TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:

In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn't think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, "I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

That was a cheap shot. You left out three words at the end of her statement, and you complain when the "liberal" media does the same thing.

If you leave those three words out, than all of the shrill articles and diatribes above apply. When you put the whole statement out there for everyone to see and analyze, you get a typical lawyer response but not the one it is being made out to be.

I will leave you all to draw your own conclusions on this limited data and find the actual words she spoke. It is apparent that some will go to the exact same lengths that they decry in liberals and leftists to garner the results that they want.

I tried to find some extension of her quote that invalidates the argument that she was unaware of ~14 Supreme Court cases which dealt specifically with self-defense, or at least conceded the implicit right to self defense by ruling whether that right applied to the circumstances at hand in the case. I was unable to find such a quote, so if you have it, I would like to see it posted here so we can make the same conclusion as you have.

If you are suggesting that by referring to self-defense laws mostly being handled with state law and therefore not subject to Supreme Court judgment, well that's a complete dodge since there are in fact Supreme Court cases which do deal specifically with the exact question that Coburn asked at least in principle if not in precise terminology. So if you are trying to say, since there was no case on the books specifically asking the exact question "is there a Constitutional right to self-defense", then her answer is correct, then that's a deliberately misleading answer given the fact that the question was rhetorical to begin with. Her answer reveals that she is willing to slice and dice the law to make it suit her personal agenda, rather than rest upon the historical presumption that self-defense is a basic natural right that cannot be abridged by the Constitution. Now, maybe it would be preferable if Coburn had phrased his question differently or worded it more precisely, such as, "are you aware of any Supreme Court case which has recognized the natural right to self-defense?" I guess he should have known he was dealing with a slippery, duplicitous person, given that she was an attorney.

Purplehood wrote:Sounds like every former female in-law that I ever had.

Careful. You may be close to making a racist and sexist statement yourself. As it is, it is a generalization only about your in-laws, and not about all latinas. So I suppose you are suggesting this character flaw is only a family trait and not necessarily true for all latinas.

However if you are implying that racism and sexism is common to nearly all latinas and therefore should be tolerated since it is a trait that is inherent to their race or gender, then you are just as racist and sexist as Sotomayor.

The fact is that Sotomayor is not required or expected to make racist and sexist statements because she is a latina. She makes these statements as a result of her own opinions and choices and not because it is some kind of cultural imperative. It would be the same as saying that young black men are required or expected to become criminals or gang members because it is a cultural imperative, or that young Arab men are required or expected to become terrorists because it is a cultural imperative. Those would be racist statements as well. In all cases of gang bangers, Arab terrorists, or racist-sexist latinas, it is about individual choice and opinion and not excusable just because in some segment of their culture it is accepted. Just because many of the latinas you know are racist and sexist does not make it an expected or acceptable trait. I am quite certain I can come up with a long list latinas that I know who do not fit this mold, and in fact I have never met one who was a racist as far as I can tell. If the lady that cuts my hair has managed to resist this cultural influence to become racist, then certainly a Supreme Court nominee should be expected to do the same.

DoubleJ wrote:Is that our resident "dissident" defending the clique???
JMWY

No, just correcting the spelling.

There's definitely a clique. However you don't have to be in the clique to be able to recognize a fake news source and understand how it is intended to be humor, irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of a Supreme Court nominee.

LM230023 wrote: that is a link given to me and I shared such. With that said - once again I am out of here. This is a site for a chosen few and only those chosen whose opinions agree with members of the "click".

I think you mean "clique".

It's not an opinion of the "chosen few" that the web page you posted is "fake news". It says so right up on the header of the page.

Purplehood wrote:Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

It is not pride, it's bigotry.

However, it is socially-acceptable bigotry. If a white man were to have a record of making the same sort of comments suggesting that a white middle class man would make better judgments than a minority woman, then it would be considered glaringly bigoted, maybe racist or sexist. But we give minorities a pass when they are bigots.

I have a problem with a bigot on the high court. I have a bigger problem with a large proportion of the American people thinking it's ok for minorities to be bigots.

Purplehood wrote:She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

That is a valuable quality for a politician, but thoroughly unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.