Sotomayor picked for Supreme Court

Ja'far wrote:

Big Jake wrote:

She's been overturned 60% of the time. That's incompetence. She's not qualified to be there if she's been smacked down that many times.

And I SURE don't want someone as injudicious as that "making policy" from the bench, for a lifetime....

That actually is not a bad record. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases it hears. Not to mention she's only had five cases reviewed by the SCOTUS. It's a miserable test for "competence."

"Miserable" test? Not hardly.

60% smackdown is NOT what I would call "highly qualified".

Couple that with her racism & sexism, plus her belief that the courts are the place where policy should be made/changed, and I come to only one conclusion:

She's a BOOB, and doesn't belong anywhere NEAR the Supreme Court.

I'm concerned about her racism as well.. What if a judicial nominee said "my life experience as a white male makes me more qualified than a Latino woman"?? Racism in reverse..

Big Jake wrote:

"Miserable" test? Not hardly.

60% smackdown is NOT what I would call "highly qualified".

Couple that with her racism & sexism, plus her belief that the courts are the place where policy should be made/changed, and I come to only one conclusion:

She's a BOOB, and doesn't belong anywhere NEAR the Supreme Court.

Yes, it's a miserable test on multiple levels. First, the Supreme Court doesn't overturn cases due to "incompetence" at the lower level. They usually take cases where precedent is ambiguous or to clarify a controversial matter of law. Being overturned by the Court is not a reflection of judicial ability. Second, only five of her rulings have been granted certiorari. Statistically, that is too small of a sample of her decisions to make any sort of evaluation (even referring to it as 60% is nonsensical). Additionally, it ignores the evaluation of the "competence" of the hundreds of other cases she has been part of that have not been granted certiorari (by the way, extending your logic of competency to its end here would imply that she is highly competent since the SC agreed with all but three of her rulings, but it's a ridiculous standard so I won't bother making that case).

And, please, explicate your reasoning in claiming her to be both a racist and sexist or how courts don't affect policy.

Lucas McCain wrote:

I'm concerned about her racism as well.. What if a judicial nominee said "my life experience as a white male makes me more qualified than a Latino woman"?? Racism in reverse..

Of course, you have to ignore the entirety of her speech to come away with that understanding.

A larger excerpt:

Judge Cedarbaum... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

And I would agree, completely.

Good point... It all sounds fine but(for lack of better words)one persons walk in life should not decide the fate of others who's walk was different...

Ja'far wrote:

Of course, you have to ignore the entirety of her speech to come away with that understanding.

A larger excerpt:

Judge Cedarbaum... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

And I would agree, completely.

Again, this is the rules for jury instruction in Ohio. The rules are pretty much the same in all the states.

GENERAL INSTRUCTION
Consider all the evidence and make your findings with intelligence and impartiality without bias, sympathy and prejudice so that the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) will feel their case was fairly and impartially tried.
You must not be influenced by any consideration of sympathy or prejudice. Sympathy is a common human experience and the law does not expect you to be free from such normal reactions. However, the law requires you to disregard sympathy and not permit it to influence your verdict. You should treat each party with equal consideration[, whether that party is an individual or a business]. It is your duty to weigh the evidence carefully, to decide all the disputed questions of fact, to apply the instructions of the judge to your findings and to render your verdict accordingly. In fulfilling your duty as jurors, your efforts must be to arrive at a fair and just verdict.

Annie Oakley wrote:

I'm interested in hearing more about his case. At the moment, I am only hearing others' interpretation. Does anyone have a link to actual information about the "fire fighter" case?

Here's a little bit on the case, Annie.

Mongo wrote:

Again, this is the rules for jury instruction in Ohio. The rules are pretty much the same in all the states.

She is saying that opinions and interpretations are subjective, they are constructed from our life experiences, and they cannot be transcended. She is entirely correct, in my opinion. If she were advocating favoritism or the ignoring of facts I would agree with you.

Ja'far wrote:

Mongo wrote:

Again, this is the rules for jury instruction in Ohio. The rules are pretty much the same in all the states.

She is saying that opinions and interpretations are subjective, they are constructed from our life experiences, and they cannot be transcended. She is entirely correct, in my opinion. If she were advocating favoritism or the ignoring of facts I would agree with you.

We'll agree to diagree.

Question. Do you see her as an activist judge? I find it a bit bothersome that she's a member of the National Council of La Raza.

Mongo wrote:

We'll agree to diagree.

Question. Do you see her as an activist judge? I find it a bit bothersome that she's a member of the National Council of La Raza.

What's bothersome about her belonging to La Raza?

Ja'far wrote:

Mongo wrote:

We'll agree to diagree.

Question. Do you see her as an activist judge? I find it a bit bothersome that she's a member of the National Council of La Raza.

What's bothersome about her belonging to La Raza?

Isn't La Razza some kind of race/ethnic thing? I'm not sure what to think about it. If it is in fact a race/ethnic thing could it mean she is an activist?

Some information.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:

“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”
Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:

“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”
The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:

“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”

The Drifter wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

The Drifter wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

You beat me to making this point judge. I hope that this is not the normal way of thinking for her but I really believe for that one reason we can see what we are in for. I persoanlly would not want this woman sitting on the highest court in the land.
The liberals preach "fair" and "just", well it just doesn't get any more fair than the highet scores should qualify for the job. I guess it is up the them as to what is fair , in this case she ruled over proven test scores . Especially with a job like a firefighter. I don't know about you but in case of God forbid I am involved in a fire then I would want the best qualified men the dept. could have availible.

What would repubs do if Fox News and other talking heads didn't exist to tell them what to think? Like 20 years ago before news became entertainment and opinions instead of facts. How would they make up their minds then?
And forgive us "libs" for wanting to be "fair and just". Some wouldn't say a word about this stuff or tests scores if this was a person that some repub nominated. How quickly some forget about nominations like Harriet Miers who was far from qualified but the republicans didn't care about that then, they wanted her anyway because she was a Bush crony. They say democrats were being mean and harsh because Palin wasn't the brightest bulb and thought we were attacking her and being overly worried about intelligence. Flip flop, flip flop.

Classic !!!! What would the liberals do without thew main stream mediia, CNN and especially MSNBS/NBC hate machine to tell them how to think. pot..meet kettle .
Grinc, you seem to have major problems with anyone that doesn't bow down to Obama and his band of liberals. You are very well entitled to your opinion but tend to try and get personal when someone points out a fact/facts about a subject. Should want yo post an opinion, that's fine. I don't think that you are qualified to tell others what to post or to "spin" what you don't like into something else. BTW, you are not a mind reader either so don't try and post thoughts of others. Did I quote you.....NO, Did anyone even mention Sarah Palin in this thread......NO! As I have said before on here,you have the right to post your opinion but so do others. I respect other rights to post, just wish that you would do the same. I don't think it is just my post either, you just seem to have a problem with anyone that has a different point of view than you about anything. I have disagreed with others on this forum as well but was not met with this kind of rebuttal/quote that you have done more than once on me and others. Here is a news flash for you.....it doesn't work that way! Post what you want, that is the way this works I believe but just know bc it is you that post something that others have right to their opinion as well.

I know that I post with an "edge" at times, that's just what I do. I do try to not call anyone out personally though so I apologize to the mods for saying what I did on a personal nature in this post. Should I have done that before I apologize to anyone that thinks I have done that with one of their post. My sarcastic comments have been about subject/person a post a thread was about ad not personal towards any member, at least that's what I have tried and meant to do.

I quit reading your post when I came to this part.....

Quote :

You are very well entitled to your opinion but tend to try and get personal when someone points out a fact/facts about a subject. Should want yo post an opinion, that's fine. I don't think that you are qualified to tell others what to post or to "spin" what you don't like into something else.

So, when I say something it's an opinion but when you and people you agree with say something it is a fact. Typical. There's no point in trying to debate you and the others who agree with you when you've got that attitude. And I don't think you are in a position to judge my qualifications. Give me a flippin' break. And I mentioned Harriet and Sarah because I see too often this double standard. Republicans think it's ok when they someone in office that isn't qualified or not very well educated because they think it better represents the common man/woman but no one is EVER good enough when the democrats nominate someone. Until certain people on this board realize that not everything that is parroted by conservative talk show hosts and republican talking heads is true, there is no point in even having a political debate. It's a waste of everyones time because their minds were made up before they ever started typing. I'm off to bed. I've got a long day taking care of my husband who had surgery today. You can resume stating your all knowing facts now and I won't bother you with my always WRONG liberal opinion.

^ No nominee has ever been treated and drug through the mud as bad as the Dems. attacked Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas...

Ja'far wrote:

What's bothersome about her belonging to La Raza?

For one there's question as to their motto being, "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" which means "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing." The group denies this, but I don't what's fact or fiction there. I would love to know the truth so I can either dismiss it or continue to be concerned.

Ja'far wrote:

Of course, you have to ignore the entirety of her speech to come away with that understanding.

A larger excerpt:

Judge Cedarbaum... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

And I would agree, completely.

And then there is this take on it:

Quote :

Sotomayor, they point out, also said judges "must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Her allies have a point. Anyone who reads the whole speech will indeed find that her comment wasn't as bad as it sounds. It was worse.

What is clear from the full text is that her claim to superior insight was not a casual aside or an exercise in devil's advocacy. On the contrary, it fit neatly into her overall argument, which was that the law can only benefit from the experiences and biases that female and minority judges bring with them.

She clearly thinks impartiality is overrated. "The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others," she declared, a bit dismissively. She doesn't seem to think it's terribly important to try to meet the aspiration.

That's apparent from the context. She said, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

In more succinct terms: Sotomayor does not mind, and may even prefer, that the outcomes of cases are affected by the gender and race of the judge (at least when the judge is not white and male).

Judge Cedarbaum, she noted, "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law." Does Sotomayor share that noble sentiment? Not entirely.

Sotomayor's Aversion to Impartiality

Big Jake wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Did I hear correctly, has she been overturned on several occasions? I even heard she had been somewhat reprimanded by other judges for a few decisions. In her own words she insinuated the upper courts were there to make policy. That in itself should disqualify her IMO...Republican or democrat.

This confirms BHO's disrespect for the Constitution of The United States.

She's been overturned 60% of the time. That's incompetence. She's not qualified to be there if she's been smacked down that many times.

And I SURE don't want someone as injudicious as that "making policy" from the bench, for a lifetime....

Absolutely!

gringaloca wrote:

The Drifter wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

The Drifter wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

You beat me to making this point judge. I hope that this is not the normal way of thinking for her but I really believe for that one reason we can see what we are in for. I persoanlly would not want this woman sitting on the highest court in the land.
The liberals preach "fair" and "just", well it just doesn't get any more fair than the highet scores should qualify for the job. I guess it is up the them as to what is fair , in this case she ruled over proven test scores . Especially with a job like a firefighter. I don't know about you but in case of God forbid I am involved in a fire then I would want the best qualified men the dept. could have availible.

What would repubs do if Fox News and other talking heads didn't exist to tell them what to think? Like 20 years ago before news became entertainment and opinions instead of facts. How would they make up their minds then?
And forgive us "libs" for wanting to be "fair and just". Some wouldn't say a word about this stuff or tests scores if this was a person that some repub nominated. How quickly some forget about nominations like Harriet Miers who was far from qualified but the republicans didn't care about that then, they wanted her anyway because she was a Bush crony. They say democrats were being mean and harsh because Palin wasn't the brightest bulb and thought we were attacking her and being overly worried about intelligence. Flip flop, flip flop.

Classic !!!! What would the liberals do without thew main stream mediia, CNN and especially MSNBS/NBC hate machine to tell them how to think. pot..meet kettle .
Grinc, you seem to have major problems with anyone that doesn't bow down to Obama and his band of liberals. You are very well entitled to your opinion but tend to try and get personal when someone points out a fact/facts about a subject. Should want yo post an opinion, that's fine. I don't think that you are qualified to tell others what to post or to "spin" what you don't like into something else. BTW, you are not a mind reader either so don't try and post thoughts of others. Did I quote you.....NO, Did anyone even mention Sarah Palin in this thread......NO! As I have said before on here,you have the right to post your opinion but so do others. I respect other rights to post, just wish that you would do the same. I don't think it is just my post either, you just seem to have a problem with anyone that has a different point of view than you about anything. I have disagreed with others on this forum as well but was not met with this kind of rebuttal/quote that you have done more than once on me and others. Here is a news flash for you.....it doesn't work that way! Post what you want, that is the way this works I believe but just know bc it is you that post something that others have right to their opinion as well.

I know that I post with an "edge" at times, that's just what I do. I do try to not call anyone out personally though so I apologize to the mods for saying what I did on a personal nature in this post. Should I have done that before I apologize to anyone that thinks I have done that with one of their post. My sarcastic comments have been about subject/person a post a thread was about ad not personal towards any member, at least that's what I have tried and meant to do.

I quit reading your post when I came to this part.....

Quote :

You are very well entitled to your opinion but tend to try and get personal when someone points out a fact/facts about a subject. Should want yo post an opinion, that's fine. I don't think that you are qualified to tell others what to post or to "spin" what you don't like into something else.

So, when I say something it's an opinion but when you and people you agree with say something it is a fact. Typical. There's no point in trying to debate you and the others who agree with you when you've got that attitude. And I don't think you are in a position to judge my qualifications. Give me a flippin' break. And I mentioned Harriet and Sarah because I see too often this double standard. Republicans think it's ok when they someone in office that isn't qualified or not very well educated because they think it better represents the common man/woman but no one is EVER good enough when the democrats nominate someone. Until certain people on this board realize that not everything that is parroted by conservative talk show hosts and republican talking heads is true, there is no point in even having a political debate. It's a waste of everyones time because their minds were made up before they ever started typing. I'm off to bed. I've got a long day taking care of my husband who had surgery today. You can resume stating your all knowing facts now and I won't bother you with my always WRONG liberal opinion.

Gringa, you seem to be the only one on here that I or others have a problem with posting with and/or giving opinions that may differ So, here is my answer to this and anything further that you may post, it doesn't make any sense to try and explain anything to you or to make a point.
Oh please forgive me for not realizing that you are the only outpost member that knows anything and has the right to post on here. Far be it for anyone to disagree with the almighty Gringa .
So my fabulous all knowing, your word on anything is the gospel friend I will leave you with this one answer and consider it my answer and opinion to anything you may post in the future. ........................


(and btw, I didn't take the time to read what you said here on this post, I thought I would try your method.........not read or care what you post. )

EVERYONE needs to stick to the topic and quit attacking each other or threads will be closed. We are all adults and can disagree with each other in a civilized manner.

Annie Oakley wrote:

EVERYONE needs to stick to the topic and quit attacking each other or threads will be closed. We are all adults and can disagree with each other in a civilized manner.

I'm trying my best Annie!! It's kinda hard when I'm being pointed out as different from everyone else on here. When some posts things it is called fact but when I post my point of view I'm attacked for thinking I know it all. I'm only posting my opinion with the information that I find to back it up. It's apparent that some would like for me to keep my mouth shut but I'm not going to. I don't say that every thing I type is a complete and total fact unless I have tons to back it up but the majority of what I say is my opinion. And just because I'm the most talkative lib on this board doesn't mean that my opinion isn't shared by millions. I just get frustrated with the gang mentality that I witness especially on the internet. I know that plenty of libs do it but that's not the case on this board.

I will continue to walk the line and try not to step on peoples toes and I expect them to do the same for me.

Now I'm going to go back to my lofty place in the clouds to meditate on how perfect and right I am all the time. God bless America!

Gringa Loca

gringaloca wrote:

I'm trying my best Annie!! It's kinda hard when I'm being pointed out as different from everyone else on here. When some posts things it is called fact but when I post my point of view I'm attacked for thinking I know it all. I'm only posting my opinion with the information that I find to back it up. It's apparent that some would like for me to keep my mouth shut but I'm not going to. I don't say that every thing I type is a complete and total fact unless I have tons to back it up but the majority of what I say is my opinion. And just because I'm the most talkative lib on this board doesn't mean that my opinion isn't shared by millions. I just get frustrated with the gang mentality that I witness especially on the internet. I know that plenty of libs do it but that's not the case on this board.

I will continue to walk the line and try not to step on peoples toes and I expect them to do the same for me.

Now I'm going to go back to my lofty place in the clouds to meditate on how perfect and right I am all the time. God bless America!

Gringa Loca

Don't worry, gringa, I have your back! Thank God you're on here to keep these guys straight, their right wing teachings have left them confused and misguided. Hopefully I'll be able to spend more time on here to help you fight the good fight!

Mongo wrote:

And then there is this take on it:

The author argues that context elucidates a more sinister understanding of Sotomayor's speech, but continues to engage in selective reading. His major point - that 9 white justices ruled in favor of civil rights in several major cases undermines Sotomayor's claims - ignores the fact that this is addressed in the speech. Indeed,

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

In other words, if the author is making a point about drawing out the context to garner a richer understanding of her racism/sexism, he's done a poor job of it. Instead, he should have addressed the substantive arguments she made, rather than relying on the denial of context he claims to lament.

Furthermore, Sotomayor has ruled on 96 cases involving race and ruled in favor of those claiming "discrimination" in 10 of them (9 were unanimous). This seems to provide quite a contrast to the picture being painted of her jurisprudence.

Tom Goldstein

Ja'far wrote:

She is saying that opinions and interpretations are subjective, they are constructed from our life experiences, and they cannot be transcended. She is entirely correct, in my opinion. If she were advocating favoritism or the ignoring of facts I would agree with you.

I disagree with you but I do respect the way that posted your opinion here.
I am not or will not call Sotomayor a racist. I think that "playing the race card" unless a person is absolutely sure is wrong. "Racist" is a serious charge. I will say that some of her statements are imo borderline racist if not crossed the line but I would have to hear/see her action on other issues before I would even begin to make that charge.

This ( the fireman ruling) and her statements about the 2nd amendment are enough to make me not want her on the supreme court. Sotomayor imo basically has or is wanting to re write the 2nd amendment to the Constitution to fit the anti gun agenda. That is a whole other thread though and I am too tired to go there now.

The Drifter wrote:

Ja'far wrote:

She is saying that opinions and interpretations are subjective, they are constructed from our life experiences, and they cannot be transcended. She is entirely correct, in my opinion. If she were advocating favoritism or the ignoring of facts I would agree with you.

I disagree with you but I do respect the way that posted your opinion here.
I am not or will not call Sotomayor a racist. I think that "playing the race card" unless a person is absolutely sure is wrong. "Racist" is a serious charge. I will say that some of her statements are imo borderline racist if not crossed the line but I would have to hear/see her action on other issues before I would even begin to make that charge.

This ( the fireman ruling) and her statements about the 2nd amendment are enough to make me not want her on the supreme court. Sotomayor imo basically has or is wanting to re write the 2nd amendment to the Constitution to fit the anti gun agenda. That is a whole other thread though and I am too tired to go there now.

So, out of 96 rulings, you really only take exception to her position in one ruling?
As to racist statements, when selectively taken out of context, parts of a sermon by the Pope could seem racist. You HAVE to look at the whole missive, and not the carefully carved out parts of the text.

[/quote]Don't worry, gringa, I have your back! Thank God you're on here to keep these guys straight, their right wing teachings have left them confused and misguided. Hopefully I'll be able to spend more time on here to help you fight the good fight! [/quote]

Supreme Court Press link

Jeffrey Toobin and Stephen discuss Sotomayors nomination

I love the way Stephen makes you look at topics in a different light. I think that people may be making a mountain out of a molehill by implying that Sotomayors is a racist. I think that's pushing it a little. And to be honest, is there anyone out there that the republicans are going to love that the democrats offer up? I'm afraid not. When the republicans were in power and they put up their nominees the democrats kinda whimpered a little and let it happen because what's the point of fighting about it? Republicans are going to like their people and democrats are going to like theirs and people will get attacked even if they were saints. If you look hard enough there is always going to be something somebody did that somebody else didn't like. Anyway, watch Stephen's comments. He makes some good points.