Vikingskier
Member
wHATS YOUR OPINION ON THIS JUDGE NOMINEE I PERSONALLY DONT LIKE HER BUT I WWANT TO KNOW WHAT FELLOW SKIERS THINK IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER
Sonia Sotomayor
- Thread starter Vikingskier
- Start date
grown-ninja
Active member
terriable person who will only regress the anti-descrimination progress we made years ago in addition to bringing her own agenda to the stand
Arabian.
Active member
I don't like her. She's liberal, but I get the wierd feeling whenever she speaks that she's hiding something and gonna fuck up. Plus, she makes really convoluted speeches and fails to back them up with any sort of relevant thought that could be deciphered by the public, which is why she had to clarify everything a thousand times when the Repubs questioned her.
She's shady.
She's shady.
Vikingskier
Member
i feel the same and her reply to the anti gun question by rebublican senator Coburn i think his name is was very weak
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
absolutely retarded.
Just look at her. Shes got that look of some sort of self-righteous double minority who got to where she is today through pure affirmative action and not based upon the merits of her past.
Lets take a look at her intelligence first.
George W. Bush got a 1210 on his SATs. That is about 250 points below the minimum acceptance rate at Yale. Bush2 obviously got help from his dad, an alumni and fellow DKE at Yale, theres no question. A 1210 also coincides with an IQ range of 125-129. Please spare me the bullshit "oh the SATs and IQ tests are poor metrics of intelligence... im intelligent and I scored low..."
All real scientific studies (not the weird fringe ones) show IQ tests and the SATs to be more than valid measurements of ones capability to learn and retain information respectively. If you have a complaint, it means youre dumb. period.
Sonia Sotomayor scored somewhere below 1150 by her own confession. She even herself wondered if she got into Princeton through only affirmative action, based on her Latina background and being raised in the Bronx. Its true, Sotomayor could not have been accepted into Princeton through her own merits; kids who score 1550+ get rejected on a regular basis. When Sotomayor was a freshman, she lacked any sort of advanced verbal and communications skills, her thesis, which you can read reflects that tremendously. This post I am posting on newschoolers.com is more coherent and sophisticated than anything Sonia Sotomayor can put together.
Now lets look at her track record:She is an activist judge, somethign you don't want.
She once said that a wise Latina woman... will come to a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life. Besides, the obvious reverse-racial assertions here, this statement is utter bullshit. Latinas and women are dumb. A Latina woman is even dumber.
now I will list some cases. I don't want to type them out cuz theyre too long to explain; you guys can Google them if you want.
Maloney v. Cuomo[/i]. Ricci v. DeStefano
Now all that being said, and considering she is fat, a beaner, and a woman, the Constitution states under Article II that the Cheif Executive has the power to Appoint, with advice and consent of the Senate supreme court justices.
The Senate may only review her competency as a judge, not whether or not they agree with her. It is Obamas choice, and if he wants to be a raging hypocrite, after citing activism on Justice Roberts' part and voting against him, and wants us to "forget what Sotomayor may or may not have said in the past," then by all means, lets review her competency.
Can she perform SCOTUS duties? Can she resist falling and breaking her ankle from now on? I think so. Is she intelligent, wise, and fair? Fuck no. But you only have to be reasonably wise, and have a fairly reasonable track record to be a SCOTUS justice. That and a presidential nomination. Shes got those things, so although I'm a sexist-racist and hate Mexicans even more than I hate women, I love the constitution and support her nomination.
Just look at her. Shes got that look of some sort of self-righteous double minority who got to where she is today through pure affirmative action and not based upon the merits of her past.
Lets take a look at her intelligence first.
George W. Bush got a 1210 on his SATs. That is about 250 points below the minimum acceptance rate at Yale. Bush2 obviously got help from his dad, an alumni and fellow DKE at Yale, theres no question. A 1210 also coincides with an IQ range of 125-129. Please spare me the bullshit "oh the SATs and IQ tests are poor metrics of intelligence... im intelligent and I scored low..."
All real scientific studies (not the weird fringe ones) show IQ tests and the SATs to be more than valid measurements of ones capability to learn and retain information respectively. If you have a complaint, it means youre dumb. period.
Sonia Sotomayor scored somewhere below 1150 by her own confession. She even herself wondered if she got into Princeton through only affirmative action, based on her Latina background and being raised in the Bronx. Its true, Sotomayor could not have been accepted into Princeton through her own merits; kids who score 1550+ get rejected on a regular basis. When Sotomayor was a freshman, she lacked any sort of advanced verbal and communications skills, her thesis, which you can read reflects that tremendously. This post I am posting on newschoolers.com is more coherent and sophisticated than anything Sonia Sotomayor can put together.
Now lets look at her track record:She is an activist judge, somethign you don't want.
She once said that a wise Latina woman... will come to a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life. Besides, the obvious reverse-racial assertions here, this statement is utter bullshit. Latinas and women are dumb. A Latina woman is even dumber.
now I will list some cases. I don't want to type them out cuz theyre too long to explain; you guys can Google them if you want.
Maloney v. Cuomo[/i]. Ricci v. DeStefano
Now all that being said, and considering she is fat, a beaner, and a woman, the Constitution states under Article II that the Cheif Executive has the power to Appoint, with advice and consent of the Senate supreme court justices.
The Senate may only review her competency as a judge, not whether or not they agree with her. It is Obamas choice, and if he wants to be a raging hypocrite, after citing activism on Justice Roberts' part and voting against him, and wants us to "forget what Sotomayor may or may not have said in the past," then by all means, lets review her competency.
Can she perform SCOTUS duties? Can she resist falling and breaking her ankle from now on? I think so. Is she intelligent, wise, and fair? Fuck no. But you only have to be reasonably wise, and have a fairly reasonable track record to be a SCOTUS justice. That and a presidential nomination. Shes got those things, so although I'm a sexist-racist and hate Mexicans even more than I hate women, I love the constitution and support her nomination.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
PS I was 40% joking about being a sexist-racist.
charmander
Active member
i'd give her a 0/10 karma rating
Twinjibber77
Active member
Affirmative Action? Yea that can blow my cock.
"I have lived a shitty life so i can make good decisions"? Are you fucking kidding me. Her credentials are shit.
"I have lived a shitty life so i can make good decisions"? Are you fucking kidding me. Her credentials are shit.
ECGove
Active member
Its hilarious that your being so judgemental about someone you've never met, and have only known about for a little over a month. You, as a half-educated teenager, are in no position to question her intelligence, decision making process, or make rash generalizations about an entire culture of people. Please keep your narrow-minded commentary to yourself, because your the only one who comes off as "absolutely retarded".
This is one of those areas that the public (and especially Newschoolers) is not remotely qualified to make an informed judgment on. The actual confirmation hearings have thus far been and are going to be little more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand. She will be confirmed, the news will have something to talk about for a little bit, but I doubt this thread will produce any viable opinions.
8ONE657
Active member
I'm skeptical. But I think she is being treated fairly and we are giving her a chance to clarify. Being a Republican I really hope that she does not bring her so called "liberal agenda" to the Supreme Court. I understand being a Latina woman she has suffered hardships, hopefully (and she has said she will now) rule based on feeling. I may get crap for this but, I am very pro-life. While Sotomayor has not fully stated her opinion on abortion, she is a devout Catholic and I am really hoping that she upholds the Catholic abortion beliefs.
I have listened to some of it. It is basically a complete fucking circus. Apparently they're trying to get the firefighters from Ricci to come in, which is just a joke. Orrin Hatch was asking her about a 2nd amendment case that had a specific narrow issue and was basically asking why she didn't go into deeper issues, which is basically a hardline right wing republican demanding to know why a SCOTUS nominee passed up an opportunity to be more activist. It's completely idiotic and completely partisan and not remotely useful in assessing her qualifications. She is obviously qualified. You can't get the ideal nominees confirmed anymore, that's a reality of the system, but she isn't a train wreck for either side and she'll be confirmed without too much protest aside from the fake all-for-TV protest that the minority is required to put up so that they get face time on the news and can rile up morons next time they need said morons to vote for something.
pmills
Active member
maybe you missed your own contradiction; the role of the judge is to be as objective about the law as possible.
one criticism that is being made is that she will be partial towards racial matters. When you say you hope she upholds catholic belief, do you not see how if she were to do as you hoped, it would be subject to the precise criticism being made about race.
one criticism that is being made is that she will be partial towards racial matters. When you say you hope she upholds catholic belief, do you not see how if she were to do as you hoped, it would be subject to the precise criticism being made about race.
[Rush_Dangers]
Member
HA! this statement is laughable at best. the power of the catholic church is hardly what it was many years ago,its not the 50's anymore, plus dont they have enough problems on their hands in the first place (i.e - falling attendence, coruption, and molestaion issues just to start). they are losing massive foothold in society everyday, i think its because people are thinking more logically in todays times and there is little room for fairytales, close mindedness, and bullshit.
not to get off topic but isnt there supposed to be a separation between church and state in government, i understand that some will call the US a "christian" nation and maybe thats true if you look before our independence. but once the US was established our founding fathers felt so storngly against religon fueled govt that they included it in the constitution. and yet we have all these politicians freely expressing their beliefs w/ out issue, thier bias beliefs have no bussiness in modern government, and publicly stating them should lead to an investigation into thier competency as a leader.
if you want to believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago and man walked w/ dinosaurs, and we all came from a rib of 1 person,.... fine just dont let it interfere w/ how our govt runs. one example is abortion- i dont think there is one person in the US who is "PRO" abortion, but there are tons of sensible people who undersatnd that it should be a choice made only by the individual, and never should be decided by self rightous,and close minded people who in their "magic book" says its wrong. this reminds me of a great bumpersticker that states "dont like abortion,... dont get one" why do people have to push what they want on everyone else, just keep it to yourself, if you want to save babies so bad then how about adopting starving children in africa or asia, that should make you feel better about yourself. but you can rest safe because remember all along that we the "sinner" are going to "hell". so theres nothing the religous have to worry about.
not to get off topic but isnt there supposed to be a separation between church and state in government, i understand that some will call the US a "christian" nation and maybe thats true if you look before our independence. but once the US was established our founding fathers felt so storngly against religon fueled govt that they included it in the constitution. and yet we have all these politicians freely expressing their beliefs w/ out issue, thier bias beliefs have no bussiness in modern government, and publicly stating them should lead to an investigation into thier competency as a leader.
if you want to believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago and man walked w/ dinosaurs, and we all came from a rib of 1 person,.... fine just dont let it interfere w/ how our govt runs. one example is abortion- i dont think there is one person in the US who is "PRO" abortion, but there are tons of sensible people who undersatnd that it should be a choice made only by the individual, and never should be decided by self rightous,and close minded people who in their "magic book" says its wrong. this reminds me of a great bumpersticker that states "dont like abortion,... dont get one" why do people have to push what they want on everyone else, just keep it to yourself, if you want to save babies so bad then how about adopting starving children in africa or asia, that should make you feel better about yourself. but you can rest safe because remember all along that we the "sinner" are going to "hell". so theres nothing the religous have to worry about.
I'm apparently an idiot.
As an SAT tutor, these tests correlate 'intelligence' successfully only when put on a broad scale. You can only talk in mass averages. Specifically, for an individual, they can be utter shit. If you really want me to send you the long emails sent back and forth between my master level tutors and me trying to give standardized test a little shred of credit, I can probably find them for you, but please, spare me.
As an SAT tutor, these tests correlate 'intelligence' successfully only when put on a broad scale. You can only talk in mass averages. Specifically, for an individual, they can be utter shit. If you really want me to send you the long emails sent back and forth between my master level tutors and me trying to give standardized test a little shred of credit, I can probably find them for you, but please, spare me.