Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  I Wish I Were a Leftist (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   I Wish I Were a Leftist
katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 457
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 04:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
believe it or not i am not spending all my time away from here researching sources for you. i hear things on the radio, i see things here and there. i have heard black people calling "shame" on obama for "using his black face" for gain. i have heard leftists calling him a corporatist average politician who isn't living up to what they expected. no sources. sorry. but the voices are there.

so the conservatives just have a different spin on what i consider the national disease...diviseness and clubbism. can everyone be correct? maybe.

as for your pronouncements of soon-to-be-overturned they are generally premature. so the fire dept decided not to make any promotions. maybe they couldn't afford it? who knows. not you or me!

even if overturned, the woman still will have a 99% unchallenged rate on her decisions.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 260
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 05:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
I know you don't check anything before you pop off with your drivel katatonic. Entirely too much effort involved to actually get things right...at least too much effort for you. Disinformation is a whole lot easier.

Sotomayor is a racist and she's also a political activist. She's also a member of La Raza..meaning THE RACE. Among the sub groups of La Raza are those attempting to wrest control over the American Southwest away from the United States.

Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group
Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.

"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 457
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
you seem to have missed the word "i would hope" and what decision was she talking about? a case that involved all white males? or one that involved people from backgrounds like hers? she didn't say she was better than a white man but that she would make a better decision than someone who didn't "know that life?" sounds like an out-of-context quote - once again.

you also seem to have missed my references to people's statements of opinion to which there are no links. i haven't heard that only internet sources are true and correct. quite the opposite.

are you saying that all white men are impartial judges? no by definition none of us is detached from our experience. so different experiences bring different perspectives to the job.

inherit the wind was on the other night. catch it?

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 457
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 06:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
"In her most controversial decision, "Sotomayor ruled against 18 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, in their lawsuit against New Haven, Conn., after city officials scrapped a promotional test that showed the plaintiffs more eligible for advancement within the fire department. The white firefighters scored much better than their African-American peers on the test."

in fact they didn't just scrap the test, did they. they promoted no one. and if she is such a hispanic champion why did she rule against the hispanic in the group? funny how he is conveniently lumped in with the whites in the hope no one will notice.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 260
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 06:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Sotomayor is an activist racist gender biased judge who makes up laws in her courtroom instead of following the laws and ruling accordingly.

If any white man had said what Sotomayor said they would be forced to withdraw their nomination...if a President was foolish enough to appoint them.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 457
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 08:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i can understand how you'd see it that way. again out of context, anything can be made to sound "off". but your repeating it doesn't make it so.

it could also be said that she is MORE objective than most in that she RECOGNIZES that we all see through our own filters.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 260
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2009 10:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Nothing was taken out of context katatonic. It was perfectly in context and perfectly in alignment with other comments Sotomayor has made.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 457
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2009 03:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
along with her nearly 400 decisions. i think i have read more of the speech than you have, and i haven't read much.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 260
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2009 09:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Sotomayor has a judicial error rate far above acceptable limits. 60% of her cases which were appealed were reversed by the US Supreme Court. We don't need those who don't know the law or who ignore the law for racial bias, ideology or gender bias or for any other reason sitting on the highest court in America. We expect, and we have the right to expect judges to get the law right, get the facts of cases right and get the US Constitution right. Those who cannot or will not should be removed from federal courts by the impeachment process. That's what the impeachment process is for. Federal Judges serve in lifetime appointments..."During good behavior". Ignoring the laws, making law from the courts and ignoring the US Constitution by substituting their own biases as law IS NOT "good behavior".

This woman doesn't even understand the 1st Amendment right of free speech. I wonder at what age Sotomayor believes Americans acquire free speech rights. Like O'Bomber who can't decide at what age children acquire the right to life...after they're born. Presumably, for both of these leftists there are causal everyday reasons Americans have neither the right to free speech or the right to life.

Free speech rights under the 1st Amendment are not a privledge, they're a RIGHT which is not to be infringed...except under extrodinary circumstances and most certainly NOT in everyday mundane circumstances.

Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"
Ruled teen's blog post created a "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"
By YVONNE NAVA and LEANNE GENDREAU
Updated 12:16 PM EDT, Thu, May 28, 2009

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.

In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.

Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.

The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”

However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.

“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.” ***Note, it appears these judges, including Sotomayor did understand this students 1st Amendment rights where abridged by the school..and said."So What"?It's also clear these judges knew the student was being punished by the school for the exercise of her Constitutional free speech rights**

The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.

“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2008

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a