Obama SCOTUS Choice a Blow to Racial Equality
Sonia Sotomayor appears to doubt the fundamental premise of our government: that "all men are created equal." (Also read Roger Kimball: “Life Experience, Affirmative Action, and You.")
Conservatives are understandably chagrined at the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. She is horrible on the Second Amendment. She is antagonistic toward business. And on it goes. But this, after all, is what one expects from a liberal Democratic president. What one shouldn’t expect is a justice who doesn’t believe in judging per se and, even more troubling, doesn’t believe in racial equality, at least not as most Americans understand it.
This is what should be the focus of her confirmation hearings.
On the judging front, the president let it be known he’s out for empathy — that is, the business (one supposes) of picking the “deserving” litigant and then finding the legal hook to justify the decision (because of course judges really aren’t supposed to do that sort of thing.) In what will be “Exhibit A” on the list of things a Supreme Court aspirant doesn’t want to say, Sotomayor was captured on tape with these morsels of wisdom:
Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know. [laughter]
The Senate might wonder whether this is a glimpse into her theory of jurisprudence or simply an example of poor judgment and taste.
In either case, one wonders what she thinks her job entails. The president is clear: it’s about fishing out the neediest, the most downtrodden, and the least powerful. The Supreme Court is composed, in his view, of nine community organizers who are out to right wrongs, regardless of their assigned task. (That task, for those who have forgotten, is to interpret the statutes and constitutional provisions which are before the Supreme Court and to render justice equally and impartially to all who come before it.) Does Sotomayor share Obama’s view, while intending to deceive litigants and the country about her legal reasoning which always (wow, like magic!) arrives at the “right” result?
And that brings us to the second substantial concern about Sotomayor. Stuart Taylor writes:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001.
The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside the New York Times on May 15.
It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor’s Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
We are thus presented with a Supreme Court nominee who seems to doubt her own ability to render impartial decisions (must she recuse herself on a regular basis, then?) and the fundamental premise of our government — the part about “all men are created equal.” (Does she, like Reverend Wright, also believe “African and African-American children have a different way of learning”?) One wonders what candidate Obama would have said during the campaign about such a stark repudiation of the inherent intellectual equality of Sotomayor’s fellow citizens.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
250 Comments
1. Ed Wallis:AUTHOR: Does she [Sotomayor] believe in the rule of law?”
EXACTLY.
Rule of Law IS NOT “whatever I feel like the right thing is.”
That is a brief and contemptuous summation of tyrannies.
It is time for conservatives to hold a mirror up to Leftists in America and show them this truth.
May 27, 2009 - 1:39 am 2. Menorah:I voted for Palin!
May 27, 2009 - 2:36 am 3. David Thomson:Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not believe in the rule of law. She rejects the very concept that the law is blind and not a respecter of persons. It is very fair to say and not even slightly hyperbolic to describe Sotomayor’s core philosophy as unintentionally tyrannical. In other words, to be kind, she fails to take her views to their logical conclusion.
Sonia Sotomayor can be easily defeated. We merely must stay focused on her core beliefs. It behooves us to remind the American people that there are far more important things to concern us than her gender and ethnicity. And they most likely will agree! As matter of fact, the polling data suggest that this is so. The voters of the very liberal state of Michigan resoundingly defeated an affirmative action proposal on the ballot only a few years ago. And do we really want to believe that Hispanic Americans are immature and whiny children unable to make adult decisions? Are they supposedly committed forevermore to identity politics?
May 27, 2009 - 3:21 am 4. D-wah:1. “..two troubling aspects of Sotomayor’s judging: a contempt for colorblind equality and a view that the rule of law is simply an inconvenience to be sidestepped on the road to some grander vision of social justice”.
What’s left to say?
2. Your ending..”If there is any possibility the answer to either is “no” then the Senate should — indeed must — reject her nomination.”
What’s left to prove? It’s clear, we say. But no…..let the shameful circus of nation debasing lies and thuggery that is American politics begin.
The ugliness and preeminence of identity politics and our romantic goose steps towards “social justice” (Marxism/socialism;statism) and will now take center stage, with the sycophant media’s complicity in full display. (to the tune of “For the benefit of Mr. Kite…) I’m already sick.
What I found striking today was how she speaks as if she’s already been sworn in. She shares the exact same smoldering chip on the shoulder arrogance as her class warfare social engineering appointer.
She doesn’t deserve to be a judge anywhere. Who judges the judges? Oh, I forgot–”mustn’t judge.” Unless you’re an “enlightened” compassionate social justice seeking liberal…
What a shameful mess. And Obama’s the floodgate. The thought of her being a Supe in our country gives me the same depressing, almost helpless, ominous feeling I got when O got elected. We’re in trouble, and it gets worse by the day.
When a retired VP has to come back and point out the errors and dangers of a new president’s ways because no one else will….
We’re in trouble.
When a known racist and social engineer whose declared MO is to legislate social justice from the bench is likely to get affirmed as a frikking Supreme Court Judge….
We’re in trouble.
the list goes on, and on………
(apologies to Jeff Foxworthy-his are funny. These aren’t.)
Thanks Jenn–well put together. Let’s keep trying to get through.
May 27, 2009 - 3:31 am 5. Conservative1:This administration will set us back 40 years.
May 27, 2009 - 3:42 am 6. John:So far, from the various reports of her comments, demeanor, discipline, and er… um… mouth. This particular person is a racist, and a sexist. She looks to be poorly qualified, and should be relegated to the standard slip-and-fall filing of harassment complaints.
That being said there is little the GOP can do other than voice their opinions, demonstrate that she is exactly what the facts say that she is. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee should make her hearings factual and fair. They should pound her with hard questions on her “vociferous” record. They should trap her in misstatements; demonstrate her poor judgment; and highlight her unwillingness to stick to the rule of law.
Then they should gather the remainder of the Republican caucus in the Senate and deliver a series of speeches regarding the fact that she is an obvious quota hire with a leftist ideology, and possessed of absolutely no judicial temperament. They should then re-enforce their declaration that she is unfit by producing exactly 0 votes for her nomination.
Then, they should allow the Democrats to stand uncovered in the bright light of sunshine. She will be seated, a quota hire picked for her sex and ethnicity, not her qualifications, by a Chief Executive and Senate who value who you are, more than what you are qualified to do.
There should not be an attempt to filibuster, primarily becuase it wouldn’t work, but also because I was a supporter of the “Nuclear Option”. Elections must have consequences. This was bound to happen because The One is a radical Marxist with an obvious agenda. I support the concept that the Executive Nominations Calendar is a function of governance, and all nominees should receive an up or down vote in a reasonable time frame. What the Democrats did to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush regarding judicial appointments is a scandal that should haunt them for however long this nation lasts. Republicans should not sign on to their tactics.
Make it a full 38 NAY’s from the GOP. Shine the light of Truth on the entire affair, dissent with dignity and purpose, and do it unanimously.
r/John
May 27, 2009 - 3:43 am 7. Formwiz:This is what “empathy” means, another word for Alinsky. In the end, she may be a sacrificial goat; throw her to the wolves and then slip in someone as bad (or worse), but not as clumsy.
May 27, 2009 - 3:58 am 8. Bob:The problem with all racists is that they consider the identity of the litigants more important than the facts of the case. This is true with those who sympathize with the KKK and with those who believe that the job of a judge is to “empathize” with the underdog. In taking the U.S. Supreme Court oath, a Justice promises to grant justice equally to poor and rich alike. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. If we are going to decide cases based on class, wealth, ethnicity or gender, what is the point of having a trial? Let’s just see which of the litigants is more sympathetic or in a more historically disfavored group.
A pick based on demographics rather than legal brilliance and a strong commitment to the Constitution is an affront to the rule of law. But with at least 59 Democrat votes in the Senate, it’s doubtful that even Harry Reid could screw this up badly enough for Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to be rejected.
May 27, 2009 - 4:04 am 9. vivo:Being a centrist, she looks like a mixed bag. She will get flack from right and left.
May 27, 2009 - 4:21 am 10. susan:do your homeworks: everytime you speak with a liberal (if you must and cannot avoid it) repeat ad nauseam “what if a white judge said that white males are better judges than black women?”
Repeat ad nauseam and see them squirm to find a logical justification. When they do no find a logical justification scream RACIST at them.
This is perpetual ammo.
May 27, 2009 - 4:33 am 11. Mark in Texas:Here’s my question about Obama picking Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court: How come Democrats hate Mexicans?
Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzalez were hammered by the Democrats and the media day and night. We did not hear any heartwarming stories about their backgrounds. We did not hear how their life experience as Latinos gave them valuable insight to the way that law is applied. Instead all we got was a pack of Democrat spinmeisters making fun of them. To hear the Democrats talk about it Estrada and Gonzalez were both stupid, lazy and only got to where they are because of Affirmative Action.
Hell, when the Democrats who run Hollywood made the movie about Selina, they picked a Puerto Rican to play the role of that Mexican woman. Are Puerto Ricans the favorite pet Hispanics of the Democrats?
May 27, 2009 - 4:38 am 12. Ken:If the republicans (Dem lites) don’t fight this tooth and claw they deserve another a$$ woppen in 2010 and should be tossed out of office along side democrats in red leaning states when is the white middle class gonna get somebody to represent them.
May 27, 2009 - 4:40 am 13. Steve:Institutionalized racism against white working class and middle class people is a despicable ongoing crime in the United States. It tenacles reach throught our country. It discriminates aagainst whites in government, media, academia and corporate America.
This women will disregard the 14th amendment just like everyone else on the Left.
Fight her every way you can.
May 27, 2009 - 4:41 am 14. Craig:Imagine if Alito or Roberts had said this:
“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”
End of discussion.
May 27, 2009 - 5:04 am 15. Telly:I suspect the only qualification Obama was truly looking for in a candidate was a bias against conservatives and whites.
May 27, 2009 - 5:20 am 16. D-wah:6. John—yes….and
tie Obummer to every thing you can about her!–his background, social justice beliefs, Alinsky training, revisionist constitutional “living document” statements, his (lack of) history, etc. etc. It’s the perfect opportunity.
It won’t effect the vote, but they can vet O-faceless and his agenda. Heck, Pravda is announcing the victory for socialism here!:
May 27, 2009 - 5:36 am 17. john from cinncinatti:http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
if Ricci doesn’t deserve to be promoted because he scored highest on the test, then he should be promoted because it makes us feel good. what other test do we provide? Meritocracy not Idiotocracy. Sotomayor isn’t the first female, is it to throw a bone to the Hispanics? how qualified is she? lets give her the same grilling Palin got.
May 27, 2009 - 5:48 am 18. arktkek48:As a tribute to Ted Kennedy, Republicans should Bork her candidacy. What better way to commemorate Ted’s lasting contribution to the political climate than by smearing and lying about Sotomayor.
May 27, 2009 - 5:57 am 19. BC:Gawd, what maroons — it’s these types of discussions and commentaries that have have helped create the growing perception that RINO-bashing, self-proclaimed “real conservatives” are basically just angry, malicious nutcases. This far, FAR right nonsense would have made your beloved Ayn Rand become a Powell Republican.
Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project, was diagnosed with diabetes when she was 8 yrs old, lost her dad when she was 9, but inspired by the old Perry Mason TV series, she went on to Princeton, graduating summa cum laude, and then to Yale where she got her J.D. and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Her most notable to date judicial accomplishment was her ending that long, drawn out 1994-95 baseball strike. She is a self-made person of accomplishment who was given no head start at all in life.
The numbnutted charges of racism against are apparently mostly based on a comment of hers taken out of context (surprise, surprise — do right wingers ever *not* take quotes out of context?) from a lecture she made back in 2001 at UC Berkeley’s School of Law that titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice”.
With at title like that and Sotomayor being Latino and having grown up in a housing project, WTF do you think she talked about? Go click on that link to the entire lecture and go search for the “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences” bit that the right wing media have been trying to twist your shorts over. If you’re not a complete fool, things might look a teeny bit different in context.
May 27, 2009 - 6:17 am 20. stuggo:Chuck ‘U’ Shumer called her a moderate, which is code word for ‘looney leftist’ in Democrat circles.
May 27, 2009 - 6:18 am 21. Lisette:Oh, for heaven’s sake. She’s clearly a dud, or else they would be shouting to the rooftops about how brilliant she is. Race is not an achievement, people.
Some of the liberal women I know said they found Palin insulting – because, y’know, she was clearly aimed at them personally, and only of course liberal women can be strong. I find this woman insulting.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” God, women are soooo emotional, am I right? We don’t work on logic and rule of law! Noooo, that’s for men! WE base legal decisions on how we feel! Because that’s what the law is about!
Sorry about the rant, but she really annoys me. And the bit that really chills me is the “I would hope”. God help any “wise Latina woman” who works as a judge and bases her judgements on the actual law.
May 27, 2009 - 6:33 am 22. Sebastian Shaw:Sonia Sotomayor is a racist demagogue much like President Obama; I hope her nomination goes down in flames in the Senate. The Republicans have plenty of substantive quotes to use against her, & she will have a difficult time defending her own words.
May 27, 2009 - 6:34 am 23. Don Rhudy:Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can prevent any nominee from leaving the committee by witholding an affirmative vote. Rules state that an affirmative vote must be supported by at least one member of the minority (i.e., the Republicans). However, there are so many Republican squishes on Judiciary, it’s almost a certainty Sotomayor will receive at least one minority vote, if not more. Then the Congress will affirm the nomination.
Will Rogers once contrasted himself, as a comedian, to Congress: “But with Congress—everytime they make a joke, it’s a law. And every time they make a law, it’s a joke.”
If Republicans were men of grit, no Obama nominee would leave Judiciary.
May 27, 2009 - 6:39 am 24. D-wah:19.BC–Oh, pleeeeeease. Take your arrogant party line swill swollowing elsewhere. Your smug tone bewrayeth you. Are you so unpopular you have to bust into other people’s homes and call them all names, just to get attention? How brave of you.
Now beat it.
May 27, 2009 - 6:40 am 25. D-wah:21 Lisette: Loved it!
Amazing about Palin, how personally the libs took her. I was shocked–I think I was naive as to the depth of the vitriol. I have a very liberal daughter in NYC (I know..) and just mentioning Palin to her I was completely taken back by her explosive reaction. And it wasn’t unique. I couldn’t even talk about what Palin represented with any liberals. The outright scorn and utter dismissal is almost unreal. It reminded me of the “Bush reaction” that was cultivated so effectively over the years.
Gotta say, the media’s done a bang up job of demonizing their targets.
May 27, 2009 - 6:51 am 26. Jack:We have a couple of months to learn what she is really all about, and unless any of you have been following her career over the past 30 years, you are just reacting to the right-wing-spin of the day. Relax, do some homework and then be rational.
To me the funny part is that it’s moot. Despite some potentially objectionable comments, she’s largely a constitutional centrist and as when she was first nominated for a seat by George HW Bush, she is going to get plenty of Republican votes. So all of the smack talk from the far right (including Limbaugh who has already started) will do nothing but further alienate the party. She’ll still be confirmed, and the bomb throwers will look even more out of touch because the Republicans will ultimately have to vote for her anyway.
Keep up the good work spinning in circles. Let us know when you want to start helping with the economy.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 6:56 am 27. Tony R:If BD used less of his childish tirades against the commenters on this article, thus making him appear too troll-like to be taken seriously, he does actually have a point.
All judicial appointees are politically motivated . ALL of them. No individual judges credentials are ever going to be straight-forward bullseye down-the-middle centrist. Not one. Ever.
I think people are jumping the gun to assume this woman will trample all over your constitution and not take her oath seriously. Even Obama has changed his tune on many of Bush’s policies since he actually became POTUS in direct contradiction to his campaigning when he had no responsibilities other than to convince people to vote for him.
Republicans should pick their fights carefully and this one seems like a waste of time.
May 27, 2009 - 6:58 am 28. Tony R:“If BD used less…..”
I did, of course mean BC (comment 19)
May 27, 2009 - 7:00 am 29. Jack:Oh and in the case of Frank Ricci, the author of this article (as well as the authors of every other right wing article who will reference this case) neglects to mention that Sotomayor upheld the current law, even if no one liked that law. Ricci’s argument was that the existing laws were out of date and should be ignored. That isn’t the job of a justice…THAT would be judicial activism. Congress changes law, not judges.
I would think that non-hypocritical folks on the right should be applauding what she did in that case, not spinning it to suit their simple intent to oppose and be the party of ‘no’.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 7:08 am 30. Meryl:24 D-wah
“Are you so unpopular you have to bust into other people’s homes and call them all names, just to get attention?”
That is the best troll-response line I have seen.
May 27, 2009 - 7:10 am 31. D-wah:For Moogs, when you check in: (from Kimball’s string yest).
Tx for the reply. Love the Jeaneane Garafabuffalo comparison to Soto. Notice these women’s faces? I call them “muscle faces”. Dishonest, bitter people have distorted facial features from years of anger, negativity and scowling. Sotamayor’s face (sounds like a big desoto, or a constellation of soot) is particularly blown up.
You can tell a lot in a face. Garafalobble actually got her lip done on top of her muscle face–ha! She can’t even talk correctly now and is constantly sucking it in, like a lot of these women do. So weird. (hope to God 24 drops her–I bet she threatened and harangued her way into that job..after all, affirmative action applies to all minorities–and she’s VERY minor…)
Keep up the gr8 work and saying “your piece”!
PS: Ever seen some of these career politicians faces up close in real life? Most of them are so fake and freakishly unreal it’s like watching “Horrors of the Wax Museum”!
Obummer has more of a scowling poker face–he had to learn that to hide his true feelings and intentions, knowing he’s on a stealth mission…as well as to come across as if he’s in control and unchallengeable. It’s an act. But that big inverted curved line across his chin–look for it–is from years of this posturing, and overall scowling, angry negativity. Creepy.
May 27, 2009 - 7:12 am 32. ED S.:A moderate? A centrist? In what alternative universe? 60% of her Appeals Court rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court. A judge votes yea or nay. Statistically a judge has a 50% chance of being right. Her record makes her a far left idealogue or a colossal incompetent.
May 27, 2009 - 7:14 am 33. sheesh:Right or wrong, Republicans and conservatives have a reputation for not caring about racial equality. Opposing immigration reform, decrying affirmative action and, of course, last year’s sea of middle-aged white faces at the Republican Convention reinforce that stereotype. That’s why expressing moral outrage at Soto’s nomination looks disingenuous. It looks purely political. The fact that she’s a Latino woman exacerbates that problem. And who’s leading the fight against her? Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee and Jeff Sessions. They don’t get any whiter than that, folks. And let’s not forget the outrage of the right when Ms Alito whimpered out of the room because some senators had the gall to suggest it was bigoted of her husband to belong to a club that didn’t want women or brown people attending Princeton. We’ll see how quickly Republicans abandon the high ground and start filibustering and accusing this nominee of racism.
What’s the saying? . . . You should have thought of that before.
May 27, 2009 - 7:18 am 34. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:I’ve found it funny to read the accusations that Sotomayor has somehow been using race as the only factor in her decisions. The Ricci decision is a demonstration that Sotomayor used her understanding of the law to draw her conclusions. If you have a problem with Title VII, then you should work to change it, but don’t blame Sotomayor for strictly interpreting it.
http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm
EEO: Disparate Impact
Disparate Impact Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.
1. Supreme Court Cases The Supreme Court first described the disparate impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. . . . [G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”
In 1989, the Supreme Court reduced the defendant’s burden of proving business necessity to a burden of producing evidence of business justification. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned that portion of the Wards Cove decision.
2. Examples Examples of practices that may be subject to a disparate impact challenge include written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews.
And to the person who complained about my long posts. The reason my posts are so long is that your writers are completely failing your readership, and sending them out with the weakest talking points I’ve ever seen. I do this more out of sympathy than anything else.
May 27, 2009 - 7:20 am 35. Jack:#24 D-wah “Are you so unpopular you have to bust into other people’s homes and call them all names, just to get attention?”
Are you so unsure of your own opinions that you can’t stand to have them challenged?
Are you so afraid of discussion that you go to sites where you expect to only find friendly agreement to everything you say?
#30 Meryl – People who make points aren’t trolls…they are sharing their opinions (there may be emotion in it, but based on the name calling headed my way, it isn’t the exclusive tool of the left, trust me). And BC does have a valid point about how the right is spinning the details, but no one here wants to comment on that…they just want to spin.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 7:23 am 36. susan:“Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project, was diagnosed with diabetes when she was 8 yrs old, lost her dad when she was 9, but inspired by the old Perry Mason TV series, she went on to Princeton, graduating summa cum laude, and then to Yale where she got her J.D. and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Her most notable to date judicial accomplishment was her ending that long, drawn out 1994-95 baseball strike. She is a self-made person of accomplishment who was given no head start at all in life. ”
wow, i am impressed, of 300 million americans is she the only one that can claim such a past?
If it takes so little to be “special” you’re in serious trouble.
I bet if she was a white woman with the same background you wouldn’t be so impressed. The fact that she belongs to a self-victimized minority group (typically leftist also) changes everything.
May 27, 2009 - 7:25 am 37. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:And another thing. If its fair for people on the right to assume that Sotomayor is liberal and race-biased simply because she’s Puerto Rican, isn’t it also fair for those on the left to assume that your main problem with Sotomayor is that she’s a woman and Puerto Rican?
I’m willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt, though some of you clearly don’t deserve it. I’ve taken all of your arguments seriously and researched them. The problem is, there’s nothing there. Its all based on one sentence in a speech and 30 seconds of video. Few of you understand the case law involved, or seem to have any interest. Few of you know the history of her decisions or have envinced any interest in doing so.
There have one or two commenters here who have kept the issue in perspective and been fair in their approach. I have to say, that I’m pleasantly surprised. The rest of you are creating most of the suction dragging down your party.
May 27, 2009 - 7:35 am 38. D-wah:30 Meryl–Glad it nailed it. I’m sick of these idiots busting in on us. They think they’re the SS…and don’t even realize it!! Just another symptom of this lunacy being perpetrated on us.
Don’t miss this article. It’s a wake up call to impending calamities. IMO something’s gotta give, and soon. Obummer’s given the go ahead by his inept inaction and N.Korea and Iran are filling the void fast, esp. Kim Very Ill–he’s precipitating action by someone. I’ve sent my kids survival supply and emergency preparation info. Alarming article with good points. Take care.
Defeating a Hitler with nukes: Nothing else matters – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/defeating_a_hitler_with_nukes.html
May 27, 2009 - 7:36 am 39. Middleman:I’m a white middle class male. Minorities are trying to keep me down and no one listens to me. WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
Honestly, you folks need to get real. Bitching the way you do, I could only imagine what might happen if you actually suffered from things such as cops pulling you over and searching your car just for being in certain neighborhoods.
May 27, 2009 - 7:41 am 40. AThinkingPerson:This is what the American education system churns out when quotas and not quality are emphasized. Yes, she may be brilliant but she learned that minorities should be favored to even the playing field. Funny how having a black President still hasn’t leveled that field. Maybe rendering legal decisions based on color and sex and not the Constitution will?
Frightening times for Americans. I guess they should chisel that blindfold off of lady justice on the Supreme Court Building. Justice is no longer blind.
May 27, 2009 - 7:45 am 41. ED S.:Amazing the urban legends about Republicans and race. It was Republicans that got Civil Rights passed in COngress not dumocrats. It becomes a standard smear procedure of the left to deflect any argument against a minority no matter how incompetent or corrupt by yelling RACISM. The country continues to degrade as the left tries to force not equal opportunity but equal outcome.
May 27, 2009 - 7:46 am 42. D. Grant Chee:Evidently Sotomayor is a prejudiced feminist.
May 27, 2009 - 7:47 am 43. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:Picking this unfeminine bigot is BHO’s par.
Suddenly discrimination, prejudice, division,
sexism, arrogance, incitement, judicial activism and hate are prerequisites for a female. Now is
the time for the congress to proove they stand for something—but—look at the tax cheats our congress has approved for their darling BHO? A corrupt nation will not prosper and no one may profit from a crime. sotomayor is proof that the quota crime produces in-justice.
And how do you explain this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html
Transcript
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court
U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
COBURN: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think I’ll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.
SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.
May 27, 2009 - 7:50 am 44. Aureliano:We have a couple of months to learn what she is really all about, and unless any of you have been following her career over the past 30 years, you are just reacting to the right-wing-spin of the day.
And unless you have been following her career over the past 30 years, you are just reacting to the right-wing’s reaction to the nomination.
In other words, by your own logic, you must concede that the right may be correct in its evaluation of her. Interesting that you automatically dismiss any criticism of her as inaccurate. It’s almost as if you’re not aware of her career … or are just another bigoted Democrat partisan ….
Relax, do some homework and then be rational.
Pot, meet kettle (only don’t call me black).
To me the funny part is that it’s moot.
Then why are you commenting?
Despite some potentially objectionable comments, she’s largely a constitutional centrist and as when she was first nominated for a seat by George HW Bush, she is going to get plenty of Republican votes.
I thought we all needed to wait to learn more about her career. How do you know she’s a centrist when presumably you’re ’still learning’ about her career?
So all of the smack talk from the far right (including Limbaugh who has already started) will do nothing but further alienate the party.
I thought dissent was patriotic, an expression of democracy in action. Isn’t making a ruckus about such issues what makes one transcendant morally, intellectually, and spiritually? Is not ’speaking truth to power’ and/or speaking out about what you believe in all that matters, regardless of whether or not one becomes ‘alienated’ by doing so?
She’ll still be confirmed, and the bomb throwers will look even more out of touch because the Republicans will ultimately have to vote for her anyway.
Funny. Roberts and Alito were destined to be confirmed, and yet the left-wing extremists put on their little grenadier hats and were ‘bombs away’ with their accusations ….
Keep up the good work spinning in circles. Let us know when you want to start helping with the economy.
OK. I’ll quit my job, go on welfare, and start chanting slogans. What could be more … progressive? Or I could just continue to keep working in the private sector and pay my taxes to support the parasites in the public sector. After all, according to Obama, this is my sole purpose in life — I think he and Sotomayor would call it ’social justice’, or somesuch ….
May 27, 2009 - 8:00 am 45. sheesh:43. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:
Why I . . . harumph . . .it’s . . . . uh . . . . well that doesn’t . . . and another thing . . . baloogah . . . it’s a different . . . LIBTARD! I THINK I HEAR ONE OF YOUR TWO MOMMIES CALLING!
May 27, 2009 - 8:01 am 46. blotto:BooBoo #34: “protected class”, “…intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”
You made the case against her for us. Title VII is discriminatory against anyone not a “protected class.” This notion of protected class is absurd to in theory and ridiculuos in action.
Do you want an MD who is only an MD because they fulfilled the Title VII requirements? In Ricci V DeStanfano white firemen were denied promotions they richly deserved and toiled for because of this notion of protecting a “protected class.” So now who is to put out the fire-someone who cannot pass the test of competency or someone who is qualified. You favor empathy over meritocracy. How quaint. How foolish.
You leftists carry around this egalitarian notion of everyone being equal. IF that were true we would have never become the greatest nation this planet ever knew because nobody would aspire to be great.
Look BooBoo, I bet you are a white male so how about you give up your job for a “protected class” person. I mean if you favor Title VII so much, isn’t it your duty to submit to it??
May 27, 2009 - 8:02 am 47. ED S.:MIddleman- I think Jesse Jackson referred to that as Baysian behavior. Statistically the cops are right. Don’t Affirmative action fans favor statistics?
May 27, 2009 - 8:06 am 48. Jack:#36 Susan – Does her being hispanic mean that she isn’t qualified? Or her being female for that matter? Why don’t you tell us why you think she isn’t, rather than whining about her being hispanic and nominated to the court…it was bound to happen sooner or later. Were you just holding onto this complaint about hispanic women until it finally happened?
Or maybe you actually don’t have any issue with her being hispanic or a woman, but you just are mad that a Democratic President nominated her and you are still trying to deal with sour grapes and reveling in the party line of ‘no’?
Just a thought.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 8:08 am 49. Fred Beloit:Jack, Sheets and seemingly anti-semite BooBoo are just like white men. They have little richness of experience that would allow them to construct a reasonable viewpoint.
May 27, 2009 - 8:08 am 50. sheesh:49 Fred beloit . . . Yeah, just keep spewing your media fed talking points and cashing your checks you get to post here. Dog turd of irony!
May 27, 2009 - 8:15 am 51. stuggo:Metro-Sexual Urban snobs scare the hell out of me. Not!!!!!!
May 27, 2009 - 8:16 am 52. Chris:Jack writes in part;
“…and as when she was first nominated for a seat by George HW Bush,…”
The evidence is quite clear that Sotomayor was hand picked by Patrick Moynihan for that seat as part of a deal which was the established procedure for selecting judicial nominees at the time. Horse trading if you will. If you must criticize the “talking points” of your opponents as out of touch with reality, you might want to check your own. I know Obama made the same point but that isn’t quite the full story on her initial nomination to the bench.
May 27, 2009 - 8:20 am 53. Fred Beloit:The Left, like BC, heroes of the common person, are always throwing Princeton and Yale and Harvard Law in out faces as if they weren’t code words for the old “blue blood” concept of the elite. This is very odd behavior for members of the Demographic Party.
BC example: “…she went on to Princeton, graduating summa cum laude, and then to Yale where she got her J.D. and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal…”
As if these editorships at Yale and Harvard were selections based solely on accomplishment and not honorary PC offices.
May 27, 2009 - 8:26 am 54. Jack:#44 Aureliano – In the Ricci case and the oft-repeated quote about her being Latina it has been shown that the right-wing opinion are either blatantly hypocritical or desparately reaching for something to be upset about. No one here has challenged either of those, so looks like I have the high ground between us. As to calling me bigoted, since I’m not hispanic I’m the one supporting someone of another race…you are the one who isn’t.
I was commenting, even though it’s moot, because you all don’t realize it. You are so busy whining that you are continuing to spiral your party into obscurity. If the country weren’t in real trouble, I’d find it funny. Since we are in real trouble, I’d like you all to stop tilting at these windmills and rejoin the governing process.
She’s been nominated for her offices by the Right and the Left, and she received bi-partisan support both times. Her record that is known is centrist and there is clear case with Ricci that she is not an activist. So you have to prove that she’s not centrist, as the history indicates that she is.
Dissent can be patriotic, but as I said before, I’d prefer you to fix your party so we can get back to business. Although for the last 8 years we were told that speaking against the President during war time was tantamount to treason, but apparently Cheney and Rush “I hope we fail” Limbaugh didn’t hear that.
As to Roberts and Alito, the Dems launched their bombs because the majority of the country was against Bush. You can do that when the other side is dying. That’s what you folks need to realize…when you are outnumbered 3 to 1, it’s a bad time to start finding more enemies.
Nice attempt at parsing my words, but through all that you didn’t have a single point about the nomination. Why? I expect because you don’t care about it, don’t know anything about it, and are just here to whine. I hope the fiscal conservatives out there cowboy up and start talking louder than ‘NO’ people like you.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 8:27 am 55. Concerned:Why the surprise? – Obama’s beliefs and intentions were well known before the election. He planned his work (remaking America), and now he is working his plan (remaking America). Eventually the United States of America with its timeless Constitution will cease to exist and in its place will exist the United Socialist States of America, with a new socialist Constitution, all in the image that Dear Leader continues to foist upon us.
The answer is simple, Americans needs to stop drinking the kool-aid and start looking at what is happening without the rose colored glasses. The ballot box is the weapon of choice. One other weapon is the ballot initiative and our existing laws on impeachment. These require work and cannot be accomplished with weekend beer binges, mindless sitcoms and reality TV, or a couch potato life.
We are not a democracy, nor have we ever been one – we are a Republic, and thus our country is run by elected representatives, who have morphed into an elite ruling class. We must remove them and replace them with representatives (both the house and senate) who are responsive to the voters and the existing Constitution, not their own selfish self interests of reelection and power as their only interests..
May 27, 2009 - 8:27 am 56. Fred Beloit:“Dog turd of irony!”
See, this is what I meant. Such anger from being richness-deprived.
May 27, 2009 - 8:29 am 57. Ted G.:Sotomayor is incapable of understanding the “life experiences” of white male firefighters, as she biasly explains, because she is a latina female.
Sotomayor personifies the destruction of ethical US Supreme Court nominees.
May 27, 2009 - 8:33 am 58. Jack:#45 Sheesh – Nice name calling. Good value add. Thanks for your service to the country.
#49 Fred – That kind of pointless statement is what your “inside” voice is for…it is wasting space on the Internet. Do you have a point? Apparently you lack the richness of experience required to contruct a thought.
#52 Chris – Moynihan’s reasoning is immaterial. She was nominated, and reviewed, she was approved with bi-partisanship and several times in fact. And she will be again…and that is the precise reality that my opponents talking points are out of touch with. They are going to vote for her because at the end of the day, they don’t want to lose more hispanic votes, even though they may make something of a showing for the cameras during her confirmation. You know it, I know it, and it’s either disingenuous or ignorant to say otherwise (IMHO).
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 8:34 am 59. susan:jack 48
“Does her being hispanic mean that she isn’t qualified? Or her being female for that matter?”
does being a white male says he isnt qualified? If you say yes, you show you are racist as your precious sonia, if you say no, it means you are hypocritical. Have your choice.
“Why don’t you tell us why you think she isn’t, rather than whining about her being hispanic and nominated to the court…it was bound to happen sooner or later. Were you just holding onto this complaint about hispanic women until it finally happened?”
LOL, if I came to the USA (because thank god, I don’t live in a country based on racial prejudice against whites), I’d be considered hispanic too, do you still consider me racist (as you imply with your innuendos) or more the hispanic version of uncle tom? Or more do you admit you’re sticking your foot in your mouth?
Do you think it is fair that my white husband (hypotetically against a black woman or another ‘victimized’ minority) is not treated equally by an american judge because this self-professed “better than the rest” judge thinks empathy comes first and allegedly victimized minorities gets preferential treatment?
If you think it’s fair, I suppose the majority of third world countries have trials and court cases set up like that.
“Or maybe you actually don’t have any issue with her being hispanic or a woman, but you just are mad that a Democratic President nominated her and you are still trying to deal with sour grapes and reveling in the party line of ‘no’?”
I am not american, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But I can still judge an incapable a$$hole put there by white guilt when I see one, and that means zerobama and his gang of crooks.
No white person would have survived a scandal involving 20 years of racist sermons. Apparently in america being racist is not that bad if you are black (or a latina) or a democrat.
Just a though Jack, have you ever thought that you being a leftist, can afford to do things that are not allowed to the rest of the population?
Isn’t it ironic, considering you leftist/democrats are the one with the holier than thou attitude, all about being fair and equal?
All BS, as proven day after day.
If you allow racism just because it comes from your political side you have no business talking to me.
May 27, 2009 - 8:34 am 60. misanthropicus:“Sonia Sotomayor appears to doubt the fundamental premise of our government: that “all men are created equal.”
“Two legs bad – four legs good!” is the condensed description of this affair.
And as far as “all men are created equal” Sotomayor doesn’t doubt this, she is certain of this, and she hereself is an excellent illustration of how the “Two legs bad – four legs good!” concept is applied in today’s America.
Anyway, we’ll see how this affair will evolve – I found also revealing liberals’ gleeful reaction to this nomination, that is they simply show no curiosity for the fact that she might be dangerously unqualified for the job. All what they regale in is “Obama has outflanked the republicans!” “What a bright manoever!” etc., position that shows time and again that liberals have no interest whatsoever for the nation’s problems – their petty triumphs are all what makes them tick.
May 27, 2009 - 8:35 am 61. LynnS:I don’t like to hook a judgment on a person for one quote or misstatement but it is a little disheartening to hear a woman who has achieved great success in her chosen profession repeat prejudices that she appears to abhor.
Assuming that a ‘white’ man could not be wise unless he has lived every life that he must pass judgment on was a silly unfair thing to say. She made a prejudicial statement that she deserves to be questioned about.
I would want an explanation of that statement in order to decide whether she deserves a place on the Supreme Court.
May 27, 2009 - 8:42 am 62. Fred Beloit:#54 Jack
“Nice attempt at parsing my words, but through all that you didn’t have a single point about the nomination. Why?”
Ok, let’s discuss why Obama’s main interest regarding a SCOTUS candidate is whether that candidate would show empathy in making a decision. That is in no way a key qualification for that Court, nor any other. It’s about the rule of law at the highest level, Jack. And Obama gets all teary-eyed and mushy over such a serious matter?. He doesn’t seem to get it any better than you do.
May 27, 2009 - 8:48 am 63. Jack:#59 Susan – Asking a question isn’t hypocritical. Your not answering it was you ducking the topic because you don’t have a good answer and you know it.
I didn’t imply you are racist, you took it that way because you felt you were saying potentially racist things. The only thing I implied was you are just reflexively saying ‘no’ because you don’t like Democrats or anything they do, even though you don’t know anything about the topic at hand. Which your response proved once again, as you had nothing to say about Sotomayor (still).
As a white male, no I don’t think it is fair that I miss out on an opportunity simply because I’m not a minority. Thanks for asking. See, you made a ton of assumptions about so-called Leftists in general, and me in specific. The difference is that your comments and thoughts here are entirely based on racial issues, and none of mine are. For example, you think Obama was elected entirely by white guilt. As a white guy who voted for him, it had nothing to do with his race for me, it had to do with his opponent. I voted for Romney, but we got stuck with McCain.
So, since I don’t support “racism from my political side”, why don’t you tell me why everything you’ve said so far has to do with race and not even the slightest mention of her qualifications (or lack thereof)? Do you care about anything except her race? I think it’s a fair question as the first time I asked you it was completely ignored, so it seems like you are ducking it…
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 8:50 am 64. D-wah:35-Jack; I don’t like responding to your type but I’ll give it one shot.
You said, “Are you so unsure of your own opinions that you can’t stand to have them challenged?” “Are you so afraid of discussion that you go to sites where you expect to only find friendly agreement to everything you say?”
Jack, I give you BC: He starts off:
“Gawd, what maroons — it’s these types of discussions and commentaries that have have helped create the growing perception that RINO-bashing, self-proclaimed “real conservatives” are basically just angry, malicious nutcases. This far, FAR right nonsense would have made your beloved Ayn Rand become a Powell Republican.”
Sounds reasonable enough. Nothing shrill, no broad-brushing. (bad spelling maybe–did he mean macaroons, or morons?–or we’re marooned?-anyway) Certainly someone I’d like to have in a discussion, wouldn’t you? “Here, let me punch you and your friends in the eye and then let’s all have a nice chat…” Very inviting Jack. Boy I’d like to do that all day long, wouldn’t you?
Actually, I do frequent this site for the good what you might call Conservative opinions and information–but Conservative of course is now a dirty word in Newspeak, so you probably just cringed twice.
And I learn–a lot. From terrific input. But not from trolls, though. Their message is always the same drum beat and has the same stinky taunting and negativity. It just scares me that people would prostitute themselves like that. Mind you there are some well thought out points, but it’s not from the Trolls. Their anger is personal and their motives are clearly suspect.
Now you might, but I wouldn’t go down to the biker bar and start haranguing them about their beliefs and way of life, now would I? Not smart. (But if I could taunt them anonymously and I had a real dislike for bikers, I could raise their hackles leaving anonymous insults around the bar and watch them fume.) But neither of them is really all that civil, is it? My mind’s made up I don’t like them, but they have a right to their way of life assuming it’s within the law. (Ooooo..smacks of “diversity”..but not the kind you had in mind when it comes to Conservative values, now is it?)
Similarly, I don’t go to Huffblow or the NYTimes for information or to pick fights or challenge liberals. If it did some good I might. But I don’t. It wouldn’t. And I don’t agree with this “get in their faces” trip Obama told you guys to do and your mindset cultivates. It’s bullying, intimidation, coercion and hateful. That’s wrong, by the way. I know the playbook says it’s OK, but it’s NOT. The ends DON’T justify the means.
Similarly, trolls don’t do you any service. It just confirms our knowledge of where you’re coming from all the more. For that I should possibly thank you, but I won’t. It’s become a nuisance.
So this brings me to why, Jack? What’s your point? You gonna be one of the ones they call on to turn me in for not being “fair” or “open-minded”, young brown shirt? You see where you’re coming from?
Are you starting to realize you’re policing me? What do you want, Jack–a fairness doctrine for every blog and website? How very SS of you. And don’t laugh it off—that’s EXACTLY where all this is heading.
Wake up, bud. You’re being herded into a facist mindset. Just look at today’s Greenie, pro-death, gaylib and climate control idiocy “political correctness” doctrines. You libs are INDIGNANT if someone doesn’t subscribe to any part of this insanity and will shout down and destroy anyone who dares to oppose it. Nice free world you believe in, bud.
So my answer is (you did ask the question) NO–I’m not unsure of my opinions–can you tell? And NO, I’m not afraid of discussion. That doesn’t mean I have to subject myself to anything some one wants to throw at me, or swim in a cesspool looking for McNuggets. I know where the good food is. You apparently have to troll our sites for anything substantive. Think about that.
I just hope your last name doesn’t become Boot, Jack, cuz that was your tone. Same as BC, and a slew of others. God deliver us.
Have I said enough? Let me know if you need more–maybe someone else would like to try and straighten you out. (I do hope there’s hope for you, by the way. You SHOULD read Ayn Rand if you haven’t.)
May 27, 2009 - 8:50 am 65. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:“You made the case against her for us. Title VII is discriminatory against anyone not a “protected class.” This notion of protected class is absurd to in theory and ridiculuos in action.”
Did I make your case? Then it seems you’re arguing that judges are there to override laws that they don’t like. I believe in the popular jargon that’s called being an activist judge. Its not my fault you don’t even know what your own point is.
May 27, 2009 - 8:57 am 66. Ms. Attitude:The need for affirmative action and lowering testing standards is the only proof needed that Democrats who support these things view the white man as superior. Let’s see, who’s the racist?
May 27, 2009 - 8:58 am 67. Middleman:ED.S,
Based on the law of averages, if you just set up roadblocks and checked every car, you’d probably find a high number of violators of the law regardless of race.
I can understand if a law enforcement officer is acting on a hunch, however many cases are well beyond that. I suggest you look into the recent cases of race based shakedowns in Tenaha, Texas and tell me the cops are usually right.
May 27, 2009 - 9:03 am 68. Fred Beloit:Say BooBoo, what case are you making by picking that moniker?
May 27, 2009 - 9:07 am 69. Jack:#66 Ms. Attitude – You are missing the point…she is a judge…she rules on the law. She doesn’t make the law (if she tries, you call her an activist). Whether she liked the law or not, it was the law and that’s the way she ruled.
One might think you want her to have ‘empathy’ for white people? Hmmm…
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 9:07 am 70. Moogie:Thanks for the nod D-wah – I caught it on the other thread as well.
Dear BooBoo, et al:
Despite my vow to not engage in debate with people who disagree with me, I would like to cut to the chase – get to the meat and potatoes – make the long story short.
Let’s forget about Sotomayer’s ethnic background, childhood, gender, and let’s not try to surmise Obama’s reason for choosing this person to sit on the highest court in the land.
Instead, let’s focus on what this person said: “because court of appeals is where policy is made.” WRONG. Congress is where policy is made. But everyone seems to have forgotten that this is the reason behind the separation of powers.
From the article: “The Senate might wonder whether this is a glimpse into her theory of jurisprudence or simply an example of poor judgment and taste.”
A judge with poor judgement doesn’t sound like a very good judge to me. A judge who tells an audience that she’s a better judge because of her race and gender sounds like a racist and a sexist to me. I certainly wouldn’t want her to have any kind of power of judgement over my white son.
May 27, 2009 - 9:09 am 71. savage24:I have a hard time trying to figure out how all these dirt poor liberals get into Ivy League Colleges.Who paid their way ant to whom do they owe? I realize that as a white male, I’m a racist so I should be shut up.
May 27, 2009 - 9:14 am 72. Jack:#64 D-wah – As an FYI, “maroon” is a Bugs Bunny quote…he said that all the time, so it may not have been a spelling issue…
‘Conservative’ isn’t a dirty word as long as it’s proceeded by ‘Fiscal’ and not ‘Social’. That’s just my personal opinion, of course.
What makes a troll? Is it the way they talk or they way they talk on a given site? As I am in the minority here, I take a lot more abuse than I give most of the time so are those who are slamming me trolls because of the emotion and childishness, or are they just good conservatives because they are here on PJM?
As to policing you, physician heal thyself! You told someone to effectively shut up and go away. I just called you out for having done it. I find it amusing that you wrote about how caring and diverse and friendly you are and then you called me a Nazi (’brown shirt’ and ‘SS’ references).
Moreover, you assume that I like Obama. In fact, I am against more of what he has done than I’ve been for. But because I take even one stance different than the folks in this thread and I’m a “rabid Leftard”. This is why your party is failing.
And as to why I come here, I come here because why would I go talk to other people who believe as I do? What’s the point? If I only want to go to a ‘friendly’ site to have other people tell me how much they agree with me I’ll skip it and just call my mom.
I come here to talk to those I don’t agree with so that maybe we can find common ground and fix this country. It’s just a shame that the party as it stands today isn’t willing to fix anything unless they can have everything exactly the way they want it 100% and if they can’t fix it, then they “hope we fail”.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 9:22 am 73. Aureliano:In the Ricci case and the oft-repeated quote about her being Latina it has been shown that the right-wing opinion are either blatantly hypocritical or desparately reaching for something to be upset about.
It is Obama and Sotomayor herself, in addition to the Democrat media, who first emphasized her ethnicity. As the media put it, it is a ‘historic’ nomination because she’s Hispanic (not because she’s a she). But hey, since you know so much about her, why don’t you outline her theories of jurisprudence for us? And I mean in your own words, not just some copy-and-pasted nonsense form somewhere or another.
No one here has challenged either of those, so looks like I have the high ground between us.
Well, you didn’t comment specifically on my pot and kettle remark, either, so I guess I have the high ground between us and you are indeed no different from those caricatures you think you are criticizing.
As to calling me bigoted, since I’m not hispanic I’m the one supporting someone of another race…you are the one who isn’t.
Man, you’re just not very bright. ‘Bigot’ may or may not be related to racism. Webster’s Ninth defines it as ‘one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices’. Shall I define the word ‘prejudice’ for you, as well, or are you going to stop being illiterate and concede that you’re a political bigot?
I was commenting, even though it’s moot, because you all don’t realize it. You are so busy whining that you are continuing to spiral your party into obscurity.
How old are you? Something tells me this is the first change of power you’ve witnessed in Washington.
If the country weren’t in real trouble, I’d find it funny. Since we are in real trouble, I’d like you all to stop tilting at these windmills and rejoin the governing process.
Is this your first serious recession? Something tells me this is the first full-fledged economic drawback you’ve ever experienced. And please, verbal diarhheic terms like ‘rejoin the governing process’ may diddle ditzy community college professors into throes of passion, but not outs here amongst the worldly hoi polloi.
She’s been nominated for her offices by the Right and the Left, and she received bi-partisan support both times.
Her record that is known is centrist and there is clear case with Ricci that she is not an activist. So you have to prove that she’s not centrist, as the history indicates that she is.
Listen up bumpkin: you can’t prove a negative. Sheesh. Now you’re just being dumb …. I think you mean I need to prove she’s a liberal judge. I’m not going to bother because about 50 million other people will have the evidence assembled in a matter of days –- heck, even that ‘Almanac of the Federal Judiciary’ publication, which I believe is written primarily by academic (i.e., liberal) law professors, describes her as liberal. It’s no secret, and it’s not surprising or unexpected in the least. But you keep mouthing CNN platitudes that she’s a ‘centrist’, kiddo, you keep doing that ….
Dissent can be patriotic, but as I said before, I’d prefer you to fix your party so we can get back to business.
I’m not a Republican. But hey, conflation is the refuge of the ignorant, so there you go ….
Although for the last 8 years we were told that speaking against the President during war time was tantamount to treason, but apparently Cheney and Rush “I hope we fail” Limbaugh didn’t hear that.
Wow. Such powerful arguments being rallied. You did not, however, refute my point or bolster yours. In short, criticism of Sotomayor is perfectly legitimate, and not necessarily in vain, either (just ask Ted Kennedy why thought initial opposition to the Alito and Roberts nominations was a good political maneuver …).
As to Roberts and Alito, the Dems launched their bombs because the majority of the country was against Bush.
Ah. I guess how a President scores on approval polls is the central concern with the approval of justices … it says so right in the Constitution. Make up your mind, kid — are we concerned only about the politics, or are we ‘high-minded’ and pay attention only to qualifications and theories of jurisprudence. You’re making me dizzy ….
You can do that when the other side is dying. That’s what you folks need to realize…when you are outnumbered 3 to 1, it’s a bad time to start finding more enemies.
3-to-1? Er, in case you hadn’t noticed while watching CNN and reading CNN.com, nationally the number of registered Republicans is now on par with the number of registered Democrats. Oh wait, you’re conflating approval ratings with poltical party. (Darn that pesky conflation thing.) Ignorance, meet Conflation (only don’t call it Intelligent Commentary).
Nice attempt at parsing my words, but through all that you didn’t have a single point about the nomination. Why?
My ‘point’ was only to illustrate that by your own logic you cannot reach any conclusion about the accuracy of any negative comments about Sotomayor’s theories of jurisprudence, given that we are all – including you — still learning about her. This is your rubric, not mine. And of course, I wanted to get in a little dig that we all know that your comments are just bigoted partisan nonsense masquerading as intelligent commentary. The question is, do you?
I expect because you don’t care about it, don’t know anything about it, and are just here to whine. I hope the fiscal conservatives out there cowboy up and start talking louder than ‘NO’ people like you.
Whatever you say, kiddo. Whatever you say. (and how did fiscal conservatism get folded into the nomination process? Dang it, more conflation of unrelated items again!)
May 27, 2009 - 9:26 am 74. Ms. Attitude:39. Middleman: Booo hooo, I’m a minority and can’t do anything for myself so I’ll blame the whites that actually achieve….
May 27, 2009 - 9:29 am 75. Jack:#62 Fred – I never did hear a good explanation of what he meant by “empathy” so I agree it’s somewhere between confusing and concerning.
That said, there are a lot of self-described white people here who are complaining about affirmative action that in doing so are implying they want justices (or Congress) to have empathy for them and to see things from their perspective. Food for thought.
And I agree that justices should rule based on the law, and not make the law. But, it’s been pointed out several times here that this is exactly what she did in the Ricci case and not a single person has responded with a refute or an apology. It rings a bit intellectually dishonest given the whole crusade against activist judges from the right, while in this particular court case they are decrying her for not changing the law from the bench.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 9:30 am 76. Chuck Pelto:TO: Muddleman
RE: Muddled Thinking….
…AGAIN??!??!!
You ARE an ‘idiot’.
Been there. Done that. Took it with a grain of salt and reported the officer’s behavior.
What’s your point?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 27, 2009 - 9:31 am 77. Chuck Pelto:P.S. And what the HELL does it have to do with this racist-sexist?
TO: WebMeister
RE: Losing It?
Why is it the double-carriage returns aren’t working on this thread?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 27, 2009 - 9:32 am 78. Chuck Pelto:[Good user interface is the hobgoblin of web-site management....]
P.S. OH! NOW it’s back!
How nice…..
May 27, 2009 - 9:32 am 79. xcontra:Equal protection of the law, verdicts independent of the ethnicity of the judge = good to emphasize, JR.
“Rule of law” is not so good, too generic.
This would be better: Will you pledge to never legislate from the bench?
If someone asked her *that* question in committee hearings, it would accomplish several good things:
a) permanently paralyze the brain of Senator Leahy with blind rage.
b) force her out into the open, and either a YES or a NO will be helpful later on.
That is how I see it.
May 27, 2009 - 9:34 am 80. Eppur Si:BooBoo, It’s funny that you cite disparate impact to make your point, since disparate impact is itself a rule which liberal judges made up. It was not in Title VII at the time. And just fyi, white males are also a protected class under the law, so if Judge Sotomayor chooses to discriminate against them it is not because she is compelled to do so by Title VII.
May 27, 2009 - 9:34 am 81. Middleman:Ms. Attitude,
Congratulations on completely missing the mark. I’m not crying about not being able to do anything for myself. I’ve never asked for a handout, never counted on anyone, and I’d say I have achieved quite a bit in my life. All I ask is if you want me to play the game, don’t stack the deck. Level playing field, right?
In the case of Sotomayer, here you have a perfect example of a minority who pulled herself up by her own bootstraps, but apparently that doesn’t mean anything to the Republican personal responsibility crowd. She’s a hispanic woman, it MUST be reverse racism.
May 27, 2009 - 9:40 am 82. Pat J:76. Chuck Pelto:
—————-
Even a non Mensa could see Middleman was referring to racial profiling based on recent outbursts from Limpballs, tancredo and others who says Sotomayor is a reverse racist. Geez.
I think she’s going to be an excellent Justice.
May 27, 2009 - 9:50 am 83. Sherab Zangpo:#14 Craig
You wrote:
Imagine if Alito or Roberts had said this:
“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”
End of discussion.
They can do and say ANYTHING, they are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, they are the ENLIGHTENED BY THE REVELATION OF MARX.
They look at Freedom in the same way a fisherman looks at fish desperately splashing water INSIDE THE BUCKET where it has been put when caught.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
May 27, 2009 - 9:55 am 84. JMD:If an unqualified and racially divisive African American can become president of the United States, why can’t an unqualified and racially divisive Latin American become a Supreme Court justice?
May 27, 2009 - 9:57 am 85. JMD:As a white male, I wish I was capable of richness of experience.
Perhaps one day I will understand what that means.
May 27, 2009 - 9:59 am 86. Ms. Attitude:69. Jack: Justice is supposed to be blind. Her record shows that she isn’t. A judge should have zero empathy.
It would be great if we no longer had to check those silly little boxes on everything that asks race or gender. That we were judged by our actions and were accepted into school or hired because of our abilities and not our race or gender.
May 27, 2009 - 9:59 am 87. Jack:#73 Aureliano – I could respond to all of your points but since you didn’t address any of mine, I won’t bother. Suffice it to say, your only point is trying to say I don’t have a point, which is not only useless but boring.
I know I’m exciting to talk to, but unless you have a point about something, anything, I’m not going to debate the art of debating with you. There are quite a few other folks here who actually have an opinion which makes for more interesting discussion.
And if you honestly think name calling will impress me or make me cry, maybe we should be challenging your age (intellectual or otherwise).
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 10:09 am 88. Jack:#86 Ms. Attitude – I agree, justice should be blind, and judges shouldn’t write the laws (or override them). That said, she didn’t write the affirmative action laws, but she needs to provide rulings based on them until they aren’t the laws any more.
What ruling are we talking about where she “isn’t blind”?
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 10:12 am 89. Chuck Pelto:TO: Pat J
RE: Well…
….she’s certainly going to make ‘herstory’….with a fried-ice cream, flavor of ’scream’.
So, based on your comment….
….you agree that she is a (1) ‘racist’ and (2) ’sexist’. Thanks for the confirmation. And also for making it blatantly obvious to even the non-M viewers…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 27, 2009 - 10:15 am 90. Meryl:[The Truth will out.....and few are going to 'appreciate' it.....]
Dear Leader’s selection of a woman who does not see Constitutional law as a binding boundary for a judge should not be worth a gram of ink.
This is just today’s broken window, as he keeps throwing rocks at the United States of America.
His broken windows so far include:
1. The banking system, with TARP money forced on them, giving the government power.
2. Contract law (auto industry), with forced bailouts, creditors pushed aside with violations of bankruptcy laws
3. Personal property violations–auto dealerships/personal businesses literally destroyed by presidential fiat
4. Supreme Court appointment of a woman who does not respect Constitutional law made by a Precedent who does not respect Constitutional law a surprise??? WHY? WHY? WHY is that a surprise?
Since none of our present elected officials see fit to uphold THEIR oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, there is absolutely no reason to think he’s going to stop throwing rocks and breaking the windows of the United States of America. Why should he?
Nobody is taking legal action to stop his illegal actions.
Tune in tomorrow for the next broken window. Assuming there is a tomorrow and North Korea hasn’t launched more missiles with nuclear weapons. Are you still assuming they won’t? Based on what? Eventually they will, you know.
The North Koreans have nothing to lose and nothing valuable to them that they are determined to “protect”, except their power. Sounds like our Precedent.
I’m glad that the columnists continue in their effort to detail and document the broken windows. But I could do without the gratuitous (it seems to me) sense of shock and surprise as in “oh my, how can he do this?”
Her appointment is a blow to racial equality? What does that have to do with anything? Soetero has NEVER seriously said or done anything indicating that he is concerned with racial equality. That’s the last thing he wants. Have you really forgotten Jeremiah Wright?
It is HIM that is destroying us–not the “decision by decision, drip, drip, drip”. The “drip, drip, drip” is just illustrating and illuminating who he is and who he will continue to be. This is our (very short) future, until the country is destroyed.
As long as he can keep the attention and energy focused on case by case response, he’s got it made.
May 27, 2009 - 10:16 am 91. Chuck Pelto:TO: Pat J
RE: Out of Curiosity….
….how many times have YOU been ‘pulled over by a cop for being’ in a particular neighborhood?
And what did YOU do as a result?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 27, 2009 - 10:16 am 92. Ms. Attitude:[The Truth......]
81. Middleman:
You claiming that the whites stack the deck is a joke. It’s the other way around with affirmative action, the NAACP and other organizations.
At an earlier time in my life I would have been considered “white trailer park trash” single young mom. I put myself through college and raised my sons to be great men all while working full-time for not much more than minimum wage! The black women in my classes were getting the exact same education as me but for free! I’m still paying off my degree that I earned five years ago. Most of the students that were attending with “racist” grants held the class back because they weren’t earning their degree, they were being given a degree. Most of them did not work! Two years ago a position came open in my office and a black woman who was STILL in college was given the position over me. Mind you I had a 3.35 GPA from a well known business school. I was told by another supervisor that the black woman was given the position based on her RACE!!
Now you tell me who is being descrimated against because of race? And why you think it’s fair? And why you think we should have a Supreme Court Justice who thinks it’s fair?
May 27, 2009 - 10:20 am 93. Ms. Attitude:88. Jack:
The Ricci case. Why are you asking?
May 27, 2009 - 10:31 am 94. D-wah:Jack–Slick answer.
If you don’t “get” the point of what I was saying, then that again proves our ideological worlds don’t intersect.
Of course I can’t ban anybody, and I took another article apart that posted on PJM for implying censorship and that there was something wrong with anonymous commenters. But I don’t have to let flies land on my face.
As for the brown shirt and SS references, that’s designed to shock the entranced lefties as to where they’re headed, which I clearly explained and you probably understood. (PJM gang–now I’m explaining how the gun and bullet work that I’m gonna shoot their ideology with..this is nuts…)
I’m fairly new here, and I don’t know your “history” to know who you are..i.e. what you truly believe, your motives, and if you’re truly open, or are just a clever, silk tongued supplanter. “Common ground” is usually code for compromise. I suppose you’re a “moderate” too. I don’t do compromise when it comes to my beliefs and convictions. THAT’s “what’s wrong” with “the party” you wrongly assume I’m part of.
Let’s cover your last 2 paras:
“And as to why I come here, I come here because why would I go talk to other people who believe as I do? What’s the point? If I only want to go to a ‘friendly’ site to have other people tell me how much they agree with me I’ll skip it and just call my mom.”
So all of us Conservatives are here to tell each other how much we agree with each other? Sort of a stroking society for lonely hearts? Little assuming and arrogant, wouldn’t you say, Jack? Kinda showed your attitude and hand here.
We couldn’t possibly be clarifying issues, sharing knowledge and ideas, sharpening our intellect, or building some camaraderie out of concern for a very grave national crisis. God forbid. Again, you and your “fairness” doctrine, assuming without your perspective we couldn’t possibly be doing anything productive.
“I come here to talk to those I don’t agree with so that maybe we can find common ground and fix this country. It’s just a shame that the party as it stands today isn’t willing to fix anything unless they can have everything exactly the way they want it 100% and if they can’t fix it, then they “hope we fail”.”
Yes, it’s such a shame. So glad you can see so clearly. That’s right, “all or nothing at all”, that’s what I always say. Nice try. You can’t help but patronize, label and broad-brush over and over.
BTW–you described the totalitarian mindset perfectly–nice one, trying to project it on us. (We’re on to your straw men arguments, by the way.)
I have no more to say. Now go out and have a good troll-lite. (although I still hope some of you libs will have the guts to wake up. Read Robin from Berkeley’s articles on this site.)
(Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I was busy listening to Rush. Don’t worry, I’m not learning anything. I just listen because he agrees with me. That fit your paradigm OK?)
May 27, 2009 - 10:40 am 95. Войска ПВО:31. D-wah writes:
“Love the Jeaneane Garafabuffalo comparison to Soto.”
D-wah, I am hoping you will see this response so far down the line. I gotta tell you, I never noticed Gerafalo’s face although, now that I think about it, you DO have a point.
I just couldn’t get past the stringy, greasy black hair, the plethora of tattoos, and the weird glasses — not to mention the poisonous diatribe — to notice her face.
But, I gotta tell ya, she (Gerafalo) is one ugly chick. No wonder leftists are a mean bunch. How happy would you be if you had to spend your life hitting on chicks as ugly as that broad?
May 27, 2009 - 10:45 am 96. Jack:#93 Ms Attitude – Because her viewpoint is that she is upholding the existing affirmative action laws, even though it appears it is something of a travesty. Her point is that she can’t legislate from the bench, which is what we expect her to do, right?
I’m looking forward to the Supreme Court review of this case as it might be overturned, but even so, her stance is that she was ruling based on the existing law.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 10:45 am 97. karlstro1:Just when I thought I could not get more disgusted with the powers of the Dems and the President here comes this pick. A pick so vitial to our nation that now we have a person who wants to change America as she personally believes from life travels not what the founding fathers envisioned. I pray Congress throws out the PC dribble and presents facts of her previous writings and speeches. This is just plain wrong.
May 27, 2009 - 10:49 am 98. D-wah:Jack–btw–”As an FYI, “maroon” is a Bugs Bunny quote…he said that all the time, so it may not have been a spelling issue…”
Was it or wasn’t it? This really puzzled me. Don’t you know? Are you talking about a third person? Is this a suggestion or a point? Very strange.
May 27, 2009 - 10:52 am 99. Sherab Zangpo:#90 Meryl
I’m glad that the columnists continue in their effort to detail and document the broken windows. But I could do without the gratuitous (it seems to me) sense of shock and surprise as in “oh my, how can he do this?”
Yes !
I agree with all you post, I just disagree on North Korea: with their shows,the NKs are just advertising that they can sell nukes to any terrorist (ooops ! I meant “victim of American imperialism”) wishing to bring a radioactive gift to America.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
May 27, 2009 - 11:04 am 100. susan:“Asking a question isn’t hypocritical. Your not answering it was you ducking the topic because you don’t have a good answer and you know it.”
What do I have to answer, her poor track record is on display, do your homeworks and go to read the many sites with evidence that her “empathy” judging motivated by racial discrimination has been overthrown VERY FREQUENTLY. Is this a good standard on how to evaluate someone that is supposed to be impartial and following the law?
“I didn’t imply you are racist, you took it that way because you felt you were saying potentially racist things.”
I am still less racist than obama and her. Plus I do not work in a position where any kind of bigotry might affect someone else’s life. Unlike zerobama and the latina wise woman.
“The only thing I implied was you are just reflexively saying ‘no’ because you don’t like Democrats or anything they do, even though you don’t know anything about the topic at hand.”
What can you do, I learnt it from you leftist, wasn’t EVERYTHING Bush, Reagan did wrong? Still that holier than thou attitude. Typical, hypocritical.
About me not knowing the topic, why don’t you EDUCATE yourself on the Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
“With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.”
She is qualified for a RACIST judge, not for an impartial judge.
“The difference is that your comments and thoughts here are entirely based on racial issues, and none of mine are.”
The fact that she is racist has nothing to do with the fact that she is puerto rican. She could have been black, inclined to protect blacks, she could have been white, willing to protect chinese and all the combinations possible. Being racist has nothing to do with her being hispanic. I believe some moonbat leftist idiot can say the same sentence while being a white male.
Other than that she based her whole being on racial issues. If you present yourself as better because of your ethnicity, it’s YOU who move the subject on race.
“For example, you think Obama was elected entirely by white guilt. As a white guy who voted for him, it had nothing to do with his race for me, it had to do with his opponent. I voted for Romney, but we got stuck with McCain.”
Black and minorities voted for him by default. Leftist voted for him by default, the one moved by white guilt were the ones disaffected by the republican party that wanted to be cheered up and tell their sons they voted for the black guy to feel good about themselves.
This last group (of which you are part of) is the most despicable one. You were probably never republican or conservative and the typical themes of the election are all relative to you. You wouldn’t have a clear position not even if your life depended on it.
While it’s true that McCain is not an ideal candidate, it’s still better than the other side. Anytime, Anyway.
Let’s take all the important issues:
Immigration: while it’s true that both parties can put in action the amnesty, democrats are MORE likely, even if only by 1% chance
Over-Taxing rich people and businesses: while it’s true that both parties can do it, democrats are MORE likely, even if only by 1% chance
making government bigger: while it’s true that both parties can do it, democrats are MORE likely, even if only by 1% chance
letting people becoming addicted to welfare state: while it’s true that both parties can do it, democrats are MORE likely, even if only by 1% chance
I could go on on several other issues but you get the point.
Plus you would never see Mccain patting backs with Chavez or bowing down to saudis or (uselessly) apologizing around the world. You would never hear McCain and his wife bragging about how they feel ENTITLED to the white house.
This is taken from an article written before the elections
It’s Obama’s rhetoric that is most telling in this light, especially compared with that of his Republican opponents, Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. Palin is far and away the most humble candidate; she rarely speaks of herself as the sitting vice president, but rather disclaims nearly all her hypothetical statements with some form of “If we are so fortunate to serve”—or “privileged,” or “blessed.” The sentiment seems genuine, as did McCain’s during his closing statement of the last presidential debate: serving America, he said, was “the great honor of my life, and I’ve been proud to serve. And I hope you’ll give me an opportunity to serve again. I’d be honored and humbled.”
Such phrases are missing from Obama transcripts. In fact, he drops the “when I’m president” line so often that his electoral win might as well be a foregone conclusion. Typical Obama speeches include lines like this, uttered during his first debate with McCain: “I reserve the right, as president of the United States, to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.” The contrast between Obama’s electoral certainty and McCain’s and Palin’s humility (whether concerted or authentic) is undeniable and striking.
Pre-election cockiness or humility cannot accurately predict effective leadership.
Secondly, another thing that I cannot tolerate is the obama portrayal of themselves as champions of achievements, when we all know that he got the chicago hospital job for his wife all thanks to taxpayers’ money channelled there as exchage. Michelle’s job was so useless (in spite of her huge paycheck) that when she left, her position was cancelled.
This is APPALLING. Am I supposed to PRAISE this man? His wife? for what? frauding the system? They are so intelligent and capable, yet they need “shortcuts” to get well-paid jobs. Don’t you see the incongruity?
I hate braggarts, I hate arrogant people, I hate people with over-inflated ego, I hate people with a wider gap between their estimation of themselves and the sum total of their lifetime achievements.
I hate the double standards. Michelle dressed like a cow, surely A LOT WORSE than any other previous first lady, but nobody dares to say it, because it’s forbidden to say that a black person doesn’t have taste. It is not forbidden if the person is Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush, tho.
I do not vote for double standards as LAW and a common place behaviour.
There was a time, when to be in the “control room” you needed to be rich or well-connected or son of or belonging to a caste and it was considered wrong.
Today is not different, just you need to be from an afflicted group, that way you are spared criticism and scrutinity of all kinds and DE FACTO you have the way to the top PAVED
If this is not a moral and ethical problem for you, it probably means you belong to any self afflicted category and you are very likely to receive “a helping hand from above” from the right people.
May 27, 2009 - 11:04 am 101. Ms. Attitude:96. Jack: So, you are saying that if she would have overturned the ruling that she would have overthrown existing law? In other words the 6 judges that wanted to overthrow the ruling were attempting to overthrow the law? In other words since it is an affirmative action law and the court agreed to review the case with possiblity of overthrowing the ruling then they were agreeing to review law. Right? So, in other words she and the other judges agreed to review the law with the possiblity of overthrowing it. If this is what you are saying then you agree that she believes the courts make the laws.
Or was this just her interpretation of the law? In that case, she is racist.
May 27, 2009 - 11:09 am 102. Jack:#94 D-wah – “Common Ground” is not code for anything when it comes out of my mouth. If you and I agree on an issue, lets disregard the other things we disagree on and solve the problem. Then we can move on to the next item. I don’t give in on my beliefs any more than the next guy/gal, nor would I expect you too. However, the Right is so busy looking for people to exclude in some kind of self-defeating witch-hunt that they have ostracized ‘everyone’ who does agree with them on some of their issues.
Simply put, if you kick Colin Powell out of the party, you have one less vote on some of the issues you presume to care about. The Right wants everything there way or else they are going to take their toys and go home. If they really cared about their issues, they’d have a big tent and at least get some of what they want accomplished, as opposed to being the party of ‘no’ and getting none of it done. Getting some things done is not the same as compromise, it’s simply better than not getting anything accomplished at all.
And for the record, I didn’t say “all conservatives come here to agree with each other”, I said that I personally go to places to find opposing views. I don’t need HuffPo folks to agree with me, nor do I need to listen to their views to refine my own opinion. You hone your blade against something rough, not against butter. This is why I come to places like this…to challenge my own views by hearing opposing viewpoints.
But if you feel you must keep calling me a troll, go ahead. The word has lost all meaning as it is too liberally applied anyway (pun intended).
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 11:12 am 103. D-wah:Meryl 90. Exactly–great last line: “As long as he can keep the attention and energy focused on case by case response, he’s got it made.” Slight of hand, distraction, deception-and it’s day in and day out.
I’m sick of it.
When is someone going to stand up in Congress and start screaming bloody murder??!! I’ve fantaized myself standing there and just yelling “What the HELL are you DOING??” and then just stare at them in naked contempt. And then I’d turn to the Dems and say. “I already KNOW what you’re doing.., I’m not talking to you!” and I’d stare down Darth Waxman, Hairy Weird and whoever else my blazing eyeballs could fry. Pelosi would hide and shrink behind her frikking podium and start melting like the wicked witch of the west that she is.
I can only pray. Time’s short.
May 27, 2009 - 11:13 am 104. D-wah:95. Войска ПВО:
Ha–”no wonder they’re a mean bunch”–good one. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but baby, throw me a bone here.
(there’s some great compilations of pics of conservative pundit women vs liberal–amazing contrast!)
An ugly spirit is hard to conceal. If it’s not clearly evident in the face, the eyes will tell you. Those folks usually have dead, often beady eyes as well.
With a beautiful soul you don’t even notice their features–they’re a total afterthought.
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,–that is all
May 27, 2009 - 11:29 am 105. Macko:Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Sotomayor refering to a white man, boobama refering to a typical white person and all the lefties harping on race and color and all the other excuses they can come up with are not following the famous “dream” speech which every one has had to have heard a hundred times and what our EO laws are supposed to be about: judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
When you start off with that white person or I’m latin etc. you’ve already shown your cards.
May 27, 2009 - 11:33 am 106. Original Dave:The malevolent lefty astroturf crowd on here is pathetic. All the pig lipstick and insults in the world is not going to change the fact that President Obama replaced a liberal SC justice with a leftist in Obama’s image. I doubt it will change the course of the court much, but it should create some interesting conferences behind the scenes. Sotomayor appears to be someone who approaches cases with an agenda and reverts to bullying when her agenda is not being supported. She will probably not fair well against people who can out think her and could not care less about her tantrums.
I hope I am wrong and she proves as big a disappointment to the left as Souter was to to the right, but it appears she may be Hugo Chavez in a skirt. Time will tell.(No. I am not making a racist reference to their shared Latino background. I am referring to his leftist bully tendencies.)
May 27, 2009 - 11:39 am 107. Meryl:99 Sherab…I acknowledge your point. North Korea has many ways to cook the goose they are working on and their relationships with other terrorist nuclear powers is certainly a factor.
May 27, 2009 - 11:46 am 108. Ms. Attitude:Jack: From the American Association for Affirmative Action website:
“Affirmative Action refers to positive steps aimed at increasing the inclusion of historically excluded groups in employment, education and business. Such steps are not designed to offer preferential treatment to, or exclude from participation, any group. To the contrary, Affirmative Action policies are intended to promote access for the traditionally underrepresented through heightened outreach and efforts at inclusion.”
Explain how she upheld the law?
May 27, 2009 - 11:46 am 109. Jack:#100 Susan – Actually no, not everything Bush/Reagan did was wrong. Reagan did a lot that was right, Bush not so much, but he wasn’t totally wrong (although admittedly he was closer to totally wrong in my view than any other President we’ve had). But no, I’m not a “leftist” nor will I spontaneously turn into one if you keep calling me that name.
And as I said, we are all going to be hearing a lot more about her record over the next couple of months, and I might change my mind on her, but that’s yet another difference between us. I can pretty well guarantee that no matter what we learn about her, you will never change your opinion. So, alas, that debate is done.
I’m sorry you find me to be dispicable. You are right I’ve never been a Republican, but I have voted Republican (as I said, I voted Republican in the last primary). More to the point tho, I am a fiscal conservative in search of a party. The Dems don’t do fiscal conservative and the Republicans don’t either (and they don’t want me because I have no issues with gay marriage).
On most of the points you listed I agree with a couple notes. Immigration – McCain was on the wrong side of that issue as well as the Dems. As far as big government goes, Bush grew the government more than most Presidents as a response to 9-11 so both parties grow government as it suits them. The difference is the dems don’t hypocritically say it’s horrible WHILE they are doing it. The other points you make about taxes and welfare, etc. is part of the fiscal conservatism I’d like one party or the other to get back to.
As to arrogance, most politicians (like CEO’s) are arrogant…some just hide it better than other. I think you must have a pretty high opinion of yourself in general to run for office. Some are more charismatic than others and it’s less irritating to watch. That said, I don’t care if they are arrogant as long as I don’t have to hang out with them, I only care that they make the right decisions. If they do, they can be as cocky as they want.
And I guess I’ll just have to wait for the day that white men with all of their fingers and toes are a minority protected group (which based on the way we are handling immigration might take a lot less time than we’d think).
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 11:58 am 110. Fred Beloit:#58 Jack
May 27, 2009 - 12:05 pm 111. Jack:“Apparently you lack the richness of experience required to contruct[sic] a thought.”
Thanks for flattering me because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
A question though, Jack; why don’t you use your last name, you know the one that is the symbol of the Demographic party?
#108 Ms. Attitude – It says clearly the intent is to increase the inclusion of “Historically excluded” and “traditionally underrepresented” people. Those definitions look backwards, not forwards. In order to include those folks, the basis for hiring/promotions, etc has to foster that. The test was not found to get the right mix of results (per current AA law/precedent) and so using the test as a basis for promotions was invalid (per the affirmative action law). Essentially, whatever means you use to get the “right mix of ethnicities/genders” has to be consistent or you have violated the statute. If the tool you use doesn’t get the right results, it’s defacto the wrong tool.
Remeber, she is not judging the validity of affirmative action or how we have historically used it…that isn’t her job. Her job is to say “this is the law, this is how we have ruled on this law in the past, and therefore this is the correct ruling in this case.” To rule in a way that is not consistent with the law or the precedent set by prior decisions would be, you guessed it, legislating from the bench.
Now, the Supreme Court may overturn her as they may view the precedent differently or for any number of other reasons (it will be interesting to watch). But as I understand it, the intent with which she ruled was based on the current law (even if none of us like it). If you were to ask me, however, if she likes the law as it stands…well that’s a different question entirely (and she probably does).
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 12:14 pm 112. Fred Beloit:#75 by Jack
It seems that all work and no play have made Jack a dull boy. He makes the case that Sotomayor lacks the key quality that Obama says SCOTUS nominees need, empathy. Jack, you had better let the White House know that Obama has made a serious mistake in picking someone who lacks his key qualification.
Jack also writes: “Fred – I never did hear a good explanation of what he meant by “empathy” so I agree it’s somewhere between confusing and concerning.”
Well, Jack, I understand the word comes from the Greek empathos and means actually trying to put yourself in another’s place so as to try to feel as they do vs. sympathy, feeling sorry for somebody. I don’t know, Jack, what Obama really means by a lot of things he says, but that would be my guess here.
May 27, 2009 - 12:18 pm 113. D-wah:102 Jack. I gave you a “troll-lite”. You still have to prove yourself to me. You’re infected with liberalism pretty bad so you can’t help it.
You bring up semi-Colin Powell. Perfect example. The GOP will keep him, don’t worry. They’ll give you all the big tent lukewarm left appeasing compromise you want. It just ain’t coming from me and others like me.
Let’s look again at what you say:
“the Right is so busy looking for people to exclude in some kind of self-defeating witch-hunt that they have ostracized ‘everyone’ who does agree with them on some of their issues…Simply put, if you kick Colin Powell out of the party, you have one less vote on some of the issues you presume to care about. The Right wants everything there way or else they are going to take their toys and go home. If they really cared about their issues, they’d have a big tent and at least get some of what they want accomplished, as opposed to being the party of ‘no’ and getting none of it done.”
He has no place whatsoever in the conservative movement. The GOP is a different animal. That’s it’s problem. The left and media love him because he’s just the kind of “bridge to nowhere” you all would love to see represent what you think we should represent.
Again, ingrained systemic arrogance. CP won’t even state what his beliefs are except his desire to be moderate. Hello–he voted for Obama–of course you love him. Cmon Jack. You sound like a political Neville Chamberlain.
Enuf said. You don’t know, Jack. (wink) We’re talking revolution here–turning around to get back to our founding principles– not some lukewarm reformation to temporarily fit a square peg in a round hole for some superficial political expediency.
When the right and true principles are allowed to work, the results will take care of themselves. It’s just so overgrown with weeds that took over our garden it looks like it’s gonna take a giant rototiller to clear this mess up and we’ll just have to start over. Let’s hope Obummer doesn’t succeed in removing our foundation entirely and we still have a garden. God help us.
May 27, 2009 - 12:18 pm 114. Middleman:Ms. Attitude,
Facts are facts and the history of this nation up until the end of segregation shows that the deck typically was stacked.
I still believe affirmative action HAD it’s time and place because there was always someone around who thought it might be funny or cute to try to hinder the progression of a minority playing by the rules.
May 27, 2009 - 12:19 pm 115. Fred Beloit:A question, Jack, do you prefer strict constructionists, as you have argued Sotomayor is, or prefer the activist type judge?
May 27, 2009 - 12:22 pm 116. Fred Beloit:#72
May 27, 2009 - 12:32 pm 117. stuggo:Jack claims to be a wacky Lefty in the style of Kos and Muffington:
“And as to why I come here, I come here because why would I go talk to other people who believe as I do? What’s the point? If I only want to go to a ‘friendly’ site to have other people tell me how much they agree with me I’ll skip it and just call my mom.”
You have to admit that TeleBama is one shrewd politician. Everytime the progressive fascist wing of the Democrat party gets mildly upset with him; he finds a way to appease them.
If they are overjoyed with this pick, it only means one thing. She will be an activist justice..
May 27, 2009 - 12:35 pm 118. Jack:#110 Fred – Still no point forthcoming?
#112 Fred – I would have liked to hear him explain how empathy works in relation to being a judge. That he never said it again or expanded on it probably means he later realized it wasn’t a good choice of words (either because he didn’t mean it or because he did).
#115 Fred – Strict constructionist, however just because you are one doesn’t mean you will interpret the law just as everyone else will. And I didn’t call her contructionist, only centrist (meaning not exclusively one or the other).
Jack
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 12:49 pm 119. Moogie:Moogie prefers a strict Constitutionalist. I don’t care if that Constitutionalist is green, red, or has 17 arms. As long as they stick to the Constitution.
What I can’t understand is why others in this forum apparently DON’T want someone who is a Constitutionalist.
May 27, 2009 - 12:50 pm 120. Sara123:She is going to have a hard time getting along with Breyer whom she beleives is inferior as a humam being to her superior female, latino self. Maybe seeing her nasty racist butt in action will chase him from the Left and give the constituional justices more votes!
May 27, 2009 - 1:13 pm 121. shaui-jan:jack.
“Simply put, if you kick Colin Powell out of the party, you have one less vote on some of the issues you presume to care about.”
worrying about things of that nature is part of problem we have now.
more unsolicited…..free advice:
“The Right wants everything there way or else they are going to take their toys and go home. If they really cared about their issues, they’d have a big tent and at least get some of what they want accomplished, as opposed to being the party of ‘no’ and getting none of it done.”
….unraveled from newspeak:”water down your message,agree to things that you know are counter-productive and harmful for the nation and…..we’ll relabel you from….whatever we have been calling you lately.”
one more valuable piece of insight…..
“Getting some things done is not the same as compromise, it’s simply better than not getting anything accomplished at all.”
blocking insane spending initatives is getting something done….keeping the fight offensive in the GWOT is making progress.what do you want us to do…follow the rest of these lemmings off the cliff?
May 27, 2009 - 1:19 pm 122. "progressive"watch:perhaps you should save your thoughtful ruminations for more pressing matters such as;the president’s own party blocking him from closing gitmo…..is that a compromise?… i think they just said…..’no’.
As a few people on this web site,I am really surprized that Obama would nominate a centrist like Sotomayor-Obama for the Supreme Court. She is not handicapped; she was married once–and it was to a man; she has not beheaded anyone. She is a true centrist.
BC has too much B-O to take his or her BS seriously. He might be a future Obama Supreme Court nominee.
D-wah,you stole home with you comment about Obama being bitter. Everyone–but everyone–missed the most important point in Obama’s “bitter people clinging to their guns and Bibles” remark. Almost none of those people are bitter. Obama is the one who is bitter. Barak Obama is bitter and all of the people he has ever associated with are.
May 27, 2009 - 1:26 pm 123. Dave Surls:‘“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor’
I’m sure that Latino cultural superiority is the explanation for the superior legal and political systems in places like Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, etc., etc.
Tell you what, honey: When your disfunctional culture actually produces something in the realms of law and politics that’s worth a shit, THEN you can start talking about the sort of wisdom that derives from your cultural heritage.
Until that day, you simply sound like an ass.
May 27, 2009 - 1:27 pm 124. D-wah:119 Moogs–The socialist cockroaches and spinmeisters have moved the bar so far to the left that it’s yanked everyone’s perspective right off the foundation. We’re officially a weak wooden frame wobbling precariously on sand now. Soon we’ll be an isolated voice crying in the wilderness if they have their way. God help us.
May 27, 2009 - 1:27 pm 125. susan:jack you didn’t mention anything about the double standards that your president and your elected party has. I guess it’s ok in your book.
You claim that with immigration, big government and spending republicans missed the boat. You are right to a certain extent, meaning that obama is the president who spent more in the history of USA, he obviously outdid Bush and whoever else came before him, but if there is a 1% chance that one of the 2 parties get back to his roots, it’s the republicans. The democtats never were fiscal conservatives in the first place.
It’s like you have a kindergarden to run, and you find out that the director (Bush/mccain) used to talk roughly to children and being harsh. So you replace him with a pedophile (obama), hoping that things will be better.
And about every politician being arrogant, there is a huge difference between being arrogant with a background that speaks for itself and being arrogant WITHOUT it.
The bold text I provided is evidence enough that last november the one over his head thinking he’s god on earth was on the democratic ticket.
I see also that you don’t have a problem with him providing jobs for his inner circle through bribes. Again it speaks volumes.
May 27, 2009 - 1:31 pm 126. David Thomson:“Simply put, if you kick Colin Powell out of the party”
Nobody has any interest whatsoever of kicking Colin Powell out of the GOP. We hold a body of political doctrines and positions. He can do what he so desires. We would appreciate his support—but we cannot abandon our core principles merely to keep him happy. Most of the time folks like myself ignore Powell. He simply doesn’t matter that much.
May 27, 2009 - 1:39 pm 127. D-wah:PS Moogs–It’s amazing to behold. It’s like sexuality today. Gay and bi and whatever isn’t just in, hetero is almost out. With the continual bashing and dripping they’ve eroded what were once our most cherished values, and actually made them not just passe, but wrong to hold to. Soetero has openly criticized the constitution and our very founding principles, so, like Billyboy Clinton’s redefinition of “sex”, O-termite’s given his impramatur to rip the document to shreds at will.
It’s an evil paradigm shift that seems to be revving up more daily. Watch Soto waltz in and then thumb her nose at us. Nasty bunch.
May 27, 2009 - 1:41 pm 128. D-wah:As perceived, check: (from HotAir)
Jeffrey Rosen’s article containing critical comments about her interpersonal skills. Rosen quoted legal sources about her unprofessional temperament:
Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”
Nice gal. Sounds very “empathetic”, wouldn’t you say?
May 27, 2009 - 1:47 pm 129. Pastor of Muppets:Moogie: “Moogie prefers a strict Constitutionalist. I don’t care if that Constitutionalist is green, red, or has 17 arms. As long as they stick to the Constitution.
What I can’t understand is why others in this forum apparently DON’T want someone who is a Constitutionalist.”
Because ‘Constitutionalism’ proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials.
Most of the people on this board, however, actually believe that government, and the president in particular, have the ability to arbitrarily decide what is legal and what is not. For example, the people on this board believe that the president has the right to break the law in order to protect the country from Muslims, and, furthermore, they believe that if the president authorizes an action that he deems is necessary to protect us, it by definition cannot be illegal.
Therefore, the people on this board cannot be Constitutionalist; they just claim that they are as a pathetic attempt to prevent anyone other than reactionary conservatives from getting on the SCOTUS.
May 27, 2009 - 1:50 pm 130. shaui-jan:S-O-T-O…….
i am starting to remember now…
“Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry”
writing a theses with that title alone….convinces me…..she must be fair minded individual.
“Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights”
interesting interpretation..sadly,you might find some people who will strongly disagree.
” her landmark decision in 2002 regarding terrorism suspects. In that case, she determined that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. Her controversial decision was later overturned by an Appellate Court, but still influenced current policy”
oh……THAT sotomayor!
you have to hand it to them….they’re going for the gold.
May 27, 2009 - 2:10 pm 131. Night Owl:I agree with the premise of this article. And I speak as a woman who is half Puerto Rican born in New York City, or “Newyorican”, as Ms. Sotomayer self-identifies.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
This statement by Sotomayer is a perfect embodiment of the modern “liberalism” of group identity politics- there is no equality in the new liberalism. Quite the contrary; some groups are better than others. And they know which group is at the bottom- white men.
How is this thinking better than than that which placed women and minorities at the bottom of the preference list? What happened to the truly liberal ideal that says we judge an individual based on his/her strength and weaknesses, and not as a member of a group?
There is nothing wrong in choosing a brilliant minority woman over a brilliant white man in order to give the brilliant woman a chance in areas where women are underrepresented. But to pick a minority woman over a white man because you believe she will do a better job BECAUSE she is a minority woman, is sexist and racist.
The concept being put forward that women, particularly minority women, will be better decision makers is the new ignorance. New politically acceptable stereotypes to replace the old. And when women and minorities fail to save the planet what will that prove? That mediocrity forever and for always rules the day, and no gender or ethnic group holds the patent on competence.
But it also reflects the reality that the rare flashes of brilliance that truly propel us forward, knows not of gender and race. Which is why we need to embrace the ideal of allowing equal opportunities for all, since we know not where the next rare stroke of brilliance will come.
It is hard to find people who truly embrace the concept of “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. The allure of stereotypes and group generalizations is too tempting. We have quite a ways to go. Maybe the younger generations will get it.
May 27, 2009 - 2:19 pm 132. Jack:#121 shaui-jan – “unraveled from newspeak:water down your message, agree to things that you know are counter-productive and harmful for the nation and…we’ll relabel you from…whatever we have been calling you lately.”
If that is what you took from what I said you need to share whatever you are smoking.
The Congress blocking Obama was great strategy. He fulfilled a campaign promise by trying to close it and the Dems in Congress got to look good by opposing it. I’m not actually quite that cynical, but either way, it’s just another example of this Democratic government doing what the Republicans wanted all along but keeping all of the credit in the process.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 2:43 pm 133. Moogie:D-wah: Well, here’s what I wish they’d just do: if they no longer want to comply with the Constitution of the United States, then just come right out and say it. Stop acting like 4th graders passing notes in math class. Just stand up and make your damned proclamation:
“We don’t believe in the Constitution of the United States anymore! We think it’s old fashioned, flawed, was written by stuffy old white men, and it’s no longer relevant in our new world order! Let’s just chuck it out the window and write a whole new Constitution! Exept, this time, let’s make it a ‘Suggestatution’ – none of this hardline ‘contractual’ stuff! It must be a living, breathing, completely pliable document so that we may change it at will and interpret it in whatever fashion suits our fancy at the time.”
May 27, 2009 - 2:45 pm 134. Jack:#125 susan – Do you have any idea how many jobs Bush got for his friends/cronies/financial supporters? It’s common practice and one-hand-washing-the-other politics and everyone does it. Washington is crooked…always has been, always will be. (note that I’m not condoning it, just recognizing it as a simple reality)
And you are right, the Republicans are more likely to get on the right financial track, but as long as they are intent on kicking everyone out of the party who doesn’t share the far-right social issues, they’ll never have enough votes to fix any of these financial problems and the Dems will continue to spend us into oblivion.
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 2:49 pm 135. susan:““Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry”
Princeton: wow, sotomayor writing a thesis about race and perceived racism exactly like michelle obama. I guess they were on short of subjects.
Yet, according to liberals it’s conservatives obsessed about race.
I suppose it’s enough to scream at racism to get a degree at princeton.
May 27, 2009 - 2:50 pm 136. Moogie:PoM: You misunderstood my point thereby rendering your counterpoint irrelevant.
May 27, 2009 - 2:52 pm 137. Chuck Pelto:TO: Press Secretary ‘Gibbs’
RE: Heh….
…go f— yourself!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 27, 2009 - 3:09 pm 138. clare spark:[It REALLY IS 'as simple as that'.]
I have searched this comments site, and lengthy though it is, not a single person has used the phrases “commutative justice” versus “redistributive justice” or “administered state.”
May 27, 2009 - 3:39 pm 139. BC:Be aware that social democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths, and it is not surprising that BHO trumpets “the rule of law” to quiet suspicious libertarians (though tellingly, he did not deploy “a government of laws, not men”). But if you ask Democrats and other mob managers to explain the difference between a republican form of government and “the administered state” you will get a blank look at best, a tantrum at worst.
It is not too soon to bone up on political theory, comrades. You might start with Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty (1960), along with comments criticizing Hayek’s theories of the free market–one with a safety net.
To “D-wah” and the others: As “Jack” pointed out, I do indeed use “maroon” as Bugs Bunny did (Just Google “What a maroon”), and if I seem overly snarky at times, well…. just look at all the eye rolling, factless and insulting nonsense directed at Sotomayor. Try looking at her history without “Right Wing Specs” and you should see a classic American success story: a woman rising from poverty and family tragedy, overcoming a chronic health condition as well as prejudice to become a top student, a lawyer, a judge, and who is now looking to be appointed to the US Supreme Court.
But instead of giving her big kudos and maybe even some admiration, however grudgingly, way, WAY too many on the right feel compelled beyond fact, beyond reason, and certainly beyond fairness to just reach deep and fling whatever they can pull out. Make up whatever you want to call it, but that’s what’s really happening here.
Oooo….while I was typing this, I just heard that Archie has proposed to Veronica, and that Jughead is going to be the best man. Puts everything in perspective, don’t it?
May 27, 2009 - 4:05 pm 140. CAUTION:have you read the book, “The 48 laws of Power”, by robert greene. just finished it and i can now tell you exactly what obama is up to. the book is well written and very entertaining, and a primer on obama’s power; how, starting from a modest beginning, he got power and how he plans to keep it.
some examples:
how about law 37 – “Create compelling spectacles” (seen any obama speeches lately)
law 45 – “preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once” (where is the change?)
law 7 – “get others to do the work for you; but always take the credit” (obama has done nothing throughout his life, but taken all the credit.)
law 15 – “crush your enemy totally” (remember that poor opponent in chicago?)
law 6 – “court attention at all cost”. (the MSM has done this for him etc etc.)
dont worry about the court. it is time to focus on the right hand while the left is distracting us from the big show. another thing, puerto ricans are not the most loved hispanics (understatement) but chucky shumer wounldnt know this. it aint playing well here in miami.
so chill, it means nothing.
May 27, 2009 - 4:07 pm 141. D-wah:Moogs (just got home): Don’t miss the stand in for Savage–Jeff Kooner (sp?). One of us. Aware, sharp, and articulate.
More soon–will send this now.
May 27, 2009 - 4:11 pm 142. D-wah:Moogs–great stuff–as you know I share your scream–LOVE your indignation!
This sucks big time. Sooo much hypocrisy, sooooo little time! They can’t comply with “standards”, never mind Godly, and with the interests of the “people pawns” in mind——totally screws up their plans.
Evil vs good. Period.
May 27, 2009 - 4:18 pm 143. D-wah:PS: I feel like I did as a high school kid when they wheeled in the portable TV when Kennedy was shot in high school… or when we learned to hide under our desks for a nuclear attack.
Chorus: This SUCKS! Who’s in charge here and can you do something about it?????
May 27, 2009 - 4:24 pm 144. shaui-jan:jack.
“The Congress blocking Obama was great strategy. He fulfilled a campaign promise by trying to close it and the Dems in Congress got to look good by opposing it.”
they looked good to who?….whom ever they were…..we should get them immediate medical attention.
“I’m not actually quite that cynical,”
surely not…..but you then go on to state:
” but either way, it’s just another example of this Democratic government doing what the Republicans wanted all along but keeping all of the credit in the process.”
describing a ruse…..depending on an unthinking,uninterested public to succeed ‘great strategy’sounds like..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynical
or i should smoke..something….maybe it’s the key to understanding your brand of logic.
May 27, 2009 - 4:32 pm 145. shaui-jan:POM”For example, the people on this board believe that the president has the right to break the law in order to protect the country from Muslims, and, furthermore, they believe that if the president authorizes an action that he deems is necessary to protect us, it by definition cannot be illegal.”
if these are indeed illegal acts….why has obama reserved the right to use them?
May 27, 2009 - 4:48 pm 146. D-wah:Jack 134—I KNEW you were a diversion….you bastard. Lives are at stake, you A-hole. Is that clear enuf for your “political correctness”….
May 27, 2009 - 5:03 pm 147. G. Clarke:My Great Grandfather Salvatore Rodriguez as far as I have been told subscribed to Teddy Roosevelt’s view, given shortly before they both died, where Teddy said:
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country.”
I read Judge Sotomayor’s full Lecture entitled “A Latina Judge’s Voice” and at least she dropped the hyphen, specifically by dropping the word “American.” She refers to others as Mexican-American and African-American, but she refers to herself and her family only as Latino/as or Puerto Riquenos or NewYorkRicans. Here’s the money quote:
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I BECAME A LATINA by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.”
My Family, after moving to this Great Country, never talked about “becoming Spanish” here, or “becoming Irish.” Maybe Sotomayor should read Teddy’s words a little more closely.
I recall someone warned us we would fall when someone like Buonaparte would come her from some off shore Island and see himself Like old “Boney” as more of a Corsican than a Frenchman. Those who do not learn from History are condemned to repeat it.
May 27, 2009 - 5:07 pm 148. sheesh:This kind of empathy has no place on the SCOTUS:
“Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.”
Outrageous.
May 27, 2009 - 5:11 pm 149. G. Clarke:Sorry, My Great Grandfather was not Salvatore Rodriguez, another relative, but Ricardo Rodriguez. My bad.
May 27, 2009 - 5:16 pm 150. Jack:#142 shaui-jan – It looked good to anyone who didn’t think Gitmo should be closed and prisoners moved here.
#144 D-wah – What exactly did I say that triggered this other personality of yours?
Jack
May 27, 2009 - 6:21 pm 151. venividivici:147:
My Family, after moving to this Great Country, never talked about “becoming Spanish” here, or “becoming Irish.” Maybe Sotomayor should read Teddy’s words a little more closely.
My grandparents came over in their 30s with a bunch of kids in tow and never learned to speak English because of where we lived. I grew up bilingual. Other than our religion and some ethnic food, we all were determined to be Americans, exactly in the sense that Teddy called for. My grandparents never discouraged this, even though it was easier for them to just keep on speaking their own language.
My grandparents also had “Latin” souls and there isn’t anything more “magical” about them than any other souls. Stupid racial mysticism is all that is. Of all the things Germans (another part of my “soul”. I got “souls” comin’ out my *sshole) invented, that was the worst of them.
May 27, 2009 - 6:25 pm 152. Eric:This is the natural culmination of an immigration policy gone mad and atmosphere of zealous multiculturalism. How soon before being white is an overt, rather than quietly understood, strike against a person? And if you’re a white man…get ready.
The more polyglot our population becomes the more time, energy, and money will be wasted in ethnic power struggles. It’s disgusting that minorities and women seem to believe that justice should not in fact be blind. I fear we’ve reached the tipping point Liberals, socialists really, have been pushing us towards for decades. The slow march through our institutions has finally produced its results.
What will the socialists do when their desired Utopian outcome proves just as impossible to achieve as when they weren’t in power?
History advises us that the heavy hand of government will only get heavier as they try harder to achieve their desired equality of outcomes.
My only hope is that guilty white liberals feel the pain of their desired change really hard.
May 27, 2009 - 6:38 pm 153. Dave Surls:“Outrageous.”
Yes, it is. And, this Sotomayor person shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, much less don judicial robes.
May 27, 2009 - 8:27 pm 154. Phil Byler:McCain was pretty good tonight about Sotmayor on Sean Hannity’s show. McCain did vote against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
May 27, 2009 - 9:08 pm 155. Cristina:# 46 blotto:
Spot on. Title VII is abysmally poor law, unconstitutional (it conflicts with the primacy of “equal protection under the law”). Every single word raises more questions and creates more confusion than solve problems, the purported aim of any law (and judicial decision). The “HR Guide” quoted by BOOBOO is even more insane.
I’m surprised there are no lawsuits that would seek to abolish any means of testing merit and capability for performing a job, from diplomas/educational requirements to CVs, tests, interviews, anything…. Why not abolish education or achievement altogether??
Why not just give out the jobs to the under-privileged or the “protected classes” from the very beginning? You’d have to advertise: “Only protected classes need apply.”
But then you’d still be faced with, say, 100 members of various “protected classes” for 25 jobs (I suppose at some point you’d have to decide which protected class is more protected than another: black women over black men, Hispanic men over Hispanic women, Pacific Islanders over Native Indians?)
Once you decide the racial/ethnic preference, after much agonizing decision-making, you are down to a mix of 50 Pacific Islander women and African-American men which you found the best ethnic/gender combination for your business.
Obviously 25 have to go. How do you decide which 25 stay? Obviously you’d have to employ some other tests, based on the requirements of the job. They are all pure at heart and under-privileged. They all have heart-breaking stories of hardship. If you own a small security business, I suppose you want them to be able to read and write so that they can understand instructions about types of criminals, firearms, the law, etc. You wouldn’t dream of just tossing a coin and giving 25 a gun and say “shoot”, would you? ‘Cause you know that would be the end of your firm, ’cause reality has its stringent laws, independent of ideology and feelings, ’cause you’d have ended your life at 3 years of age had not your mum and dad told you not to put your finger in the socket…
EEO: Disparate Impact
Disparate Impact Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.
1. Supreme Court Cases The Supreme Court first described the disparate impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. . . . [G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”
In 1989, the Supreme Court reduced the defendant’s burden of proving business necessity to a burden of producing evidence of business justification. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned that portion of the Wards Cove decision.
2. Examples Examples of practices that may be subject to a disparate impact challenge include written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews.
May 27, 2009 - 9:35 pm 156. Mockingbird:These Liberals writing here are not as good as they advertise to be. They are just on an opposite side than the Republican Party. They might as well tell the truth, and we will agree to disagree with all of them.
They write here not to take up for a woman of color(they don’t care about that), they write here to do what they do best and that is to cause a stink in this country where they can. They are here, because they hate, and they want something for nothing. Their mothers did not teach them the 10 commandements. Their mothers should have taught them better and now we have to listen to them whine.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
They should read all ten, and try to understand them. They want something for nothing, and Obama wants something for nothing, because he has done nothing to deserve his position in our country.
May 27, 2009 - 9:49 pm 157. Moogie:I do not care if she is any color or that she is a woman, but I care that she is a liberal, and so I do not want her to be on the Supreme Court.
#139 BC: Bugs also used “nincowpoop” when describing the bull.
#151 venividivici: “My grandparents also had “Latin” souls and there isn’t anything more “magical” about them than any other souls. Stupid racial mysticism is all that is. Of all the things Germans (another part of my “soul”. I got “souls” comin’ out my *sshole) invented, that was the worst of them.” <—- touche that – I have French, Italian and Scottish oozing from my pores.
#152 Eric: “My only hope is that guilty white liberals feel the pain of their desired change really hard.” <— the main problem with this is that those of us who are not suffering from white guilt will also, unfortunately, feel the pain.
May 27, 2009 - 10:55 pm 158. Hypocrites:So based on your premise here, I’d assume you all vehemently opposed Joseph Alito’s nomination, since he said the exact same thing Sotomayor did:
U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
May 27, 2009 - 11:00 pm 159. David Thomson:“So based on your premise here, I’d assume you all vehemently opposed Joseph Alito’s nomination, since he said the exact same thing Sotomayor did”
Joseph Alito is not saying that immigrants or other downtrodden individuals deserve an extra legal break—and Sonia Sotomayor does. You are conveniently ignoring the part where he states: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” This is something that Sotomayor finds incomprehensible.
May 28, 2009 - 3:14 am 160. vivo:From another thread:
Kimball & Rosten can’t hide their racism. It doesn’t take long to feel their constricting bellies churning desperation.
10. WhyamInotsurprised?:
“Sotomayors’ comment about “making policy” at the Appellate level is very telling, and all I need to know about her.”
Take a toothpick and make it a baseball bat. How Repug.
11. Northern Light:
“Republicans have been opposing Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court for weeks now. I guess they’re happy that they now know the identity of the person they’ve been opposing.”
That says it all.
14. susan: jealous
17. David Thomson:
“Sonia Sotomayor is another shallow and poorly read individual”
Another racist using Puerto Rican stereotypes.
41. Ozzie:
“I don’t think racists should be allowed to serve on the supreme court.”
What about the ones already there?
47. BooBoo Netanhoohoo: good posting!
55. susan:
“but she’s surely maliciously biased.”
And . . . you aren’t?
111. MiamaMan:
“I am from that Cuban tribe that shunts goverment, cheat on taxes, is thoroughly Republican and hates Che Guevara.”
I knew you were pretty crappy. You’re right, you’re not Hispanic, you’re Cuban, pure and simple. And Miama is spelled Miami . . . or you mean “miasma”?
Bottom line: Repugs going crazy because they are rapidly becoming a minority and are going to get a dose of their own medicine.
May 28, 2009 - 3:14 am 161. RobertG:The “Latina Lady” – as the suck up press calls her- is one more Left Wing Loon with no regard for Constitutional law, property rights or anything else honest people care about. That it is racist of us to call her out on HER racism is about what we expect of the chattering class and other Leftist.
Bork the B!tch.
May 28, 2009 - 3:45 am 162. Paul -Indiana:Ah yes. Some are more equal than others. Ms. Sotomayor is a two-fer, so will be highly praised by the kool-aid drinkers.
May 28, 2009 - 5:10 am 163. Fred Beloit:“Repugs going crazy because they are rapidly becoming a minority and are going to get a dose of their own medicine.”
That’s a good thought, Vivo, perhaps your bigoted best. But watch out. When “Repugs” become a minority they may seek the special protections and special privileges available only to minorities. They will grow in strength as a cry for Diversity echoes across thew land.
May 28, 2009 - 5:24 am 164. susan:“Do you have any idea how many jobs Bush got for his friends/cronies/financial supporters?”
1) do you have evidence that those people weren’t up to the task?
2) I am not supposed to bow down to the magnificence of the friends of Bush, on the other hand I am supposed to bow down to michelle obummer’s magnificence.
those are 2 big differences for you
DUMBVIVO, i can be maliciously biased as much as the next person, but I am not in any court. Enjoy your racially biased trials. I hope you fall victim of one of them sooner or later.
I see you consider the law sector like any other job. Too bad the founding principles of any civilized country are based on the fact that everybody is equal in front of the law. Evidently it’s a concept that your brain is not able to understand. Too bad for you. Mentally deficient people shouldn’t be allowed to use a computer (or to vote).
May 28, 2009 - 5:30 am 165. Craig:If I could only have a more compelling story, Obama might pick me.
May 28, 2009 - 6:25 am 166. Jack:#164 Susan – “Heck of a job, Brownie”. Yes, I do have proof.
Do you have proof that Obama’s folks aren’t qualified?
I didn’t say to bow down to anyone…that is you projecting. I said it sucks that all Presidents put their cronies in offices they don’t deserve. Somehow you think that when Dems do it you are supposed to worship them, but not when Republicans do it? Double standard.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 6:51 am 167. susan:“Do you have proof that Obama’s folks aren’t qualified?”
as stated many times, she judges NOT following the constitution, but her own political stance. So she’s not good for an IMPARTIAL judge, she’s good for a racist judge.
When on trial, jack, do you want an impartial judge or a judge that has already a prejudice against you?
“I didn’t say to bow down to anyone…that is you projecting. I said it sucks that all Presidents put their cronies in offices they don’t deserve. Somehow you think that when Dems do it you are supposed to worship them, but not when Republicans do it? Double standard.”
Reply with facts: slobbering media is all over michelle obama’s working carreer in spite of the fact she got everything thanks to her husband position.
Do you find the same slobbering media fawning for eventual people put in place by Bush?
Put up or shut up.
And beside, which is the party that talked about the most moral and transparent administration ever?
Unlike what you try to portray, it’s only the democrats who portray themselves as morally superior.
Last time I checked, Bush is the most vilified president in history. Obama not so much, in spite of a greater number of gaffes, mistakes, corrupt behaviour, lies and character flaws.
Here’s your double standard.
May 28, 2009 - 7:20 am 168. Jack:#167 Susan – Lots of emotion there. Take a deep breath.
You can continue to say negative things about Soto, but like her or not, she’s at least been a judge for a long long time. ‘Brownie’ went from raising horses to being in charge of FEMA. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but you are clearly of the mind that no one but Democrats ever make bad decisions. Until you can develop some objectivity, your arguments are going to ring hollow prima facie.
The media likes Obama just like 60+ percent of the American people do. When he screws up, the media will delight in tearing him down as they love nothing more than a good train-wreck for ratings (although I’m sure to you no slam by the media will ever be good enough, so it’s a moot point…you are incapable of having positive feelings of the media, so there isn’t any point in talking about it).
Bush may be the most vilified president in (recent) history, but he was in office for 8 years and has a long track record. Obama doesn’t yet. History will tell both stories in time.
And I don’t need to put up or shut up…I made a statement about you and your feelings, which you didn’t disagree with. You are the one with the problem about feeling like someone is somehow forcing you to “bow down” to Obama. You didn’t deny it, so you must agree the problem is in your head. Unless you feel like you MUST believe whatever the media says like some kind of robot…I don’t eat up what FoxNews says, why do you listen to CNN?
And as I’ve said several times, I disagree with more of what Obama has done than I’ve agreed with. The difference is that I’m not so rabid as to immediately write him off and everything he does like you are. In fact, I liked Bush on the balance up until the decision to pull out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq (and the worst foreign policy blunder of all time, the “axis of evil” comment).
In any event, while your strong emotions are a sign of how much you care, they aren’t conducive to a objective or rational conversation.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 7:46 am 169. oldguy:If you closely at the lefts (especially white elites) excuse making for minorities, they seem to be saying well, we really don’t expect anything better from these people.
May 28, 2009 - 8:23 am 170. susan:“Lots of emotion there. Take a deep breath.”
poor illuded. I am just having a day off and I am laughing AT you waiting to read the next leftist spin, what leftards like yourself without a single subject to discuss aren’t really my concern. You will be the one with a racist judge in the highest court of your country, not me.
“You can continue to say negative things about Soto, but like her or not, she’s at least been a judge for a long long time.”
and you have evidence that the other “candidates” are novices how?
you assume that since she was chosen by the messiah, SHE MUST HAVE A TREMENDOUS EXPERIENCE.
Even the company who built the titanic had long experiencing in building ships…
“Until you can develop some objectivity, your arguments are going to ring hollow prima facie.”
here’s a piece of advice, go in your bathroom in front of a mirror and repeat the above sentence loud and clear 100 times.
“When he screws up, the media will delight in tearing him down as they love nothing more than a good train-wreck for ratings (although I’m sure to you no slam by the media will ever be good enough, so it’s a moot point…you are incapable of having positive feelings of the media, so there isn’t any point in talking about it).”
the media is in the hands of people who have interest in pushing someone who is going to allow a bailout. If you are 16 and don’t understand this dynamics, it’s pointless that you lecture others on message boards.
Walter Duranty was a pulitzer prize winner that had his tongue up Stalin’s ass, omitting the famine that killed millions of ukrainians and praising the torture methods of his dear leader.
So sorry if I don’t suck up to the press like yourself, but I know better.
“And I don’t need to put up or shut up…I made a statement about you and your feelings”
Don’t try to twist the subject, jack-a$$, you made an assertion, back it up otherwise it means that the assertion is FALSE, as pretty much everything you said.
“Unless you feel like you MUST believe whatever the media says like some kind of robot…I don’t eat up what FoxNews says, why do you listen to CNN?”
Jack-a$$, don’t project yourself on me. I keep myself informed about the corrupt world of the press. Unlike yourself.
“In any event, while your strong emotions are a sign of how much you care, they aren’t conducive to a objective or rational conversation.”
hypocrisy much, jack-a$$, you swing from liberals’ nuts and you dare to talk about objectivity. So a latina woman is by definition a better judge than a white male? Be rational and reply to this VERY simple question, after all, you admire racists, it is not a problem if you come out as a racist yourself. Sotomauyor is a member of la raza. I guess you would have no problem with a white judge member of some white supremacy group, isn’t it, jacka$$?
you didn’t reply on how you feel to be judge by someone who is already prejudiced against yourself in a court case, and if your constitution allows judges to be prejudiced against a particular race or group of people.
And please don’t be so emotional and driven by your liberal feelings.
PS: if you think that even one fool here is believing that you voted romney or you are a fiscal conservative or even a rino you are more deluded than I thought. You are just not credible. Look at how many people consider you a pure leftist.
I suppose at the zerobama camp they have to train you better to pretend you are disaffected republican.
May 28, 2009 - 8:34 am 171. susan:Is it legitimate to say that “a white man can judge better than a black woman?
According to jack, it is.
LAdies and gentlemen, racists in power.
May 28, 2009 - 8:43 am 172. D-wah:Ahh, the string goes on…
Attn: To all Trolls, semi-Trolls, Trolls lite, and wanna be Trolls:–and all party line liberals/socialists, and all witting or unwitting slaves to the BIG LIE…
Re: The Enemies Within
Jack: “D-wah – What exactly did I say that triggered this other personality of yours?”
You represent something very dangerous to me, Jack.
You said nothing. Over and over and over, troll or not, you say nothing. Nothing of consequence, that is. You’re a distraction. That can be fatal if someone’s trying to drive—like a point home.
You’re like someone who signs up to be a so-called aid worker in Somalia, and all he does is gossip with other do-nothings in the office while all around him people are starving.
That makes you part of the problem.
You’re fussing over the color of the walls while a bulldozer is about to level the house and people need to be warned.
That makes you part of the problem.
You are, wittingly or not, just another fiddler in Nero’s orchestra.
That makes you part of the problem.
Your reluctance to come to some very serious and needed practical conclusions is very dangerous, and threatens me and millions of other Americans very personally. This sleepwalking attitude of business as usual is what’s giving PERMISSION for this takeover–much like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Stalin’s Russia, etc.
Worse than complacency, those engaged in this are COMPLICIT! They oppress and thwart and hinder with their smug complacency, the out of touch “do-gooder” ivory tower “perspective”, the compromising and diddling around about nothing of real consequence, and the self righteous “mission” to bring the “misdirected” back to mother liberalism and her sacred cows.
It more than wreaks–it’s aiding and abetting a fascist takeover. And all those who’ve dutifully succumbed to this propaganda are what has brought this BEAST on our heads!
Get the point? I doubt it. You will when it hits you in the face. We see it sooner because, being on to it, we’re the first targets of this onslaught of lying PC propaganda, hate campaigns and now we’re all suffering from insane legislation and outright takeovers. You’ve taken the downstream tack. We resist. Wait till the BEAST moves in on you and yours.
The BEAST has no friends, Jack. It only loves itself. It’s keeping you for food later. And it LOVES Trolls and PC do-gooders! The more you’ve been fattened on propaganda beer and hand massaged by your masters the better…just like the top grade Kobe beef Comrade O enjoys.
It’s time everyone made some hard decisions instead of diddling around. Lead towards truth and freedom, follow, or get out of the way.
*****
“But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.”
“Awake, too late.
May 28, 2009 - 9:01 am 173. Michael:Asleep, too late.
The daughters of Jerusalem
lie bleeding in the streets…”
Hm,
Pester of Muppets, Check
BC, Check
Sheesh, Check
Vivo, Check
I always feel much better when they show up. As long as they all disagree with great vitriol then I know I am on the right track.
Although I do miss several other leftist luminaries.
Michael
May 28, 2009 - 9:02 am 174. Ms. Attitude:173. Michael: I think that group takes a Junior College course together. They sit in the back of the room on their laptops and giggle.
May 28, 2009 - 9:21 am 175. susan:“You’re like someone who signs up to be a so-called aid worker in Somalia, and all he does is gossip with other do-nothings in the office while all around him people are starving. ”
LOL, that’s the image that comes up in my mind when i think about leftists.
That’s why with all those many aid workers, the third world countries all over the world are still in such a mess.
May 28, 2009 - 9:23 am 176. paul_unalaska:#33 sheesh.. ‘..Republicans and conservatives have a reputation for not caring about racial equality. Opposing immigration reform, decrying affirmative action and..’.
Really? You may want to study history and just your HuffPo, sheesh.
Research which party, people urged and the 1964 Civil Rights Act to come to fruition.
California and New York are the 2 most liberal seen states in the Union. as well as being the most broke! Both states believe in big Government which is why CA will be having to let go of tens of thousands of these same folks to band-aid their irresponsibility behavior through the decades.
As for ‘immigration reform’, McCain was the co-writer for the atrocious 2006 ‘Immigration Reform Bill’ which thank God hadn’t passed. The 2nd time an illegal alien hops the fence it’s a felony. Never mind that, what about ‘their rights’?
N.Y. has an estimated 1 million illegal aliens. Many believe there’s an Hispanic gang in nearly every Jr. High and H.S. This is stated from the students, not the politicos. Who do you think would know better?
Also, L.A. County ‘gave’ $44 million dollars in welfare aid for the month of March alone to children of illegal aliens, up $1 million dollars from the previous month.
As for affirmative action, the 2 groups that are still displaying low graduation numbers, H.S. and college dropout rates et al. are the hispanic and black population of students. It’s not the schools, government that should be giving a handout, it’s the PARENTS who should be giving a hand-up. You know, being parents!
Lastly, more than 50% of hispanic teenage girls become pregnant. Last year a study came out whereas 50% of black teenage girls contract an STD.
Look into the aforementioned. I haven’t any reason to steer you or other people wrong. Truly.
Our society is too busy to give to the ‘wronged’ that those responsible for the lives of their young are not being held responsible at all whatsoever..
May 28, 2009 - 9:25 am 177. Ms. Attitude:As a Supreme Court Justice under constitutional law her responsibility would be to ensure equal justice. When the current SCOTUS throws out her decision (as pointed out earlier has happened numerous times already) it will prove that she is unable to be a Supreme Court Justice!
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.
May 28, 2009 - 9:33 am 178. susan:jack, what part of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW you don’t understand?
May 28, 2009 - 9:49 am 179. Jack:Susan #170 and D-wah #172 –
To both of you, I’ve said Obama has done more wrong than good, and I’ve said Bush did the same. That neither one of you has shown anything to indicate that you are able to take an objective stand on anything means that you are reacting emotionally and can’t form a fair-minded opinion on anything (thus far). Instead, you engage in name-calling and oddly enough, Susan exhibits this behavior and tries to call me a 16 year old (your discussion about ‘liberals nuts’ I found very mature). Perhaps she still thinks Brownie did do a heck of a job…
And in fact, I am a centrist and that is precisely why I want opposing views on the court and Congress as well. We saw what happens when the Republicans owns the Congress and the Presidency, and now we are seeing the opposite, and both are likely to be miserable disasters for the country. That the Right wing of the party is continuing to gleefully hemmorage support doesn’t help the situation.
D-wah: Before you cast stones, name a practical conclusion you have to come to regarding any topic of importance to the country on this thread. Then tell me the topic you would like me to state a practical conclusion to (although like most rational people, I’m withholding final judgement on Sotomayor until the confirmation hearings…you know, that whole silly mess about having the facts before you make a final and unflexible decision).
Susan: No, I’m not racist or even reverse-racist (not that you’ll believe me) and I think La Rasa surely is. Sotomayor has made racially insensitive or imprecise comments, sure. Do you think Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott are racist? They made racist comments, too. You won’t answer the question because you are either unable or unwilling to see the other side of any given situation.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 10:46 am 180. Jack:#177 Ms Attitude – Equal justice “UNDER LAW”. If the law is unjust, it isn’t the courts job to change it. That is the point you are missing.
And as I’ve said, the SCOTUS might overturn it, and it will be an interesting debate.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 10:48 am 181. Well Educated Cad:After many times of being told to my face that “priorities will be given to females and certain ethnic groups” in hiring, promotions etc, I no longer list myself as “White”. Instead, I mark “Other” and list myself as “European-American”. This seriously confuses the Liberal racists. I have had to hire a lawyer before, for both myself and friends, after being told that although we were qualified, we would not be promoted. One hospital I was at now has a (pigmentally qualified) new affirmative action president who openly stated ” No Whites will be hired and no Blacks will be fired.” Funny, he did not mention the Hispanics.
May 28, 2009 - 10:51 am 182. Jack:When I was in flight school in the military, blacks and females complained about their high rate of washing out, so they were ushered into a hall and told by the commander that their protected group would no longer wash-out but would be reinstated and given special tutoring. This of course, lead to many pilots who were simply unqualified and lead to an astronomical crash rate later on for minorities. One black male who had been a sargent before going to the school stood up and told the commander in no uncertain terms to kiss his rear. “If I have my wings sir, I want people to know that I damn well earned them and did not have them handed to me as an Uncle Tom prize ! ” He then left the building.
God Bless you , Sgt Thomas, wherever you now are. I wish YOU would have run for President.
#178 Susan – The affirmative action laws are LAWS. Equal justice under the law means just that…based on the laws we have today, the justices have to provide equal treatment for anyone who has been violated. Do you want her to be one of those “activist judges” you hate so much and ignore affirmative action laws just because you don’t like them?
Read my #111 post…it explains the issue in the case in what I think are simple terms.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 10:51 am 183. wancow:2 Menorah: I will vote for Palin when next time… I could’t bring myself to vote for John “I’ll put on my kneepads and cross the isle and give a lewinsky to any socialist that whips it out” McCain and leave her with that baggage…
On Sotomayor, I figured out what SOTOMAYOR is in English:
Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman!
Yes folks, Wingnut Ears S.F.Brains Il Duce Obama has found the perfect candidate to represent his views in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Sonya “Smarter than a White Man” (Sotomayor) said it herself
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” said Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman in a 2001 speach before the University of CodePink (UC Berkley).
Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman is, of course, not a racist. Notwithstanding that if such a statement came from Joe the Plumber, or, god forbid, Justice Roberts, it would read something like this:
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
That, of course, would be grounds to lynch ten white men, blow up 50 jewish children, and steal 100 elections from those evil homophobic racist dittoheads. Such a statement would creat 10,000 terrorists. Such a statement would make America the most hated country in the world.
Neither Justice Roberts or Joe the Plumber would ever be so stupid as to make such a statement. It’s not who they are. Thank god, they appear to be real, red blooded Americans.
Which leads to the question: what, pray tell, does that make the Non-Racist Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman? Hmmmmmm?
May 28, 2009 - 11:12 am 184. susan:“To both of you, I’ve said Obama has done more wrong than good, and I’ve said Bush did the same. That neither one of you has shown anything to indicate that you are able to take an objective stand on anything means that you are reacting emotionally and can’t form a fair-minded opinion on anything (thus far). ”
So whoever thinks zerobama did 100% wrong hasn’t got a fair minded opinion?
what are you smoking? Of all the “activities” he did there is not a single one that come close to the conservative mentality.
If he did 10 things, it’s all 10 things that shouldn’t be done or should have done the exact opposite.
If you say you didn’t like many of his stuff, it’s perfectly understandable that I (I am at your opposite political spectrum) like nothing of what he did.
Plus, I hate racist people, as repeated several times. So I do not like him, his wife and his hispanic judge (all racists).
It’s not acting emotional, it’s stating things that are a FACT.
“Susan exhibits this behavior and tries to call me a 16 year old (your discussion about ‘liberals nuts’ I found very mature”
you behave like someone who is 16. How could you vote romney and obama is very telling. Fiscally (which is the thing that you claim to care about) they are at the opposite side of the spectrum.
I guess voting for the president is for you like voting for a beauty contest, because ideas and values means nothing to you.
And liberals are nuts, yes, how can you support a system that FAILED everywhere on earth?
How do you call it? Intelligence?
Since you are 16, you should try to buy books and learn on your own what meant for eastern europe decades of communism.
“And in fact, I am a centrist and that is precisely why I want opposing views on the court and Congress as well. We saw what happens when the Republicans owns the Congress and the Presidency, and now we are seeing the opposite, and both are likely to be miserable disasters for the country.”
you want to be considered intelligent and you are complaining that leftists control presidency and congress? HELLOOOOOO, YOU HELPED CREATING THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE BY VOTING OBAMA.
And you want to be considered INTELLIGENT? you would have done a better figure by saying that you voted romney but when he backed down you didn’t vote for anybody in november. But no, you wanted to be part of hystory and vote the first affirmative action president.
Now bear the consequences. I have sympathy for all the americans who DIDN’T vote for him, but not for you. You entirely deserve your fate.
“Do you think Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott are racist?”
are those people in charge of the supreme court?
NO, one of them is dead
Trent Lott after is allegedly racist remark resigned from all his position.
Do you see the latina woman resigning because of her racist positions?
Is this the best you can come up with for “other side of any given situation”?
Is your favourite racist going to resign anytime soon?
You are more and more ridiculous, and you believe you are intelligent?
May 28, 2009 - 11:13 am 185. susan:for the uninformed jack
Strom Thurmond
He later moderated his position on race, but continued to defend his early segregationist campaigns on the basis of states’ rights in the context of Southern society at the time, never fully renouncing his earlier viewpoints. Thurmond would support extension of the Voting Rights Act, making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday and he was the first southern senator to appoint a black aide.
He is still LESS racist than sonia sotomayor (she proved with FACTS and PARTIALITY that she is racist)
BTW, the only KKK member in congress is democrat, but as proven times and times again, you can be racist and democrat.
“The affirmative action laws are LAWS. Equal justice under the law means just that…based on the laws we have today, the justices have to provide equal treatment for anyone who has been violated. ”
there are no affirmative action laws in saying that a latina woman is a better judge than a white man, yet she had not problem saying it.
And why not overthrown affirmative action laws? After all, gays think the propositions voted by people can be overthrown at ANY time.
What’s good for you must be good for the othes too, right?
May 28, 2009 - 11:24 am 186. wancow:178 Jack said: To both of you, I’ve said Obama has done more wrong than good, and I’ve said Bush did the same.
Bull! Il Duce Obama has done more wrong in 4 months than Bush did in EIGHT YEARS! He’s spent 4 times as much money as Bush did in his entire presidency. He’s already Violated a MAJOR constitutional provision, the prohibition against bills of attainder. That is, all by itself, an impeachable offense, Mister!
“And in fact, I am a centrist”
BULLCRAP! If you were a centrist, you would be judging Bush fairly, and not slanting your views decidedly in favour of the NeoFascist Obama!
May 28, 2009 - 11:26 am 187. susan:jack since the affirmative action is a law, while clearly racist and wrong, why do you single out Strom Thurmond calling him racist for believing in the jim crow laws back then when they were on?
May 28, 2009 - 11:30 am 188. Rachel Peepers:Date: Thu 28 May 12:36:43 CDT 2009
From: Vice President Joe Biden Add To Address Book | This is Spam
Subject: A home run
To: rachel peepers
Everybody, I received this email from the cabul trying to pave the way for this despicable candidate for supreme courth judge.
Here’s my reply to the Biden email.
Mr. Vice President,
Rather than view the position of supreme court judge as a
May 28, 2009 - 11:44 am 189. Jack:baseball umpire would, making objective, unbiased, agenda free decisions,
Sonia Sotomayor’s every decision as a supreme court judge would be agenda driven. She doesn’t deserve to be on the bench of the greatest team in judicial history. She belongs in the sandlots where she can infect the law with liberal bias, vindictivness and invective to her heart’s content. Legislating from the bench, in my rulebook, strikes out.
rachel peepers
#184 Susan – I didn’t say you had to agree with Obama, but if you’ve never agreed with a Democrat and have thusfar been willing to say you never disagreed with a Republican, one would think you aren’t objective. For example, you (as predicted) didn’t answer my question about Lott and Thurmond. You know that a few comments doesn’t necessarily a racist make, unless its a democrat. The point isn’t whether she resigns, the question is whether you think they SHOULD resign. Apparently you think Lott and Thurmond shouldn’t have resigned (Thurmond would have had to resign decades before he left office), but that Sotomayor should. You still won’t disagree with this, so I don’t know why you continue to try to maintain that you are objective.
Personally, to me its up to the voting public as to whether someone should resign (can you say the same). They didn’t think Strom should (and he didn’t) and they probably wouldn’t have for Lott either (but he was under too much pressure from other Republicans since he was the party leader.
I voted for Romney in the primary because of the choices, he was my pick for Republicans. Since he wasn’t the candidate, and Palin scares the hell out of me, I voted for Obama. Had Romney won the Republican ticket, I would have voted for him instead. It’s pretty simple.
And why do you keep insisting I want to be considered intelligent? I never said that. I speak my case and leave it up to the reader to decide. If you think I’m stupid, that’s totally up to you, but you are spending an awful lot of time talking to a mental-midget, which I find odd. Why are you so enamored with talking to stupid people…do you like a level playing field? (ok, that was a joke, but I couldn’t resist).
The affirmative action laws relate to the Ricci case, not her statement at the Latin forum, which I said already was on some level racist, just as the republicans you don’t have any issue with have said. And affirmative action laws should be repealed, but that isn’t the judges job if you understand the way our courts work (which you should, since you are talking about it so much). Unless you (once again) have a double standard where judges who legislate from the bench when it helps your side is ok but not when it happens against your side.
Bear in mind that our entire discussion has hinged on you excusing republicans for the exact same behavior dems are showing, while I have consistently shown how the same behavior is wrong in both cases.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 12:01 pm 190. Jack:#186 wancow – The handling (or over-reactions to) the AIG bonuses was poor to say the least. Was that law (the tax on their bonuses) ever passed?
Bush was on the far right, so as a centrist I am well within my purview to have problems with him, as I do with Obama. And before you try to drag us back into 8 years of revisionist analysis, the vast majority of the country (including Republicans) agree with me on Bush, so I’m sorry about that.
And Bush gave every indication that he was going to spend just like Obama did (i.e. TARP was the biggest financial boondoggle before Obama come to power), and his fiscal chaos over the 8 years should not be held up as much of a yard stick, unless of course you believe in big, bloated government, and massive deficits.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 12:09 pm 191. Pastor of Muppets:It’s extremely ridiculous, but not terrible surprising, that the latest reactionary right wing / GOP game of “grasping for straws” has devolved into attacking Sotomayor as racist because of these now infamous 2001 remarks.
Of course, none of the people on here will admit that in fact, when Sotomayor made that statement, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining “race and sex discrimination cases”.
But that’s probably because you geniuses did not actually read her entire statement, you just got your crazy right wing talking point from your crazy right wing Web site telling you exactly what you wanted to hear, as always.
However, if you had actually put your brain to use and read her entire statement in context, you would understand that what Sotomayor was saying was a matter of simple common sense.
Of course someone who has lived through the realities of race and sex discrimination will be better attuned to the consequences and realities of the laws that judges will rule upon than someone who has been shielded from those realities.
Is it really “racist” to claim that people who have actual experience dealing with discrimination are naturally going to be better able to understand the consequences of their rulings?
Is there anyone on the right capable of understanding this?
Is it really too much for you people to actually read someone’s entire statement, in context, before jumping to your same old tired and mindless conclusions?
May 28, 2009 - 12:24 pm 192. Dave Surls:“And affirmative action laws should be repealed, but that isn’t the judges job if you understand the way our courts work…”
According to the courts they can throw out laws as unconstitutional anytime they feel the urge. It’s a power they arrogated to themselves decades ago, and they’ve used it with a will over the years.
So, don’t tell me that’s not part of their job.
May 28, 2009 - 12:25 pm 193. wancow:Jack, Bush was not on the far right except on ONE THING: Abortion. That’s it!
Is THAT your definition of “Far Right?” It’s the only one that fits Dubya!
He handed the keys to the treasury TO THE DEMOCRATS Early On with EDWARD KENNEDY’s “No Child Left Behind.”
He was as moderate as JOHN McCain, the man who walks on Kneepads across the Isle to give a Lewinsky to any Democrat that whips it out!
May 28, 2009 - 12:26 pm 194. Jack:#192 – Dave Surls – Affirmative Action cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times, and so unless this case has some new bent on it, Sotomayor would have to rule based on that precedent. That the Supreme Court is taking the issue up means that they may find differently about AA altogher, or just that something down below was out of line.
But I don’t think you are suggesting that judges should arbitrarily strike down precedent just because you and I don’t like the ‘currently on the books’ law?
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 12:39 pm 195. susan:“but if you’ve never agreed with a Democrat and have thusfar been willing to say you never disagreed with a Republican, one would think you aren’t objective. ”
never said that, but on a likely battle between a democrat and a republican, it’s is extremely likely that I agree with the democrat 0% and I agree with the republican 90%.
90% is still very high.
“You know that a few comments doesn’t necessarily a racist make, unless its a democrat. The point isn’t whether she resigns, the question is whether you think they SHOULD resign. Apparently you think Lott and Thurmond shouldn’t have resigned (Thurmond would have had to resign decades before he left office), but that Sotomayor should. You still won’t disagree with this, so I don’t know why you continue to try to maintain that you are objective.”
I am not interested in hypotetical events. In a fair world if one is forced to resign, the other should too.
If one is NOT forced to resign, the other shouldn’t too.
It’s called EQUALITY, stupid.
So far I have seen character assassination only in ONE SIDE and a total free pass on the other.
I am not obsessed with people “forgetting” to pay taxes but if Greitner is still sitting on his chair in spite of being caught, ALL THE OTHER POLITICIANS should be treated that way. Next time a republican is caught with unpaid taxes, he should be forgiven.
That’s EQUALITY, treating people fairly and being objective.
Do you think I give a crap about obama calling white people “typical white person with typical white prejudices”?
I’ve got a though skin and I know better to take into consideration what spoiled retards like him say, but since NO other white person would be president know after saying something similar to blacks I am going to remind everybody that obummer is a racist.
“I voted for Romney in the primary because of the choices, he was my pick for Republicans. Since he wasn’t the candidate, and Palin scares the hell out of me, I voted for Obama. Had Romney won the Republican ticket, I would have voted for him instead. It’s pretty simple.”
it’s pretty simple that you are stupid, the republican candidate was McCain, not palin. Or you really think that MCain is going to die very soon? Mccain’s mother is still here, cannot say the same for both obama’s mother and father.
So you wanted a fiscal conservative but you voted for someone who already told you before the election he will be going to spend trillions.
Yeah jack you make so much sense. Wow, just wow.
And Palin scares you, yeah I imagine, someone who joined the political circus without male protection (like hillary, pelosi, kennedy) and affirmative action, indeed SCARY for the beta male in you.
“If you think I’m stupid, that’s totally up to you, but you are spending an awful lot of time talking to a mental-midget, which I find odd. ”
I could ask you the same question why you are in a blog when you share very little of the conservative base? I have already read your poor reasons and as well as your voting record, I am not convinced.
Here I read of people who simply said they were libertarian and/or fiscal conservatives that it’s 30 years they don’t vote and while they get some heat here and there, their position is understandable. You have also people who are disilluded by the republicans or even think bush was bad, but I can guarantee you NONE of them voted for obama.
You keep on saying it makes sense in your head, but it’s just there, in your head. First issue for you is fiscal conservativism and you vote for the one that is 200% against fiscal conservativism. What you expected him to surprise you on? his bold attitude towards foreign powers? his attention to religious people? his pride in being american? his incredible pecs?
Because you surely didn’t get fiscal conservativism from him.
“Unless you (once again) have a double standard where judges who legislate from the bench when it helps your side is ok but not when it happens against your side.”
well, well, liberal judges decided so many times to WRITE LAWS for their states (gays in some states can marry just by COURT decision) that if one single time one judge acted in a way to “favour” the other side, it would have been simply FAIR.
Liberal judges already wrote laws, check your facts, it has already happened, you have 2 options to make things equal: either cancel those laws, or allow the same to the other side.
The best choice would be CANCEL those laws, but since what liberal says, it’s carved in stone, either allow the same to the other or you say goodbye to justice.
May 28, 2009 - 12:40 pm 196. Pastor of Muppets:wancow: “Jack, Bush was not on the far right except on ONE THING: Abortion. That’s it!
Is THAT your definition of “Far Right?” It’s the only one that fits Dubya!
He handed the keys to the treasury TO THE DEMOCRATS Early On with EDWARD KENNEDY’s “No Child Left Behind.”
He was as moderate as JOHN McCain, the man who walks on Kneepads across the Isle to give a Lewinsky to any Democrat that whips it out!”
So if he’s popular and loved, he’s a conservative. If he’s reviled, he’s a moderate. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
By your standards, please give me an example of a president who was a true conservative.
May 28, 2009 - 12:41 pm 197. susan:“Of course someone who has lived through the realities of race and sex discrimination will be better attuned to the consequences and realities of the laws that judges will rule upon than someone who has been shielded from those realities.”
hei full blow idiot, master of puppets, do you think that all the judges at nurnberg were jews?
So everytime you have a case of rape, the judge must be a woman otherwise the trial is not fair.
Gee, how stupid you are, you don’t even realize.
You put there someone who experienced the same only to guarantee REVENGE. So much for you bragging about justice.
May 28, 2009 - 12:44 pm 198. Ms. Attitude:180. Jack: You contradicted yourself. Please, read what you wrote.
May 28, 2009 - 12:45 pm 199. Jack:#193 Wancow – Your assertion that the only thing Right wing about Bush is abortion is absurd. You forgot so many I can’t even list them all, but the entire neo-con philosophy which he used ad nauseum was a far right wing approach. Want to keep it social, there is pushing for constitution amendments to keep gays from wearing wedding rings and getting in the way of stem cell research. Add on all of the restrictions on our basic liberties in the name of keeping us safe is another far right approach (you can tell because the ACLU went crazy for 8 years).
Fiscally he was just plain bad, but he was on the right in terms of supply side economics (which isn’t a negative, but again, on the right).
The fact that you are so out of touch to even make the case you did is a sign of delusion. And that I even pointed out the scantest list of points to violate that point just makes me feel like you were just kidding and I fell for it.
And while the McCain comment you’ve now said several times doesn’t deserve a response, if you are going to insist on continuing such juvenile statements, at least say them properly. McCain walks across an ‘aisle’ not a small tract of land surrounded by water (which is a much longer trip, and while you will still think he’d do it, it certainly takes much more tenacity and can’t be done as frequently due to scheduling).
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 12:49 pm 200. wancow:Yo, Jack: “there is pushing for constitution amendments to keep gays from wearing wedding rings” that was a Clinton thing :p And Stem Cell Research is legal, and always has been.
If you’re talking about CANCER CAUSING Embryonic Stem Cell Research, that’s all about Abortion! Hullo?
“Fiscally he was just plain bad, but he was on the right in terms of supply side economics (which isn’t a negative, but again, on the right).”
He Lowered Taxes ONCE! BFD! So did John F. Kennedy…
“Add on all of the restrictions on our basic liberties”
NAME those restrictions! I can’t even think of ONE! I’ll bet they’re NOT so numerous as the restrictions Barak Obama is going to put on us (or our Doctors)…
May 28, 2009 - 1:00 pm 201. Jack:#198 Ms. Attitude – You are right, I typed faster than I was thinking. The point I was trying to make was…
If the law is on the books, it isn’t the courts job to determine when and to whom it applies, it applies to everyone. Unless Affirmative Action is found to be unjust (which it hasn’t despite several supreme court cases) then it stands and until Congress changes it, the judges have to follow it. Per the AA law, the test in Ricci MUST provide the legal (i.e. advantage to minorities and women) results, it didn’t, so it was thrown out as against the law.
Equal justice under the existing law…the existing law in this case is the part you have the problem with, not the application of equal justice per that law.
That was the point you are missing.
(And honestly, thanks for pointing out my mistake).
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 1:01 pm 202. wancow:196. Pastor of Muppets:”So if he’s popular and loved, he’s a conservative. If he’s reviled, he’s a moderate. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.”
“By your standards, please give me an example of a president who was a true conservative.”
NO, if he’s a PHONEY he should be reviled. I don’t mind Liberals so long as they’re honest liberals! I give you John Rothman who is the model for such a man. If he’s a PHONEY CONSEVATIVE (ala John McCain, or COLON POWELL) he should be kicked out of the Republican Party, and roundly humiliated. Bush was never a Conservative. NEVER. He was the best we could do both times he was elected, and Conservatives have had it with “The Best we can do.”
May 28, 2009 - 1:06 pm 203. susan:“you can tell because the ACLU went crazy for 8 years”
because the aclu is credible? the aclu is a leftist organization, of course they went crazy, they would go crazy even if a republican burped.
You lost all credibility. Do you think the aclu would save your ass if your complaint is not left wing? or something that can advance their left wing agenda?
you sounded 16, but in reality you are 12.
“Want to keep it social, there is pushing for constitution amendments to keep gays from wearing wedding rings ”
because in left wing countries (cuba, north korea) gay people are treated so well, that opposing gay wedding rings is surely a right wing thing to do.
You lack intelligence so much you don’t even realize how much brain you miss.
Oh and bush taking away your civil liberties… do you think that obunmmer favouring the unions and FORCING you to be a part of a union is doing something FOR your civil liberties?
there is only one party that talks about the fairness doctrine (freedom of speech is one of your civil liberties FYI) and it’s the ogabe gang.
May 28, 2009 - 1:13 pm 204. Pat J:Re: 91. Chuck Pelto:
TO: Pat J
RE: Out of Curiosity….
….how many times have YOU been ‘pulled over by a cop for being’ in a particular neighborhood?
And what did YOU do as a result?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 28, 2009 - 1:13 pm 205. susan:[The Truth......]
——————–
Quite a few times. In my own suburban neighborhood for “probable cause.” What did I do? Was respectful at all times. Kept me out of jail even when they took my pot. Learned to respect the law even when I thought rightfully so the cops were a punch of stupid punks.
“Stem Cell Research is legal”
exactly the only thing that changed is that idiot obama financed the research with taxpayers money. That’s the only difference between bush and AA obama on the issue
May 28, 2009 - 1:16 pm 206. ILikeIke:I wonder, Ms. Rubin, if you have problems with reading comprehension or if you’re just trying to deceive your audience?
Actually, scratch that…this is PJM. The answer is obvious.
May 28, 2009 - 1:33 pm 207. wancow:205 susan: “exactly the only thing that changed is that idiot obama financed the research with taxpayers money. That’s the only difference between bush and AA obama on the issue”
I think you may have misunderstood me.
Stem Cell Research has two different branches. One is ADULT Stem Cell Research which is highly successful.
The other is Embryonic Stem Cell Research. This invariably results in multiple tumours growing in the subject. Some of them are truly horrific. There was one case in which teeth and hair were growing in a man’s brain where embryonic stem cells were injected.
May 28, 2009 - 1:40 pm 208. susan:I know but there is also a clear lift on the use of taxpayers money.
May 28, 2009 - 2:16 pm 209. wancow:206. ILikeIke:”I wonder, Ms. Rubin, if you have problems with reading comprehension or if you’re just trying to deceive your audience?”
What about this article is deceitful? Or is it that you subscribe to the notion that if you tell a lie, it might stick? Do tell, I’m really looking forward to a good fight…
May 28, 2009 - 2:20 pm 210. Jack:#200 wancow – I got your Clinton joke, but it’s still right wing (even if that means Clinton did have at least 1 right wing view…). Bush restricted stem cell research, Obama overturned it. And that stem cell research doesn’t require abortion, and even if it does use cells from aborted fetuses in some cases, that doesn’t mean abortion caused it.
Bush lowered taxes numerous times from checks written to people directly, delays of taxes like estate taxes and plenty more. Again, I’m not against tax cuts, but just saying it’s vastly over-simplifying to say he only did it once (which is a sign of the lack of attention to detail at best, or at worst simple bias, that I’ve been talking about).
You are clearly having selective memory loss, and as I said before I’m not going to get into a protracted discussion of Bush’s right wing bent because it’s really not a grey area to most people (sure, some people like that he’s right wing, but no one is honestly questioning it). But, as to your question about civil liberties, I’ll give you the most simple and obvious one that has been in the news ad nauseum for ages just to point out that you are (seemingly) being willfully ignorant of the obvious. Warrantless wiretapping (and several parts of the patriot act in general).
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 2:20 pm 211. Jack:#207 Wancow – That’s not accurate about embryonic stem cells. It’s just not. Simply calling them “adult” and “embryonic” shows the superficial level of detail. Read up on what Geron is now working with since the restrictions were lifted.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 2:25 pm 212. Jack:#203 Susan – You need to work on your reading comprehension skills as you seem to keep missing my points. You also need to either answer any of my EXTREMELY pointed questions or stop expecting me to respond to yours. You don’t seem able to get past the pointless (and still juvenile) name calling and accusations. If you would have answered even one of my questions I’d consider this a discussion, but alas, it is just you spouting.
I didn’t lower myself to calling you names, I tried to keep the conversation mature. I answered many of your questions and accusations, but you did not respond to any of mine. I explained myself, and you changed subjects rather than engage. All I can say is that it’s a shame, but I gave you many chances to have a discussion.
Best of luck to you.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 2:33 pm 213. shaui-jan:POM”But that’s probably because you geniuses did not actually read her entire statement, you just got your crazy right wing talking point from your crazy right wing Web site telling you exactly what you wanted to hear, as always.”
i knew exactly what she meant when she said those things..it was clear she surely did.the only one here who seems confused about her comments is you.
May 28, 2009 - 2:34 pm 214. Jack:#203 Susan – I do have to make one last comment to you.
You said, “because in left wing countries (cuba, north korea) gay people are treated so well, that opposing gay wedding rings is surely a right wing thing to do”
In this country, we don’t measure ourselves by the worst of other countries. We aspire to be the best, especially where Freedom is on the line. That’s what makes this the best country in the world. I love it so much I spend a lot of time talking about these issues with people, regardless of the names they routinely call me. I know you don’t live here, but that’s how most of us feel deep down inside, even though you wouldn’t know it to read a lot of this stuff.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 2:39 pm 215. Jack:#213 shaui-jan
Did you think Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond should have resigned based on any of their racist comments? If the answer is no, are you measuring Sotomayor differently?
Jack
P.S. I’ve already said they shouldn’t have resigned and instead let the voters handle it, but I’m curious if you will be consistent.
May 28, 2009 - 2:48 pm 216. The Historian:OBAMA AS “THE GODFATHER”
Watch you back America.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/chicago-mob-style-white-house.html
May 28, 2009 - 2:57 pm 217. wancow the islamogynist:Jack “You are clearly having selective memory loss, and as I said before I’m not going to get into a protracted discussion of Bush’s right wing bent because it’s really not a grey area to most people”
YOU are playing that ridiculous Socialist Game of semantics. STEM CELL research was NEVER restricted. EMBRYONIC stem cell research was.
Most people don’t consider Global Warming to be debatable because they don’t know any better, but the fact is that there are thousands, THOUSANDS of Atmospheric Scientists who say it’s a hoax. Just because the vast majority of people are ignorant doesn’t mean that things shouldn’t be debated.
May 28, 2009 - 4:20 pm 218. wancow the islamogynist:“Jack Simply calling them “adult” and “embryonic” shows the superficial level of detail”
That’s an out and out lie. Adult Stemcells come from adults and umbilical chords. Embryonic come from Fetuses. Don’t lie. I may not always catch you, but liars always slip up sometimes.
May 28, 2009 - 4:23 pm 219. Jack:#217 – If quibbling over the word “embryonic” is not a game of semantics when you knew exactly what I meant, I don’t know what is. But I’m glad you admitted I was right about the restriction.
And most scientists admit the planet is warming, some just don’t think it is caused by humans. Semantics work both ways.
#218 Wancow – Exactly my point. You just pointed out that saying Adult and Embryonic is a vast oversimplification (as you can get adult stem cells from things other than cords). Also duly noted you ignored the clear (expected) benefit from embryonic research and that not all fetuses come from abortions.
It’s nice to finally have an understanding.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 4:44 pm 220. Roark:Sotomayor will be a disgrace to The US Supreme Court, and to ANYBODY who believes INDIVIDUALS should be judged by their character and not their genetic make-up. She is a leftist hack that will surely do her part to destroy our liberty in favor of Obama’s socialist utopia where individualism ceases to exist and all that is left are groups. Frighteningly Orwellian.
May 28, 2009 - 4:52 pm 221. sheesh:153. Dave Surls . . . “Outrageous.” . . . Yes, it is. And, this Sotomayor person shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, much less don judicial robes.”
You realize, of course, that those were the words of Samuel Alito.
Speaking of which, why is no one complaining about “empathy” anymore? Never mind, I already know..
May 28, 2009 - 5:00 pm 222. shaui-jan:jack.”Did you think Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond should have resigned based on any of their racist comments? If the answer is no, are you measuring Sotomayor differently?
are you joking….comparing some semi-useful idiots who can be replaced by the public every few years to the conformation hearings of a lifetime appointee to the SUPREME court?
egads man! i know the sign at the shop read “medicinal”…but your “glaucoma” can’t be that bad.
May 28, 2009 - 6:15 pm 223. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:Sheesh, thanks for doing that, although these people will never admit that they simply don’t want a Puerto Rican woman nominated to do anything. It doesn’t matter how stupid you make them look. I’m going to repost Alito’s words here again. But first here’s a link to a CNN clip where Tancredo is forced to try to explain how this quote is different from the one that has made his head explode; its a pretty long clip but worth the wait:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/05/latino-kkk.html
Justice Sam Alito–Italian Racist
“Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.”
May 28, 2009 - 6:16 pm 224. Jack:Madcow Islamogynist – Duly noted you changed your name to denegrate an entire religion. Glad you and Hitler have something in common…generality to the point of absurdity. You have relegated yourself to the same argument as the KKK. Good luck with that, but you won’t hear from me again.
Unless I simply call you a nasty name, which might be even worth my time.
You sir are a piece of shiite.
Jack
May 28, 2009 - 6:25 pm 225. Jack:#222 shau-jan: You answered my question. Republican racism is ok, Democratic racism is bad in your view.
Thanks,
Jack
P.S. I was abundantly clear…it was about right vs. wrong, and you only attacked Sotomayor. I specifically asked you to rule on racism statements, and you looked for a loophole (the term of the racists office). As long as you ignore the question posed to you, you are clearly ducking the question. Unless you have the guts to answer the actual question I asked you…do you…are you scared of your answer…bawk bawk bawk…chickin baby…scardey cat…loser boy? Do I actually have to taunt you to answer a simple question?????
I said I thought racism is bad…are you too scared to agree because it might speak badly about your own candidates? Oh no, am I asking you to be even-handed?
Sorry for my “P.S.” to be longer than my statement, but your continued hiding is just sad.
May 28, 2009 - 7:25 pm 226. shaui-jan:P.S. “I was abundantly clear…it was about right vs. wrong, and you only attacked Sotomayor.”
i never attacked sotomayor in that statement,not even close …show me where.
moving along on with your weak-ass argument:
“I specifically asked you to rule on racism statements,”
thurman was an avowed rascist?..oh no kidding.my ‘ruling’ …is he was bad.
it’s funny you didn’t mention strom thurmond started out a democrat,or that the only senater to serve longer than strom was bird. he(bird) was a life long democrat and former member of the ku klux klan.
“and you looked for a loophole (the term of the racists office). As long as you ignore the question posed to you, you are clearly ducking the question.”
ducking nothing,lightweight…we’re talking about the supreme court and your comparing them to senaters.apples and oranges…one you can easily get rid of and the other is the branch of goverment with the most amount of power controlled by the least amount of people….with a life time appointment..
stick to conversing with one person at a time,your just flailing away right now.
May 28, 2009 - 8:47 pm 227. susan:“You need to work on your reading comprehension skills as you seem to keep missing my points”
when one debates with stupids entirely devoid of logic that’s what happens
You are a fiscal conservative (self proclaimed) and voted for obama, what there is more to add?
Who is the one devoid of logic?
“You also need to either answer any of my EXTREMELY pointed questions or stop expecting me to respond to yours. ”
you are not only devoid of logic but you are also a pathologica liar.
And if you say you love the country so much it must be a really feel good state to have obama (a 50% american citizen only) apologising to the worst corrupt countries in the world. He is apologizing to the muslim world like WE are the ones considering women like second class citizen, devoiding any other religion of basic human rights. (educate yourself, every other religion that’s not islam is banned or semi-banned in every muslim countries or exists only under SEVERE restrictions), but he feels YOU, the best country in the world has to apologize. But never ask them to apologise too, I don’t know, for the constant attack of the muslim world of the past 1400 years.
But you are far too ignorant to know it, Levanto, Poitiers, Vienna, it’s all chinese to you. Because your colored hero has decided to pay tribute to the fanatic cult of the majority of his family
One last bit: your deranged brain produced this gem
“Glad you and Hitler have something in common…generality to the point of absurdity. ”
Don’t forget obama, after all, how happy his muslim friends will be if he helps wiping out israel?
May 29, 2009 - 12:37 am 228. susan:“I said I thought racism is bad…are you too scared to agree because it might speak badly about your own candidates? Oh no, am I asking you to be even-handed?”
you stuck your proverbial foot in your silly mouth. You brought up those 2 republican senators and it turned back on you because it was a stupid example to being with.
a racist judge is worse than a racist senator. A senator can be voted out.
You wanted to test the racism level of others? well you are now stuck with admiring a racist judge, someone that willingly supports minorities over the rest of the population.
Stick with your racist judge, it will do you good.
May 29, 2009 - 12:40 am 229. Jack:#226 shaui-jan – Thank you for admitting that you feel racism isn’t just plain bad, it depends on the person in question, their party affiliation, and their job.
I disagree.
Jack
May 29, 2009 - 4:07 am 230. shaui-jan:jack”But I’m glad you admitted I was right about the restriction.”
making tax payers foot the bill on FETAL stem cell research IS the problem,genius.
again…jack,the lone voice of reason among the bigoted and misinformed:
“Thank you for admitting that you feel racism isn’t just plain bad, it depends on the person in question, their party affiliation, and their job.”
weak and grasping,why don’t we just debate about what color blue the sky is..or how cute puppies are? you know people can just go right back and read what was really said..who are you trying to fool,narcoleptics?
if you realized how puny your arguments sound to an adult…..you would have given up long ago.
hey,at least your trying….. but in the future,try harder.
May 29, 2009 - 7:42 am 231. Phil:I just love the way that the right-wing extremists make “facts”(?) up when they do not exist in the real world. I was once a registered Conservative and the Vice -Chair of my Town’s Conservative Party. I am now a moderate Republican. These right -wing fools are shooting themselves in the foot and the Republican Party is about to be flushed down the toilet of history.
May 29, 2009 - 7:42 am 232. Ms. Attitude:201. Jack:
So, if the Ricci case is upheld by the Supreme Court then, as a middle aged woman, if I wanted to play professional basketball for the Lakers and I try out and don’t make the team I can sue because the tryouts are biased against middle aged women. Therefore, no one should make the team.
You do realize that with Affirmative Action women are not held to the same standards in physical fitness at the firehouse. So, if you are pulled from a burning building by a “firewoman” she is allowed to drag you by your feet banging your head against every step on the way out! I’d rather be thrown over the shoulder of a fireman.
And what was so hard in that test that not one black fireman passed? What is it that the white dyslexic firefighter knew that they didn’t?
And as for her quote, I don’t have a problem with that because I do agree that a man, of any race, doesn’t understand women!!
May 29, 2009 - 9:33 am 233. Jack:232 Ms. Attitude – Well, as I said I’m not for affirmative action laws, but unless the SCOTUS rules differently than they have before we are stuck with them. Congress will never get rid of them, no one wants to take the hit with minorities. Same reason we don’t enforce our own immigration laws.
And as to your very last point, I don’t understand…
Jack
May 29, 2009 - 10:47 am 234. Pat J:Hmm. Obama nominates a Latina and this is a blow for racial equality? As usual Jennifer Rubin has no idea what’s she’s talking about.
May 29, 2009 - 11:30 am 235. Ms. Attitude:233. Jack:
This quote: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
In context she speaking of situations dealing with other’s that have past experiences such as hers. I, having experienced marital abuse, would better understand a woman shooting her abusive husband in the back than a man.
But I’m not a judge and I’m not a potential Supreme Court Judge. If she is going to make judgement based on the constitution as Supreme Court Justice then her record should show that she judges without prejudice. Her record does not show that. I don’t care about her humble beginnings or where she graduated from. All I care about is whether or not she will judge withough prejudice!!
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sonia_sotomayor/index.html
I don’t understand why you are defending her as if she were your mom. As an American citizen you should scrutinze everyone that is in a potential position in our government. A lifetime appointment deserves even more scrutiny. Why do you defend her so?
May 29, 2009 - 12:04 pm 236. Delia:Belonging to an ethnic minority instantly forgives any and all racism. Even if Mexicans hate blacks and visa versa it doesn’t matter because it’s a ‘minority’ with prejudices rather than ‘whitey’. Black on black crime? No biggy because it’s all the ‘man’s’ fault after all.
If an Hispanic cop beats someone of ‘color’ it goes into ’snooze’ news. If a white cop does? Instant headlines splashed everywhere! A white cop says N*gger? Burn him at the stake! Black or Hispanic cop says the same? *yawn*
Until people realize that ANYONE of ANY racial/ethnic make-up CAN be racist and bigoted then we are just moving backwards rather than forwards. Tit for tats only mean that our culture clashes have no hope of ever getting along.
May 29, 2009 - 2:17 pm 237. Delia:P.S. -And, don’t even get me started on what Mexicans call blacks and what black people call Mexicans. Some folks think white people are bigots? HA!
May 29, 2009 - 2:19 pm 238. susan:“I don’t understand why you are defending her as if she were your mom. ”
leftists emotionize everything.
Jack treats her like his mother and obama as his father.
pathetic, the country is full of people with emotional issues and daddy issues
May 30, 2009 - 1:58 am 239. misanthropicus:Jennifer is doing very well. She sure hit a raw nerve with this piece since we’re at (so far) 283 posts, including the entire troll squad madly running all over the place, which is a very good sign that someone made a nasty chink in Soetero’s facade.
Also, we’re only a few days in this Supreme Court nomination and, if you read the headlines, the Hopenchage brigade is already on defensive – that is THREE (3!) painful hits for the liberal occuppiers in a week (Cheney’s credibility way over Soetero’s, Prop 8 went ahead, and the SCOTUS nomination in tailspin). Nice, and with no much effort, fact that shows liberals’ actions are always self-defeating.
Back to Sotomayor – you, Soeterotrolls, what’s your elucubration on the fact that Sotomayor is in the truly unique position of being a SCOTUS nominee who will face one of her decisions (Ricci) bounced in a few weeks by the very court she wants to be a member of?
May 30, 2009 - 8:20 pm 240. Well Educated Cad:Vivo, POM, Sheeskebob – ever heard about absurdist theater?
To annoy a Liberal, simply point out their hypocrisy.
May 31, 2009 - 1:45 am 241. Jack:#235 Ms Attitude – Sorry for the delay, back from a kayaking weekend. You’ve obviously never seen me defend my Mom
I’m not defending her as much as I’m defending her against the radical first opinions. NO ONE should be definitively judged after a 24 hour news cycle on a (however old she is) time period. Especially if the answer is “you are nothing but a racist bitch” or something similar. I’m pointing out the other side of the story, and while I’ve said several times I have to wait through the confirmation hearings, most people hear heard enough after the first afternoon.
In a discussion about judges where we think care and thoughtful decisions should be made and not rushed, I find it ironic here that most people refuse to show the same care that they expect in kind. I’m also sure that no one here can honestly say they’ve never made a statement they wish they could rephrase or take back (the same could be said of any politician, President, CEO, Doctor, etc…so don’t give me the “justices can’t make mistakes” line…everyone is human regardless of the office we expect them to hold).
As to court cases, if you’ve ever been involved in one, they are not as simple as a paragraph overview.
I am taking the entirely pro-Sotomayor standpoint because I am talking to people who have written her off 100% and I find that premature, simplistic, and de-valuing the importance of the Supreme Court. No one here needs to hear the side of the story they agree with any more than they already are. I’m telling them another view on the Ricci case and on the statement she made. Depending on her answers about that statement, and the ultimate view from the SCOTUS on the Ricci case, I may decide she IS racist, or she did botch that decision. But the people here that are close-minded aren’t going to wait (and they haven’t)…so I gave them another perspective.
If I can convince anyone to think a little open-mindedly then I feel like it wasn’t a waste of time (even it if changes nothing). I will make up my own mind once the hearings are over, and nothing anyone says here will change that.
So there you go.
Jack
May 31, 2009 - 1:03 pm 242. Jack:#236 Delia – I completely agree that anyone can be racist against other races or even their own. And I agree with the many people that say that the only want to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination (including Affirmative Action laws).
That said, I don’t see the Ricci case as Sotomayor approving of Affirmative Action (i.e. against whites…and frankly hispanics since they also lost that ruling), but simply as saying that the case falls within the boundaries of the current laws on the books regarding Affirmative Action. We The People are going to have to fix those laws unless the SCOTUS suddenly decides to reverse their prior rulings and declare them unconstitutional.
Jack
May 31, 2009 - 1:06 pm 243. Jack:#240 Well Educated Cad – To annoy a social conservative, just speak an opinion that is different than theirs.
May 31, 2009 - 3:40 pm 244. misanthropicus:RE #242/Jack RE #236 Delia [..] That said, I don’t see the Ricci case as Sotomayor approving of Affirmative Action [...] boundaries of the current laws on the books regarding Affirmative Action. We The People are going to have to fix those laws unless the SCOTUS suddenly decides to reverse their prior rulings and declare them unconstitutional. [...]
Jack, sorry, I’m just back from a whale hunt in Spitzbergen (nice harvest, I admit), and while I am a bit tired and need to get a good soak to get rid of all the blood on me I recognize & praise your noble approach in this Sotomayor matter.
Yet I still have an efficiency question here – since it takes very long for a case to reach the Supreme Court and (as it often happens) the un-addressed issues of that particular case can often be very painful for a larger group of citizens, why should’t We The People (your suggestion, buddy), jump in the fray and stop that or that injustice happen by simply not allowing someone so clearly bent on further wronging the wrongee like Sotomayor have an opportunity to do so?
Do I need to remind you that always, ALWAYS the left when in power acts in the most primitive and ruthless way?
Here’s a reminder for you, I’m quoting Henry Kissinger when in France (justly) admonishing Michel Jobert (French foreign affairs minister at that time, socialist), for yet another self-destructive alliance with the communists: “The entire world is dotted by millions of tombs of socialists who thought that can deal with communists.”
So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to mact AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?
Hope your cayak is ok – my Sollingen harpoons worked well in Spitzbergen, and next weekend I’ll go in Canada for a babyseals clubbering wildin’ (place undisclosed). If you want to join, let me know.
May 31, 2009 - 4:50 pm 245. Jack:#244 – Misanthropicus – Most cases of import do reach the Supreme Court and they turn it down because they want to wait on the electorate to sort it out. Nonetheless…
So We The People are supposed to assassinate Sotomayor? Is that what your suggesting???? The FBI is probably watching…are you honestly suggesting that rather than following the democratic path that you want to just kill her? Who has the “left” assassinated to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest?
Is it a matter of it being “too late” once she is in office, or is it a matter of your side losing too many elections so that your side had no chance to impact who was put in that position (note that your inability to impact things was because of the will of the majority who didn’t want people like you to rule them)? Maybe you and your peers are so out of line with everyone else that you lost election after election and per our CONSTITUTION you are therefor the fringe and going to have to wait?
I voted for Perot…can I riot now because he didn’t win? Is that how you think this country works?
As a final note, is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend? It seems like you took personal offense to that. I know I’m a white male that is supposed to be mad at Sotomayor, but she didn’t steal my bank account quite yet…
Jack
P.S. The sad part is you are going to ignore everything I said, call me names, and come up with more strawmen. Prove me wrong or I’ll ignore you like I’ve done on so many other threads…
May 31, 2009 - 5:18 pm 246. Dave Surls:“But I don’t think you are suggesting that judges should arbitrarily strike down precedent just because you and I don’t like the ‘currently on the books’ law?”
No, what I’m suggesting is is that the courts have arrogated to themselves the power to repeal laws on the basis of their constitutionality, and that they therefore do have the power to repeal laws.
IMO, it’s a huge mistake to grant the courts that power, especially since they’ve misused it so often, but they do have it.
May 31, 2009 - 7:51 pm 247. misanthropicus:Re #245/Jack: [...] So We The People are supposed to assassinate Sotomayor? Is that what your suggesting???? The FBI is probably watching…are you honestly suggesting that rather than following the democratic path that you want to just kill her? Who has the “left” assassinated to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest? [...]
Sorry lot you are Jack, trying to equate my “So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to [m]act AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?” with a call for assassination.
Stopping Sotomayor, process that has began and probably will be successful, is exactly what is happening now, people examining her records and legal pronouncements and increasingly doubting her fitness for the SCOTUS job. (And revealing the rank hypocrisy of her supporters).
But the clue for your pathetic psychological make-up lies in “the FBI is probably watching”, sentence which shows that as usual, in a liberal, camouflaged by noble utterings and gesticulation, lies a tyranical, petty and scheming bully – indeed bottomless is the liberal sleaze, and good illustration for that you are, dba Jack.
As far as “[...] your side losing too many elections so that your side had no chance to impact, etc. [...]” – buddy, apparantly your cayaking has exhausted your mental resources – elections happen often, every two years. The Reps lost last cycle, the Dems won, oblady, oblada – yet there isn’t anything definitive in an election.
2010 and 2012 are already here, in 2010 I suspect the Dems will lose their grip on the legislative branch (as you can see, the past week showed that they’re far of being invulnerable), and 2012, god willing, we’ll take the house again. If not, we’l do it next round.
So, since the hysterical layer of your psychology won’t accept this idea, Chesapeake bay is handy – happy drowning!
Jun 1, 2009 - 1:28 am 248. Jack:#246 Dave Surls – Affirmative Action laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court several times and the precedents exist such that to overturn them would be quite a shocking reversal. It’s not that it couldn’t happen, but if they couldn’t prove that they found a new spin on it (tough to do) they’d clearly be a “judicial activist who is legislating from the bench”.
Jack
Jun 1, 2009 - 4:50 am 249. Jack:#247 Misantropicus – So you admit that you lost the elections because you are clearly out of touch with the majority of this country, and so you can’t impact the nominations to the Court, and you are going to see her confirmed with 70+ votes. Your big plan is to wait until 2010 or 2012 and see if the cries of racism and the party of ‘no’ thing has resonated with the people (or just sit around and hope the Democrats fail, which is more likely than your other approach of name-calling and obstructionism). Great, finally some closure.
And I’ll also say again that I don’t even know if I want her confirmed yet, but it’s still extremely likely as the Repubs want political cover and she’s already been through the process twice and been confirmed with bipartisanship both times.
But once again, since you didn’t answer, who has the “left” assassinated (or even tortured) to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest? And how does me pointing out that the FBI is watching (given all of the talk of violence around here) make me a thug? If anything I was warning you to think before you make careless threats of violence if that was where you were headed…
As a final note (again), is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend? Are you afraid of the water and are jealous or something? Is there some problem with kayaking (or at least spelling it correctly, since you don’t seem able to…)? Are you just being petty and small? I’m just curious about this fixation of yours.
Jack
Jun 1, 2009 - 5:46 am 250. misanthropicus:RE #249/Jack:
Jack, mighty airpump, calm down buddy – hope that your febrile mind can understand some clear arguments:
1) [...] So you admit that you lost the elections because you are clearly out of touch with the majority of this country, and so you can’t impact the nominations to the Court, and you are going to see her confirmed with 70+ votes.
A: The republicans lost the elections, and if you want to shorthand this into their being “out of touch with the majority” description, I am fine with this – yet I will remind you again that elections happen every few years and, exactly as the Reps lost this time, so had Democrats, so will Reps again, and so will do Dems again;
2) [...] Your big plan is to wait until 2010 or 2012 and see if the cries of racism and the party of ‘no’ thing has resonated with the people (or just sit around and hope the Democrats fail, which is more likely than your other approach of name-calling and obstructionism). Great, finally some closure.
Q: Used as I am with liberals’ non sequiturs and absurd tirades, your hysterical reaction at my modest mentioning of some incoming elections is beyond anyting I heard so far. Does my “big plan” to vote in 2010 and 2012 sound that offending? My!
AAs far as Sotomayor’s confirmation (which I hope that won’t happen), it increasingly looks like a Lani Guarnier, “quota queen” type of political adventure – even LA Times, this liberal battleship has become kind of leary of her, situation echoing the Dem establishment’s fear of a YES! white electorate backlash.
4) [...] who has the “left” assassinated (or even tortured) to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest?
A: Gross or stupid, but probably both: one century of communism has left over one hundred million murders around – and, considering your hysterical tone, I can see you very well as left-wing commissar inflicting your enlightenment upon completely innocent humans around.
5) And how does me pointing out that the FBI is watching (given all of the talk of violence around here) make me a thug?
A: Certes, PJM is a rather conservative site. But, I’ve been visiting PJM for about one year and I always found the regulars here as polite and cultured and willing to listen to adverse opinions, and simply no normal human would (liberals don’t qualify for this description) describe the dialogue here as “all that talk of violence around here” -
On the other hand, the verbal violence is a common threat of most liberal sites, like Daily Kos and HuffPo, where insults and screams are part of the regular offering – situation also showing from what miserable pastures you’ve strayed in this noble real of wisdom and insightfulness that PJM is –
5) [...] If anything I was warning you to think before you make careless threats of violence if that was where you were headed…”
A: my #247 has already addressed this:
[...] Sorry lot you are Jack, trying to equate my “So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to [m]act AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?” with a call for assassination.
Stopping Sotomayor, process that has began and probably will be successful, is exactly what is happening now, people examining her records and legal pronouncements and increasingly doubting her fitness for the SCOTUS job. (And revealing the rank hypocrisy of her supporters). [..]
Sad job to review your rants, Jack, but I did it for the record’s sake – and now, for comic relief comes your stormy end:
6) “[...] is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend?
A: ??!
7) Are you afraid of the water and are jealous or something?
A: ??!
8)Is there some problem with kayaking (or at least spelling it correctly, since you don’t seem able to…)?
A: It’s either Kayaking or cayaking – stop barking, Jack;
9) Are you just being petty and small? I’m just curious about this fixation of yours.”
A: ??!!
Conclusion: if anyone ever needed another proof that a liberal’s psychology is nothing but fuzzy, wiggling knot
of hostility, fraudulence, bitterness, paranoia and supeficiality, refer to the highly literate presence on this site of dba Jack, qayaker in Chesapeake Bay -
Bye Jack – since barking might be good for your lungs, keep barking, but also be aware that lungs’ use tells a lot about brains, too, so…
Jun 1, 2009 - 8:52 am