Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

[FORD]

When did it become a "fact" that Sotomayor is a "fucking racist"?

Probably when Tom Tancredo and Mush Limpdick started referring to LaRaza as "the Mexican KKK"

[GAR]

They ARE the Mexican KKK~!!

What rock have you been sleeping under..

[FORD]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn?

[kwame k]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn?

No, they just took his high paying White Collar Job

Do the uniforms from McDonald's have white collars?

[GAR]

Today Obama said that not allowing Sotomayer to restate what she had 8 years to reclarify wasn't going to work.

What a fucking DICK! She's out.. I'm emailing the 6 nearest senators on my list to say No including that dumbuck billionaire Feinstein

[GAR]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn?

Burning a Pinata might be considered the New Crossburn!

Glad you're thinking like David Duke again, it's been awhile..

[FORD]

No, they just took his high paying White Collar Job

Do the uniforms from McDonald's have white collars?

This is so fucking wrong, but I just got this mental picture of the "Mexican KKK" wearing sombreros on top of their white sheets, standing around a burning pinata, singing "La Bamba".

[GAR]

The nominee's biased, per her own words.

They need to nominate a new choice!

[FORD]

The nominee's biased, per her own words.

They need to nominate a new choice!

You want "biased" , bitch?

How about the literal son of a fascist who ruled that a complete count of the votes in Florida would " in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." (Fat Tony Scalia, 12/12/2000)

Now THAT is biased judicial activism!

[jhale667]

Is it possible to make a tongue in cheek racist comment? It seems to me to be either your all in or all out on that sort of thing.

Only if you believe what the Repukes would have you believe, that only white men are capable of making "impartial" decisions.


What she said isn't so completely offensive in context.

She's highly qualified, plus GAyR hates her, so she must be cool!

[kwame k]

This is so fucking wrong, but I just got this mental picture of the "Mexican KKK" wearing sombreros on top of their white sheets, standing around a burning pinata, singing "La Bamba".

Oh shit, yes it is wrong but...............

[Nickdfresh]

Burning a Pinata might be considered the New Crossburn!

Glad you're thinking like David Duke again, it's been awhile..

Save up your cabbage-picking money so you can afford one to burn...

[kwame k]

GOP divided over how tough to be on Sotomayor

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 32 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Republicans are divided over how aggressively to go after Sonia Sotomayor, a family feud about the tone of the debate over confirming the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
There are concerns raised by an increasing number of GOP lawmakers and conservative leaders about the strident rhetoric that certain prominent Republicans have used to describe Sotomayor. Some are denouncing right-wing groups for their negative advertisements against the federal appeals judge.
A group of prominent conservatives, seeking to change the terms of the discussion, plans to call on Republicans this coming week to hold "a great debate" over President Barack Obama's nominee. The debate would focus on Sotomayor's potential effect on important high court decisions and on the differences between how Democrats and Republicans pick judges.
In a letter to be sent to GOP senators Monday, the Third Branch Conference admonishes Republicans for having "slumbered" during confirmation hearings for the last two Democratic nominees (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both by President Bill Clinton), and concludes by saying, "We expect more from you" this time.
The Associated Press obtained a draft of the letter, signed by conservative heavyweights including Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ.com, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and Gary Bauer of American Values.
The letter acknowledges that blocking a vote to confirm Sotomayor is unrealistic. But it urges Republicans to use the debate as an "extraordinary educable moment" that makes it "crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not."
Manuel Miranda, the chairman of the group and a former senior Senate aide, said he is concerned that GOP leaders, knowing they lack the votes to reject Sotomayor and worried about the political consequences of a prolonged opposition, will pass up the chance for a drawn-out debate about her record, and the parties' dueling philosophies on a judge's role.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have branded Sotomayor — the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was born and raised in New York — a "racist" for past remarks about how her ethnicity affected her judging. On Friday, Limbaugh said picking Sotomayor was comparable to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for the job.
Other leading Republicans, aware of the political risks of opposing the first Hispanic woman nominated to the court, are struggling to change the terms of the debate. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee, lashed out at Limbaugh and Gingrich for their words.
"This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent," Cornyn told National Public Radio.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, GOP strategist Peggy Noonan dismissed as "idiots" those conservatives who were out to attack or brand Sotomayor.
Much criticism has been directed at a coalition of outside interest groups engaged in a public-relations offensive against Sotomayor. One group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, began an advertising campaign the day Obama named Sotomayor that bashes her record and concludes that "America deserves better."
"These things just taint the debate because it causes (people) to become callous toward our message. It becomes a 'cry wolf' situation," Miranda said.
Miranda resigned from his Senate job in 2004 amid an investigation over his role in inappropriately gaining computer access to Democratic memos — leaked to national newspapers — that laid out strategy for blocking President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. He admitted he was responsible for the breach and has said he did nothing wrong.
Miranda has since become a leading conservative critic of Republicans' approach to judicial nominations.
GOP leaders appear determined to insist on a thorough debate. They circulated a document late Friday, titled "It's Going To Take Time," that is filled with quotes from senior Democrats who said following the selections of the last two Supreme Court justices to be confirmed, GOP nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, that the Senate should take its time considering the nominations.
For Republicans, opposing Sotomayor is important to their core supporters, including social conservatives who regard the courts as a battleground. But the party is struggling to reach beyond that base and draw more diversity — a goal that could be frustrated with a bitterly partisan fight, especially given Sotomayor's background.
Gary Marx, the executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said the divisions were more about style and tone than substance. He said conservatives agree that Sotomayor is a "judicial activist" — someone who puts her own views above the law — regardless of how they express themselves.
"We can have a healthy debate when we focus on her own writings, her published writings and spoken words," Marx said.

Link

[kwame k]

The letter acknowledges that blocking a vote to confirm Sotomayor is unrealistic. But it urges Republicans to use the debate as an "extraordinary educable moment" that makes it "crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not."

[Big Train]

When did it become a "fact" that Sotomayor is a "fucking racist"?

When you make racist statements...it's a hand and glove kind of thing.

You need to reread the link you posted. Since the opinions in question where from the Court of Appeals, they are not "her opinions", they are the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel. She may be the author of the opinion, but that means very little. Majority opinions are written collectively and collaboratively by the justices in the majority (first drafts are written by judicial clerks, actually) so the extent of her personal involvement is probably a lot less than you think.

My point is that these were not Sotomayor's opinions, no matter how the media wants to characterize them. They were the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel (or of the Second Circuit as a whole). The worst that can be said is that Sotomayor and a majority of her fellow appellate judges were reversed.

And again, all of this assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court reversals were "correct" rather than politically motivated. It is a mistake to assume the former in all cases.

I'm no legal expert granted, but in these opinions is it possible to find out how she voted or this intentionally obscured? Why are they also saying things like "her writing and her opinion" are you saying that's just spin because all of her decisions were written by committee?

Which sounds even worse, that she and a team of people couldn't get it right.