The "wise latina" Sotomayor

[DinoDoc]

A wise Latina will make better decisions than most people. Why? Because she's wise not because she's Latina. A wise white man will make better decisions than most people for the same reason.

That's not what Sonia said though.

[zakubandit]

[QUOTE=Zevico;5618876]This is a reasonable limit to freedom of speech. If that was the basis of her decision, then in my view it was absolutely right. QUOTE]


Yes I got my sources from wikipedia, at the time of that post I was in my office and in between work and play. So wikipedia was my source, I was able to copy the highlights and put them into the post. My opinion of the matter is that regardless of what the student's intentions were she was within her right of freedom of speech. Was it right what she did, no. But that isnt the case of the matter. It was did she violate the law, no she didn't. Being that she was out of school, off campus, and not on a school computer, but in fact at home, off campus, and on her own computer so she wasn't in conflict with standard school policies. What she did was wrong, but the law says what she did is legal. What you said is "reasonable limit to freedom of speech" and there is the flaw that personal bias brings to the table.

A judge is to prosecute the law as it is written, not as they see fit or how they believe the law is to be read. There is a case that was done not too long ago on tax law wherein the defense was on trial due to not filing his 1040. The jury requested of the judge to have the actual written law dictating that a 1040 *income tax form* be submitted, the judge in turn said to the jury "you will follow the law as I give it to you." And when a law was quoted to the judge he then said "the law is what I say it is." So what I am getting at is that it is not a judges place to decide whether the LAW is right or wrong, but rather if the defense is within that law or not. Which under the 1st amendment this girl was clearly exercising her rights.

I am leading towards the idea that I am being assumed a troll, that I feed off of the backlash of posts. Well the fact of the matter is I have a somewhat unique perspective on things. I was a serving combat arms soldier during the war, I saw things that civilians like to argue about with politicians and eachother. I voted ever since I turned 18 and have always payed close attention to my local, state, and national politics. I have read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the affiliated papers, the texts, the laws, the rulings. I have an OCD in the form of I cannot stand to be ill informed. I do not like being questioned about my knowledge, but rather only about my opinion. I do not presume to believe I am always right, but my opinion is mine and not dictated by liberal media, conservative media, or anything in between. I read the news, the only access I have to news in my office is foxnews.com and msnbc.com. I hate msnbc.com because they dont promote bipartisan stories, conflict with this if you must but foxnews.com DOES promote stories on both sides of the fence, while leaning right. msnbc.com does not. Am I looking for a quarl, not really, but when I question why people are in support of Obama's pick for the Supreme Court the usual answer is not an educated one.

If you ask alot of his voters why they voted for him, 7 out of 10 do not have good reasons, and the other 3 were either liberal, independent or educated to say why. 3 out of 5 of my black colleagues at the time voted for him because of the skin color, the other 2 because they are liberals. 2 of the 5 whites I worked with voted for him because they were also liberal, but knew his policies and his background. 1 of those 5 didn't vote and 2 were republican. 2 of the 3 Hispanics voted for him because he was black, the third wasnt a full citizen yet and couldn't vote. Now am I pushing the liberal side of the nominee, yes. Because in a bipartisan government we seem to ignore the fact that there really is more than one side to every issue.

Why did she make bad calls on the fire fighter ruling? Common sense. Study....pass. That hard to understand?

So call me a troll, doesnt affect me much. I know I voted, I know I am active in the government even though I am in China working. I stay informed on issues.

[Zkribbler]

BTW: A wise Latina would, on average, make better decisions that a white man. A "wise Latina" is by definition "wise." A white man, might be wise, but let's fact it. Most folks aren't.

[SlowwHand]

Che, if you don't watch him, will make these statements that in their dissected units are true, but in the manner he states them are clearly false.

[Az]

I am an independent! lemme just vote Republican every time..

[Theben]

Is "Zaku" Chinese for "ass"?

[DinoDoc]

BTW: A wise Latina would, on average, make better decisions that a white man. A "wise Latina" is by definition "wise." A white man, might be wise, but let's fact it. Most folks aren't.

That's the exact thing che posted before you. It's still not what the nominee said. Sorry. That didn't change in such a short amount of time.

[DinoDoc]

RE: the firefighters case--what you've done here is quote a summary of the facts, rather than discuss the case, the relevant law, and why you think her decision was wrong.

The reason he may have a hard time answering your question about her ruling is that she never bothered to explain it herself.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/

[Zevico]

Well, she agreed with the trial judge's views. The trial judge set out his position; that is equivalent to hers. A judge is not under a duty to give reasons for his decision if those reasons are already clearly set out by another judge, whether of a lower court, or of the same court, and he/she clearly agrees with those reasons. Judgements that amount to 'I agree with Justice X's opinion and have nothing further to add' are actually quite common--at least in Australia--so I don't see what she did wrong. If the same issues were canvassed at trial and on appeal, no one loses by it. In fact there is an advantage to this, as unanimity may clarify the court's position as to a given topic, and the reasons for its decision.
That said if some issue were left unaddressed by the trial judge, that would clearly pose an issue.

[DaShi]

That's the exact thing che posted before you. It's still not what the nominee said. Sorry. That didn't change in such a short amount of time.

DD, I know that you like to look like an idiot. But this is nuts. Read the speech, if you can.

[Zevico]

I should also point out that the final comment in her speech seems to have been made tongue-in-cheek. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Sotamayar thinks only a person of her ethnicity, and gender are competent judicial officers. Don't look too suspiciously on a person when they haven't given you cause to be suspicious. Why read it as sexism or racism in the absence of more evidence actually indicating racism?

EDIT: Misread. Corrected accordingly.

[DaShi]

Political points?

[DinoDoc]

That said if some issue were left unaddressed by the trial judge, that would clearly pose an issue.

Quote from one of her colleagues protesting the decision: "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

[Zevico]

That was a reference to the appellate decision, not the trial judge's decision. The trial judge does cover the constitutional aspects of the case. The court obviously thought the trial judge handled it fine. I wouldn't infer that the members of the court, her included, are less capable as a result. Sometimes judges do this. Even Australian High Court, English House of Lords, and American Supreme Court judges sometimes just say 'I agree', and don't bother to participate otherwise.
That said, maybe this judge has a point--perhaps more reasons were called for. Still, from one incident, it seems a stretch to point to her competence as called into question. Perhaps the trial judge's opinion just aptly expressed her own. Again it seems like fixation on very fine points.

[DinoDoc]

Sometimes judges do this. Even Australian High Court, English House of Lords, and American Supreme Court judges sometimes just say 'I agree', and don't bother to participate otherwise.

Do you feel that they do this often in high profile cases because it has been described as an unusual move here.