Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent, an English class!

[SteamWake]

Back on topic.

Republicans, who have criticized Sotomayor's involvement in the group and called it radical, signaled they were searching for clues in the documents about her stances on the many hot-button issues the civil rights organization handled.

A GOP Judiciary aide said the material details PRLDEF's opposition to failed conservative high court nominee Robert Bork, and its ties to the community-activist group ACORN.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/...ayor_documents

[Happy Times]

The subsims enlightened pseudo-intellectual-anarcho-socialists are again irritating normal people. I bet both are loosers with no other life than to troll here and twist facts.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

Buddahaid

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have), and does not mention any discrimination, therefore making race the primary determinant.

Quote:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.

Buddahaid

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have),

There is a reason why I repeatedly asked what she was actually talking about.
The whole speech is about one thing, and it certainly isn't about hispanics or women being better or superior .
That is why context is important .
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
If you cannot find the full speech then try the other Soto topic where two people posted it in full and wondered why Aramike couldn't understand context and why the speech clearly meant the opposite of what he claimed.

As I have said before , I think Sotomayor is an idiot and deserves a lot of criticism....but selectively taking a quote out of context and representing it as something that it isn't is not making a valid criticism.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There is a reason why I repeatedly asked what she was actually talking about.
The whole speech is about one thing, and it certainly isn't about hispanics or women being better or superior .
That is why context is important .
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
If you cannot find the full speech then try the other Soto topic where two people posted it in full and wondered why Aramike couldn't understand context and why the speech clearly meant the opposite of what he claimed.

As I have said before , I think Sotomayor is an idiot and deserves a lot of criticism....but selectively taking a quote out of context and representing it as something that it isn't is not making a valid criticism.

Point taken. See, two people can argue here without resorting to name calling. Cheers!

Buddahaid

[Onkel Neal]

Although New Haven's firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly -- 5 to 4. The egregious behavior by that city's government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court's four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.

The undisputed facts are that in 2003, the city gave promotion exams to 118 firefighters, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire "political ramification" if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.

The city's idea of equal treatment -- denying promotions equally to those deemed and those not deemed qualified -- was particularly galling to Frank Ricci, who had prepared for the exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes -- he is dyslexic -- and taking practice tests and interviews. His efforts earned him the sixth-highest score.

He and others denied promotions for which their exam scores made them eligible sued, charging violations of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws and of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The city argued that if it had made promotions based on the test results, it would have been vulnerable under the 1964 act to being sued for adopting a practice that had a "disparate impact" on minorities. On Monday, the court's conservatives (Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, joined by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) held:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903382.html


I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?

[Aramike]

Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.

Umm, learn to comprehend, please - especially the meaning of the word "context".

See, the funny thing about words is that they exist to convey thoughts. Take "contradiction", for example. That means (among other things) that someone presents multiple statements that are at odds with one another. The reason the term exists is because their are contradictions, and those contradictions do not cancel one another out due to context.

There is little doubt that she wasn't attempting to make a racist statement. But, nevertheless, that statement IS RACIST.

Ultimately, the "context" (at least according to your absurdly foolish definition of it) of the statement would depend upon what ideas in the speech you intend upon framing it within, as Sotomayor never qualified the statement itself.

Seriously - this is fourth grade English. Not to mention, even Sotomayor herself is attempting to retract the statement, and not clarify its context.

A poorly-worded statement's meaning is not changed because it is contradictory, by the way.

In any case, I don't really have too big of a problem with the statement by itself in the first place, however. My problem is when you take that statement, and put it into the context (this is an appropriate use of the term, by the way) of her typical judicial rulings regarding race, a pattern emerges.

I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?

I wonder if you can complain that you didn't get an A because you didn't have access to the required study materials.