich experience and those that haven't, which is why she said "wise Latinas" versus "white males without that experience." She probably should have been more clear. The speech is pretty interesting, if you read the thing, and see what she was talking about. I don't think she should have said that sentence that way though. It's too easily cherry-picked.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/polit...ml?pagewanted=1

[Fingon]

And?

I would like to have someone who views all races as equal, rather than one better than the others.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Someone who is in a certain class steps before the SCOTUS and has one stike against him before a word is uttered.

 

Just as John Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers intended.

 

Yeah, those slave owning founding fathers NEVER would have stood for racial preference like this.

[K-9]

Yeah, those slave owning founding fathers NEVER would have stood for racial preference like this.

 

In fairness to the founders, it is never a good idea to judge history by today's moral standards.

[IDBillzFan]

President gets to choose the nominee. This nominee is little different than most of the others. That's how it works.

End of discussion. I fear the right will bust their nuts to mess with this, if for no other reason than to pay back the left for their past idiocies, but I remain at least slightly hopeful that they collectively understand they have little to say on this matter. Make a few statements against the pick, let some nutjob scream real loud, but let everyone else focus at the larger issues at hand. This is a fight that, if the right gets stupid, can take a lot of effort with little or no chance of winning. Kinda like challenging a ref's call with three minutes left in a game you're already losing by 40.

[Kelly the Dog]

In fairness to the founders, it is never a good idea to judge history by today's moral standards.

 

While that may well be true, it's also not unreasonable to think that perhaps they weren't always right. Or that some elements may need changing because it was not close to being a perfect document, however fabulous it obviously was. The idea that they would arbitrarily just assign a numeric number to their percentage of being human is downright laughable.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

Yeah, those slave owning founding fathers NEVER would have stood for racial preference like this.

 

While obviously wrong and terrible, that was the norm back then. That doesn't make it acceptable for sh*t like this to become the norm today.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

While obviously wrong and terrible, that was the norm back then. That doesn't make it acceptable for sh*t like this to become the norm today.

 

I realize that, KO. I just tire of the "What would the founding fathers think?" argument. They weren't deities.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

I realize that, KO. I just tire of the "What would the founding fathers think?" argument. They weren't deities.

 

Couldn't agree more with that.

[John Adams]

While obviously wrong and terrible, that was the norm back then. That doesn't make it acceptable for sh*t like this to become the norm today.

 

Sh*t like what?

[K-9]

While that may well be true, it's also not unreasonable to think that perhaps they weren't always right. Or that some elements may need changing because it was not close to being a perfect document, however fabulous it obviously was. The idea that they would arbitrarily just assign a numeric number to their percentage of being human is downright laughable.

 

I agree. Of course they weren't always right. And they knew it and tried to plan for it. If you've never had a chance, read the incsription on the walls inside the Jefferson Memorial. Jefferson had it right when he likens our laws to that of a jacket that needs to be taken in or let out from time to time depending on the societal norms of the age.

 

And that idea of arbitrarily assigning a numeric number to a percentage of being human? A great example of what I'm saying when I try not to judge history by today's definitions.

 

1.) That was the BIGGEST political football being played in that time. One HAS to appreciate that fact. It's laughable today of course, but politics was still politics and some politicians, like today, had to give something to get something.

 

2.) Assigning that percentage of being human would today, be like assigning a percentage to your household furniture. The biggest stain in our history, slavery, was the treatment of an entire race of people as nothing more than chattle. People LITERALLY had that understanding of the slaves they owned. Unbelievable today. Reality back then.

 

Jefferson was right.