Sotomayor nomination

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Right. Because it's me that refuses to understand other points of view.

I've done research. I knew who Sonia Sotomayor was before she was nominated. I know her credentials, and I've read her opinions. Considering the crap that's gone on during Supreme Court nominations over the last 20 years, she is as sure of a candidate as you'll really find. She's more than qualified, and is far from some kind of a left-winger. She's written opinions that supported the now-defunct "Mexico City Policy" with regards to abortion, as well as ones that have supported a white bigot, as well as gun rights. Do you know why? Because she does not use her political opinions to interpret the law.

I've taken a look at the Supreme Court nominee on my own terms, and I don't need Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (for those scoring at home, that's the rather racist ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) or John Cornyn or Rush Limbaugh to tell me what to think. She is not new to the judicial scene, by any means. She's been approved by the Senate before. I'm not saying she should be confirmed tomorrow - but the only reason Republicans want to delay this process is because they're trying to figure out what the hell they can do to gain some kind of political advantage from all this. It has nothing to do with being afraid of her being on the Court, because we have not seen a candidate in a long time who, by any objective measure, is this qualified. This is not Sarah Palin being plucked out of the middle of Alaska to be the vice president. She is not an unknown.

I know that I can talk of my ass sometimes, on certain subjects more than others, but I usually think I know what I'm talking about. In this case, I'm sure that I do. Just because you (of your own admittance) really don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean that others don't have some clue.

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

What if a Republican is in charge and they appoint someone, then its okay to dissent, but now that a Democrat is in charge and people want to explore to see if any dissent should take place, you think its wrong?

Sounds like a clear double standard.

Is this another case of being Drunk with power?

Is it possible that you might be wrong, just as you might be right?

I acknowledge that you might be right...but I'm willing to see if perhaps you might be wrong...are you willing to acknowledge or admit that this is possible?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

Could someone explain to me what 92bDad is talking about here?

Does he not realize that Supreme Court nominations have always been solely up to the President and that the People have NEVER had a say in the matter???

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does "society go" to support (or not support) a specific nominee to a specific judicial nomination? There is no trend to be established here. If Obama were to have picked some random judge from the boonies somewhere that no one had ever heard of, then we would have needed to have gone through a thorough investigation of that person's history. The information on Sonia Sotomayor is all available now, though. It has been for years. She's been manning a major appellate court spot for like 12 years. She is not an unknown. There isn't some archive of secret stuff on Sonia Sotomayor that wasn't already available. Let's get the process started. Do you think that me stating that I don't think there's any reason to oppose her, that that opinion actually holds sway in the judicial discourse of this country? I'm a 21-year-old history student who's taken a couple of political science classes.

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

I think you need to go back and actually read what I've written here. You're talking to someone that is not me.

On another note, a statement like this coming from you, who's shown to be the ultimate apologist for authority... that's really rather hilarious.

What if a Republican is in charge and they appoint someone, then its okay to dissent, but now that a Democrat is in charge and people want to explore to see if any dissent should take place, you think its wrong?

It depends entirely who they appoint. If they were to, say, choose some person from Alaska that nobody had ever heard of and knew anything about, then yes, I would say that an investigation would be needed. If they were to choose a very prominent judge on a very prominent circuit who had tons and tons of experience and had been in judicial mainstream for years, then no. You wouldn't need weeks and weeks to figure out what to do with him or her. You might oppose his or her nomination - but you shouldn't need weeks to figure that out.

Sonia Sotomayor is not going to be approved 100-0 (or 99-0, in the case of Norm "Sore Loser" Coleman"). Pat Roberts said he wasn't going to support her nomination. He didn't need weeks to figure that out.

I didn't actively oppose John Roberts or Samuel Alito at the time. I wish that I had opposed John Roberts now, because his lack of judicial experience failed to reveal just how much of a reactionary activist he really has turned out to be. Fortunately, with Sonia Sotomayor, we have much more judicial experience to draw upon to form an opinion.

Is this another case of being Drunk with power?

Do you somehow think that I have power? I'm not even a Democrat.

Is it possible that you might be wrong, just as you might be right?

Uh... yeah?

I acknowledge that you might be right...but I'm willing to see if perhaps you might be wrong...are you willing to acknowledge or admit that this is possible?

I find the possibility that something we didn't already know about Sonia Sotomayor popping up during a delay is extremely unlikely. But could something? Yeah. We could also find some kind of damning evidence in the memoirs of her cousin when he dies in thirty years. Should we go ahead and wait until all her family members die just to make sure?

There's plenty of information to draw an opinion of her from. As a judge, everything you do is public record, basically. For someone who's been in the judicial mainstream for as long as she has, Senate Republicans are absolutely ignorant if they need weeks to "review her record" or whatever. They're not absolutely ignorant, so I think that they have an ulterior motive.