Newt who?

The Gingrinch who stole Navidad?

By buying into and promoting the reverse racist meme?

Saying that a single statement made by Sotomayor that involves her race makes her a racist who is obviously unqualified to be on the SCOTUS.

Hmmm, Spud calls that double reverse racism.

Yes, Spud too can play this game all day.

Thanx fer askin'.

Be Well.

By buying into and promoting the reverse racist meme?

#2 | Posted by dethspud

Not so fast, tater.

Let's think about this for a minute.

While and inasmuch as The Grinch is a white dude of the highest order, this fact in no way at all makes him an expert on the realities of 'racial discrimnation' of the 'oppressed minorities'. I think we can all agree on that.

So, by the same token (no pun intended), does The Honorable Judge, in the fullness of her Female Peurto Rican-ness expect to be an expert on the realities of being a white caucasion male?

I've reached my verdict;

1) The good judge is guilty of a racist remark.

2) She is a fantastic chioce for SCOTUS and should be confirmed immediately if not sooner.

3) Her racist remark is one of those unfortunate events when the politically incorrect thing is the technically accurate thing.

1 point for the right wingers.

but i'm still left with one nagging question. If you fuck Ann Colter would that make you a homosexual?

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-05-27 06:40 PM

but i'm still left with one nagging question. If you fuck Ann Colter would that make you a homosexual?

The lefties are on a roll, and they as yet have not underestimated the stupidity of the American public. The white electorate supports those who would deprive them of equal consideration and equal rights.

A man will throw another a bone as a matter of largess, when he himself is satiated and ebullient. But just wait for hard times when even the stupidest Obama supporter will recognize that this disciple of hate-monger Rev. Wright seeks "revenge" against "them" for real and imagined harms, and they may be less likely to seek out and support harm to themselves.

The white population in the U.S. may end up like the Shias did in pre-war Iraq, under the domination of a minority that is proactive.

Yeah, whatever, douche-bag.

Declare yourself.

#4 | Posted by Johnson

Don't worry Johnson, I'm straight. I've been married, to one lady or another, all my adult life.

I'd still let Ann Colter blow me though. I was just wondering if that would count as fulfilling a homosexual fantasy, that's all?

I'll bet if you got her all fired up into a state of righteous indignation, get out the bible and slapped her around a little with it, she could really go to town on your gear stick. and those long wicked fingers she's got, whew!!

That's all I saying.

By buying into and promoting the reverse racist meme?

Spud, you are smarter than this.

Gingrich said nothing about "reverse racism"... he said "racist". No "reverse" to it. Hardly a meme. You are guilty of the fallacy of minimization.

Yes, Spud too can play this game all day.

Racism is a game to you then? Duly noted.

Well it's Official now. Most all the Rightwing Whackos have weighed in calling the lady a racist..... Limbaugh, Gingrich, Tancredo, Malkin....

"In the context of the lecture and the points being raised, Sotomayor's 32 words are not the Molotov cocktail of incendiary remarks that a select few would like the general public to believe that they are."

Most all the Rightwing Whackos have weighed in calling the lady a racist..... Limbaugh, Gingrich, Tancredo, Malkin....

And all the Leftwing Shills have weighed in defending her... Corky, Spud, Lipzoidal, et al.

Your point? Care to tell us in which way her statements AREN'T racist?

Corky, Sotomoyor's last two paragraphs are excellent.

I find it quite interesting, actually because that sentiment has been expressed by the right to condemn the clipped quote that we keep seeing. Had any of them read her full speech, they'd have shut their traps. Now they've stepped deep into it.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure....that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Oh yeah. That's obviously vicious, obscene racism.

Considering that she is the most experienced nominee in recent history, without any previous hint much less accusation of racism in any of her thousands of decisions, she should withdraw her nomination.

Idiots. I'm surrounded by idiots.

This is one of those battles the GOP is doomed to lose. They may even alienate what little mainstream support they have left in the process. Short of some nuclear bomb type of skeleton in her closet, Sotomayor is a shoo in. On the other hand, no doubt the uber rightwing financial networks will use this nomination as a fundraiser for all it is worth.
I take pleasure in knowing that only moderate liberals will be appointed to the Federal bench for the next eight years. And I take pleasure in knowing that this drives the wingnuts crazy.

You could try reading the article at the link and the full quote in context, Moo.

Or you could just call people here Left wing shills. Likely you are correct that you are much better at that.

Do you still owe OzarkMikey money, btw? You know, from when he helped you out?

Just askin'.

I'm surrounded by idiots.

#12 | Posted by Corky

You're the one who moved to Florida.

But don't you think your neighbor feels the same way?

Yeah, this Naples place is horrrible. Please never make the mistake of moving here.

And all the Leftwing Shills have weighed in defending her... Corky, Spud, Lipzoidal, et al.

#10 | Posted by moomanfl

I defend her based on her record. She is a proven lawyer, defender, prosecutor and trial judge. I am sure there are many others that would be as good of a choice and has a good record, but they weren't nominated.

For me, her biggest asset is abstract. She came from nowhere to make something against all odds. That touches lipz's oft-perforated heart-like mass.

I couldn't care less if she uttered a racial epitaph or not (which she did). For the record, I also didn't give a shit about 'nappy-headed hoes' or the 'rev wright whitey remarks' or 'god damn america' or 'heimy-town'. What are we, in the third grade?

=if she uttered a racial epitaph or not (which she did).

You may mean, racial epithet. You wouldn't care to show us a link of her using an ethnic slur, would you?

"Idiots. I'm surrounded by idiots.
#12 | Posted by Corky at 2009-05-27 08:23 PM"

Now you've got them right where you want them... ;-)!

Nice try, Yav. I read the whole thing before today and I retain my original position, the comment was racist. If the same sentiment had been expressed by a white person, there would be no end to the screaming by the left. Hell, even a minority that sides with the Right gets blasted by the Left and essentially gets called a race traitor.

If this is a racist remark--can we all wait for the explanation and also take it in the totality of her work over the years?

At first blush--yes --this might appear to be a racist or at least inappropiate comment.

There are always two sides to every story--or in this case --every remark.

And isn't there some additional comments that this was included in context with?

BTW--I know this woman is a liberal--she is not hard left--so it appears from what is being said now.

I will wait to see the hearings before saying if I was able to vote for her--if I would or not.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Now, explain why a Latina woman should expect that her life experiences are any more rich than anyone else's of any race?

That very sentiment it what we call racism. It really looks more like she spends two paragraphs trying to justify the racist statement sandwiched in the middle. That this was written for La Raza (The Race) is little surprise.

Chimpy part Deux made a brilliant move. Any congressman or senator that votes against her nomination will be scorned by the dems come re-election time.

But why weren't the Clarence Thomas and Alberto R. Gonzales nominations considered brilliant moves as well? I guess it depends on the party and the media support behind the nomination. And that really is fucked up.

-Now, explain why a Latina woman should expect that her life experiences are any more rich than anyone else's of any race?

That very sentiment it what we call racism.

Main Entry: racism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
racist -sist also -shist noun or adjective

I also found your picture next to the term, "clueless" in the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Here is the conclusion to what she was saying, which puts in context her previous remarks.

"Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

If all the NOPers have is one possibly inarticulate line in an old speech, they might as well go home now. Otherwise, they are just digging their current hole even deeper with the American people.

Shovel courtesy of Barrack Obama, lol.

How about Miguel Estrada?

He was pounded by the Dems. Not a peep from the media about how they went after him.

Clarence Thomas has a compelling life story and the Dems crucified him.

Gonzo was a closet liberal *wink* and pro abortion--so the Dems loved him until the AG brouhaha.

----------

Now, explain why a Latina woman should expect that her life experiences are any more rich than anyone else's of any race? Moomamfl--

--

It doesn't--her life story--although very interesting and compelling--has nothing to do with deciding the rule of law.

But the Dems and the media are only talking about her life story.

There is very little vetting --it's all about her diabetes and he father that dies and her mother that worked two jobs and her at Princeton and Yale.

She is smart--no doubt. But her life story has nothing to do with deciding cases on the rule of law.
-------

I mean have her decisions been overturned 4 times or 60% of the time?

What does she think or written about commerce law--gun laws--abortion--taxes--
business cases??

And as a judge they are supposed to be blind.

Yes--they all have compelling backgrounds in one form or another.

But the Judge is supposed to check it at the door when deciding cases.

Personal experiences aside--they have to judge the case on it's own merits and not those they experienced.

Hell has frozen over AGAIN; I agree with Murphy.

Murph

Sotomayor's Reversals No Different Than Souter Or Alito

Taken as a whole, the decisions suggest that, if anything, Sotomayor is of a similar judicial philosophy to the justice she is poised to replace. The numbers, moreover, make her appear decidedly non-controversial. In an eleven-year career, she issued 380 opinions. Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed. According to SCOTUSblog, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years. In 2008, for example, the Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases it considered.

Indeed, one of the darlings of judicial conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito, also had a share of his opinions dismissed or overruled by the Court before he himself was appointed to that bench.

Hell has frozen over AGAIN; I agree with Murphy.

#28 | Posted by Zatoichi

Double FF!!

I heard she said a judge's job is to "make policy." Wonder exactly what she meant by that? Is it not a judge's responsibility to "interpret the law" as it applies to each particular case. Where does her statement "to make policy" come into play?

Corky,

It rather seems that YOU are the clueless one, since you post the definition of racism, then try to claim it wasn't racist.

Here let me put it in terms my 3rd grader could understand:

Your definition of racism includes this:

"racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

She said that her experiences as a Latina woman make her superior to a white man.

That is called racism BY DEFINITION.

On the "make policy" remark-- She immediately tried to back pedal when she made that remark.

Someone needs to ask her that in the hearings--to explain.

------------

Thanks for the post Corky--I have been checking scotusblog just recently to see what they print.

MURPHY

Hell has frozen over AGAIN; I agree with Murphy.

#28 | Posted by Zatoichi

WOW, girl, you're doing pretty good in only one week's time!

Zat has agreed with you TWICE and your Prop. 8 (gay marriage banned) thread now has over 700 posts.

Someone today had a great quote from our new Chief Justice talking about how his background and experiences affected his decisions. I'll see if I can find it for all those truly outraged by this blatant racist, lmfao.

Someone today had a great quote from our new Chief Justice talking about how his background and experiences affected his decisions.

Here Corky goes with another straw man.

Nobody suggested that using her experiences makes her racist. Using experiences to judge on the USSC is a totally different argument that doesn't include race.

What was racist is suggesting that her experiences as a Latina make her superior to a White man. THAT is the thing that is racist by the very definition you printed.

BTW... not only does it fit the #1 definition, but it also fits the #2 since she also pre-judges (prejudice) her abilities vs. a white man based on race.

I heard she said a judge's job is to "make policy." Wonder exactly what she meant by that? Is it not a judge's responsibility to "interpret the law" as it applies to each particular case. Where does her statement "to make policy" come into play?

Really? You heard that? Here's the full quote so you can decide for yourself:

All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because it is - court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't make law, I know. Okay, I know, I know, I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I know. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating, it is interpretation, it is application.

If that basic fact is a surprise to you, you have an unrealistic view of the people that way too often, write ambiguous laws. There wouldn't be a need for Federal Appellate Courts if it was so simple, so black and white.

" Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed. "

H E L L O ???

The judge is a FAILURE.

I want someone who has been to the Supremes a few times and NOT reversed.

Comprende' dumbkopf?

What was racist is suggesting that her experiences as a Latina make her superior to a White man. THAT is the thing that is racist by the very definition you printed.

Step. Step. Step.

She said "better conclusion".

I am not sure what that means--she didn't say "different conclusion"--but better.

On it's face--it appears potentially racist.

But we should be looking into her decisions to see if there is any validity to this remark.

She could have been touting her heritage and life experience --that she could come to the same conclusion as a male counterpart--but in her mind it is "better" because of where she started from.

I am not trying to make excuses--I just think that calling people racist is detrimental and not always well-founded.

IMUS is not racist--but one comment destroyed his career. Not good for us as a society.

Mooford,

If that was all she had said, you might have a point other than the one you use as a cap.

But since it wasn't, and since we have the surrounding context that included: "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.", all you have is the pitiful political rhetoric of calling someone a racist that is, actually, detrimental to your own Party of No.

But, please, do enjoy digging the hole deeper with Obama's Shovel, which should become her nickname.

btw, how much money do you still owe Mikey, anyway?

Step. Step. Step.

You are making too much noise there, Yav. Take the jackboots off.

What was racist is suggesting that her experiences as a Latina make her superior to a White man.

#36 | Posted by moomanfl

But then, that isn't what she said, now is it?

You are making too much noise there, Yav. Take the jackboots off.

I suppose you're been reduced to that. Not a surprise based on your posts on this thread.

YAV

...If that basic fact is a surprise to you, you have an unrealistic view of the people that way too often, write ambiguous laws. There wouldn't be a need for Federal Appellate Courts if it was so simple, so black and white.

#37 | Posted by YAV at 2009-05-27 09:30 PM

Thanks for posting her quote in its entirety. As I stated, I only heard the words "we make policy" and the entire quote was not given at the time I heard it.

Excellent point you made after the quote. Yes, the law does get tossed around at the appellate level. The world -- and law -- is never as simple as black and white, is it.

" Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed. "

H E L L O ???

The judge is a FAILURE.

Not hardly.

=a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years. In 2008, for example, the Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases it considered.

-But we should be looking into her decisions to see if there is any validity to this remark.

Naw, that would be too fair, Murph. All you need is to have Mooford tell you she's a racist. After all, Nutty Newty and Rush and Tancredo told him so.

your Prop. 8 (gay marriage banned) thread now has over 700 posts.

#34 | Posted by CalifChris

That was luck--San wanted that one! ;o)

It's all the folks who discuss and debate that issue that ran up the posts.

If that was all she had said, you might have a point other than the one you use as a cap.

The rest was a poor attempt to justify that one statement.

If she had meant anything else and the preceding and following paragraphs were not an attempt at justification, then that statement would have been different. It would have been more like "I would hope that the richness of my experiences as a Latina woman would give me a different perspective than a white man".

However, instead, she chose to pit her experiences due to her race and gender as being superior to that of a white man.

You keep twisting, but you still can't make that square peg fit in the round hole, Corky.

"It would have been more like "I would hope that the richness of my experiences as a Latina woman would give me a different perspective than a white man".

However, instead, she chose to pit her experiences due to her race and gender as being superior to that of a white man."

#49 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 09:40 PM

Racism and sexism in either case.

CalifChris, glad to be able to oblige your request. Anything to further an honest discussion.

You keep twisting, but you still can't make that square peg fit in the round hole, Corky.

#49 | Posted by moomanfl

Seems to me you must be the one twisting, since you misquoted what she said in at least 2 previous posts, completely changing the meaning.

Tsk tsk.

Whatever happened to Blind Justice?

Keep your peg away from my hole, you pervert!

I know, I know. Quotes in context are a new thing for you, but I am confident that with therapy and time you'll adjust.

After all, Nutty Newty and Rush and Tancredo told him so.

Nice try, Corky. The only thing I have seen on this issue has come from the couple news reports here, and the search I did for the original source of the comment.

I haven't seen Newt speak on it. I certainly haven't seen Tancredo speak in ages. And I haven't listened to Rush once in the last 2 years.

Pick another myth; this one has been busted.

Keep your peg away from my hole, you pervert!

Homophobe!

#42 | Posted by Corky

It is still an issue or certainly a concern.

Now what she did in the New Haven case does not help her and lends credence to what Mooman is talking about.

And I am sure there are cases where she went against the ethnic plaintiff.

My concern is if she is a radical liberal--maybe there is no difference.

Quotes in context are a new thing for you, but I am confident that with therapy and time you'll adjust.

Bwahahaha... you are just pissed that you posted the definition, only to realize that the definition fit.

Seems that you are the one that needs therapy.

"a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years."

So there are a lot of idiots who are judges.
Your point?

Looks to me like the entire judicial system's full of idiots.

Must be the lousy pay.

The funny part is, of course, that even if one gave the desperate Party of No that quote out of context and in exclusion of her thousands of decisions, it by itself is no proof of a belief or practice of "racism".

It's hilarious when the Party Pissants believe what they have been told to say by the Party elites who just laugh at their magnificent naivete.

"Homophobe!"

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 09:43 PM

Corky's a girl.

Seems to me you must be the one twisting, since you misquoted what she said in at least 2 previous posts, completely changing the meaning.

Really, SAR?

Tell me how "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," doesn't equate to judging a Latina woman's experiences to be superior to a white man's experiences.

This ought to be good.

Corky's a girl.

#61 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-05-27 09:48 PM

I did not know that. I guess you learn something new every day.

Unless of course you are Corky.

As a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has written hundreds of opinions or dissents in his 15 years on the federal bench. A few of those cases have gained a spot on the selective Supreme Court docket; even more have been affirmed or reversed through the prism of high court rulings on other appellate cases.

Alito has lost some close cases in the Supreme Court; two years ago he was soundly rejected in the case of a former elevator operator who was seeking Social Security disability payments.

Some observers contend it would be inaccurate to focus solely on Alito's won-loss record before the high court. The Supreme Court's motivation for choosing a case and its history with certain appellate courts must be factored in.

Judge Edward R. Becker, a Reagan appointee who has served with Alito on the 3rd Circuit, said of the reversals: "We've all had our share."

from the above link

If you expect more out her than any other judge, than your criterion is screwe... er, skewed.

Now what she did in the New Haven case does not help her and lends credence to what Mooman is talking about.

And I am sure there are cases where she went against the ethnic plaintiff.

#57 | Posted by MURPHY

What did she do, Murphy? She was ONE judge in a panel of a three that upheld the ruling of a white judge in the case. Was the white federal district judge who ruled against the plaintiffs a racist?

Was the full appellate court (majority white) that upheld the panel's decision racist?

And by the way, one of the plaintiffs in the case was ethnic - Hispanic.

The funny part is, of course, that even if one gave the desperate Party of No that quote out of context and in exclusion of her thousands of decisions, it by itself is no proof of a belief or practice of "racism".

You are correct. By itself it is only enough to raise a concern.

However when put together with the Connecticut firefighter decision... well, that lends a bit more credence to the idea that she is a racist. Maybe not a rabid one, but one just the same.

"I did not know that."

#63 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Should pay better attention.

However when put together with the Connecticut firefighter decision... well, that lends a bit more credence to the idea that she is a racist. Maybe not a rabid one, but one just the same.

#66 | Posted by moomanfl

Yes, but that won't matter to the B.O. approval rating members of the DR.

This ought to be good.

#62 | Posted by moomanf

First, why don't you tell us which one of these things is not like the others?

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

What was racist is suggesting that her experiences as a Latina make her superior to a White man.

#36 | Posted by moomanfl

She said that her experiences as a Latina woman make her superior to a white man.

#32 | Posted by moomanfl

Spud, you are smarter than this.

Smart? Dunno about that.

Depends which version of Trivial Pursuit we're playing mostly.

Gingrich said nothing about "reverse racism"... he said "racist". No "reverse" to it. Hardly a meme. You are guilty of the fallacy of minimization.

No, the rtards are guilty of that.

They took out a snippet of a speech Sotomayor gave to a Hispanic group and then reduced it down to "Thinks Latinos and women are better than Whites and males".

They are also guilty of purporting this to be clear evidence of the type of racism that should preclude one from the SCOTUS.

It's not.

Instead it's more the type of reverse racism that allows, in fact encourages, good ole boy types to start dumping on this candidate.

Basically, the party of racism and sexism is saying the reason they wanna keep a Latina woman offa the bench is in order to avoid racism and sexism on the almost all white, male court.

If you can't see the irony factor here yer missing a pretty good laugh.

Racism is a game to you then? Duly noted.

Moo, yer smarter than that.

Be Well.

Zat's drunk again. And dreaming wet.

Moo is in the pathetic pissant crowd mentioned above.

Calling people racist and talking about jackboots.... what's next, Hitler comparisons?

Did I mention idiots, earlier? Thought so.

She was ONE judge in a panel of a three that upheld the ruling of a white judge in the case.

Yes, but she is the ONLY one of those judges up for a USSC position, therefor it is only her decision that is relevant.

She is also the only one of those judges that I know of that has claimed that her race has made her superior to another. Together with that decision on her part paints a pretty clear picture of racist tendencies on her part.

If you have evidence that another one of those judges said something similarly racist then you might have part of a point.... but only a part of one. All you would show is that she isn't the only racist.

What She said wasn't racist. She is saying that Her being a Latina gives Her a greater understanding on certain issues that a White Male that hasn't been there done that has. It's just being honest.

Larry

"If you expect more out her than any other judge"
Posted by Corky at 2009-05-27 09:53 PM

No, I expect a lot more out of all of them.

"Zat's drunk again."

Dream on, sweetie.

Yes, but she is the ONLY one of those judges up for a USSC position, therefor it is only her decision that is relevant.

#72 | Posted by moomanfl

That it complete idiocy. Her actions and decisions didn't exist in a vacuum.

If you want to argue the legal aspects of whether the case was rightly decided, fine.

But have the audacity to call her a racist because she and other judges upheld the ruling of a lower court judge is beyond stupidity.

Yes, but she is the ONLY one of those judges up for a USSC position, therefor it is only her decision that is relevant.

Then the issue of reverse racism and the linkage to this case is moot.

"She is also the only one of those judges that I know of that has claimed that her race has made her superior to another."

No, she didn't. And I'm frankly pretty surprised that you would be trying to pass off that little semantic shenanigan because I don't really think even you believe what your saying.

"Yes, but she is the ONLY one of those judges up for a USSC position, therefor it is only her decision that is relevant."

Whoa...you don't get it both ways. if her decision is "racist", so are the other judges. Which is it?

Then your criticism was general and not specific to her. Glad to hear it.

Not drunk? What's your problem!!

No, the rtards are guilty of that.

Newt isn't a Republican ("rtard")?

They took out a snippet of a speech Sotomayor gave to a Hispanic group and then reduced it down to "Thinks Latinos and women are better than Whites and males".

Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man? How does that not fit the definition of racism?

Instead it's more the type of reverse racism that allows, in fact encourages, good ole boy types to start dumping on this candidate.

So, suddenly I am a good old boy type? Why? Because I disagree with you? Because I dare condemn someone that made a statement of superiority based on race? Or was it because I dared to criticize someone of another race for any reason, never mind someone who's political affiliation you sympathize with?

Why does Murphy always go away when confronted with facts that refute her posts?

"Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man?"

She did not.

Next.

Address all comments to:

Mooman
Beyond Stupidity, FL 34576

"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...

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"

Alito, January 11th, 2006 confirmation hearings in response to Senator Colburn.

Horrible! How did he ever get appointed?

"Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man? "

Well that's simple to answer: Unequivocally, she did not.

Yeah and she discounted the test--the merits of the test because not enough blacks passed it.

Blacks passed the test before but not that time.

I believe that one of the judges she serves with was critical of her out of hand dismissal of the case.

She tossed it and wrote a paragraph to explain why.

You should scroll up to see my remarks--I am allowed to be critical of this pick. Even if I want to wait for the hearings.

#81 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Sorry for the wait--I had to take a phone call on a claim.

if her decision is "racist", so are the other judges. Which is it?

No, YOU don't get it. The other decisions may have been just wrongheaded. They may have been racial favoritism (it is possible to favor a race other than your own), but that isn't necessarily racist.

What calls her decision into question as racist is seeing more of her personal views, such as this quote.

If a black man gets put to death, it could be racism or death penalty for a crime. However, if the man is put to death while the crowd chants "Death to niggers!"... well chances are the execution is at least in part due to race.

You WISH we were taking things out of context, because then we wouldn't be tying the decision together with the words of the person that made that decision.

"Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man? "

Well that's simple to answer: Unequivocally, she did not.

#85 | Posted by Danforth

But at least he's starting to morph what he originally said she said to what she actually said.

(She said that her experiences as a Latina woman make her superior to a white man. #32 | Posted by moomanfl)

Sooner or later he'll get it right, then pretend like that's what he said all along.

-"Death to niggers!"..

Never miss an opportunity, eh?

Freudian, what?

I am allowed to be critical of this pick. Even if I want to wait for the hearings.

#86 | Posted by MURPHY

Yes, you can certainly be critical. But at least base your criticism on facts.

I am pretty sure no Blacks had ever passed that particular case.

And to say "she tossed it and wrote a paragraph to explain why" isn't really accurate. She was part of a 3 judge panel that dismissed the case, upholding the decision of the white lower court judge. And one of the plaintiffs was Hispanic, as well. Finally, the full appellate court affirmed the decision of the panel.

So to single her out as being the sole decision maker her, and assuming some racial motivation is absolutely ludicrous.

"If a black man gets put to death, it could be racism or death penalty for a crime. However, if the man is put to death while the crowd chants "Death to niggers!"... well chances are the execution is at least in part due to race."

WTF??? How does recognizing racism make one a racist?

"You WISH we were taking things out of context"

This, from the guy who calls her decision racist, but won't call the decision of the other two judges racist, or the lower court judge racist, or even comment on the fact one of the plaintiffs was Hispanic.

Time to remember the first rule of holes: when in one, stop digging.

"I am pretty sure no Blacks had ever passed that particular case." Oops - case = test.

Then the issue of reverse racism and the linkage to this case is moot

WTF is reverse racism? Racism is:

Moom,

Please reread exactly what she said, and then I'd like to ask you a question:

Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man?

#95 | Posted by Danforth

He's been asked that several times Dan. He knows what he did and he's been studiously avoiding answering.

I had to take a phone call on a claim.

So you claim

But at least he's starting to morph what he originally said she said to what she actually said.

(She said that her experiences as a Latina woman make her superior to a white man. #32 | Posted by moomanfl)

Oh... ok

So she isn't a racist because it is also based on gender?

At best that makes her a racist AND a misandrist.

Either way, she claimed her experiences because of those qualities were superior to those of a white man.

Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man?

Yes, in essence she did.

Unless you think that the word "better" means anything other than "superior".

Either way, she claimed her experiences because of those qualities were superior to those of a white man.

#98 | Posted by moomanfl

Getting closer. C'mon, you can do it!

She didn't say "superior", but it can be argued she inferred it.

That is why she needs to be asked to explain what she meant.

-------

#93 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

San--I said I am sure that blacks passed the test in the past--just not that particular year or time. (not 'no' blacks)

And she wrote the paragraph and she was criticized by her co-judge.

And please check my #41 post.

-----

I don't care for calling people racist --it is defamatory and then all we see is the word racist and nothing else.

This woman has what? 11 years at the District level and umteen years at the appellate level??

There is a body of work to decipher and the term racist is so divisive--no matter what party or person it comes from.

By the definition--her comment sounds racist--but that is not the whole story and it is better to wait and hear the person explain wha they meant.

There are two sides to every remark/story.

Yes, in essence she did.

#99 | Posted by moomanf

No, in reality she didn't.

Let's put this another way...

I say to you:

"Moom, I believe my conclusion on this issue is superior to yours because I have experiences A, B, & C, plus background D"

Did I in any way say "Moom, I am better than you"?

WTF??? How does recognizing racism make one a racist?

That isn't the whole of what she did.

She said that her experiences were superior to a white man's "more often than not". She listed no qualifier on what the decision would be about. i.e. It the statement was limited by her to questions of racism.

Did she or did she not say that she thought her experiences as a Latino woman are superior to those of a white man?

Yes, in essence she did.

Unless you think that the word "better" means anything other than "superior".

#99 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Tell me how "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," doesn't equate to judging a Latina woman's experiences to be superior to a white man's experiences.

This ought to be good.

#62 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

BULLSHIT CONARTIST moomanfla.

Larry

"Moom, I believe my conclusion on this issue is superior to yours because I have experiences A, B, & C, plus background D"

She didn't limit her comment to one person and their specific experiences.

Instead she spoke broadly against a whole class of people based on race and gender.

-Yes, in essence she did

And now, The Amazing Mooford will devine for us the "essence" of what she said!

And without the benefit of context! It's like working without a net!

(that's why they call him "Amazing")

who hasn't lived that life

And white men's experiences are inferior because they haven't lived the life of a Latina woman?

That isn't racist and misandrist... how?

"And she wrote the paragraph and she was criticized by her co-judge."

The panel's decision was criticized by one other judge from the full appellate court.

"San--I said I am sure that blacks passed the test in the past--just not that particular year or time. (not 'no' blacks)"

I know. I'm saying that I don't think any blacks had passed that particular test.

#97 | Posted by goatman

FF--really I did...

I am available 24/7--scene investigations for trucking accidents--I got the bag of stuff in back of the car. The whirly light, the vest, the numbered cones, the forms, the plastic bags, the Dickey suit, the hard hat, --you name it--it's in the bag.

This call was a damaged fence and the fire battalion chief was returning my call --after normal business hours.

And without the benefit of context!

Context to Corky means reading everything except the parts that are inconvenient to her position.

"Yes, in essence she did."

I'll take that as a no. You don't get to do nuance on a "did she or did she not" question you yourself posed.

#107 | Posted by moomanfl

There's no winning with this guy. He's backed into a corner and he's gonna parse to the death.

I am available 24/7--scene investigations for trucking accidents--I got the bag of stuff in back of the car. The whirly light, the vest, the numbered cones, the forms, the plastic bags, the Dickey suit, the hard hat, --you name it--it's in the bag.

This call was a damaged fence and the fire battalion chief was returning my call --after normal business hours.

#109 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-27 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Now THAT is sexy

I am available 24/7--scene investigations for trucking accidents

Ok... so you are the one I should blame for truckers getting a bad rap? (just kidding)

Seriously though, it is frustrating to no end to see how truckers are treated by the law. If a trucker is sitting a light and rear-ended by a 4-wheeler, and there is even one death, they will pick apart the truckers logs back to 5 years. One mistake, even if it was 6 months ago and he will be held liable.

Context to Corky means reading everything except the parts that are inconvenient to her position.

#110 | Posted by moomanfl

Moom - Corky is a guy.... oh, I get it, for some reason you thought referring to him as "her" would somehow make you seem LESS ridiculous here.

Got it.

"I am available 24/7--scene investigations for trucking accidents--I got the bag of stuff in back of the car. The whirly light, the vest, the numbered cones, the forms, the plastic bags, the Dickey suit, the hard hat, --you name it--it's in the bag."

Now I have to get drunk.

And white men's experiences are inferior because they haven't lived the life of a Latina woman?

That isn't racist and misandrist... how?

#107 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because culturally Whites and Hispanics are different because Latinas have had a harder time in America than a White Male. Think about it this Country was founded by White Aristocratic males.

Larry

There's no winning with this guy. He's backed into a corner and he's gonna parse to the death.

Seems more like you want to twist and avoid what she said. You say "parsing" as a convenient way of ignoring the truth.

The truth is, you have tried to twist what she said every way you could, but when it comes down to it what she said was racist and misandrist. This bears out to at least one decision she voted for as a judge.

#117 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-27 10:43 PM | Reply |Flag: Never lived in San Antonio

The truth is, you have tried to twist what she said every way you could, but when it comes down to it what she said was racist and misandrist. This bears out to at least one decision she voted for as a judge.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 10:44 PM | Reply

BULLSHIT and You know it.

Larry

Because culturally Whites and Hispanics are different because Latinas have had a harder time in America than a White Male.

Different does not equal superior (or to use her words, "better"). If she had simply made the point of simply a different perspective without trying to judge quality based on race and gender, I wouldn't be arguing. However she did, so I do.

"This bears out to at least one decision she voted for as a judge."

Yes or no: were the other judges who decided the exact same way racists as well?

-Context to Corky means reading everything except the parts that are inconvenient to her position

No, Mooford, context means reading all of what she said, like when she herself points out variables of the issues she is addressing, and even says,

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group...."

But then that doesn't fit into your partisan race-baiting rhetoric.

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]"

BULLSHIT and You know it.

I know no such thing Larry.

Or better put:

BULLSHIT, Larry, but you can't fathom it.

"The truth is, you have tried to twist what she said every way you could, but when it comes down to it what she said was racist and misandrist."

I will again point out that the evidence would seem to show that you are the one twisting since you have now misquoted what she said in at least 5 different posts.

I am really pretty surprised at you on this one.

But now is the time for sleep, so adieu a toute.

Different does not equal superior (or to use her words, "better"). If she had simply made the point of simply a different perspective without trying to judge quality based on race and gender, I wouldn't be arguing. However she did, so I do.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-27 10:46 PM | Reply

You lying asshole. She said

Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male "who hasn't lived that life,"

It is superior because of a Latinas experiances compared to a White male who hasn't.

Larry

...the hard hat, --you name itit's in the bag.

Now THAT is sexy

#113 | Posted by LarryMohr

I know. I'm saying that I don't think any blacks had passed that particular test.

#108 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

San--I believe that the test was in use for a number of years before no blacks passed the test.

That is why there is concern over this case and the SCOTUS is going to hear it.

Can you find a link?

#127 | Posted by goatman

Yes the Dickey suit is very androgenous (sp?).

But the vest and hard hat is very becoming. And I really like the light that goes on the roof of my vehicle to get to the front of the wreak.

It is superior because of a Latinas experiances compared to a White male who hasn't.

How does making tortillas make her superior?

#121 | Posted by moomanfl

Mooman--would you check out post #41?

Yes--it can be inferred to racist--but I believe there is more--and I speak from a woman's perspective.

She may or may not be "racist"--I really loathe that word to describe anyone.

It was wrong for IMUS and it may be wrong here.

If the folks who use that word to describe Sotomayor--want to back it up with actual decisions--then we can all have a hay-day.

You are correct that by the definition it sounds racist--but there are two sides to every remark.

ok?

But the vest and hard hat is very becoming

Here's me in a hard hat murph. Let's see you in yours. (send to my email if you want)

Yes or no: were the other judges who decided the exact same way racists as well?

#122 | Posted by Danforth

yes.

I just couldn't stand an unanswered question to linger like that.

:-(

And if a male--white guy said the statement--he would not even make it to the hearings.

She may not either--but Obama will never back down like Bush did over Meirs.

Obama will never make a mistake---because it is never a mistake--because she has a compelling life story---he will never admit it--or change it once it is made.

Here's me in a hard hat murph. Let's see you in yours. (send to my email if you want)

i239.photobucket.com

#132 | Posted by goatman

Never! ;o)

-Here's me in a hard hat murph

I am so, so very sorry. Where can we send a contribution?

San--I believe that the test was in use for a number of years before no blacks passed the test.

The city brought in a consulting firm to rewrite the test in 2003. The test was new, and this was the first application of the test.

More broadly, black applicants' pass rate on the lieutenant exam was approximately half of the rate for white applicants a disparity more marked than for prior exams.

You can look up the case at:

I am so, so very sorry.

We've known that for years.

Where can we send a contribution?

Drop me an email and I'll gladly send you my pay pal account number

No, Mooford, context means reading all of what she said

Corky, let me give you a Writing 101 course. It won't be any different that what you would have gotten in school assuming you got passed 3rd grade, but in light of your comments I think it bears some repeating.

A body of writing, especially essay writing, expresses a complete argument, idea, or story. Within that essay will be paragraphs. Each paragraph represents a sub-point or a complete idea that is tied to the whole.

A well written essay can be scanned and understood by reading no more than the first and last sentences of the paragraph. The first sentence of the paragraph expresses the premise of the paragraph, while the last sentence expresses the conclusion. Speed readers will often use this trick to quickly parse a particular work.

Never! ;o)

Chicken

And if a male--white guy said the statement--he would not even make it to the hearings.

Guess who said the folowing?

"And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing the barriers that it puts up to them."

"yes."

For the Hispanics, or against the Hispanics?

For the Hispanics, or against the Hispanics?

"For the white men, or against the white men?"

FTFY

-For more on paragraphs:

hahaha.... hahahahaahaha!!!

Thanks, I needed that.

- superior

Your word, not hers. Nice 10th try at putting your words in her mouth.

On the whole, what she says, which is little different from what other SC judges have said, is no more reflective of racism than what you say is reflective of anything other than a pathetic and regrettable form of partisan race-baiting rhetoric.

"So, the entire paragraph was devoted to the premise that your race and gender effects your judgments, and concludes that the race and gender of a Latina woman gives her ("more often than not") superior judgment to that of a white man."

Well, since you mentioned Writing 101, it should be pointed out --classically speaking -- "the entire paragraph" is devoted to her hope that her rich experience would lead to better decisions.

Some would see having to balance two worlds, and making her way in a mostly male profession would also lead --hopefully-- to making better decisions.

#137 | Posted by YAV

Yav--you mean to say they had a test for two years and they get the same books and the same experience and they couldn't pass the test?

And the city threw the test results out and didn't try it again? Because why? Because they didn't want to get sued by the blacks who could not pass the test?

It wasn't a race biased test.

It was a firefighter based test and the guys who passed where white and one hispanic.

Her court threw out the test--and she wrote a measley paragraph to support it. That was insufficient.

I want to see more cases she has decided. This is only one case.

Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male "who hasn't lived that life,"

#126 | Posted by LarryMohr

No Larry her life experiences as a Latina only would bring a different perspective to the table not a superior one.

But her judicial activist minded statement in regards to the 2nd Amendment shows a troubling attitude that the U.S. Constitution is manipulatable to whatever she chooses it to mean regardless of what the framers and signers of the same meant it to mean.

"FTFY"

No, you didn't. One of the defendants was Hispanic.

Never! ;o)

Chicken

#140 | Posted by goatman

You betcha'--you have no idea about .... ;o)

No Larry her life experiences as a Latina only would bring a different perspective to the table not a superior one.

But her judicial activist minded statement in regards to the 2nd Amendment shows a troubling attitude that the U.S. Constitution is manipulatable to whatever she chooses it to mean regardless of what the framers and signers of the same meant it to mean.

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-05-27 11:24 PM | Reply

You would have a point if say Native Americans Blacks Hispanics and Whites were all treated equal at the Country's inception. Then Your point would be valid.

Larry

- superior

Your word, not hers.

No... her word was "better" which happens to be synonymous with "superior". As in the words are interchangeable.

Nice try at denying what she she said.

#147 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

YES!

That is a concern--but calling her a racist is out of order (pun intended).

Let someone ask her the question--what does she mean by that comment.

And then go after her!

Check out post #41

"Nice try at denying what she she said."

Hey, you posted something she didn't say. After a lot of back-and-forth about meanings and word-twisting, we should all stick to the actual words.

Is Sotomayor a triple bagger, an ethnic, a female, and a lesbian. When Rogue is such a vigorous advocate, is it time to search for some sexual affinity, here is the relatively recently united new LGBTI community, making common cause.

Excerpt (from the lesbian perspective):

Here's me in a hard hat murph.

#132 | Posted by goatman

Major fuckup there buddy - MAJOR! Now your androgynous beech stalker from Texas is gonna hound you until you give her what she really wants.

You betcha'--you have no idea about ....

C'mon murph -- I'll bet you're hot. Send a pic of you in a hardhat to my email. You have my word it'll never leave me PC.

Now your androgynous beech stalker from Texas is gonna hound you until you give her what she really wants.

OTOH, one of my other stalkers, montetroll, will be very disappointed because he sooo badly wanted me to be a short and fat person.

"FTFY"

No, you didn't. One of the defendants was Hispanic.

One out of how many? So he took one for the team as far as she was concerned.

He needs to use "superior" for it's well-recognized race-baiting quality over a mere actual quote of "better".

Pissants without conscience.

Odd, though, that "superior" doesn't quite make the list of dozens of possible senses.

"One out of how many? So he took one for the team as far as she was concerned."

And the other judges: racists against both whites AND Hispanics?

mooman, I love ya', dude, but I have to agree that superior and better aren't always interchangable.

#155 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

There. Someone finally posted your name. Happy, mah bitch?

After a lot of back-and-forth about meanings and word-twisting, we should all stick to the actual words.

Translation: I can't rebut the fact that your word and hers mean the exact same thing, so lets just PRETEND that they don't so that I can win. Please????

2 + 2 = 3 + 1

To you that equation would be unbalanced and invalid.

Great logic there, chief.

Why don't you stick with watching Sponge Bob episodes... that seems to be more on your intellectual level.

-I can't rebut the fact that your word and hers mean the exact same thing,

No, it does not. Not at all, not in dozens of senses.

mooman, I love ya', dude, but I have to agree that superior and better aren't always interchangable.

When used as an adjective they are.

When used as a noun they are not always.

I.E.

Synonymous
"My skills are better than yours."
"My skills are superior to yours."

Not synonymous
"Ted is my Superior at work."
"Ted is my better at work."

It seems that the Newt Gingrich role here has been steam-rolled by diversions. Thgis is about Newt and his increasingly desperate search for relevance and an audience other than on Fox.

He is so addicted to being of interest, and so upset at being upstaged by Rush Limbaugh at every position, he is simply being "outrageous" to get attention. But then nobody really cares. Poor Newt.

-I can't rebut the fact that your word and hers mean the exact same thing,

No, it does not. Not at all, not in dozens of senses.

Try Googling: define:better

from the first three results:

Definitions of better on the Web:

* something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"
* (comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more ...
* surpass in excellence; "She bettered her own record"; "break a record"

Negative Puerto Rican stereotypes

This girl heard that Puerto Ricans were fantastic lovers. So one day she met a PRican at a club, she took him home and got very sexy with the guy, she tells him very seductively "tie me up and do what you do best"... he robbed her.

Q: What do you call a Puerto Rican with no arms?
A: Trustworthy

Q: Why don't Puerto Ricans have checking accounts?
A: Because it's hard to sign checks with a spray can.

Q: What do you get when you cross a Puerto Rican and a Chinaman?
A: A car thief who can't drive.

Q: Why are there no Puerto Rican doctors?
A: Because you can't write prescriptions with spray paint.

Q: How many people does it take to bury a Puerto Rican?
A: Five. One to lower the Puerto Rican, and four to lower the radio.

Q: Do you know how to starve a Puerto Rican to death?
A: Hide his food stamps under his work shoes.

Q: Why wasn't JESUS born in Puerto Rico ?????????
A: Because they couldn't find three wise men and a virgin

Q: Why aren`t there any Puerto Ricans on Star trek?
A: Because they are not going to work in the future either.

Q: What do you get when you cross a Jew with a Puerto Rican?
A: A superintendent who thinks he owns the building.

Q: What do you call a Puerto Rican midget?
A: A speck

Q: What do you get when you cross a Puerto Rican and a Chinaman?
A: A car thief who can't drive.

Q: If a Norwegian and a Puerto Rican are having a foot race through a tunnel, who
will eventually win?
A: The Norwegian. The Puerto Rican will stop frequently to write graffiti on the
walls.

Q: An Italian, an Irishman, and a Puerto Rican jump off the Empire State Building.
Who lands first?
A: The Italian; because the Irishman stops to ask directions, and the Puerto Rican
stops to spray paint on the walls

Q: How did God make Puerto Ricans?
A: He sandblasted Niggers.

Q: If a white man in a white car is white power,
and a black man in a black car is black power,
what do you call a mexican and a puerto rican in a red mustang
A: grand theft auto

Q: What did they name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

Q: A black guy and a puerto rican guy are both in a car...who's driving?
A: A Cop!!!

Q: What do you call Puerto Ricans jumping out of a plane?
A: Air Pollution

Q) What do you say to a Puerto Rican in a three-piece suit?
A) Will the defendant please rise.

Q: How many people does it take to bury a Puerto Rican?
A: Five, one to lower the PR and four to lower the radio!

Three men, an American, a Russian, and a Puerto Rican, are standing on a bridge. The Russian removes a bottle of vodka from his coat, takes a sip, and then throws the bottle over the bridge.

The Puerto Rican asks, "Why did you do that? That was perfectly good bottle of vodka!"

The Russian replies, "There's plenty of that where I come from."

The Puerto Rican doesn't want to be upstaged, so he removes a joint from his pocket, takes a long puff, and then throws the rest of it over the bridge.

The American exclaims, "Hey! What the hell did you do that for? That was a perfectly good joint!"

The Puerto Rican replies, "There's plenty of that where I come from."

Now, the American doesn't want to be upstaged, so he searches through his pockets but he can't find anything. He looks around for a moment, then grabs the Puerto Rican and throws him over the bridge.

The Russian exclaims, "What the hell did you do that for?"

The American replies, "There's plenty of that where I come from."

Q: When does a Puerto Rican become a Spaniard?
A: When he marries your daughter.

Q: Why do Puerto Rican women wear pointy shoes?
A: To kill the roaches in the corners.

Q: Did you hear about the Puerto Rican secretary who was getting so experienced?
A: she could type twenty mistakes a minute?

Then there was the Puerto Rican surgeon who made medical history. He performed the first appendix transplant.

"Why don't you stick with watching Sponge Bob episodes... that seems to be more on your intellectual level."

Priceless. You spend all evening calling someone a racist, and as proof, use a statement of hope. Not of belief that she is somehow better, but a statement of hope her experiences will lead her to better decisions. Then you twist her words multiple times, make up your own equivalents, and throw out a "did she or didn't she" question where she clearly 'didn't', and your answer was...wait for it..."in essence".

And you're lecturing me about "intellectual level"?!? Thanks for the chuckle.

Why then do you change her word, other than for the racially charged nature of the word you substitute?

Because you are, as described above, a partisan race-baiting POS.

You would have a point if say Native Americans Blacks Hispanics and Whites were all treated equal at the Country's inception. Then Your point would be valid.

#150 | Posted by LarryMohr

This is about 1 of 9 persons who make decisions that are pretty much permanently etched in marble about America law Larry not a feel good let's make up for some the bad stuff some long ago deceased folks did and appoint a symbolic representative of one group of the oppressed.

The only question is does she understand and respect the U.S. Constitution enough to make virtually irrevocable legal judgments without tainting her judicial decisions with her own personal biases?

Fuck off, Johnson.

Speaking of racists....

Speak of race-baiting POS's and it's an automatic Johnson appearance.

Hard to imagine that, eh?

#156 | Posted by goatman

Flirt!

----------

Superior is better than better.

Superior is best.

-Fuck off, Johnson.

Speaking of racists....

I'll give you credit for that post. And the last word. G'nite.

Later gaters--

Green day is on Colbert.

Greenday

Flirt!

Shameless so

Time for lunch. I hope they are having asopao de gandules, plantains, and sancocho. I know there won't be pina coladas

(these are puerto rican dishes)

Priceless. You spend all evening calling someone a racist, and as proof, use a statement of hope. Not of belief that she is somehow better, but a statement of hope her experiences will lead her to better decisions. Then you twist her words multiple times, make up your own equivalents, and throw out a "did she or didn't she" question where she clearly 'didn't', and your answer was...wait for it..."in essence".

And you're lecturing me about "intellectual level"?!? Thanks for the chuckle.

Danforth,

It took you a long time to get around to your actual point.

That is a much better argument, which should have been stated much earlier, than you and Corky's "better doesn't mean superior" argument.

If you want to argue the "hope" part, I agree then. It could mean what you say. I have also seen the "I would hope" meant in the ironic to highlight something the author assumes is actually a fact... but I will concede that nothing here suggest that it MUST be that interpretation here.

Good show.

As an example if "I would hope" in the ironic:

I just beat my 7 year old son in a race he challenged me to.

SON: Wow, dad! You really smoked me in that race!

ME: I would hope so. My legs are much longer than yours.

Or to put it another way:

I would hope that a normally proportioned adult would more often than not have a better result in a race against adults than a 7 year old.

I think that goes far enough to show how such a conclusion about her sentence could easily be taken as a racist one. Especially considering that she draws her comparative upon racial and gender lines.

However, like I said before, your argument is a valid one. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the truth of the matter, but it isn't necessarily false either.

Again, good show.

Well, if this is an example of Puerto Ricans, all is forgiven. We love you. Now if only Sotomayor looked as good as the Puerto Rican or even the other Caribbean folks.

Stop the deportation proceedings. Wait. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth. Or whatever. They're citizens. Phew.

Superior is best.

#176 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-27 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag

Nothing is better than best. Superior is relative. Best is absolute.

The double descriptive in the title is weird. Had the said "Latin woman...." then OK. Nit a "Latina" is already a Latin Woman. They then follow up with calling her a woman again. Dumb!!!

The spelling and grammar police will now have a ball with me, crap!

"she's a racist, i should know cause i'm one too!" - newty the grinch

This is ridiculous. The GOP critics of Sotomayor are taking one quote wildly out of context to make her appear to be a racist, and they know the whole speech paints a different picture. It's pure cynicism.

When is the last time Newt Gingrich achieved anything? He's been out of office for a decade, and all he seems to have done since then is give media interviews and make speeches. It's a sad reflection on the state of the Republican Party that it has sunk so low that he qualifies as a leader.

When is the last time Newt Gingrich achieved anything? He's been out of office for a decade, and all he seems to have done since then is give media interviews and make speeches. It's a sad reflection on the state of the Republican Party that it has sunk so low that he qualifies as a leader.

#189 | Posted by rcade

Not one single GOP senator has come out publicly opposed to her nomination. Seems to me they are taking the cowardly way out by letting all their surrogates do the dirty work while not risking offending anyone themselves.

Not one single GOP senator has come out publicly opposed to her nomination. Seems to me they are taking the cowardly way out by letting all their surrogates do the dirty work while not risking offending anyone themselves.

#190 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

the repubs are a bunch of chicken shits remember as the majority they still gave us the likes of Ginsberg

she is one fugly bitch too.

When is the last time Newt Gingrich achieved anything? He's been out of office for a decade

There is a vacuum in the GOP, no one is running the ship. It's been run to the right edge and collapse.

Nature abhors a vacuum, look at all the flotsam and jetsam that is being sucked in to fill it. The sooner it turns it's back on the minority edge the sooner it will return to a cohesive force. Mean while the wild west show of Cheney, Newt, Rush & obstructionism run rampant.

He called like it is. She is by almost any definition... a racist, and has no place on our Supreme Court.

Not one single GOP senator has come out publicly opposed to her nomination.

#190 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Or maybe they're just confident that they can get 11 or 12 Democrats to vote against her nomination for her position that the U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from restricting Americans 2nd Amendment rights just the Federal government.

If you agree with her I guess you probably think the Constitution doesn't restrict the individual states from establishing religion, suppressing the media or due process either.

Johnson in all your vile racism you missed the one I always thought was actually funny:

What is the slimmest book in the world?

"Who's Who in Puerto Rico?"

Gingrich can shut the fuck up. And divorce his 3rd wife by fax and marry a 37yo trophy gal. At least, he should have somebody who doesn't suck call people names instead of calling them names himself.

"Those who have not been able to lay a glove on President Obama, with his 60 percent-plus approval ratings, now think they can define him by smearing Sotomayor.

For a political party that lost an election just six months ago by 9 million votes, the second largest vote margin of defeat ever for a Republican presidential candidate, you would think we would shut our mouths and figure out how to get more votes in the future."

-Ed Rollins

DONT take our word for it or newts or rush or anyone else

just read it FROM HER..
as I said on yesterdays nooner

just take the speech from berkly and reverse the words and you will get a racists attack from anyone on the left who know is doing whatever they can to attack the attackers..

and remember it wasnt that long ago that holder called us all "COWARDS" when talking about race..
WELl...are we cowards now mister AG....

The speech is not about how Hispanic female judges are superior to white male judges. It's how the life experiences a group of judges bring to court make the court stronger.

The speech is not about how Hispanic female judges are superior to white male judges. It's how the life experiences a group of judges bring to court make the court stronger.

#200 | Posted by rcade

You might as well back up, lower your head, and run full-tilt into a brick wall.

REAL FUNNY RA LOL

It's how the life experiences a group of judges bring to court make the court stronger.

#200 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-28 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

okay but this STILL isnt what a SC judge is supposed to do or think..it certainly wasnt what dems said the bush appointees should do

and look at the OATH that she will be taking and get back to me.....

OOPS...I'll have to link that to you..

it says something about giving out justice without any thought of the persons race or postition and all that..
so you see when she takes that oath..SHE WILL BE LYING
will have to find that again

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

IF she states this.

SHE WILL BE ANOTHER FUCKIN LIAR

(Courtesy of Yav) Who do you think said the following, Ish?

"And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing the barriers that it puts up to them."

clarence thomas

but you see there is another example

this lady was diefied because of her 'story'

well fuck it
thats all out the window because thomas and gonzalez and the other hispanic that dems threw out ALL HAD stories equally as 'american' and they werent given sainthood by the media like she has

so fuck her story..
if theirs wasnt 'american' then hers isnt either.

and thanks for that CUE

I don't think empathy is a disqualification for a Supreme Court justice. A judge can understand where a plaintiff is coming from and still rule against them when the law is not on their side.

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. ... 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.

clarence thomas

#205 | Posted by afkabl2

Incorrect.

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.

- Antonin Scalia

Looks like you guys are going to need to find another talking point.

Your current ones have been declared moot.

What do you expect when the best source of talking points for the Party of Fail is JeffinDenmark?

"I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind, who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require."

- H.W. Bush on C. Thomas

clarence thomas

#205 | Posted by afkabl2

Incorrect.

#209 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

it was a damned good guess though.,..ADMIT IT

it was a damned good guess though.,..ADMIT IT

#214 | Posted by afkabl2

Yeah, hell, you had a 1 in 9 chance of getting it right, which would be right around your average.

Time for some level-headedness here - there are too many people here that just try to promote their party rather than look at ideas. Let's take the first item: "Is she a racist?" That question is obviously no and I think anybody who claims she is, is just playing party politics and loses any legitimacy for future comments.

Second, she is connected to some groups that support Aztlan and La Raza but just knowing people in those racist groups doesn't mean that you're a racist. Kinda like just because you go to a protestant church in the south doesn't make you a member of the KKK, even if there are some Klan members in the congregation.

I think the whole "If a white man said this" thing is a stray argument. It's the Right wing copying the illegitimate standards of proof of the Leftists. This promotes division and a confrontational attitude. For all intents and purposes there are no racists in America yea, there are VERY LOW numbers of idiotic extremists of all colors but for the most part this country is one of the most peaceful and most diverse in the world.

Anyway, there are going to be some Leftist Senators not voting for her because of the abortion issue she is a Catholic, you know. And there will be a few middle America Democrats that will have a hard time, as well, because of her 2nd Amendment history.

But, no, she is not a racist, even if she made racist comments in front of a racist organization.

Yeah, hell, you had a 1 in 9 chance of getting it right, which would be right around your average.

#215 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009

I knew you wouldnt admit it anyway

putz :)

spiel

she isnt JUST in la raza

she is on the national board

la raza

calls for drivers liscense for illegal

free health care
free education

and remember the LEFTs outrage and demonizing of rick perry when he just uttered the word secession

LA RAZA at one time talked about some southwestern states withdrawing from the union

anybets THIS is the only place you will read that...

Sotomayer is a racist.

That fact is self evident.

So what?

None of that matters.

Obama won.

Sotomayer is qualified.

The Senate must confirm her.

you DID give the one bright spot..
on one abortion issue she did rule differntly than you would expect but I believe the judgment was that the tax payer sholdnt have to PAY for it which doesnt mean that she doesnt support the taking of innocent life

and let me end my part of this thread about her or rather the media

HER stoRY...fuck it...doesnt matter anymore

alberto gonzalez was much poored than this lady's family...migrant workers

and clarence thomas was equally as poor as well as the other republican hispanic judge..what WAS his name...ezmerelda or something like that

tHEY werent sainted and CRIED over like this lady and their story is every bit as "AMERICAN" as hers

so when it comes to reading about her story again

FUCK IT...doesnt matter anymroe

she may be qualified, that's what the hearings will determined. Newt is a pain - but is right on this. If someone says that they are more qualified because of race or gender, they are racist and are seeking for others to discriminated based on those characteristics.

If a white guy said, because I'm a male and white, and this is a white-male dominated world - I have better qualifications than others because of my world perspective - he'd be discarded in a minute, and perhaps an attempt to disbar him would ensue.

"If someone says that they are more qualified because of race or gender,"

Except, of course, she didn't say that. She said someone with certain background and experience in life could reach a better conclusion than someone one without those things.

She didn't say one race or gender was better, or more qualified. Perhaps that sentence was poorly phrased, but certainly no way approaching "racist". Combined with reading the rest of the point she was making in that speech, it is more than obvious she was talking about how life experiences impact your decision-making. Sort of like what Alito referenced in HIS confirmation hearings.

Sotomayer is a racist.

Sotomayer is a quota-Hispanic - a female Hispanic first, a judge second.

Sotomayer got a leg up in college because of her gender and race.

All of that is true.

But it simply does not matter according to the U.S. Constitution.

Obama won.

Sotomayer is qualified.

The Senate must confirm her.

Trust me they will find drugs and/or prostitution in her background.

I'm not worried.

Trust me they will find drugs and/or prostitution in her background

You mean like snorting coke off of Gannon's cock. Renamblacans get off on that kind of stuff.

Newt, you're wrong again.

You mean like snorting coke off of Gannon's cock.

#226 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

NO.
I didn't mean that.
I , up to now, was unfamiliar with that as a delivery mechanism for cocaine...but still, I am not just going to take your word for it.

Doesn't anyone give a crap about all of Sotomayor's illegitimate bambinos!!!!!!!

Where is the OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!

NO.
I didn't mean that.
I , up to now, was unfamiliar with that as a delivery mechanism for cocaine...but still, I am not just going to take your word for it.

Posted by 8roper at 2009-05-28 01:06 PM | Flag: Going to try it

she said "a wise Latina woman" might make better judgments in "race and sex discrimination cases" than a "white male who hasn't lived that life."

Does she also believe a 'rich white male' might make better judgments in 'corporate/financial cases' than a 'wise Latina woman' who grew up poor?

Her supporters know nothing about her other than who nominated her. Tools who should be slapped for their stupidity.

Sotomayor's been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court justice since the Clinton years, SlicksterWilly. We know a lot more about her than you probably did about Roberts or Alito.

-Does she also believe a 'rich white male' might make better judgments in 'corporate/financial cases' than a 'wise Latina woman' who grew up poor?

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]"

Reading, Slicky. It's fundamental. (so you should like it)

NO.
I didn't mean that.
I , up to now, was unfamiliar with that as a delivery mechanism for cocaine...but still, I am not just going to take your word for it.

Posted by 8roper at 2009-05-28 01:06 PM | Flag: Going to try it

#230 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-05-28 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Has a Weird Way of Trying to Flirt With Me. No Thanks.

She is a racist and a sexist.

As the above poster mentioned:
she said "a wise Latina woman" might make better judgments in "race and sex discrimination cases" than a "white male who hasn't lived that life."

Now I voted for Obama and I like him. He's been a pretty good president so far. There are some things i do disagree with but that happens.

I can guarantee that if a white male said something similar to the above of what she said he would be labeled a sexist, a racist, and would not be confirmed. On top of that he would lose his job and his right to do it.

You liberals know that to be true. It's happened already where white males lost their job for saying something similar to what she said.

Why do Americans live double standard lives?

Correction: If she is a Director on La Raza then she should not be confirmed.

If she is a Director on La Raza then she should not be confirmed.

#236 | Posted by Spielmannsfluch

So far the only thing that I've been able to get on that comes from WorldNetDaily.

BORK Bork Bork Bork
BORK Bork Bork Bork.......

Bork this lady.

What Sotomayor said sounds much better than,
"there's a pubic hair on my coke can".

Ah, the Peter Principle in effect.

I see the thread has reached it's level of incompetency.

she said "a wise Latina woman" might make better judgments in "race and sex discrimination cases" than a "white male who hasn't lived that life."

#235 | Posted by pragmatous

I believe that a previous poster added the words in "race and sex discrimination cases". Those were not her original words, nor was that her premise in the speech.

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]"

Judge Sotomayor, do you consider these decisions legally incorrect or legally correct? There is a big difference between unpopular but legally correct and unpopular and decided based on popularity.

Also, to address those cases were the US Supreme Court overturned your decision. Do you believe the courts decision was legally correct to reverse you?

Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life.

I can guarantee that if a white male said something similar to the above of what she said he would be labeled a sexist, a racist, and would not be confirmed.

#235 | Posted by pragmatous

He's right. If the tables were turned, there would be an outcry that would ring throughout the valley and back.

And a white nominee would be hounded to hell.

The day that Imus was crucified, someone put together a rap medly of black artists calling black women nappy headed hoes, bitches, sluts, skanks and combinations of curses even i haven't thought of yet. But, no outcry, no mention of it.

What you soon find is that issues like this are only important when they support or kill a political agenda.

But Imus is back on the air and Ms. Sotomayer should be confirmed ASAP.

change the latina in statement to white man -put any racial group in the place of the white mam in same statement and you would have to call it both racist and sexist-jus because it was made by hespanic womwn dosen't change the sexism and racism that is the underlyin mindset
jasman

"So far the only thing that I've been able to get on that comes from WorldNetDaily."

It was a dumb racist comment. But I wouldn't begrudge anyone else for making a singular, dumb racist comment, so she should be confirmed. She's qualified and moderate.

The lefties are hypocritical about it though, because if it was a white guy saying that about wise white men and their ability to make better decisions than Latina women, he would be labeled a racist/sexist and his career destroyed.

#246 | Posted by salamandagator

Yes, that information was previously known. The point was someone said she was a DIRECTOR of LaRaza.

Sorry i took that to mean she was part of the leadership.

Carry on then.

Reading, Slicky. It's fundamental. (so you should like it)
Nice attempt at deflection, but you haven't address the question. If she believes what she said and you support her statement, would you agree that a 'rich white male' might make better judgments in 'corporate/financial cases' than a 'wise Latina woman' who grew up poor?

and the National Council of La Raza....
amazing.

While I'm guessing that most of our right-leaning friends will not bother to read any of this, I'm going to post it anyway. At least you will have the OPPORTUNITY to learn more.

#192 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-05-28 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

I wouldn't go that far, but there is a slight resemblance to R. Crumb's Devil Girl.

And in any case Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not exactly a Hottie-With-A-Naughty-Body.

Is she on the board of La Raza or not?

And don't try to wash over La Raza with their mission statement.

Their actions and words speak much louder.

2. Support of Separatist Organizations
3. Reconquista and Segregation

Code for reconquering all that Mexico thinks they lost.

Is she on the board of La Raza or not?

And don't try to wash over La Raza with their mission statement.

Their actions and words speak much louder.

#254 | Posted by MURPHY

No, she isn't.

And I know how you hate to be bothered with that whole learning thing, but if you click on the link you'll see it isn't just a mission statement. They address all of the misinformation being spread by the Billorushannity's of the world.

Try it and surprise me, Murphy.

2. Support of Separatist Organizations
3. Reconquista and Segregation

Code for reconquering all that Mexico thinks they lost.

#255 | Posted by MURPHY

For heaven's sake Murphy - READ dammit, READ. Maybe then you won't make a fool of yourself so often.

What's Murphy pissing herself over today?

For heaven's sake Murphy - READ dammit, READ. Maybe then you won't make a fool of yourself so often.

#257 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Yeah good luck with that one.

Nobody knows how stupid Murphy is when she's folding laundry. You would think she would stick to that.

"Reconquista"

Come and take it.

BORK Bork Bork Bork
BORK Bork Bork Bork.......

Bork this lady.

#238 | Posted by 8roper at

interesting

we are told to be carefull what we say by the white house press secty

and LESS THAN AN HOUR after bork was announced

ted kennedy,....the murdering ASS PIECE OF shit was on the senate floor lying his murdering drunken ass off about it..

so this is mild compared to that

So they try to wash over their own name--

And Obama wants her to "walk the white steps and get some justice in there".

Like there isn't any justice in the SCOTUS now?

Trying to find the youtube.

La Raza's Board of Directors

#259 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

go back and look and see if she was on there

this could have been changed in the past two days and you know that......

she has supported their issues for sure such as the things I mentioned earlier

and being a part of la raza should be an automatic throwout or any group like that..

unless we can put one on their who was in the

THE WHITE IS SUPREME club..

"So they try to wash over their own name-- It means literally 'The Race'."

So, unlike English, and virtually every other modern language, Spanish words have only ONE meaning?

Got it!

"La Raza is not a mainstream organization."

Why? Because Billorushannity said so?

And San--go surprise yourself--don't depend on me.

#263 | Posted by MURPHY

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured.

#265 | Posted by afkabl2

Ah, the other "don't mess me up with facts" poster child arrives.

Boy, Murphy doesn't have a fucking clue about La Raza.

Murphy, you sound so fucking stupid to everyone because you get false information from stupid fucking people.

Just in case you were wondering.

You are one of the sorest, most pathetic losers I have ever seen.

Boy, Murphy doesn't have a fucking clue about La Raza.

#268 | Posted by Manypaths

Nor does she wish to have one. She has her marching orders and there is nothing on earth that can divert her from them.

Funny how unconvincing 0bama pseudo sycophant Cadenhead chimes in to feebly demonstrate his submissiveness to the mechanical liberal manifesto that Barry can do no wrong lest the DR Left deride him as blasphemous and unworthy. Way to go Wogers you wittle wascal you.

No San--it's 9 years of Spanish talking.

Boy are you and MP gullible. Keep gulping the koolaid and don't question anything.

Talk about marching orders.

And in case you are wondering why La Raza is out of the mainstream--

Here are some reasons why--

A group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens (this is by far the most ridiculous)

Amnesty programs--

And no immigration law enforcement by local and state police--yes-- just have illegals here and no one knows who they are or why they are here.

I am sure other people have more reasons than those.

"Boy are you and MP gullible. Keep gulping the koolaid and don't question anything."

Right. Says the one who refuses to consider ANY information that doesn't conform to your preconception.

And, of course, 9 whole years of Spanish trumps a native speaker, and their familiarity of idiomatic Spanish, right?

Q: Does NCLR support an amnesty?

A: No. NCLR supports a path to citizenship for immigrant workers that requires them to earn permanent status over time. Unlike amnesty which is an immediate and complete pardon to earn permanent status an immigrant would have to register with the government, undergo a criminal background check, maintain a clean record, pay all taxes, learn English, and pay a fine to the government. This is very different from an "amnesty."

#273 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

LOL

LOL

#275 | Posted by MURPHY

Why is that funny? You're saying your "9 years" of Spanish makes you more expert in the language than a native speaker. Yes or no?

I have to say, the statement she made was 100% racist. It is the definition of racist. People call others racist over remarks that aren't even close to being as racist as what she said. She clearly holds the belief that her race makes her superior to white males. That is as racist as it gets.

"I have to say, the statement she made was 100% racist. "

Didn't read the entire speech, did you?

"She clearly holds the belief that her race makes her superior to white males. "

She did not say that, nor did she insinuate that. Read the entire speech, and see if you get it. Otherwise, you're just parading your ignorance.

Hey, did you guys see the new ad at the top of this blog.

It's called Afro romance and it seems to show a good looking white guy making whoopie with a lovely black lady.

LOL

#275 | Posted by MURPHY

Why is that funny? You're saying your "9 years" of Spanish makes you more expert in the language than a native speaker. Yes or no?

#276 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I hate to speak for someone else, but I think Murphy was probably laughing at YOU, just as a general concept.

I hate to speak for someone else, but I think Murphy was probably laughing at YOU, just as a general concept.

#280 | Posted by 8roper

Wow, that rapier wit of yours sure does cut to the bone. Don't know how I'll recover.

SHE IS!

Well she is a member of La Raza!

Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Plus she's overweight. Wonder how she'd rule on mandatory health care? NOT!!!!!!!

Except, of course, she didn't say that. She said someone with certain background and experience in life could reach a better conclusion than someone one without those things.
She didn't say one race or gender was better, or more qualified. Perhaps that sentence was poorly phrased, but certainly no way approaching "racist". Combined with reading the rest of the point she was making in that speech, it is more than obvious she was talking about how life experiences impact your decision-making. Sort of like what Alito referenced in HIS confirmation hearings.

#223 | POSTED BY SANANTONIOROGUE AT 2009-05-28 12:53 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, difference is that she tied her background and experience directly to her gender and race. Again, some dude saying because I'm white male, i've had xyz experience and can make better decisions - would instantly be labeled a racist.

Why is that funny? You're saying your "9 years" of Spanish makes you more expert in the language than a native speaker. Yes or no?

#276 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

When interpreting what "La Raza" means from Spanish to English--Yeah!

It's a no brainer.

Why is that funny? You're saying your "9 years" of Spanish makes you more expert in the language than a native speaker. Yes or no?

#276 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

When interpreting what "La Raza" means from Spanish to English--

Si...

Here knock yourself out--

Here is the one for 'community'

Still on the Raza topic?

"Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR's oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans"

You were asking about their board members?? Bet you didn't let Raza stick in your crotch in 2005 when the AG was a board memeber.

Told you that Murphy didn't know a God Damn thing about them.

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch......that is ALL that you do.

Do you grasp the concept of idioms, Murphy?

Do you know what the origin of the term "La Raza" is, who wrote the book it was taken from, and what philosophy it espoused?

No, because you don't WANT to know.

Rush said she's a racist, and by God, that's good enough for you.

I just want Murphy to call Gonzo a racist now.

Where did I say she was a racist?--Dunderhead.

And the conservatives did give Gonzo a hard time--but if you will read--

"the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans"

Is NOT La Raza--but an affiliate.

And Gonzo is gone--good riddance.

Given the fact that I have yet to see much in the way of consternation regarding her legal arguments - this is a waste of time.

This is a fight the GOP won't engage and she'll be easily elected with a strong Dem majority. She's replacing a very liberal justice, so this appointment doesn't change the chemistry of the court at the end of the day.

Having said all of that, certain aspects of this nomination disturb me. My concerns start with her "contentious" comment, and, more specifically, the lefties collective orgasm resulting from it.

How in the hell does her 'minority' background, by itself, in any way make her a superior choice as an SC justice? The answer - it doesn't. Yet, somehow, the left "seems" to view the fact that this candidate is latino and has a vagina as making her instantly superior regardless of her intellectual accumen and her legal knowledge.

In fairness, I know very little about this woman. Her successful nomination is a foregone conclusion, thus I have chosen not to delve deeply into her past - for me, her future actions in her new position will define her.

I am simply using this as but one classic example of how the left loves to deplore racism, misogyny, bigotry, etc. and in the process of making their point they employ the very same tactics they supposedly abhor.

Ironic.

Going further...

Obama made it very clear that he wanted either a woman and/or minority to take Souter's place.

That was his first criteria!.

Do you all realize how fucked-up that is?

If Bush had said that his first choice had to be a white male - you all would be going apeshit.

Double-standard anyone?

Bullshit anyone?

"How in the hell does her 'minority' background, by itself, in any way make her a superior choice as an SC justice? The answer - it doesn't. Yet, somehow, the left "seems" to view the fact that this candidate is latino and has a vagina as making her instantly superior regardless of her intellectual accumen and her legal knowledge."

That's a load, Jeff.

And talk about fucked up? How fucked up is it that in one breath you admit you don't know much about her and haven't bothered to delve into her qualifications, and then in the next breath say its only her ethnicity or gender that got her chosen.

That kind of hypocrisy is really not worthy of you.

Going further...

Obama made it very clear that he wanted either a woman and/or minority to take Souter's place.

That was his first criteria!.

Do you all realize how fucked-up that is?

If Bush had said that his first choice had to be a white male - you all would be going apeshit.

Double-standard anyone?

Bullshit anyone?

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-28 08:42 PM | Reply

How is that fucked up wanting a Woman and a Minority for SCOTUS?? Isn't the SCOTUS supposed to be a reflection upon those who they work for. Yes even though they are topguns as far as Justice is concerned they do work for We the People.

Larry

If Bush had said that his first choice had to be a white male - you all would be going apeshit.

Double-standard anyone?

Bullshit anyone?

#296 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-28 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag: White male pissed about losing white male privileges

Yet, somehow, the left "seems" to view the fact that this candidate is latino and has a vagina as making her instantly superior regardless of her intellectual accumen and her legal knowledge."

Posted by JeffJ

I have to disagree. Her life story is amazing. Have you seen her life story? It's been on every network since the announcement. And man, what a life story. Only a few will ever have a life story on par with her life story. Hell, Mary Lou Retton pales by comparison when discussing life stories. Not to mention George Obama. Did I mention her life story?

If Bush had said that his first choice had to be a white male - you all would be going apeshit.

Double-standard anyone?

Bullshit anyone?

Sure.

Spud'll call bullshit on that one.

Yer comparison would only having meaning if the court wasn't already over represented with white males.

Since the SCOTUS is made up of 10 white guys,
1 black guy and one white woman yer analogy falls
somewot flat.

Be Well.

Since the SCOTUS is made up of 10 white guys,
1 black guy and one white woman yer analogy falls
somewot flat.

Be Well.

#301 | Posted by dethspud

7 white guys Spud.

Since the SCOTUS is made up of 10 white guys,
1 black guy and one white woman yer analogy falls
somewot flat.

Be Well.

#301 | Posted by dethspud

Great criteria. Should have expected it. Best and Brightest are foreign terms in Canada.

Q: What has 18 legs and four tits?
A: The United States Supreme Court

Are you telling us Justice Ginsberg is deformed, or perhaps Justice Scalia?

Great criteria. Should have expected it. Best and Brightest are foreign terms in Canada.

#303 | Posted by wisgod

Is the historical primacy of white males on the SCOTUS based on the fact that they hired "the best and the brightest" or because of they were "the best connected and the whitest"?

In a true representative democracy the people's representatives in congress, the senate and the SCOTUS should resemble the demographic diversity.

Or are you saying the white and male is "best"?

Be Well.

Ginsberg clearly has a brain deformity. Scalia, not so much.

Are you telling us Justice Ginsberg is deformed, or perhaps Justice Scalia?

Reminds Spud of a joke.

Why do they call the space between a womans breasts and her hips a "waist"?

Cos you could easily fit another pair of tits in there!

/Actually think Goat's joke was formed back when Sandy Day O'Conner was still around.

Be Well.

7 white guys Spud

LOL.

* head desk *

/Was hoping nobody would spot that one.

Be Well.

Actually think Goat's joke was formed back when Sandy Day O'Conner was still around.

Yes it was. I modified the number of mammalian protuberances (thanks, fz) for the current SCOTUS. Wish we had a one legged member. That would make for a better joke.

I modified the number of mammalian protuberances (thanks, fz) for the current SCOTUS. Wish we had a one legged member. That would make for a better joke.

#310 | Posted by goatman

So then I'm still confused. Who has the other 2 tits?

So then I'm still confused. Who has the other 2 tits?

My bad -- two tits. I already had Sotomeyer seated for some reason

That's a relief.

Clarence Thomas might have man-boobs, though.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm there are 18 Tits on the Supreme Court. 16 Mantits and 2 Woman tits. But 18 nonetheless.

Larry

Sure she's a racist. But she's the right kind of racist.

Gingrich knows better than that.
White conservatives aren't permitted to use that word unless speaking of one of their own.
Everyone knows that. Common knowledge. Ask any university grad.

I already had Sotomeyer seated for some reason

#312 | Posted by goatman

Give it 70 days.

Can't Obama find a liberal wacko judge like Ginsberg who is not also a known racist?

And talk about fucked up? How fucked up is it that in one breath you admit you don't know much about her and haven't bothered to delve into her qualifications, and then in the next breath say its only her ethnicity or gender that got her chosen.

If she's imminently qualified AND happens to be both latino and a chick - Hoorah!

My beef comes from the fact that Obama openly stated that he wanted a woman and/or minority to replace Souter. That was his FIRST criteria. Essentially, with his statement, he seemed to be pre-emptively excluding certain candidates, regardless of their qualifications and capabilities.

Yer comparison would only having meaning if the court wasn't already over represented with white males.

Since the SCOTUS is made up of 10 white guys,
1 black guy and one white woman yer analogy falls
somewot flat.

Here's the thing - I could care less what the racial and gender breakdown of the court is. It could carry zero white men and I'd be cool with it IF those sitting on the court were there on their own accord, that they were imminently qualified to be there. Hell, of those currently sitting, the least qualified (at the time nominated) is Clarence Thomas - a black man.

Trying to be fair on this issue, I would say at best, that her comment at a La Raza event is about on par with the comment that was made at Stom Thurman's 100th birthday (about we might have a much better country if he had been elected). A little worse, as this was probably a rehearsed and prepared speech, as opposed to an off-the-cuff comment.

Still, flag it as bad, but not career ending. However, it does imply a bit about her thought process, and I think that should be reviewed carefully. A racist on the court (pro-hispanic) would be no better than a skin-head on the court, in my opinion.

Now, the fact that she has allegedly [to be honest, I have not had the time to review her decisions or the reasons they were overturned] had the majority of her decisions overturned is cause for more concern, if true.

Finally, there is the fireman case. Again, going on what I have heard, this is a clear case of Racism used against 14 white men and 1 hispanic man. Not "reverse" racism. Pure, unhypehated racism. The idea that a city can created and promote a test, and then throw out the results because they didn't like the winners is simply wrong. That they made the decision to throw out the results based on race makes the decision racist. If they made the decision based on sex, it would be sexist. Either way, it is wrong.

Using racism in an attempt at leveling the playing field gets us no closer to a color-blind society... it just changes who gets to be the victim.

I have never like the notion that skin color matters more than anything else.

I would rather have Thomas than Souter, and I am a white male.

Heck, I would take another O'Conner over Souter... and she wasn't my favorite justice.

Thomas over Souter,
Thomas has barely spoken a word.
O'Conner,true arizonan

In fairness, I know very little about this woman. Her successful nomination is a foregone conclusion, thus I have chosen not to delve deeply into her past - for me, her future actions in her new position will define her.

#295 | Posted by JeffJ

JeffJ - while her appointment is a foregone conclusion, The repub Congress has a duty to point out her racism..... and a duty to point out that the Dems are willing to appoint a judge who rules based on emotion ( admittedly). They should make Americans aware of a de facto appointment because of her race and racist background. Nobody with a brain thinks that that is fair or correct for a SCOTUS appointment. The repubs should illustrate it and point it out to the TV viewing audience as much as possible...while it is a foregone conclusion, I want as many Americans as possible to be shown exactly what is going on here.
So the repubs cannot roll over and be silent, they just have to hammer this issue home with calmness and without venturing off into where the dems can spring the "racist !" trap that Obama has tried to set.

"Gingrich calls Sotomayor a racist"

I love it. Only a conservative could say it in one sentence rather than taking 100 lines as required by you liberal DICK HEADS.

Considering the way I have seen "racist/racism" tossed around on the DR...you lefties would be going a bit nuts if a repub had made a comment like Sotomayor made.

This just in: Sonia Sotomayor has called Gingrich a
Newt.

Who cares what Newt or Coulter or Limpball has to say
They want to stay in the Headlines.
But I say they are irrelevant!

Tush Limball. Outstanding.

#327 TIGER150: "This just in"

YOU EAT SHIT!

#330 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Amazing the things a 12 year old boy thinks are funny or clever.

#324 | Posted by 8roper

Agreed, Roper.

Now, the fact that she has allegedly [to be honest, I have not had the time to review her decisions or the reasons they were overturned] had the majority of her decisions overturned is cause for more concern, if true.

#321 | Posted by 1libertarian

She hasn't had the "majority of her decisions overturned", but rather 60% of her decisions that went to the SC were overturned.

Just as a point of info, the SC averages about a 75% rate of overturning cases that come before it.

And, she had some 400 decisions before the SC, many more than most. 5 out of 400? Not bad.

Civil Cases: Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored the majority opinion over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor's opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court's more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor's views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter. (From SCOTUSBlog.com)

Speaking of racists....

#173 | Posted by moomanfl
]
OKAY LETS

less than an hour after the announcement teddy the murdering HERO of the left began the allout assault with more lies than he told about mary jo

bork was so CRIMINALLY treated that the noun became a verb

clarence thomas...lady on mcclaughlin said at the time that she wished his wife would feed him all sorts of bad food so he would get heart desease and die...

democrats beat up janis rogers brown a black republican and then went after gonzalez and the other guy who spent several months in limbo because he was A HISPANIC and thus a DANGER in the words of one democrat dickhead...

and another one treated in a dispicable and almost criminal but definitely unamerican way was roberts who dems beat up so bad his wife had to leave the room in tears

BUT WHEN the democrat fuckers put up a latino woman..

ITS HANDS OFF YOU REPUBLICANS and even the FUCKIN LIAR In the white house's press secretary warns people about critizing her.....

the really bad thing is many americans are being duped as badly as you folks here are...

the really bad thing is many americans are being duped as badly as you folks here are...

#336 | Posted by afkabl2

LOL!

Sa her own words guide us

she will rule according to her 'emphathy' and based on the peoples skin color and she will do whatever she can to make policy..

HER WORDS NOT MINE

HEy can I have the blindfold on lady justice because we wont have any need for it after she LIES UNDER OATH..

the really bad thing is many americans are being duped as badly as you folks here are...

#336 | Posted by afkabl2

with the exception of perhaps Johnson here in DR, u are the selfretorter of the day in my book of nonsense so far today:>)

she will rule according to her 'emphathy' and based on the peoples skin color and she will do whatever she can to make policy..

HER WORDS NOT MINE

#338 | Posted by afkabl2

Well, bits and pieces of her words, anyway - just the sort of thing you usually do.

I assume, however, that you opposed both Judge Alito's confirmation since he made almost identical comments about his decision-making process.

And I imagine you roundly condemned Bush I for saying that Clarence Thomas' "empathy" was one of the characteristics that he admired in a judge.

Right?

Right?

with the exception of perhaps Johnson here in DR, u are the selfretorter of the day in my book of nonsense so far today:>)

#339 | Posted by Bani at 2009-05-29 02:32

one of the tenants of facism is to silence its critics..
maybe obama will welcome you into that club with some free shit that you dont deserve

JUST dont start screaming at him like that one guy...LOL

I assume, however, that you opposed both Judge Alito's confirmation since he made almost identical comments about his decision-making process.

not completely true as you left out I believe the part where alito said that he would make better judgments than people of another color and he didnt say anything about making policy from the bench either...

and oh yeah...he was crucified by dems and now you say that we cant even talk about this woman...as in the post before yours

and THATS where I call BULLSHIT

but just to you

BULLSHIT SIR........:)

and there is some other interesting news about some of her cases coming to light

one about something with a principal and a student who called him some name or something..

more to come later..AS LONG as the pussy republicans dont let them ram this one through like the other facist shit.

"you left out I believe the part where alito said that he would make better judgments than people of another color"

Neither did she.

"and he didnt say anything about making policy from the bench either..."

And I'll see your "bullshit" and raise you a "horse puckey"...

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) notes that federal appellate courts do in fact have a "policy making" role:

The courts of appeals have also gained prominence because of the substance of their caseload. For their first twenty five years, these courts dealt primarily with private law appeals. Diversity cases (suits between citizens of different states), bankruptcy, patent, and admiralty cases made up most of their work. However, as federal regulation increased, first during the Progressive Era, then during the New Deal, and finally during the 1960s and 1970s, the role of the courts of appeals changed as appeals from federal administrative agencies became a larger part of their caseload. Other developments that increased these courts' policy making importance were the increased scope of federal prosecutions, especially those dealing with civil rights, drugs, racketeering, and political corruption, increased private litigation over various types of discrimination; and litigation concerning aliens' attempts to gain political asylum. Also adding to their importance were their post 1954 use to oversee school desegregation and reform of state institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals, along with controversies like that over abortion.

Indeed, during the May 26 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News chief justice correspondent Pete Williams said of Sotomayor's Duke comments: "Even some conservatives and followers of strict constructionism have said that she was only stating the obvious: that trial judges, district court judges, decide only the cases before them, and that appeals courts, because they are the above the other courts, do set policy; they do make precedent that governs the other courts.

if you EVER want me to swallow what you are peddling....( oops...wrong to put that wasnt it..LOL)..

then you will find something more than media matters.
if you can scoff off rush and fox as unworthy then I can do the same for this biased and prejudiced SO CALLED journalistic network

and lets not forget the history of her appointment as well

H W .,..41...was being rebuffed by dems...and he wanted 4 judges.

according to judicial watch...the irish guy from boston told him that he would see that 3 passed through but he wanted to pick the 4th...bush said okay and he picked this racist.
when time for BLoWJOB to move her up...almost 30 republicans all voted no
and WHY......she was going to make policy and rule with "EMPHATHY"

and now you know the REST of the story

good day!!!

"then you will find something more than media matters."

Media Matters didn't WRITE it you twit, its from the The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005).

Next up: Guess who said this??

"In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often 'make law,' since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed."

you can come up with all of that bull that you have time for which seems to be considerable

GET A FRICKIN JOB.............

whats amazing is the guy next to me has listened to a gibbs press conference online for about 20 mins...

he must not be able to hear all of the uh's and I'll have to get back to yous..

OR WORSE>>IM sitting next to a ''''GASP>>..liberal

BETTER WATCH MY WALLET

you can come up with all of that bull

#348 | Posted by afkabl2

Translation: I have no answer when presented with the truth and facts.

Its OK, I understand and feel your pain.

here is a little post of my own

You see, we already know how this nominee would rule on Second Amendment rights: she doesn't believe we HAVE any!

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So what does it mean, that Obama now nominated Sotomayor to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court? It means that any progress we've been making lately... WILL BE REVERSED.

While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks... President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court may take up this issue of incorporation during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

So, JUDGE Sotomayor ruled against our Second Amendment gun rights in Maloney v. Cuomo. If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court... would JUSTICE Sotomayor recuse herself from deliberations?

SA THIS ALONE will get her supporters in trouble with the NRA

MY latest group to join after the tax protests groups and the states rights groups

I also joined the fruit of the month club but thats another story...

(lets see if you have gotten any better with the straight line I just gave you

"Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo."

That is correct. She was part of a panel that made that ruling.

Relying on the Supreme Court's 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was "settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the FEDERAL government seeks to impose" on the individual's right to bear arms.

So, in essence, the precedent law they cited says the Second Amendment protects us from the FEDERAL government imposing restrictions on our rights, but that the STATES have the right to establish their own laws.

Now Ish, In virtually ANY other instance you would stand and applaud a ruling upholding state's rights.

You wouldn't be one of them thar hippiecrits, would ya?

If anyone here has heard about Sotomayor's quote about Latina women and white men and wants to know more, here are a couple quotes from her 2001 speech and under the quotes is a link to the full speech.

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."

And, of course, she was speaking specifically about race and sex discrimination cases. I can't imagine what kind of moron would think that a minority female would have a more complete and complex view of sex and race discrimination than a white male....

She must be a racist!

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch......that is ALL that you do.

Posted by Manypaths

Stick to what you do best, I always say. : )