TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Abraham wrote:No wonder the young are disgusted with our system.

And they are very susceptable to "progressive" and "empathetic" reasonings dispite the law, the Constitution and common sense...

Life experiences, emotions, social justice, etc etc...Those are the paths to destruction of civilized, logical and sensible society...

I am certainly not a perfect person...Yet I understand that I am totally responsible and accountable for my actions...Something seriously lacking in some of the yutes around the world today...

""I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC)."

As a younger guy (22), I love seeing things like this. Yes, there are certainly problems with my generation. Just as there were problems with our parents, and even our grandparents generations. Rather then disparage those who act foolishly and do not care about the Constitution or listen to their college profs as if they learned it all during their time in academia and are "progressive", perhaps we should encourage the youth who are involved, responsible and are the next generation of conservative thought and speech. Just my humble, respectful .02.

Purplehood wrote:At this point we are simply spouting opposing view-points at one another. I guess the proof will be in the pudding (whatever that means). After all, we both know that her nomination is going to be confirmed. We will then start seeing the finger-pointing.

The only good thing is she's already replacing a liberal on the court. If we lose one of the 5 that voted the right way for Heller, we may be in big trouble.

mr.72 wrote:

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.

I'm curious to see these statement changing 3 words as well.

bdickens wrote:

boomerang wrote:In my experience ranging from high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates, education and intelligence are two very different things. Further, although I have seen a positive correlation between intelligence and success in the private sector, I have not noticed a discernable relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector. Therefore, I don't believe her papers prove much of anything.

I believe there actually may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector.

I'm not sure intelligence is lacking in our elected officials. There are some very smart people on both sides of the aisle. What we lack in Washington isn't intelligence, it's common sense. Just my .02 of course.

mr.72 wrote:

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.