That's OK.

Chocolate Carter chose his judge poorly, too.

There's a pattern of "poor" here, for anyone choosing to look...

January 2013.

Republicans dash against Sotomayor like a moth to the flame. They can't help themselves. What's interesting is speculation Obama understood that.

Why doesn'tr the bitch come out with an apology and some new words instead of having white males apologize for her?

FW-
It's "the bitch" now? I just can't imagine why someone would think your hatred of her had anything to do with her sex.

She'll get her chance at the hearings to explain the comment.

She'll get her chance at the hearings to explain the comment.

I'm sure the spin has already been written AAMOF

Do any of you morons understand that the context of her statement was race and sex discrimination cases?

Do any of you morons understand that the context of her statement was race and sex discrimination cases?

I can't speak for the morons, but I understand. I also understand that the law is to be interpreted without emotion or bias. She was suggesting that she would use both because of her race/gender.

Sotomayor's point was that on immigration issue she would HOPE a wise Latina woman would arrive at a better decision.

She then went on to say that judges should always strive to be more than the sum of their parts and learn to appreciate and understand the perspectives of those unlike themselves.

There was nothing in her comments the White House had to walk back.

Do any of you morons understand that the context of her statement was race and sex discrimination cases?

Even the WH understands she misspoke. Too bad you can't see it too, boyd.

Thank you for your reply, Goatman. My question was, however, "Do any of you morons understand that the context of her statement was race and sex discrimination cases?", to which you didn't respond.

Perhaps because I am not a moron.

I can't speak for the morons, but I understand. I also understand that the law is to be interpreted without emotion or bias. She was suggesting that she would use both because of her race/gender.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-29 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, you moron. She was saying that it is impossible to completely avoid one's experiences in shaping ones decisions and wisdom. You seem to believe that the objective standard of impartial justice is in a white male package, and any deviation from the "norm" is suspect. Either that or you believe that white males are alone in their superhuman capacity for omniscience.

She was saying that it is impossible to completely avoid one's experiences in shaping ones decisions and wisdom

She won't make a very good judge then.

You seem to believe that the objective standard of impartial justice is in a white male package, and any deviation from the "norm" is suspect. Either that or you believe that white males are alone in their superhuman capacity for omniscience.

There you go assigning positions to me again, boyd. Why do you play that same tired stupid game night after night?

Later

I believe Obama's explanation over my lying eyes and ears.

-The Left

Perhaps because I am not a moron.

#12 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-29 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you believe that a person's background has no influence on his or her decisions on the court? If so, then you are a moron.

The other option is that you simply prefer the idea of a white male (with his set of experiences) making the decisions because you are a ....can I guess? A white male?

She misspoke--as most will agree --even in context her statement appears racist.

It is a really badly worded comment.

Now is she racist--unlikely.

When you look at the body of her work--it is not supported.

She is a member of La Raza--not a good choice there either--defintely not a good choice.

But she will get to explain that as well.

But she will have her turn to explain what she meant and apologize if she offended anyone.

This shows more about Obama as well and his way of thinking--

I mean he claims that he can't wait for her to get up those steps and "do some justice in there"!!

Like there isn't any justice going up there now?

Obama is an asshole.

She is a member of La Raza--not a good choice there either--defintely not a good choice

The la raza thing troubles me a lot, too.

I also understand that the law is to be interpreted without emotion or bias. She was suggesting that she would use both because of her race/gender.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-29 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you actually believe that the law is interpreted without the inherent bias that accompanies us all throughout our lives based on our experiences and predispositions? You speak of SC Justices as if they were gods (actually, "gods" implies bias; you speak of them as if they were the one and only God)

The la raza thing troubles me a lot, too.

#18 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-29 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

What, specifically?

Boyd--she has a compelling story--so does Thomas for that matter.

And there is latitude for any judge to think back.

But the rule of law is the rule of law.

She doesn't come to a better conclusion because of her background. That is folly. Because the rule of law is supposed to just that--the rule of law.

That is why there is such a stink over her comment.

re: #20

I don't guess I even care to hear about it, Goatman.

Is anyone going to do the Music thread?

Because Boyd--La Raza is outside the mainstream of America.

they want driver's license for everyone here illegally.

They want open borders.

Here is the link for the other 13 reasons.

Murphy-
re: She doesn't come to a better conclusion because of her background. That is folly. Because the rule of law is supposed to just that--the rule of law.

Oddly enough, in the two cases I've heard her most criticized for she followed the law. Maybe you don't like the law as it is, but to criticize a jurist for adhering to the current law seems to be the exact opposite of what you are arguing.

Is anyone going to do the Music thread?

Not I

Here's a crazy hint, Murphy: If you wish to find out what the NCLR advocates, go to their site where they state it clearly. Relying on whatever buffoons you have relied upon to provide you with facts isn't working out so well (if you are concerned with facts)

I could give a crap about her Latina comment I'm worried about her view that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from restricting gun rights not the states.

Taken to it's logical conclusion that type of thinking implies that the prohibition against establishment of religion, the rights to a free press and free speech, judicial due process, requiring warrants for searches/seizures etc. only applies to the Feds not the states.

Sotomayor is definitely not Supreme Court material.

'night folks

"Taken to it's logical conclusion that type of thinking implies that the prohibition against establishment of religion, the rights to a free press and free speech, judicial due process, requiring warrants for searches/seizures etc. only applies to the Feds not the states."

#28 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-05-29 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag: duh

Go for it, Murph....

Why was the bitch speaking at La Raza a well known racist group?

"Ms. Juror Candidate, do you think you could reach an impartial decision in a case where a defendant is charged with violating codes of the Employee Equal Opportunity Commission?"

Candidate: "I think if the defendant were a woman, or Hispanic I could understand such a decision made against the EEOC codes."

I see! Thank you Ms. Juror Candidate. We won't be needing your service for this case. You are dismissed!

A juror can be disqualified for such partiality, but not a Supreme Court Nominee.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm!"

"She has a compelling story." She hates white males and thinks Latinas would make better decisions than white men. Libs call that compelling.

Sure La Raza is racist, but it's the right kind of racist.

Q: What does La Raza for the race everything those outside the race nothing what does this really mean?

Here's a crazy hint, Murphy: If you wish to find out what the NCLR advocates, go to their site where they state it clearly. Relying on whatever buffoons you have relied upon to provide you with facts isn't working out so well (if you are concerned with facts)

#27 | Posted by BetelG

Good luck with that BetelG. I went round with her about that yesterday. She refused to even read any of the positions and policies of La Raza, preferring an unsubstantiated list of grievances by Michelle Malkin.

With the possible exception of Ish Kabibble, Murphy is probably the most willfully ignorant poster on the DR. As soon as she finds something that fits her prejudice, she will not look any further, or consider any other information.

Q: What does La Raza for the race everything those outside the race nothing what does this really mean?

answers.yahoo.com

She belongs to this insane group of racists. Obama wants this woman on your Supreme Court. Wow.

#36 | Posted by zulu

Let me get this straight - you're citing a site where somebody can ask a question, then anybody can write anything they want as an answer?

And this proves, uhm, help me out here.... what?

LOL!

With the possible exception of Ish Kabibble, Murphy is probably the most willfully ignorant poster on the DR. As soon as she finds something that fits her prejudice, she will not look any further, or consider any other information.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

what about Johnson & BL2?

Why was the bitch speaking at La Raza a well known racist group?

#32 | Posted by fwthom

I don't know. Why did John McCain, George W. Bush and Karl Rove speak there? Why was Alberto Gonzales a member? Why did he serve on the board of directors for a LaRaza affiliate?

Did I miss your howls of outrage over those things?

'As soon as she finds something that fits her prejudice, she will not look any further, or consider any other information.'

How astute! You have captured the essence of Sotomayer perfectly. I envy your powers.

what about Johnson & BL2?

#39 | Posted by Bani

Ish Kabibble is BL2. Johnson is an unbalanced racist homophobe, but not willfully ignorant.

How astute! You have captured the essence of Sotomayer perfectly. I envy your powers.

#41 | Posted by zulu

Did you get that from answers.yahoo? *eye roll.

'And this proves, uhm, help me out here.... what?'

Nobody who pays dues to a hate group should be on the Supreme Court . . .

This you didn't understand?

I could give a crap about her Latina comment I'm worried about her view that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from restricting gun rights not the states.

#28 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Actually you have it backwards. That ruling said that the second amendment only applied if the Federal Gov't tried to impose restrictions on a citizen, but that state governments could enforce their own rules.

Now tell me you folks don't usually cheer wildly at even the hint of support for states rights?

She belongs to this insane group of racists. Obama wants this woman on your Supreme Court. Wow.

#36 | Posted by zulu

Excellent. Sounds like she would be great at pissing off all you rtards.

Nobody who pays dues to a hate group should be on the Supreme Court . . .

This you didn't understand?

#44 | Posted by zulu

Should they be Attorney General of the United States?

#45 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-29 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Failed Constitutional Law.

Damn I miss Andy Jackson.

I know I was leaving, but I couldn't help myself.

'Actually you have it backwards. That ruling said that the Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to petition, and to assemble only applied if the Federal Gov't tried to impose restrictions on a citizen, but that state governments could enforce their own rules.'

Who would be alarmed?

abe?

Still wondering, Zulu... if someone who pays dues to a "hate group" shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, should they be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?

'Still wondering, Zulu... if someone who pays dues to a "hate group" shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, should they be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?'

Absolutely NOT! Were you a big fan of Alberto Gonzales? To each their own . . .

The Supreme Court ruled last year, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, for self-defense, in the home.

The Court, however, DID NOT settle whether the Amendment operates against any level of government other than the federal government and a federal entity, the District of Columbia. The Second Circuit, in the Maloney case, ruled that prior Supreme Court precedent saying that the Amendment only applied at the federal level is still binding law. Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge panel that issued the unsigned ruling.

'And this proves, uhm, help me out here.... what?'

Nobody who pays dues to a hate group should be on the Supreme Court . . .

This you didn't understand?

Posted by zulu

does aipac count?

Absolutely NOT! Were you a big fan of Alberto Gonzales? To each their own . . .

#52 | Posted by zulu

Then I'm sure you were quite vocal in your opposition to Gonzales' appointment. And you were probably beside yourself with rage when McCain, Bush, and Rove all went to a "hate group" seeking their endorsement.

Because, I'm sure you're not a hypocrite.

Do you actually believe that the law is interpreted without the inherent bias that accompanies us all throughout our lives based on our experiences and predispositions? You speak of SC Justices as if they were gods (actually, "gods" implies bias; you speak of them as if they were the one and only God)

#19 | Posted by BetelG

Just check the recent 5/4 Washington Gun ban ruling and you will see his point.
Goatman doesn't believe in God,so your attempt to cloud the subject is only natural.
Liberals are a danger to a free society.
Go away boy.

rwd

"abe?"

Μολὼν λάβε

The precedent their decision was based on was when the Supreme Court directly held in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) that the Second Amendment does not bind the states, it reasoned, and lower courts are obligated to follow even antiquated SCOTUS precedent if it is directly on point.

#53 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Soooo.... until if and when the Supreme Court definitively determine if the Second Amendment binds the states in the same manner as Federal entities, it would be hard to argue that the 2nd Circuit decision could have done anything other than rule based on existing SC precedent.

Thanks Data:>)

Molon labe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The words "MOLON LABE" (ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ) in Greek as they are inscribed on the marble of the modern era monument at Thermopylae.
For the Kenneth W. Royce book, see Molon Labe!.

The Greek phrase Molōn labe! (Μολὼν λάβε; approximate Classical Greek pronunciation [molɔ̀ːn lab], Modern Greek [moˈlon laˈve]), meaning "Come and take them!", is a classical expression of defiance reported by Plutarch in response to the Persian Army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons. It corresponds roughly to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body", "bring it on" or, most closely, "come and get it". It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase.

'Then I'm sure you were quite vocal in your opposition to Gonzales' appointment.'

I didn't know Alberto Gonzalas was a member of any hate group. If only you had told me then.

We could have been friends.

"I didn't know Alberto Gonzalas was a member of any hate group."

He wasn't.

'He wasn't.'

Okay. So he wasn't a member of 'The Race' (La Raza)?

Okay. So he wasn't a member of 'The Race' (La Raza)?

#62 | Posted by zulu

Yes, he was, and is.

Actually you have it backwards.

#45 | Posted by SandieAnnie

I take it that English isn't either your mother tongue or primary language Sandie

#64 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

You are correct that I misread your post. Nevertheless, the information I posted about the precedent they used in reaching their decision is valid.

I guess it would probably have been too much to expect for you to actually respond to the substance of the thread.

Be that as it may, I suspect eventually the SC will rule to clarify that the Second Amendment pertains to ALL levels of government, not just federal entities. But as of right now, they have not clearly done that.

She belongs to this insane group of racists.

Sotomayor is a republican?

News to Spud.

K, who wants to blog bet on whether Sotomayor gets confirmed?

Spud thinks she will.

Which will be good fer the Dems.

And if she doesn't?

If the rethugs raise a huge enuff stink about her to prevent her confirmation they will have pissed off the largest growing demographic group in America by doing so.

Which will be even better for the Dems.

Win/Win.

Be Well.

I guess it would probably have been too much to expect for you to actually respond to the substance of the thread.

#65 | Posted by SandieAnnie

Really Sandie?

I could give a crap about her Latina comment

#28 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

And you quoted it in your post #45. Reading comprehension lacking too?

I don't think this was a "poor" choice of words. I think it was a good choice of words for the audience. When talking to an organization that has, well, let's be nice, racist leanings, then you word things to be favorable to them.

Like most of the people here who throw around words like BITCH to describe her would chose much different words in they were in a NOW meeting.

The problem isn't her words, its the idea that she might believe that you should consider the age / race / sex / sexual orientation / financial history or any other "factor" into the decision that is a matter of interpreting the law.

So, murder is wrong, but if your society has been oppressed, you get to see a therapist instead of a warden? If you are a guy that doesn't get a job cause you are white, tough shit, but it you are black then you get millions from the evil corp?

Is this the type of decision we want? I don't, but I may be in a minority on this one.

My fear is that they will spend a few weeks polishing every word she ever said and she will get up there and lie her ass off to get on the court, then make these decisions. I would have more respect for her if she came out and said that she believes racism in favor of blacks and hispanics and women are OK in her book.

Still wouldn't vote for her, but I would respect her more.

The overwhelming argument in defense of Sotomayor is she just isn't really that quick mentally. Not such a good word chooser?

If Obama had nominated Sotomayor as the new dent puller at lefties auto repair I would say okay, shes not so smart but she should be good enough to pull dents.

But Obama isn't asking us to okay hiring her for life to pull dents he wants her on the supreme court for life.

Of all the people this woman has a video on uTube where she makes a blatant racist remark and the Obama supreme court vetting team misses it! These people are amateurs.

Plus she seems to be a pretty sucky judge anyway. Doesn't understand the 2nd amendment. She doesn't have the ability to comprehend discrimination based on skin color.

Next candidate please.

The Supreme Court ruled last year, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, for self-defense, in the home.

The Court, however, DID NOT settle whether the Amendment operates against any level of government other than the federal government and a federal entity, the District of Columbia. The Second Circuit, in the Maloney case, ruled that prior Supreme Court precedent saying that the Amendment only applied at the federal level is still binding law. Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge panel that issued the unsigned ruling.

#53 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I wonder if the Court needs to do the same for the 1st Ammendment? Free speech only applies to the Federal level, but individual states can decide how, or whether, it applies to them.

Libtard parsing of the Constitution to suit their whims.

Libtard parsing of the Constitution to suit their whims.

#70 | Posted by TheOneBS

I didn't parse anything you idiot.

Try doing even just a little basic homework for yourself once in a while. The Supreme Court has never clearly ruled on application of the Second Amendment, other than in cases of federal entities. So existing precedent, as in the case I previously cited, says that states have discretion here.

This case will be an opportunity for the SC to correct that situation and make a clear ruling on the issue. I even wonder if that may be why the 2ns Circuit ruled as they did - to force the issue.

Sotomayor is uniquely qualified?

so was Giethner . . . nuff said there

bring out the next victim

Time for a Acid Test.

If one creates a "White Activist" Group and named it "THE RACE". Would it be racist?

If so, then this same conclusion must be mad as to ANY Race Based Activist group.

I put "The Race"(La Raza) in the same ballpark as the Black Panthers, The KKK, Nazi Low Rdiers/ Aryan Nation and various other Radical Race Based Hate groups.

*made

So that is a good trait of a member of the supreme court? I thought they were to be the wise elders, not the loose mouth youth.

and no amount of apologizing from SAROUGE about LA RAZA or showing us that she is no longer on the board and all of that defensive crawfishing from the left will change that.

LA RAZA is one of the most racist groups in the country and even if that isnt what the left thinks, just look at thier stances on ILLEGAL workers and immigration policy..(open boarder)
and AGAIN>>..at one time they were making noise about some southwestern states should be seperate from the US or given back to mexico since they were "stolen" from them...

and no amount of apologizing from SAROUGE about LA RAZA or showing us that she is no longer on the board and all of that defensive crawfishing from the left will change that.

LA RAZA is one of the most racist groups in the country and even if that isnt what the left thinks, just look at thier stances on ILLEGAL workers and immigration policy..(open boarder)
and AGAIN>>..at one time they were making noise about some southwestern states should be seperate from the US or given back to mexico since they were "stolen" from them...

#76 | Posted by afkabl2

She is not now, nor has she ever been on the board of La Raza.

No matter how many Rush talking points you spout (and they ARE Rush talking points), the truth is out there for anyone with half a brain to discover.

Maybe you should try reading just a a bit of something other than Rush or Malkin. It opens up a whole new world. I know it will be strange and frightening for you at first, but try it. Birds actually sing, the sun shines, and the sky isn't falling all the time.

well actually I am reading bio of sinatra

geesh..that guy got so much poon thats its a wonder his dick didnt fall off..........I guess I had better start worrying about that...

oh the issue

so do you have in your little bag of tricks there the other question

I know what you are doing...you are carefull to state that she is not a BOARD MEMBER when you know that just being a member is the same thing in my charge....if she is a member then being on the board or not is inconsequential.

Obama AND Gibbs both say 'Well I'm sure she really meant to say this----'.

Can't wait to see Judge Sotomayor's response, 'Well I really meant to say this-----!'

What a way to get your story out, repeat everything VERBATIM as it is dictated to you....Ah, the Democratic way!!!

I know what you are doing...you are carefull to state that she is not a BOARD MEMBER when you know that just being a member is the same thing in my charge....if she is a member then being on the board or not is inconsequential.

#79 | Posted by afkabl2

Ah, I see. So maybe you can explain to me why it seemed so important to you and others to make a false claim about it then?

Oh, and Ish. I've anxiously been awaiting your posting of the letters you sent to your Senators demanding that Alberto Gonzales not be confirmed as US Attorney General.

And maybe you could give us some sense of your primeval howls of outrage at Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain when they appeared at LaRaza meetings to seek their endorsement.

Right?

I know what you are doing...you are carefull to state that she is not a BOARD MEMBER when you know that just being a member is the same thing in my charge....if she is a member then being on the board or not is inconsequential.

#79 | Posted by afkabl2

Similar to saying one was not the "Grand Wizard" -- only just a regular member of the KKK. lol

Rogue,

You aren't possibly trotting out the argument that any group that the likes of Rove and Cheney pandered to is kosher - are you?

I have a problem with racists comments getting a free pass as long as they are made by minorities, but this does not qualify. I listened to that interview and it was obvious her voice was dripping with a little macha teasing. The Pubs will be making a mistake if they attack this selection too forcfully. She's a well-educated judge with a touch of anti-establishment in her. I think she will surprise her opponents when she is on the court.

geesh..that guy got so much poon thats its a wonder his dick didnt fall off..........I guess I had better start worrying about that...

#78 | Posted by afkabl2

Ava apparently had better things to do...

You aren't possibly trotting out the argument that any group that the likes of Rove and Cheney pandered to is kosher - are you?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ

And you know very well that wasn't what I was saying, don't you.

On the other hand, YOU wouldn't be passive-aggressively defending hypocrites like BL2 - would you?

#13 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-05-29 09:56 PM

I can't speak for the morons, but I understand. I also understand that the law is to be interpreted without emotion or bias. She was suggesting that she would use both because of her race/gender.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-29 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, you moron. She was saying that it is impossible to completely avoid one's experiences in shaping ones decisions and wisdom. You seem to believe that the objective standard of impartial justice is in a white male package, and any deviation from the "norm" is suspect. Either that or you believe that white males are alone in their superhuman capacity for omniscience. (Bolding added.)

Tell you what if you're a sporting man, I'd bet the farm that Goatman's IQ far exceeds yours. In fact, I'd be on the safe side spotting you 20 or 30 points. Are you willing to take the wager? If you do, you'll be demonstrating how limited your intelligence is.

What the hell is it to you, Johnson?

By the way, I think the word you were looking for was "euphemistically".

I was kinda wondering. If moron is under 70,

What's dumbass?

Oh what the heck. As a member of La Raza, she can exercise her Latina right to wave the Mexican flag at each Supreme Court session and anyone who objects is a white male gringo racist. So there. Put that in your taco and eat it. Besides, she's going to cast the deciding vote on whether or not those 30-40 million illegal aliens can stay in America and get to vote without being actual citizens. Just wait and see.

Wonder how she'll vote.......By the way, anybody know why 5 of her 6 decisions that went to the supremes were overturned? Great record so far....

Hey blumpkin... salsa sells better than ketchup now. Put that in your taco. And do what you will with it.

And sotomayor could never hope to suck more than scalia. Never in her wildest dreams. Ever.

And sotomayor could never hope to suck more than scalia. Never in her wildest dreams. Ever.

Word.

Be Well.

"The overwhelming argument in defense of Sotomayor is she just isn't really that quick mentally. Not such a good word chooser?"

Zulu, think of her as Harriet Myers with a tan .... and she knows how to cook with jalapenos

Go ahead and start the confirmations now. She will probably wind up being a very big disappointment for Obama.

Wake up people Rome is burning.

Wake up people Rome is burning.

and obama isnt fiddling
he's playing B ball and taking over business and banks and the internet and the auto companies and soon will try and take over radio and tax the SHIT out of everyone with cap and trade and VAT.

but dont worry

HELP IS ON THE WAY

NOvember of 2010

"HELP IS ON THE WAY NOvember of 2010"

When the Rs are poised to lose even more seats. Just ask Jim Bunning:

"Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader, we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (Senate seats) in two election cycles," said Bunning, "and if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle."

nice try
but wont work

interesting this morning....
even this weasal sounded good

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "FOX News Sunday" he wasn't buying President Obama's attempt to walk back his Supreme Court nominee's controversial statement from 2001. Obama said Friday that given the chance Sotomayor would have "restated" that comment, and that she was merely trying to express how her experiences give her perspective on others' hardships.

"She didn't say that at all," Graham countered Sunday, suggesting Sotomayor's statement raises questions about her objectivity.

"What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background, would be a better judge than a guy like me a white guy from South Carolina," Graham said. "It is troubling, and it's inappropriate and I hope she'll apologize."

he also...along with coryn...made a vieled threat or PROMISE is how I look at it

when they both said that the pres should hope that repubs treat her better than the disgusting treatment that every bush appontee got...

hear hear....

"What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background, would be a better judge than a guy like me a white guy from South Carolina,"

Dead wrong, and Graham ought to be forced to take a basic High School writing class until he gets it.

"when they both said that the pres should hope that repubs treat her better than the disgusting treatment that every bush appontee got..."

On the contrary, let them rail against Sotomayor. Their behavior during this last election completely shut them out of any black voter support, they might as well lose the Hispanics as well.

After all, that tent is getting smaller by the day, and their leader is getting larger...no wonder they want everyone else out.

you can not deny the shamefull and terrible treatment all of bush appointees got by these very same people who are now all about diversity

schumer even said at the time that estrada was hispanic and they were scared SHITLESS that bush would put a hispanic on the court first.......

but not just that..a CONSERVATIVE HISPANIC which dems notoriously HATE.......like estrada, gonzalez, and even black women...rice..janis brown ...

and I believe graham is correct in JUST what I posted.........

DAMN...waiting on sites to post the clips of obama SAYING THE EXACT SAME THINGS REPUBS are saying against this women that he said against alito and roberts,.................

he is EXACTLY right which is the answer that I gave to sAROUGE for two days now..

SHE says that she will be superior to a white mans judgement and the others say that thier background may influnece what they think...and we have seen JUST That from those members of the court.