[ LOLITICS ] Let the battle begin!
- Thread starter Lizard Of Oz
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
change? If Obama was truly for change he would act differently and this here is a great example of why he isn't for change at all. There is a history in this country of presidents picking judges that show opinions of issues when they seat on the bench and this lady is no different. Judges are supposed to be people that uphold the law and do so without taking into account their own opinions on the topic at hand. Is it to much to ask for a judge that just interprets the law by what is there and not by what should be there?
The context of that soundbyte is that she was philosophizing on whether full impartiality was even possible, or desirable. I'm having difficulty finding the complete, unaltered text of her speech because it was published in a periodical and thus reproducing it in full is legally messy. But this site gives a pretty big chunk of it. Emphasis mine.
Sotomayor said:
Sotomayor said:
Sotomayor said:
It seems to me that she's talking about how America often celebrates its cultural diversity and then immediately tries to turn a blind eye to any and all issues of race. And the Supreme Court has traditionally been all white, all male. Sotomayor makes the third woman and the first latino to sit on the bench in the institution's history, and Clarence Thomas is only the second black man, coming in after Thurgood Marshall. Given that a sizable number of cases that are brought before the SC deal with discrimination and other diversity issues, both racial and otherwise, I think it's fair to take her words in the context of saying that it is to the benefit of society that the last word on the constitutionality of laws in this nation include more than just the dominant majority in representation. There are cases where a white male simply does not possess the experiences necessary to pass a fair judgement, and there needs to be some tempering of those opinions by those of people with different backgrounds.
See... why does the sex or race matter? Giving someone credit simply because of their heritage is equally as bad as implying that it's a deficit. We worry more about that kind of crap than whether or not they will interpret law with an eye towards the constitution.
I don't want someone reading stuff into the law (and what horrible laws we have, by the way) that is not there... from the left or the right.
Then we need to take a hard look at our laws and the people who sit in judgement of those that bring cases to the court. Following that logic to its ultimate conclusion would mean that a judge must have the same life experiences as both parties involved. WTF? How is that even possible?
What about religions? Should we make sure that we have a judge for every faith? Last I checked, discrimination based on religion was just as illegal.
C'mon, people!
I am speaking in the context of the SC, where there are multiple judges.
The point is that people (not necessarily on BUF) are taking the soundbyte of "I would hope a latino woman would arrive at a better conclusion than a white male" and concluding "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION!". I'm saying that the real context of it is that diversity on the bench is a desirable thing, that having varied backgrounds from which to draw influence in a decision is a good thing. She's saying that there exist cases where a white male will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a non-white female. Note that this may not be in cases of easy, black-and-white "Oh, this is a law saying all purple people have to give their cars to their nearest non-purple neighbor" situations.
The point is that people (not necessarily on BUF) are taking the soundbyte of "I would hope a latino woman would arrive at a better conclusion than a white male" and concluding "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION!". I'm saying that the real context of it is that diversity on the bench is a desirable thing, that having varied backgrounds from which to draw influence in a decision is a good thing. She's saying that there exist cases where a white male will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a non-white female. Note that this may not be in cases of easy, black-and-white "Oh, this is a law saying all purple people have to give their cars to their nearest non-purple neighbor" situations.
So then the opposite must be true? There are cases where a non-white female will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a white male?
Oh boy... where does it end?
Isn't that a big part of why we have a body of nine justices instead of one?
If the bench were already stocked with females and Hispanics/minorities, these purely congenital qualities would work against her likelihood of being selected rather than in her favor, and rightly so. It happens to be stocked with a starkly disproportionate number of males and whites.
Embedded in there, also, I think, is a fairly principled answer to the question of "where does it end," as well.
Wrong, sorry. The entire point of the Supreme court is to look at the laws and decide if they are constitutional or not without looking at with a eye from any side except the center. There job is to make sure laws follow the constitution and that nothing goes against it. They don't do that at all. Instead they waste their time with stupid discrimination cases continually which is a totally waste of their time. After the guide lines were set and they decided they were constitutional it was at that point forward a smaller court issue. They are not supposed to judge if so and so discrimination case is indeed discrimination. That is what other courthouses are for and even those judges job is supposed to be to in interpret the law. Personal opinion or experiences does not come into the equation.
Last edited:
So then the opposite must be true? There are cases where a non-white female will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a white male?
Oh boy... where does it end?
That would be where the other eight justice slots come in.
Obviously. I don't recall saying you needed to?
Again, because this keeps getting de-railed into "OMGZ CAN'T HAVE EVERYONE BE A JUSTICE": I am providing context for her controversial statement. People are saying the statement was out of line, I'm saying it's not considering the circumstances and the history of the court.
Lol. Just lol.
Again, because this keeps getting de-railed into "OMGZ CAN'T HAVE EVERYONE BE A JUSTICE": I am providing context for her controversial statement. People are saying the statement was out of line, I'm saying it's not considering the circumstances and the history of the court.
Larkin said:
Lol. Just lol.
Gosh, I dunno... I thought it was because EVERYONE has a slightly different opinion on issues, regardless of (insert sex, race, religion, blood type, socio-economic status, sexual preference, whatever). Isn't the whole point to get the most legally sound and impartial justices possible?
I actually think you're misreading the statement you seem hung up on:
"Second, 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"
She seems to be saying that, all things being equal, richness of life (whatever the hell that is) ought to allow one to reach a better conclusion. Seems reasonable enough.
Tossing in references to (insert sex, race, religion, blood type, socio-economic status, sexual preference, whatever), however, is retarded. Because you can place a check mark next to any a particular census option does not necessarily mean you have similar experiences, world views, or opinions as anyone else.
IF THEY DID THEIR JOBS THE WAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO IT WOULDN'T MATTER. YOU CLEARLY CAN'T GET THAT THOUGH YOUR HEAD.
edit:
But as always we aren't worried if they are impartial or not. We are worried about what race they are. Typical bull****.
Last edited:
Why are people so hung up on having someone they can identify with in race, gender or even life experiences represent them? Why does the court "need" to be made up of persons from different races, genders, political affiliations, etc? Why can we not just appoint justices who are capable of doing the job? Does a life experience trump one's knowledge of the laws of the land or the intent of the Constitution?
It amazes me that the same token Sotomayor talks about makes her own words seem backwards. She speaks of Americans wanting to be known for their ethnic differences but that those differences are ignored in the courts. Well, funny how SHE has the judgeship and I have to be the one to tell her that the Constitution IS colorblind. A SCOTUS justice should be colorblind, not sympathetic towards color or gender. If you lean towards one gender or race, you are not being impartial.
We all have sob stories in our lives and when we go to court, we try to use those experiences to sway the courts in our favor. When it comes to application of the law, a judge has the authority to give you a pass on a traffic violation. But a SC justice not only applies the law, he or she applies it in order to uphold the Constitution. That impartiality is imperative or else the SC is powerless. Impartiality does not come from life experiences, it comes from learning the law.
Sotomayor's statements give the distinct impression that she does not believe in a judge being objective in all situations. A SC justice who cannot be objective (re: impartial) should recuse himself/herself from the case at hand.
Well the Utopia would be that there is no such thing as a minority and that everyone is treated equally because "minority" or "majority" is just an artificial construct anyway... a construct that someone from every race in the world is guilty of in different ways... but artificial none-the-less.
We're not there yet... and we're not even at your point yet. Sure it'd be nice... but not possible.
Last edited:
Missing the point land is what this forum is. I'm not sure how many times I must say this but..
Being of a certain race with certain personal experiences is not important because it does not fit under the job description. Under the job description of a judge of any court in the country they are supposed to enforce the law with impartiality. Meaning personal experiences or race does not come into play. We are not talking about a Utopia world order, we are talking about picking judges that have the capability to judge without thinking of one's own views. It is supposed to be that a judge can lose their job if its proven they failed to do so, but that never happens, and as proven with her, they can even talk about how they are not impartial and get a raise. The issue here is not what race she is or what experiences she brings to the table, its that she is not impartial and gloats about such.
Its is not utopia world order to expect judges to be impartial or be fired. Though for the supreme court that system doesn't exist.
Last edited:
