Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[nikimcbee]

Too bad it wasn't 9-0 vote.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

But by that ridiculous standard, until the Supreme Court changed the ruling, the debate was "over" and the action WAS NOT discriminatory.

Really? So the SUPREME COURT ruled upon this case previously? You know, the highest court in the US? The one that, now having ruled, leaves no options for higher court appeals?

Maybe you should understand an argument before you label it ridiculous.

Seems to me like there was plenty of debate (read: appeals) before the courts, and now that's over with. Ergo, the debate is over.

Simple, right?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Oh, I agree that legally speaking, once the Supreme Court has spoken, its as closed as it could be.
What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.
If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level?

[Aramike]

What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.

That's not my position. My statement was in a very specific context in response to Tchoky's post, which also included a link to information about the case.

In other words, my comment was in the context of the legal case, and the debate is indeed over on that front.

If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level?

In the context of the debate being the case itself, then yes.

Obviously, however, I didn't relate my point as succinctly as I could have and for that I apologize.

In spite of the fact as she says "A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".

Despite the fact that she never said that

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Despite the fact that she never said that

Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "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."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

[Tchocky]

Rather good piece on this ruling - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/op...html?th&emc=th

Judge Sotomayor, famously, was one of three judges on an appellate panel who applied their federal circuit’s settled precedent to rule in New Haven’s favor. Like that decision or hate it, cheer Monday’s ruling or deplore it, one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "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."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

She said exactly what she meant. I agree aramike, there is not skirting what she really meant.

Here we go again ...

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Thats easy, its called context .
Do you understand that word yet ?
Probably not as you don't understand the words quote or fact either.
As for what it means thats simple. you can either take the whole speech that shows your take is wrong , or you can take the paragraph from which the actual line comes which show your interpretation is wrong or you can take the following paragraph which also surprisingly shows your interpretation to be wrong.
So when any one of three methods shows you to be wrong a combination of all three shows you to be absolutely without a doubt completely wrong.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.

I don't exactly see you quoting the paragraph and helping her fight those horrid charges off. Let's just look at the offending paragraph.

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.

Please explain to me how this is supposed to fight off the charge. I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases (the fact that they are different IMPLIES a high probability that one side's interpretation will be "better", since the idea of their quality being equal is extremely unlikely), then it is topped off by her letting us know WHICH side is going to make "better" conclusions "more often than not".

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.

Need a shovel to get your head out of the sand?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...sotomayor.html

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.

Need a shovel to get your head out of the sand?

Need help reading much?

"A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Need help reading much?

Its called paraprhasing its the interwebs get over it.

No doubt in my mind that is what she meant.

But again I risk looking a fool by arguing so have a nice day.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Its called paraprhasing its the interwebs get over it.

No doubt in my mind that is what she meant.

But again I risk looking a fool by arguing so have a nice day.

Notice how Tribesman completely ignored KSII's post explaining the entire paragraph. Furthermore, clearly he doesn't understand what paraphrasing is.

Alas, it is Tribesman's MO to claim "context" despite the fact that the context is correct, and then claim that everyone BUT him can't read, comprehend, etc.

So yeah, you're right. It's pointless to debate something with Tribesman, as it is clearly difficult to explain simple concepts to someone who cannot grasp that a sentence has a meaning unto itself.

Notice how Tribesman completely ignored KSII's post explaining the entire paragraph

It is not ignored at all.

Furthermore, clearly he doesn't understand what paraphrasing is.

Alas, it is Tribesman's MO to claim "context" despite the fact that the context is correct

What was she talking about aramike?
What are you ridiculously claiming she was talking about?

it is clearly difficult to explain simple concepts to someone who cannot grasp that a sentence has a meaning unto itself.

Even when it it is surrounded by conditionals.
Even when it doesn't mean what you claim it means and isn't even about what you think it is.
Read the statement again and try and understand why it cannot possibly mean what you claim it means .

I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases

What specificly is she talking about?