Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

we agree...she shouldn't have any problems...so what will the vote be?...keep in mind they're reporting that Blago got a check from Burris

you haven't produced anything that indicates she's not an activist..so there!

Obama would not have selected her if she were not an activist Spence Alynski...are you freakin' kidding me !

I requested all of her files and she hasn't gotten back to me, maybe she'll listen to you since you are "in the loop"...if it eases your troubled mind to disregard what I've written over my failure to take the considerable time that you devote to this to list all of her "activist" rulings in the past including the one currently before the Supreme Court........then so be it...you would one way or another anyway......you remind me of Danny Devito in MATILDA...where he tells Matilda..."I'm big, you're little....I'm smart, you're dumb...I'm right , you're wrong"....you need some glue in your hat

fond memories....

from WIKI
Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."[10]

A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his best-selling[11] book The Tempting of America that the report "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[12] TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination.

[spence]

You're going in circles now.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're going in circles now.

-spence

not at all...we can both look at her rulings...one by one... and I will call them "activist" rulings and you will say they're not...then we will argue over the definition of activist judges and maybe after that is exhausted we can argue the merits of if in fact judges should be activists...clearly many think they should be, including this one...if you listened to the tape she was very clearly stating that courts should and do make policy and the joked because she was among "friends" that "oh, I probably shouldn't say that because I'm on tape"...in HER OWN WORDS" still doesn't matter...she'll be OK

there's a great article in THE HILL...looking at it pretty much from both perspectives "Is She an Activist" check it out...

oh, Spence, if you go there read the article detailing what attorneys have said about their experiences arguing before her and her general temprement and knowledge of the law...this might be better than I thought....

not in circles..going fishing...PEACE

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

...if you listened to the tape she was very clearly stating that courts should and do make policy and the joked because she was among "friends" that "oh, I probably shouldn't say that because I'm on tape"...in HER OWN WORDS" still doesn't matter...she'll be OK

I don't see how any thinking person could come to that conclusion. You still haven't actually read her words have you?

-spence

[Cool Beans]

It doesn't matter......

Some of us see it one way, while others seem to look at the world as if they were slightly out of phase with reality. Sometimes it's hard to see you over there Spence. I know we are playing on the same team, but sometimes I can't see your position "left field" from my position "right field". Do you have a "smoke machine" on or something?

I am pretty sure we are talking about the same person, but I'm seeing a racist judge who legislates from the bench and you are seeing Saint Theresa.

Did you get hit in the head your last "at bat"?

Go Sox!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see how any thinking person could come to that conclusion. You still haven't actually read her words have you?

-spence

listened and read...several times...it's pretty clear that you are drowning in the kool aid...what I am seeing from Soto and Obama are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are morally and intellectually superior to others primarily and simply due to their background and they have clearly stated this (Oh, Michelle as well, does she ever talk anymore, she was so entertaining)...Soto's opinions are superior to any old white guys and Obama is the epitome of an elitist....they are a reflection of each other in attitude and arrogance which makes her the perfect pic for the ONE, hoisted on a pedestal and heavily promoted by the media through their touching life story rather than record and accomplishments, Clarence Thomas had a far more compelling life story but strangely the media handled things far differently and really had no interest in his struggles as a young black man growing up in America and ascending to the highest court in the land, strange...no, Uncle Tom had to be destroyed......you've got to read the descriptions of her courtroom antics by the lawyers that have suffered through them, sounds like a beast...I'd cut and paste but Johnny D gets mad when it not an "original" thought and you get mad when gobs of cut and pasted evidence are not produced...tough to decide which to do...

OBAMA...to redistribute the wealth
SOTO.....to redistribute the justice


oh, and Spence..."thinking people"? that's so very liberal elitist....eeeewwwwww