we've talked a lot on here about the idea that a journalist can be objective ... that it is impossible for a journalist not to imbue his article with some of his own bias and life experience ... the pure objectivity is a fairy tale, at least as far as journalism goes ...
I wonder if this translates over to the supreme court, and Obama's nomination to replace Justice Souter. I've been reading all day the back and forth heating up between right and left about the nomination.
One of the main complaints against Sotomayor so far is that she has no problem allowing her life experience and her ethnicity color her judgments ... this is based on her own writings:
[from WSJ] In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal
in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this
jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she declared. "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."
Whereas one side argues decisions must be made based on facts and
reasoning, the allegation is that Sotomayor has no problem making
decisions that are colored by her life experience and her personal
feelings on issues.
Is objectivity as impossible a goal for a judge as it is for a journalist?
For the moment, and from everything I've read so far, I don't like
Sotomayor for the supreme court. I do believe that a judge should
strive as much as possible to rely only on facts and reasoning for a
decision, and not allow personal experience to affect judgments. She
also doesn't appear to have taken any hard stance on the giant issues
of SCOTUS - abortion, death penalty and gay marriage, among others ...
so it's impossible to know really where she stands until the Senate
hearings commence.
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Well, before you were saying that the military is too powerful to fight,
but as I pointed out guys with cheap knock offs living in caves are winning
against us. Now you are saying it wouldn't work from a PR perspective, but
honestly the Irish/British disputes aren't very indicative of how it would
play out here. As you note, a tyrannical govt. would most likely be ushered
in with popular support, and I don't disagree with that. But while the blue
state populations would most likely roll over and be the brunt of the
support, the West/Midwest populations would not.
I know we often deride those people as being ignorant Bush supporters, but
you can pretty much bet the farm they would never give in when it came to
giving up their guns. To them gun ownership is as American as apple pie,
look at how people react to someone like Obama being elected, going out and
stocking up on ammo and weapons. At this point there isn't even a real
threat and they are taking defense positions. If push came to shove, they
are not going to get in line.
It seems to me that there's plenty of historical precedent that
demonstrates the idea that private ownership of firearms is a significant
actor as a guarantor of freedom. I really don't understand how you can
write off the nazis and stalinists denying gun ownership as a necessary
step towards maintaining control over the population.
Maybe if you stated why you think people have the right to own firearms
that would clarify your position, because I just don't understand the
logic.
Kieran
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT), D-Bone <>
wrote:
> Well, you could accuse me of being a bit blithe on this, but I just can't
> share your level of concern. More importantly, I can't imagine a
> situation in which a group of citizens, with the support of the populace,
> would take up arms against our government. I just finished a class on
> Irish nationalism. Pretty much every time the Irish rebelled against
the
> British, the radical republicans who led and organized the rebellion did
> NOT have the support of the people. Typically, the rebels would mount a
> disastrous uprising that would be crushed by the British. The
repitition
> of British reprisals then had more of an impact on the citizens and their
> desire to get rid of the British that the actions of the rebels did.
When
> the Irish finally succeeded after WWI, it wasn't becuase they outgunned
the
> Brits. There is no question the Brits could have gone in and militarily
> crushed Ireland, the problem was that most British subjects did not
support
> that
> type of action. The Irish won not a military victory, but a PR victory
> in Ireland, and in Britain.
>
> When it comes to a hypothetical tyrannical government taking over the US,
> I think it just depends on how many citizens they are willing to kill.
> (part of my lack of concern is due to the branches of the military, and
the
> fact that all branches would need to be on the side of this new
government,
> if one branch balked, the citizens would have that branch on their
side.
> If all of the military was on the side of this government, and this
> government had no qualms about killing large numbers of civilians, then I
> don't think the people would stand much of a chance, despite your
examples
> showing otherwise.
>
> I guess I just don't see the second amendment as standing between us and
> tyranny.
>
> it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
>
> Right, but at the end of the day, the resistance fighter lost.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Maybe I should be more clear: I do not worry about our government
> becoming tyrannical and using the military to quash citizen uprisings.
I
> believe that if our government becomes tyrannical, it will do so with the
> support of the people and the popular vote. This is a much more
realistic
> and frightening scenario for me.
>
> It's a little odd, I do think people have the right to own guns, but I
> don't agree with many of the arguments as to WHY the people have the
right
> to own guns.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kieran <>
> To: PHL Syndicate <>
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:20:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>
>> I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if
>> we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that
> government
>> had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter
>> what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's
> weaponry
>> (assuming they were willing to use it against the citizens.)
> Personally,
>> I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our
>> government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a tyrannical
>> government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the
>> branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers
> did
>> a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic tyranny.
>
>
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made ak-47s can hold
> off
> the most powerful military force in the world. after almost 10 years, we
> still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan. we have
> billions
> of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets, satellites, on
and
> on. we spend more on defense then every other country combined, but we
> can't win against guys living in caves.
>
> you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there had been another
> major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be staring down
> martial
> law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are gone, they
> rarely if ever come back.
>
> "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
> national security procedures were put in place which focused on the
> eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland
> Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could
> be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
>
> i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our constitution can be
> tossed
> aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting weapons from people,
> it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a significant
> portion of the population that would never surrender. given the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there is zero
> chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are armed.
>
> that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a cliche, but both
> Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed private gun
> ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a population. it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Kieran
>
>
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
state populations would most likely roll over and be the brunt of the
support, the West/Midwest populations would not.
don't think it will ever come to that."
From: Kieran <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:36:30 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
Well, before you were saying that the military is too powerful to fight,
but as I pointed out guys with cheap knock offs living in caves are winning
against us. Now you are saying it wouldn't work from a PR perspective, but
honestly the Irish/British disputes aren't very indicative of how it would
play out here. As you note, a tyrannical govt. would most likely be ushered
in with popular support, and I don't disagree with that.
I know we often deride those people as being ignorant Bush supporters, but
you can pretty much bet the farm they
would never give in when it came to
giving up their guns. To them gun ownership is as American as apple pie,
look at how people react to someone like Obama being elected, going out and
stocking up on ammo and weapons. At this point there isn't even a real
threat and they are taking defense positions. If push came to shove, they
are not going to get in line.
It seems to me that there's plenty of historical precedent that
demonstrates the idea that private ownership of firearms is a significant
actor as a guarantor of freedom. I really don't understand how you can
write off the nazis and stalinists denying gun ownership as a necessary
step towards maintaining control over the population.
Maybe if you stated why you think people have the right to own firearms
that would clarify your position, because I just don't understand the
logic.
Kieran
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT), D-Bone
<>
wrote:
> Well, you could accuse me of being a bit blithe on this, but I just can't
> share your level of concern. More importantly, I can't imagine a
> situation in which a group of citizens, with the support of the populace,
> would take up arms against our government. I just finished a class on
> Irish nationalism. Pretty much every time the Irish rebelled against
the
> British, the radical republicans who led and organized the rebellion did
> NOT have the support of the people. Typically, the rebels would mount a
> disastrous uprising that would be crushed by the British. The
repitition
> of British reprisals then had more of an impact on the citizens and their
> desire to get rid of the British that the actions of the rebels did.
When
>
the Irish finally succeeded after WWI, it wasn't becuase they outgunned
the
> Brits. There is no question the Brits could have gone in and militarily
> crushed Ireland, the problem was that most British subjects did not
support
> that
> type of action. The Irish won not a military victory, but a PR victory
> in Ireland, and in Britain.
>
> When it comes to a hypothetical tyrannical government taking over the US,
> I think it just depends on how many citizens they are willing to kill.
> (part of my lack of concern is due to the branches of the military, and
the
> fact that all branches would need to be on the side of this new
government,
> if one branch balked, the citizens would have that branch on their
side.
> If all of the military was on the side of this government, and this
> government had no qualms about killing large numbers
of civilians, then I
> don't think the people would stand much of a chance, despite your
examples
> showing otherwise.
>
> I guess I just don't see the second amendment as standing between us and
> tyranny.
>
> it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
>
> Right, but at the end of the day, the resistance fighter lost.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Maybe I should be
more clear: I do not worry about our government
> becoming tyrannical and using the military to quash citizen uprisings.
I
> believe that if our government becomes tyrannical, it will do so with the
> support of the people and the popular vote. This is a much more
realistic
> and frightening scenario for me.
>
> It's a little odd, I do think people have the right to own guns, but I
> don't agree with many of the arguments as to WHY the people have the
right
> to own guns.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kieran <>
> To: PHL Syndicate <>
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:20:53
AM
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>
>> I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if
>> we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that
> government
>> had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter
>> what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's
> weaponry
>> (assuming they were willing to use it against the citizens.)
> Personally,
>> I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our
>> government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a tyrannical
>> government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the
>> branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers
> did
>> a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic
tyranny.
>
>
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made ak-47s can hold
> off
> the most powerful military force in the world. after almost 10 years, we
> still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan. we have
> billions
> of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets, satellites, on
and
> on. we spend more on defense then every other country combined, but we
> can't win against guys living in caves.
>
> you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there had been another
> major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be staring down
> martial
> law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are gone, they
> rarely if ever come back.
>
> "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
> national security procedures were put in place which focused on
the
> eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland
> Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could
> be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
>
> i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our constitution can be
> tossed
> aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting weapons from people,
> it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a significant
> portion of the population that would never surrender. given the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there is zero
> chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they
resist and are armed.
>
> that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a cliche, but both
> Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed private gun
> ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a population. it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Kieran
>
>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list
archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
"Now you are saying it wouldn't work from a PR perspective,"
write off the nazis and stalinists denying gun ownership as a necessary
step towards maintaining control over the population."
From: Kieran <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:36:30 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
Well, before you were saying that the military is too powerful to fight,
but as I pointed out guys with cheap knock offs living in caves are winning
against us. Now you are saying it wouldn't work from a PR perspective, but
honestly the Irish/British disputes aren't very indicative of how it would
play out here. As you note, a tyrannical govt. would most likely be ushered
in with popular support, and I don't disagree with that. But while the blue
state populations would most likely roll over and be the brunt of the
support, the West/Midwest
populations would not.
I know we often deride those people as being ignorant Bush supporters, but
you can pretty much bet the farm they would never give in when it came to
giving up their guns. To them gun ownership is as American as apple pie,
look at how people react to someone like Obama being elected, going out and
stocking up on ammo and weapons. At this point there isn't even a real
threat and they are taking defense positions. If push came to shove, they
are not going to get in line.
It seems to me that there's plenty of historical precedent that
demonstrates the idea that private ownership of firearms is a significant
actor as a guarantor of freedom. I really don't understand how you can
write off the nazis and stalinists denying gun ownership as a necessary
step towards maintaining control over the population.
Maybe if you stated why you think people have the right to own firearms
that
would clarify your position, because I just don't understand the
logic.
Kieran
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT), D-Bone <>
wrote:
> Well, you could accuse me of being a bit blithe on this, but I just can't
> share your level of concern. More importantly, I can't imagine a
> situation in which a group of citizens, with the support of the populace,
> would take up arms against our government. I just finished a class on
> Irish nationalism. Pretty much every time the Irish rebelled against
the
> British, the radical republicans who led and organized the rebellion did
> NOT have the support of the people. Typically, the rebels would mount a
> disastrous uprising that would be crushed by the British. The
repitition
> of British reprisals
then had more of an impact on the citizens and their
> desire to get rid of the British that the actions of the rebels did.
When
> the Irish finally succeeded after WWI, it wasn't becuase they outgunned
the
> Brits. There is no question the Brits could have gone in and militarily
> crushed Ireland, the problem was that most British subjects did not
support
> that
> type of action. The Irish won not a military victory, but a PR victory
> in Ireland, and in Britain.
>
> When it comes to a hypothetical tyrannical government taking over the US,
> I think it just depends on how many citizens they are willing to kill.
> (part of my lack of concern is due to the branches of the military, and
the
> fact that all branches would need to be on the side of this new
government,
> if one branch balked, the citizens would have that branch on
their
side.
> If all of the military was on the side of this government, and this
> government had no qualms about killing large numbers of civilians, then I
> don't think the people would stand much of a chance, despite your
examples
> showing otherwise.
>
> I guess I just don't see the second amendment as standing between us and
> tyranny.
>
> it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
>
> Right, but at the end of the day, the resistance fighter lost.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the
means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Maybe I should be more clear: I do not worry about our government
> becoming tyrannical and using the military to quash citizen uprisings.
I
> believe that if our government becomes tyrannical, it will do so with the
> support of the people and the popular vote. This is a much more
realistic
> and frightening scenario for me.
>
> It's a little odd, I do think people have the right to own guns, but I
> don't agree with many of the arguments as to WHY the people have the
right
> to own guns.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kieran <>
> To: PHL Syndicate <
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:20:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>
>> I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if
>> we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that
> government
>> had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter
>> what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's
> weaponry
>> (assuming they were willing to use it against the citizens.)
> Personally,
>> I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our
>> government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a tyrannical
>> government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the
>>
branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers
> did
>> a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic tyranny.
>
>
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made ak-47s can hold
> off
> the most powerful military force in the world. after almost 10 years, we
> still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan. we have
> billions
> of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets, satellites, on
and
> on. we spend more on defense then every other country combined, but we
> can't win against guys living in caves.
>
> you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there had been another
> major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be staring down
> martial
> law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are gone, they
> rarely if ever come
back.
>
> "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
> national security procedures were put in place which focused on the
> eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland
> Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could
> be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
>
> i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our constitution can be
> tossed
> aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting weapons from people,
> it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a significant
> portion of the population that would never surrender. given the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up. just like
afghanistan, there is zero
> chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are armed.
>
> that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a cliche, but both
> Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed private gun
> ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a population. it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today
> that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have
> the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
> the
second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Kieran
>
>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Yes. I don't know enough about Sotomayor to comment specifically on her, but conservatives getting up in arms about her "life experiences, gender, or ethincity" influencing her decisions is absolutely ridiculous. Are we to think John Roberts' decisions aren't influenced by the fact that he is a white male from a priviliged background? Each of us is the sum of our experiences, so how can anybody not be influenced by their life experiences?
I've heard this type of reaction before, usually from whites who have a problem with black politicians, public officials, judges, etc. being influenced by the fact that they are black. People who complain about this seem ignorant to the
fact that we ALL do this. We are all influenced by who we are and what categories we fit into, whether it is gender, socio-economics, ethnicity, urban or rural backgrounds, etc. This is another example simply disagreeing with a person's politics, but feeling the need to couch that disagreement in another form, so it seems more palatable to those who may be undecided.
Again, I don't really know anything about Sotomayor, but I just read a profile in the New Yorker on John Roberts. I gotta say, I'm afraid of the future of our court, and we NEED to get some balance against Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.
Out of curiosity, does anybody on this list consider themselves and "originalist" on constutional issues? To me, being an originalist on the constitution makes about as much sense as interpreting the Bible as the literal word of god.
From: chris <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:14:24 PM
Subject: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
we've talked a lot on here about the idea that a journalist can be
objective ... that it is impossible for a journalist not to imbue his
article with some of his own bias and life experience ... the pure
objectivity is a fairy tale, at least as far as journalism goes ...
I wonder if this translates over to the supreme court, and Obama's
nomination to replace Justice Souter. I've been reading all day the
back and forth heating up between right and left about the nomination.
One of the main complaints against Sotomayor so far is that she has no
problem allowing her life experience and her ethnicity color her
judgments ... this is based on her own writings:
[from WSJ] In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal
in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this
jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she declared. "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."
Whereas one side argues decisions must be made based on facts and
reasoning, the allegation is that Sotomayor has no problem making
decisions that are colored by her life experience and her personal
feelings on issues.
Is objectivity as impossible a goal for a judge as it is for a journalist?
For the moment, and from everything I've read so far, I don't like
Sotomayor for the supreme court. I do believe that a judge should
strive as much as possible to rely only on facts and reasoning for a
decision, and not allow personal experience to
affect judgments. She
also doesn't appear to have taken any hard stance on the giant issues
of SCOTUS - abortion, death penalty and gay marriage, among others ...
so it's impossible to know really where she stands until the Senate
hearings commence.
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
just a couple quick things...
Take for
> example gay
> marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have
> rejected it. In
> the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on
> grounds of
> the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort
> of ruling
> will just be one more issue that will direct conservative
> anger
> towards activist judges.
ummmm...not sure i agree with you here. i see the point, of course. but what if 30 of 30 states said all jews should die. should they?? course not. same thing. tyranny of the majority? i know you've heard of it...
second, i have a big issue with this whole latina woman identify thing. i mean, i dont have a problem with it per se, just that some people seem to be implying...sotomayor that is, that all latina women would someone have similar opinions due to being beaten down by the white man (or anyone else.) this is crazy. latina women have opinions across the board. to say that the proper latina woman is liberal is insane. and that seems to be what she is implying.
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
--- On Fri, 5/29/09, TragicHipster <> wrote:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
i admit i seem to be a bit lost in this conversation at this point. i have read ahead though so i'm gonna try anyways
> You seem to have missed my point
> entirely. (i realize this was directed at chris)
i really dont think chris missed the point at all. in fact i think you guys mostly seem to agree. i dont really understand what you're even arguing about to be honest
> My point was exactly the one that dave made earlier:
> to pretend that we don't view the world through a lens
> colored by our experience is incorrect
of course. no one denies this. the point though is whether your "experience", which can be extremely subjective - meaning that 2 people can have more or less the same experience and take 2 very different things away from it, is your primary decision making modus operandi. shit i can speak latin too! or whether something else...something GREATER THAN THE SUM OF YOUR EXPERIENCE, is more important in your decision making. NOT that your experience doesn't influence you, but that it doesn't decide FOR you.
In essence, no one
> is/can be completely objective. There is a subjective
> element in every decision, which is why there is almost
> always a split in the decisions handed down the by the
> court. That's why we have "conservative" and
> "liberal" judges. Facts are facts, but it seems
> quite evident that judges interpret facts in different ways.
i dont think i agree with this frankly. but i think im just not understanding the point. the "reason" we have conservative and liberal judges has nothing at all to do with their being a subjective element to all decision making. its about ideology. i suppose ideology is about being subjective, but i think i just dont get what you're saying
> - life experience colors the way in which one views
> the world and reacts to different facts/statements
of course. but again, it is very important to remember that similar "life experience" can result is widely varying worldviews
My previous email was meant to suggest that having
> someone on the court who understands that struggles and
> cultural background of the fastest growing minority in the
> country is reasonable.
assuming she does understand, and thats one reason to have a hearing i suppose, i dont think anyone disagrees at all
i think what is really being argued here is mostly escaping me because of my lack of access to most traditional media. idk, maybe im wrong, this argument just seems to be about sotomayor's portyal in the media and not much more. but i cant say for sure
> I'd also like to point out
> that the fact that you would reject Sotomayor based on her
> world views, as opposed to her past rulings, is an
> expression of why, perhaps, the supreme court should reflect
> the populace at large. Many people hold similar world
> views to her. Just because you, a white male, don't
> agree with her does not mean that there are not people in
> the country (who are subject to the same laws and court
> system that you are) who do hold similar views.
oh come on. we all agree that someone who thinks someone is wiser than someone else based on heritage is baloney, so why should i respect someone who believes it? and no one is saying sotomayor even holds this "worldview" just that she should explain the damn statement
Again,
> this argument is based on the premise that everyone is
> colored by their life experience. If you'd like to
> take issue with that assumption then perhaps that's
> where the discussion should continue.
no one is arguing that life experience doesnt mean anything. i, at least, am saying that life experience does not define me. at least not completely, and at least not i hope lol
dont get me wrong, i find this all very interesting. race issues, if that's what this is, always are. i just dont understand exactly what the damn issue is.
the statement in question is silly or plain wrong. we all seem to agree.
life experience informs the person we are and guides us in making decisions. we all seem to agree.
i give up but it was fun
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> i think there may be a diff between genocide and denying a
> right like
> marriage based upon religious or traditional grounds.
the diff is in degree, not kind. technically its the same damn thing...we're talking about majority rule. but just to play the same game, so say it wasnt about KILLING jews, but about not allowing a jew to marry a non-jew. is that similar enough? the point, to me, is that it is 150% totally irrelevant what the PEOPLE want, if it is WRONG. and what constitutes wrong, like it or not, changes. 2000 years ago it was considered moral and okie dokie to, when conquering a country, kill all males 0-90, rape all the women over 5, and boys 5-18, and enslave them all. that was HOW THEY ROLLED. they didnt exactly consider it "wrong". from today's point of view it obviously is. conservatives, when talking about the court, often disregard this, imo, very obvious line of thought.
at the same time i am totally baffled by the common liberal line of thought that it is ok to allow your color to inform your choices, as long as that color isnt white.
both stances seem to avoid reality imo
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> ummmm...not sure i agree with you here. i see the point, of course. but what if 30 of 30 states said all jews should die. should they?? course not. same thing. tyranny of the majority? i know you've heard of it...
i think there may be a diff between genocide and denying a right like
marriage based upon religious or traditional grounds. as i think
seperate but equal in education may be different from genocide as
well. i'm not saying that the fact that being anti-gay marriage as an
expression of the popular will vis-a-vis free and fair elections is
right, i'm just saying that's what it is.
> second, i have a big issue with this whole latina woman identify thing. i mean, i dont have a problem with it per se, just that >some >people seem to be implying...sotomayor that is, that all latina women would someone have similar opinions due to being >beaten >down by the white man (or anyone else.) this is crazy. latina women have opinions across the board. to say that the >proper latina >woman is liberal is insane. and that seems to be what she is implying.
this reminds me of the clarence thomas issue. instead of celebrating
an african-american judge being appointed to the highest court in the
land, the left completely lambasted him and to this day still has a
great deal of vitriol against him. why? because "everyone knows" the
black people are liberal and if they are not its because they are
stupid or are controlled by someone else (aka uncle tom). the man
"doesn't know his place" and suffers in the court of public opinion.
(granted the anita hill thing didn't help much, but no one on the left
had any problem with a democratic president getting a knobber from a
young, impressionable intern while the prime minister of israel and
yassir arafat waited for him to conduct negotiations in the rose
garden)
the hypocricy on the race/identity issues surrounding supreme court
appointments is utterly ridiculous. the greatest desire of the left is
to erase all categories of personhood... no gender differences, no
racial differences... we're all just part of the family of man where
we are judged by our character and deeds. UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
JUDICIAL NOMINEE, then its time to get out the score card.
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
that's what gets me about Sotomayor ... I don't understand why all
Latinas *should* be liberal based on their life experiences, or why a
Latina would come to a somehow *better* judgment than a white male
because of the *richness* of her experience ... what does that even
mean?? ... how is a Latina's life experience somehow more fulfilling
than mine ...
coming to a decision, as a judge, based on life experience and bias
rather than reasoning and logic and carefull analysis of fact seems to
me to be just wrong ...
Sotomayor's apparent worldview, and then a decision to reject a
hearing on reverse racism against a white male ... (a case involving
alleged reverse racism
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/pagenum/all/#p2) ... I don't know ...
it all sounds fishy to me ...
I don't believe that somehow minorities or poor folk are wiser than me
because of their life experiences ... I don't buy that whole mind set
(though I think it's a popular one among liberals) ... and to believe
it's proper to use that philosophy in rendering decisions from the
highest court in the land ... that's downright scary ...
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, oblio <> wrote:
>
> just a couple quick things...
>
> Take for
>> example gay
>> marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have
>> rejected it. In
>> the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on
>> grounds of
>> the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort
>> of ruling
>> will just be one more issue that will direct conservative
>> anger
>> towards activist judges.
>
> ummmm...not sure i agree with you here. i see the point, of course. but what if 30 of 30 states said all jews should die. should they?? course not. same thing. tyranny of the majority? i know you've heard of it...
>
> second, i have a big issue with this whole latina woman identify thing. i mean, i dont have a problem with it per se, just that some people seem to be implying...sotomayor that is, that all latina women would someone have similar opinions due to being beaten down by the white man (or anyone else.) this is crazy. latina women have opinions across the board. to say that the proper latina woman is liberal is insane. and that seems to be what she is implying.
>
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
"I agree with dave, who
basically said (I think) that all of us judge
the "truth" through our own lense, so to think those who already sit on
the court aren't doing this is lunacy."
Andrea, yes, thank you, that is exactly what I was attempting to say.
From: Andrea Waddle <econo-chick>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:18:38 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
american populace.
Powered by http://www.discussthis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
@ Andrea
This is what I take issue with, this statement:
“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 know what that means, but I certainly don't agree with it ...
and if, in fact, that statement represents her world view, then IMO
she should not be on the Supreme Court ...
a judge needs to be someone who can analyze a situation, look at all
the facts in the most neutral, objective way possible, IMO ... why
would being a Latina make you wiser than a white male?
also, I don't think it's the Supreme Court's place to "give a voice"
or be representative of any particular group in the US ... rather,
justices are supposed to be removed from a representative role played
by politicians and exist to render impartial and independent judgment
about issues ... that's my opinion, anyways ... a judge who feels he
or she needs to represent a certain group of people on the bench would
be playing politician, and I don't think that's right ...
the idea that a judge on the Supreme Court is the *voice* of a certain
group of people is scary ... how can anyone be sure that judge is
ruling in the most unbiased, neutral way possible when issues come up
involving the group of people for which that judge serves as the
*voice*? where's the impartiality?
to be clear, I'm not saying that no Latina should ever serve on the
Supreme Court ... but Sotomayor seems to hold worldviews that I don't
agree with ... again, I'll wait for the Senate hearings to really make
a decision ...
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Waddle wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I'm just in the middle of catching up on this Sotomayor conversation and saw
> something I wanted to respond to, so please excuse me if this point has
> already been made.
>
> chris said:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, chris <>
> wrote:
>>
>> that's what gets me about Sotomayor ... I don't understand why all
>> Latinas *should* be liberal based on their life experiences, or why a
>> Latina would come to a somehow *better* judgment than a white male
>> because of the *richness* of her experience ... what does that even
>> mean?? ... how is a Latina's life experience somehow more fulfilling
>> than mine ...
>>
>> coming to a decision, as a judge, based on life experience and bias
>> rather than reasoning and logic and carefull analysis of fact seems to
>> me to be just wrong ...
>>
>> .........
>> I don't believe that somehow minorities or poor folk are wiser than me
>> because of their life experiences ... I don't buy that whole mind set
>> (though I think it's a popular one among liberals) ... and to believe
>> it's proper to use that philosophy in rendering decisions from the
>> highest court in the land ... that's downright scary ...
>>
>
> I don't think the point is that minorities or poor folk are wiser than rich
> white men. As a woman with Latino heritage who works with and for mainly
> old white men, I can, however, say that my life experiences and world view
> are frequently different from the people who run the establishment. I agree
> with dave, who basically said (I think) that all of us judge the "truth"
> through our own lense, so to think those who already sit on the court aren't
> doing this is lunacy. the point is that we (women, latinos, minorities,
> people from meager upbringings) exist and therefore should be represented on
> the court if the court is meant to give a living interpretation of the
> constitution. Latinos are the fastest growing minority in the country and
> given that people necessarily view a world colored by their experiences,
> it's time that a Latino sat on the court in order to give a voice to this
> large part of the american populace.
>
> I don't think that I've detected the idea that minorities or poor people are
> wiser in much liberal thought. But, they do deserve equal representation
> and consideration. It's guaranteed to them under the constitution. And
> they rarely get that representation. And I would say that is downright
> scary.
> ________________________________
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences
> Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it makes sense to have
something other than old white guys on the bench, specifically a
latino.
just to clarify, there are not only 'old white guys' on the supreme
court ... there's also old white women and even an old black man ... I
have no problem with any person of any color or creed serving on the
SC, as long as they're qualified ...
again, I mostly take issue with her quote from 2001, and I hope she
clarifies it at the hearings:
if her quote about rendering *better* judgments than white males
because she is a Latina is representative of her world view, then I
don't think she's right for SCOTUS ...
I would say the same thing if Justice Souter, or Scalia, Roberts or
Alito made the same kind of inane statement that being white makes
them smarter than minorities ... ironically, if one of them had made a
similar statement, they'd be run out of the country as dirty racists
... (and probably for good reason) ...
I have no argument with your very succinct explanation of our past
coloring our worldview ... I agree with you, in fact .. my world view
is what it is because of how I was raised, where I grew up, my
schools, the sum total of all my experiences, I have no doubt about
that ...
but, because I'm white, does that somehow make me less wise than
someone who grew up Latina ...?
I'd also like to point out that the fact that you would reject
Sotomayor based on her world views, as opposed to her past rulings:
that's a great point, and the one case I've read about ... based on
New Haven, Connecticut firefighters not receiving promotions despite
passing a written exam because the test was allegedly unfair to the
black candidates, doesn't give me much comfort ... in that case, she
ruled I think twice (without looking this stuff up) to deny appeals
from the plaintiff who was denied the promotion ...) this goes into
the whole affirmative action argument, a whole new can of beans ...
and again, someone who believes they are smarter than someone else
because of race is not someone I want on the Supreme Court ... so if
that quote is indicative of her worldview ... then I'm not a fan ...
if that quote is taken out of context or overblown or whatever ...
then maybe it's a different story ... is it fair to judge someone on
one quote they said eight years ago ... maybe not ... but hopefully
the hearings will flesh this out better ...
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Waddle wrote:
> You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't agree with what sotomayor
> was saying in particular. I have virtually no opinion on her nomination to
> the court because I know so very little about her. I'll try to delineate
> my point more clearly so that we can quibble over what I was actually trying
> to express, essentially that true objectivity is impossible.
>
> My point was exatly the one that dave made earlier: to pretend that we don't
> view the world through a lens colored by our experience is incorrect. In
> essence, no one is/can be completely objective. There is a subjective
> element in every decision, which is why there is almost always a split in
> the decisions handed down the by the court. That's why we have
> "conservative" and "liberal" judges. Facts are facts, but it seems quite
> evident that judges interpret facts in different ways. There is one
> objective truth, maybe, but no individual can see that truth through
> anything but their own experience. She made a point in a speech that has
> also been quoted by the press in which she basically said that she accepts
> that her life experiences color her judgements. I took this to mean that
> she is cognizant of the fact that in being a judge, whether or not one
> intends this to be the case, one's past experiences affect the way they see
> and interpret facts. This is something that has been shown time and time
> again by psychological studies and to act as if it's not the case doens't
> make any sense to me.
>
> I make the following as an assumption in my argument:
> - life experience colors the way in which one views the world and reacts to
> different facts/statements
>
> Taking this as given and noting that in 2005, 15% of the US population was
> hispanic, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it makes sense to have
> something other than old white guys on the bench, specifically a latino. My
> previous email was meant to suggest that having someone on the court who
> understands that struggles and cultural background of the fastest growing
> minority in the country is reasonable.
>
> I understand and respect your point about judges needing to be able to
> remove themselves from their cultural underpinning and render reasoned
> opinions. And, I think it's dumb for Sotomayor to hold that a Latina
> decision would be "wiser" than a white opinion. It's a ridiculous
> statement. However, I take strong issue with the idea that the justices
> aren't colored by their experiences and the idea that her being aware that
> this is the case would somehow makes her unqualified or a bad candidate. To
> my knowledge (which to be perfectly honest is not deep in this subject) she
> has never stated that she will be a champion of hispanic causes or of the
> poor. Recognizing that your experience may play into the way in which you
> respond to facts I think actually would make for a better, more self-aware,
> and resultingly more unbiased judge. I do think it's important to have the
> bench reflect the disparate experiences in the population. That's not to say
> that I expect judges to be champions of certain groups over others.
> Certainly not. But, to have a member of the court who understands more
> intimately the expereinces of a group other than the ruling majority may be
> important for impartiality and fairness.
>
> I'd also like to point out that the fact that you would reject Sotomayor
> based on her world views, as opposed to her past rulings, is an expression
> of why, perhaps, the supreme court should reflect the populace at large.
> Many people hold similar world views to her. Just because you, a white
> male, don't agree with her does not mean that there are not people in the
> country (who are subject to the same laws and court system that you are) who
> do hold similar views. Again, this argument is based on the premise that
> everyone is colored by their life experience. If you'd like to take issue
> with that assumption then perhaps that's where the discussion should
> continue.
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:50 AM, chris <>
> wrote:
>>
>> @ Andrea
>>
>> This is what I take issue with, this statement:
>>
>> “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 know what that means, but I certainly don't agree with it ...
>> and if, in fact, that statement represents her world view, then IMO
>> she should not be on the Supreme Court ...
>>
>> a judge needs to be someone who can analyze a situation, look at all
>> the facts in the most neutral, objective way possible, IMO ... why
>> would being a Latina make you wiser than a white male?
>>
>> also, I don't think it's the Supreme Court's place to "give a voice"
>> or be representative of any particular group in the US ... rather,
>> justices are supposed to be removed from a representative role played
>> by politicians and exist to render impartial and independent judgment
>> about issues ... that's my opinion, anyways ... a judge who feels he
>> or she needs to represent a certain group of people on the bench would
>> be playing politician, and I don't think that's right ...
>>
>> the idea that a judge on the Supreme Court is the *voice* of a certain
>> group of people is scary ... how can anyone be sure that judge is
>> ruling in the most unbiased, neutral way possible when issues come up
>> involving the group of people for which that judge serves as the
>> *voice*? where's the impartiality?
>>
>> to be clear, I'm not saying that no Latina should ever serve on the
>> Supreme Court ... but Sotomayor seems to hold worldviews that I don't
>> agree with ... again, I'll wait for the Senate hearings to really make
>> a decision ...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Waddle
>> wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > I'm just in the middle of catching up on this Sotomayor conversation and
>> > saw
>> > something I wanted to respond to, so please excuse me if this point has
>> > already been made.
>> >
>> > chris said:
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, chris <>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> that's what gets me about Sotomayor ... I don't understand why all
>> >> Latinas *should* be liberal based on their life experiences, or why a
>> >> Latina would come to a somehow *better* judgment than a white male
>> >> because of the *richness* of her experience ... what does that even
>> >> mean?? ... how is a Latina's life experience somehow more fulfilling
>> >> than mine ...
>> >>
>> >> coming to a decision, as a judge, based on life experience and bias
>> >> rather than reasoning and logic and carefull analysis of fact seems to
>> >> me to be just wrong ...
>> >>
>> >> .........
>> >> I don't believe that somehow minorities or poor folk are wiser than me
>> >> because of their life experiences ... I don't buy that whole mind set
>> >> (though I think it's a popular one among liberals) ... and to believe
>> >> it's proper to use that philosophy in rendering decisions from the
>> >> highest court in the land ... that's downright scary ...
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think the point is that minorities or poor folk are wiser than
>> > rich
>> > white men. As a woman with Latino heritage who works with and for
>> > mainly
>> > old white men, I can, however, say that my life experiences and world
>> > view
>> > are frequently different from the people who run the establishment. I
>> > agree
>> > with dave, who basically said (I think) that all of us judge the "truth"
>> > through our own lense, so to think those who already sit on the court
>> > aren't
>> > doing this is lunacy. the point is that we (women, latinos, minorities,
>> > people from meager upbringings) exist and therefore should be
>> > represented on
>> > the court if the court is meant to give a living interpretation of the
>> > constitution. Latinos are the fastest growing minority in the country
>> > and
>> > given that people necessarily view a world colored by their experiences,
>> > it's time that a Latino sat on the court in order to give a voice to
>> > this
>> > large part of the american populace.
>> >
>> > I don't think that I've detected the idea that minorities or poor people
>> > are
>> > wiser in much liberal thought. But, they do deserve equal
>> > representation
>> > and consideration. It's guaranteed to them under the constitution. And
>> > they rarely get that representation. And I would say that is downright
>> > scary.
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>> > preferences
>> > Start a new conversation (thread)
>>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
then maybe it's a different story ... is it fair to judge someone on
one quote they said eight years ago ... maybe not ... but hopefully
the hearings will flesh this out better ..."
The more I think about that quote, the less I like it. Really, if you think about Roberts stating that he would reach a wiser decision than a woman of color because of his experience as a white male....he would have his balls stuffed in his mouth by enraged liberals....so, I agree with Chris, let's find out a bit more, b/c maybe it is out of context or overblown, but it is not inappropriate to ask her what she meant by that.
From: chris <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:19:14 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it makes sense to have
something other than old white guys on the bench, specifically a
latino.
just to clarify, there are not only 'old white guys' on the supreme
court ... there's also old white women and even an old black man ... I
have no problem with any person of any color or creed serving on the
SC, as long as they're qualified ...
again, I mostly take issue with her quote from 2001, and I hope she
clarifies it at the hearings:
if her quote about rendering *better* judgments than white males
because she is a Latina is representative of her world view, then I
don't think she's right for SCOTUS ...
I would say the same thing if Justice Souter, or Scalia, Roberts or
Alito made the same kind of inane statement that being white makes
them smarter than minorities ... ironically, if one of them had made a
similar statement, they'd be run out of the
country as dirty racists
... (and probably for good reason) ...
I have no argument with your very succinct explanation of our past
coloring our worldview ... I agree with you, in fact .. my world view
is what it is because of how I was raised, where I grew up, my
schools, the sum total of all my experiences, I have no doubt about
that ...
but, because I'm white, does that somehow make me less wise than
someone who grew up Latina ...?
I'd also like to point out that the fact that you would reject
Sotomayor based on her world views, as opposed to her past rulings:
that's a great point, and the one case I've read about ... based on
New Haven, Connecticut firefighters not receiving promotions despite
passing a written exam because the test was allegedly unfair to the
black candidates, doesn't give me much comfort ... in that case, she
ruled I think twice (without looking this stuff up) to deny
appeals
from the plaintiff who was denied the promotion ...) this goes into
the whole affirmative action argument, a whole new can of beans ...
and again, someone who believes they are smarter than someone else
because of race is not someone I want on the Supreme Court ... so if
that quote is indicative of her worldview ... then I'm not a fan ...
if that quote is taken out of context or overblown or whatever ...
then maybe it's a different story ... is it fair to judge someone on
one quote they said eight years ago ... maybe not ... but hopefully
the hearings will flesh this out better ...
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Waddle <econo-chick> wrote:
> You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't agree with what sotomayor
> was saying in particular. I have virtually no
opinion on her nomination to
> the court because I know so very little about her. I'll try to delineate
> my point more clearly so that we can quibble over what I was actually trying
> to express, essentially that true objectivity is impossible.
>
> My point was exatly the one that dave made earlier: to pretend that we don't
> view the world through a lens colored by our experience is incorrect. In
> essence, no one is/can be completely objective. There is a subjective
> element in every decision, which is why there is almost always a split in
> the decisions handed down the by the court. That's why we have
> "conservative" and "liberal" judges. Facts are facts, but it seems quite
> evident that judges interpret facts in different ways. There is one
> objective truth, maybe, but no individual can see that truth through
> anything but
their own experience. She made a point in a speech that has
> also been quoted by the press in which she basically said that she accepts
> that her life experiences color her judgements. I took this to mean that
> she is cognizant of the fact that in being a judge, whether or not one
> intends this to be the case, one's past experiences affect the way they see
> and interpret facts. This is something that has been shown time and time
> again by psychological studies and to act as if it's not the case doens't
> make any sense to me.
>
> I make the following as an assumption in my argument:
> - life experience colors the way in which one views the world and reacts to
> different facts/statements
>
> Taking this as given and noting that in 2005, 15% of the US population was
> hispanic, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it makes
sense to have
> something other than old white guys on the bench, specifically a latino. My
> previous email was meant to suggest that having someone on the court who
> understands that struggles and cultural background of the fastest growing
> minority in the country is reasonable.
>
> I understand and respect your point about judges needing to be able to
> remove themselves from their cultural underpinning and render reasoned
> opinions. And, I think it's dumb for Sotomayor to hold that a Latina
> decision would be "wiser" than a white opinion. It's a ridiculous
> statement. However, I take strong issue with the idea that the justices
> aren't colored by their experiences and the idea that her being aware that
> this is the case would somehow makes her unqualified or a bad candidate. To
> my knowledge (which to be perfectly honest
is not deep in this subject) she
> has never stated that she will be a champion of hispanic causes or of the
> poor. Recognizing that your experience may play into the way in which you
> respond to facts I think actually would make for a better, more self-aware,
> and resultingly more unbiased judge. I do think it's important to have the
> bench reflect the disparate experiences in the population. That's not to say
> that I expect judges to be champions of certain groups over others.
> Certainly not. But, to have a member of the court who understands more
> intimately the expereinces of a group other than the ruling majority may be
> important for impartiality and fairness.
>
> I'd also like to point out that the fact that you would reject Sotomayor
> based on her world views, as opposed to her past rulings, is an expression
> of why, perhaps, the supreme court
should reflect the populace at large.
> Many people hold similar world views to her. Just because you, a white
> male, don't agree with her does not mean that there are not people in the
> country (who are subject to the same laws and court system that you are) who
> do hold similar views. Again, this argument is based on the premise that
> everyone is colored by their life experience. If you'd like to take issue
> with that assumption then perhaps that's where the discussion should
> continue.
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:50 AM, chris <>
> wrote:
>>
>> @ Andrea
>>
>> This is what I take issue with, this statement:
>>
>> “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 know what that means, but I certainly don't agree with it ...
>> and if, in fact, that statement represents her world view, then IMO
>> she should not be on the Supreme Court ...
>>
>> a judge needs to be someone who can analyze a situation, look at all
>> the facts in the most neutral, objective way possible, IMO ... why
>> would being a Latina make you wiser than a white male?
>>
>> also, I don't think it's the Supreme Court's place to "give a voice"
>> or be representative of any particular group in the US ... rather,
>> justices are supposed to be removed from a representative role played
>> by politicians and exist to render impartial and independent judgment
>> about issues ... that's
my opinion, anyways ... a judge who feels he
>> or she needs to represent a certain group of people on the bench would
>> be playing politician, and I don't think that's right ...
>>
>> the idea that a judge on the Supreme Court is the *voice* of a certain
>> group of people is scary ... how can anyone be sure that judge is
>> ruling in the most unbiased, neutral way possible when issues come up
>> involving the group of people for which that judge serves as the
>> *voice*? where's the impartiality?
>>
>> to be clear, I'm not saying that no Latina should ever serve on the
>> Supreme Court ... but Sotomayor seems to hold worldviews that I don't
>> agree with ... again, I'll wait for the Senate hearings to really make
>> a decision ...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Waddle <
>> wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > I'm just in the middle of catching up on this Sotomayor conversation and
>> > saw
>> > something I wanted to respond to, so please excuse me if this point has
>> > already been made.
>> >
>> > chris said:
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, chris <>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> that's what gets me about Sotomayor ... I don't understand why all
>> >> Latinas *should* be liberal based on their life experiences, or why a
>> >> Latina would come to a somehow *better* judgment than a white
male
>> >> because of the *richness* of her experience ... what does that even
>> >> mean?? ... how is a Latina's life experience somehow more fulfilling
>> >> than mine ...
>> >>
>> >> coming to a decision, as a judge, based on life experience and bias
>> >> rather than reasoning and logic and carefull analysis of fact seems to
>> >> me to be just wrong ...
>> >>
>> >> .........
>> >> I don't believe that somehow minorities or poor folk are wiser than me
>> >> because of their life experiences ... I don't buy that whole mind set
>> >> (though I think it's a popular one among liberals) ... and to believe
>> >> it's proper to use that philosophy in rendering decisions from the
>> >> highest court in the land ... that's downright scary
...
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think the point is that minorities or poor folk are wiser than
>> > rich
>> > white men. As a woman with Latino heritage who works with and for
>> > mainly
>> > old white men, I can, however, say that my life experiences and world
>> > view
>> > are frequently different from the people who run the establishment. I
>> > agree
>> > with dave, who basically said (I think) that all of us judge the "truth"
>> > through our own lense, so to think those who already sit on the court
>> > aren't
>> > doing this is lunacy. the point is that we (women, latinos, minorities,
>> > people from meager upbringings) exist and therefore should be
>> > represented on
>> > the court if the court is
meant to give a living interpretation of the
>> > constitution. Latinos are the fastest growing minority in the country
>> > and
>> > given that people necessarily view a world colored by their experiences,
>> > it's time that a Latino sat on the court in order to give a voice to
>> > this
>> > large part of the american populace.
>> >
>> > I don't think that I've detected the idea that minorities or poor people
>> > are
>> > wiser in much liberal thought. But, they do deserve equal
>> > representation
>> > and consideration. It's guaranteed to them under the constitution. And
>> > they rarely get that representation. And I would say that is downright
>> > scary.
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > Powered
by http://DiscussThis.com
>> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>> > preferences
>> > Start a new conversation (thread)
>>
>> --
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>> preferences:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences
> Start a new conversation (thread)
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
(er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision making
process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
1) A young, gay, black male
2) An older white male
3) A middle-aged Latina
Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
clips.
The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
That to me is the biggest reason why we need diversity in our government. I watched Spike Lee's WWII movie, Miracle at St. Anna, last night (it was a little better than I thought it would be based on the reviews I read). Anyway, they show how a lot of the black soldiers didn't trust their white superior officers. If we want to strengthen our country, than I think we need to get the highest number of people involved in the political process, regardless of opinion. Non-white male groups will buy into politics a bit more if they have a basic level of trust for
the people who hold office. If people inherently trust people who look like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata, then we want a woman on the court, we want a Latino/a, we want a black, so those groups in our society will have some basic trust in the decisions of the court.
TO head off any counters, let me say that I am not talking about blind faith or anything like that, most of us here (I think) believe in the legitimacy of the SCOTUS to make decisions that we will abide by....we need minorities to buy in at that level, and perhaps seeing someone who looks like them on the bench will help that happen.
From: TragicHipster <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42:27 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
(er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision making
process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
1) A young, gay, black male
2) An older white male
3) A middle-aged Latina
Now, you may be thinking, the
Supreme court is more important than
corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
clips.
The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
href="">
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
1) A young, gay, black male
2) An older white male
3) A middle-aged Latina
I would hope the employer in this situation would look at individual
merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice for
the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
his or her selection process ...
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <> wrote:
> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision making
> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>
> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>
> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>
> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>
> 1) A young, gay, black male
> 2) An older white male
> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>
> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
> corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
> clips.
>
> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
What it all comes down to is this, the SCOTUS should never be all Scalias
or all Ginsbergs. There should intentionally be a balance of views in order
to avoid groupthink.
The point I was originally trying to make about the 2nd amendment stuff was
that even if you disagree it's not as relevant, the principle of arming a
population as a bulwark against tyranny is still true. Ok, so apparently
there were MANY objections to that statement, tell you what, toss it out.
Does ANYONE disagree that freedom of speech as a principle is less relevant
today then in the 1700s ? I really, really hope the answer for everyone is
no, it is not less relevant, it is still 100% true. Can I have that one ?
Seems like a gimme !
However, women not voting and black people not being citizens were really
not great exclusions as originally laid out. But how does that change ?
Personally I'm convinced you need the Ginsbergs to balance out the Scalias,
because conservative interpretations (textualism, strict constructivism,
whatever) are not always the best view and don't lend to realizing there
are outmoded concepts.
There can be no justice when laws are absolute. So the REAL question would
be this, is Sotomayor the correct person to replace the balance of thought
that will be lost when Ginsberg leaves ?
Kieran
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:58:27 -0400, chris <>
wrote:
> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>
> 1) A young, gay, black male
> 2) An older white male
> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>
>
> I would hope the employer in this situation would look at individual
> merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
> gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
> knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice for
> the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
> would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
> mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
> his or her selection process ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <> wrote:
>> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
>> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision making
>> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>
>> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
>> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>
>> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
>> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>
>> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
>> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>
>> 1) A young, gay, black male
>> 2) An older white male
>> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>
>> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
>> corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
>> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>> clips.
>>
>> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
>> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
>> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
or all Ginsbergs. There should intentionally be a balance of views in order
to avoid groupthink"
I completely agree.
"The point I was originally trying to make about the 2nd amendment stuff was
that even if you disagree it's not as relevant, the principle of arming a
population as a bulwark against tyranny is still true."
Well, yeah, I think both Shawn and I said, we agree with it in theory, but we are just not convinced that it would necessarily play out that way, or play out to the benefit of society as a whole.
"Does ANYONE disagree that freedom of speech as a principle is less
relevant
today then in the 1700s ? I really, really hope the answer for everyone is
no, it is not less relevant, it is still 100% true. Can I have that one ?
Seems like a gimme !"
Ab-so-fuckin-lutely!
From: Kieran <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:43:11 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
What it all comes down to is this, the SCOTUS should never be all Scalias
or all Ginsbergs. There should intentionally be a balance of views in order
to avoid groupthink.
The point I was originally trying to make about the 2nd amendment stuff was
that even if you disagree it's not as relevant, the principle of arming a
population as a bulwark against tyranny is still true. Ok, so apparently
there were MANY objections to that statement, tell you what, toss it out.
Does ANYONE disagree that freedom of speech as a principle is less relevant
today then in the 1700s ? I really, really hope the answer for everyone is
no, it is not less relevant, it is still 100% true. Can I have that one ?
Seems like a gimme !
However, women not voting and black people not being citizens were really
not great exclusions as originally laid out. But how does that change ?
Personally I'm convinced you need the Ginsbergs to balance
out the Scalias,
because conservative interpretations (textualism, strict constructivism,
whatever) are not always the best view and don't lend to realizing there
are outmoded concepts.
There can be no justice when laws are absolute. So the REAL question would
be this, is Sotomayor the correct person to replace the balance of thought
that will be lost when Ginsberg leaves ?
Kieran
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:58:27 -0400, chris <>
wrote:
> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>
> 1) A young, gay, black male
> 2) An older white male
> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>
>
> I would hope the
employer in this situation would look at individual
> merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
> gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
> knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice for
> the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
> would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
> mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
> his or her selection process ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <> wrote:
>> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
>> (er, the Senate)
choose a candidate, does that sort of decision making
>> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>
>> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
>> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>
>> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
>> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>
>> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
>> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>
>> 1) A young, gay, black male
>> 2) An older white male
>> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>
>> Now, you may be thinking, the
Supreme court is more important than
>> corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
>> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>> clips.
>>
>> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
>> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
>> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>
>> --
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe
or change your subscription
> preferences:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences:
>
> href="mailto:">
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Interesting sidenote about Scalia and Ginsberg: apparently they are quite good friends off the bench.
A friend of a friend was clerking for ginsberg for several years. She told me that they actually are really chummy when they aren't all judge-y. They even take vacations together. Apparently Ginsberg has a picture in her office prominently displayed of the two fo them grinning ear to ear on the top of an elephant while on vaca in India together.
Funny how that works out, y'know?
bk
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
--- On Fri, 5/29/09, chris <> wrote:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Sorry, Souter was who I meant, got mixed up. Apples to apples ? Obama is a
pretty smart guy, with a phalanx of legal experts behind him, so I'm sure
they've done their research. As surely as Bush is going to appoint a
conservative like Roberts, Obama will appoint someone from the other side
of the spectrum.
My take is that the best balance is four liberals and five conservatives.
As a nation we should be very careful when deciding Constitutional issues,
and conservatives are going to error on the side of caution. And as I said
before, that caution will make sure the principles that stand the test of
time (freedom of speech and religion) are never curtailed in the name of an
agenda.
But obviously there are times when as a society we go through changes, and
the Court has to make a call that reflects the present. The liberals are
there for those pushes and usually when it makes enough sense it will bring
over some of the more moderate conservatives.
Honestly to really know if she's the right person or not you'd need to do a
detailed review of her career, and personally I'm just not that interested.
As long as the balance of power remains I don't think it makes a monster
difference who sits in the chair. Most of the arguing is penny ante
political posturing that completely obfuscates what the truth of the matter
is anyway.
Kieran
On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:49:54 -0400, chris <>
wrote:
> @Kieran -
>
> FYI - I think Sotomayor is technically replacing Justice Souter ...
>
>
>
> apples to apples?
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM, BK_LOVE <>
> wrote:
>> Interesting sidenote about Scalia and Ginsberg: apparently they are
> quite
>> good friends off the bench.
>>
>> A friend of a friend was clerking for ginsberg for several years. She
> told
>> me that they actually are really chummy when they aren't all judge-y.
> They
>> even take vacations together. Apparently Ginsberg has a picture in her
>> office prominently displayed of the two fo them grinning ear to ear on
> the
>> top of an elephant while on vaca in India together.
>>
>> Funny how that works out, y'know?
>>
>> bk
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kieran <> wrote:
>>>
>>> What it all comes down to is this, the SCOTUS should never be all
> Scalias
>>> or all Ginsbergs. There should intentionally be a balance of views in
>>> order
>>> to avoid groupthink.
>>>
>>> The point I was originally trying to make about the 2nd amendment stuff
>>> was
>>> that even if you disagree it's not as relevant, the principle of arming
> a
>>> population as a bulwark against tyranny is still true. Ok, so
> apparently
>>> there were MANY objections to that statement, tell you what, toss it
> out.
>>> Does ANYONE disagree that freedom of speech as a principle is less
>>> relevant
>>> today then in the 1700s ? I really, really hope the answer for everyone
> is
>>> no, it is not less relevant, it is still 100% true. Can I have that one
> ?
>>> Seems like a gimme !
>>>
>>> However, women not voting and black people not being citizens were
> really
>>> not great exclusions as originally laid out. But how does that change ?
>>> Personally I'm convinced you need the Ginsbergs to balance out the
>>> Scalias,
>>> because conservative interpretations (textualism, strict
> constructivism,
>>> whatever) are not always the best view and don't lend to realizing
> there
>>> are outmoded concepts.
>>>
>>> There can be no justice when laws are absolute. So the REAL question
> would
>>> be this, is Sotomayor the correct person to replace the balance of
> thought
>>> that will be lost when Ginsberg leaves ?
>>>
>>> Kieran
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:58:27 -0400, chris
> <>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the
> CEO
>>> > of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>>> > represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>> >
>>> > 1) A young, gay, black male
>>> > 2) An older white male
>>> > 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I would hope the employer in this situation would look at individual
>>> > merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
>>> > gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
>>> > knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice
> for
>>> > the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
>>> > would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
>>> > mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
>>> > his or her selection process ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>>> >> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when
> we
>>> >> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision
> making
>>> >> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>>> >> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>> >>
>>> >> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by
> a
>>> >> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>> >>
>>> >> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who
> look
>>> >> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>> >>
>>> >> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the
> CEO
>>> >> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>>> >> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) A young, gay, black male
>>> >> 2) An older white male
>>> >> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>> >>
>>> >> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
>>> >> corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>>> >> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in
> Washington
>>> >> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>>> >> clips.
>>> >>
>>> >> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and
> say
>>> >> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>>> >> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>>> >> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>>> >> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a
> Denny's,
>>> >> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>> >> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription
>>> > preferences:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription
>>> > preferences:
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>>> preferences:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>> preferences
>> Start a new conversation (thread)
>
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
here's an article from the WSJ on what appears to be Sotomayor's most
controversial ruling (or at least the one the media is highlighting):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html
A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny
By SUZANNE SATALINE, JESS BRAVIN and NATHAN KOPPEL
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and
two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed
they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.
The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right
to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters
scored high enough.
The ruling is now turning into perhaps the most contentious of the
4,000 Judge Sotomayor made in 17 years on the federal bench, and it is
likely to come up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The
justices whom she may soon join on the high court are expected to rule
within weeks on the case, which they took on an appeal by white
firefighters.
Firefighters here said Thursday that court decisions so far have left
bitterness in the department. Several men seeking a lieutenant's job
gave up second jobs to devote themselves to studying, said their
lieutenant.
"They know if they read the books and studied, it means more money in
their pockets for the rest of their lives," said Lieutenant James
Blakeslee, a 14-year veteran. "To Sotomayor, it didn't cost her a
dime. It cost these guys a lifetime."
Company members said promotions could translate into annual salary
boosts of several thousand dollars, as well as significantly more
pension money.
A total of 118 applicants took the two tests for promotion to
lieutenant or captain in late 2003, and 59 earned passing scores.
Because there were limited vacancies, only the top scorers were
eligible for promotion -- a group of 17 whites, and two Hispanics.
None of the 27 black firefighters with passing scores was eligible.
New Haven city lawyers advised the city's Civil Service Board to
reject the results, warning the city could be exposed to a
race-discrimination lawsuit by minority firefighters if it let the
exam stand. The board heard conflicting views on whether the test
could have been re-engineered to have a less disparate impact. It
split 2-2, which meant the exam wasn't certified.
Firefighters whose scores gave them a good chance at being promoted
filed suit, alleging their rights had been violated under the 1964
Civil Rights Act and the Constitution's equal protection clause. The
lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, said he prepared
exhaustively for the test and paid someone to record study materials
so he could learn by listening.
At hearings in July 2006, the firefighters' lawyer, Karen Lee Torre,
argued the city tossed the exams because elected officials were
worried about losing support among black voters.
The city's attorney, Richard Roberts, denied the allegation. He said
the city's only motive was avoiding a discrimination suit from
minority firefighters. He noted during the trial that the independent
Civil Service Board had made the decision.
U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, a Clinton appointee, ruled
for the city. She concluded the city's effort to avoid discriminating
against minority firefighters was "race neutral," because "all the
test results were discarded, no one was promoted, and firefighters of
every race will have to participate in another selection process."
The firefighters appealed her ruling and the case landed with a
three-judge panel at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007.
In oral arguments, Judge Sotomayor dominated the questioning in her
trademark aggressive style and tried to poke holes in the logic of
both sides. At one point, in sharp questioning of Ms. Torre, the judge
suggested it would make sense for the city to say, "Let's look at it
and see if there's a better way of doing this."
"We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired," Judge
Sotomayor told Ms. Torre at the argument's end. But "if your test is
going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so
they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test
that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive
way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look
and see if it can develop that?"
Ultimately Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues, Robert Sack and
Rosemary Pooler, upheld the district judge's decision with brief
comments. They called the earlier ruling "thorough, thoughtful and
well-reasoned." The full Second Circuit declined to rehear the case,
prompting criticism from one of the circuit's judges, Jose Cabranes,
who suggested the firefighters had been given short shrift.
Judge Cabranes said at the time that the panel had "failed to grapple
with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal."
On Thursday, he said, "It is in the nature of appellate judging that
one disagrees from time to time with a colleague." He added that he
was proud of Judge Sotomayor.
At Supreme Court oral arguments in April, Justice Antonin Scalia
scoffed at the claim that rejecting the results was racially neutral.
"It's neutral because you throw it out for the losers as well as for
the winners?" he asked. "That's neutrality?"
Chief Justice John Roberts, who views with distaste nearly all
racially conscious government actions, suggested that the city junked
the results because people of the wrong race came out on top. Does the
city "get do-overs until it comes out right?" he asked. The court's
four solid conservatives appeared likely to get a fifth vote in
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has found race-conscious programs
acceptable only if they don't target specific individuals.
The justice who seemed most sympathetic to New Haven's position was
the man Justice Sotomayor would replace. New Haven was placed in a
"damned if you do, damned if you don't situation," said Justice David
Souter.
Back in New Haven, the promotions are on hold, and firefighters still
debate whether the test was fair. One white firefighter who took the
test said it was "as well-run as you possibly could have" and asked
realistic questions about emergency situations.
Should the Supreme Court reverse the Second Circuit, the complaining
firefighters would have a chance to prove their claim at trial.
—Evan Perez contributed to this article.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Kieran <> wrote:
> Sorry, Souter was who I meant, got mixed up. Apples to apples ? Obama is a
> pretty smart guy, with a phalanx of legal experts behind him, so I'm sure
> they've done their research. As surely as Bush is going to appoint a
> conservative like Roberts, Obama will appoint someone from the other side
> of the spectrum.
>
> My take is that the best balance is four liberals and five conservatives.
> As a nation we should be very careful when deciding Constitutional issues,
> and conservatives are going to error on the side of caution. And as I said
> before, that caution will make sure the principles that stand the test of
> time (freedom of speech and religion) are never curtailed in the name of an
> agenda.
>
> But obviously there are times when as a society we go through changes, and
> the Court has to make a call that reflects the present. The liberals are
> there for those pushes and usually when it makes enough sense it will bring
> over some of the more moderate conservatives.
>
> Honestly to really know if she's the right person or not you'd need to do a
> detailed review of her career, and personally I'm just not that interested.
> As long as the balance of power remains I don't think it makes a monster
> difference who sits in the chair. Most of the arguing is penny ante
> political posturing that completely obfuscates what the truth of the matter
> is anyway.
>
> Kieran
>
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:49:54 -0400, chris <>
> wrote:
>> @Kieran -
>>
>> FYI - I think Sotomayor is technically replacing Justice Souter ...
>>
>>
>>
>> apples to apples?
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM, BK_LOVE <>
>> wrote:
>>> Interesting sidenote about Scalia and Ginsberg: apparently they are
>> quite
>>> good friends off the bench.
>>>
>>> A friend of a friend was clerking for ginsberg for several years. She
>> told
>>> me that they actually are really chummy when they aren't all judge-y.
>> They
>>> even take vacations together. Apparently Ginsberg has a picture in her
>>> office prominently displayed of the two fo them grinning ear to ear on
>> the
>>> top of an elephant while on vaca in India together.
>>>
>>> Funny how that works out, y'know?
>>>
>>> bk
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kieran <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What it all comes down to is this, the SCOTUS should never be all
>> Scalias
>>>> or all Ginsbergs. There should intentionally be a balance of views in
>>>> order
>>>> to avoid groupthink.
>>>>
>>>> The point I was originally trying to make about the 2nd amendment stuff
>>>> was
>>>> that even if you disagree it's not as relevant, the principle of arming
>> a
>>>> population as a bulwark against tyranny is still true. Ok, so
>> apparently
>>>> there were MANY objections to that statement, tell you what, toss it
>> out.
>>>> Does ANYONE disagree that freedom of speech as a principle is less
>>>> relevant
>>>> today then in the 1700s ? I really, really hope the answer for everyone
>> is
>>>> no, it is not less relevant, it is still 100% true. Can I have that one
>> ?
>>>> Seems like a gimme !
>>>>
>>>> However, women not voting and black people not being citizens were
>> really
>>>> not great exclusions as originally laid out. But how does that change ?
>>>> Personally I'm convinced you need the Ginsbergs to balance out the
>>>> Scalias,
>>>> because conservative interpretations (textualism, strict
>> constructivism,
>>>> whatever) are not always the best view and don't lend to realizing
>> there
>>>> are outmoded concepts.
>>>>
>>>> There can be no justice when laws are absolute. So the REAL question
>> would
>>>> be this, is Sotomayor the correct person to replace the balance of
>> thought
>>>> that will be lost when Ginsberg leaves ?
>>>>
>>>> Kieran
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:58:27 -0400, chris
>> <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the
>> CEO
>>>> > of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>>>> > represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1) A young, gay, black male
>>>> > 2) An older white male
>>>> > 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I would hope the employer in this situation would look at individual
>>>> > merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
>>>> > gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
>>>> > knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice
>> for
>>>> > the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
>>>> > would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
>>>> > mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
>>>> > his or her selection process ...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>>>> >> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when
>> we
>>>> >> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision
>> making
>>>> >> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>>>> >> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by
>> a
>>>> >> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who
>> look
>>>> >> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the
>> CEO
>>>> >> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>>>> >> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 1) A young, gay, black male
>>>> >> 2) An older white male
>>>> >> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
>>>> >> corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>>>> >> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in
>> Washington
>>>> >> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>>>> >> clips.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and
>> say
>>>> >> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>>>> >> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>>>> >> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>>>> >> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a
>> Denny's,
>>>> >> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>>> >> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
>> subscription
>>>> > preferences:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>>> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
>> subscription
>>>> > preferences:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>>>> preferences:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>>> preferences
>>> Start a new conversation (thread)
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
ceteris parabus - just spent 10 minutes looking that up, dick ... ;)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM, W. R. Thunderstud <> wrote:
> I think Ed's assumption in the question was ceteris parabus who would you
> pick. Otherwise the question is meaningless as you point out. Usually all
> hypothetical questions work with this assumption.
>
> Obviously, in real life, all things are not otherwise equal, but it is too
> difficult to have a meaningful discussion on certain issues like racial
> issues, without posing hypotheticals using strick controls.
>
> The answer in real life at least is that CEOs are hired at least partly
> because they are white - usually rich (from birth) - and over 50. The job
> of CEO among other things is to form and maintain business relationships
> with other businesses. This is made easier if you were in the same
> fraternity in college as someone. When Merrill was being bought up they had
> a offer from the U.S. (BOA) and a China bank. Did it matter that the CEO of
> Merrill and the CEO of BOA were on the same Duke alumni board together. I
> was at the bar during the decision and everone that knew that they went to
> Duke together knew that Merrill would go with BOA.
>
> Is this OK or is it racist. the answer is probably neither. It is done for
> a reason not relating to race but it has the result of bootstraping old
> white dudes into CEO positions, when their chief differentiating quality is
> having smoother access to other CEOs
>
> Greg
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
From: chris <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:04:47 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
ceteris parabus - just spent 10 minutes looking that up, dick ... ;)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM, W. R. Thunderstud <> wrote:
> I think Ed's assumption in the question was ceteris parabus who would you
> pick. Otherwise the question is meaningless as you point out. Usually all
> hypothetical questions work with this assumption.
>
> Obviously, in real life, all things are not otherwise equal, but it is too
> difficult to have a meaningful discussion on certain issues like racial
> issues, without posing hypotheticals using strick controls.
>
> The answer in real life at least is that CEOs are hired at least partly
> because they are white - usually rich (from birth) - and over 50. The job
> of CEO among other
things is to form and maintain business relationships
> with other businesses. This is made easier if you were in the same
> fraternity in college as someone. When Merrill was being bought up they had
> a offer from the U.S. (BOA) and a China bank. Did it matter that the CEO of
> Merrill and the CEO of BOA were on the same Duke alumni board together. I
> was at the bar during the decision and everone that knew that they went to
> Duke together knew that Merrill would go with BOA.
>
> Is this OK or is it racist. the answer is probably neither. It is done for
> a reason not relating to race but it has the result of bootstraping old
> white dudes into CEO positions, when their chief differentiating quality is
> having smoother access to other CEOs
>
> Greg
>
> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, chris
<> wrote:
>
> From: chris <>
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> To: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:58 PM
>
> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>
> 1) A young, gay, black male
> 2) An older white male
> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>
>
> I would hope the employer in this situation would look at
individual
> merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
> gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
> knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice for
> the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
> would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
> mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
> his or her selection process ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <> wrote:
>> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
>> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision
making
>> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>
>> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
>> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>
>> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
>> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>
>> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
>> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>
>> 1) A young, gay, black male
>> 2) An older white male
>> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>
>> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
>>
corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
>> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>> clips.
>>
>> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
>> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
>> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>
>> --
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>>
preferences:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences:
>
> href="mailto:">
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences
> Start a new conversation (thread)
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
href="mailto:">
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Dude, do you use firefox? highlight, right click, select search google for "....."
From: chris <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:04:47 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
ceteris parabus - just spent 10 minutes looking that up, dick ... ;)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM, W. R. Thunderstud <> wrote:
> I think Ed's assumption in the question was ceteris parabus who would you
> pick. Otherwise the question is meaningless as you point out. Usually all
> hypothetical questions work with this assumption.
>
> Obviously, in real life, all things are not otherwise equal, but it is too
> difficult to have a meaningful discussion on certain issues like racial
> issues, without posing hypotheticals using strick controls.
>
> The answer in real life at least is that CEOs are hired at least partly
> because they are white - usually rich (from birth) - and over 50. The job
> of CEO among other
things is to form and maintain business relationships
> with other businesses. This is made easier if you were in the same
> fraternity in college as someone. When Merrill was being bought up they had
> a offer from the U.S. (BOA) and a China bank. Did it matter that the CEO of
> Merrill and the CEO of BOA were on the same Duke alumni board together. I
> was at the bar during the decision and everone that knew that they went to
> Duke together knew that Merrill would go with BOA.
>
> Is this OK or is it racist. the answer is probably neither. It is done for
> a reason not relating to race but it has the result of bootstraping old
> white dudes into CEO positions, when their chief differentiating quality is
> having smoother access to other CEOs
>
> Greg
>
> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, chris
<> wrote:
>
> From: chris <>
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> To: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:58 PM
>
> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>
> 1) A young, gay, black male
> 2) An older white male
> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>
>
> I would hope the employer in this situation would look at
individual
> merits, past work experience, talents and skills, etc ... the young,
> gay black male might be the smartest, most charming and have the most
> knowledge of the product being sold, and therefore the best choice for
> the job .... regardless of race, orientation, etc ... an employer
> would be making a big mistake to have already selected in his or her
> mind a candidate based on race, and allow that prejudgment to cloud
> his or her selection process ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM, TragicHipster <> wrote:
>> In what situation is it ok to take into account race/religion when
>> making hiring decisions and in what situation is it not ok? Or when we
>> (er, the Senate) choose a candidate, does that sort of decision
making
>> process operate in a realm outside what we consider to be
>> desirable/legal in civil society where exceptions are permissible?
>>
>> Assumption #1: high level corporate decisions and positions are, by a
>> pretty wide margin, held by white males over the age of 50.
>>
>> Assumption #2: people tend to trust and associate with people who look
>> like themselves and are a part of the same socio-economic strata
>>
>> Given the above, if you were to choose a salesman to deal with the CEO
>> of a Fortunate 500 company, which would be a better choice to
>> represent the interests of shareholders of a particular company:
>>
>> 1) A young, gay, black male
>> 2) An older white male
>> 3) A middle-aged Latina
>>
>> Now, you may be thinking, the Supreme court is more important than
>>
corporate life. Is it? A bankruptcy of GM will most likely have more
>> of an impact on my life than whether or not individuals in Washington
>> DC are permitted to own handguns with 18 round clips vs. 9 round
>> clips.
>>
>> The point to all this is, where in society do we draw the line and say
>> that its not ok to take into account race/age/religion in making
>> hiring decisions? And when we are depending upon a court to uphold
>> principles such as equal protection under the law in areas such as,
>> let's say, hiring practices regarding african-americans at a Denny's,
>> can we really have a fair examination of the facts?
>>
>> --
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
>>
preferences:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences:
>
> href="mailto:">
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
> preferences
> Start a new conversation (thread)
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
href="mailto:">
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> ceteris parabus - just spent 10 minutes looking that up, dick ... ;)
what is teh google?
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
No More Mr. Nice Guy
The Supreme Court’s stealth hard-liner
From: chris <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:05:02 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
that's what gets me about Sotomayor ... I don't understand why all
Latinas *should* be liberal based on their life experiences, or why a
Latina would come to a somehow *better* judgment than a white male
because of the *richness* of her experience ... what does that even
mean?? ... how is a Latina's life experience somehow more fulfilling
than mine ...
coming to a decision, as a judge, based on life experience and bias
rather than reasoning and logic and carefull analysis of fact seems to
me to be just wrong
...
Sotomayor's apparent worldview, and then a decision to reject a
hearing on reverse racism against a white male ... (a case involving
alleged reverse racism
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/pagenum/all/#p2) ... I don't know ...
it all sounds fishy to me ...
I don't believe that somehow minorities or poor folk are wiser than me
because of their life experiences ... I don't buy that whole mind set
(though I think it's a popular one among liberals) ... and to believe
it's proper to use that philosophy in rendering decisions from the
highest court in the land ... that's downright scary ...
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, oblio <> wrote:
>
> just a couple quick
things...
>
> Take for
>> example gay
>> marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have
>> rejected it. In
>> the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on
>> grounds of
>> the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort
>> of ruling
>> will just be one more issue that will direct conservative
>> anger
>> towards activist judges.
>
> ummmm...not sure i agree with you here. i see the point, of course. but what if 30 of 30 states said all jews should die. should they?? course not. same thing. tyranny of the majority? i know you've heard of it...
>
> second, i have a big issue with this whole latina woman identify thing. i mean, i dont have a problem with it per se, just that some people seem to be implying...sotomayor that is, that all latina women would someone have similar opinions due to being beaten
down by the white man (or anyone else.) this is crazy. latina women have opinions across the board. to say that the proper latina woman is liberal is insane. and that seems to be what she is implying.
>
>
> --- El jue 28-may-09, TragicHipster <> escribió:
>
>> De: TragicHipster <>
>> Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
>> Fecha: jueves, 28 mayo, 2009, 3:52 pm
>> > other side does it. In other
>> words, both conservatives and liberals do it,
>> > but they only complain when the
other side is doing.
>> (My definition of an
>> > "activist judge"? A judge that rules in a different
>> way than you would.)
>>
>> I'd say an activist judge is a judge that confuses the
>> difference
>> between the legislative branch and judicial branch of
>> government. For
>> example, a while back I walked by a campaign poster down
>> town where a
>> woman was running for judge in Philly. She declared herself
>> "the
>> education judge and advocate." I was blown away by this.
>> Here she was,
>> fully admitting that she had a bias in cases that
>> involved...
>> education (not even sure what that would mean). That's
>> ridiculous. If
>> she's that interested in advocating for education she
>> should be
>> running for a legistlative seat. A judge should sit
down
>> and consider
>> the facts of every case with an open mind.
>>
>> For most of the 20th century, whatever liberal agenda has
>> not been
>> achieved through the legistlative branch of governmtn has
>> been
>> achieved through the judiciary... Brown vs. Board of
>> Education and Roe
>> vs. Wade being the two biggest examples. Conservatives feel
>> they often
>> win the public debate on various subjects but get trumped
>> by a small
>> group of elitists make policy from the bench. Take for
>> example gay
>> marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have
>> rejected it. In
>> the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on
>> grounds of
>> the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort
>> of ruling
>> will just be one more issue
that will direct conservative
>> anger
>> towards activist judges.
>>
>> > are.) The example given was of abortion. Roe v.
>> Wade was decided on the
>> > 14th amendment, and the right to privacy, but an
>> originalist would disagree
>> > with this ruling because "An originalist on abortion
>> would say the at the
>> > time of the Constituion, or of the adoption of the
>> 14th Amendment, abortion
>> > was prohibited, and that's it," Akhil Reed Amar, a
>> professor at Yale Law
>> > School said. (from the new yorker)
>>
>> The right of abortion is based upon "a penumbra of a
>> penumbra" which
>> is a rather famous quote on the topic - a shadow of a
>> shadow of a
>> right. Some people have a problem with that idea.
>>
>>
> really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the
>> constitution to be
>> > able to anticipate future issues considering the
>> inevitable changes in
>> > things like social values and technology, for an
>> example.
>>
>> which is why there is an amendment process. this was indeed
>> taken into account.
>>
>> > This may be off the main point here, but I'm reminded
>> of something I read
>> > somewhere that one of the jobs of the supreme court
>> was to keep all the
>> > states on basically the same page. For example, if
>> 40 states outlawed the
>> > death penalty, and all 40 states maintained those laws
>> for enough time, say
>> > a generation, then the Supreme Court, which previously
>> allowed the death
>> > penalty, should step in
and bring the other 10 states
>> into line, because the
>> > 40 states outlawing the death penalty for a generation
>> show that societal
>> > values have changed, and the death penalty would then
>> be considered cruel
>> > and unusual punishment.
>>
>> I would imagine that water boarding in 1787 would have been
>> considered
>> cruel and unusual punishment. Mostly because the religious
>> orientation
>> of the nation would not allow it. Unlike today, where the
>> more likely
>> you are to go to church the more likely you would be to be
>> ok with
>> water boarding. The public view has (or is) changing its
>> ideas about
>> torture. I'm not so sure that treating the constitution as
>> a "living
>> document" is such a great idea in this case. Then again,
>>
expanding the
>> idea of "personhood" or "man" to mean women (when it comes
>> to being
>> ensured rights) would be.
>>
>> --
>> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
>> subscription preferences:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> ¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la
web!
> Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
> http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> "Is objectivity as impossible a goal for a judge as it is for a journalist?"
If you are a minority and/or liberal, then its perfectly ok to push an
agenda. If you are Catholic, let's say, then you damn well better be
ready to apologize for it. That's usually how it works.
> Out of curiosity, does anybody on this list consider themselves and
> "originalist" on constutional issues? To me, being an originalist on the
> constitution makes about as much sense as interpreting the Bible as the
> literal word of god.
Can you define the term? Part of the job of ruling on the law IS
ruling on its LITERAL meaning. When I write a contract, let's say a
mortgage, the 1st of the month has a specific meaning and my intention
to pay, let's say, "sometime by the end of the month" isn't really
going to work after the ink is dry. Part of the basis of a free, civil
society is that we a set of laws that we in a prudential and
predictable manner apply it equally.
Let me put it this way, if you had a contract with an employer would
you want someone to interpret it literally -- or subjectively based
upon their race and/or political agenda?
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made
> ak-47s can hold off
> the most powerful military force in the world.
i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here is...ummm...it isn't exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or lack of body armor that is ummm...winning the fight for them. the fact that arms are more common than water is obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the populace is armed is patently absurd. i mean you need guns to shoot at the bad guys (in this case us) but guns arent exactly the only necessary condition for opposition. it isnt the GUNS - it is the unlimited supply of people willing to die. the diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and ammo in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use it, it does you fuck all. goddamn alexander the great couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he was even based at Bagram incidentally.
and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or not. i mean, you really REALLY think the mid west would have risen in revolt with their guns had Bush gone for a 3rd term??? hell no, the only thing that will get them to revolt is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole idea is retarded. like D says, it will wear another guise, and it won't invovle taking away guns. isnt that pretty obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
i agree with the right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it is intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that doesn't mean it WILL, or even CAN for that matter - just that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause it says....it is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments that label themselves as tyrannical...
given
> the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
> or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up.
things might look a little different if this actually happens. maybe you wont "line up" but would you really "stand up?"
just like afghanistan, there
> is zero chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
> US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> armed.
well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily". it doesnt mean they couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell you - if it ever came down to our government killing millions of americans in a civil war, i am pretty damn sure the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY QUICKLY. if you think otherwise i think you're insane. there would be hardcore opposition of course, but that could be led and executed by well less than 1% of the population. as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't had generation after generation raised with war close to home. i never fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try fighting on your home soil for about 2000 years+ like afghans. that's a bit of a different story - it is their story as a people. at this point, to think that the average americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or domestic corruption or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no reference and we would NOT fight extremely hard or long
as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly believe we would (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as someone we know dies or the like. that just aint normal for us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another day.
like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people, it's people. you dont have people willing to kill, all the guns in the world dont make a difference.
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
From: oblio <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:06:54 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made
> ak-47s can hold off
> the most powerful military force in the world.
i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here is...ummm...it isn't exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or lack of body armor that is ummm...winning the fight for them. the fact that arms are more common than water is obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the populace is armed is patently absurd. i mean you need guns to shoot at
the bad guys (in this case us) but guns arent exactly the only necessary condition for opposition. it isnt the GUNS - it is the unlimited supply of people willing to die. the diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and ammo in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use it, it does you fuck all. goddamn alexander the great couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he was even based at Bagram incidentally.
and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or not. i mean, you really REALLY think the mid west would have risen in revolt with their guns had Bush gone for a 3rd term??? hell no, the only thing that will get them to revolt is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole idea is retarded. like D says, it will wear another guise, and it won't invovle taking away guns. isnt that pretty obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
i agree with the
right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it is intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that doesn't mean it WILL, or even CAN for that matter - just that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause it says....it is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments that label themselves as tyrannical...
given
> the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
> or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up.
things might look a little different if this actually happens. maybe you wont "line up" but would you really "stand up?"
just like afghanistan, there
> is zero chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
> US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> armed.
well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily". it doesnt mean they
couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell you - if it ever came down to our government killing millions of americans in a civil war, i am pretty damn sure the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY QUICKLY. if you think otherwise i think you're insane. there would be hardcore opposition of course, but that could be led and executed by well less than 1% of the population. as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't had generation after generation raised with war close to home. i never fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try fighting on your home soil for about 2000 years+ like afghans. that's a bit of a different story - it is their story as a people. at this point, to think that the average americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or domestic corruption or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no reference and we would NOT fight extremely hard or long
as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly believe
we would (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as someone we know dies or the like. that just aint normal for us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another day.
like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people, it's people. you dont have people willing to kill, all the guns in the world dont make a difference.
--- El jue 28-may-09, Kieran <> escribió:
> De: Kieran <>
> Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Fecha: jueves, 28 mayo, 2009, 7:20 pm
> > I find that a bit silly, simply
> from the point
of view that if
> > we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government,
> and that government
> > had the military on its side, then the citizens would
> be effed no matter
> > what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US
> military's
> weaponry
> > (assuming they were willing to use it against the
> citizens.)
> Personally,
> > I don't really think gun ownership today provides any
> deterrent to our
> > government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry
> about a tyrannical
> > government coup, based on our system of government,
> the divisions of the
> > branches, and the structure of our military. Seems
> to me, the framers
> did
> > a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent
> domestic tyranny.
>
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and
chinese made
> ak-47s can hold off
> the most powerful military force in the world. after almost
> 10 years, we
> still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan.
> we have billions
> of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets,
> satellites, on and
> on. we spend more on defense then every other country
> combined, but we
> can't win against guys living in caves.
>
> you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there
> had been another
> major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be
> staring down martial
> law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are
> gone, they
> rarely if ever come back.
>
> "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April
> 2003), various
> national security procedures were put in place which
> focused on the
> eventuality of a
"Second 911". These initiatives in the
> area of Homeland
> Security outlined the precise circumstances under which
> martial law could
> be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack
> on America. "
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
>
> i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our
> constitution can be tossed
> aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting
> weapons from people,
> it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a
> significant
> portion of the population that would never surrender. given
> the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
> or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there
> is zero chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
> US army could
>
easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> armed.
>
> that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a
> cliche, but both
> Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed
> private gun
> ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a
> population. it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance
> fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a
> isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more
> advanced today that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009
> ? it's not.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled
> if they have the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight
> is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Kieran
>
>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
Just so I'm clear, you are saying:
1. any tool of resistance is useless without the will to fight
2. the people of the united states don't have the will to resist
3. if there was some kind of civil war, the US govt would kill
millions of people and any resistance would be quashed in short order
What's your point, that David is right because there is zero chance that
firearms would ever stand in the way of a tyrannical govt ? And I'm
"crazy",
"asinine" and "retarded" for thinking otherwise ?
Well god forbid I reference some historical precedent and present some
hypothetical situations about why I think it really COULD be a practical
reality. Clearly I must be a f**king moron to believe that, your
hypothetical is much sounder, what the hell was I thinking, right ?
You say it's more or less "in the Afghan's blood" after thousands of
years of being the doormat for invading armies. I believe that the gun
culture and people's deep rooted belief in "the american way", however
unrealistic that may or may not be, is more then enough fuel to burn
just as bright and hard as it does for the Afghanis.
But again, that is obviously so crazy, I MUST be a madman for even
THINKING it.
Kieran
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT), oblio
<> wrote:
>
>> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made
>> ak-47s can hold off
>> the most powerful military force in the world.
>
> i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here is...ummm...it isn't
> exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or lack of body armor that is
> ummm...winning the fight for them. the fact that arms are more common
than
> water is obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are
> "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the populace is armed is
> patently absurd. i mean you need guns to shoot at the bad guys (in this
> case us) but guns arent exactly the only necessary condition for
> opposition. it isnt the GUNS - it is the unlimited supply of people
willing
> to die. the diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and
ammo
> in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use it, it does you
fuck
> all. goddamn alexander the great couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he
was
> even based at Bagram incidentally.
>
> and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or not. i mean,
> you really REALLY think the mid west would have risen in revolt with
their
> guns had Bush gone for a 3rd term??? hell no, the only thing that will
get
> them to revolt is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to
> start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole idea is
retarded.
> like D says, it will wear another guise, and it won't invovle taking away
> guns. isnt that pretty obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
>
> i agree with the right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it
is
> intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that doesn't mean it WILL,
> or even CAN for that matter - just that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause
it
> says....it is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical
government
> doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments that label
themselves
> as tyrannical...
>
> given
>> the choice
>> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
>> or fighting,
>> there is no way I'm lining up.
>
> things might look a little different if this actually happens. maybe you
> wont "line up" but would you really "stand up?"
>
> just like afghanistan, there
>> is zero chance,
>> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
>> US army could
>> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
>> armed.
>
> well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily". it doesnt mean they
> couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell you - if it ever came
> down to our government killing millions of americans in a civil war, i am
> pretty damn sure the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY
> QUICKLY. if you think otherwise i think you're insane. there would be
> hardcore opposition of course, but that could be led and executed by well
> less than 1% of the population. as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't
> had generation after generation raised with war close to home. i never
> fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try fighting on your home
> soil for about 2000 years+ like afghans. that's a bit of a different
story
> - it is their story as a people. at this point, to think that the average
> americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or domestic corruption
> or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no reference and we would NOT fight
> extremely hard or long
> as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly believe we
would
> (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as someone we know dies or the
> like. that just aint normal for us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another
> day.
>
> like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people, it's people. you
> dont have people willing to kill, all the guns in the world dont make a
> difference.
>
>
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
--- On Thu, 5/28/09, D-Bone <> wrote:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
From: oblio <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:06:54 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made
> ak-47s can hold off
> the most powerful military force in the world.
i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here is...ummm...it isn't exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or lack of body armor that is ummm...winning the fight for them. the fact that arms are more common than water is obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the populace is armed is patently absurd. i mean you need guns to shoot at
the bad guys (in this case us) but guns arent exactly the only necessary condition for opposition. it isnt the GUNS - it is the unlimited supply of people willing to die. the diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and ammo in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use it, it does you fuck all. goddamn alexander the great couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he was even based at Bagram incidentally.
and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or not. i mean, you really REALLY think the mid west would have risen in revolt with their guns had Bush gone for a 3rd term??? hell no, the only thing that will get them to revolt is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole idea is retarded. like D says, it will wear another guise, and it won't invovle taking away guns. isnt that pretty obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
i agree with the
right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it is intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that doesn't mean it WILL, or even CAN for that matter - just that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause it says....it is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments that label themselves as tyrannical...
given
> the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
> or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up.
things might look a little different if this actually happens. maybe you wont "line up" but would you really "stand up?"
just like afghanistan, there
> is zero chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
> US army could
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> armed.
well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily". it doesnt mean they
couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell you - if it ever came down to our government killing millions of americans in a civil war, i am pretty damn sure the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY QUICKLY. if you think otherwise i think you're insane. there would be hardcore opposition of course, but that could be led and executed by well less than 1% of the population. as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't had generation after generation raised with war close to home. i never fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try fighting on your home soil for about 2000 years+ like afghans. that's a bit of a different story - it is their story as a people. at this point, to think that the average americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or domestic corruption or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no reference and we would NOT fight extremely hard or long
as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly believe
we would (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as someone we know dies or the like. that just aint normal for us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another day.
like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people, it's people. you dont have people willing to kill, all the guns in the world dont make a difference.
--- El jue 28-may-09, Kieran <> escribió:
> De: Kieran <>
> Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Fecha: jueves, 28 mayo, 2009, 7:20 pm
> > I find that a bit silly, simply
> from the point
of view that if
> > we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government,
> and that government
> > had the military on its side, then the citizens would
> be effed no matter
> > what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US
> military's
> weaponry
> > (assuming they were willing to use it against the
> citizens.)
> Personally,
> > I don't really think gun ownership today provides any
> deterrent to our
> > government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry
> about a tyrannical
> > government coup, based on our system of government,
> the divisions of the
> > branches, and the structure of our military. Seems
> to me, the framers
> did
> > a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent
> domestic tyranny.
>
> a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and
chinese made
> ak-47s can hold off
> the most powerful military force in the world. after almost
> 10 years, we
> still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan.
> we have billions
> of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets,
> satellites, on and
> on. we spend more on defense then every other country
> combined, but we
> can't win against guys living in caves.
>
> you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there
> had been another
> major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be
> staring down martial
> law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are
> gone, they
> rarely if ever come back.
>
> "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April
> 2003), various
> national security procedures were put in place which
> focused on the
> eventuality of a
"Second 911". These initiatives in the
> area of Homeland
> Security outlined the precise circumstances under which
> martial law could
> be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack
> on America. "
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
>
> i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our
> constitution can be tossed
> aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting
> weapons from people,
> it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a
> significant
> portion of the population that would never surrender. given
> the choice
> between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt
> or fighting,
> there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there
> is zero chance,
> even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the
> US army could
>
easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> armed.
>
> that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a
> cliche, but both
> Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed
> private gun
> ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a
> population. it took a
> full German division a month to kill 400 resistance
> fighters armed with
> pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a
> isolated, walled off
> city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more
> advanced today that
> a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009
> ? it's not.
>
> the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled
> if they have the
> will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight
> is engraved as
> the second most important right after freedom of speech.
>
> Kieran
>
>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
agenda. If you are Catholic, let's say, then you damn well better be
ready to apologize for it. That's usually how it works."
Well, I'd say that that's the way it works if your a liberal, but if you're a conservative, it's exactly the opposite. What I'm saying is that I think this happens all the time, but in politics, it's only called foul when the other side does it. In other words, both conservatives and liberals do it, but they only complain when the other side is doing. (My definition of an "activist judge"? A judge that rules in a different way than you would.)
On the constitution and the idea of "originalists", the thing that got me thinking about it was the New Yorker
article on Chief Justice Roberts. (the article doesn't count Roberts as an originalist, but Thomas and Scalia are.) The example given was of abortion. Roe v. Wade was decided on the 14th amendment, and the right to privacy, but an originalist would disagree with this ruling because "An originalist on abortion would say the at the time of the Constituion, or of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, abortion was prohibited, and that's it," Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School said. (from the new yorker)
I see your point, but I'm not suggesting that the consitution should be interpreted subjectively based upon race and/or political agenda, I'm saying it should be interpreted to be relevant for the time in which we live. I think it is completely unrealistic that a 200 year old document could tell us everything we need to know to govern and run our
nation now. I also really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the constitution to be able to anticipate future issues considering the inevitable changes in things like social values and technology, for an example.
This may be off the main point here, but I'm reminded of something I read somewhere that one of the jobs of the supreme court was to keep all the states on basically the same page. For example, if 40 states outlawed the death penalty, and all 40 states maintained those laws for enough time, say a generation, then the Supreme Court, which previously allowed the death penalty, should step in and bring the other 10 states into line, because the 40 states outlawing the death penalty for a generation show that societal values have changed, and the death penalty would then be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
From: TragicHipster <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:05:40 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> "Is objectivity as impossible a goal for a judge as it is for a journalist?"
If you are a minority and/or liberal, then its perfectly ok to push an
agenda. If you are Catholic, let's say, then you damn well better be
ready to apologize for it. That's usually how it works.
> Out of curiosity, does anybody on this list consider themselves and
> "originalist" on constutional issues? To me, being an originalist on the
> constitution makes about as much sense as interpreting the Bible as the
> literal word of god.
Can you define the term? Part of the job of ruling on the law IS
ruling on its LITERAL meaning. When I write a contract, let's say a
mortgage, the 1st of the month has a specific meaning and my intention
to pay, let's say, "sometime by the end of the month" isn't really
going to work after the ink is dry. Part of the basis of a free, civil
society is that we a set of
laws that we in a prudential and
predictable manner apply it equally.
Let me put it this way, if you had a contract with an employer would
you want someone to interpret it literally -- or subjectively based
upon their race and/or political agenda?
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
hehe feels like a while since we been in such a throw down fight! and for chrissakes we prolly agree!
anyways...
this is getting confusing and im not sure what we're arguing at this point, but i will try to clarify...
"1. any tool of resistance is useless without the will to fight
well, naturally. but i wouldnt say completely useless.. but yes, in order for a tool to be useful, by definition, you gotta use it. so i wouldnt put it exactly like you did, but yes. (i would say without the will to USE it, not fight, but whatever, that's irrelevant.)
"2. the people of the united states don't have the will to resist
that's not what i said. the people of the US, i think, would simply be much more inclined to resist a foreign invader than its own government. of course, this is just specualtion. but yes, i think 99% of the population would not fight - esp if we consider it a Huxleyian situation and not an orwellian, ie implied force versus overt force.
"3. if there was some kind of civil war, the US govt would kill
millions of people and any resistance would be quashed in short order
yeah, pretty much. but in no way do i think it would be that simple. it would totally depend on the faction starting the war. i mean, it would obviously be very different if a neo nazi cult took up arms against the government than if the US senate decided to!
"What's your point, that David is right because there is zero chance that
firearms would ever stand in the way of a tyrannical govt ? And I'm
"crazy",
"asinine" and "retarded" for thinking otherwise ?
ummmm...no. not at all. not sure where you got that idea. i dont have what i wrote in front of me. but i think i said it was retarded to think that the US will end up in civil war over gun rights. i dont recall using the other 2 words myself. but to be clear, i do not think guyn ownership will prevent tyranny in and of itself. it certainly can't HURT though. unless, of course IT DOES. like, for example...Bush tried to take a third term and all the wacko's in the midwest took up arms to HELP him. i mean, dude, do not forget that it is theoritically possible for people to take up arms IN DEFENSE of their government. if i'm not mistaken that WAS the second half the need for the second ammendment...protect against tyrannical govermnet at home and maintain a milita for preventing sugjugation from abroad...
"Well god forbid I reference some historical precedent and present some
hypothetical situations about why I think it really COULD be a practical
reality. Clearly I must be a f**king moron to believe that, your
hypothetical is much sounder, what the hell was I thinking, right ?
man, please relax! im sorry if i offened....D also made a historical analogy that was dismissed in short order...did he not?
"You say it's more or less "in the Afghan's blood" after thousands of
years of being the doormat for invading armies. (LOL i'd seriously argue with "doormat"! but i digress...more like slow poison for invading armies!)I believe that the gun culture and people's deep rooted belief in "the american way", however unrealistic that may or may not be, is more then enough fuel to burn just as bright and hard as it does for the Afghanis.
k, of course there is no way to determine this. but i think we can agree to disagree. i simply do not think the average afghani and the average american would respond to invasion or tyranny the same way. i just dont. and history is part of it....
"But again, that is obviously so crazy, I MUST be a madman for even
THINKING it.
well DUH! sike...
> If gun usage only makes sense for hunting, why not just say
> all guns are
> illegal, you have to use a bow and arrow ? That's why it
> seems important to
> me to have stock in the principle behind the intent of
> creating the
> amendment. Anyone can come up with reasons why guns should
> be limited to
> X,Y,Z activity. But if it is an inherent right as necessary
> to guarantee
> freedom and liberty, then despite attempts to limit them,
> there can never
> be a reason to wholesale ban them.
this is where i agree with Dave - i goddamn gun does not ensure you shit and never will. period. imo. it might feel nice, but it is NOT gonna prevent anything. ffs, look at afghanistan - they got 10 machine guns for every man woman and child and it hasnt done a damn thing for them. but then look at switzerland - but am i really to believe that switzerland's success lay in gun owenership? ummm...while i would argue it is not irrelevant, i really dont think that is the primary reason for their "success". but some would argue that i suppose. i would argue it has jsut as much to do with MOUNTAINS. but again, i digress.
>
> A common debate is assault rifles, that because of their
> powerful nature,
let's forget the damn assulat rifle argument and right for the jugular - the bazooka! should anyone have the right to have one of those? shit, i say hell yeah, but i've never made a whole lot of consistent sense so take it for what you will...
> So what is the line or rationale for regulating gun
> ownership ?
dave said it well...guns affect everyone. it is therefore in the government's interest to regulate them just like it regulates everything that effects everyone and some things that don't. i mean christ...i get it you're being libertarian here...but if the government can regulate what i put in my body, of course it should regulate guns. that aint my argument, i'm just sayin...
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> other side does it. In other words, both conservatives and liberals do it,
> but they only complain when the other side is doing. (My definition of an
> "activist judge"? A judge that rules in a different way than you would.)
I'd say an activist judge is a judge that confuses the difference
between the legislative branch and judicial branch of government. For
example, a while back I walked by a campaign poster down town where a
woman was running for judge in Philly. She declared herself "the
education judge and advocate." I was blown away by this. Here she was,
fully admitting that she had a bias in cases that involved...
education (not even sure what that would mean). That's ridiculous. If
she's that interested in advocating for education she should be
running for a legistlative seat. A judge should sit down and consider
the facts of every case with an open mind.
For most of the 20th century, whatever liberal agenda has not been
achieved through the legistlative branch of governmtn has been
achieved through the judiciary... Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe
vs. Wade being the two biggest examples. Conservatives feel they often
win the public debate on various subjects but get trumped by a small
group of elitists make policy from the bench. Take for example gay
marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have rejected it. In
the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on grounds of
the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort of ruling
will just be one more issue that will direct conservative anger
towards activist judges.
> are.) The example given was of abortion. Roe v. Wade was decided on the
> 14th amendment, and the right to privacy, but an originalist would disagree
> with this ruling because "An originalist on abortion would say the at the
> time of the Constituion, or of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, abortion
> was prohibited, and that's it," Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law
> School said. (from the new yorker)
The right of abortion is based upon "a penumbra of a penumbra" which
is a rather famous quote on the topic - a shadow of a shadow of a
right. Some people have a problem with that idea.
> really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the constitution to be
> able to anticipate future issues considering the inevitable changes in
> things like social values and technology, for an example.
which is why there is an amendment process. this was indeed taken into account.
> This may be off the main point here, but I'm reminded of something I read
> somewhere that one of the jobs of the supreme court was to keep all the
> states on basically the same page. For example, if 40 states outlawed the
> death penalty, and all 40 states maintained those laws for enough time, say
> a generation, then the Supreme Court, which previously allowed the death
> penalty, should step in and bring the other 10 states into line, because the
> 40 states outlawing the death penalty for a generation show that societal
> values have changed, and the death penalty would then be considered cruel
> and unusual punishment.
I would imagine that water boarding in 1787 would have been considered
cruel and unusual punishment. Mostly because the religious orientation
of the nation would not allow it. Unlike today, where the more likely
you are to go to church the more likely you would be to be ok with
water boarding. The public view has (or is) changing its ideas about
torture. I'm not so sure that treating the constitution as a "living
document" is such a great idea in this case. Then again, expanding the
idea of "personhood" or "man" to mean women (when it comes to being
ensured rights) would be.
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
between the legislative branch and judicial branch of government.
woman was running for judge in Philly. She declared herself "the
education judge and advocate." I was blown away by this. Here she was,
fully admitting that she had a bias in cases that involved...
education (not even sure what that would mean).
The right of abortion is based upon "a penumbra of a penumbra" which
is a rather famous quote on the topic - a shadow of a shadow of a
right. Some people have a problem with that idea.
From: TragicHipster <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:52:23 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> other side does it. In other words, both conservatives and liberals do it,
> but they only complain when the other side is doing. (My definition of an
> "activist judge"? A judge that rules in a different way than you would.)
For
example, a while back I walked by a campaign poster down town where a
woman was running for judge in Philly. She declared herself "the
education judge and advocate." I was blown away by this. Here she was,
fully admitting that she had a bias in cases that
involved...
education (not even sure what that would mean). That's ridiculous. If
she's that interested in advocating for education she should be
running for a legistlative seat. A judge should sit down and consider
the facts of every case with an open mind.
For most of the 20th century, whatever liberal agenda has not been
achieved through the legistlative branch of governmtn has been
achieved through the judiciary... Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe
vs. Wade being the two biggest examples. Conservatives feel they often
win the public debate on various subjects but get trumped by a small
group of elitists make policy from the bench. Take for example gay
marriage... 30 of 30 states - by popular vote - have rejected it. In
the end, the courts will probably rule in favor of it on grounds of
the equal protection clause or something similar. This sort of ruling
will just be one more issue that will direct
conservative anger
towards activist judges.
> are.) The example given was of abortion. Roe v. Wade was decided on the
> 14th amendment, and the right to privacy, but an originalist would disagree
> with this ruling because "An originalist on abortion would say the at the
> time of the Constituion, or of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, abortion
> was prohibited, and that's it," Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law
> School said. (from the new yorker)
The right of abortion is based upon "a penumbra of a penumbra" which
is a rather famous quote on the topic - a shadow of a shadow of a
right. Some people have a problem with that idea.
> really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the constitution to be
> able to anticipate future issues considering the inevitable changes in
> things like social values and technology, for an example.
which is
why there is an amendment process. this was indeed taken into account.
> This may be off the main point here, but I'm reminded of something I read
> somewhere that one of the jobs of the supreme court was to keep all the
> states on basically the same page. For example, if 40 states outlawed the
> death penalty, and all 40 states maintained those laws for enough time, say
> a generation, then the Supreme Court, which previously allowed the death
> penalty, should step in and bring the other 10 states into line, because the
> 40 states outlawing the death penalty for a generation show that societal
> values have changed, and the death penalty would then be considered cruel
> and unusual punishment.
I would imagine that water boarding in 1787 would have been considered
cruel and unusual punishment. Mostly because the religious orientation
of the nation would not allow it. Unlike
today, where the more likely
you are to go to church the more likely you would be to be ok with
water boarding. The public view has (or is) changing its ideas about
torture. I'm not so sure that treating the constitution as a "living
document" is such a great idea in this case. Then again, expanding the
idea of "personhood" or "man" to mean women (when it comes to being
ensured rights) would be.
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> I think it is completely unrealistic that a 200 year old document
> could tell us everything we need to know to govern and run our nation
now.
> I also really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the
constitution
> to be able to anticipate future issues considering the inevitable changes
> in things like social values and technology, for an example
This is one of the arguments that frequently gets used against the 2nd
amendment, that their concept of muskets as the most lethal weapons is far
out of touch with the power of modern firearms, hence they should be
regulated more strictly. The reason this is flawed is because the original
intent was that private ownership of firearms is the primary deterrent
against a tyrannical government. That is 100% as true today as it was 200
years ago. Hopefully one day we can have a star trek one world government
of enlightened leadership, but while man is still in his adolescence, brute
force is the final arbiter.
The problem is they also left slavery in as legally permissible and man did
that take awhile to work out, whew doggie. Overall though, yes, you can
absolutely say the majority of the principles that were originally set down
are still valid today. We've worked out the obviously stupid ones like
women voting and owning human beings, now all we're left with is the
morally gray ones that you can debate until the end of time.
In Dred Scott they ruled that the term citizens was never intended to
include black people. Two people objected, perhaps the Sotomayor's of their
time ?
Kieran
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
amendment, that their concept of muskets as the most lethal weapons is far
out of touch with the power of modern firearms, hence they should be
regulated more strictly. The reason this is flawed
years ago." I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that government had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's weaponry (assuming
they were willing to use it against the citizens.) Personally, I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a tyrannical government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers did a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic tyranny.
From: Kieran <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:01:56 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> I think it is completely unrealistic that a 200 year old document
> could tell us everything we need to know to govern and run our nation
now.
> I also really don't think the "founding fathers" expected the
constitution
> to be able to anticipate future issues considering the inevitable changes
> in things like social values and technology, for an example
This is one of the arguments that frequently gets used against the 2nd
amendment, that their concept of muskets as the most lethal weapons is far
out of touch
with the power of modern firearms, hence they should be
regulated more strictly. The reason this is flawed is because the original
intent was that private ownership of firearms is the primary deterrent
against a tyrannical government. That is 100% as true today as it was 200
years ago. Hopefully one day we can have a star trek one world government
of enlightened leadership, but while man is still in his adolescence, brute
force is the final arbiter.
The problem is they also left slavery in as legally permissible and man did
that take awhile to work out, whew doggie. Overall though, yes, you can
absolutely say the majority of the principles that were originally set down
are still valid today. We've worked out the obviously stupid ones like
women voting and owning human beings, now all we're left with is the
morally gray ones that you can debate until the end of time.
In Dred Scott they ruled that the term
citizens was never intended to
include black people. Two people objected, perhaps the Sotomayor's of their
time ?
Kieran
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
im curious about this: > "In every major case since he became the
> nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with
> the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
> condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and
> the corporate defendant over the individual
> plaintiff."
assuming this is true, which is a big assumption it seems, which area does the DC gun ban fall in?!
funny cause it will show how things supposed to show something...the statement above, can mean different things to different people and still be true. that shows the real subjective nature of truth. kinda funny.
i dont remember the particulars of the case but im guessing it falls under "prosecution over defendent?" meaning the defendent was DC? if so...lol
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
From: oblio <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:16:54 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
im curious about this: > "In every major case since he became the
> nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with
> the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
> condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and
> the corporate defendant over the individual
> plaintiff."
assuming this is true, which is a big assumption it seems, which area does the DC gun ban fall in?!
funny cause it will show how things supposed to show something...the statement above, can mean different things to different people and still be true. that shows the real subjective nature of truth. kinda funny.
i dont remember the particulars of the case but im guessing it falls under "prosecution over defendent?" meaning the defendent was DC? if so...lol
--- El vie 29-may-09, W. R. Thunderstud <>
escribió:
> De: W. R. Thunderstud <>
> Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Fecha: viernes, 29 mayo, 2009, 12:06 am
> Roberts was on the court for DC v
> Heller which affirmed that the right in the second amendment
> is an individual right. It was the biggest decision on the
> 2nd in years. Scalia wrote the opinion. It was 5-4. It
> overturned the Dc gun ban which banned all guns in DC.
> Greg
>
> --- On Thu, 5/28/09, D-Bone
> <> wrote:
>
> From: D-Bone <
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> To: "PHL Syndicate"
> <>
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 4:00 PM
>
> To bring
> this conversation back to the supreme court, I'm
> curious to
> people's reactions to this:
>
> "In every major case since he became the
> nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with
> the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
> condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and
> the corporate defendant over the individual
> plaintiff."
>
> For me, I think the most troubling of those is siding
> with the state
over the condemned.
>
> Has Roberts ruled on any second amendment cases? If
> so, how did he rule?
>
>
>
>
> From: luis
> mendoza <>
> To: PHL
> Syndicate <>
> Sent:
> Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:06:54 PM
> Subject: RE:
> [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>
>
> > a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese
> made
> > ak-47s can hold off
> > the most powerful military force in the world.
>
> i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here
> is...ummm...it isn't exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or
> lack of body
armor that is ummm...winning the fight for
> them. the fact that arms are more common than water is
> obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are
> "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the
> populace is armed is patently absurd. i mean you need guns
> to shoot at
> the bad guys (in this case us) but guns arent exactly the
> only necessary condition for opposition. it isnt the GUNS -
> it is the unlimited supply of people willing to die. the
> diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and
> ammo in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use
> it, it does you fuck all. goddamn alexander the great
> couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he was even based at
> Bagram incidentally.
>
> and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or
> not. i mean, you really REALLY think the mid west would
have
> risen in revolt with their guns had Bush gone for a 3rd
> term??? hell no, the only thing that will get them to revolt
> is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to
> start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole
> idea is retarded. like D says, it will wear another guise,
> and it won't invovle taking away guns. isnt that pretty
> obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
>
> i agree with the
> right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it is
> intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that
> doesn't mean it WILL, or even CAN for that matter - just
> that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause it says....it is the
> right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government
> doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments
> that label themselves as tyrannical...
>
> given
> > the
choice
> > between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian
> govt
> > or fighting,
> > there is no way I'm lining up.
>
> things might look a little different if this actually
> happens. maybe you wont "line up" but would you
> really "stand up?"
>
> just like afghanistan, there
> > is zero chance,
> > even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world,
> the
> > US army could
> > easily subdue millions of people if they resist and
> are
> > armed.
>
> well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily".
> it doesnt mean they
> couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell
> you - if it ever came down to our government killing
> millions of americans in a civil war, i am pretty damn sure
> the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY
> QUICKLY. if you
think otherwise i think you're insane.
> there would be hardcore opposition of course, but that could
> be led and executed by well less than 1% of the population.
> as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't had
> generation after generation raised with war close to home. i
> never fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try
> fighting on your home soil for about 2000 years+ like
> afghans. that's a bit of a different story - it is their
> story as a people. at this point, to think that the average
> americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or
> domestic corruption or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no
> reference and we would NOT fight extremely hard or long
> as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly
> believe
> we would (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as
> someone we know dies or the like. that just aint normal
for
> us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another day.
>
> like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people,
> it's people. you dont have people willing to kill, all
> the guns in the world dont make a difference.
>
>
> --- El jue 28-may-09, Kieran <> escribió:
>
> > De: Kieran <>
> > Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> > A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> > Fecha:
> jueves, 28 mayo, 2009, 7:20 pm
> > > I find that a bit silly, simply
> > from the
point
> of view that if
> > > we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical
> government,
> > and that government
> > > had the military on its side, then the citizens
> would
> > be effed no matter
> > > what, b/c we will never be able to compete with
> the US
> > military's
> > weaponry
> > > (assuming they were willing to use it against
> the
> > citizens.)
> > Personally,
> > > I don't really think gun ownership today
> provides any
> > deterrent to our
> > > government's actions, nor do I feel we need
> to worry
> > about a tyrannical
> > > government coup, based on our system of
> government,
> > the divisions of the
> > > branches, and the structure of our military.
> Seems
> > to me, the
framers
> > did
> > > a decent enough job with the constitution to
> prevent
> > domestic tyranny.
> >
> > a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and
> chinese made
> > ak-47s can hold off
> > the most powerful military force in the world. after
> almost
> > 10 years, we
> > still barely control much outside of Kabul in
> Afghanistan.
> > we have billions
> > of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter
> jets,
> > satellites, on and
> > on. we spend more on defense then every other country
> > combined, but we
> > can't win against guys living in caves.
> >
> > you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if
> there
> > had been another
> > major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure
> we'd be
> > staring
down martial
> > law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once
> rights are
> > gone, they
> > rarely if ever come back.
> >
> > "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq
> (April
> > 2003), various
> > national security procedures were put in place which
> > focused on the
> > eventuality of a
> "Second 911". These initiatives in the
> > area of Homeland
> > Security outlined the precise circumstances under
> which
> > martial law could
> > be declared in the case of a second major terrorist
> attack
> > on America. "
> >
> >
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
> >
> > i think you vastly underestimate how
quickly our
> > constitution can be tossed
> > aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting
> > weapons from people,
> > it would probably erupt into civil war, because there
> is a
> > significant
> > portion of the population that would never surrender.
> given
> > the choice
> > between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian
> govt
> > or fighting,
> > there is no way I'm lining up. just like
> afghanistan, there
> > is zero chance,
> > even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world,
> the
> > US army could
> >
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> > armed.
> >
> > that was the view then, it's still true now. might
> be a
> > cliche, but both
> > Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely
curtailed
> > private gun
> > ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a
> > population. it took a
> > full German division a month to kill 400 resistance
> > fighters armed with
> > pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a
> > isolated, walled off
> > city area. do you really think weaponry is so much
> more
> > advanced today that
> > a fight like that couldn't play out in the same
> way in 2009
> > ? it's not.
> >
> > the larger point is that no group can be easily
> controlled
> > if they have the
> > will and the means to fight. that's why the means
> to fight
> > is engraved as
> > the second most important right after freedom of
> speech.
> >
>
> > Kieran
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change
> your
> > subscription preferences:
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> ¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
> Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
> href="http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1">http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>
>
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription
preferences
>
>
>
> Start a new conversation (thread)
>
>
>
>
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>
>
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences
>
>
>
> Start
> a new conversation (thread)
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> it also says in every "MAJOR" case. Who decided what is a major or minor
> case?! lol!
the new yorker and its advertisers ;)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
From: oblio <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:16:54 PM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
im curious about this: > "In every major case since he became the
> nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with
> the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
> condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and
> the corporate defendant over the individual
> plaintiff."
assuming this is true, which is a big assumption it seems, which area does the DC gun ban fall in?!
funny cause it will show how things supposed to show something...the statement above, can mean different things to different people and still be true. that shows the real subjective nature of truth. kinda funny.
i dont remember the particulars of the case but im guessing it falls under "prosecution over defendent?" meaning the defendent was DC? if so...lol
--- El vie 29-may-09, W. R. Thunderstud <>
escribió:
> De: W. R. Thunderstud <>
> Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Fecha: viernes, 29 mayo, 2009, 12:06 am
> Roberts was on the court for DC v
> Heller which affirmed that the right in the second amendment
> is an individual right. It was the biggest decision on the
> 2nd in years. Scalia wrote the opinion. It was 5-4. It
> overturned the Dc gun ban which banned all guns in DC.
> Greg
>
> --- On Thu, 5/28/09, D-Bone
> <> wrote:
>
> From: D-Bone <
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> To: "PHL Syndicate"
> <>
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 4:00 PM
>
> To bring
> this conversation back to the supreme court, I'm
> curious to
> people's reactions to this:
>
> "In every major case since he became the
> nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with
> the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
> condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and
> the corporate defendant over the individual
> plaintiff."
>
> For me, I think the most troubling of those is siding
> with the state
over the condemned.
>
> Has Roberts ruled on any second amendment cases? If
> so, how did he rule?
>
>
>
>
> From: luis
> mendoza <>
> To: PHL
> Syndicate <>
> Sent:
> Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:06:54 PM
> Subject: RE:
> [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
>
>
> > a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese
> made
> > ak-47s can hold off
> > the most powerful military force in the world.
>
> i cant speak for Dave, but i think the point here
> is...ummm...it isn't exactly their cheap Ak knockoffs or
> lack of body
armor that is ummm...winning the fight for
> them. the fact that arms are more common than water is
> obviously a factor, but frankly i think the idea that we are
> "losing" in afghistan or anywhere else because the
> populace is armed is patently absurd. i mean you need guns
> to shoot at
> the bad guys (in this case us) but guns arent exactly the
> only necessary condition for opposition. it isnt the GUNS -
> it is the unlimited supply of people willing to die. the
> diference is freaking huge. you can have all the guns and
> ammo in the world, but if aint no one willig to die to use
> it, it does you fuck all. goddamn alexander the great
> couldn't conquer afghanistan - and he was even based at
> Bagram incidentally.
>
> and Dave never said anything about the midwest rising up or
> not. i mean, you really REALLY think the mid west would
have
> risen in revolt with their guns had Bush gone for a 3rd
> term??? hell no, the only thing that will get them to revolt
> is TAKING AWAY THEIR GUNS. and nobody is that stupid to
> start a civil war by trying to take away guns. the whole
> idea is retarded. like D says, it will wear another guise,
> and it won't invovle taking away guns. isnt that pretty
> obvious by now? maybe i'm being naive.
>
> i agree with the
> right to bear arms, and i agree with the logic that it is
> intended to prevent tyrannical government. but that
> doesn't mean it WILL, or even CAN for that matter - just
> that it MIGHT. i mean ffs, just cause it says....it is the
> right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government
> doesn't mean its legal. there arent many governments
> that label themselves as tyrannical...
>
> given
> > the
choice
> > between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian
> govt
> > or fighting,
> > there is no way I'm lining up.
>
> things might look a little different if this actually
> happens. maybe you wont "line up" but would you
> really "stand up?"
>
> just like afghanistan, there
> > is zero chance,
> > even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world,
> the
> > US army could
> > easily subdue millions of people if they resist and
> are
> > armed.
>
> well yes. of course. but as you note - "easily".
> it doesnt mean they
> couldn't - or wouldn't, kill millions. let me tell
> you - if it ever came down to our government killing
> millions of americans in a civil war, i am pretty damn sure
> the VAST majority of americans would get in line VERY
> QUICKLY. if you
think otherwise i think you're insane.
> there would be hardcore opposition of course, but that could
> be led and executed by well less than 1% of the population.
> as we've all no doubt noticed, we haven't had
> generation after generation raised with war close to home. i
> never fought in a war, let alone one on my home soil. try
> fighting on your home soil for about 2000 years+ like
> afghans. that's a bit of a different story - it is their
> story as a people. at this point, to think that the average
> americans story is standing up to foreign invaders or
> domestic corruption or tyranny, is nuts. we simply have no
> reference and we would NOT fight extremely hard or long
> as a people. lots of folks think otherwise, but i firmly
> believe
> we would (will) roll right the fuck over - as soon as
> someone we know dies or the like. that just aint normal
for
> us. for afghans, yeah, thats just another day.
>
> like the saying goes...it ain't guns that kill people,
> it's people. you dont have people willing to kill, all
> the guns in the world dont make a difference.
>
>
> --- El jue 28-may-09, Kieran <> escribió:
>
> > De: Kieran <>
> > Asunto: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> > A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> > Fecha:
> jueves, 28 mayo, 2009, 7:20 pm
> > > I find that a bit silly, simply
> > from the
point
> of view that if
> > > we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical
> government,
> > and that government
> > > had the military on its side, then the citizens
> would
> > be effed no matter
> > > what, b/c we will never be able to compete with
> the US
> > military's
> > weaponry
> > > (assuming they were willing to use it against
> the
> > citizens.)
> > Personally,
> > > I don't really think gun ownership today
> provides any
> > deterrent to our
> > > government's actions, nor do I feel we need
> to worry
> > about a tyrannical
> > > government coup, based on our system of
> government,
> > the divisions of the
> > > branches, and the structure of our military.
> Seems
> > to me, the
framers
> > did
> > > a decent enough job with the constitution to
> prevent
> > domestic tyranny.
> >
> > a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and
> chinese made
> > ak-47s can hold off
> > the most powerful military force in the world. after
> almost
> > 10 years, we
> > still barely control much outside of Kabul in
> Afghanistan.
> > we have billions
> > of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter
> jets,
> > satellites, on and
> > on. we spend more on defense then every other country
> > combined, but we
> > can't win against guys living in caves.
> >
> > you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if
> there
> > had been another
> > major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure
> we'd be
> > staring
down martial
> > law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once
> rights are
> > gone, they
> > rarely if ever come back.
> >
> > "In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq
> (April
> > 2003), various
> > national security procedures were put in place which
> > focused on the
> > eventuality of a
> "Second 911". These initiatives in the
> > area of Homeland
> > Security outlined the precise circumstances under
> which
> > martial law could
> > be declared in the case of a second major terrorist
> attack
> > on America. "
> >
> >
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
> >
> > i think you vastly underestimate how
quickly our
> > constitution can be tossed
> > aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting
> > weapons from people,
> > it would probably erupt into civil war, because there
> is a
> > significant
> > portion of the population that would never surrender.
> given
> > the choice
> > between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian
> govt
> > or fighting,
> > there is no way I'm lining up. just like
> afghanistan, there
> > is zero chance,
> > even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world,
> the
> > US army could
> >
> easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are
> > armed.
> >
> > that was the view then, it's still true now. might
> be a
> > cliche, but both
> > Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely
curtailed
> > private gun
> > ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a
> > population. it took a
> > full German division a month to kill 400 resistance
> > fighters armed with
> > pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a
> > isolated, walled off
> > city area. do you really think weaponry is so much
> more
> > advanced today that
> > a fight like that couldn't play out in the same
> way in 2009
> > ? it's not.
> >
> > the larger point is that no group can be easily
> controlled
> > if they have the
> > will and the means to fight. that's why the means
> to fight
> > is engraved as
> > the second most important right after freedom of
> speech.
> >
>
> > Kieran
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> > Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change
> your
> > subscription preferences:
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> ¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
> Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
> href="http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1">http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>
>
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription
preferences
>
>
>
> Start a new conversation (thread)
>
>
>
>
>
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
>
>
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences
>
>
>
> Start
> a new conversation (thread)
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=e1
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription
preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> i dont remember the particulars of the case but im guessing it falls under "prosecution over defendent?" meaning the defendent was DC? if so...lol
the defendant was a black male. washington dc was the plaintiff.
david: if you get a chance, google these terms: jim crowe gun control
you may or may not be surprised to find that the first gun control
laws were enacted in mississippi. the legislature, with the help of
local militias (the kkk) largely disarmed the black population of the
south during reconstruction. they were largely successful.
a good start on understanding gun control in america:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
> I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if
> we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that government
> had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter
> what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's
weaponry
> (assuming they were willing to use it against the citizens.)
Personally,
> I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our
> government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a tyrannical
> government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the
> branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers
did
> a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic tyranny.
a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made ak-47s can hold off
the most powerful military force in the world. after almost 10 years, we
still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan. we have billions
of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets, satellites, on and
on. we spend more on defense then every other country combined, but we
can't win against guys living in caves.
you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there had been another
major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be staring down martial
law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are gone, they
rarely if ever come back.
"In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
national security procedures were put in place which focused on the
eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland
Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could
be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our constitution can be tossed
aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting weapons from people,
it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a significant
portion of the population that would never surrender. given the choice
between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt or fighting,
there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there is zero chance,
even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world, the US army could
easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are armed.
that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a cliche, but both
Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed private gun
ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a population. it took a
full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today that
a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have the
will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
the second most important right after freedom of speech.
Kieran
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
wasn't becuase they outgunned the Brits. There is no question the Brits could have gone in and militarily crushed Ireland, the problem was that most British subjects did not support that type of action. The Irish won not a military victory, but a PR victory in Ireland, and in Britain.
full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today that
a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
the second most important right after freedom of speech.
From: Kieran <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:20:53 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Sotomayor and objectivity
> I find that a bit silly, simply from the point of view that if
> we did suffer from a coup of a tyrannical government, and that government
> had the military on its side, then the citizens would be effed no matter
> what, b/c we will never be able to compete with the US military's
weaponry
> (assuming they were willing to use it against the citizens.)
Personally,
> I don't really think gun ownership today provides any deterrent to our
> government's actions, nor do I feel we need to worry about a
tyrannical
> government coup, based on our system of government, the divisions of the
> branches, and the structure of our military. Seems to me, the framers
did
> a decent enough job with the constitution to prevent domestic tyranny.
a bunch of dudes wearing no body armor and chinese made ak-47s can hold off
the most powerful military force in the world. after almost 10 years, we
still barely control much outside of Kabul in Afghanistan. we have billions
of dollars in unmanned drones, supersonic fighter jets, satellites, on and
on. we spend more on defense then every other country combined, but we
can't win against guys living in caves.
you feel we don't need to worry, but after 9/11 if there had been another
major terrorist attack, you can be pretty sure we'd be staring down martial
law and a suspension of Constitutional law. once rights are gone, they
rarely if ever come back.
"In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
national security procedures were put in place which focused on the
eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland
Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could
be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134
i think you vastly underestimate how quickly our constitution can be tossed
aside. if it came down to martial law and collecting weapons from people,
it would probably erupt into civil war, because there is a significant
portion of the population that would never surrender. given the choice
between getting in line and accepting a totalitarian govt or fighting,
there is no way I'm lining up. just like afghanistan, there is zero chance,
even if equipped with the best weaponry in the world,
the US army could
easily subdue millions of people if they resist and are armed.
that was the view then, it's still true now. might be a cliche, but both
Stalin and Hitler both outlawed or severely curtailed private gun
ownership, a necessary step towards controlling a population. it took a
full German division a month to kill 400 resistance fighters armed with
pistols and homemade bombs in the Warsaw Ghetto, a isolated, walled off
city area. do you really think weaponry is so much more advanced today that
a fight like that couldn't play out in the same way in 2009 ? it's not.
the larger point is that no group can be easily controlled if they have the
will and the means to fight. that's why the means to fight is engraved as
the second most important right after freedom of speech.
Kieran
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Sotomayor and objectivity
--- On Fri, 5/29/09, chris <> wrote:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)