What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
655 Comments
- thelelander, on 05/26/2009, -41/+245I am as liberal as they come - but look up "New Haven 20" - she moved to throw this case out, other appellate judges spoke out, and the case is now being heard by the supreme court. Her decision is absolutely appalling.
I could care less about race, but apparently she does, quite a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h33_W0mykeI - PWoT, on 05/26/2009, -34/+204Buried for retarded description. Christ can the nutjobs just report a straightforward story without frothing at the mouth?
- FTWmovin2canada, on 05/26/2009, -23/+185Nice, "incompetent radicals" and "socialist agenda". Clearly an objective assessment of the situation.
/s - KennMac, on 05/26/2009, -101/+260Cue the bitching and moaning from the wingnuts for naming a liberal non-white woman. Yes it happened.
- dagnabbit, on 05/26/2009, -32/+143Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Republican senators who voted to put her on the appeals court bench in 1998. These are current Senators. She's going to be confirmed, get your tissues ready! - rabidjester, on 05/26/2009, -38/+145Wow the right wingers hit this thread fast.
- niradg, on 05/26/2009, -22/+128"...socialist agenda. Stop her"
I can actually smell your fear. - jadedsunrise, on 05/26/2009, -34/+135Smart decision if you ask me. First of all he's not going to get much opposition, because people need to realize that politicians are going to start kissing the hispanic communities ass left and right (no pun intended).
Second of all, this isn't a HORRIBLE pick. I don't see where all the hate comes from. She is incredibly experienced. It's an idiotic move to immediately google her and look at her court rulings because, without insight into the ENTIRE history of the case, you really look like a moron commenting on it.
Judges are supposed to decide cases based on evidence. This crap of "well look how she voted on this case" is why you are not a judge. - Angostura, on 05/26/2009, -32/+117"Sotomayor, a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton."
Clearly incompetent.
/not - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -26/+108Yes, this is completely a race and sex related thing.It couldn't be about ideology,,, it's all about her race and sex... oh and don't forget shoe size. I really hate her because of her shoe size. That bitch!
- D1Foley, on 05/26/2009, -9/+84Wow that is such a unbiased and fair description of that story, imagine my surprise when I found a CNN article and not something from Fox News, could have fooled me with that description.
- inactive, on 05/26/2009, -10/+82Not much bias in the submission blurb, huh?
- lamejoketeller, on 05/26/2009, -8/+77buried for the description. Even if it's true, at least TRY to avoid completely slandering someone before people have a chance to read the story for themselves.
- atomheartmother, on 05/26/2009, -16/+76Dugg for a digg rarity- fairness.
- SKLOKAZOID, on 05/26/2009, -14/+68FTA: "President Obama says Judge Sonia Sotomayor will make 'great justice'"
For great justice! - ChronicColonic, on 05/26/2009, -9/+62It is not about representation. Judges should not 'represent' anyone. Judges are there to determine if laws are being followed. Judges should not care if your a woman, Hispanic, Caucasian, or robotic. They should care if you broke the law.
- inactive, on 05/26/2009, -44/+96SCOTUS should not be based on race or gender. Only the most qualified and unbiased should be appointed. Just look at the statue called "Blind Justice" or "Lady Justice". Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, power, or weakness.
From Sotomayors handling of Ricci v. DeStefano, I don't believe that she can be objective or unbiased. Then there is her statement about making policy. That is not the job of the judical branch. The legislative branch makes the laws. - kasjogren, on 05/26/2009, -8/+59You guys have your talking points ready for *fill in the blank*. *Fill in the blank* represents the far left wing of America and he/she is a activist judge. I'm sure *fill in the blank* has empathy but that isn't what he/she needs to strictly uphold the Constitution as written and not rewrite it based on his/her own views.
Basically anyone left of Scalia wouldn't have been okay. - kasjogren, on 05/26/2009, -15/+64Her decisions have been upheld by higher courts 99% of the time. Next ***** talking point please.
- Coven, on 05/26/2009, -11/+52Agreed. I'm not sure I like this pick.
- niradg, on 05/26/2009, -11/+51If all legal interpretation was cut & dry, we wouldn't need jurists in the first place. When a case reaches the Court of Appeals, that means there is some controversy over interpretation of the law. Judges on the Court of Appeals set precedent with their opinion, influencing the future application of the law. In these gray areas, the judges make the policy. This is the way the system is supposed to work.
- Angostura, on 05/26/2009, -8/+47I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why this person is being appointed purely for her race. I suddenly feel as if I've stumbled into Free Republic, or something.
- kasjogren, on 05/26/2009, -14/+52Nice "quotes" without sourcing.
Stormfront/Redstate doesn't count. - geodebug, on 05/26/2009, -7/+44@7papa7: Nice of you to post without adding too much bias /s
You do realize that it actually reduces the power of your argument, right? Your credibility is shot as just another idiot in the echo chamber instead of laying out reasonably why she might not be the best choice.
"admitted that the judiciary should make policy". The link I saw is that she admitted that the judiciary 'does' make policy, which I interpret as that it can from time to time affect policy dramatically. I guess you can make as much hay as you want with a single comment. It would be much more effective to give credible links to decisions she's made on the bench that went directly against the 'plumb line' of the constitution.
"most incompetent radical choice". Oh, I don't know. I bet Harriet Meyers beats this category cold.
You are allowed to not like how she has historically done her job but to call her incompetent removes your credibility as a critic. Reports say she has more experience than any current SC justice at the time of their confirmation. Plus, if you are trying to bolster your point, it is much more dangerous to have a competent radical than an incompetent one.
I'm sure this will just seem like another troll to you but I hope you take some of my advice to heart. Your opinion may be interesting and have valid points but I can't tell when you present it so terribly. If you are truly trying to change people's minds you'll have to try harder to give a sober assessment instead of a Hannity-like bitch storm. - petebot, on 05/26/2009, -11/+48Wow. I'm already tired of this. This being the whole republican vs. democrat thing. Again.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 05/26/2009, -38/+75Actually if you check out Ricci v. DeStefano, the case concerned a firefighter suing the city for its decision to refrain from promoting anyone, thus erring on the side of existing law. While there were no written opinions, the Court Sotomayor sat on recommended that the case by reviewed by the Supreme Court. It's not the simple case of reverse discrimination the right would like it to be.
- lime33, on 05/26/2009, -26/+62Is there an underground right wing community that decides to all digg the same story at the same time?
- ChronicColonic, on 05/26/2009, -7/+42^
|
|
That may very well be the stupidest comment ever on Digg. Thanks Molocaust. - kasjogren, on 05/26/2009, -7/+40Yeah, like being nominated by a Democratic President.
- nedzeve, on 05/26/2009, -2/+32You realize that when you make a claim like that which is categorically false that you damage your credibility, right?
- eramos, on 05/26/2009, -45/+74lol @ all these racist misogynist conservative trolls
Go wharagarrbl somewhere else. We don't have to care anymore. - below413, on 05/26/2009, -5/+34That's what I don't understand about the whole racism/equality issue. Shouldn't people who are advocating 'equality' want everyone to be treated equally no matter what race they are? For true racial equality to exist, race has to become a non-issue that has absolutely no bearing on anything.
- voyetra8, on 05/26/2009, -18/+46Hahahaha, check out the "People Who Dugg This Also Dugg" box on the right!
WINGNUT CENTRAL! - AgeofMastery, on 05/26/2009, -9/+37Yo RB, lay off the PCP
- asgardshill, on 05/26/2009, -16/+42Buried (and reported) for BS description accompanying the threadline. The source article said nothing vaguely resembling the description.
- nedzeve, on 05/26/2009, -4/+30*****, I didn't even read the description. I was just excited about the news. 7papa7 is obviously a wingnut.
- jhbarr, on 05/26/2009, -2/+27*****:
"Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appe ... - geodebug, on 05/26/2009, -8/+33She's right, historically, the courts have made policy from time to time.
- DogofWar1, on 05/26/2009, -18/+42This is silly, with all the calls of racism and the like. She has extensive experience as a prosecutor and as a judge.
And as for the arguments of "activism," it's a charge wingnuts throw around about anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation of the Constitution. So she disagrees with you, get over it. Everyone interprets the constitution differently, if not in big ways then in small ways. That's why we have a bloody Supreme Court to interpret the law, as opposed to just civil courts and criminal courts.
People have different interpretations of the law, accept it, and bloody live with it, wingnuts. - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -24/+48Great chess move by Obama. Opposing Sotomayor with her experience and background, plus her gender and ethnicity, will turn a lot of people away from the Limbaugh Party.
- thelelander, on 05/26/2009, -14/+38From CNN:
In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - RyanBlueThunder, on 05/26/2009, -3/+26As someone who follows the Supreme Court and tries to know as much of the Justices as possible, I find any opposition to Sotomayor wholly ignorant and misguided. And this is coming from a Republican who supported Roberts and Alito.
SCOTUSBlog is fairly clear that her judicial opinions are clearly competent and that Sotomayor has demonstrated well reasoned legal analysis. There is no 'racial tokenism' here, as she is clearly qualified and intelligent. She wasn't handed #2 in her Princeton class based on her race or background.
Republicans would be wise not to oppose her nomination. Then again, Obama should not be playing up the argument that she has "empathy"...instead he should tout her her obvious intellect and credentials of public service, and make her personal back-story the filler that potentially differentiates her.
The same goes for Justice Thomas. Anyone who has met the man, read his opinions, or spoken to him knows that he has serious intellectual rigor and a great story. In fact, of the 3 current Justices that I have had the opportunity to see speak, Justice Thomas was by far the most likable. - geodebug, on 05/26/2009, -0/+22@Briandrews15 Ah, taking the new "Democratic Socialist Party" out for a spin are we?
Hey, its a crazy world. Maybe no ideas and name calling will be enough to get back some seats in 2010.
I'm not sure if I'd feel so good about parroting Michael Steele. - jhbarr, on 05/26/2009, -3/+25"She has admitted that the judiciary should make policy and that is the antithesis of what the supreme court should do."
That was a lie. She did not say that..
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070035 - Verchiel77, on 05/26/2009, -3/+25"Every decision she's had appealed to the Supreme Court has been overturned."
---------------
More abject ignorance of the law.
Hate to break it to you, genius, but that's nothing unusual. SCOTUS doesn't accept cases unless compelling grounds exist to re-examine the lower decision. - TheNik, on 05/26/2009, -3/+24The right wingers posted this thread.
- AgeofMastery, on 05/26/2009, -4/+25That's twice you've claimed it.
Care to provid a link to back it up? - 8FoldPath, on 05/26/2009, -11/+32Empathy is a prerequisite for civilized human beings, not just judges.
- freakk123, on 05/26/2009, -4/+25I dugg this based on the headline and article and then read the description. There's got to be a way to change a digg to a bury, I don't want to digg an story editorialized by the submitter in the description.
- geodebug, on 05/26/2009, -3/+23I'm trying to find a unbiased look at this case to make a judgment but Google is presenting only the links by pundits and the people involved.
NPR's "All Things Considered" had a decent evenhanded report of the issue but it is in audio form:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 671 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is