Sotomayor, Race & Abortion: The Judicial Record

"Have you ever wonder why Liberal can't keep a successful/competitive talk radio?"

Because when we look to the future we don't see radio.... LMAO

Norman Thomas Quote:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Sotomayor quoted Thomas on her year book: ( a guy that ran 5 consc years for P of Socialist Party ) " I am not a champion of lost causes, but causes not yet won " I would say she got a good shot at her dreams now. She will have an very active agenda.

Have you ever wonder why Liberal can't keep a successful/competitive talk radio? They can not talk their minds/hearts out. Very corageous, Mr. Wright, Ayers, etc and now Obama, etc. with his ' spread the wealth bit ' I guess now they are going to be gaining ground fast. : - ( bye bye, capitalist , free America, thank you NOT Obama's uninformed/ slobbering followers.

Sotomayor has more judicial experience than any seated Supreme Court Justice.
She graduated Summa Cum Laude at Princeton. She is brilliant and will be a welcomed addition to the US Supreme Court.

Just because she is Latina, who’s to say HER "Latina perspective" would be representative of:
a) all/most US Latinas
b) all/most US Latinos
c) all/most US women
d) even, all/most fatherless diabetics?
e) etc.

Were Sandy O’Connor and Ruth Ginsburg in lock-step on all issues (having to do with gender, reproductive rights, discrimination, workplace, etc. or not) being they were both women? Do you think Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall would see eye-to-eye on all things because they were both black?

The fact that there's a "liberal opening" (verses a "conservative" one) on the court now is proof that not even WHITE GUYS can agree on everything sufficient enough to keep the rest of us second-class citizens under their thumb of domination and exploitation. You would think that would be motivation enough to vote as a single bloc, but it's not.
Conservatives are always accused of thinking of minorities as "people unlike me," but why is it that "Progressives" always seem to be the ones keeping score?

Parallax -

Racism is a system of social control. What you are defining is prejudice. A racist is someone who participates in upholding a system which institutionalizes privilege of one group over another on the basis of the unscientific category of 'race'.

"Just one thing Ryan. What if it's a married couple; the woman is pregnant and wants out of the releationship and is willing to go for the abortion; but the father wants their child, then what?"

Then its an imperfect scenario where if the father is unable to convince the woman to have the child and split custody or even give him custody, then he has no recourse.

He cannot force his wife to have the child.

Ryan C. I don't argue the woman's choice with you. I just wonder about such a dilema. I wonder what most pro choice men feel about their say. I am pro choice of course. I don't believe women should abuse the right though.

Just one thing Ryan. What if it's a married couple; the woman is pregnant and wants out of the releationship and is willing to go for the abortion; but the father wants their child, then what? If they are not married, I think the man forfeits any say because there is no guarantee there will be a 50-50 input in parenting. If they are married, the man has already made the commitment and deserves a say don't you think?

"Recall former US Senator George Allen, who during an otherwise run-of-the-mill campaign stop uttered just a single word"

The "macaca" incident was followed up by a Salon story about teammates who heard him use the n word repeatedly.

"I imagine he regrets his "poor choice of words" too and yet would anyone wager that if he would run for office or government position THAT statement wouldn't disqualify him"

Oh I am sure he regrets it now that he lost the election. But at the time he did everything he could to pretend it was not offensive then when that is became clear it was offensive he blamed his own mother.

Wow Ryan! You are the MAN!

"I always find it odd that fathers have no rights when it comes to their children being aborted. Mothers have the right to choose whether their children are aborted, but the father has no say?"

If fathers could bear the children, they would have a say.

jw539; I guess you get through life via cliff notes and accepting one person's opinion as truth. It's a sad limiting/narrow way to exist.

phillysmart:"he remarks in berkley are clearly racist...when you think you are superior to someone because of your race or ethnicity than you are a racial supremecist...why can't these idiots see it."

Your inability to understand the language of a collegiate-level essay reflects more on your own limitations than Judge Sotomayor's opinions (which, as this article notes, have zero support for your erroneous interpretations).

Dimsdale:"Now tell us in which direction those rulings were made, i.e. "person of color" with a claim against a white person, or vice versa, a la the New Haven firefighters case?"

You could, you know, do your own research. You would very quickly find that there are very few discrimination cases involving where a white male is the plaintiff.

irma:" There's no way we could begin to know her logic for all her rulings in a small story."

Most of us are willing to accept the summary from a respected, non-partisan source. If you are not, you can either be loudly ignorant and insist someone owes you a detailed walkthrough, or go out and read the cases yourself (several thousand pages).

Can we at least agree that there is no further need for affirmative action? Now we can appoint and elect people based on merit and not on race. I'd trade a Sotomayor lifetime appointment for that any day of the week.

People are comparing the sexually immature joker Thomas to Sotomayor? That's a joke....None of these paragraphs specify anything about Sotomayor's opinons on these cases. We have no real idea of what these cases were really about or what real technicalities were involved in Sotomayor's final decision in any of the cases. We simply have Goldstein's perception and telling of Sotomayor as a person by combining his conclusion of 96 cases in several small paragraphs. No way is there enough information. All we have is this single view presented from Goldstein. There's no way we could begin to know her logic for all her rulings in a small story.

"His conclusion: Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of approximately 8 to 1."

Now tell us in which direction those rulings were made, i.e. "person of color" with a claim against a white person, or vice versa, a la the New Haven firefighters case?

Prejudice and racism run both ways, which is what we are concerned with here in this affirmative action nomination.

"Judge Ginsburg, as the court's lone woman was especially poignant during a recent case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched by Arizona school officials looking for drugs. During oral arguments, some other justices minimized the girl's lasting humiliation, but Ginsburg stood out in her concern for the teenager."

"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

Is she being sexist? You people who are calling Sotomayor a racist probably have no idea what it means to have snippets of speeches taken out of context and twisted by the media to generate more visits to their website. Try doing your own research in regards to these political issues and then have valid arguments, not just the words taken out of context and repeated without any valid arguments.

Has anyone here even read her entire speech? Does anyone even know what she was speaking in regards to? I'm a Republican and don't necessarily agree with this nomination, however, I have researched more about this particular speech and the title is, "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." She recounted her life experience as a Latina women and how it might give her better insight as a judge EXPECIALLY where issues of sex and race are at issue.

Another part of her speech:

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Anyone who calls her a racist may need to check themselves...they are the ones throwing judgements around without being informed.