Comments on: Question of the Day for Soto - Will She Answer?

By: cannedjam

cannedjam — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:13:51 +0000

to try and use logic to extrapolate the thought process of someone who clearly holds hypocritical ideals. To believe in discriminating against one group of people to prevent the “discrimination” of another, all in the name of equality is an oxymoronic position, and thus invalidates the notion that Soto uses logical consistency in forming her positions.

By: Idolator

Idolator — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:43:59 +0000

She will surely say that the Constitution is not colorblind and that the constitution was designed to apply differently to different races of people. I was being silly.

Silly me.

By: skorrent1

skorrent1 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:32:47 +0000

The history of the Colonies included many instances of white slavery. The reference to “Indians not taxed” meant those of the tribes that had independent nation status, there were Indians that were taxed and counted. As there were “free persons” of many colors who were also counted. Your equation of “slavery” with all blacks as a color distinction is specious.

If Soto claims that the Constitution as she understands it to be today is colorblind, then she will have no basis to later say that distinctions based on color are compatible with it.

By: Idolator

Idolator — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:05:08 +0000

The very sentence that you use to shoot at me (the one containing free peoples and others) contains a direct reference to Indians. The 14th amendment also mentions Indians. The references to “others” was intended for African slaves and you know it, as white slavery was not practiced, don’t be coy.
Anyway, I dont see a point in your inacurate post.

My point was that she would say that it’s colorblind to cover her own prejudices and still remain factual. The question of judges is a direct assault on her “empathy” and “Latina” commnents.

Besides the constitution is a “living document” because it can be amended. The left has perverted the words “living document” to mean that we can interpret the same words different ways to fit the situation.

By: skorrent1

skorrent1 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:34:04 +0000

The Constitution, as originally written, made no mention of race or creed when it distinguished between free citizens and “others.” The 13th Amendment did not mention race when it eliminated involuntary servitude — for everyone!

Your distinction as to whether the Constitution itself (which judges are sworn to respect) or the individual judges should be colorblind presumes that the judge has the prerogative to adjust the “living Constitution” to current circumstances/whims. That point was addressed in a previous question. An advocate of a living Constitution and of affirmative action would be forced to admit that the Constitution in 2009 is not colorblind, but may have been in the past, and may be again sometime in the future.

By: George Claghorn

George Claghorn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:57:27 +0000

By: Idolator

Idolator — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:36:06 +0000

She will say that the constitution is colorblind. That’s the way to not make waves. In truth the constitution isn’t colorblind as it makes reference to slavery. However the basis of the question is to the racial fairness in regards to the constitution with the existing amendments. In this case the constitution is colorblind as well as blind to sex.

The bottom line is: the constitution is a set of rules and therefore must be colorblind.
The rules for football are colorblind. The descision by a referee to only apply the rules to the players that don’t share his race is not.

The real question should be: Should JUDGES be colorblind?
I think that this question would be far more revealing and allow for much better follow up based on her answer.

Asking if the constitution is colorblind is the same as asking “is the constitution written” it’s always a YES answer.