Sonia Sotomayor:Obamas choice

[Jagger69]

The libs were all freaked out about Alito too. Give it a rest. I'm so sick of this "the sky is falling" shit. Take a pill.

Four of the nine justices agreed with her on the Connecticut firemen case (I personally think the court made the correct judgment) so it's not like she's some far-out wacko. Clearly, there is some legal precedent to support her decision.

Get over it. She's going to be confirmed.

 

[don_equis]

The other guys had tax problems and they got approved. Here's a prediction she will get voted in, don't you all get it rules and "be careful whatcha say" applies only to "mere mortals" thes efolks are to big to fail.

 

[titsrock]

If the Senators who are bellyachin' and whining and grandstanding vote her in, then they are spineless cowards, OR, they are *protecting* the GOP Latino vote for 2010/2012.....

If someone's views are against what you believe, then you have no business voting to confirm or support them. :dunno:

 

[Ozmanks]

I think it would be best if the Pubs just stayed out of the way and let the Dems and Obama make all the decisions. The country and economy would be heading in the right direction quicker and it would speed up the process of 'getting shit done' and 'overturning Dubya's nightmare policies'..

The GOP have no credibility on any issue. I have no idea why the Dems and Obama care to "bring them along" on any issue. If Pubs go along with Dems, and things turn around, then the Pubs get to have a chance to get re-elected on the "See--I can work with the Dems, and I was part of the solution--Re-elect Me!" blah blah blah

Really? If it weren't for the "Pubs", Obama would have already converted us to a socialist government. And unlike you I have facts to back my argument up. Fact #1: The U.S. government now controls General Motors which at one time was the largest car maker in the United States. Fact #2: The U.S. Government has bailed out multiple banks and now owns some of those banks. Fact #3: Obama has a personal agenda to reform healthcare, he however wants it to be government controlled. The definition of socialism from wordnetweb.princeton.edu is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry". The democrats have taken control of the government and have transformed us from Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

 

[Hot Mega]

Really? If it weren't for the "Pubs", Obama would have already converted us to a socialist government. And unlike you I have facts to back my argument up. Fact #1: The U.S. government now controls General Motors which at one time was the largest car maker in the United States. Fact #2: The U.S. Government has bailed out multiple banks and now owns some of those banks. Fact #3: Obama has a personal agenda to reform healthcare, he however wants it to be government controlled. The definition of socialism from wordnetweb.princeton.edu is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry". The democrats have taken control of the government and have transformed us from Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

One "fact" you either ignored or failed to observe in all of this is THEY came to the government....the government didn't go to them.

The government loaned them money when they were in desperate straits practically no different than if you were in desperate straits and needed a gov. backed loan to get an education.

At a time when our economy was at it's worst since the GD it would have been disastrous for our g'ment to allow these institutions to fail one right after the other and sink the country (if not most other economies around the world too) into a depression.

The bailouts are working...many of the banks have repaid TARP funding...are posting large profits which is paying the taxpayer a dividend on the money loaned to them. GM exited bankruptcy in record time now all that's needed is for people to have money to start spending. Our financial structure will be vastly more sound than it's ever been and when consumers have the money to spend GM will be there to sell them cars and the banks will be there to loan them money.

 

[Ozmanks]

One "fact" you either ignored or failed to observe in all of this is THEY came to the government....the government didn't go to them.

The government loaned them money when they were in desperate straits practically no different than if you were in desperate straits and needed a gov. backed loan to get an education.

At a time when our economy was at it's worst since the GD it would have been disastrous for our g'ment to allow these institutions to fail one right after the other and sink the country (if not most other economies around the world too) into a depression.

The bailouts are working...many of the banks have repaid TARP funding...are posting large profits which is paying the taxpayer a dividend on the money loaned to them. GM exited bankruptcy in record time now all that's needed is for people to have money to start spending. Our financial structure will be vastly more sound than it's ever been and when consumers have the money to spend GM will be there to sell them cars and the banks will be there to loan them money.

Does it ever occur to any of you liberals that social darwinism can be applied to the economy. The reason why GM and a lot of these banks went belly up is because of poor business practices. GM was getting hammered by the Japanese automobile industry and did nothing to make their product better. The banks that were about to ready to die were placed their in the first place by poor business practices. They were throwing out loans to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying and they got rightfully burned for it. In order for the economy to evole and become stronger something has to die.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Does it ever occur to any of you liberals that social darwinism can be applied to the economy. The reason why GM and a lot of these banks went belly up is because of poor business practices. GM was getting hammered by the Japanese automobile industry and did nothing to make their product better. The banks that were about to ready to die were placed their in the first place by poor business practices. They were throwing out loans to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying and they got rightfully burned for it. In order for the economy to evole and become stronger something has to die.

I would ask of the conservatives (not the rich ones on wall st or at the financial institutions) but the working man probably like yourself who leans conservative if the following is not really a much more likely explanation.Some of this was put forth yesterday when congress got to grill Paulson for the 1st time since he left.

The idea put forth is that this whole financial crisis was predicatable and brought about by the wealthy institutions and banks.They know who really owns the govt (they do) and knew they could play fast and loose and when they got to where they were in trouble and needed a bail out the govt was going to be there for them.You just had to make sure you were one of the biggies who would have to be rescued so they bought each other even though they had terrible debt to equity ratios,all that mattered was you were big enough to get the bail outs.

Thats the wealthy conservative fuck the little guy philosophy in action and has nothing liberal at all in it.These guys could care less about the loans getting paid back as they were making tons of money and knew they could count on the govt (and that goes for both parties too much unfortunately,but republicans are worse) to bail out the fat cats.The real problem was the fat cats make the rules and still pretty much do.I'm not saying the bail outs were wrong as we can't just let the systems collapse but we should have and nbeed to regulate these guys a lot more.The problem is they are so powerfull they can block a lot of it and write the regulations.

 

[Hot Mega]

Does it ever occur to any of you liberals that social darwinism can be applied to the economy. The reason why GM and a lot of these banks went belly up is because of poor business practices. GM was getting hammered by the Japanese automobile industry and did nothing to make their product better. The banks that were about to ready to die were placed their in the first place by poor business practices. They were throwing out loans to people who couldn't afford the house they were buying and they got rightfully burned for it. In order for the economy to evole and become stronger something has to die.

I hate to be the bringer of more bad news to you but you're about as wrong as can be on this issue.

The banks, the auto industry, consumer electronics industry, clothing industry ARE ALL in the shitter because consumer spending evaporated into the gas tanks of the cars we were driving (worldwide). When that amount of capital was diverted from the larger economy to almost exclusively to oil industy over the duration of time it did...what did you think would result?? Naturally what happened was the oil industry saw record quarter after record quarter of profits while other industries trickled toward collapse. That reality is as simple as 1-2-3.

The first rule in attempting to make like comparisons is that the subjects being compared must share all of the relevant circumstances to make such comparison objective.

Even though Japanese auto manufactures are having a tough go of it too (because they like GM for example) need consumers buying their products as well. Beyond that is the huge difference in that their Japanese based workers don't get the same kind of health care UAW members receive here (I know, I know...socialist bastids!!). That makes a big difference in the profitability measure of this "comparison". The Japanese have also been able to cut costs in some cases while expanding their businesses with factories here in the US. No such luck for US manufactures expanding into Japan....I could go on but I think you get the direction here.

 

[daddysal]

I think she is doin a great job!
I hope that fuckin cry baby firefighter loses!

Fuck that firefighter prick!

 

[titsrock]

Really? If it weren't for the "Pubs", Obama would have already converted us to a socialist government. And unlike you I have facts to back my argument up. Fact #1: The U.S. government now controls General Motors which at one time was the largest car maker in the United States. Fact #2: The U.S. Government has bailed out multiple banks and now owns some of those banks. Fact #3: Obama has a personal agenda to reform healthcare, he however wants it to be government controlled. The definition of socialism from wordnetweb.princeton.edu is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry". The democrats have taken control of the government and have transformed us from Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

The way I see it is that Republicans/Conservatives are actually horrible businessmen and government officials. They are incompetent in power and should only be "middle managers" within America. Keep Republicans away from ALL CEO POSITIONS in the private and public sector.:thumbsup:

As Bill Clinton famously crowed: If you want to live like a Republican, than vote Democrat:thumbsup:

There's a pie graph that is floating around which shows the total percentage of gov't owned business (including all bailouts) as about 1% versus 99% of Private Owned business.

Sorry, we're nowhere CLOSE to meeting your requirement for "transforming Capitalism to Socialism."

But, you're talking to someone who wants Single Payer Univ. Healthcare for All Americans.....:hatsoff:

 

[meesterperfect]

OK ......So lets see.
Now in America, A) if you work hard to achieve a position, you won't get it. based on the color of your skin and fear of being sued for discrimination by "minority's".

B) If you don't work hard to acheive a position or are just simply under qualified, you will get it , based on the color of your skin.

This is exactly what sotomeyers vote stood for.

Wow, thats progress.
Midas well just find some skank now, knock her up a few times and go on welfare.

Good Luck America.

 

[CunningStunts]

I think she is doin a great job!
I hope that fuckin cry baby firefighter loses!

Fuck that firefighter prick!

I hope you're joking... discriminating against anyone is wrong and un-American.

 

[Hot Mega]

OK ......So lets see.
Now in America, A) if you work hard to achieve a position, you won't get it. based on the color of your skin and fear of being sued for discrimination by "minority's".

B) If you don't work hard to acheive a position or are just simply under qualified, you will get it , based on the color of your skin.

This is exactly what sotomeyers vote stood for.

Wow, thats progress.
Midas well just find some skank now, knock her up a few times and go on welfare.

Good Luck America.

I hope you're joking... discriminating against anyone is wrong and un-American.

While it's asserted as a "reverse discrimination" case (never understood the notion of "reverse discrimination" as discrimination is discrimination) but as I understand it the tests results were disregarded because some in the city felt the test was a poorly written test. It was a new, not previously used test.

The one firefighter sued to have the results restored. The differences in legal opinion would seem to be on the one hand, the right of a local jurisdiction to decide their standards for testing and the singular right of this one individual to have his test score upheld. Two reasonable positions.

 

[Ozmanks]

I hate to be the bringer of more bad news to you but you're about as wrong as can be on this issue.

The banks, the auto industry, consumer electronics industry, clothing industry ARE ALL in the shitter because consumer spending evaporated into the gas tanks of the cars we were driving (worldwide). When that amount of capital was diverted from the larger economy to almost exclusively to oil industy over the duration of time it did...what did you think would result?? Naturally what happened was the oil industry saw record quarter after record quarter of profits while other industries trickled toward collapse. That reality is as simple as 1-2-3.

The first rule in attempting to make like comparisons is that the subjects being compared must share all of the relevant circumstances to make such comparison objective.

Even though Japanese auto manufactures are having a tough go of it too (because they like GM for example) need consumers buying their products as well. Beyond that is the huge difference in that their Japanese based workers don't get the same kind of health care UAW members receive here (I know, I know...socialist bastids!!). That makes a big difference in the profitability measure of this "comparison". The Japanese have also been able to cut costs in some cases while expanding their businesses with factories here in the US. No such luck for US manufactures expanding into Japan....I could go on but I think you get the direction here.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that oil industry certainly helped in putting the U.S. in an economic crisis, but do not excuse GM and banks. GM is at fault for putting out poor quality products. Americans got smart and stopped buying GM. Simple as that. Banks were giving out large loans to people who could not qualify for them in the first place, yet somehow managed to get the amount of money they requested. Gas prices rose, wallets got tighter, and people began to fail on their loans. It's not the Republicans fault, it's the banks fault. Every democrat or liberal participating in this discussion wants to place the blame on the Republicans, and in reality the Republicans had nothing to do with the economic crisis. It's the companies and banks that are at fault for this, shifting the blame to a political party is a lazy man's way to get attention.

 

[Ozmanks]

I would ask of the conservatives (not the rich ones on wall st or at the financial institutions) but the working man probably like yourself who leans conservative if the following is not really a much more likely explanation.Some of this was put forth yesterday when congress got to grill Paulson for the 1st time since he left.

The idea put forth is that this whole financial crisis was predicatable and brought about by the wealthy institutions and banks.They know who really owns the govt (they do) and knew they could play fast and loose and when they got to where they were in trouble and needed a bail out the govt was going to be there for them.You just had to make sure you were one of the biggies who would have to be rescued so they bought each other even though they had terrible debt to equity ratios,all that mattered was you were big enough to get the bail outs.

Thats the wealthy conservative fuck the little guy philosophy in action and has nothing liberal at all in it.These guys could care less about the loans getting paid back as they were making tons of money and knew they could count on the govt (and that goes for both parties too much unfortunately,but republicans are worse) to bail out the fat cats.The real problem was the fat cats make the rules and still pretty much do.I'm not saying the bail outs were wrong as we can't just let the systems collapse but we should have and nbeed to regulate these guys a lot more.The problem is they are so powerfull they can block a lot of it and write the regulations.

Seriously? The Great Depression was not predicatable, nothing in this world is predicatable. I'd like to say I'll wake up tomorrow morning, but that's not guaranteed. I'm sorry Republicans favor businessses too much, but our economy wouldn't have become so great without Republican ideals. And as far as the businesses controlling the Capitol Hill, it doesn't happen. They have lobbyists, but ultimately it comes down to each Congressman/Congresswoman to vote yes, no, or to not vote at all.

 

[Ozmanks]

The way I see it is that Republicans/Conservatives are actually horrible businessmen and government officials. They are incompetent in power and should only be "middle managers" within America. Keep Republicans away from ALL CEO POSITIONS in the private and public sector.:thumbsup:

As Bill Clinton famously crowed: If you want to live like a Republican, than vote Democrat:thumbsup:

There's a pie graph that is floating around which shows the total percentage of gov't owned business (including all bailouts) as about 1% versus 99% of Private Owned business.

Sorry, we're nowhere CLOSE to meeting your requirement for "transforming Capitalism to Socialism."

But, you're talking to someone who wants Single Payer Univ. Healthcare for All Americans.....:hatsoff:

I've read some dumb stuff on this board, but this is the dumbest post I've ever read.

 

[CunningStunts]

While it's asserted as a "reverse discrimination" case (never understood the notion of "reverse discrimination" as discrimination is discrimination) but as I understand it the tests results were disregarded because some in the city felt the test was a poorly written test. It was a new, not previously used test.

The one firefighter sued to have the results restored. The differences in legal opinion would seem to be on the one hand, the right of a local jurisdiction to decide their standards for testing and the singular right of this one individual to have his test score upheld. Two reasonable positions.

In my opinion, there is no "reverse discrimination." Only discrimination. Now if the test was unfair, that's another argument. But the thrust of the suit was that there were not enough "minorities" doing well, so they passed over white firefighters who did better to promote others, based solely on the color of their skin. If that's not racial-based discrimination, I don't know what is...:dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

In my opinion, there is no "reverse discrimination." Only discrimination. Now if the test was unfair, that's another argument. But the thrust of the suit was that there were not enough "minorities" doing well, so they passed over white firefighters who did better to promote others, based solely on the color of their skin. If that's not racial-based discrimination, I don't know what is...:dunno:

I don't think you understand the case very well at all. The city scrapped the test results because they feared litigation from Blacks and/or Hispanics. Ricci sued because he feared his test results were scrapped in order to promote Blacks and/or Hispanics.

The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 for Ricci. The majority opinion said simply the city didn't have the right to scrap the results out of fear of litigation. The minority opinion said Ricci although he had a high score, had no vested right to the promotion as his score wouldn't have automatically promoted him specifically nor had anyone been promoted instead of him or other White FFs...In other words, he's suffered no real cause of action.

Sotomayor's appellate court did exactly what they were supposed to do...since precedence was already established. Keep in mind, it got to Sotomayor's court because some other court(s) had already ruled against Ricci and he got to the last leg in our Judicial system and won an appeal by 1 Justice. Hardly the clear cut case some misinformingly argue.:2 cents:

 

[CunningStunts]

I don't think you understand the case very well at all. The city scrapped the test results because they feared litigation from Blacks and/or Hispanics. Ricci sued because he feared his test results were scrapped in order to promote Blacks and/or Hispanics.

The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 for Ricci. The majority opinion said simply the city didn't have the right to scrap the results out of fear of litigation. The minority opinion said Ricci although he had a high score, had no vested right to the promotion as his score wouldn't have automatically promoted him specifically nor had anyone been promoted instead of him or other White FFs...In other words, he's suffered no real cause of action.

Sotomayor's appellate court did exactly what they were supposed to do...since precedence was already established. Keep in mind, it got to Sotomayor's court because some other court(s) had already ruled against Ricci and he got to the last leg in our Judicial system and won an appeal by 1 Justice. Hardly the clear cut case some misinformingly argue.:2 cents:

Well, if the "test" was that bad, get a new one and have everyone re-take it. If it is as you explained it, seems like that would be an easy solution. And as you explained, if they wanted to scrap the results for fear of a lawsuit, then they did the right thing, because if we stopped doing anything for fear of being sued, no one would leave the house!

 

[Hot Mega]

Well, if the "test" was that bad, get a new one and have everyone re-take it. If it is as you explained it, seems like that would be an easy solution. And as you explained, if they wanted to scrap the results for fear of a lawsuit, then they did the right thing, because if we stopped doing anything for fear of being sued, no one would leave the house!

Well all of your "if"s aside, this is what the case was, those were the arguments and the results.:dunno: