They are looking for the needle in the haystack.

They need something, anything to trash her with.

They need to get thru the boxes and be ready on July 13th.

Good. Maybe we could put a nail in Obama "Hammertime".

does anyone know how to read Spanish?

Every Dumbo is going to vote for her, so what difference does it make? Just vote no, she'll win anyway, then when she spends the next 15 years looking like another libtard buffoon, at least it won't be the Repubs' fault.

does anyone know how to read Spanish?

Claro que si. Yo puedo leer espanol. Porque me preguntaste?

300 boxes of records

Wonder if she has any Stevie Wonder in them boxes.

Sorry, wot's that?

Not that kind of record?

That's too bad you can tell a lot about a person by the music they collect.

So they're looking at records from her time as a legal advocate?

Wot next, checking out who she gave Valentine's Day cards to in 4th grade?

Rubber gloves, perhaps?

Be Well.

This dog ate her homework??
(Just heading off the ones who oppose her. I do not).

So, a few days before a hearing, instead of turning over the relevant documents that members in congress asked for, they get 300 boxes of paperwork.

Doesn't that sound like the kind of lawyering that makes people want to shoot lawyers?

Can you imagine if your kid tried that? You ask for his report card and he gives you 300 boxes of report cards and tells you that you just have to find it... and you only have 2 weeks? But that isn't really a fair comparison, as you can search just for his name... but you get the idea.

Is called bury them with bullshit.

Congress should refuse to hold a hearing on her until each and every single piece of paper that was turned over to them has been reviewed. If it takes a week, a month, or a year. Meanwhile, she can cool her heels in the lobby.

Congress should do the same... filibuster any and all pieces of legislation that has not been properly reviewed. Every line, ever word...

Voting on something that you have never read is fucking retarded, whichever side of the isle you vote with...

The rightards have been bitching about the amount of time since day one. The funny thing is, it's the exact amount of time the republicans gave them for Roberts & Alito, but now, suddenly, it's not enough?

Fuck 'em!

Every Dumbo is going to vote for her, so what difference does it make? Just vote no, she'll win anyway, then when she spends the next 15 years looking like another libtard buffoon, at least it won't be the Repubs' fault.

#5 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-06-28 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope ALL of the Republicans vote NO. I really do. It will show what petty hacks they truly are and will help sway the Hispanic vote. Please, call your republican congressman and urge a NO vote on Sotomayor.

Also, you call her a 'libtard buffoon'......I wonder what you wold have said had a certain president Bush nominated her for a judicial position? Oh wait....he did.

I find this idea being perpetuated by FAUX News and other dumb-fucks that this information was somehow 'kept' from republicans and is being 'sprung' on them amusing.

They had time to do their own investigations and now they pretend that this was withheld. It wasn't withheld, they just simply now got around to finding it.

"Voting on something that you have never read is fucking retarded, whichever side of the isle you vote with..."

Abso-fucking-lutely.

And what happened to the 5-day promise?

"I wonder what you (would) have said had a certain president Bush nominated her for a judicial position? Oh wait....he did."

That was a quid pro quo to Daniel Moynihan. For all intents and purposes, she was nominated by a Democrat.

Lots of differences... any lower-court decision can be reviewed by the USSC and overturned or sent back to be reviewed.

Judges at these levels should be reviewed carefully, but not as carefully as someone who has being nominated for lifetime appointment and is, in reality, one of the most influential people on the planet.

As for those members of congress who voted to pass the latest Economic abortion measure (Cap-n-tax us to death), I would support a criminal charge of dereliction of duty. Impeach them all and have the states elect new ones.

"I would support a criminal charge of dereliction of duty"

Hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

It is, but in this case, I was being literal.

If I see a petition at the grocery store to impeach a member of congress that voted on a bill they had never read, I would sign the damn thing so fast it would make the ink run!

"in this case, I was being literal."

You're not foolish enough to file a criminal case before you have any concrete evidence of actual damages, are you?

Dereliction of duty doesn't require that someone is harmed... you can charge a guard in the service for that if he leaves his post unattended, if he refuses to carry out a lawful order, etc.

These guys passed laws that no human on the planet had probably read in its final version. NOT ONE PERSON. If that is doing the job we hired them for, then we need to change the job requirements. And, if they are not doing the job they were hired to do, we need to toss the bunch of losers out on their collective asses and find people who will, at the very least, DO THEIR DAMN JOBS AND READ THE DAMN BILLS THEY ARE PASSING!

" If that is doing the job we hired them for, then we need to change the job requirements."

Completely agreed, but as foolish as it sounds, I seriously doubt "read the bills before you vote on them" is a contractual requirement.

And yes, this shows we need to rewrite the contract....

If I see a petition at the grocery store to impeach a member of congress that voted on a bill they had never read, I would sign the damn thing so fast it would make the ink run!

#17 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2009-06-29 05:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I bet you'd skim the petition.

Could we just delay a vot til...oh....2012????

Thanks,
The GOP

How about a big fat freaking no.

Again, like with the climate bill, what is the rush? Why hammer her through? Her nomination doesn't change anything on the Supreme Court ideologically speaking, so nobody should be in a hurry here. The Obama administration should ask the Republicans what they think is a reasonable time and if it actually is then just go with it. Sometime this summer should be more than enough time.

Makes Obama look like he's working with the other side, and like I said, it makes no difference on the court so it doesn't hurt Obama.

Again, like with the climate bill, what is the rush? Why hammer her through?

There is no rush. They want here confirmed in 73 days which is longer than with Roberts the Chief Justice.

She has already been confirmed once before so her past should be no surprise.

The NOP wants more time to conduct their witch hunt.

But like you said, she was confirmed once before so its doubtful they'll find anything better than her racial comments about hispanic women making better choices than white men and that didn't sink her.

This is one of those easy doesn't cost you anything to compromise situations that I think President Obama should jump on. Nothing changes with her pick, she'll rule the exact same way Souter did, its win/win for Obama.

Tell the Obstructionists we want an "up or down vote."
Compromise with these people is impossible, they don't want bipartisanship on anything. Screw them, ignore them, too much to do to worry about the feelings of those who prefer to play politics than govern.

And what happened to the 5-day promise?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-29 04:49 AM

Compromise with these people is impossible, they don't want bipartisanship on anything.

To be fair, Danni, the democrats aren't too interested in bipartisanship either. To say the republicans aren't bipartisan assumes that the left is 100% correct and if the right doesn't move to the left, they are not interested in bipartisanship.

It works both ways. Hence the 'bi' in bipartisan

We know that she is an unapologetic racist, has been overturned 60% of the time, and can't write a coherent legal opinion because she admits that she was too stupid to get into law school without affirmative Action. What more do we need?

Also she is fat, clumsy, and ugly.

"To be fair, Danni, the democrats aren't too interested in bipartisanship either."

They were, I imagine it seems pointless now. The Republicans aren't known as the party of "NO" for nothing.

This is one of those easy doesn't cost you anything to compromise situations that I think President Obama should jump on.

Good point. But I am wary of anything the NOP asks for, they always have a hidden agenda or two.

To be fair, Danni, the democrats aren't too interested in bipartisanship either.

Well when you have the minority party making demands that major items like a public option are off the table before any negotiations even begin what hope for bipartisanship is there?

They were, I imagine it seems pointless now. The Republicans aren't known as the party of "NO" for nothing.

The democrats never say no?

I'm not going to pursue the point with you. Your blind allegiance to the democrat party is well documented. To view the political world through blinders is expected from you and reasonable debate on it is futile. As someone noted a few days ago, when boiled down and condensed your response to everything on this blog is:

"Democrats good
Republicans bad"

Have a nice day, Danni

Forget bipartisanship. The GOP votes "NO" anyway, and all we get is a bill that's compromised. They GOP's proven this over and over again, making a mockery out of bipartisan efforts. Time to end this and to pressure the "conservadems" into compliance. The GOP knows how to do that to it's members. Time the Dems learned it, too.

Well when you have the minority party making demands that major items like a public option are off the table before any negotiations even begin what hope for bipartisanship is there?

See post #34 and substitute "Danni" with "726"

To be fair Goatman, 99 percent of those who come to Drudge can have their posts summed up the same partisan way.

Yours included.

Why anyone would be against learning more about a lifetime judicial appointee, regardless of who appointed them, is beyond me. Just goes to show that party loyalty trumps being informed, at least when it comes to certain DR Leftards.

"The Republicans aren't known as the party of "NO" for nothing."

As far as I'm concerned SOMEONE needs to say, "NO."

"Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of "no." Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous. Furthermore, the First Amendment's lovely first five words ("Congress shall make no law") set the negative tone of the Bill of Rights, which is a list of government behaviors, from establishing religion to conducting unreasonable searches, to which the Constitution says: No." George Will

#35 | Posted by YAV

The Dems have learned it quite well.

How John Roberts got a single 'nay' vote is beyond ANYONE who watched his confirmation hearings; as I did.

To be fair Goatman, 99 percent of those who come to Drudge can have their posts summed up the same partisan way.

Yours included.

Like this one?

Supreme Court just overruled her on the white firefighters' reverse discrimination case. The Dems need to hurry here, before it happens again.

Ah well. It'll be good to have another lefty racist on the court again. Clarance Thomas wasn't much of a replacement for Thurgood Marshall in that respect.

Forget bipartisanship.

#35 | Posted by YAV at 2009-06-29 10:03 AM

PS, Lisa -- Go Cowboys! *grin*

Wow! I'm impressed! I stand corrected. My apologies.

Pfffft!!!!

the official positions of the Obama administration and congressional democrats

Maybe you missed Danni's point earlier.

The Dems have changed bills after getting GOP input.

That's called compromise and that's what bipartisanship is.

The GOP, after getting the changes they want, votes NO unanimously.

If you were President, what would you do next time around, compromise with them again or ignore them?

#9 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2009-06-29 03:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Amen Brother!

That we have representatives, who's job is to review and determine the merits of the legislation put before them, that are not doing the job we sent them there to do. Is Very Agravating.

DTMFA

As far as Sotomayor is concerned. Rethugs, quit yer carpin. you got Scalia, you got Roberts.
I think its the other side's turn.

well looks like she just got schooled on the conn firefighters case! maybe she should have considered it important enough to actually review when she had the chance!

Valisk: At least put someone qualified up there-left, right, middle, up down, hell I don't care, just qualified to do the job. This idiot has been overturned so many times!!!

NO

Sotomayor is on the Corporate trainwreck. She is yet another Obama "compromise", that ensures that the changes this country needs will never happen.

As far as Sotomayor is concerned. Rethugs, quit yer carpin. you got Scalia, you got Roberts.
I think its the other side's turn.

#48 | Posted by Valisk at 2009-06-29 11:27 AM

That was a quid pro quo to Daniel Moynihan. For all intents and purposes, she was nominated by a Democrat.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-29 04:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

'Intents and purposes' aside, let's stick to the fact that she was nominated by a republican president before and was seated by the Repubs without issue.

This is one of those easy doesn't cost you anything to compromise situations that I think President Obama should jump on. Nothing changes with her pick, she'll rule the exact same way Souter did, its win/win for Obama.

#26 | Posted by GreenDad at 2009-06-29 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is learning fast that giving the republicans anything 'extra' will not result in anything positive from the right. Instead, they'll claim he's weak and a pushover, while ignoring the gesture.

It's not a win/win in the least.

There's also the summer recess to contend with.

The repubs are getting the same amount of time they gave the Dems to research a Chief Justice.

Seems fair to me.

'Intents and purposes' aside, let's stick to the fact that she was nominated by a republican president before and was seated by the Repubs without issue.

#54 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-06-29 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Non-point

'Intents and purposes' aside, let's stick to the fact that she was nominated by a republican president before and was seated by the Repubs without issue.

#54 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-06-29 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Non-point

Who gives a shit if the republicans nominated her once? GHW isn't in office anymore so his opinion doesn't count. Keep whining.

#56 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-06-30 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Shit-heap, it was in response to post #14.

I'm not whining. I love the fact that the republicans now look like the partisan hacks they truly are. I hope they all vote NO and it sways the Hispanic vote.

She'll be nominated regardless of what the republicans do or say.

P.S. Quit whining.

"Obama is learning fast that giving the republicans anything 'extra' will not result in anything positive from the right."

Its not about getting anything from the right. Its about saying and more importantly showing that he is trying to work with the other side of the aisle. Something he promised on the campaign. If he gives them the extra time and they still try stalling tactics and whatnot, its the GOP that will look bad not President Obama.

See post #34 and substitute "Danni" with "726"

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2009-06-29 10:04 AM

Translation: I have nothing to add.

Translation: I have nothing to add.

I added you

Its not about getting anything from the right. Its about saying and more importantly showing that he is trying to work with the other side of the aisle. Something he promised on the campaign. If he gives them the extra time and they still try stalling tactics and whatnot, its the GOP that will look bad not President Obama.

I agree that he needs to work with the NOP, but when he does take their wishes into consideration and makes changes to bills in a bipartisan fashion, they vote against it anyways because they did not get ALL they wanted.

The NOP wants to play bipartisan only when they get everything they want.

That is not bipartisan.

I'm not whining.
#57 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-06-30 04:28 AM

I love the fact that the republicans now look like the partisan hacks they truly are.
#57 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-06-30 04:28 AM

She'll be nominated regardless of what the republicans do or say.
#57 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-06-30 04:28 AM

That is not bipartisan.

#61 | Posted by 726 at 2009-06-30 08:45 AM

"she was nominated by a republican president before and was seated by the Repubs without issue."

Does this mean all modern-day conservatives are required to accept her? That was 17 years ago. And just as her judicial philosophy may have shifted over time, so are peoples' opinions allowed to do the same. You sound like one of those party loyalty morons who thinks there are only two ways of looking at things, forever.

*** Repubs Ask for Sotomayor Homework Extension ***

.....their lips are hurting from all the reading...

They should ask in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

I'm sure you don't mind though.

#63 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-06-30 09:17 AM |

You are wrong again skippy.

I was against it when Bumbles Bush did it and I am agains it now.

Try again.

this is what's known in layman's terms
as "digging in the dirt"...

but in a party so dang familiar with dirt
and dirty politics, it's reassuring to
see them stick to what it is that they know.

Repub party so full of hate now, I doubt
they could change now, even if they wanted to...

You are wrong again skippy.

I was against it when Bumbles Bush did it and I am agains it now.

Try again.

#67 | Posted by 726 at 2009-06-30 10:38 AM

The rightards have been bitching about the amount of time since day one. The funny thing is, it's the exact amount of time the republicans gave them for Roberts & Alito, but now, suddenly, it's not enough?

Fuck 'em!

#10 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at

and of course this doenst apply on those 'little' issues like destruction of the enrgy industry and health care for like..FOREVER...those can be rushed through but this cant.....and IM sure you dont see the irony/hypocricy there do you?
and by the way

to her credit..she has a TON more of opinions and papers than those two almost put together...