Busted............
In other words she'll sail through and will be hailed by the left as a strict constitutionalist. The only way she won't be confirmed is if she didn't pay her taxes..............no wait
Bush Sr. appointed her in 92. That'll count for something in the talking points.
Quote:Bush Sr. appointed her in 92.
He appointed Souter, too.
Like Father, like Son. Morons.
She also is on the record as promoting a strict interpretation of the constitution, I think I'll wait and see before jumping, but know this, she can't be better than Bab's too.
(05-26-2009 11:04 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Bush Sr. appointed her in 92.
He appointed Souter, too.
Like Father, like Son. Morons.
Just sayin, it's going to be a talking point during all this if the confirmation gets dicey. Never know with Obama's team and how they review their nominees, as we all know.
Stunning candor? I guess, or maybe it is arrogance, lack of discretion, or just poor judgement. Yikes!
(05-26-2009 11:13 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2009 11:04 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Bush Sr. appointed her in 92.
He appointed Souter, too.
Like Father, like Son. Morons.
Just sayin, it's going to be a talking point during all this if the confirmation gets dicey. Never know with Obama's team and how they review their nominees, as we all know.
GHWB did a horrible job w/judges. I like how shes being hailed as a latina, who overcame her latina ways paving to stardom in the USA. Shes from NYC and is of puerto rican descent, which is really just another borough. Last I saw Puerto Rico was under our control, somewhat. Not really a Latin American country. Shes just a Ginsburg model.
Can't wait to see Chuck Schumer complain about another "catholic" on the bench. Gaurantee nothing as he lambasted Roberts and Alito for being catholic.
GWB didn't do so well, remember Harriet?
Wow, she really sounds like a strict constructionist!!!
(05-26-2009 02:31 PM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ]GWB didn't do so well, remember Harriet?
At least they overturned him before he really screwed up (no luck on the spending habits though). Alito is wonderful though (Ironically he was a Spector boy, whereas Souter was a Sununu boy, whoda thought).
DB
Quote:She also is on the record as promoting a strict interpretation of the constitution
In the affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court a panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a unpublished opinion. Another member of the panel, Judge Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, objected to the panel's opinion
saying it contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case."
This case involved 15 firefighters (14 white and 1 Hispanic) who took a test for promotion and passed. Only 1 minority passed. Because there was virtually no minority representation on the promotional list New Haven promoted no one. Soyomayor sided with New Haven.
Well that just proves it then. What's the source of that blurb? I'd like to see the rest of the discussion with this quote in context.
I don't think Bush Sr. ever met any of his judicial appointees before nominating them. He may be more knowledgeable than Jr. but he's every bit as naive and gullible. They were both played like suckers by duplicitous people and those with hidden agendas.
KEEP TALKING PAT!!
Quote:“The Republicans have got to take a stand on this one,” said Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of a filibuster. “If they don’t, they can kiss their chances of ever getting back into power away,” he added.
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, is urging members to block a Senate vote on Sotomayor.
Right on queue, this guy is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.
DB
Quote:Well that just proves it then
Similar analogy to the New Haven firemen: We have 15 doctors who have passed their boards to perform brain surgery. No minorities passed. Since no minorities passed the boards, none of the 15 who did pass can perform brain surgery either.
^There's something in the constitution that would uphold that????
I think what proves it is she outed herself in the video at Duke.
In response to a question about the differences between appeals court and district court judges, Sotomayor said:
Quote:“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,” she said. “And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know.” Oooops busted 
The audience laughed.
“Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know,” she said to more laughter.
“Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
She comes across as a non-serious lightweight. This is the best Obama can do?
DB
Quote:Right on queue, this guy is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.
You're implying because it's Pat Robertson saying it, than it must be stupid. For the record both Robertson and Sodamayor are graduates of Yale Law. I'd hardly call him "uninformed" when it comes to strict constitutionalists.
You're also saying that Republicans would be stupid to challenge her nomination? You see nothing in what she said at Duke as revealing?
You seem to be putting all of your eggs in the fact she called herself a "strict constitutionalist" even though she has a fairly lengthy record of being an activist judge. Obama said he was against Gay Marriage..........do you really believe that, or was he saying what needed to be said to win the job. Same thing with Sodamayor.
While I don't agree with a lot of what Robertson says he's on the money on this issue. Her nomination needs to be challenged.
I think you're right, Pat needs to be out there and talking as much as possible, he's great for politics. I hope he shoves his way into the limelight once more for the sake of the party.
Regarding her video, many law professors in my grad classes have said similar, and this was at a conservative business college. Laws are vague in their application outside of their original intent, thought they may apply, and interpreting laws through court decisions set policy whether they intend to or not. She may end up being a stinker, but not because of some YouTube quote taken out of context.
She'll never be a Harriet Meirs.
As for the rest, quit trying to put words in my mouth, not enough is out, even the Republicans are still measuring their response, it's too early yet to say unless you're a raving web board maniac who just watched Fox and is armed with "semi facts" like you. I said that before in this thread, read.