Pajamas Media

196 Comments

1. The Evasions and Misstatements of Sonia Sotomayor | Secolul 21 ~ 21st Century:

[...] more: The Evasions and Misstatements of Sonia Sotomayor This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Pajamas Media. You can follow any responses to this [...]

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:03 am 2. David Thomson:

I still believe Sonia Sotomayor may be compelled to drop out of nomination process. She is existentially committed to the notion that white people deserve to have it stuck to them good and hard. This pervades every aspect of her intellectual and moral formation. And why should this be surprising? It is the ho-hum doctrine held by the “elites” dominating our cultural and intellectual institutions. “Hating whitey” is second nature to these individuals—even those possessing blue eyes and blond hair. The madness did not begin yesterday morning. It is more like the minimum of the last four decades. There is something else that must also be added: Judge Sotomayor is not the exception. She represents every single of one of President Obama’s likely nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court!

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:27 am 3. turfmann:

Given the supermajority Democrats hold in the Senate there is no reason for her to be anything other than completely candid with members of the committee. Elections have consequences, the Democrats won, Obama won, he should get his nominee, right? ‘Judge Sotomayor, you repeatedly said that a wise latina would arrive at better judgements than the white guy. You still on board with that?’ ‘That’s right, what you gonna do about it?’ Why then the wild attempts to run away from her past statements? Why the attempt to equivocate, disown, etc.? What is she trying to hide? Very strange indeed.

Which makes the prospect of hearing from Frank Ricci all the more interesting. Kind of like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDmTAglENCU

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:43 am 4. beerstine:

I am not troubled by her background as a woman and Hispanic jurist.

I am troubled that in her statements and propensity to have her rulings overturned by higher courts, that she is not indeed wise.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:49 am 5. Terry:

And what exactly does liberal law professor Louis Michael Siedman mean when he postures that, “How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts?” If he means the issues to be decided are deep and require much thought, okay, but if he means (and I think he does) that judges must balance their personal feelings against the law, I’m every bit as disgusted as he is.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:15 am 6. David Thomson:

“Obama won, he should get his nominee, right?”

What do the polls indicate? Do the majority of American people believe Sonia Sotomayor should be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court? Barack Obama can defy these folks—but would that be wise? What about those purple and red state senators? Should they be fearful of the voters? Also, who is actually supporting Sotomayor? The polling data clearly shows that most citizens representing all races and ethnic groups disagree with her views. She is truly the candidate of only the “elites.”

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:19 am 7. Soups Ready:

The biggest liar ever recommended to sit on the Supreme Court by the biggest liar to ever sit in the Whitehouse as President being cross examined for truthfulness by the biggest gang of liars and phonies that God ever let live – and this article portends that something other than Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation might be possible?

All of that in spite of the fact that Cap & Trade, Healthcare, Amnesty for illegal Hispanics, much higher taxes on the rich, super payouts of welfare to poor blacks and Hispanics, regulations that put Ford motor company out of business, more shredding of our National Defense, more kissing Iran’s rear end, more telling Israel to go pound salt and more of Obama’s apologies to the world for America being a pathetic land of worthless bastards are all waiting on the grill for “official implementation” no later than the end of this year?

Get real!

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:30 am 8. Adina Kutnicki,Israel:

Of course she was backpedaling, faster than a champion bike rider dares to.

This is because she knows that the majority of Americans-aside from her fellow leftists-do not ascribe to jurists playing the part of social engineers. The reason why Congress makes laws is to make sure that jurists implement them. On an intellectual level she understand this.

No sane person is saying that judges aren’t entitled to have their own personal opinions, biases and all. But in their professional lives they are violating the Constitution if they cross said boundary.This violation is in effect against the highest law of the land. Either abolish the Constitution or adhere to it. It is not that difficult to come to this conclusion.

The above situation is beginning to mirror the horrid situation that Israelis suffer first hand, as to what really happens when an activist Supreme Court(as well as the rest of the court system) is left to its own devices, unchecked and unfettered.

In fact, Israel’s ex Supreme Court Head, Aaron Barak, crowed before the Israeli press that he sees his ’supreme’ mandate to social engineer Israeli lives, and that applying Israeli laws is in relation to his social engineering philosophical priority.

It appears that with the (s)election of a rabid, albeit disingenuous racialist onto the Supreme Court, the US is on the heels of becoming a facsimile of what has become a mockery of justice in Israel, where minorities are treated as protected citizens, and the will of the majority(Jewish) is given the finger.

Case closed…

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:55 am 9. fear Obama:

Al Franken said she is the smartest SCOTUS nominee in 100 years.

He also wrote:

when Bush was elected for a second term (and won for real this time) it was certainly a blow to the Democratic and liberal communities. What exactly happened? How did someone, so seemingly incompetent and just plain bad for the country pull it off-again!

And this time without the help of his friends in black robes.

Franken looks at all these things and decides that there were three things that turned the tables for Bush: Fear, Smear, and Queers.

The black robes caught my eyes.

Libs. want to change the color of the court-
not just skin color but white robes would be nice-with hoods?

They keep giving terrorist civil rights we will all be wearing robes-

Burka paradise-

Land of Goats Milk and Honey.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:05 am 10. Irish Alex:

Curious about the case of the abusive father in Minnesota, I went looking for the details.
This is the only thing I could find.

From the article:
“Finding a case that fits this description has proved a bit of a challenge. White House staff informed me that Judge Sotomayor had named the wrong court. The decision in question, they say, is Hall vs. Hall, a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling from 1987. (The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review it.)

Even assuming that’s the right case, Judge Sotomayor’s description was imprecise. In Hall, a 14-judge “en banc” appeals panel upheld a lower court’s protective order on a 7-7 vote. Four male judges joined three female judges on the prevailing side. Seven judges, all male, dissented.

All the judges agreed there was no evidence — in fact, not even an allegation — that the father had ever abused his children.”

If this is indeed the case in question, then she got the court wrong, the number of judges wrong and also agreed that it is reasonable to enact a restraining order against a father preventing him from seeing his children when there is no evidence at all that he is a threat to them.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:09 am 11. RandyChandler:

What you see is exactly what you get. Sotomayor is a dud. Right and wrong? Truth and justice? Meh. But one of those cool robes would look good on anybody, right?

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:14 am 12. Meryl:

SS saying she didn’t mean what she said is the result of the same kind of “principle position-taking” demonstrated by Col. obama when he assured the Pope he wanted to reduce abortions.

Why?

If there is nothing wrong with abortions, no moral aspect to consider but only pragmatic reason…what is his reason for wanting to reduce them? Why should he want to get between women and their doctors to reduce abortions when he doesn’t want to eliminate them?

It’s always painful to watch liberals when they forced to pretend to think as they try to give principled answers to specific questions.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:21 am 13. seansarto:

In reading an article concerning the line of questioning from Senator Chuck Grassly during the hearings in referencing the scope of the government’s authority under the Fifth Amendment to seize property as long as “just compensation ” is given…I could not help to sense that some form of “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” was being imparted towards Griselda “La Madrina” Sotomayer Blanco with regards to the economic profitability of “affirmative action”. In the United States of 2009, “private property” in legalese definitions of real assets can be evaluated and measured in terms of an individual’s identity in a social context, (i.e. votes), intellectual property, (i.e. inventions, ideas, songs, etc), and opportunity, (i.e. your job, even your wife, without being cynical.). What this means is that the government has given itself the “justifications”, (i.e. the mechanisms) for taking such properties from those it feels are obstructing their private agendas. That’s why even the precedent was available for a guy like Ricci to be steamrolled…That’s where my own life is bein’ steamrolled by these same bunch of opportunists…That things I CONSTRUCTED…That I invested my own time and energies into through my own purpose of identity and goodwill… are now applicable, by definitions of judicial process and law, to the whims of those who can regard them as being worth more to someone else who can phrase them in terms of an overarching idealism, rather then my own relative and inherent rights to those labors. (The Government’s organizing principle of justifying such a seizure is a far more COMMUNIST agenda because it is an ACT of Communism, then an individual who seeks only to protect themselves from such thievery). That’s the, “wink, wink, nudge, nudge,” of it. It is the corruption that made this whole administration valid.
Truly, what is criminal here, though, is then the bitter pharmaceuticals that one must be forcibly fed within through the determinations and orders involved in equivocating “just compensation”…These, one would reasonably surmise, are solely the individual’s claim but the government has allocated itself justified in undermining such by whatever deviance or means. How can anyone in the end, put a value on not only the opportunities lost but also the ancillary benefits and improbabilities of any opportunity, if they have merely justified themselves in taking your job through forceful measure? A “job”, or an “idea”, in many cases constitutes solid social, filial and residential securities, much less financial prosperity. To sell such things on the cheap immediacy of economic avaritia is whoredom. When you have taken away another’s life’s work at the peak of it’s potency you are endeavoring towards the stagnation of your society. It is an act of class war. There’s is no such thing as “just compensation”.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:23 am 14. John Marshall:

In 61 years, I believe that this is the first time that I have seen someone lie repeatedly about obvious and verifiable statements from her record. Sotomayor’s lying really breaks new ground. Why would she do it? Is she trying to pull an Obama?

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:24 am 15. TennesseeVolunteer:

Sonia is the perfect choice from this administration. she lies at the drop of the hat to get what she wants and thinks the American people are too slow to catch up to it before it is too late. It worked with the last election and the stimulus but the party for the Dems is almost over. Almost everyone but the biggest kool aid drinkers is catching on to these shysters.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:36 am 16. seansarto:

It’s like the difference of having your first child at 20 years old or at 50…when that was the one thing you wanted most to do most in life.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:51 am 17. Attila:

This is one stupid Latina.

Telling lies should be second nature to a liberal without the courage to stand for her convictions.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:56 am 18. Cato:

#5 Terry: What Seidman is getting at is (at least) the legal maxim that “hard cases make bad law.” You have to remember that the easy cases – where the law is reasonably clear – rarely make it past the district court; that is the trial level, where the jury or the judge sorts out the facts of the case from the conflicting claims and the judge applies the law. If the law is clear, there usually isn’t any grounds for an appeal (ignoring for the moment questions of abuse of judicial discretion, but that’s not really at issue here). The appeals that are in question here – that get to the circuit court level and ultimately to the supreme court – are the ones where there is a reasonable claim by one side (or sometimes both) that the judge has got the law wrong. That is, the law isn’t so obviously clear and it needs to be hashed out by the appellate judges. Sometimes these are cases where the law is silent, or where there are conflicting legal principles (or even statutes) or Constitutional claims at stake, as in the Ricci case.

It’s the job of an appellate judge, which Seidman correctly points out that every first year law student knows, to sort through these conflicting claims of law and get to a result that’s right. What’s right may differ depending on your legal philosophy, but the notion that all you do is apply the law to the facts is either idiotically uninformed or disingenuous.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:01 am 19. COL. SEBASTIAN MORAN:

SOUPS READY
#7
Ford Motor Company out of business ??? Since when ?
77/88
S.M

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:06 am 20. Brian Richard Allen:

Ms Rubin informs us that the lefty (il)liberal lunatic Louis Michael Seidman seriously suggests Sotomayor … is either a fool or is acting in bad faith.

Stuff and nonsense.

Rubbish.

Ablsobloodylute balderdash!

Why even Stevie wonder and Jose Feliciano can see that Sotomayor is a fool.

AND is acting in bad faith.

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles Calisotamayoricated 90028
And the Far Abroad

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:11 am 21. The Shadow:

Of course this is what Cedarbaum actually said about Judge Sotomayor ”

“I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging.”

Trust the wingnuts not to bother to get the facts or to ignore them if they contradict what they parrot. Of course once we get through this nonsense, she will be confirmed. So who has the last laugh?

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:13 am 22. David:

She wants to look at other countries to “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and … whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.”

She has completely missed the point. From the beginning, “our understanding of our own constitutional rights” did NOT “fall into the mainstream of human thinking”, mainly because we actually HAD an understanding of these rights, while people in other countries didn’t. And it’s still that way – we don’t (yet) have the Orwellian “human rights” commissions that Mark Steyn and others have written about. That sort of thing is the “mainstream of human thinking”, so let’s hope we stay away from the “mainstream”.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:15 am 23. The Shadow:

Hey you have got to give her credit this is what she said in the hearings
““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” You see feelings do count

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:19 am 24. e:

I’ve been listening to excerpts of her testimony on various news sources. What I’ve heard just sounds like she’s just telling conservatives what she thinks they want to hear.

NPR’s been repeating a Republican’s comment that it sounded like they were listening to justice Roberts.

Its one thing to say what you believe. If you’re honest about your beliefs I may still disagree, but at least I’ll respect you for stating your convictions. I just don’t know what I’m hearing from Ms. Sotomayor, it sure sounds different from what she said earlier.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:34 am 25. michael hoskins:

Please remember, regardless of ability, but especially when it is less than the other 8 justices, her opinions will be written AND FORMED by her law clerks. I am more than sure that she will get good advice on which Ivy League tyros to hire. Law Clerk vetting? = zero.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:42 am 26. blotto:

Geez, of course she is lying about her record and her speeches. Lying is the M.O. of progressives. They say what the American public wants to hear and then they do what they want, which more than likely is the opposite of what they said—Obama.

The duped American public never knows the difference. Because as long as the elites in NY, Wash., and LA, are placated, and the poor get their wealth distribution, nobody will question the Dems and progressives.

I still can not get over all the white liberal Senators must feel stupid to be questioning someone who has repeatedly called them dumb.. But they must play their designed roles for the Left or face expulsion.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:00 am 27. Tomp:

Soto is not the only one with credibility problems.

//www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:05 am 28. vivo:

Another desperate attempt by J. Rubin to emulate her conservative Solons and smear racist images on who they see as an ideological enemy. The questions made are racist in themselves, the tone is racist. TV viewers can easily see that, if they have the patience to endure the constant, excessive blabber from the senators. It’s a pitiful spectacle.

And then the media condenses hours of verbiage into a few out-of-context quotes. And the poor public thinks they have been informed!

Is this a great country or what?

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:08 am 29. Anonymous:

The truth is what “social justice” says it should be, isn’t it? (That’s what liberals believe, anyway.)

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:09 am 30. Morton Doodslag:

My God, the woman is an embarrassing intellectuall slouch. She slurs her words. She speaks in shocking malapropisms. I listened to one section during Sen. Jeff Sessions cross examination and Sotomayor actually used the word: “discriminationing”. A “judge” who constantly needs to clarify post facto her prior judicial opinions, public comments and various prepared speeches, is unacceptable.

But what is far worse than her obvious shocking lack of intellect, she’s mighty close to perjuring herself with her bizarre dissembling testimony on her myriad noxious speeches and opinions.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:39 am 31. Mongoose:

Vivo: More likely it is a another disparate attempt by you at avoiding reality.

In your upside down world the truth is a lie and the lie is a truth.

How Democrat if you.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:42 am 32. blotto:

Cato #18: “…but the notion that all you do is apply the law to the facts is either idiotically uninformed or disingenuous.”

So either we do not have blind justice or we do, which is it? Either we have been lied to all these 230 plus years or we have not? Either our laws and our Constitution stand for liberty, freedom, and the plethora of other platitudes or it doesn’t?

According to you, it has all been a sham. Law and the document that forms these laws has been a patina of deception because the laws and the judges who decide the laws content and legality have been using their own rules, ideology, and “wise Latina” ethics for all these many years.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:50 am 33. "progressive"watch:

In her beliefs and character,Sotomayor is Obama,his soul mate. In her lying and deceit,Sotomayor is Obama. One difference is that she is a “wise Latino woman.” Obama is a “wise black-white Kanyan man.”

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:06 am 34. Erik of Dale:

I’ve been listening to her comments much to my disgust. Everything that she says sounds contrived, as if she wrote down all the possible questions and then memorized all the possible answers. Anyone who doesn’t believe she is just flat out lying at her senate hearing is out of their mind. Still, at the end of the day, the democrats will silently and obediently fall into line with the wishes of their “Dear Leader” Obambi and put this fraud on the Supreme Court where she can not only judge on legislation but make legislation.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:10 am 35. The Skizzerd of Waz:

Racist, racist, racist, racist, beghak, the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Pardon me for indulging my inner liberal …

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:18 am 36. Mike W.:

Jennifer Rubin: “From the Left, liberal law professor Louis Michael Seidman called her out for pretending to believe in something no liberal in good standing does: the ability of judges to apply the law to the facts before them. He decried her hypocrisy:

I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate-that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments.

What rank hypocrisy.

For weeks, the right wing has been relentelssly and stupidly attacking Sotomayor for her comments on being empathetic when trying cases, trying baselessly and unconvincingly to paint her as an overly-emotional woman who would make decisions primarily on her feelings.

So in her responses before the committee, she made sure to emphasize that she would not allow her personal feelings to affect purely legal decisions when working through cases.

What Louis Michael Seidman was “completely disgusted by”, as you can clearly read above, was Sotomayor’s explanation that she would not use empathy as a metric for deciding cases. Seidman clearly believes that she should, and was upset by her admission that she would not.

This is why you can never win with ignorant, minority-hating right-wing bigots like Jennifer Rubin.

If Sotomayor responds that she will employ empathy in deciding cases, she gets attacked by right wing bigots like Rubin for being a bleeding heart liberal activist judge.

If she responds she will not use empathy as a metric in deciding cases, then the right wing just cuts and pastes statements of left wingers who disagree with her to make it appear as though even the left wing is questioning her qualifications.

By reading this poorly reasoned article, one might think that there truly are unanswered questions regarding her qualifications. But outside of the irrational fears of some ignorant racist white southern senators like Jeff Sessions, the Senate overwhelmingly understands that she is highly qualified and will be confirmed without a hitch.

It’s really pathetic that right-wing smear mongers like Rubin need to stoop to cutting and pasting the statements of evil libruls in order to make her arguments.

And it’s unbelievably stupid and laughable that the right wing will employ arguments they themselves don’t even agree with to attack their political enemies.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:23 am 37. misanthropicus:

Re #22/David: [...] She wants to look at other countries to “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and … whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.”

Since the British have already (and so wisely!) allowed some Sharia elements in their system, it’s our turn to get inspiration from some Pygmy thinkers or Acalouf legal philosophes.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:29 am 38. The Shadow:

You can always count on DT to live in his fantasy world. It is also good to have the wise progressive witch chime in with some bile too

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:29 am 39. Jason S:

Frank Ricci sounds like a genius when compared to this woman. She is not very bright.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:29 am 40. blotto:

MikeW: Nice twist. But is that the best you can do to defend Sotomayor?

No, we know she did not lie about here feelings, but we also know she is lying about what she said during the confirmation hearing. We wanted to see her defend her statement, but she, like you, think we conservatives are ding-bat bigots so she did her best not-to-refute refutation of her statements for public consumption.

And gee, Mike you really like to hurl those racial epithets around. Like you really believe what you say. Or like it will cause us to go: wow, we really are racists because MikeW says we are. Projection Mike?? Projection!!

Grow up and while doing that develop a better art to debate.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:36 am 41. J. Rockford:

You read a piece like this and it gets your hopes up. But Soups Ready #7 is right — Sotomayor is being cross examined and will be voted on by the biggest gang of liars and phones that God ever let live — she will be confirmed. Since the Dems have the votes, I wonder why Sotomayor feels she has to lie. Why not tell the truth? It’s what she and the Dems believe, and they have the votes.

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:38 am 42. Boris:

“Plainly hers was a call to bring ethnic and gender bias to the bench.”

Jennifer Rubin apparently cannot read?

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:49 am 43. Stepan:

Let’s just call her “Soto-lie-air.”

If justice is blind, then this lady sees better than an un-wise, old owl.

She just won’t be truthful about what she sees.

The Truth will come later–like most of Obama’s ultra-left wing agenda (Praise be to Saul Alinsky).

God help us in our time of need!

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:02 am 44. David Levavi:

Legal philosophy and its application are not important in the telejournalistic age. Nor honesty and integrity.

Judge Sotoliar has outstanding “judicial demeanor.” The perfect choice for Supreme Court justice of a president with outstanding “presidential demeanor.”

Moreover, Judge Sotoliar is a firm believer in equal opportunity. Too bad there won’t be a whole lot of opportunity left when she and her president get through with this country.

The biggest disappointment in these hearings are the Republican senators. Like Bush who is too civilized and polite to criticize a sitting president and McCain who was too polite to engage in negative campaigning, they lack the killer instinct. Graham had Sotoliar on the ropes several times but refused to deliver the knockout punch. Sara Palin is the only Republican in the nation with with cojones.

Legislators who rubber stamp trillion dollar expenditure without reading the bills and approve bald faced prevaricators for the Supreme Court should be vulnerable to class-action malpractice suits by their constituents.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:12 am 45. gracie:

She will be confirmed.

Your facts, your opinions are great, but they don’t matter.

Because Sotomayor will be another “historic” racial placement. No other reason. She will be softballed in.

the Dems would be tearing a Repub candidate with her record to pieces, they would chew her up and spit her out. PLUS the press would be all over her, in heaven with the rethoric they would spew.

The woman is wording things to fit into the “get into office no matter what you have to say” …scenario. Again, “words just words” She’s a sure thing.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:16 am 46. Dave ll:

Hmmm…maybe we have the makings of a new (if
borrowed) catch-phrase:

“Sotomayor Lied! Babies died!”

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:18 am 47. sallie m:

Just like Pinocchio, we need to measure Sotomayer’s nose minute by minute..pretty soon she will need a sling to hold it up off the floor

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:20 am 48. Paul -Indiana:

If only we had a ‘wise Latina’ to confirm.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:34 am 49. Paul from Hamburg:

OK Boris, Vivo, MikeW, and any else who want to step up. Two questions:

1. Why are immigrants from countries where they Spanish more important than immigrants from countries where they speak German, Russian, Japanese, Arabic, or Hindi?
2. Why are American citizens who speak Spanish more important that American citizens who speak German, Russian, Japanese, Arabic, or Hindi?

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:35 am 50. Delia:

Affirmative Action sure has been rearing its ugly head.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:42 am 51. Delia:

44. David Levavi:

“Moreover, Judge Sotoliar is a firm believer in equal opportunity.”

Naw. ‘Equal opportunity’ to Soto means dumbing down a test so that even ‘idiot minorities’ can ‘pass’.

It’s pretty sad when people who think they are ‘helping’ their ‘race’ by ‘dumbing down’ applications, tests etc. can’t see that they are in effect telling people of said race, “Hey, you’re too stupid and lazy to ever be as intelligent as a white person, so we are going to change the game so you can get a free pass, moron.”

How in the HELL is that going to help people truly have ‘equality’?

Pathetic.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:50 am 52. seven:

She is over coached and over dramatic. She has been observed to be an actually bully in tyhe past and is faking it today.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:58 am 53. BC:

There are no legitimate complaints about Sotomayer, just the usual out of context nitpicking, strawmanning, and out and out, straight from the butt nonsense. I know Republicans and conservatives feel obligated to play their part as finger waving villains, but they really shouldn’t expend too much capital on this.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:04 am 54. m:

read the above and it all is the same LIAR

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:05 am 55. ricpic:

Start winning an argument with a lefty and immediately you’re a racist: see vivo 28. Here’s hoping that although leftists can cry wolf forever there’s a statute of limitations on how long the decent majority will give them an ear.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:16 am 56. Neo:

This hearing is sad. Judge Sotomayor just isn’t ready for the SCOTUS, perhaps she will never be, but assuming she is confirmed, the bar will be lowered .. forever lowered.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:16 am 57. Bear:

MikeW. tell us what you really think

I think empathy is not the best choice of words for a judge. But it was a Barack word. And it does have some value especially when sentencing someone for a crime. I don’t believe in absolutes and I think some conservatives get a little carried away with it.

Understanding someones circumstances does not always necessitate an understanding of their feelings, since we all react to stress and problems differently. But I think it is important for a judge to understand drivers of behavior.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:19 am 58. fear Obama:

31. Mongoose:

Vivo: More likely it is a another disparate attempt by you at avoiding reality.
In your upside down world the truth is a lie and the lie is a truth.

How Democrat if you.

Now we have a new word for lying- Democrat.

I was just democratizing you.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:30 am 59. Michael:

There are very legitamate compalints about Sotomayer. It is about justice being blind to race, wealth, power, politics. Of course these things are rarely achieved but Sotomayer is so blatently averse to these priciples that she has shocked the average Americans who have taken the time to look at what she has said.

Also her stand that the first 10 ammendments don’t apply to all Americans is horrific. It is only a small step from there to claiming the Constitution has no validity at all.

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:35 am 60. Strawman:

She declared that she had never read the briefs and was primarily a fundraiser on the board.

Which raises yet another question: taken at her word, why is she raising funds for an organization who’s actions are totally unknown to her? Is this someone we want as a judge; blindly supporting groups without reading the fine print?

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:55 am 61. Banned by Huffpo:

Check out the bags under Sotomayobama’s eyes — her handlers must have kept her up 48 hours straight during the moot confirmation hearing, rehearsing the “correct” answers . . .

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:08 am 62. PJ:

“There are no legitimate complaints about Sotomayer”

Wow… Baghdad Bob has a new gig. Who’d a thought.

Judge Sotomayor cant even find the obvious right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment. That failure of reading comprehension alone should be a disqualifier from Federal judicial office.

“There are no legitimate justifications for what Sotomayor said in “wise latina” speech and did in Ricci case. That’s why its thrown under the bus and swept under the rug. Americans reject her way of thinking and ruling by 2 to 1.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:13 am 63. PJ:

“Judge Sotomayor just isn’t ready for the SCOTUS, perhaps she will never be, but assuming she is confirmed, the bar will be lowered .. forever lowered.”

Let me defend Soyomayor on this point: The bar was already lowered – Judge Souter was a horrible dud and Judge Ginsburg is already an offense to both the Constitution and our freedom.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:16 am 64. blotto:

“When we asked questions of the white male nominees of a Republican president, we were basically trying to find out whether — to make sure that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities, because clearly that was not in their DNA. The questions being asked of you from the other side primarily are along the lines of, will you go too far in siding with minorities?” Sen. Durbin, Chicago Sun Times

I am continually amazed at how anti-white white males progressives are? They seem to all believe that white Americans especially males are to blame for every evil known to man/woman. And they see no conflict in criticizing their own gender, race and culture because they think it makes them look sensitive, egalitarian and like they care about minorities…

They are sell outs. They must hate to look at themselves in the mirror.

And this is the type of individuals we have running our nation. God help us.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:17 am 65. The Shadow:

Morton Dopeslag – I wonder what your IQ is? Do I need the fingers on one hand?

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:21 am 66. Strawman:

It just dawned on me that this is the administration’s high noon. 0bama himself has been able to slip under any scrutiny, along with his czars and tax cheats. We have a science czar who co-sponsored a book advocating eugenics, and he just slithers under the door. But a judicial confirmation is a different animal. This is where they get to ask embarrassing questions, and the radical can’t hide her radical past.

This is it. If she gets through, Comrade Andropov will have posthumously succeeded.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:21 am 67. Sallie:

if you oppose Sotomayor for her rulings, you are a racists. Just as if you do no like BO you are a racists. It is an old argument, not constructive, just old.

“Oh, go ahead burn down that building, you’re a latino/black/asian/islander/mexican, we’ll get you off because you feel oppressed”…b.s.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:29 am 68. Strawman:

I am continually amazed at how anti-white white males progressives are? They seem to all believe that white Americans especially males are to blame for every evil known to man/woman.

The German Jews tried that self-hating/self-effacing thing in the early 20th century. Worked out real well, IIRC. And it worked out really well for the Uncle Toms in the South, too.

Appeasing bigots is such a brilliant strategy; no wonder the smartest crackers all do it.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:53 am 69. AThinkingPerson:

Anyone else notice the strong undercurrent of white hate coming out of this administration? I have a feeling historians will label this period in history as “Reparations”.

Leave it to the moonbats to not see the truth until it’s squeezed out of their wallets.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:58 am 70. "gunner":

madam sotomayer and her liberal friends/accomplices have forgotten the gods of the copybook headings. no matter, they will sooner or later come back to remind her and all her ilk of the eternal truths.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:58 am 71. Cybergeezer:

The American people were stupid enough to put the Prince of Incompetence in the White House; Why would they be intelligent enough to object to dumbing down the Supreme Court with a person that could not even get a security clearance from a home town security company.
Why is anyone surprised? There’s more to come from these pusillanimous, and subversive socialists.
How much is it going to take to start the revolution?

Jul 15, 2009 - 11:07 am 72. Paul from Hamburg:

#65
Thanks Shadow. Regardless of political persuasion, I always enjoy reading a post from someone who can artfully execute the time-honored rhetorical device know as “I know you are, but what am I?”.

Jul 15, 2009 - 11:15 am 73. Cato:

#32 blotto: your comments suggest you have indeed been drinking to excess…. You ignored my point that the cases in which the law is clear pretty much don’t make it to the appellate level.

Remember that legal cases arise when the parties have different ideas about what happened (issues of fact) and/or different ideas about what the law requires (issues of law). A trial court’s function is to (1) determine the facts — which may be done by a jury or by a judge, depending on the circumstances, and (2) apply the law. In many cases, the parties don’t really disagree what the law is, just what the facts are. In other cases, they don’t really disagree on the facts, but disagree on how the law should be applied. And, of course, in some cases, the parties disagree on both the facts and the law.

Cases where the law is very clear based on precedent and statute are usually not appealed (and if they are it is usually procedural or about some abuse of discretion that affected the fact finding).

Most cases that are appealed and the subject of full appeals hearings and result in appellate opinions, are ones in which there are serious differences about what the law is, because there are conflicting legal principles, sometimes conflicting statutes, or the like. And, sometimes, it’s something where the law is just not clear (often because of bad drafting, but that’s another problem for another day….) or is actually silent.

It’s not a questions of whether justice is blind or not, it’s a question of how do you sort through these situations where laws and legal principles are in conflict in a given case. In most cases, the conflicting claims about the law all have a reasonable, or at least a plausible, basis. The hard part is sorting out these conflicting claims about what the “law” requires under the circumstances, which may themselves be particularly complicated.

I’m pretty much an “original intent” advocate — that judges need to discern what the Founders meant on Constitutional questions, on what the legislature meant in statutory interpretation, and on what the judges who wrote the old cases meant in interpreting questions that arise under common law principles (less frequent these days). It is a pretty serious and difficult scholarly pursuit to sort through the history and language to do this, it’s just not simple.

Jul 15, 2009 - 11:20 am 74. Dave K.:

At least she’s not Harriet Miers.
Remember her?

Jul 15, 2009 - 11:50 am 75. AThinkingPerson:

Re #73 Cato: So basically you’re saying that it IS okay to base rulings on empathy then?

Justice is no longer blind in Obama’s new America I guess. Damn shame the founding fathers didn’t write the Constitution in pencil right?

Who knew reparations were part of HopeNChange?

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:02 pm 76. Jenny Greenteeth:

What a differnce between here and Huff Post. Had I been a gullibe type I could have come away from there with the idea that race problems are the only issue facing America and for that matter the world.

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:09 pm 77. Marc Malone:

As usual, if we criticize a minority for being a racist, then we are the ones labelled racist.

Oh, the terrible racism so evident throughout this site/thread. Republicans are all racists. That’s why they can’t draw minorities into their party, the party of white men. Blah, blah, blah….

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:15 pm 78. Uh-Ph:

She’s nothing but a racist and is utterly unqualified, and is a flaming liberal to boot. Yikes.

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:29 pm 79. Mike W.:

Marc Malone:“As usual, if we criticize a minority for being a racist, then we are the ones labelled racist.

Oh, the terrible racism so evident throughout this site/thread. Republicans are all racists. That’s why they can’t draw minorities into their party, the party of white men. Blah, blah, blah….

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.

Nobody questioned Alito regarding the above statements, including how his Italian heritage and his personal feelings about discrimination against Italians might sway his legal decisions.

Apparently, “empathy” is only an admirable quality when it is being examplified by a white male justice. When it is exemplified by a female Hispanic, it is simply an indication that she will decide in favor of Latinos over whites.

Apparently, according to the GOP, the only way to avoid ‘identity politics’ is to pick white men for every job.

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:37 pm 80. AThinkingPerson:

Mike W: So we can put you down in the column under “Wishes The Constitution Was Written In Pencil”?

From your last comment we can infer that you DID vote on skin color (racist) and not on qualifications. Very telling and small-minded but typical of a liberal.

Jul 15, 2009 - 12:49 pm 81. Delia:

The ‘problem’ with the CONSTITUTION for blacks and hispanics is that it was written by ‘white’ men.

THAT is the real, deep-down, ugly fact many folks are missing here.

Hispanic La Raza and the Black Theologians want a ‘new’ Consitution.

Strange how people who have come from third world countries come to the USA for opportunity only to want to change the USA into a third world country.

WHACK.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:13 pm 82. Lyddea:

Re: Jenny Greenteeth

Whereas after reading this thread, if you were the gullible type, you would discover that whites, and white males in particular, are mercilessly oppressed in this country.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:13 pm 83. steveg:

#80….Very telling of a self-loathing, guilt-tripped white liberal. Another sorry product of our dolt-producing educational system. Antonio Gramsci would be proud.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:13 pm 84. Peter P.:

this judge should be in the supreme court. it will be our luck to have her.
i am just amazed at how some americans cannot see that.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:15 pm 85. Anonymous:

Poster fearObama (#9) informs us:

“Al Franken said she is the smartest SCOTUS nominee in 100 years.”

Well, there’s a ringing endorsement, from a clown, no less, and a person who knows all about dodgy elections. How eager is he to cavort along with Obama’s Flub Club and to add Ms. Wise Latina to the circus!

May God and/or the Weltgeist help us, for, surely, the prospects that we shall help ourselves have been all but negated.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:15 pm 86. Marc:

I bet that the lying b**ch cheated like an infidel to get through law school….this is the kind of garbage affirmative action turned out from day 1….we have done this to ourselves and now we are paying the price…..cheaters, liars, community organizers. She is cut from the same fabric as Obama, just not as smart and smooth.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:19 pm 87. redleg:

And Alito was confirmed despite committing the very same ethical violation that he promised in writing not to. Rehnquist presided as chief justice while visibly impaired by painkillers and Scalia has a judicial demeanor more appropriate for a Gambino soldier.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:20 pm 88. Ruebacca:

What did we ever do to Puartoricans? Why did they get racial prefrances? We took Puarto Rico from Spain, was that a crime? Puarto Rico can leave anytime it wants to. They constantly reaferm there territorial statis in elections.

Don’t tell me Puartoricans faced ethnic tentions when they whent to New York. Who did not face ethnic tentions in New York? The Sharks and the Jets is not the basis for racial prefrances.

I am a German-American. My family droped the “von” from our name during WW1. I often hear anti-German comments. I deserve a trip to Yale because of the harm America did to my Grandparents. Waaaaa!

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:21 pm 89. Marc:

Hey peter P….you are a moron…

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:21 pm 90. Cato:

#75: No, not at all. What I’m saying is that one can’t simply “apply the law to the facts” because you have to sort out what the law is, which may not be in the least simple.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:21 pm 91. Delia:

86. Ruebacca,

Only ‘brown’ or ‘black’ people can ’suffer’ from racism and oppression. If your skin happens to be white? Forgettabowit.

Show of hands for anyone who has been a slave or owned a slave in the last 100 years.

I’m waiting. *taps fingers*

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:24 pm 92. AThinkingPerson:

steveg: A guilt tripped white liberal? Liberal? Me? LOL!

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:24 pm 93. Bebe Hartnett:

There seems to be a lot of mental gymnastics going on here. The point of all this seems to be that she is lying because she is not clearly stating her liberal views, and we know she’s a liberal because Obama nominated her.

But perhaps the rightwing missed something significant–she’s not a liberal but a moderate!! She not only found no bias in the case of the white fire-fighters, but has also found no bias in cases that involved minorities too. Oh and that case about the white firefighters that just got overturned. It was a 5-4 decision, she was not in a huge minority with her opinion, ya know?

Your gymnastics are exasperating–frankly I hope they don’t confirm her, so that Obama can nominate a real liberal.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:35 pm 94. rwhite:

Why don’t all of you ignorant, bigotted, MINORITY repubicans admit that it’s time to take up arms and kill all of the liberals and take back the country. W and Dick can mistakenly start a war, pass the patriot bill without anybody even glancing through it, give tax cuts to the rich while screwing the common people, and everything is obama’s fault. If you can’t see the GOPs plan to have Sessions lead the verbal assult on Sotomayer, your hood is slipping over your eyes. Scalia isn’t biased by his neocon views? Aliato even said many of the same things Soto is saying, but they were true because they were repubes. Give me a break, unless yoo’ve got the balls to come out and say you want a revolution and to eliminate anyone that doesn’t drink your kool-ade, shut the hell up and realize that we live in a representative republic and your side didn’t convince enough fellow voters to contnue to follow you to the bottom. Do me one favor, nominate Palin in 2012, that is unless you stupid southerners think you’ll get better results when you “rise again”.

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:44 pm 95. B A A:

beerstine said:
“I am troubled that in her statements and propensity to have her rulings overturned by higher courts, that she is not indeed wise.”

Don’t blame her for your lack of being informed or being misinformed. Over her 17+ career from the bench she actually had a very low rate of being overturned by higher courts. Her rate of reversal by higher courts is significantly lower than the national average for Judges.

http://moxiepapa.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/what-does-sotomayors-60-overturn-rate-mean-nothing/

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:53 pm 96. Mike W.:

86. Marc: “I bet that the lying b**ch cheated like an infidel to get through law school….this is the kind of garbage affirmative action turned out from day 1….we have done this to ourselves and now we are paying the price…..cheaters, liars, community organizers. She is cut from the same fabric as Obama, just not as smart and smooth.

This is statement is pretty typical of what GOP voters actually believe. And this is why normal people don’t want to have anything to do with the GOP anymore.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:10 pm 97. AThinkingPerson:

rwhite is proof of a failed public school system. Funny how all of the hate and venom seems to be escalating in our liberal counterparts. Very telling. I guess they ARE starting to wake up and realize what a load of BS they were sold.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:16 pm 98. Delia:

95. B A A:

You bring up some ding-a-ling blogger’s link as ‘proof’ that being overturned 60% of the time is A-OK?

Did you check your brain in at the door when you decided to post on PJM?

Good effing grief!

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:17 pm 99. Caitlin:

The truth is that Sotomayor’s reputation as a “trustworthy” judge is ruined. I so so so badly want to hear comments and opinions from judges currently on the Supreme Court or maybe ones that recently stepped down. Of course, that’s probably not allowed or professional. However, I think it’s interesting how intensely the Democrat senate seat holders are questioning her appointment. Come on, Democrats, show you have some guts and are willing to disagree with Obama. Prove to him that having a “super-majority” doesn’t mean he gets everything he wants. It would allow Republicans and Moderates throughout America to relax a little.

Also, why does the media keep interviewing Latina Women to prove Sotomayor isn’t racist? Multiple news organizations, multiple clips. Here’s what Stephen Colbert thinks about the coverage: http://www.newsy.com/videos/sotomayor_running_wise_latina_into_the_ground

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:29 pm 100. annie:

while you guys are worried about Sotomayor, our guys in Washington are raming through their HEALTH CARE DEATH PLAN for you and your family.

Now, if only “they” could be forced to be on the same health plan, but it will not happen, not in America. Heck, you vote it in, you should live by it.

Sotomayor is a farce. And when Franken says she’s smart, that doesn’t mean much, he has nothing to judge by…another puppet

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:32 pm 101. Elect Palin:

C’mon. With Hilary in the tank, the only woman giving her mind is Sarah Palin. http://elect-sarahpalin.com/blog

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:34 pm 102. Francis J. Donovan:

What do judges do? I was a judge for 15 years. I was a lawyer handling appeals for Nassau County in New York for ten (10) years without ever losing a case. I knew scores of judges. Do judges make law? Of course they do! Does a judge’s life experience affect his decisions? Of course it does! Mine did! I came up from a poor family. I was the shortest boy in my age group, I worked as a laborer, a carrier in a public vegetable market. It made me tough and impervious to the political prssures that beset a judge. I think Sotomajor is the best of the Democrat bunch. She is trying to give answers that will be publicly acceptable. Is she being frank and open? No! Are her questioners being fair and objective? No! Do the talk show commentators help us to judge her fitness and qualifications? No! Enough said.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:36 pm 103. KO:

101. Elect Palin:

No one wants to elect a quitter.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:40 pm 104. Delia:

100. annie:

“while you guys are worried about Sotomayor, our guys in Washington are raming through their HEALTH CARE DEATH PLAN for you and your family.”

True dat, annie. All of these ‘convenient’ ‘distractions’ go on while the carpet is being pulled out from underneath us.

Our country is so SCREWED.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:42 pm 105. kcinSC:

This person is a fierce liberal. I think we have come to expect that any left-leaning nominee will lie under oath(Clintonesque). However the truth must not be lost in the decisions of the high court. If she is as untruthful and lazy as her own words and past decisions suggest she is then it is the duty of the Senators to vote according to their findings. NO!
Obama deserves his nominees as GW Bush did. But GW Bush didn’t get his did he? And he also won an election, two of them.

Jul 15, 2009 - 2:47 pm 106. College Know-It-All Hippy:

Blah blah blah WINGNUT blah blah blah WINGNUT blah blah blah WINGNUT blah blah blah WINGNUT blah blah blah WINGNUT.

Quitter!!11

Dude…

CKIAH

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:08 pm 107. mfellion:

The nominee is no more lying then the Republican Senators are lying. If the commentators actually believe that background has no place in judges decision how can they resolve the conflict in case law. One or more judges say X and suddenly another judge says Y in response to the “facts of the case”. The only difference is that one judge brings a difference baggage of life experience to the case than another. In her 2001 speech, the nominee said women and people of color bring a difference baggage to the law than white males from Harvard, whats wrong with that? The law is what it is because the legislators write conflicting and unclear legislation that cannot be directly imputed to every set of facts. We have judges to sort out the mess with a lot of rules to try and make decisions clear and consistent. Having a more diverse viewpoint on the bench allows for a more rich and diverse society and makes the law potentially fairer as anyone on the losing side in the Dredge Scot decision would have appreciated.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:11 pm 108. Delia:

106. College Know-It-All Hippy:

LOL! You summed up the Lib stance nicely!

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:13 pm 109. Delia:

107. mfellion,

Maybe soto shouldn’t have used the word “better” when speaking of decisions made by a Latina woman vs. a white man.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:14 pm 110. tailgunner:

Sotomayor is a lying liberal judicial thug. She’s in ideological lockstep with Obama, Wright, Ayers, and Stalin.

If she gets confirmed you can kiss equal protection goodbye. In its place will be enshrined the liberal doctrine of PAYBACK.

She’ll ‘empathize’ with one side (usually the ethnic or gender minority) and SCREW the other side (usually the white guy, whether or not he’s right).

Kiss your gun rights goodbye. Sonia will deny Second Amendment rights to the states, allowing them to register, tax, restrict, and/or confiscate privately owned guns.

Anyone who trusts a single word a Democrat has ever uttered or ever will utter is an utter fool and deserves to reap what has been sown.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:17 pm 111. pissedoffamerica:

For the people that voted for hussein oman. You people wanted change, well you are getting it. Oman is going to get people in the courts, like this no good for nothing nominee. This way he can get enough of his people in office to start stripping our constitutional rights from us. We the people had better wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late. Want to talk about wastefull spending, huh you all thought Bush was bad, yeah freeking rite. He wasnt nothing like oman has spent already, and people are still losing jobs and homes,for what??? Where is our freaking relief. It high time to ask for the resignation of just about 90 percent of the polliticians,and start over with fresh everyday joes. What makes these people qualified to run this country. None of them are qualified, if they were we wouldnt be in the sad state of affairs that we are now. Yeah and I dont want too live in a third world country, but the truth is that this administration is going to put us in that position. These people need too leave Washington period. Soto woman is going to freek up our constitution and oman has already screwed up the country. It is time too call for an emergency election and get rid of these clowns!!!!

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:29 pm 112. seansarto:

This who the appeal of Sotomayer “plays” to and in empathy and effect, allies herself as one of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselda_Blanco

I have no sympathies for them.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:32 pm 113. Meryl:

“‘Al Franken said she is the smartest SCOTUS nominee in 100 years.’”

“Well, there’s a ringing endorsement, from a clown, no less, and a person who knows all about dodgy elections. How eager is he to cavort along with Obama’s Flub Club and to add Ms. Wise Latina to the circus!”

I keep wondering if he’s showing up in his diaper.

Those of us in Minnesota who voted against him did actually vote against him as many times as we were permitted to. . . . . . and are angry and embarrassed that he “represents” us…because he doesn’t and he never will.

What a fool.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:35 pm 114. mejfa:

How can anyone be surprised that sotomayor would lie like a democrat.
She is just one more cog in obama’s plan to make this a socialist country. I am elderly and will not have to put up with the consequences of this idiot for long but it dismays me to see even democrats so misguided. I hope all who voted for obama realize that you and many generations of your family to come are going to have tax bills so high your standard of living will third world.
You can’t have a socialist country if you have a judiciary that is fair and unbiased.

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:43 pm 115. Delia:

114. mejfa,

ARGHHHHHH! What is it with you older folks? You are NOT GOING TO DIE for a LONG TIME if you laugh and try to be happy even through the painful times.

You ELDERS are NEEDED now more than EVER. Don’t give up. Yes, all of what is happening is depressing as hell to be sure but, to give up and say, “oh well, I won’t be around to see this happen thankfully” is not what our Country needs to hear from their elders! You are a dying breed, yes…but, hang on and keep teaching and reminding the youngsters who need to learn!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, elders, don’t give up on us!

Jul 15, 2009 - 3:59 pm 116. pissedoffamerica:

rwhite, guess we all know who you voted for??? In three more years let us know how you feel about your oman. First of all oman is illegaly holding office, because he does not have a U.S. birth record. If he did he would go infront of the camera holding it to show us proof that he is. He is no more qualified for office than Bush was, OUCH sting sting. The only people that I see benefitting from his admin. are people on public aid. All of his programs are doing nothing for me except costing all of the working class people alot of money. And I am talking about not the middleclass. I am talking about the average joe that is making between 30000 and 60000 a year. We are the ones that are going to suffer. And for the people that lost all those jobs, well thank the Clinton addmin. for the nafta treaties that opened the doors for all our manufacturing to go overseas. Yeah if you want to point fingers then get it rite. And as for your comments, well all I can say is lets throw down!!!!

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:02 pm 117. seansarto:

As to the abscence of “is”, what I meant was “is”. Let there be no confusion.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:04 pm 118. Rachel Peepers:

Like Obama, Sotomayor tells whoppers and expects the lap dog press and mentally challenged listeners to be unable or unwilling to expose the logic-challenged, pants should be on fire, answer.

Soto says the right to an abortion is settled law because the right to privacy is part of the constitution.

Here’s the lack of logic; the lack of intellectual honesty in her claim.

In most cases, a woman cannot legally have an abortion after the first trimester.

Why?

Does the right to privacy mysteriously vanish in the second and third trimester?

Sotomayor justifies the right to an abortion squarely on the right to privacy. There’s no logic in her argument.

However, there’s no integrity in our nomination and approval process.

She’ll get on the supreme court. And America’s holocaust, the slaughter of the unborn, will continue. Rachel’s job is to expose, though, not to judge. I’ll leave the judging to God.

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:43 pm 119. djmgdl01:

all i can say is “look how far the minorities and downtrodden have come since the great society started”, and i am from Texas where the vice-pres who assumed office after the assasination of the libs former deliverer was performed. lbj was the first obama and his legacy is being carried out by the latest obama!!!

Jul 15, 2009 - 4:57 pm 120. Marc Malone:

#102 Judge Donovan – Do judges make law? No, they don’t. They establish precedent, but that is not law. Precednets can be countered by other precedents. New cases come up and provide for new arguments and interpretations. Your stating that judges make law is disturbing to most Americans who simply know how wrong it is for judges to attempt to do so. I long for the day when a SC decides that they have “no authority in the case before us”.

As for Sotomayor being the best of the Dems? No, she’s not. She doesn’t lie as well as the others. The fact that she is clearly lying UNDER PATH should make you jump out of your seat and ask for her head; not defend her. Guess you’re a Dem, too… or at least not a Conservative.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:00 pm 121. Dave:

What do you think her chance of being confirmed would be if the senate was more closely split as it had been for most of the past 30 years? Let me help you here. Slim and none, and Slim just left. Despite the show she is putting on, this nominee is a left-wing extremist and what you get when you let the left run loose without supervision. Fortunately this will not change to court very much, but if I were a justice named Kennedy and anyone to his right, I would watch my back. These Chicago thug pols know no limits.

Jul 15, 2009 - 5:41 pm 122. Delia:

118. Rachel Peepers,

Amen, Rachel darlin’. -And, isn’t it strange that a ‘functioning’ brain is reason to keep someone ‘alive’ and not pronounced ‘brain-dead’ and yet a fetus/baby-womb-child with a functioning brain is considered ’slaughter-worthy’?

Hmm.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:06 pm 123. Blackwater:

She wants to make it illegal for Americans to own guns.

She made several prejudicial comments saying she thought race and gender should be factored into court rulings.

She put those bigoted views into practice by ruling against several white firefighters who filed a lawsuit since they were rejected promotion due to their race.

She was a member of La Raza only a few years ago which literally translates to “The Race” in Spanish. La Raza is an openly racist hispanic radical group.

Her test scores weren’t good enough to get into Princeton. She only got in due to bigoted “affirmative action” policies which discriminated against more qualifed students.

She believes we should look to international law like the United Nations and the European Union to interrupt our own laws.

Etc.

Keep this far left radical bigot off of the Supreme Court. I don’t care what her gender or race is. Your ethnicity and gender should never be used as a qualification for advancement in the 21st century.

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:21 pm 124. Francis J. Donovan:

Mark Malone contradicts my statement that “judges make law”. Roe v. Wade seems to have made law. It was a bad decision and bad
law”. We can play with the notion that judges don’t maske law but the murder of infnts was made lawful by the vote of a sinle judge who supported that law by a divided cdourt. You question my political label. It “conservative -republican” I work for the day that the judges will recognize the evil of Roe and change it. The legislature can’t do it. After you read this you can ask again ‘do judges make law?

Jul 15, 2009 - 6:28 pm 125. Francis J. Donovan:

This re-post is with apology for ererors which accidentally were not corrected in the original.

Mark Malone contradicts my statement that “judges make law”. Roe v. Wade seems to have made law. It was a bad decision and bad
law. We can play with the notion that judges don’t make law but the murder of infants was made lawful by the vote of a single judge who supported that law by breaking the tie in a divided court. You question my political label. It is “conservative -republican” I work for the day that the judges will recognize the evil of Roe and change it. The legislature can’t do it. After you read this you can ask again “do judges make law?”/

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:20 pm 126. Lyddea:

I remember when conservatives used to mock conspiracy theories. How long ago that seems after reading this thread.

Having been around the block enough to have seen this from both left and right, what is this insidious part of human nature that drives us to believe nonsense? Is being on the `winning’ side (in our minds) so important that we’re willing to trade our powers of reason?

Jul 15, 2009 - 7:37 pm 127. Strawman:

Francis, one good thing that may come out of this mess is that we can finally stop pretending that the SCOTUS selection process is about judicial scholarship, and get out of the closet the fact that it’s been about politics and ideology for a long time.

I constantly hear what a brilliant legal mind Ginsberg is, and what a dope Thomas is. Even if it’s true, we’re finally admitting what everyone has known all along, which is it doesn’t matter. It’s always been about ideology dressed in judicial drag. Some of Ginsberg’s recent comments were eyebrow-raising in their candor, but she was just saying what everyone knows is true; that the SCOTUS was, in 1973, pursuing a political agenda, and pretending that it was jurisprudence.

Sotomayor’s big error was not understanding the public charade, saying what everyone knows, and then having to lie to cover it up. It’s the lie that has everyone upset, not the original truth that she wasn’t supposed to say. That, and the out-of-the-closet racism and sexism.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:27 pm 128. sharky:

A congress that passes things they do not read or understand is not a conspiracy theory. Trying to put a health plan into action that we have no informations on, a health plan that has failed in other countries, is not a conspiracy theory. I could go on and on..the whole point is, there are mnay people that are displeased with what is going on in our USA. Call it what you will.

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:34 pm 129. Delia:

126. Lyddea,

What part of ‘Global Warming’ Al Bore don’t you understand? Conspiracy? *adjusts tin-foil hat*

I’m disgusted with both ‘teams’. But, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Hmm.

Wait! There’s a light at the end of the tunnel!

Oops…

Train!

Jul 15, 2009 - 8:49 pm 130. Kim:

126. Lyddea:

“Having been around the block enough to have seen this from both left and right, what is this insidious part of human nature that drives us to believe nonsense?”

It’s called FAITH. By contrast, reason requires actual KNOWLEDGE.

“I remember when conservatives used to mock conspiracy theories.”

It isn’t paranoia when they really are out to get you… http://www.discoverthenetworks.org

Jul 15, 2009 - 9:36 pm 131. izzy magoo:

I just read Pat Buchanan’s article; finally, one of you grows a pair of nuts and comes out with your true motives. Divide and conquer–she took yer jobs, boys! All of you should have gone to Princeton.

Jul 15, 2009 - 10:49 pm 132. The Infidel Alliance:

Q) Judge Sotomayor, do you believe as Pres. Obama does, that the Constitution is “a charter of negative liberties”?

That, my friends, is the question that needs to be asked.

~ The Infidel Alliance

Jul 16, 2009 - 2:51 am 133. vivo:

31. Mongoose:

“Vivo: More likely it is a another disparate attempt by you at avoiding reality.”

My reality is better than yours. I bet you just watched Fox, I watched C-span.

49. Paul from Hamburg:

“Why are immigrants from countries where they Spanish more important than immigrants from countries where they speak German, Russian, Japanese, Arabic, or Hindi?”

You said that. Who told you? Each group you mentioned thinks they are superior than anybody else, I hear them talking. It’s easy for you to say those things because u just pick a group to hate and voilá!

55. ricpic:

“Start winning an argument with a lefty and immediately you’re a racist:”

Why is it so hard to admit that you are a racist? Not PC? Did you actually hear what the senators were saying? Did you analyze their intentions?

Jul 16, 2009 - 3:04 am 134. seansarto:

She is trash.

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:28 am 135. seansarto:

Google.

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:29 am 136. seansarto:

Sorry…Just applyin’ some of my “wise Latina” judicial practices ta see what I can an’ cannot slip past the censors. Hey ya know, whatever works. Abortion? No abortion? Empathy? No empathy? Slip an’ slide…As long as I get across the border is all that matters…as long as I get that seat.
C’mon, feel for me!
I could be yer soulmate…

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:38 am 137. izzy magoo:

Seansarto, good for you! Most of your compadres here don’t have a nutsack full enough to proudly proclaim their bigotry. I’m all for it. The mealy-mouthed little back-stabbers going over their posts and articles looking for things that go over the line, while they lie and impugn and make stuff up on the side must be an annoyance to all of you. Just come out and say it like Pat Buchanan did–we just don’t like Puerto Ricans!

Jul 16, 2009 - 8:29 am 138. Sallie:

Paperback Nonfiction
Top 5 at a Glance

1. GLENN BECK’S ‘COMMON SENSE’, by Glenn Beck

a really good read

I like Puerto Ricans!! sometimes…haha only kidding…

Probably won’t get past the censors, cause it’s abook that makes sense..if it does…read it!!!

Jul 16, 2009 - 10:36 am 139. The Shadow:

“The ‘problem’ with the CONSTITUTION for blacks and hispanics is that it was written by ‘white’ men.” Delia<
I am glad to see you admit you are a racist

Jul 16, 2009 - 11:46 am 140. The Shadow:

Cato – what are you doing confusing dopeyperson with some reasoned arguments?

Jul 16, 2009 - 11:50 am 141. The Shadow:

Then you get this from Marc “I bet that the lying b**ch cheated like an infidel to get through law school….” Not a shred of evidence to back that one up. Does this tell us more about poor Marc – did he have to cheat to get ahead?

Jul 16, 2009 - 11:54 am 142. The Shadow:

Mike W – Again no one can convince Dopeyperson of any double standard. His mind is empty enough to encompase more contradictory opinions than that

Jul 16, 2009 - 11:57 am 143. The Shadow:

Poor Caitlin thinks that Colbert is on her side when is engaged in satire

Jul 16, 2009 - 12:00 pm 144. The Shadow:

You have to love pissedoffamerica and tailgunner – There we have pure unadulteated wingnuttery

Jul 16, 2009 - 12:05 pm 145. The Shadow:

Marc Malone knows a lot more about judging than Judge Donovan. It is amazing the confidence that ignorance gives you

Jul 16, 2009 - 12:11 pm 146. Delia:

Everyone better learn Spanish and Ebonics. A ‘New third World Order’ is in the makings.

Jul 16, 2009 - 1:41 pm 147. Delia:

139. The Shadow,

By pointing out Black and Hispanic racism…I’d hardly call that ‘racists’.

BTW, “The Shadow” is a racist name. You might as well call yourself “Spook” or “Darky”.

Jul 16, 2009 - 1:43 pm 148. Delia:

I, as a wise white woman, with a diverse background can make much better decisions than a black or latin person. Make me da judge!

Not racist. Rigggggggggggght?

Jul 16, 2009 - 1:49 pm 149. Strawman:

Any humans here?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/07/a-wise-latina-will-add-spice-to-the-menudo-of-justice.html

Jul 16, 2009 - 1:56 pm 150. Delia:

Strawman:

I be human. I ain’t no A.L.I.C.E bot!

“Livin’ La Vida Loca!”

ROTFL! That link was a hoot!

Jul 16, 2009 - 2:12 pm 151. The Shadow:

Delia – I know you will be interested in this from Sen Lindsey Graham:

“We’ll see what your future holds, but I think it’s going to be pretty bright,” Mr. Graham said.

The senator spoke at length about the dangers of “activist judges” who try to remake the law according to their visions of how the world should be. But despite his disagreements with some of her stances, Mr. Graham said he was confident the judge was “broad-minded enough” to understand that “the world is bigger than the Bronx, bigger than South Carolina.”

Moreover, Mr. Graham introduced a supportive letter from Kenneth W. Starr, the one-time special prosecutor who investigated the affairs of former President Bill Clinton. “You have earned the respect of Ken Starr,” Mr. Graham said.

Before wishing Judge Sotomayor “good luck,” Mr. Graham extracted an apology from her over her observations that “a wise Latina woman” might decide a case differently from someone without those attributes.

“I regret that I have offended some people,” the judge said.

Jul 16, 2009 - 2:15 pm 152. Delia:

Shad,

Soto ‘regretted’ repeating that same ‘line’ 5+ times??????

Ohhhhhhhh puhleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Jul 16, 2009 - 2:29 pm 153. Delia:

Sorry, Shad, but Soto is ‘lying’. She said those very things about a ‘wise Latina’ over and over.

If I or you [if you're white] had said those things, we’d be out on our tuckus. CASE CLOSED.

When minorities are allowed a ‘free pass’ to be racists over ‘past’ discrimination then, we are basically driving in a circle and never moving forward.

Some of the most gorgeous, kind, loving people I know are not of my ’skin-tone’ or ethnicity. My daughter’s first best friend was half Guatemalan and taught my daughter quite a bit of Spanish.

Answer me this, Shadow..

If those Firefighters who scored high had been predominantly Hispanics and Blacks do you think there would have even been a ‘case’?

Treating Blacks and Hispanics as if they are retarded and need ’special’ treatment is in and of itself demeaning and racist.

Don’t you ‘get’ it????????

Jul 16, 2009 - 2:35 pm 154. seansarto:

A Demonstration in Subversion:
More “Wise” ness…
This is a post I am trying to see where exactly is considereed “offensive” as it keeps geeting removed from the blog. I will post it in segments untill I can determine what part of the text I need to “ammend’ so that my piece maintains it’s objectives, thrust and intent. This is a perfect rational, judicial, subversive activism.

Part#I
“I’m reading how Sotomayer’s ability to dodge an issue or answering questions is being hailed as laudatory performance in a judicial milieu. Talk about the antithesis of law and order.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 4:31 pm 155. seansarto:

Part III

“Her only philosophical emphasis, her only appeal, is the same as the administration’s, an attainment of power…Talk about an individual’s right to bear arms?….Yer surrendering to these folks the mechanisms to utilize police an’ military force at will. The minority crowds have always contended that’s were the true power lays…That’s their reasoning behind why they are “minorities”… So What? The US isn’t some kinda merry-go-round where ya buy yer ticket an ya get to ride as long as yer head’s inflated enough ta reach above some designated line.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 4:35 pm 156. seansarto:

Part IV:
“Just because “Desperate Housewives” made “Hose” the lawn-boy look all more sexier-an-macho to oversexed, overweight, cheatin’, brainwashed, white-chick, wife who spends all day looking fer soapy thrills while frumpy, white, impotent, wool-over-his-eyes, liberal, engineer, husband-dad pays the bills?”
“Aren’t we foxy gals!” …”We’re so sneaky an’ clever!””

Jul 16, 2009 - 4:36 pm 157. seansarto:

“Banned in the USA”

I’m startin’ ta feel like Ricci in terms of double standards.

PS Mighty pathetic bringin’ Ricci into the hearin’s ta make like all “Nice, Nice”, feel the love. This is like “Space Chimps” in terms of artistry.

Jul 16, 2009 - 5:05 pm 158. Hal:

Obama has a very negative opinion on the U.S. Constitution and needs to get people on the Suprime Court that will bend his way. Sonia Sotomayer will project Obama’s concepts and eventually if he can get a few more justices, we be on the way to a marxist government

Jul 16, 2009 - 5:56 pm 159. seansarto:

160. seansarto:
Correction.

Part V: Section #1
“The only reason these “minorities” numbers have become persuasive enough that they no longer feel compelled to respect the US laws and customs of its founders…is because stupid WWII laid out for them the whole opportunity.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:01 pm 160. seansarto:

Part II: Section#1B
“It’s getting so the good ones can’t get anything done unless they ally themselves with these obstructionists.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:11 pm 161. seansarto:

Where exactly in my language do I offend? Where is the sore spot? Where am I most effective? Where do I keep the blade sharp and reserved?

Part II: Section#2A
“There’s so little comparison to be made…”

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:15 pm 162. seansarto:

Part V: Section#2B

“It’s pathetic.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:34 pm 163. seansarto:

Why do I sense there’s somethin’ about the word “boss” in this next sentence along with the pretenses it evokes towards the liberal fashions of Bruce Springsteen that is being deflected here? Remember how Obama evoked such in his campaign? How Sotomayer evoles “Maria’s Bed”? How Ricci evokes “The Rising”?

That’s an odd censor…Since there’s is no vulgarity involved or even defamnatory.
It is obstructionist.

Part V: Section #3A
“One things for sure, we need new bosses….all along the lines an’ in every single watchtower.

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:40 pm 164. seansarto:

Part V: Section#3B

“That’s all there is to it.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 6:49 pm 165. seansarto:

Part II: Section#1C (Ammendment #1)

“It is with a most profound sense of fated sorrow, although filial in it’s duty, that I feel compelled to implore such abberant manifestations wrought elsewheres.”

Jul 16, 2009 - 7:10 pm 166. seansarto:

Demonstration over.

Prior Precendence.

Part II: Section#1A (Ammendment#1)

“134. seansarto:

She is trash.

Jul 16, 2009 – 6:28 am”

Jul 16, 2009 - 7:44 pm 167. The Shadow:

Delia – knowing a person of color does not mean you are not a racist. I am sure you don’t think of yourself as racist and maybe you are not, but your language gives that impression. You can oppose Judge Sotmayor on the fact that she will not vote with the conservative block, but she is highly qualified – smart and someone who has worked hard to get where she is. To call her stupid raises the question of how smart you are

Jul 16, 2009 - 8:10 pm 168. seansarto:

Mr. Izzy Magoo,
I think you are misperceiving where the ruthlessness is being imparted from…yer mistake.
I don’t care…I’m not gonna get sucked inta the vaccum of this beast….
You only need to take a quick browse over the last 50 years of Puerto Rico’s history with the US to see that they have been more of an irritant and aggressor to United States interests and policy then say, Cuba.
Surprisingly, there’s little knowledge of such history in Anglican texts perhaps because the US played wishy-washy appeaser instead of strong arm by of rule of law administrator, because, using the same thinking, “It won”. Instead of dropping them like a stone for biting their master’s hand and insurgencies, then slappin’ ‘em with the “Axis of Evil” label that they so longed for…Instead of zoning off the site as prospective landfill…or just dumpin’ our garbage in their currents so their fishin’ industry tanks while all the while commending my own nation’s environmental policies and progress while very publicly using my vast media’s influence to condemn theirs,(Just like their “citizens” take small pleasures in graffittin’ all over US properties because it costs “whitey tax payer” to have to constantly fix their “ugly” country)…But nope, instead of all that, we get this nonsense of, “Bite your tongue and be a proper lady!…I’ll show you!….Honey?…..Honey?….I was wrong…I’m sorry…I should have never yelled at you…Will you forgive me?…There now, now,…You’re my little sweet’ums…You can say anything you want…You can do anything you want…Buttercup?…It’s not about me…It’s about you…I was so wrong” Hen-pecked crud… Would you respect that after she cheats on you?
They’re a “part” of the U.S.A.? A “Commonwealth”, but they don’t have to pay federal taxes to the US? How parasitic is that? They want us out of their country, but they want all the benefits of US citizenship? What exactly is a US citizen then? Puerto Rican’s have dual citizenship? Sounds like textbook “Commie-Korean-dressed up-like-a-refugee” line-crossing, infiltration to me.
I got nothing against racism…I said that before…It’s a part of nature…A strategy…I didn’t come up with it…I try not to use it outta common decency just as I don’t go around beating up people because I can…But I damn well don’t intend to be held liable for it!…That is insane. So, I wish the “white” folks at this point would quit bein’ so concerned about appearin’ all “pure just god-like” to preserve some kind of stupid narrative, then the freak of nature that rest of this 3rd world racist mentality regards them as…That bein’ said, TREASON is a legitimate problem…How can you explain such nonsense as Puerto Ricans allying themselves with Mexicans under the “La Raza” banner? It’s like the Japanese and the Chinese suddenly bein’ willing to suspend their “differences” and “political” histories to declare themselves one and the same because of epicanthic folds, black hair and economic incentive…(And it is pefectly feasible…There were volumes of “Japanese collaborators” during the invasions…”Hey man, to get rich is glorious” )…”We are all Asians together!” and united against the “Anglican” Imperialists…”Blue eyes!” …I am in China and I get constantly harassed with “lao wai” and aberrant “hello’s which is unquestionably derogatory in tone and intent for the most part, but since “lao wai” defines itself as “foreigner” and “hello” is considered a greeting, it skirts around the “racist” issue…They think it’ s quite clever of them and laugh…But it would be like me going up to a stranger here and saying “Bruce Lee!” and then saying I meant it as a “compliment”, because he was “famous”…..once…long ago….now he’s dead…Why are you mad, stranger?
Point blank:
Eventually “Asians” under the “black hair, epicanthic fold” auspices CAN visibly, (which was a common strategy by Asians during the Chinese Exclusion Acts period of US history), ally themselves with “La Raza” for those same reasons…Like I said whatever works for their “pursuit of happyness”…then they’ll blame the US “warlords” for the unrest between the Hans and the Uyghur’s.
Just like all of South America pretty much does.

And “Happyness” IS spelled with a “y” not an “I” because “we won!”…or is it, “they won?” Right?

Nobody won on this one.
Shouldn’t of gambled with it in the first place.

Jul 16, 2009 - 11:11 pm 169. The Shadow:

Oh one more thing Delia:

I thought you would enjoy this story:

“Obama’s roots as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago are the stuff of legend, but what’s less well known is that much of this work was performed on the payroll of the Catholic church. The story is fleshed out in the booklet “The Catholic Case for Obama,” written during the 2008 campaign by Patrick Whelan, founder of the group Catholic Democrats.

Whelan was in Rome both for the release of Caritas in Veritate and for the session between pope and president, meeting with Vatican personnel and reporters.

As Whelan tells it, the young Obama was hired by a community development project launched by a consortium of eight Catholic parishes in Chicago, and funded by the U.S. bishops’ Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Obama worked out of an office in the rectory of Holy Rosary church. Though it takes some connecting of the dots to get there, one could therefore loosely say that Obama’s ultimate employer during this time was the pope.”

My roots are also in Catholic social teaching

Jul 17, 2009 - 7:26 am 170. Delia:

167. The Shadow,

Please show me where I called Soto ’stupid’ on this thread?

SHOW ME.

NOW or STFU.

Jul 17, 2009 - 7:52 am 171. Moho:

Like Izzy said, Seansarto, keep it coming and don’t spare the gravy. Finally, some honesty around here. I can deal with the bigots, its the rest of the skulking, snicker when the teacher’s back is turned, piss-ant coward racists that really burn me. Grow a spine and come out with your racism–you don’t need to hang it on a rule of law edifice. Even Republicans acknowledge that the Republican-appointed Supremes are more activist than any other group. You’re not fooling anyone.

Jul 17, 2009 - 8:07 am 172. Delia:

171. Moho, you hate ‘whitey’ too? Don’t hold back now, let it alllllllllll out. Your racism should be held on high just so long as you hate ‘whitey’.

C’mon. Say how you REALLLLLLLLLLY FEEL.

Jul 17, 2009 - 8:57 am 173. Jim Baker:

Well, have the bozos confirmed this collectivist cretin yet? Or will they wait until next week, just for show.

Jul 17, 2009 - 8:58 am 174. The Shadow:

Chuckie:

This just in:

“Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the most senior Republican, announced that he would vote for Sotomayor, calling her ”clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,” after four days of Judiciary Committee hearings in which he said she showed ”a judicial temperament.” Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, the Senate’s lone Hispanic Republican, also announced he will back President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, saying he takes ”great pride in her historic achievement.”

Of course I could be making up. When you are a wingnut, you live in a fantasy world where it is impossible to recognize the truth even when everyone else does

Jul 17, 2009 - 10:35 am 175. The Shadow:

Delia, then you agree that she is brilliant

Jul 17, 2009 - 11:04 am 176. Rachel Peepers:

Shadow,

Lobbying for a person like Sotomayor and voting for a person like Barack Obama doesn’t necessarily make you a socialist, and, through deductive reasoning, an anti-American, but it does mean you don’t believe in the constitution.

You see, the two of them want to radically change the constitution as to be unrecognizable to our founding fathers; the ideals of freedom and liberty on which the constitution was based.

I can’t be absolutely certain, but everything you say strongly suggests that you want to further a leftist ideology that includes diluting, among others, the second and first amendment till they’re just shells of their former selves.

Look, I’m sure you don’t think of yourself as a staunch socialist, anti-American and maybe you’re not, but your condescending tone toward originalist defenders of the constitution and of America, like Japanese warplanes headed to Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7 ‘41 certainly gives that impression; the sense you want to hurt America.

You can push the candidacy of Sotomayor on the fact that she’s highly qualified because of her intelligence, but the real test of a supreme court judge is whether they have an agenda to move the country farther and farther left. Or, rather, understand their role is interpreting the law with wisdom and intellect.

Sotomayor refuses to answer any question on Roe v Wade whose decision was 5-4 and based on hack legal thinking. She cites a right to privacy that suddenly evaporates in a woman’s 2nd and 3rd trimester.

She ignores the latest scientific thinking that life begins at conception.

Is it folly to think Sotomayor desirous to be part of an American unborn holocaust so bad she can taste it?

I don’t think so.

She apparently has her leftist, anti-American, racist agenda, and you use words to make her seem non threatening all you want.

Like a Hollywood make up artist can transform the wolf man to simply a harmless fellow, you use words to attack well meaning commenters while masking the true meaning of Sotomayor; her anti- military, pro abortion, pro redistribution of wealth stances and beliefs.

Sotomayor quacks like a socialist, talks like a socialist and is backed by socialists who many are convinced are out to destroy America.

Obama is well on his way to doing incalculable damage to the ideals of freedom and individual rights and free enterprise system on which this nation was founded. He tells us what radio people not to listen to, says, when it comes to race, we are a nation of cowards.

Crazy talk to anybody but people like Sotomayor and you. Or do you denounce it? Delia denounces it. Somehow, I don’t think you choose to.

Knowing the far left support you give with no thought to the damage it would do; damage leftists and domestic terrorist friends of Obama want to visit upon America, makes me wonder if you lack the judgment to move from a subject to a predicate without making a fair minded person wince at your apparent delight in the use of ridicule, mean-spiritedness and contempt for this country, which, since its inception, has been the beacon of freedom that 99% of the the world’s people aspire.

Sotomayor detests our free enterprise system. She hates our military power. She believes in the basic socialist tenet of redistribution of wealth. Yet, you support her with a vehemence usually reserved for a scientist who discovers a cure for a disease.

Delia isn’t a danger to America. The people you support with the vigor of a naive leftist indoctrinated school girl are.

You seem to miss a very important point. Some of the worst criminals and evil political forces throughout history were some of the most intelligent. A good heart and a smart mind are very different things.

Freedom, the U.S. constitution and the American way of life are very special things. Why in the world would you want to destroy them?

Jul 17, 2009 - 11:14 am 177. Dave:

With the hard left in control of congress and the White House it is no wonder we are getting an extreme racialist like Sotomayor. They must have minorities voting on race and not on issues like freedom and the role of Government. They fear color blind anything because it takes away their ability to distract. They feed off racial division and our nation and our Government is much worse because of it.

There has been nothing said or presented to mitigate her “wise Latina” comments which should be text book racism were the left capable of Intellectual honesty. You couple that with the extreme bias in the way she tried to bury the Ricci case and the truth cannot be much clearer. She will be awful for all Americans.

This administration could have found a Latina justice that was honest and impartial. Instead, we got just a Latina justice.

Jul 17, 2009 - 11:49 am 178. Delia:

175. The Shadow:

“Delia, then you agree that she is brilliant”

The most evil, vile, hateful people who have been a pox on planet earth have been considered ‘brilliant’. ‘Brilliant bigot’ is hardly something to brag about.

Jul 17, 2009 - 11:51 am 179. Delia:

176. Rachel Peepers:

What Rachel said.

*sigh*

Jul 17, 2009 - 11:52 am 180. The Shadow:

RP Your leaps in logic are impossible to follow because you heap on assertion on top of another and think you have proved your point. I can only imagine how poorly you brief you cases in law shcool.

“Lobbying for a person like Sotomayor and voting for a person like Barack Obama …mean(s) you don’t believe in the constitution.” By this leap )over a chasm)of logic means that the majority of the people in the United States do not belive in the Constitution. The belief on one intepretation of the constituution would mean we really do not hsve to have Supreme Court Judges because all you have to do is look at the original meaning of the constitution despite the obvious problem that the founders themselves often did not agree nor did they alway define the language.

Another leap of logic leads to the assertion that by supporting a judge whom Republican Senators like Richard Lugar admit is clearly qualified to sit on the SC, I want to hurt America. You know not only that my support will hurt American, but that I intend to hurt America. I hope your clients do not get the same degree of analysis

Then you jump to the following conclusion: “Obama ….tells us what radio people not to listen to, says, when it comes to race, we are a nation of cowards.” I am not sure what you are referring to about radio listening. There are some real nut out there preaching hatred, but we live in free society and I think the nuts can never convice the majority of the wisdom of their nuttyness. It is perfectly OK for Obama to call a spade a spade. You, of course, don’t have to listen to him. As to being a nation of cowards on race. I have lived long enough to witness the cowardness – I taught in a segregated school in Arlington VA. We have come a long way, but not becasue the wingnuts marched on the road to justice.”

The problem with the quesion of abortion which I do not personally support is that how do you handle the cases of rape or incest. I think we should work to reduce the incidence of abortion.

Then we get to passages like these one: “Sotomayor quacks like a socialist, talks like a socialist and is backed by socialists who many are convinced are out to destroy America….Sotomayor detests our free enterprise system. She hates our military power. She believes in the basic socialist tenet of redistribution of wealth.”
Assertion completely unsupported by one scintilla of evidence but fitting your mindset – Anyone who disagrees with you is a socialist.

I am fortunate to work with some of the smartest people in medicine. It makes my job interesting and challenging. Brilliance does not always lead to the best result, but you ravings seem to lack any independent analysis but consist of parroting the wingnut line

Jul 17, 2009 - 1:03 pm 181. The Shadow:

For those wingnuts who like to think only in black and white terms, I thought you would be interested in the following story

“President Obama may have hammered home his baseball loyalty by wearing a Chicago White Sox jacket at Tuesday’s All-Star Game, but Obama made time to visit with Chicago Cubs manager Lou Piniella on Thursday.

Piniella, joined by his wife, children and grandchildren, visited the President in the White House before the Cubs played the Washington Nationals.

“We didn’t talk about baseball,” Piniella said. “He was very personal with my grandkids, and with my wife and children, and I was very appreciative.

“He’s a class man, and he’s done a really nice job for our country, and it was just an honor and a pleasure being in his presence. We’re very appreciative that he took a few minutes out of his very, very important day to say hello to us.”

The visit reportedly was set up by political analyst George Will, who is a renown Cubs fans, and Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, who is a former Cubs season ticket holder

Jul 17, 2009 - 2:29 pm 182. seansarto:

Wow how “all purpose” of him is that! talk about nuts on the loose with nuthin ta bolt ‘em down…
I don’t think Billy Mays needs to spin too hard on this one in his grave….RIP (or whatever ya had commin’ to ya)
You mean Obama missed the opportunity to wax poetic about his tumultuous affair with the infamous Chi-dog? Ya know those ever-so discreet rendez-vous down at Fluky’s, behind poor Michelle’s back… (Cue: Laughter….Cut to: Michelle in low cut dress who is beaming as she mouths, “Take me with you!” Cue: Uproarious laughter…Cut to Obama: “You know I’m pretty sure this is the first time my wife ever suggested to me the possbility of a menage a trois ever arrising in our marriage” Cue: Young teen-age girls, wild and frenzied with tears in their eyes, screaming, “We Love You Obama!”)…Probably would have boosted up his numbers with the Gay/Lesbian Coalitions for the inssinuation alone.
Make him all the more “boss cool”. If you know the schtick.

Jul 17, 2009 - 5:30 pm 183. seansarto:

Oh yeah, another nice touch would be to have the Stadium PR system blast Carly Simon’s, “Nobody Does it Better” after Obama’s quip…Over…the…TOP, BABY!
George Will, yer the new Artie Fuffkin of “This is Spinal Tap”…

Jul 17, 2009 - 5:52 pm 184. seansarto:

When IS the Oman gonna show us a little air guitar moves…I wanna aee how down he’s with it!

Jul 17, 2009 - 6:01 pm 185. seansarto:

Lastly, “Moho” an’ “Magoo”, (an’ I like the sounds of that…Got a really nice ring to it)…Uhhh?…Thanks fer the support, (I think), but I’ve fought enough “white dudes” in my time as a “white dude” ta know that it all ends up boilin’ down to some kinda claim o’er possessions or properties…All “racisim” says to my senses is, “We’ll gang up on you!” …Quite the heroic instinct there…Jest more territorial piss an’ spit spoilin’ the stew.
At some point, as a man, ta keep havin’ to adjust to the spread of it loses it’s thrill…Know what I mean?

Jul 17, 2009 - 7:15 pm 186. seansarto:

Guess ya gotta know the difference between “Free bird” as in “Goin’ down ta the KFC with my Oprah coupon…”
an’ “Freebird” as in, “And this bird you cannot change…”

Jul 17, 2009 - 7:18 pm 187. Rachel Peepers:

Shadow talk

“Then you (rachel peepers)jump to the following conclusion: “Obama ….tells us what radio people not to listen to, says, when it comes to race, we are a nation of cowards.”

“I am not sure what you are referring to about radio listening. There are some real nuts out there preaching hatred, but we live in a free society and I think the nuts can never convince the majority of the wisdom of their nuttyness.”

Rachel:

Shadow, don’t you listen to the news on TV or read the newspapers? Or do you suffer from memory lapses?

Shadow, crazy talk spews from you like someone who’s scheduled for a colonoscopy the next day and has to drink bottles of that awful stuff the night before.

(rachel continues)

Shadow,

Or, don’t you know what I mean? I mean, how many times can you play the {I have no idea what you’re talking about}ignorance card, when everybody here knows precisely what the Peepers girl is ranting about.

But I’ll play your little game and spell it out for you.

“By Bob Ellis on January 24th, 2009″

{President Barack Obama is making it clear what it takes to get anywhere in his town.}

From the New York Post: January 23, 2009

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

(Back to Bob Ellis)

“I think that much is a given. If someone is listening to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis–and not for opposition research–they are probably not going to be too keen on President Obama’s radical socialist agenda.

People who are serious about Republican values of individual freedom, personal responsibility, the free market, limited government, strong defense, and the traditional values that made us the greatest nation on earth…folks like this just aren’t going to get along well with folks proposing Marxist ideas that are in total opposition to the principles of Americanism.”

Me? (Bob Ellis) I plan to continue listening to Rush Limbaugh. I’m not interested in playing footsie or having cheese and crackers with Marxists. Sooner or later, those who believe in American values will be back in charge again.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

When Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) complained about the spending plan, Obama shot back, “I won,” adding, “I will trump you on that.”

(Rachel continues)

Shadow person:

I could isolate every point you dearly try to make and explain why you’re writing is as disingenuous as a President who promises not to have earmarks in legislation; than signs a bill overflowing with more earmarks that any previous bill in the history of the country.

If you really believe Sotomayor is about the red white and blue, hot dogs, mom and apple pie, then you must spend your time in Al Gore’s basement with a flashlight searching for all those hanging chads.

Sotomayor thinks there’s a right to privacy in the constitution that gives women the right to slaughter the unborn. Shadow, why don’t you enlighten us all and tell us exactly where it is.

Sotomayor thinks white men are inferior when it comes to interpreting the constitution.

Doesn’t that make even you, Shadow, wince a bit? I mean, doesn’t that sound just a smidgen racist?

Back to news person talk:

And I quote.

President Barack Obama’s nomination of United States Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to succeed retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter has roused some controversy. Critics have latched onto her comments about the advantages she believes that her ethnic background and sex give her over white male judges in performing the judicial function. Less commonly noted, however, has been the evidence her record provides concerning exactly what she thinks the judicial role is.

Sotomayor is a devotee of Legal Realism. That early-twentieth-century school of judicial thought amounts to this: Judges bound by law? Get real! In a 1996 speech at Boston’s Suffolk University Law School, Sotomayor embraced the main tenets of Legal Realism: that law is perforce indeterminate, and that lawyers’ role must be to shepherd the legal system to more and more progressive pastures. She encouraged her audience to teach non-lawyers that there was no avoiding the indeterminacy of the law, and so that indeterminacy ought to be taken as a perpetual invitation for judges to better society.

In short, Sotomayor subscribes to the idea that judges’ role is inescapably legislative. In fact, she stresses that some of society’s great advances came through judicial legislation.

Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School’s grey eminence of judicial imperialism, called Barack Obama the best student he had ever had. The skeptical were forewarned, then, that Obama would tend to nominate people for judicial posts who intended to use their positions as legislative, rather than solely judicial, offices. Obama himself gave additional support to this fear when he said that besides legal reasoning in 95% of cases, judges must be prepared to be guided by “empathy” in the 5% in which legal reasoning alone was not enough.

Not enough for what? Alas, not enough to reach the “right” conclusion. Obama infamously said that what he meant by “empathy” was willingness to rule “correctly” in cases involving affirmative action, abortion, and congressional claims to virtually unlimited legislative power under the Commerce Clause (second amendment attack) where “the constitutional text will not be directly on point” (that is, where the Constitution does not lead to the outcome Obama desires). Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the sole determinants of a case’s outcome.

It seems to be what Judge Sotomayor has in mind when she says that the experience of a wise Latina will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a white man, and when she laments the demographic makeup of the federal judiciary.

If she thought that judging was judicial, Sotomayor would not care what the ethnic background, class background, or sex of a particular judge was.

Judge Sotomayor, alas, shares her patron’s disdain for the very idea of law. And make no mistake about it, Legal Realism is a fancy name for denial of the very idea that the people through their elected representatives can tell government officials what to do and expect them to do it. John Adams said that the Americans wanted to establish a government of laws, not of men; according to Legal Realists, the men are the laws.” End quote

Back to Rachel:

Or in Sotomayor’s case, the women.

Shadow, most everybody you disagree with you call wingnuts. Well, did it ever occur to you that well intentioned Americans can disagree with being disagreeable. Maybe you’re right. Maybe Sotomayor isn’t a racist, unborn killing machine, second amendment/constitutional shredder.

However, until you make a well reasoned, cogent argument why Soto should be made a member of the Supremes, I’ve got to believe even without a law school education, that a better supreme court judge would be Diana Ross.

Jul 17, 2009 - 7:36 pm 188. steven:

sotomayor could not publicy survive the question “does she think a wise latina could more often than not provide a better legal conclusion than a white female.?”…you should all have the guts and courage to quit being mindless bigots and ask decent revealing questions…maybe more women than you know don’t like this wise latina putting those stupid white men that are always draining the blood out of their bodies for your freedom to be trashed by this “latina queen” What does she know about reality other than prejudice? Is it whites or men that she refers to or both in her commonly repeated phrases? Gee, if you plan on having any children that are white or male, you should be revulsed that someone with such an attitude could even approach the ultimate bench. Maybe she thinks wise latinas could run circles around thier hispanic men also, far exceeding equality with them there also….what say you, blog pundits? got tough? SL

Jul 18, 2009 - 1:58 am 189. steven:

I shake my head to see all that the decency that has been wrestled from humanity ( a huge portion a bunch of idiots) that willingly send a racial and/or gender bigot to their priceless supreme court for life.
I dont know but it appears to me that women are lining up to assist this gender this gender slam….is it just me or would this have been a political H bomb if a man had uttered such nonsense about a race or a gender…what type and how many sheep have been raised in the american flock to drink …the newest packaging of the sheep farm cool aid……..good luck all with your new bench bigot who holds a pass from all you passionate victims of the very poly sci taught in high schools thirty years ago…….Most of your emotions are cultivated to be used in various politikal deployments…….you are experiencing the vast and subtle effects of years of the development of political science, and you thought perfume was the only blinding science…its much worse than that…………………..sl

Jul 18, 2009 - 2:15 am 190. The Shadow:

RP – I have many friends I disagree with but they are rational. We cite real fact. We talk about our personal philosophy.. They deal in facts not fantasy. The back up their argument with information.

You are going to have trouble when you enter the real world where you have to back up your opinion with facts. I am going to feel sorry for your clients. “RP ‘My opponent is a socialist, judge and therefore he is working against the US.’ Judge – ‘What is your evidence.’ RP – ‘Evidence Judge. I just asserted she is a socialist. That is my evidence’ – Judge ‘Case dismissed’”

See me again in 10 years when you grow up, if you ever do. I doubt if wingnuts ever do. The similarities with other fantasists like those who believe we never really landed on the moon is striking

Jul 18, 2009 - 6:23 am 191. WarpublicaN:

The main point? She’s be confirmed and there’s nothing you can do about it. Of course she was less than honest – the whole process is less than honest. It looks like one Wise Latina kicked your butts..
oh – and there’s nothing you can do about it…

Jul 18, 2009 - 6:24 am 192. The Shadow:

RP – By the way I am glad you at least admit to ranting. I hope there was no one around to witness the scene. In the old days the men in white coats might come after you

Jul 18, 2009 - 6:28 am 193. The Shadow:

Statement like this one “Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinants of a case’s outcome.” demonstrate your talent for making things up. You are so eager,- well I guess in full rant logic goes out the window- win the argument you get sloppy. That tendency will come up to haunt you in the court room

Jul 18, 2009 - 6:34 am 194. Rachel Peepers:

Shadow,

I read what you write, and it seems to me you’re a little more than a tad guilty of what you accuse me of. Es decir, not backing up arguments sic, allegations with proof points.

You my little twit head, argue in conclusions. And when you do write what sounds like a proof point, it makes no sense.

Here’s a prime example, which to my way of thining makes you prima facie guilty of hypocritcal stupidity.

Fact is, I was quoting political journalist, Bob Ellis, who wrote:

“Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinants of a case’s outcome”

An expression of his opinion, Ellis made perfect sense. You can disagree with him, but there is no logic problem with his words.

There is with yours.

193. The Shadow:

Statements like this one “Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinants of a case’s outcome.” demonstrate your (Rachel’s I assume) talent for making things up. You are so eager,- well I guess in full rant logic goes out the window- win the argument you get sloppy.

Shadow, you write and I quote, “win the argument you get sloppy.”

Are there missing words here? A typo? The words have the the substance of fog. Are you accusing me of sloppy thinking?

Putting sloppy thinking aside for a moment, (which I realize isn’t easy for you to do, permit me to present you with an example of racist thinking.

In making judicial decisions, the experience of a wise white man will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a Latina woman.

What a bunch of pompous sexist bigotry.

Here’s another bit of pompous sexist bigotry that I fear tastes sweeter to you.

“The experience of a wise Latina will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a white man. Which of course is a direct quote of Sotomayor.

If you don’t get the point I’m making, then I think it’s pointless to continue this dialogue.

Jul 18, 2009 - 4:13 pm 195. The Shadow:

RPHoney- Quoting someone who makes an assertion is not the same as proving the point. What did they ever teach you in law school? Ever take a logic course – I guess not. Usually, you have to both prove that legal realism means that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinant of a cases outcome. Then you have to prove that Sotomayor believes in legal realism. You have done neither and tried to hide behind my leaving out “to” in the sentence rather than addressing the issue. Typical behavior of someone who find it hard to do anything but rant.

Finally, I think that Sotmayor has amply demonstrated she is a wise Latina. She is obviously not a ranter. You must hate to be constantly on the loosing side. But at least to derive succor from the wingnuts here.

Jul 19, 2009 - 9:06 am 196. Rachel Peepers:

Shadow,

You want proof that Sotomayor is a bigoted racist of the worst kind?

Read her hate speech. It really doesn’t matter where you start because sooner or later she always gets around to it. Offering no proof. No polls. No logic.

Yet, you support her like, in 1938, a European country gone crazy once supported a mad man.

Slaughter the unborn she says. Put the second amendment in a paper shredder. Keep white men off the court. If you really lap up this bigoted, racist, sexist hate speech like it sounds you do, there’s only one thing I’ve got left to say. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You must be a supremely tortured soul.

You have my sympathy,
Rachel

Jul 20, 2009 - 10:43 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: