Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
-
Here's a good read:
The Dynamic of the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor
We're going to be hearing a lot about the Ricci case.
-
Well nothing can be done to stop the nomination.
I doubt that a no vote by Republicans will do any more long term damage than Dems voting against Roberts or Alitio or Thomas.
As to the Rcici case puniushing 21st century whites for old societal "ills" is not a good way to ease whatever effects of "racism" exist but it does strengthen the base.
A different and more lenienbt set of laws for black people shouldn't be the goal of the supreme court.
IMO.
And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....
Well just imagine.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Wasnt this his first overall pick when he first knew about Justice Souter retiring.
Obama wont have any opposition in confirmation, At this point he can pass anything or anybody, he could of selected Pee Wee Herman.
Wasnt this his first overall pick when he first knew about Justice Souter retiring.
Obama wont have any opposition in confirmation, At this point he can pass anything or anybody, he could of selected Pee Wee Herman.
It isn't that bad. There still have to be a few dems who take things seriously.
-
Well nothing can be done to stop the nomination.
I doubt that a no vote by Republicans will do any more long term damage than Dems voting against Roberts or Alitio or Thomas.
As to the Rcici case puniushing 21st century whites for old societal "ills" is not a good way to ease whatever effects of "racism" exist but it does strengthen the base.
A different and more lenienbt set of laws for black people shouldn't be the goal of the supreme court.
IMO.
And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....
Well just imagine.
WSS
Well nothing can be done to stop the nomination.
I doubt that a no vote by Republicans will do any more long term damage than Dems voting against Roberts or Alitio or Thomas.
As to the Rcici case puniushing 21st century whites for old societal "ills" is not a good way to ease whatever effects of "racism" exist but it does strengthen the base.
A different and more lenienbt set of laws for black people shouldn't be the goal of the supreme court.
IMO.
And narrowing a search to women and Hispanics.....
Well just imagine.
WSS
I wonder if the whites who failed the test are still in the running for promotions??
-
Poor white men. When will they ever get a fair shake in this country?
-
Poor white men. When will they ever get a fair shake in this country?
Poor white men. When will they ever get a fair shake in this country?
You tell 'em Heck.
Though I'm surprised that you espouse the genetic inferiority theory of the Klan.....
That hair shirt of yours ever get itchy?
WSS
-
Well, she may very well be a finer judge that some folks think.
I don't see her as being a blatant judicial activist, contrary to her
statement about a certain court "making law".
She didn't mean to condone that, I read.
If she's a better judge than Souter, we should be fine.
I applaud Obama for not nominating Angela Davis.
BRAVO !
-
And Hispanics are overwhelmingly pro life.
She just may pull a switch on the liberals on more than a few issues..
-
Steve, our very own Joe the Plumber.
What is this nonsense you're spouting now? I think Hispanics are genetically inferior, much like the Klan? Delightful.
You got all that from what I just wrote? How insightful.
Here's a question for you: in a country that is 50% female, 15% Hispanic, and 13.5% black, would you have any problem with all nine Supreme Court Justices being white men?
-
Steve, our very own Joe the Plumber.
What is this nonsense you're spouting now? I think Hispanics are genetically inferior, much like the Klan? Delightful.
You got all that from what I just wrote? How insightful.
Here's a question for you: in a country that is 50% female, 15% Hispanic, and 13.5% black, would you have any problem with all nine Supreme Court Justices being white men?
You got all that from what I just wrote? How insightful.
You said...Poor white men. When will they ever get a fair shake in this country?
I read that as Steve did....you don't think white men get a fair shake in this country.
-
Steve, our very own Joe the Plumber.
What is this nonsense you're spouting now? I think Hispanics are genetically inferior, much like the Klan? Delightful.
You got all that from what I just wrote? How insightful.
Here's a question for you: in a country that is 50% female, 15% Hispanic, and 13.5% black, would you have any problem with all nine Supreme Court Justices being white men?
Steve, our very own Joe the Plumber.
What is this nonsense you're spouting now? I think Hispanics are genetically inferior, much like the Klan? Delightful.
You got all that from what I just wrote? How insightful.
Here's a question for you: in a country that is 50% female, 15% Hispanic, and 13.5% black, would you have any problem with all nine Supreme Court Justices being white men?
Heck, our very own Janeane Garafalo.
I know your scope is limited Heck but Alo had 2 things in his post.
One was the Ricci case.
Then you attacked white people for daring to copmplain that minorities get extra help in a job search.
I know it's all a blur to you.
I just assumed you meant minorities were actually inferior and needed special assistance to gain meaningful employment.
No?
And answering your question I say no.
Are you upset that there aren't even more women?
Why?
WSS
-
"I just assumed you meant minorities were actually inferior and needed special assistance to gain meaningful employment.
No?"
That made me laugh. I love your "No?" statements. Never fail to amuse.
"I just assumed that meant you hate Jews in your spare time. No?"
As for your answer, that's what I figured you'd say.
-
"I just assumed you meant minorities were actually inferior and needed special assistance to gain meaningful employment.
No?"
That made me laugh. I love your "No?" statements. Never fail to amuse.
"I just assumed that meant you hate Jews in your spare time. No?"
As for your answer, that's what I figured you'd say.
"I just assumed you meant minorities were actually inferior and needed special assistance to gain meaningful employment.
No?"
That made me laugh. I love your "No?" statements. Never fail to amuse.
Good. Your stunted sense of humor is tough to please. Gosh there might have been another reason to think so poorly of people.
"I just assumed that meant you hate Jews in your spare time. No?"
No. I hate Muslims. Don't you remember?
As for your answer, that's what I figured you'd say.
And as for your pointedly missing answer I counted on that too.
Wanna try again?
I ask YOU Heck.
Are you offended by the fact the SC is NOT at least 4 women?
\Why or why not?
WSS
~facetious remark for you to ignore~
"Heck is offended ONLY if Obama tells him to be."
-
No, I don't feel that there needs to be exactly four women on the court. Nor is it a matter of being "offended".
-
I don't know the significance of this....
but it's surprising..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2009/...udge-s/results/
President Obama announced he will nominate U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Do you think she was a good choice?
Thanks for your vote.
Response Percent Votes
Yes 12% 199 votes
No 74% 1172 votes
Undecided 12% 203 votes
Other 0% 5 votes
1579 total votes
-
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
-
Cal, how many times do we have to explain the difference between scientific polling and online polls like these?
We must have gone over this at least three times already.
-
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
My guess is that it signifies that the readers of the WashTimes online is even further Right than those of the print version.
I agree Tom, and for the most part, I don't pay much attention to what the public thinks as they usually don't have a cliue as to what makes a good SCJ.
For most it is their stance on 2-3 issues, and what most don't understand is once confirmed, they don't have to worry about any political payback.
As I said somewhere in the near past, for the most part most justices tend to take a few steps towards the middle once appointed. Radical leaning one way or the other are usually moderated once in a panel with other, equally qualified colleagues.
I don't know much about the woman other than she seems very qualified and has a good understanding of the law.
I trust she will consider the weight of the position as most have and not feel like she owes anybody anything and renders her opinion as best she can and abide by the laws of the land and not consider her opinion more important than the people who proceeded her.
-
And 95% of what we're going to hear about in the next few weeks will be about one single case in a career than spans a few decades.
In the end, it's not going to matter much. She's got the votes unless something major turns up.
to visually assist the over-50 crowd.Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login