White males are more wise than female mexicans

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Mexican female. Or for that matter a Mexican, Asian, African male or female.

Wouldn't you?

 

No, Joe. I can't say that I agree with you there.

Have you been drinking (or huffing solvents) again today?

 

Why? Do you think my statement is irrational? Racist? What?

 

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

Her exact quote was, "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."

I don't think race or sex or her upbringing should play a part in her decision making process either, but put it in context.

 

Now that you put it that way I can see she is obviously a racist.

Imagine Chief Justice John Roberts saying "I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived the rich white man's life." Katie Couric, Anderson Cooper, Matt Liar, Larry King, Sean Penn, Hollywood in general, the the states of New York and California would come irreparably unglued.

 

And anyone who in the past eight years voiced concerns of our constitutional rights as citizens being violated. I know will be against her apointment when they see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

And they want to appoint her to the highest appeals court position in the nation so she can basically say "F*ck the constitution, I make the rules!"

LOL but of those clowns claiming concern for rights of citizens privacy 90 percent were sheeple who had no idea what they were talking about.

Here read her words in context:

However you slice it and dice it she is a racist. Your standards of judgment not mine.

 

You got to admit its like watching the movie Idiocracy.

My take is that she will be opposed by the Republicans and the media will make it a "Mean white Republican racist -vs- nice struggling Mexican woman who genuinely cares for people" issue. Either way they play the race card and get more Mexicans on the Democrat plantation win/win situation. If she does not make it another radical will because it will be one radical after another all the while the media pounding propaganda up the peoples asses to make it a win/win situation for Obama and the DNC.

 

If you think she is an angel then Google "Didden v. Port Chester"

 

http://volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml

University of Chicago and NYU law professor Richard Epstein points out that Judge Sotomayor was on a Second Circuit panel that issued the unsigned opinion in one of the worst property rights decisions in recent years, in the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester. This does not bode well for her likely future rulings on property rights issues that come before the Supreme Court. In a 2007 National Law Journal op ed on Didden (no longer available on line, but excerpted here), Epstein and I discussed the facts of this disturbing case:

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London generated a backlash on both sides of the political spectrum..... Many of the rear-guard defenders of this ill-conceived decision insisted that abusive condemnations are an aberration in an otherwise sound planning process. They, it turns out, were wrong. Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a most unfortunate decision out of the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, helps demonstrate the shortcomings of their optimistic view.

In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a "redevelopment area" and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren't met. When the owners refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day.

Didden and Bologna challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a "public use," as the Fifth Amendment requires. Their view, quite simply, was that out-and-out extortion does not qualify as a public use. Nonetheless, the 2d Circuit . . . upheld this flexing of political muscle.

In fairness to Sotomayor and the other judges on the panel, their ruling was in part based on the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which defined "public use" extremely broadly. However, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens also emphasized that "the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit," was not enough to count as a "public use." It is difficult to imagine a more clearly pretextual taking than this one, since Didden and Bologna's property would not have been condemned if it weren't for their refusal to pay Wasser the money he sought to extort from them. Wasser's plan for the property was to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on it, which is virtually identical to the previous owners' plan to build a CVS. There was no general public benefit that Wasser's plan would provide that would not have been equally well achieved by allowing Didden and Bologna to keep their property and carry out their plan to put a CVS there.

The Didden panel decided the case in part based on procedural grounds (claiming that Didden and Bologna filed their case too late). However, it also clearly rejected their public use argument on the merits (see pp. 3-4 of the Second Circuit's opinion, available in the appendix to the property owners' cert. petition). Sotomayor's endorsement of this ruling is a strong sign that she has little or interest in protecting constitutional property rights. Her appointment is likely to exacerbate the second-class status of property rights in the Court's jurisprudence.

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to take the case is not much of a point in the ruling's favor. The Court accepts only a tiny fraction of all the cert petitions that come before it and refuses to hear many important cases. Moreover, the panel further reduced the chance of appellate review by leaving this important decision unpublished.

For more details on Didden, see this amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case, which Epstein and I filed along with several other property scholars.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayors-greatest-hits/

If she’s that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won’t have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she’d overreached and couldn’t even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.

Sotomayor was much more clear in another law-school speech in 2001, this time at UC Berkeley law school. Facing another sympathetic crowd, she informed the graduates that, contrary to public opinion, color and gender do mean something in qualifications for public service:

Stuart Taylor picked this quote from deep within a May 15th profile of Sotomayor in the New York Times, and wonders in the National Journal whether the Times would have buried a similar quote by Samuel Alito during his confirmation process:

So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.

Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: “I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” — and had proceeded to speak of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

That fits entirely within Barack Obama’s “empathy” guidelines, and it serves as an admission that Sotomayor has more interest in outcomes than in the law. If so, she should run for Congress, where policy gets made. The reason race and gender shouldn’t matter at all is because judges should apply the law, not their “life experiences” or their “empathy” for specific outcomes. Sotomayor sounds like Judge Roy Bean, calling the courts a law unto themselves, rather than a thoughtful jurist interested in applying the law created by a representative democracy.

Is this enough to derail Sotomayor? Perhaps not, but it’s plenty to assure a colorful confirmation hearing, especially with Jeff Sessions serving as ranking Republican.

 

Joe, I feel like I just witnessed you shooting your load.

Is there more?

 

I'm done thanks. .... for now. :frown:

 

Hold on I got more. The extortionist in Didden v. Village of Port Chester case was Gregg Wasser and if your wondering why he is not in prison he was a big supporter for Hillary Clinton. You can see his smug mug in this picture of people who exploit Alzheimer patients.

http://www.thenewyorkscene.com/webready_alzheimers53106/ppages/ppage302.htm

And his wife I understand here:

http://www.thenewyorkscene.com/webready_alzheimers53106/ppages/ppage291.htm

Typical Democrats above the law sort of deal.

 

Finished I guess.

 

I feel so used. Will you at least call me?

 

Don't hate the playa hate the game.

 

Just because she makes decisions based on her feelings and not law doesn't make her a bad person and less of a nominee for the Supreme Court.

 

Someone is being facetious.

 

Well played, Joe... Well played.

You went straight for the jugular, and the 'yes we can' people went right for it... Strongly reminiscent of rats to poisoned bait.

It's always amusing when you catch people defying their own logic.

 

HELLO,
My name is Mery ,i saw your profile to day and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address (merybugiba@yahoo.com) I believe we can move from here I am waiting.
(Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life)
Thanks
Miss Mery
(merybugiba@yahoo.com)