Matt Davies for June 07, 2016

Spot on.

Anyone who is not a billionaire orange presidential nominee isn’t worthy to judge such a shining example of humanity.

Why doesn’t the Donald just go ahead and campaign in his sheets instead of those expensive suits? Cheaper to machine wash the filth dripple coming out of his mouth at least.

Guess Trump never heard of “judge not, lest ye be judged?”Probably too Fundamentalist for him

No, she didn’t. Sotomayor said that her heritage would add perspective to her views. She did not say it would decide them. Trying to equate the two is a blatant distortion of the truth.

an african american should not be upset if the judge belongs to the kkk // sotomayor said being a latnia women makes her a better judge than white males

The right wingers love their politics of exclusivity.

Nonsense… again, recycled talking points that, like most of your other comments, lack substance..“Quotas” aren’t the goal, the goal is representation in the various professions that mirrors the makeup of society. There is abundant evidence that past prejudices are still preventing this from coming to pass, so yes, you need to look at that when making choices. However, it is not the determining factor..The organization you are referring to does NOT “endorse Latino values in judges”, as you so bizarrely claimed. On their website, it says “La Raza Lawyers of California is an independent unincorporated association of Lawyers organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California…”. In other words, it’s a networking group. There’s nothing it their description about “Latino values”..To that point, read this piece from redstate: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/dishonest-attempt-associate-gonzalo-curiel-la-raza/.Key quote: “What they are attempting to do is associate Curiel with the National Council of La Raza, the radical group that has gained significant notoriety in the news over the years… Curiel, however, has no affiliation with this group whatsoever. He is a member of La Raza Lawyers of California – aka the Latino Bar Association of California… As far as I can tell, they appear to be a pretty garden variety special interest lawyers association. Every state has these chapters for Hispanic lawyers, black lawyers, women lawyers, Mormon lawyers, Christian lawyers, Jewish lawyers – you name it, there is a lawyer association for it in every state. They have meetings, everyone comes and eat lunch together, and they serve pretty much exclusively the function of networking, which is the lifeblood of legal business generation…”.When even redstate says you’ve gone off the right-wing deep end, then you know you have problems.

Tacky, sir… if you had actually read the thread, you would have seen that your quote is taken out of context, and would not have offered such a disingenuous and weak point.

From the AP/Times coverage of her remarks:.“In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case..She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.”.

.See, it helps to read all of the information before making a judgement call. She wasn’t saying that a Latina judge is inherently better; she was arguing that, in our current society, having all perspectives adds to the ability of the judiciary to make wise decisions, and that some perspectives are notably absent from the field. Her comment was within that context. Also, note that her point is really about life experiences; her comment is more applicable to a discussion of privilege than to specifics on race..Anyone who had actually read the full comments would have seen this, instead of going into hyper-partisan mode and abandoning reality..Shameful, sir. Next time, stick to all of the facts, please, and not just those that reinforce your safe space.

Getting back to Trump: he made no claim of any ruling, speech, position, or action by the judge that showed bias. None. All of you that are making those arguments are trying to revise Trump’s rant to fit into a sane world, and it doesn’t fly..Trump solely focused on the “Mexican” judge, who is actually an American. In his eyes, heritage equals a corruption of blood, especially when that heritage is one Trump needs to vilify to get headlines and votes. Last I checked, the Constitution (and common sense) didn’t look so favorably on that kind of thing.

Safe space: a space where opinions and facts that contradict one’s beliefs and perceptions of reality are excluded. A silly concept at best..And yet it seems to describe your approach, in this case. You’re deliberately taking one quote out of context, and continuing to do so even after the full context was stated..That’s not reality. That type of argument only works in a safe space, not in the real world. And it’s worth noting that you didn’t contradict that at all..So please, no more disingenuous arguments. If it’s not based in truth, don’t waste our time.

Someone else brought this up, so I can’t claim it as an original argument of mine: Trump claims that Hispanics love him. He says this frequently. If that is true, then what claim of bias can he have against the judge just for being Hispanic?.There’s a term for this, and it comes from the book 1984. It’s called doublespeak. And it’s a fraud.

I want a judge who’s had some hard knocks in life, not the platinum spoon in mouth bully and coward Trump-type.

Again, you’re dodging, and deliberately misconstruing the words. Look at the whole speech, and you see that the point was for the variety of experiences and views. If someone were to reference rich versus poor, blue versus white collar, that is the context..Deliberately misrepresenting the speech, especially when the other parts have been referenced, is no better than a lie. Thus, the entirety of your point is denied. Period..And I also note that you still haven’t addressed the points about Trump. About the open contradictions. About the inherent prejudice and ignorance. About any of it..You keep referencing a point that isn’t true, rephrased and rebranded, but no less of a lie. Safe spaces don’t have to be physical, and in this case, your argument (and the unwillingness to recognize objective evidence) cannot be sustained in anything but a sheltered world. It’s not real, and it never will be.

“When I hear the term ‘[America]’ I think about [conservatives] that want ‘happy zones’ where facts that contradict their beliefs and perceptions of reality are excluded and they are not faced with having to deal with people that have a different opinion.”Cleaned up your lines to make them apply to the current cartoon. No need to thank me….or deal with me at all.

The reason I am a Democrat is this very reason. Republicans seem to say, “It hasn’t happened to me so I don’t care about it.” Whereas Democrats tend to say, “That shouldn’t happen to anyone and I am against it.” Republicans like Mr. Trump just don’t get it. I believe he has Borderline Personality Disorder and is a narcissist to boot!

Woody Guthrie wrote this about Donald’s father Fred, who refused to rent to blacks…..……………………….“I supposeOld Man Trump knowsJust how muchRacial Hatehe stirred upIn the bloodpot of human heartsWhen he drawedThat color lineHere at hisEighteen hundred family project”……….Wonder what he would have thought of Donald?

drewk79 northern redman nailed you 20 hours ago [ you can not win them all]] // so mr blaunt you think it is wrong for an african american to feel uneasy with a kkk person judge him