GOP aims to paint Sotomayor as biased

[Terri Tanna]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting response, again proving the irrelevancy of your question. Your conclusion, also, is not based on logic.
If I were in a position to actually choose a candidate, I would research them and provide alternatives. Due to the fact that I have no input, other than to voice my opinion on the President's nominee, I choose not to spend precious time researching individuals that may never be nominated. If you choose to spend your time that way, that's your prerogative. Have at it.
The fact that I choose not to waste my time researching thousands of judges (or even non-judges that "could" be nominated) has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of any particular nominee, and/or whether or not my opinion on said nominee is valid. Your entire argument is falacious from its conception.
By the way, what is this "militia" you mentioned? Or is that just your way of trying to defend an indefensible argument?

I stand by my response recognizing your avoidance was sophomoric. The truth is you cannot name off the top of your head 20-30 federal or state supreme court judges who might be considered. Since you don't even know their names as a serious observer of American government would, you cannot provide the pro and con as you purport to do with our next Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. When it was suggested you are awfully negative, it means you are empty in your comments and simply blowing hot air. You are a great candidate for the U.S. Congress.

[John Galt]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
I stand by my response recognizing your avoidance was sophomoric. The truth is you cannot name off the top of your head 20-30 federal or state supreme court judges who might be considered. Since you don't even know their names as a serious observer of American government would, you cannot provide the pro and con as you purport to do with our next Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. When it was suggested you are awfully negative, it means you are empty in your comments and simply blowing hot air. You are a great candidate for the U.S. Congress.

Once again, you've shown a complete lack of logic. And of course you stand by your ridiculous question and equally ridiculous response. Not surprising given your complete lack of reason or logic.

Name off the top of my head 20 or 30 "federal or state supreme court judges who might be considered..."? Considered by whom? Obama? Considered by someone conservative? Considered by an anarchist? Considered by you? By me? Once again, the question you pose, on its very face, is completely irrelevant. I've seen it posed by others of your political persuasion, and it appears to be merely a ruse to shut down debate. Sorry, it won't work here. I guess you'll have to retrieve another tactic from Moveon and their ilk.

Whether or not Joe Blow from AnyState Supreme Court, or Law Professor Jane Doe from Harvard, is "considered" or not, has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand. It also has no bearing on the validity of my opinion concerning Sotomayor. She is the nominee. Your hypothetical is sophistry.

By the way, why would a "federal supreme court judge" have to be considered for the federal supreme court? And you are a "serious observer of American government"? Please.

[Mizz Bee Haven]

Well, if the Congress and Senate ultimately don't confirm Sotomayor for the Supreme Court job, then she can just suck it up the same way those fire fighter had to suck it up when they too were passed over for a promotion.
The only difference here is that Sotomayor is being evaluated [based on what she personally has done and said] in the past, unlike the fire fighters who were denied a promotion [based solely on their ethnicity].
Imagine one of the fire fighters, a man who's chosen profession is to risk his life to save others for a living. He walks into the house to greet his wife who was no doubt waiting expectingly for the results of his evaluation.
"Well, the good news is that I aced the certification exam. The bad news is that I didn't qualify for the job because I'm white."

[Ray]

What are the chances that Sotomayor's comment, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life", might hold some honest truth?

[Terri Tanna]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, you've shown a complete lack of logic. And of course you stand by your ridiculous question and equally ridiculous response. Not surprising given your complete lack of reason or logic.
Name off the top of my head 20 or 30 "federal or state supreme court judges who might be considered..."? Considered by whom? Obama? Considered by someone conservative? Considered by an anarchist? Considered by you? By me? Once again, the question you pose, on its very face, is completely irrelevant. I've seen it posed by others of your political persuasion, and it appears to be merely a ruse to shut down debate. Sorry, it won't work here. I guess you'll have to retrieve another tactic from Moveon and their ilk.
Whether or not Joe Blow from AnyState Supreme Court, or Law Professor Jane Doe from Harvard, is "considered" or not, has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand. It also has no bearing on the validity of my opinion concerning Sotomayor. She is the nominee. Your hypothetical is sophistry.
By the way, why would a "federal supreme court judge" have to be considered for the federal supreme court? And you are a "serious observer of American government"? Please.

You'll discover as you further your education that when the word or separates two concepts, as in federal OR state supreme court judges, it means they are not the same.
I come back to the simple truth: you probably have never had dinner with any court of appeals judges and have no idea who are ANY of the hundreds of men and women who form the basic pool for U.S. Supreme Court justices. That's ok because it is obvious to all that -- in this particular area -- you have no knowledge. That's ok, but you shouldn't be taking your ignorance to analyze the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Your Wikipedia approach to the law puts you in way over your head. What you are doing is known as petulant resistence. Common among children of a certain age. Unbecoming of adults. Tiresome on a discussion board.

[Terri Tanna]

Ray wrote:

What are the chances that Sotomayor's comment, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life", might hold some honest truth?

Of course, it does. Key words: "I would hope ...."

[Terri Tanna]

Mizz Bee Haven wrote:

Well, if the Congress and Senate ultimately don't confirm Sotomayor for the Supreme Court job, then she can just suck it up the same way those fire fighter had to suck it up when they too were passed over for a promotion.
The only difference here is that Sotomayor is being evaluated [based on what she personally has done and said] in the past, unlike the fire fighters who were denied a promotion [based solely on their ethnicity].
Imagine one of the fire fighters, a man who's chosen profession is to risk his life to save others for a living. He walks into the house to greet his wife who was no doubt waiting expectingly for the results of his evaluation.
"Well, the good news is that I aced the certification exam. The bad news is that I didn't qualify for the job because I'm white."

It's interesting that most firefighters have full-time HVAC or equivalent businesses and work the station for social, pension, and service reasons. Sizeable departments have a full-time chief, maybe two lieutenants, and all the rest POC.

[Lynne]

Terri, reality is if you show a picture of yourself with your boobs hanging........you are probably a boob..........it the shoe fits!

Change the photo already, it's not doing anything for you but making you look like a ho!

[Ray]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
It's interesting that most firefighters have full-time HVAC or equivalent businesses and work the station for social, pension, and service reasons. Sizeable departments have a full-time chief, maybe two lieutenants, and all the rest POC.

If someone took a second look at hiring practices in NYC for the last 50 years, one would sadly find that in place were policies that prevented blacks and hispanics to obtain positions as policeman, fireman or even Union-type jobs. This has been cited over and over again by many sociologists. Now that times are changing and the "tables are being tilt", the previous ethnic minorities cannot handle the new political atmosphere; as in the case with Ricci. I actually believe that the older ethnics should have already moved on from these municipal jobs to better endeavors.

[Paul Revere]

The Real America wrote:

<quoted text>
Only republicans try to make an issue of Acorn which in reality had NOTHING to do with the election.

Your obtuse "logic" fails miserably.

BOARD MEMBERS OF ACORN ARE NOT "Republicans" you M*O*R*O*N.

8 of them want ACORN to allow an audit of their books because THEY suspect fraud from THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATORS.

I guess you failed your Current Events class......you are EXTREMELY ill informed.

[mtscls]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
It's interesting that most firefighters have full-time HVAC or equivalent businesses and work the station for social, pension, and service reasons. Sizeable departments have a full-time chief, maybe two lieutenants, and all the rest POC.

WOW...a lib in Elmhurst, IL. Let me guess...you are in the minority and you have lived in Elmhurst most of your life. Obviously bitter that yuppies are moving into your neighborhood and that the your property taxes are being raised.

[mtscls]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
It's interesting that most firefighters have full-time HVAC or equivalent businesses and work the station for social, pension, and service reasons. Sizeable departments have a full-time chief, maybe two lieutenants, and all the rest POC.

Opps...now we have a posting such as this.

Terri Tanna Franklin Park, IL :

I work in the Loop and take the El from Oak Park.

Damn...you get around. By the way, there is no such thing as a "moderate" conservative. You are either conservative or a Libertarian. Might want to get your facts straight.

[jenna18]

Iknowthatguy wrote:

It will take years tracking her votes to see who see views the constitution. As for her famous remark: anyone with a little ethnic pride probably feels the same way about his/her heritage.

If you change the word "ethnic" to white and said "white pride" wouldn't that be racist. just askin'

[jenna18]

The Real America wrote:

<quoted text>
No you poor idiot. Only republicans try to make an issue of Acorn which in reality had NOTHING to do with the election. It's another right wing phantom and only weak minds like yours latch onto it. Why don't you bring up Obama's citizenship next so we can all laugh at you. Maybe you can tell us all about your right wing theories about WMD smuggled off to Syria. What a fecking idiot you are.

ACORN had "nothing to do with the election", so a room full of ACORN workers wearing "ACORN FOR OBAMA" t-shirts on CNN during the election had nothing to do with the election? I vote liberal most of the time in the past, but come on!!!!!!! The level of corruption in the Bush admin is nothing compared to Obama's

[Paul Revere]

jenna18 wrote:

<quoted text>
ACORN had "nothing to do with the election", so a room full of ACORN workers wearing "ACORN FOR OBAMA" t-shirts on CNN during the election had nothing to do with the election? I vote liberal most of the time in the past, but come on!!!!!!! The level of corruption in the Bush admin is nothing compared to Obama's

"The Real America" is an Obamabot, living in a Obamaland where they think anything they're told to believe is the truth. They can't fathom that there are Democrats who aren't as gullible as they are. Hilarious but sad at the same time.

They're Obamatized and need an intervention.

I was a volunteer poll worker in the last election and I was appalled at the number of voters who could neither READ the ballot, or figure out how to vote themselves. I literally had to walk them through it step by step.

The caliber of the voters CLEARLY DECLINED in this election, compared to others I had worked previously.

[John Galt]

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
You'll discover as you further your education that when the word or separates two concepts, as in federal OR state supreme court judges, it means they are not the same.
I come back to the simple truth: you probably have never had dinner with any court of appeals judges and have no idea who are ANY of the hundreds of men and women who form the basic pool for U.S. Supreme Court justices. That's ok because it is obvious to all that -- in this particular area -- you have no knowledge. That's ok, but you shouldn't be taking your ignorance to analyze the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Your Wikipedia approach to the law puts you in way over your head. What you are doing is known as petulant resistence. Common among children of a certain age. Unbecoming of adults. Tiresome on a discussion board.

Well, aren't we arrogant? So you've had dinner with some judges and that qualifies you for what, exactly?

You are quite a bore, and your insults seem to be the product of an illogical mind and an arrogant attitude. That's fine. Make as many insults as you like. The fact remains your entire argument was irrelevant and fallacious logic. No amount of insults and arrogant attitude can change that fact.

By the way, was your dinner to discuss the important issues facing Supreme Court judges or Court of Appeals judges or, as I suspect, simply a date? Yeah, I think we know the answer. I'm sure all these judges come to you for legal guidance.

Here... might want to educate yourself on making a logical argument. It appears you need some help.

Fallacy: Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

And finally, back to the argument at hand. Sotomayor by her very words is a racist.

Noun 1. racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.

I'll repeat them here for those that may have missed them.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor..."

I'm sure a white male would have a wonderful chance for confirmation on the Supreme Court after making a similar statement.

[Texasangel]

Well the hearings are over...and it looks like the Wise Latina is headed for an easy confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Damn shame that the Republicans spent so much time on this comment and not in her actual cases, where they will find a quite different judge that the one they think she is. And so much discussion about abortion, damn she is a Catholic..duh...

In any case, inspite of the Republicans she will be confirmed I am sure.

[The Truth]

Sotomayeor committed purgery with her answers, answers that are completely opposite of her belief and previous court decisions.
That is ALL America needs, another Liberal "COMMIE" wanna be on the highest court in the land!!!

[Joe]

The Truth wrote:

Sotomayeor committed purgery with her answers, answers that are completely opposite of her belief and previous court decisions.
That is ALL America needs, another Liberal "COMMIE" wanna be on the highest court in the land!!!

Obviously this isn't "your" country anymore. Time to leave.

And the word is perjury, not purgery. Fourth grade was really a b---h, wasn't it?

[The Real America]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
"Only republicans try to make an issue of Acorn..." Yep, your smart like Fredo.
"Michigan Democrat John Conyers who heads up the House Judiciary Committee had agreed several months ago to hold a hearing on the corrupt practices of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
Just a few days ago, he reversed himself and told reporters that the “powers that be” had asked him to drop the hearing. When later asked who those “powers that be” were, Conyers’ spin doctor Jonathan Godfrey said that Conyers was referring to himself as that power."

Do you really think he was talking about fixing the election? Are you that farking stupid? In any case reality is not in your vocabulary. Just don't try to debate anyone while you are in your dream world. Now go find thos WMD.