Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

[sean curry]

I agree with affimative action.

sean

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

Well, when you put it that way... I see your point.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

maybe you'll get all the advantages of an affirmative action brain surgeon some day



since when does "qualified" matter to da dems, it's the story and the image projected, doesn't matter if there's anything between the ears...give her a teleprompter...look at the clown that we have posing as a president...she will be treated respectfully and confirmed as this is the presidents perrogative barring some bizarre circumstances...(like stating on tape that she thinks judges should "make" policy)..I though that was for the policy-makers...anyway

it's the dems that turn these hearing into a circus with personal attacks and mindless impuning of people of high achievement and exemplary records led by that fat puke Ted Kennedy, this was his specialty, engineering the destruction of nominees...imagine having that piece of crap attempting to taint your career and record, slobbering and mispronouncing your name....


Obama asked that the Senate "move quickly and in a bipartisan manner"...just as the dems have always done in the past...right????

Ginsburg 97-3
Breyer 87-9
Thomas 52-48
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42

any bets...I'll go with 98-1... there are a couple of illnesses and good ole' Rowland isn't looking like he's long for the job so I don't know if there will be 100 votes...we should have a pool.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

since when does "qualified" matter to da dems, it's the story and the image projected, doesn't matter if there's anything between the ears...give her a teleprompter...look at the clown that we have posing as a president...she will be treated respectfully and confirmed as this is the presidents perrogative barring some bizarre circumstances...(like stating on tape that she thinks judges should "make" policy)..I though that was for the policy-makers...

Funny as her judicial record points to someone who has behaved nearly the opposite to what you've described.

It's almost like you're responding based on the image you'd like projected regardless as to what's between her ears.

And your comment is out of context...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny as her judicial record points to someone who has behaved nearly the opposite to what you've described.

It's almost like you're responding based on the image you'd like projected regardless as to what's between her ears.

And your comment is out of context...

-spence

you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..Obama himself said Roberts and Alito were qualified and then voted against in a swift and bipartisan way...jerk...now he wants it both ways....doesn't matter if she's qualified as long as she's got the right "makeup"...that's fine with me....like Obama will tell you..."he won"...it's his pick....just compare the treatment of the last several nominees and you'll see who the dirtbags are...I didn't say she had nothing between her ears, just that it didn't matter...

my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...it was an Obama "clinging to their guns and bibles moment"..you have become very predictable...but I still love you

he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap like of looking to foreign law and precendents to form her opinions ala Breyer...maybe have all property rights taken away...stuff like that...at least abortion will be safe....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..

Doesn't sound like it matters to you either...

my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...

So did you listen to the tape?

Here's her full comment in response to a student asking about the differences between circuit and district court experiences.

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, 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 -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. 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. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.

If you take the time to read her full comment, think critically about what she was saying and then reflect on the meaning it should be clear to just about anyone that she was simply stating the obvious.

he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap....

It looks like she authored 380 majority opinions in 11 years, 5 of which made it to the Supreme Court and 3 of which were overturned. That's your 60%? 3 of 5?

Considering that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear selective cases, to even use the 3 without understanding the circumstance and how the majority ruling differed from her's make the number pretty meaningless...

Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.

Don't you have anything of substance today? So far you've provided no evidence to support the assertion this is an activist pick.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Doesn't sound like it matters to you either...



So did you listen to the tape?

Here's her full comment in response to a student asking about the differences between circuit and district court experiences.



If you take the time to read her full comment, think critically about what she was saying and then reflect on the meaning it should be clear to just about anyone that she was simply stating the obvious.


It looks like she authored 380 majority opinions in 11 years, 5 of which made it to the Supreme Court and 3 of which were overturned. That's your 60%? 3 of 5?

Considering that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear selective cases, to even use the 3 without understanding the circumstance and how the majority ruling differed from her's make the number pretty meaningless...

Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.

Don't you have anything of substance today? So far you've provided no evidence to support the assertion this is an activist pick.

-spence

I did...
I'm worried about you buddy...you've gone way over to the Chris Matthews leg tingling land...

even her advocates are saying that the tape, her reversal record and the pending appeal could be problems...I don't know why...is it a shock to anyone that liberals want their liberal judges to legislate from the bench?...it's how they get things done in a democratic society...

yes 3 out of 5 =60%...might get a little worse with one pending, we'll see

again, i'm not saying anything that her defenders aren't saying in this regard...go to the New Republic...there's a great article on a far left site which is pretty funny because the whacko lefty's are savaging their own whacko lefty for daring to question the Justice-to-be and her record...absolutely LOVED that

for the third time...she will be confirmed...don't get your panties in such a bunch...it will be nothing like the disgreceful conduct that you see from democrats toward republican nominees

still like to get a pool going on this one...

is she a lesbian? just asking because i was listening to a liberal radio show on the road the other day and they were panting breathlessly at the thought of a gay nominee...I heard her mention mom and brother and sister-in-law yesterday but no hubby or kids...it's an obvious question isn't it?...if so this pick isn't a home run but a grand slam....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

even her advocates are saying that the tape, her reversal record and the pending appeal could be problems...I don't know why...is it a shock to anyone that liberals want their liberal judges to legislate from the bench?...it's how they get things done in a democratic society...

If that's the worst they have on her then I don't see many problems.

You still have not presented anything that indicates she's an activist pick.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.

-spence

Spence, that would be "peddle", not "pedal".

[scottw]

I could be on my bike

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence, that would be "peddle", not "pedal".

Sorry, I just bought a sweet new road bike and it's on my brain

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

How have you been affected by affirmative action/reverse descrimination directly? Just curious.

[saltfly]

Originally Posted by sean curry

I agree with affimative action.

sean

Until it effects you.