Obama makes excuses for Sotomayor
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
May 29, 2009 3:39pm CST
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn't lived the same life."
http://www.mylot.com/w/newsarticle/18072698.aspx
Will the Obama administration ever come up with an excuse that doesn't include the words, "poorly", "boneheaded", or "misguided"? Maybe even one that doesn't require him or his supporters to tell us what was really meant (as opposed to the words actually said)?
Let's try this excuse in a better context and see if it works...
"The White House says the American Voters and the Electoral College made a poor choice in 2008 in which they decided a Black Senator was better for the job than a White Senator who hasn't lived the same life."
1 person likes this
5 responses
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
29 May 09
You're right. It's ridiculous.
But I think it's ridiculous for a different reason.
I think she shouldn't be making excuses.
She should be standing my what she said.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 May 09
That is a bit telling, isn't it.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
29 May 09
lol
I guess not everyone sees anything wrong with fundamentally saying that white men don't make good decisions.
@SocialSocietyNews (107)
• United States
30 May 09
I say that everyone has different experiences in life and different views.
We are faced with choices on a daily basis some with tougher choices and decisions Than others.
Some of us make choices that we feel will be beneficial to us as individuals and Family wise and some people are in positions where they make decisions that not only Effects them but everyone.
Some will be effected by their decisions more than others
Those that are effected the most in a negative manner will be given front and center stage to address their concerns to be heard.
While others will await the sorted outcome and go with the sails of the winds and navigate their sails as follows.
A lot of our solutional thoughts are processed thoughts that are derived from our Experiences in life especially When we are making life decisions as a whole.
The whole face of America is changing and it is imperative that we change it's Embodiment as well as it's Effects and it's worth after all it's still considered 90% Attitude and 10% of how much we let it effect us.
The people who can naturally adapt quickly and quickest to changes are the one's Who will emerged victorious in these times.
It's like having a face lift done people feeling refreshed and renewed being Able to finally breathe a sigh of relief and to take in a clean deep breath of Fresh air and stride and strive with confidence.
That will be our responsive message to the World That we like our economy a bit Shaken not stirred.
You would think buy now that them and All of their allies that are smarter than us
Americans would already know that much about us as Americans.
That is my summarized Gold Weighted Opinion of the Supreme Court nominee Sonia
Sotomayor.
It's the walk a mile in my shoes then judge,decide and speak.You Choose
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Jun 09
True, we all make our decisions based on our experiences, and judges aren't so super-human that they can set those aside in their thought processes. However, the Supreme Court has a mandate, and that is to decide whether or not the Constitution was violated in cases that come before it.
They are there to defend the US Constitution, not necessarily the plaintiffs or defendants. In fact, they usually never even meet, or hear from either.
So we are left wondering something here. Will a Justice Sotomayor defend the Constitution against any infractions based on the facts of the case, or will she base her decisions on how she feels about the ethnicity of the plantiff or defendant?
If she is going to care more about the demographic of the people involved than the Constitutional questions at hand, then she is going to be a threat to the Constitution, not a defender of it.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
29 May 09
How about these words by Justice Samuel Alito, which as I recall didn't even raise an eyebrow:
"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 May 09
I guess I could turn it around if I was a judge and say, "When I have a case involving freedom of religion, I can't help thinking of my own ancestors and Missouri's "Mormon Extermination Act" and consider the outcome based on what should have happened to the people who legally robbed, raped and murdered Mormons.
Should that be how a Justice ParaTed2k considers matters of Constitutional law?
1 person likes this
@SocialSocietyNews (107)
• United States
2 Jun 09
If was said it in 2001 did she not clear the air up at that time and interpeted for those who want to take what she said and put their own opinionated interpretation and spin it to others to cause uneeded controversy.If you make a comment or statement should you or would you not want to clear someting up before someone breaks out of the crowd to deliver what was said and how to interpet it to Others instead of asking you to give reference on it first and be clear of what was said and what was meant by what was said.
In the example you use you appear to be saying no matter how you word it to make it sound better it is the horse of the same color and I could not agree with this with the examples you are comparing because to me I interpet the example about the Black Senator than a White Senator.Now if you was to leave that statement as is it would be no mistake of what is being said that the color of the skin is why the person got the yes and not for their qualifications such as affirmative action because you cannot say their or no white Seneators that has lived the same lifestyle or upbringing.If the white Senator had been picked because the black Senator did not live the same life as the whites what would be the difference?
With the Sonia Sotomayor statement to my understanding of what was being said is that her concluded decisions will be based on the legalities of law and not just political and that she can connect to a lot of people and their feeling and a judge for the people not just the top 10 percent and lot of past decisions on important issues have been misjudged some intendedly because of race and culture or lifestyle.You are not probably concerned when we talk about the melting pot of America with blacks,whites, latin,Orental but picture this guilty or not where is the melting pot when you are in a courtroom all white jury with white judge where did the melting pot go in that instance?
On the television show the view I heard the younger black woman that is on the show daily say she grew up in mostly all white neighborhood and sort of saying that her family was far from being government assistance family so her views will not connect with that segment of blacks Whoopie can relate better to that group or audience so could Queen Latifa but it is a good show nevertheless while we are talking about the decisions that we make I believe even though Mrs. Barbara Walters was discussing about how the young black woman on the show was picked on her qualifications alone I do not believe that I believe she got the nod because she was a Star Jones and it would be better to replace Star Jones with another person of the same race did they make the right decision? I believe they did I could not see all who applied but they got another black person on the show after one had left in controversy one who is almost a mirrior image of Star Jones she is qualified and meet all qualifications even to Star standards except in experience and Whoopie bring a lot of experience and wisdome to the table.
No looking at the short list of picks who could Or should the President had picked that would have been a better choice for past and present America? I wonder who would John Macain had picked or Hucklebee or any or the presidential canidates and why would they make a better canidate than the one choosen.Because if the President do not make a good decision with this then it brings about question in his judgement that he and only he will be judged upon when he need your vote to get something past is his right or is his wrong just one bad decision is all it takes.
@rrdj71 (696)
• United States
29 May 09
LOL!! I like that whole black senator white senator thing. but,WOW!! What a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Politicians, always gotta bring it all out of the closet!! Who cares what was said then? This is now. Too bad it you don't think before you speak. What's said is said.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Jun 09
You contradict yourself a bit here... first you say, "who cares what was said then" then, "what's said is said".
Yes, what's said is said, and if it gives us insight into her approach to jurisprudence, it is far from "irrelevant nonsense".