White House: Sotomayor says she chose word poorly

Yurt said:
do you have links for those speeches? i would be very interested in seeing those.

if obama did not know about the speeches, then he didn't lie.
Click to expand...

LOL her speeches are a matter of public record. a simple google search will turn up all the speeches. You obviously didn't even attempt to find an answer.
 
Yurt said:
do you have links for those speeches? i would be very interested in seeing those.

if obama did not know about the speeches, then he didn't lie.
Click to expand...
The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."....

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wasn't mollified.

"If it was a bad choice of words, it was a bad choice of words repeatedly ... leading one to believe that it probably wasn't just an isolated statement but a core belief,"
Click to expand...
How could he have not know about this? Is he that stupid that he didn't vet this candidate?
 
Damocles said:
Again, when taking colloquialisms into account, the reality is she was saying that because they were latina and woman they would make better decisions. The two statements are not equal and you tried to fit the square peg into that round hole anyway.

If I were the nominee, was white, and I said, "I would hope that better decisions would be made because a wise white man was making them and therefore had a better perspective on things," we'd not be talking about my confirmation hearings, we'd be talking about who else would be nominated. That is the reality. And because I was conservative and said it, I'd be likened to Hitler and called racist (rightly) for it.
Click to expand...

Sotomayor did not say definitively that better decisions would be made; she gave an opinion. I do know how to read comprehensively and take the statement in its entire context, whereas you would have it stand alone and then comment about square pegs and round holes.

Bottom line is, she said nothing different than Alito or Thomas said in their actual confirmation hearings. Conservatives can't find anything really inflammatory to complain about, so they'll parse the language of an eight-year old college speech.

Get over it already.
 
christiefan915 said:
Sotomayor did not say definitively that better decisions would be made; she gave an opinion. I do know how to read comprehensively and take the statement in its entire context, whereas you would have it stand alone and then comment about square pegs and round holes.

Bottom line is, she said nothing different than Alito or Thomas said in their actual confirmation hearings. Conservatives can't find anything really inflammatory to complain about, so they'll parse the language of an eight-year old college speech.

Get over it already.
Click to expand...
This is rubbish. They did not say anything close to what she has stated repeatedly.

I fully agree that had she stated that she would bring a different perspective because of her experience that it would be no big deal, but that isn't what she has stated. She has repeatedly declared her "hope" that a wise Latina would make "better" decisions than a white man.

And again, if I were white and stated exactly the same thing we'd be talking about what a poor choice I was, and who would be the actual nominee...

Imagine... "I would hope that a wise white man would make a better decision than a Latina woman..."

Even couched in less acerbic rhetoric, had I made that statement, it would not be "context" you'd be on about.
 
tinfoil said:
I really tried to find something outrageous about that, but couldn't see anything. Perhaps you can explain your problem.

If, perhaps, he had said "I would think a wise hispanic judge would reach a better decision than a white judge" or anything even close to that, you might have had a point, but you failed.
Click to expand...

I never said it was outrageous or a problem to me. I said there was very little difference between the two comments and that it's crazy to read something into Sotomayor's if you're not going to hold Alito or Thomas to the same standard.

If: Alito (Thomas) had been experiencing discrimination against Italian-Americans (African Americans);

If: Alito and Thomas had been speaking at a Berkeley Law Symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Italians (African-Americans) and Italian-American (African-American) Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

If they said, regarding that discrimination, "I would hope that a wise Italian (African-American) man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white (fe)male who hasn't lived that life (of discrimination against Italian-Americans/African Americans)

How could I argue against it?

They experienced the discrimination and I didn't. Of course they'd have a different take on it, they'd understand the nuances much better than I could.

What is your reason for the fact that laws are constantly being changed or updated?
 
Damocles said:
I think they probably did. Tancredo called her out before she was nominated, they played his statements that he had made back then just recently on the tube. (You'll hear about his La Raza statements.)

The difference is you didn't hear about it because all she was then was a 2nd Circuit Judge, one of a group and not a nominee for the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Right before she was nominated was long after she made the comment.

How did her comment made in 2001 negatively influence every judicial decision she's made in the last eight years?
 
christiefan915 said:
Right before she was nominated was long after she made the comment.

How did her comment made in 2001 negatively influence every judicial decision she's made in the last eight years?
Click to expand...
He's spoken of her before that, right before her nomination is when some of the comments hit the news.

And her New Haven ruling was one of the worst I have seen. If that is an example of her "Wise Latina" making "better" decisions, then you've lost me.

Lastly, as a Circuit Judge she can be overturned, unlike the SCOTUS. I'd prefer she remained a Circuit Judge so that her poor decisions can be just part of the background.
 
Damocles said:
He's spoken of her before that, right before her nomination is when some of the comments hit the news.

And her New Haven ruling was one of the worst I have seen. If that is an example of her "Wise Latina" making "better" decisions, then you've lost me.

Lastly, as a Circuit Judge she can be overturned, unlike the SCOTUS. I'd prefer she remained a Circuit Judge so that her poor decisions can be just part of the background.
Click to expand...

1.3% overturned is nothing to sneer at. All justices should be so good.

"Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent. "

factcheck.org
 
Damocles said:
This is rubbish. They did not say anything close to what she has stated repeatedly.

I fully agree that had she stated that she would bring a different perspective because of her experience that it would be no big deal, but that isn't what she has stated. She has repeatedly declared her "hope" that a wise Latina would make "better" decisions than a white man.

And again, if I were white and stated exactly the same thing we'd be talking about what a poor choice I was, and who would be the actual nominee...

Imagine... "I would hope that a wise white man would make a better decision than a Latina woman..."

Even couched in less acerbic rhetoric, had I made that statement, it would not be "context" you'd be on about.
Click to expand...


Wasn't there a huge amount of whining and gnashing of teeth, over what someone said at the retirement party for someone who USED to be part of the KKK??
 
christiefan915 said:
I never said it was outrageous or a problem to me. I said there was very little difference between the two comments and that it's crazy to read something into Sotomayor's if you're not going to hold Alito or Thomas to the same standard.

If: Alito (Thomas) had been experiencing discrimination against Italian-Americans (African Americans);

If: Alito and Thomas had been speaking at a Berkeley Law Symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Italians (African-Americans) and Italian-American (African-American) Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

If they said, regarding that discrimination, "I would hope that a wise Italian (African-American) man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white (fe)male who hasn't lived that life (of discrimination against Italian-Americans/African Americans)

How could I argue against it?

They experienced the discrimination and I didn't. Of course they'd have a different take on it, they'd understand the nuances much better than I could.

What is your reason for the fact that laws are constantly being changed or updated?
Click to expand...


Instead of arguing over WHAT was said, then would you be able to SHOW how her "experiance" is going to be an assett??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top