SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (55292)6/3/2009 12:21:52 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Posting that to discredit a supreme court nominee addresses nothing about Sotomayor's qualifications, but speaks volumes about yer own prejudices. Fortunately, thinking like this is beginning to pass from the scene as my folk's generation and mine die out. The kids deal with race and color a lot better than we do.
+++++++

Remember the Dems bizarre attempt to way lay the nomination of Clarence Thomas? Nothing should surprise you, from R's or D's.

Couple things, you know nothing of my color or heritage, where I've lived, what 'racism' I've experienced(or not), or a host of other things that could affect my views.

I find it odd that you would state that kids are dealing with racial issues better than we do. It is our kids that are not being drafted, but enlisting in order to kill our perceived enemies(the horrible, faceless Muslim terror!). The US has embraced torture under Obama just as it did under Bush. Hatred hasn't been extinguished, just redirected. Dems are supporting Obama and the Dems who have refused to close Gitmo as promised and are mindlessly supporting a president that continues, indeed, is EXPANDING the Bush policies on warrantless wiretapping and a host of other illegal anti liberty fascist Bush procedures.

If O wanted to really close Gitmo he could issue another executive order, just like he has done for numerous other issues. But he is crafty and perceives Americans "feel safer" when torturing innocents, as long as he can convince enough dimwits that they are somehow a danger.

Tell us again what has changed?

Poll: US divided over torture, closing Guantanamo

Reuters – A picture obtained by ABC News and released on May 19, 2004 shows a man identified as Sgt. Charles Graner …

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 3, 3:16 am ET
WASHINGTON – Just over half of Americans say torture is at least sometimes justified to thwart terrorist attacks and are evenly divided over whether to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, according to a poll that underscores the challenges President Barack Obama faces in selling his terror-fighting policies.
Even so, the latest Associated Press-GfK survey also shows that Obama enjoys broad confidence that he can effectively handle terrorism in an era when many people say they still fear becoming a victim of it and when a swath of the public shares the views of Obama's Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
At the same time, Obama hasn't lost support — he has a strong 64 percent job-approval rating — and nearly half of Americans still think the country's headed in the right direction. That's despite bipartisan rebukes of the new president's ordered closure of the Cuban island facility and former Vice President Dick Cheney's sustained criticism of Obama's approach to terrorism.
Terrorism and Guantanamo emerged in the poll as intensely partisan issues, with viewpoints largely split along ideological lines.
"To uphold the integrity of our Constitution for ourselves and for the world, it is important" that the U.S. close the Guantanamo prison, said Diana Jones, 68, a Democrat from Timonium, Md., who has faith in Obama's terror-battling abilities. "We need to treat other counties as we would want them to treat us." Plus, she added, keeping the prison open puts U.S. troops overseas at risk.
Countered Steve Marsh, 50, a Republican from Guntersville, Ala., who doesn't think Obama is strong enough on terrorism: "I'd just rather see them there than see them here on our soil. ... They don't, in my opinion, deserve to be treated as part of our prison system here. They need to be kept separate."
Such issues have dominated Obama's agenda in recent weeks as he has wrestled with the fallout of Bush-era policies and the legal questions surrounding them, while trying to fend off criticism from friends and foes alike.
Obama ordered the prison's closure and emphatically stated "we don't torture" just days after taking office as he sought to improve a sullied world image. But since then, he has found that making good on those campaign promises has, perhaps, been more difficult than anticipated.
The Democratic-controlled Senate demanded more details of Obama's plan when lawmakers voted 90-6 to refuse to give him $80 billion he requested to shutter the Bush-created prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early 2010. Republicans also spoke out vigorously against the notion that dangerous terrorism suspects could end up confined on U.S. soil. And foreign allies balked at accepting the transfer of prisoners from the Navy-run facility when the United States didn't appear willing to do the same.
All that prompted Obama to deliver a speech in which he denounced "fear-mongering" by political opponents and insisted that U.S. maximum-security prisons can safely house the prisoners. He also argued anew that closing the prison, which has held hundreds of detainees for years without charges or trials, could make the U.S. safer because the prison would no longer motivate enemies overseas.
A novice commander in chief, Obama risks further defeat of his policies in Congress and disapproval of them abroad if he can't get the public on board. Thus, he's making a tough sell.
For now at least, the AP-GfK poll shows most Americans have faith in him, with 70 percent saying they are confident of Obama's ability to address terrorism. That's divided along party lines, with nearly all Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over a third of Republicans expressing confidence.
Nearly eight years after terrorists struck on U.S. soil, more than a third of Americans say they worry about the chance that they or their relatives might fall victim to a terrorist attack — essentially unchanged from 35 percent five years ago.
All that said, the poll also shows potential areas of political vulnerability for Obama and indicates he must walk a fine line as he seeks to both protect the country and turn the page on Bush's national security policies.
Some 52 percent of people say torture can be at least sometimes justified to obtain information about terrorist activities from suspects, an increase from 38 percent in 2005 when the AP last asked the question. More than two-thirds of Republicans say torture can be justified compared with just over a third of Democrats.
On Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo prison, 47 percent approve, while 47 percent disapprove. Again, the country is divided on partisan lines, with most Republicans disapproving and most Democrats approving. Independents are evenly divided.
Despite the president's safety assurances, more than half of Americans say they would be worried about the chance of terrorism suspects escaping from U.S. high-security prisons. Yet again, more Republicans express concern than Democrats. Still, the figures indicate that the GOP-fueled fear may be resonating.
Leading the charge by Republicans against Obama's policies is Cheney, who the poll shows may be benefiting from his outspokenness since leaving office. Nearly a quarter had a favorable opinion of the former vice president, a measure that's risen steadily from a low of 13 percent in one 2007 poll.
For all the out-of-power GOP's angst, the poll found one bright spot for it: More people identified themselves as Republican than did last month, 23 percent to 18 percent.
The AP-GfK Poll was conducted May 28 to June 1 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
___
Associated Press writer Natasha Metzler, AP Polling Director Trevor Tompson and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (55292)6/4/2009 2:51:20 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
wharf

This is getting interesting.
--------------------------
Rush Limbaugh... yes, that Rush Limbaugh... may support Sotomayor



After dubbing Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a “reverse racist” last week, Rush Limbaugh is singing a new tune. Via Politico:

“I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense,” Limbaugh said during his show.
In justifying his flip, Limbaugh pointed out that Sotomayor is Catholic and “doesn't have a clear record on abortion.”
Hinting that Sotomayor could possibly support overturning Roe v. Wade, Limbaugh said “whoa, it would be huge.”
“I don't know if it will ever happen,” Limbaugh said, before claiming that the “opportunity” of her support in overturning the landmark abortion case could be enough to get his backing.
It seems plausible that Limbaugh's tepid support for Sotomayor -- and his specific mention of her abortion stance -- might be a ploy designed to split the nominee off from Obama's liberal base. Some conservatives have signaled their (closeted) support for the nominee while alluding to the possibility she could work to erode pro-choice laws.

-John Byrne

================ and more==============

Sotomayor's Defense Of White Racist Speech Looms Large In Confirmation Battle

First Posted: 06- 3-09 11:16 AM | Updated: 06- 3-09 11:12 PM

Of the thousands of cases decided by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the one that could have the most influence on her confirmation for the Supreme Court involves the defense of New York City Police Department employee who was fired for distributing bigoted and racist material.

Sotomayor's opinion in the 2002 case of Pappas v. Giuliani does not seem like a judicial cause célèbre for progressives. But in the days since she was named Obama Supreme Court nominee, it has emerged as an effective counterweight to charges that she is a judicial activist bent on helping minorities like herself.

Those intimately involved in the case say that Sotomayor's dissent -- in which she defended the First Amendment rights of a employee who had distributed white supremacist material -- shows a type of jurisprudence diametrically at odds with the caricature painted by her conservative critics.

"It showed that she is not knee jerk when it comes to dealing with racial issues," said Chris Dunn, an attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union who argued the defense. "That was the case in which she took the side of a person obviously engaging in racist conduct and recognized the important First Amendment interest that was represented. She respected that interest and stuck to it."

Thomas Pappas had worked in the New York City Police Department since January, 1982, primarily in the Management Information Systems Division. In August 1999, he was fired by then commissioner Howard Safir after it was discovered that he had mailed more than 200 pieces of racially insensitive and anti-Semitic material from his home to various political groups who had been soliciting him for donations. Among the more than 200 or so pieces of literature Pappas had sent out were pamphlets from the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

A member and chairman of the Populist Party of the Town of North Hempstead, whose platform included repealing the federal income tax and abolishing the IRS, Pappas sued Safir and New York City's Mayor Rudy Giuliani on grounds that they had violated his First Amendment rights. In October 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the NYPD had operated within the rule of law.

The case was appealed and in 2002 it found its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel, which included Sotomayor, considered two main components of the case: Whether Pappas's "speech" was of public concern and whether it had "interfered with" the NYPD's activities. Two of the three judges upheld the district court decision that it didn't matter that Pappas had sent these mailings anonymously from his private home. "Although Pappas tried to conceal his identity as speaker," they ruled, "he took the risk that the effort would fail."

While finding the speech "offensive, hateful and insulting," Sotomayor dissented. Her basis was the precedent established by Rankin v. McPherson, in which the Supreme Court held that a public employee in Texas who cheered the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in a conversation with a fellow worker had not interfered with the office's operations, because her job did not require public contact. But Sotomayor also did not shy away from the constitutional implications of the Pappas case.

Story continues below

"I of course do not dispute the majority's premise that a public employee's free speech interest is often subordinated to the effective functioning of a government employer," Sotomayor's dissent read. "I also agree that it is appropriate to consider the agency's mission in relation to the nature of the speech, and I appreciate the enormous importance of race relations to the operation of the NYPD. These facts alone, however, do not support the constitutionality of the NYPD's termination of Pappas. The well-established case law of the Supreme Court and this Court requires a more searching inquiry."

Seven years later, that opinion and those words in particular have struck observers as uniquely important aspects of Sotomayor's lengthy record. The political implications are obvious: A Latina judge accused of being a "reverse-racist" took the side of the white supremacist police officer at a time when the NYPD was widely resented and distrusted by New York's minority communities.

"Certainly during the Giuliani administration there were many instances where police officers engaged in racially insensitive conduct, at best, while on duty," said Dunn. "And so the easy thing for someone to do would be to say, 'let's fire someone for engaging in racially insensitive activity.' That would have been the easy out. It was certainly what people traditionally viewed as progressives were calling for. But she didn't accept that. She said that even though what this guy did may be racist, I will uphold his constitutional rights. And that is a position of principle."

Observers say Sotomayor's dissent also offers a vivid indication into what type of kind of judicial philosophy she will bring to the bench.

"What I found after looking at some of her statements is someone who I think takes the First Amendment extremely seriously," said Maria Blanco, Executive Director for the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute at University of California, Berkeley. "She went with the facts. But what you see is she that she also put an extremely heavy burden of proof on a defendant who is trying to abridge privacy or First Amendment protections. That has not been the case with the Supreme Court in the past, though we have had some famous pro-First Amendment judges."

"I actually think that on these issues she may end up being a [Justice William] Brennan type," Blanco added. "That is just my instinct as a lawyer who has done constitutional law for many years."