Obama to name Sotomayor to highest court

Word has leaked that President Obama will nominate U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.

sotomayorBased on everything I’ve read, she’s an excellent choice. Raised in the Bronx by her mother after the death of her father, she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went on to Yale Law. She’s worked as a prosecutor and was appointed to the federal judiciary by the first President Bush. Her intelligence and hard work are widely acknowledged.

But of course, with the right-wing noise machine already primed to squeal regardless of who the nominee might be, we’re still going to hear a lot of complaints. In the end, the excesses of that campaign will hurt the conservative cause more than help it, and Sotomayor will be confirmed.

226 comments Add your comment

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
10:07 am

Cue the cut-and-pasted TownHall columns and talking points of predictable outrage and hysteria in 3… 2… 1….

Lord Help Us

May 26th, 2009
10:09 am

Was Harriet Myers not available?

BDAtlanta

May 26th, 2009
10:12 am

Copy left writes: Cue the cut-and-pasted TownHall columns and talking points of predictable outrage and hysteria in 3… 2… 1….

no doubt

pat

May 26th, 2009
10:13 am

Gee another baby killer…What a, uh, suprise…

ty webb

May 26th, 2009
10:15 am

Jay,
Is “The right wing noise machine primed to squeal” similar to the squealing left wing noise machine when a republican nominates someone for the SCOTUS. I guess it has to do with perspective, huh, Jay?

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:19 am

well I’ll give you a non cut n paste.

I assume all who are in favor of her being a court justice, you all feel that it is OK for our justices to think that certain races do things better and others do things worse.

Cause that is exactly what Justice Sotomayor did ata graduation ceremony at UC berkley.

Apparently latinos are more capable of judging law as that is what she told the students.

But again she was slandering and being bigoted towards white men in her comment so as I have seen before from some of you it is not racism or anything wrong if it is against white males.

So are you all OK with a justice who publically claims that ones race is a determining factor as to how well that person is qualified to be a judge?

Demming

May 26th, 2009
10:20 am

Prior to the announcement of Obama’s nominee, the GOP had already indicated that they viewed the nominating process as an opportunity to replenish the coffers of the RNC. In essence , they sold their votes to the far right base. No integrity. No future

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:22 am

why does Lady Justice at every courtroom in AMerica wear a blindfold, if a judge is to have empathy in a case and not go based solely on law?

mm

May 26th, 2009
10:25 am

When are you weak-minded wingnuts going to realize that the terms “baby killer” and “liberal” are only derogatory in the minds of your own?

getalife

May 26th, 2009
10:27 am

Another great American historic story and pick.

The gop will vote against a Latino woman.

Very smart pick.

Normal

May 26th, 2009
10:27 am

Georgian by birth,Flordian because WE’RE lucky,
Don’t write that racial crap without backing it up. Could it be
that your fair skin is a little too thin?

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:33 am

Normal,
Are you saying that she did not say Latino women from their life experience are better suited to judge than white Males?

She did I hate that you do not want to believe that or go look it up for yourself.

However you do show your feelings as you call me fair skinned without knowing the first thing about me, nice.

Getalife, wasn’t a republican who nominated her to this office once before?

N.J,

May 26th, 2009
10:34 am

Republicans are going to have a hard time with this one, nominated and selected to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a Republican President, George H.W. Bush. Choosing a Hispanic and a woman was a smart move. Remember how G.W. Bush got Alberto Gonzoles to be Attorney General. By making a big media fuss over opposing a Hispanic appointment. Its good this nomination is so soon after those sort of events.

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
10:36 am

georgian/floridian,

You make a good observation but I think the actual quote makes your case even stronger.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
–Sonia Sotomayor

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 26th, 2009
10:38 am

Well, Ginsburg is not the ugliest pinko on the Supreme Court anymore.

N.J,

May 26th, 2009
10:39 am

No she never said that women are better suited than white men to sit on the court. She said that white men are as well suited to make decisions that concern women as women are. Basicically she said that an elite of pointy headed judicial intellectuals living in their wealthy ivory towers are not the best suited to make decision for and about anyone else, particularly women. In a nation where more than half the population is female, a court without a single woman is rather imbalanced.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:41 am

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural

So unless she feels that latino men are just as apt to do as well and also that every other race be included but she chose to only pick out 2. In essence she is saying that White Men are not capable of doing the job as well, solely because they are white and male.

Normal how is that not racism and sexsim?

I know it is against white males so let me guess it does not matter?

Switch the people and their order what if a white man said that about latino females.

Get Real

May 26th, 2009
10:42 am

In 1992, Sotomayor was nominated to the Federal bench by George H.W. Bush. Wasn’t ‘judicial activism’ then. And for the wingnuts, Roe v. Wade as long been decided. Isn’t trying to overturn it by stacking the Highest Court with conservative judges ‘judicial activism’ since the law has already been staked out? Yeah I thought so.

RealityKing

May 26th, 2009
10:42 am

Sotomayor authored a supporting opinion to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:43 am

RW, how is that not racism in its pure definintion.

She believes a Latino ahh just read my previous post.

Normal

May 26th, 2009
10:45 am

Georgian by birth,
This is what she said, is this truly racist? If so, tell me how?
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
She is trying to explain the diversity between races and sexes. You
need to be able to look at things with an open mind and not with a
predisposed disposition.
Was I wrong about you being fair skinned?
By the way, even Jim Wooten gives her a pass, although somewhat grudgingly.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
10:46 am

She’s a good candidate, and after much showboating, grandstanding and demonizing in confirmation hearings, she’ll get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Next time….let’s get a great big huge monster liberal…..

RealityKing

May 26th, 2009
10:46 am

Apparently Sotomayor thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity should affect the decisions rendered from the bench. In fact, she has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed.

So obviously…, Sotomayor is a progressively social democrat, one who thinks her political agenda is more important that the law as written

RealityKing

May 26th, 2009
10:47 am

Facts are facts.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
10:49 am

it’s funny already

tee hee tehehe

Activist Judge, tehehehe

That’s a real knee slapper…..

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
10:49 am

georgian/floridian,

I was agreeing with you and supplied the quote to bolster your argument.

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 26th, 2009
10:51 am

Sotomayor on the court: ‘Where policy is made’…

Well, well, it’s “school the liberals on the US Constitution” day-

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States.

To interpret the law, checks and balances.

Policy is set by the Executive and Legislative branches, with only the legality of those policies a question for the Supremes to answer.

I rule over democrat SOTUS nominees.

Byte Me

May 26th, 2009
10:56 am

Hugs to all the “she’s an activist judge!” losers out here. You really are moronic if you think that the Federal appeals court doesn’t make policy for a particular circuit by deciding whether trial courts err in their interpretation and application of the law.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
10:57 am

Yes Normal, she is saying that a LATINO woman( that means not a black, asian, white, woman or any males) are better suited than a WHITE MALE( why did she have to use white male and included no other races) Then she followed it up by not allowing results of a standardized test because not enough minorities passed it.

Why not just say what you said if it was only meant to say that each person will view issues differently, she said nothing in the quote about a particular decision.

She said in a covering statement that a Latino Woman would more often than not make a better decision than a White Male, without the latino’s experience.

Are you agreeing that white males are incapable of making the same or as good as of a decision as lation females? Think about that. And again would you agree witht the statement if it read white males would more times than not make a better decision than female Latinos? Is that statement OK, because I see a great deal wrong anytime anyone thinks that their race or sex gives them more of an ability to do a job? From your previous statements apparently you think those things are ok to believe and say.
And no sorry you were wrong, I’m kinda a half breed just like Cher. half german-irish, half- full blooded American Indian.

So not so fair skin, but your prejudice and willing to assume something about one you do not know are very telling about your charecter and beliefs.

Road Scholar

May 26th, 2009
10:57 am

Reality King: And once you interpret the facts correctly, then your opinion may hold water! I believe she ruled in support of the White firefighters.

Whiner: So appearance, and not substance, is the basis of your reasoning. How original and not surprising. No wonder you support Palin.

Joey

May 26th, 2009
10:57 am

When Jay and other Democrats squeal, I mean object and protest; before, during and after a nomination procedure, well that is how the process works; that is good for the US; that is practicing free speech. And all of us know that free speech is protected by the Constitution Shmonstitution.

But when Conservatives react in a similar fashion, they are squealing.

Stay true Jay. Don’t ever waiver from supporting your Democrats. No matter how they behave.

Get Real

May 26th, 2009
10:57 am

Is that all you wingnuts have? One sentence (find the whole speech or stop using it because its taken out of context) from a commencement speech out of 54 years of being on this earth. You all HAVE lost it.

Fecil

May 26th, 2009
10:57 am

We just don’t need another Ivy-League judge. We need someone with an education in law that was not formed from an elite northeastern mindset.

S GA dem

May 26th, 2009
10:58 am

Facts are facts, as long as they are confirmed by Mr Limbaugh

George American

May 26th, 2009
10:58 am

Now we have the terror of a pointy-headed liberal who will roll over the constitution with her feelings for the day.

So much for the rights of the Unborn.

God help us all.

Get Real

May 26th, 2009
10:58 am

…..and Roe v. Wade has been decided and is LAW. Conservative judges who oppose this law and would vote to change it are therefore ‘activist judges’ correct?

demwit

May 26th, 2009
10:59 am

Obama is leading America in the right direction!!

-1.8T budget deficit the first year

- 40% drop in Dow coupled with a 10% drop in GDP, since election

- N. Korea test-fires two more missiles off its east coast, a day after nuke test

- Defense secretary says militants inflicting heavy U.S. casualties hold de facto control of swaths of Afghanistan

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed a face-to-face debate with President Barack Obama at the United Nations But he balanced the offer with a sharp rebuke to Washington and its allies over Iran’s nuclear program. He reiterated that Iran would never abandon its advances in uranium enrichment in exchange for offers of easing sanctions or other economic incentives. The nuclear issue “is closed.”

- San Francisco school board will votes to adopt a new curriculum for kindergarteners that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lessons.

- Obama appoints judical activist for supreme court.

sd

May 26th, 2009
11:00 am

It absolutely makes no difference as to who he picked. Some people are going to complain.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:01 am

RW,

I wasn’t being snooty if it came off that way, I was just asking a rhetorical question then went on to elaborate but then notice I just typed that to another poster. Watch the ones who normally beat the drum of equality will remain silent on this because most are partisian nuts who really only follow what the party tells them to.

Brad Steel

May 26th, 2009
11:01 am

Gee Joey,
The double standard is so hard on wingnuts. It must be really tough hearing an opposing opinion.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 26th, 2009
11:03 am

(find the whole speech or stop using it because its taken out of context)

But gosh, it was so hard to find…

Jay roolz Andy and RB

May 26th, 2009
11:04 am

I know nothing about her. I don’t really care that much about it, very little of what goes on in the SCOTUS todays affects me, and for that matter all of you. It’s all just white noise… something to whine about.

So this “baby killer” was appointed by a Bush?

pat

May 26th, 2009
11:06 am

Why are liberal chicks always so ugly?!

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
11:06 am

I believe she ruled in support of the White firefighters.

Road Scholar,

She tried to have the Ricci case dismissed.

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:10 am

The good news, we aren’t talking about North Korean or Iranian nukes today!!

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:11 am

liberal chicks are not ugly! They’re just facially challenged..

Joey

May 26th, 2009
11:11 am

Gosh Brad,
What would a nutroot know about listening to an opposing opinion?

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:11 am

fecil, great point!

Does anyone know if any of the justices did not attend any Ivy Leauge School?

I do not know, but would think there has to be a person out there qualified that did not attend the Ivy.

Get Real,
have read the whole speech, it is in context. She was saying what she believed qualified a person and what gave them the best insight for determining a case. Then she let her racial gem slip. In essence she was saying that a persons race IS a determining factor into how good of a judge they are.

Do you think that is right and not racism at its core definintion, you know my race is better than yours because its my race?

Why no mention of blacks, asians, hispanic men, or any other men except white ones.

But as I can tell your mind is made up on this matter because she is a democrat, nothing else. Had this been a white man who made the statement in reverse would you also agree with it?

rightofcenter

May 26th, 2009
11:11 am

Jay, did you express your contempt at the “left wing noise machine” when Alito was nominated? I don’t recall that you did. More than likely you blamed it on Bush for nominating someone who was not acceptable to them.

Doggone/GA

May 26th, 2009
11:14 am

“Why are liberal chicks always so ugly?!”

Why are you so concerned with what she looks like?

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
11:14 am

Thanks for the link DB,

It sure destroyed the “out of context” argument.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While it’s true that she was first named to federal district court by GHWB it was only because of an agreement he made with the New York Senate delegation in some bit of horse trading that let Senator Moynihan name every fourth district court judge up there and she was one of the “fourths.”

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:14 am

When did the state send you the briefs for this Jay??

Road Scholar

May 26th, 2009
11:15 am

RW: I stand corrected on the firefighters case.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 26th, 2009
11:16 am

Well, as long as we’re yanking stuff out of context and attacking based on what we imagine that context to be…

“I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

Joey

May 26th, 2009
11:17 am

Reality time:
Unless Sotomayor believes that it is the Supreme Court’s job to make law, rather the interpret the Constitution, I would not oppose her. After all she will be replacing Ginsburg.

Redneck Convert

May 26th, 2009
11:17 am

Well, we got another Activist Judge that don’t want to uphold the Conservative law. It’s just a shame. We won’t never get a good look at how she will rule. She will dodge and weave or say some case is before the Supreme Court and she can’t talk about it now. That was OK when Judge Roberts and Judge Alito were up before the Senate because they had a whole bunch of libruls that didn’t want to vote for them. Leastwise, we all kind of knowed how they would rule if they could just get away from the grilling and get on the court. But now, it’s diffrent. I want her to tell us all exackly how she will rule in every case.

Anyhow, looks like the libruls got us Conservatives by the short hairs. If we raise too much of a ruckus they will say we’re against women and Mexicans and we’ll go down to maybe 10 percent instead of the 20 we got now. So I guess our godly Senators will just have to mumble around and hope she comes out with something they can jump on. It’s a sad day for America. This country is going down the drain.

Have a good day everybody.

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:17 am

For insight into Jay’s next column visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Brad Steel

May 26th, 2009
11:17 am

pat,
yeah, Phyllis Schlafly is hot, isn’t she?

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:17 am

this is the justice some of you are defending…….

a quote from Ms. Sotomayor….
“Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know. [laughter]”

So she does think it is the job of the courts to make law? Didn’t our President Obama say this morning it is not the place to make new laws and policy?

Spin this one!

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:19 am

So Sotomayor does think that judges should dictate policy based on one’s sex, race and/or ethnicity??

alponso

May 26th, 2009
11:20 am

She will not be any more liberal than Justice Souter so it probably makes no difference in the Court’s decisions. An interesting aside is that it is reported that nearly every case on which she decided either as a Federal Judge or in the majority at the appeals level which has made it to the Supreme Court has been reversed.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:21 am

Joey did you see my post at 11:17,

when I looked back after I posted kinda goes along with your post at 11:17.

They are her words but I am SURE they are out of context.

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:22 am

Help me out here Jay, my progressively advanced education is confusing me.

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 26th, 2009
11:22 am

Whiner: So appearance, and not substance, is the basis of your reasoning.

There are many different ways to interpret one’s temperament, impartiality and fairness, plus you can gather much insight into their judicial decisions.

If you ever wondered why liberal chicks were so angry, just look at them, hahahahahaa.

Aahhh, yes.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
11:22 am

if we could harness the power of the outrage…..we could power the planet….

tehee tehehehe

Ray Pugh

May 26th, 2009
11:22 am

Man you wingnuts are quite w/out rush feeding you your talking points!

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:24 am

But aren’t obsece out of shape people a majority in America?

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:24 am

Alponso,
Just because I am lazy, is that true form your 11:20 post?

How many times has this happened?

Who reported that?

Sunshine

May 26th, 2009
11:24 am

I say the repubs should give the lady as much hell as the Dems gave for any nomination that GW put up there! Litmus test I tell ya!

Normal

May 26th, 2009
11:24 am

Ok Georgian by birth,
I can see you are getting hot under the collar, so I’ll try to keep
it simple.
I’m 62 years old, white, born in Kentucky coal country, son of a soldier. Veteran of ‘Nam, Granada, and Panama, so I’m two for three.
I consider myself a moderate independent, slightly left of center.
With my deverse ancestry, I would have to call myself a Mongrel
American, and because of that, my travels with father and the Military, I understand diversity. A man is a man and a woman a woman
to be accepted at face value and trusted until they prove different
regardless of race or anything else.
I respect everybody, yes even you, and I would never call anyone a
half breed. That is racest and demeans anything else you might say.
As to Judge Sotomayor, She is saying that because of her difference
in sex, race, and upbringing, that she might a have a different,
perhaps even better slant to a decision than someone who has not lived
her experiences. That is not racism and I for one, would be proud to
have her in the Supreme Court. ’nuff said.

demwit

May 26th, 2009
11:25 am

And white people now the mainorty??

Ken

May 26th, 2009
11:25 am

Road Scholar you would be wrong. I being a fireman am very familiar with this case. There was a promotion exam in the New Haven Conn fire department where 19 white males and 1 hispanic male passed the exam and the city threw out the results of the exam. Why would they do that? Because there were no black people that passed the exam. The case came before her and she ruled in favor of the city without even hearing the case. It is now before the Supreme Court and probably will be overturned based on reverse discrimination.

Byte Me

May 26th, 2009
11:27 am

alphonso: which means — if you really think about it — that all her other positions that the Supremes did not take up were confirmed as being correct.

Sunshine

May 26th, 2009
11:28 am

Oh, the moveon.org and huffington post sheep zombies are in full force!

DannyX

May 26th, 2009
11:31 am

Now hiring. Supreme Court Justice. Only Catholics need apply.

williebkind

May 26th, 2009
11:32 am

Well I do not care what her life experiences are about. I do care how she plans to interpret the constitution to do the will of the progressive liberals. But of course she too will die someday and by then we will have some other concerns rather than maintaining the integrity of the constitution.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:35 am

Mrs Godzilla,

Mine is not rage I promise! How can you have rage on a day off and looking at the waves,

Anyway, I value your opinion as you do have credibility (eventhough your a democrat. :) )

Do you think it is an issue that she has said she feels it is the place of the court to make laws?

That is not the role I have envisioned for our highest court judges. I feel they are there to interprit law not make it. What side of the fence do you fall onto?
p.s. just make sure it is not your neighbor’s yard if you are drunk sometimes they call cops. :o

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
11:35 am

Well, of course.

If Sonia Sotomayor is going to judge ONLY Hispanic women then she is the best suited for a justice job.

But I was under the impression that the Supreme Court judges EVERTBODY, not just Hispanic women who had a tough time. When did that CHANGE? With Obama, I would guess. But no surprise

Obama “organized” the community. Sotomayor will “organize” the law of the land. WHO, HOW & WHAT in your upbringing will be more important than the true legality. That describes an “activist lawyer”. It also sounds like Sonia Sotomayor, a lawyer never nominated for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.

DannyX

May 26th, 2009
11:36 am

To all you conservatives and Republicans out there.

If you want your “guys” to sit on the court……

TRY WINNING SOME ELECTIONS!!!!!

pat

May 26th, 2009
11:37 am

Doggone/GA

May 26th, 2009
11:14 am

‘Cause she got no brains, so she might as well have looks…God bless her, she’s got niether.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 26th, 2009
11:39 am

Obama “organized” the community. Sotomayor will “organize” the law of the land.

Dusty’s actually funnier than Redneck Convert today.

Peadawg

May 26th, 2009
11:39 am

It’s funny how Obama wants everyone to get along and work together, yet elects a far left judge. Wouldn’t he elect someone in the middle if he REALLY wanted everyone to work together?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
11:39 am

sunshine…

best put your extra big glasses on…..lot’s more than just MoveOn
and HuFFPost…..lot’s more…..

Joey

May 26th, 2009
11:41 am

Georgian:
I just read your 11:17. Thank you. I could not remember where or when I had read that. You make the point more directly and more clearly than I did.

If Sotomayor believes what she said in that interview, she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:41 am

Normal, have some humor, if your 62 you have to remember Cher’s song entitled that.

I have not been hot under the collar either, sorry if it was perceived that way. Thanks for the life catch up story.

She did not say she might have she said that latino women (meaning all as it was not specified otherwise) are better than white males who have not had the same experience.

Guess I just come from the new generation that does not believe a persons gender, or race in anyway qualifies them or disqualifies them from being good at a job.

From your post you have made it clear you are from the old generation which still holds beliefs that people should not be judged on their charecter, but instead be given credit or have it taken away because they are male or female or a certain race. Because that is the times and culture you grew up in.
I was fortunate enought that racism was not taught in my home.

Ray

May 26th, 2009
11:42 am

Great day in America – perfect extension of the Memorial Day gratitude I feel for vets like George American who fought for this great country, fought for equal rights for all.

Thanks George – wink

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
11:42 am

Far left judge…..hyterically funny!!!!

That’s just waht Bush 41 said when he nominated her to her current post – NOT

teehehehehe

Midori

May 26th, 2009
11:43 am

where would you wingnuts be without hackneyed bumper sticker slogans?

or rather, what would you do without them?

alponso

May 26th, 2009
11:44 am

georgian by birth floridian because I’m lucky- It was just reported on Fox News and was not stressed just given as an aside during a report. But, I found it interesting.

Byte Me- No, it does not mean that all her other decisions were correct or incorrect, it just means that the appeals did not rise to the Supreme Court level. Also, no numbers were given, could be five, could be fifty.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 26th, 2009
11:45 am

RC

May 26th, 2009
11:47 am

Good Choice, a Left wing nut job! She is as visually handicapped as Ruthie the MORON! Fits with all the left wingers.

Lord Help Us

May 26th, 2009
11:47 am

You’re (take note of the spelling please, GA) right, whiner!

Sotomayer is not nearly as ‘hot’ as Harriet Myers, but at least she is qualified…

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:47 am

Joey but because I bring those things up I have rage and other such issues in my head one poster even assumed I had my fair skin being too thin.

I guess when people do not have an argument for your position they attack the person.

Funny how not too many want to address what she obviously believes is her job, and that is to MAKE LAW, not interpret it.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
11:51 am

DB,

Funny how I have seen you post things negatively about Wooten, then he says something you agree with and all of the sudden it is gospel.

How does that happen?

Address some of her other quotes as well, you know how she feels it is her job to make Law?

Warning I do not think Wooten has commented on that yet so you may have to use your own thoughts.

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
11:55 am

Mrs. G,

Sotomayor was nominated to her CURRENT post by Clinton.

Enough of this for now, I need to go check on the forest. Later!

DB, Gwinnettian

May 26th, 2009
11:57 am

GA birth, not saying Wooten is Gospel, just defining some perception boundaries here.

you know how she feels it is her job to make Law?

I’ve no idea where that quote even comes from, but it certainly doesn’t sound like anything terribly serious. I mean, there’s [laughter] and everything…

Doggone/GA

May 26th, 2009
11:59 am

“Cause she got no brains”

Proof?

SOMALIDAWG

May 26th, 2009
12:00 pm

افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا می‌آیند و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان Women capable NOT of judging on men affairs.و باید در برابر یکدیگر با روح برادری رفتار Reap what sow.

Dave R

May 26th, 2009
12:02 pm

President Hope & Change’s nominating process:

Does the candidate meet qualifications for ethnicity? Check!

Does the candidate meet qualifications for gender? Check!

Does the candidate meet qualifications for judicial expertise, i.e. limited reversal of rulings in a court higher then hers? . . .

Oh, well. Two out of three ain’t bad!

At least he got the important pieces checked off. Of course, with just those qualifications needed by Hope & Change, wouldn’t Perez Hilton have been qualified as much?

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
12:07 pm

RedNeck is funny today? When?

He gave us his usual undercover line about how conservatives are failing. Now that is funny but not how he meant it to be.

But libs enjoy that kind of stuff. They love”playing” like conservatives are ignorant, prejudiced and blue collar nitwits when those are the characteristics of brain washed libs.

If you don’t believe that, just read the “jokers” who post here every day at the crack of dawn. Amazing repetition! Same stuff! Biased baloney!

RedNeck at least gives us a little bit of liberal variety. Kinda like a box of fruit loops.

Midori

May 26th, 2009
12:08 pm

Dave R,

how many of those “qualifications” did Harriet Miers meet?

godless heathen

May 26th, 2009
12:10 pm

So Sonya is a liberal. They all believe that white males are always wrong. Even white male liberals believe this which is why they are always being led around by their women.

Nevertheless, Obama is a far left liberal, so he gets to pick a far left judge. That’s the way it works. Hopefully, the Republicans in the Senate will remember this and not behave in the despicable manner that the Democrats have during recent confirmation hearings for Republican nominees.

S GA dem

May 26th, 2009
12:11 pm

Another question for the radical right – Is Sotomayor far left or was Bush incompetent for nominating her to the Federal Bench 17 years ago??

Paul

May 26th, 2009
12:15 pm

Georgian by birth 10:29

[[why does Lady Justice at every courtroom in AMerica wear a blindfold, if a judge is to have empathy in a case and not go based solely on law?]]

You mean like, without regard to position, status, power or weakness?

I do believe Pres Obama, in his remarks citing empathy, did limit them to more of a ‘this is a tiebreaker, close case in which the law and precedent are not clear’ realm, not as a going-in, on equal footing with clear language, idea.

Joey 11:16

[[Unless Sotomayor believes that it is the Supreme Court’s job to make law, rather the interpret the Constitution, I would not oppose her.]]

Well, she has said the courts (she was referring to appeals courts) make policy… and the difference between law and policy in an appeals court decision is…?

I just scrolled down, GBBFBIL has the quote at 11:17 –

Ken 11:25

[[The case came before her and she ruled in favor of the city without even hearing the case. It is now before the Supreme Court and probably will be overturned based on reverse discrimination.]]

Hmmm. Number of her cases overturned by a higher court… that’d be interesting for the Senate to follow.

But rather than focusing on abortion (as I’m sure the Right will) I think it’d be more revealing to focus on her thoughts on the role of the courts, what ‘equal’ means in ‘separate but equal’, her views on the role of the Legislative and Executive, as well as Judicial, in time of war, that kind of stuff.

And let us not forget it was Republicans such as McCain who voted for Ginsburg and Sen Hatch who recommended her to Pres Clinton, following the idea “If a nominee is experienced in the law, highly intelligent, of good character and temperament, and — most important — gives clear and convincing evidence that he or she understands and respects the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government, the mere fact that I might have selected a different nominee will not lead me to oppose the President’s nominee.”

Yet it was our President who voted against Roberts and suggested a filibuster of Alito; therefore, he (and Democrats) have no moral grounds upon which to call for an up or down vote, let alone any impediment or filibuster.

BDAtlanta

May 26th, 2009
12:16 pm

you know how she feels it is her job to make Law?

Her quote sounded like maybe she was being sarcastic. But I haven’t heard the tape which would be a better tell than something transcribed.

Either way, good luck keeping her out cause there probably are enough votes to get past any blockage from the Republican National Constipation.

mike

May 26th, 2009
12:19 pm

Jay –

“But of course, with the right-wing noise machine already primed to squeal regardless of who the nominee might be, we’re still going to hear a lot of.”

How would you compare the “right-wing noise machine” to the “left-wing noise machine” that went after Roberts and Alito?

John Doxey

May 26th, 2009
12:20 pm

An excellent choice. The American Taliban (AT) will squeal, but in the end, she will be confirmed.

AT, I hope you had a good Memorial Day.

williebkind

May 26th, 2009
12:20 pm

to Dannyx: Well prosecute ACORN for the voter fraud and do not count dead peoples vote.

John Doxey

May 26th, 2009
12:21 pm

When we attacked Roberts and Alito, it was fair and just :-)

williebkind

May 26th, 2009
12:22 pm

S GA dem: In my opinion, Bush nominated a hispanic because there are hispanics in his family. He was presenting that kind of love and inclusion the progressive liberals get during election time.

Redneck Convert

May 26th, 2009
12:26 pm

Sister Dusty: Well, I never!

caz1158

May 26th, 2009
12:31 pm

Regardles as to what the left says,it’s actually ok to debate pros/cons of a sc nominee. Why does it have to be political? Why not nominate the best qualified person? I thought “KING I Am” was going to bridge the gaps, & bring Americans together on important issues. Does he even refer to anyone on the right on anything?HMMMMMMMMM,have’nt seen it yet. Must have been another of those broken campaign promises.

jt

May 26th, 2009
12:31 pm

The nomination of Sotomayor only matters to the R & D party dumb masses.
What is one more societal leach lawyer added to the payroll of an unlawful federal goverment?
The rule of law has been dead for years. Whoever has the most money or political power wins in our perverted judicial system.
Thank God, this whole system is rapidly becoming irrelevent to the majority of natural law Americans.
The 200 million collective shrug is near.

Midori

May 26th, 2009
12:32 pm

RNC inadvertently releases talking points RE: Sotomayor nomination
From The Hill:
“Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.”

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-... /

oldmac

May 26th, 2009
12:33 pm

Jay, do you ever have anything to day that ain’t right out of the Democrat party playbook? Just once? Maybe? Never mind…

MN

Dave R

May 26th, 2009
12:33 pm

Gee, Midori, but I don’t think there IS a Justice Meiers, is there?

DannyX

May 26th, 2009
12:38 pm

WillieB, should we also prosecute Pew Research, Gallup, and all the other polls that confirm the outcome of the last two national elections? Democratic dominance. Dwindling number of Republicans.

House, Senate, and President. Only a fool would blame that on ACORN.

KURGT

May 26th, 2009
12:43 pm

SHE had her rulings reversed by the supremes. 3 of those times it was because she got the law wrong

caz1158

May 26th, 2009
12:44 pm

MM@10:25am – Yeah I agree,”BABY KILLERS” has always been a term of endearment for the Democratic Party! Boy that’s something to hang your hat on.

Normal

May 26th, 2009
12:44 pm

Georgia/Florida’
You had better read my 11:24 entry again, because I fear you have
a reading comprehention disability.

TnGelding

May 26th, 2009
12:45 pm

Well, I’m sure she will make a fine member of the court, but I would have preferred someone of known stature, like Mario Cuomo. He’s still young by the court’s standards.

ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY!!!

May 26th, 2009
12:47 pm

So is Teddie K for that matter!!!!

Midori

May 26th, 2009
12:48 pm

DaveR,

thank Goddess for that.

why so glum? at least Clarence “Slappy” Thomas will have some minority company.

KURGT

May 26th, 2009
12:48 pm

s ga dem – yes, bush wad incompetent 17 yrs ago.

Dave R

May 26th, 2009
12:50 pm

The difference is, Mrs. G, that her nomination was pulled because she wasn’t qualified. No chance for this one. She sail through regardless of her lack of qualifications.

Let’s hope she had a nanny she didn’t pay taxes for.

KURGT

May 26th, 2009
12:51 pm

too bad she is not gay, all bases would be covered for the left

ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY!!!

May 26th, 2009
12:52 pm

TGelding-my bad I thought you said “statue”

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
12:53 pm

Paul,

I’m such a loon – I wrote on the thread downstairs that I answered you on that thread thinking that I was on this thread, but I wasn’t (huh), so anyway, I answered you downstairs and then on the same thread told you that I answered you on that thread. See?

Paul

May 26th, 2009
12:55 pm

Bosch

I turned my monitor upside down and it made sense…

what beach?

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
12:56 pm

Paul,

Oh good.

The pretty beach with the waves!

Jake

May 26th, 2009
12:59 pm

I’m just going by the pictures and her Wiki bio, but her comment was clearly sexist and perhaps oddly racist. I say oddly in that it appears a white, Latina woman claimed she made better judgments than a white man. BTW, race has been misused about 100 times on this blog, Latina is an ehtnic distinction, not a racial one. She appears caucasian to me.

Sally Mae-B

May 26th, 2009
1:01 pm

Kurgt She might not be gay but P & B here fit the bill. You two need to get a room!!!

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
1:03 pm

Normal,
In your 11:24 you failed to address why she only chose to mention Latino Women and White Men and said that Latino women would be better.

She never elaborated on which issues so one is left to assume she is refferring to all issues.

It is obvious since you have not explained what she said but what it meant to you.
You went on to say how she was saying life experience helps, but agian I ask what does being Latino have to do with making a candidiate better than a white counterpart?

You still have not answered the question would you have a problem if the statement had been…. I feel that a White male with his experiences and life would make better and more accurate judgements than a Latino Woman who has not had those experiences.

Now is that racism because to me that is the definintion. There is a person of power (a judge) saying that the ethnic makeup of a person IS a determining factor in how well they would judge.

So I assume you agree that ones ethnic makeup does determine their abilities and weaknesses.

Wow it is obvious you are 62 and have formed your opinions and views in a much different less understanding time.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
1:05 pm

“The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy.

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made,” she said, laughing a bit through the next part: “And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I know. …..But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.

“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”

Read the whole piece here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
1:09 pm

So Mrs. Godzilla,
You are in favor of the court and the justices making law?
You do not see a need for checks and balances and that is not the balances listed for courts?

Are those acurate since you think she was right to say what she said?

My position is that I do not feel the judges should be in th ebusiness of making laws, as has been a practice in many courts for the last portion of years.

Pokeyr

May 26th, 2009
1:10 pm

Sounds like JB received his WH talking points.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
1:11 pm

Also see how the professor you quoted was not willing to say they make law. As law and policy are 2 different things. Notice how he said policy yet the good judge saud law.

Words have power, and policy and law are not the same. Or torture would be legal, since it was a policy.

Normal

May 26th, 2009
1:14 pm

Enter your comments here

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
1:15 pm

You wingnuts do realize that you sound like we did back in the Myers confirmation days – except we were right.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
1:16 pm

Ooops! Should have added a healthy “hehehehehe” to my 1:15 (sorry mike).

mm

May 26th, 2009
1:17 pm

Midori,

Those talking points look eerily familiar to what the wingnuts have been posting on this thread.

Caz1158,

You are living proof as to why the Dems control the WH and Congress. Keep it up. The governors are next.

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 26th, 2009
1:20 pm

Bosch, You win funniest and possibly most truthful statement of the day for that one.

How do you KNOW the wingnuts are wrong this time though, did you get a special ball from the sci-fi channel?

The more the parties and their followers claim to be different the more they show themselves to be the same.

Bud Wiser

May 26th, 2009
1:23 pm

Well, this certainly is no surprise. A far left wing activist judge, by her own words, that doesn’t even apparently have a good grasp on the law.

She has been overturned by the Supreme Court 4 times already, 3 of which she was the principle writer of the court’s opinion. In 3 of the 4 cases, she was overturned because SCOTUS said that her interpretation of the law was wrong.

She should be a good fit for Obowo.

Has anyone checked yet to see if she has paid her taxes? Or if she has illegals doing housework?

This one’s a stinker, and the fact that she was appointed by Bush 1 only validates the heredity lines.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
1:25 pm

georgian by birth….,

“How do you KNOW the wingnuts are wrong this time though, did you get a special ball from the sci-fi channel”

No, I got it straight from the Queen of Zook’s personal assistant himself – he came to visit this morning – really spooky guy on the outside, but once ya’ get a couple of bloody mary’s in ‘em he’s a riot!

Normal

May 26th, 2009
1:45 pm

Geeze Georgian/Floridian,
Get a grip. I go for lunch and is see your 1:03 entry.
Yes, the statement she made about her experiences verses a white male
and and your reversal of that statement of a white males experiences
verses a hispanic woman are BOTH correct. It is the perception of things colored by ones experiences that is the core of our debate.
The white male sees a certain problem and a hispanic female sees the
the same problem differently. Who is to say which one is correct?
Certainly not you or I.
This difference in perception is the main reason there are nine judges seated on the Supreme Court, and as others have said correctly,
the Supreme Court has the last say, so by definition, their interpretation becomes the law. That is why I, personally, like all
kinds of different thinkers in the court as possible, so that as the FINAL
check and balance process, every side of the decision to be will be
looked at and debated before ruled on.
And by the way, you keep bringing up that I lived in a more intolerant
time and that was true, but I, thank God for my Mom, was reaised
color blind. I was called a N—-r lover many times in my life and I
took great glee in drinking from the “Colored Only” water fountains.
Jim Crow was not how it should have been and certainly was unconstitutional and I liked to point it out. So I take umbrage that
you imply that I was racist. People are people and we are all from the
same race…The Human Race. The sooner we get over this race/sex/
religion/sexual orientation BS, the better off we will be as people and
a nation.

gog

May 26th, 2009
1:51 pm

so all you libs out there that like the idea of the court making law will be satisfied when cali prop 8 is upheld

hryder

May 26th, 2009
1:54 pm

The greatest thing of which I am aware is that the nominee actually realizes that people will receive the same presentation, but arrive at different conclusions due to the bias conceived or developed over the totality of their life’s experiences. This is no excuse for saying that black is orange or that such and such might have occured. The law is to be based on facts not ideas, rumors, or suppositions of what could be or should be, but what actually exists or did take place. If she presents this truthfully as her view, confirmation should be easily confirmed. Several previous nominees were not confirmed when stating this view, one was, the others were “Borked”, as they were not of the same political affiliation as the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
1:54 pm

georgian etc….

no dear.

here is how a law is made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

“Legislating from the bench” or “activist judge” are just silly phrases often used by folks who are unhappy that the Judges on that bench do not agree with their particular point of view. It’s been grossly overused and is now kind of a “that’s your sign” moment….for the majority of Americans.

Now, do I believe in SCOTUS interpreting and applying law? why certainly.

FYI, I see where right winger Mark Halperin says Judge Sotomayor is a “near lock” not just for confirmation, but for an “easy” confirmation.

Y’all should accept this and use your energy to get the GOP’s act together.

S GA dem

May 26th, 2009
1:54 pm

Bravo, Normal – BRAVO! Well said

Jake

May 26th, 2009
1:56 pm

So basically she’s an affirmative action nominee who is in favor of affirmative action. Fancy that.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
1:56 pm

Perhaps, the last line would have been better stated….

Conserve your energy….

Paul

May 26th, 2009
1:59 pm

Hello Mrs Godzilla!

From watching the video it’s pretty apparent (to me, anyways) that it was one of those ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we don’t really do that (smiles)’ comments.

It would be, I imagine, the same as if one got a bunch of television news execs or print media execs together and one of them says “now we all know our media is completely unbiased (rolls eyes) and all we do is report the news (big grin) and we don’t slant it one way or the other (starts laughing).

Too bad she didn’t have the fortitude to make the observation in a public forum. But at least she made it. Which is why I posted earlier I’d like to hear her answers to questions on the role of the judiciary, esp. in relation to the legislative branch.

And wait for her honest reply, not what she has to say to minimize the firestorm before she gets confirmed (wink wink nudge nudge).

Jake

May 26th, 2009
2:00 pm

Mrs. G – Then please explain how the death penalty became illegal in the 70’s. Clearly the Founders of the Constitution didn’t intend the death penalty to be ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment because they practiced the death penalty. What they meant was the truly heinous stuff like drawing and quartering and waterboarding, etc.

hryder

May 26th, 2009
2:01 pm

Another thing is: Why do so many people have what amounts to a true hatred of Jews. When asked why, I have never received a logical, factual presentation. What I have always heard is and can be easily refuted.

Jay roolz Andy and RB

May 26th, 2009
2:12 pm

Nothing could possibly be funnier than the Harriet Meiers nomination, not even redneck or dusty….

Jay roolz Andy and RB

May 26th, 2009
2:15 pm

Ain’t it great to have a super majority????

Acworth Man

May 26th, 2009
2:18 pm

Why is no one on this site talking about her thoughts on gun control in that the 2nd admendment does not apply to states and cities. Which means that a state and/or cities have the right to ban guns of any kind.

Does that sound like someone you really want in our highest court?

Just wondering.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
2:23 pm

Paul

Is your statement, “Too bad she didn’t have the fortitude to make the observation in a public forum.” a wink, wink, nudge, nudge slam?

2005 Duke University Law Forum actually sounds like it was kinda’ sorta’ public doesn’t it? I suspect she was not speaking to an empty room…. Where would you have preferred a Judge make that kind of statement four years before she was being considered for a big promotion?

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
2:23 pm

What, Mz Godzie?
An activist judge is just someone who does not agree with your opinions?

Then liberal Democrat must have all been “activists” because they hated George W. Bush because he won the election and was not a Democrat. For eight years Democrats actively disagreed with anything Bush promoted.

You alone, Mz Godzie, posted as IN THE NEWS with dozens of cut’n'paste items every day from DNC against Bush. You are an “activist” and we know for what and whom. There was no “open mind” whatsoever.

If Ms. Sodomayor becomes a Supreme Court Justice, I hope she will not encounter the hate similar to what Bush received. That was and is an unAmerican activity harmful to everyone.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
2:24 pm

Mrs. G.,

Dang, I thought it was the School House Rock “I’m just a Bill” song. That’s how I know how a law is made.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
2:29 pm

Dusty,

“An activist judge is just someone who does not agree with your opinions?”

Yeah! Dusty finally gets it!!! There is hope!!!

Damn those activitst judges in California.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
2:33 pm

If bosch agrees with me I’ve posted something all wrong. My reputation is shot to pieces.

Paul

May 26th, 2009
2:38 pm

Mrs. Godzilla

My point was she was addressing an issue many ‘know’ but few come out and say.

The forum was not one of those ‘hey, I’m here, can I come in?’ public forums, as her comment about ’shouldn’t say that ’cause wait, are there cameras?” indicates.

And yes, I would find it refreshing if people – justices, SEC, Congressmen, Treasury, whomever, said what they thought without an eye on ‘the next big promotion.’

So I guess we can accept some judges think about the outcome they want then look for precedent to support (one of the things I remember from a HIGH SCHOOL government class), be they liberal or conservative; that some media is liberal, some conservative; well, we can accept that, whether or not the practitioners say so or not in public, eh?

Oh, just before I left on my trip Bill Maher was on Leno. Leno said he could tell Bush/Cheney jokes and Republicans would laugh, but if he told jokes about Obama or liberals to liberals, they would frown. Leno asked Maher if he thought conservatives had a sense of humor but liberals wouldn’t laugh at themselves.

Maher replied “yes, I do” and called them “Limiting Liberals.”

There you have it -

RW-(the original)

May 26th, 2009
2:40 pm

Bosch,

There were never any confirmation hearings for Meirs and it wasn’t because the moonbats went nuts it was because we wingnuts did.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
2:41 pm

yes Dusty

Liberals are activists…..in fact they were more “activist” in 2008
than they had been in year….and can you figure out what they were successfully active for?

You seem to think activism is like ebola….a big “ewwww”. Does that mean instead of being an activist you are actually a couch-potato-ist?

Please dear, we have had enough of do nothing, we want ACTIVE.

Judge Sotomayor is unlikely to get treated as Bush did, unless she were to go all “couch potato-ist” on us and let us get hit with the largest terrorist attack on American soil allowing 3500 plus to die.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
2:43 pm

yae, Paul

wink wink nudge nudge

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
2:44 pm

Mrs. G.,

I love it! Couch-potato-ist. My new word of the day. Damn those activist judges in California.

Normal

May 26th, 2009
2:44 pm

Hryder,
On you 2:01 post, let me say this, I don’t know why either, but I
do know that if President Obama had been able to nominate King Solomon
to the Supreme Court, the Political Right, would blow a fuse because
he wasn’t Christian enough. After all, didn’t he threaten to cut a baby
in half? God save us from activist judges! ;>)

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
2:49 pm

Bosch

Couch potato-ist is a bit awkward…..let’s try “Slug Judge” of “Slug
Legislator”….

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
2:52 pm

Mrs. G.,

Yeah too many syllables – get’s your tongue tied – and you know how us lazy liberals are (even though I worked almost 24 hours straight this weekend on a project) we don’t like to be bothered with too much talk.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
2:54 pm

This is my sixth try at getting a comment posted. I will try again.

Yes, Mx. Godzie, your type of activism is called propaganda. Untrue statements posted as fact. Just like your last post filled with Bush hate. You wrote”[as Bush]..let us get hit with the largest terrorist attack on American soil allowing 3500 plus to die.”

That is no more true than saying you are a great friend of Osama din Laden and that is why you do not mention terrorists who struck us on 9/11. The blame it all on Pres. Bush. That is the opposite of the truth, better known as a lie.

clyde

May 26th, 2009
2:58 pm

Justice Sotomayer said her rulings would be different than those of a white male and she is correct.She has been regarded as a centrist,but some of the rulings I’ve read don’t show that.It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the New Haven firefighters.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:01 pm

Everytime I mention b-o-s-c-h in a post, I get “filtered” out. Is b-o-s-c-h a bad word now?

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:03 pm

Or maybe it was “booboo”? Just checking…

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:06 pm

Or maybe it was bosch and booboo together?? They do seem synonymous.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
3:11 pm

Dusty,

I think you have to capitalize my name for it to go through.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:12 pm

bosch has a project? I hope he finished his model airplane.

Adittohead

May 26th, 2009
3:12 pm

Conservative values of her parents enabled her to be educated. Bookman does not mention one thing that would qualify her for the U.S, Supreme Court..,Like all liberal, she believes in judicial activism… writing LAW from the bench…

Normal

May 26th, 2009
3:12 pm

Miz G,
for what it’s worth, let ‘em laugh, I for one, agree with all you
have said today.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
3:13 pm

yes, dusty

wink wink nudge nudge….

propaganda, wink wink nudge nudge

whatever you choose to believe you will.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
3:13 pm

Dusty,

Nope I didn’t finish that model airplane, but I did work on a project that brought in lots of cash for the Bosch family to go on vacation in a couple of days! Yeahhhhh!!!!!!! The Bosches are headed for the beach on Thursday!!!!!

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
3:14 pm

” head

and do all conservatives believe in judicial slugism?

Kamchak

May 26th, 2009
3:14 pm

Paul

Do you quote Maher because you consider him the prototypical liberal? I find him to be the prototypical opportunist comedian that shifts with change. His show “Politically Incorrect” created an industry from perceived bias. In his 1995 book “The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education”, John Wilson describes his experiences gaining degrees during the late 80’s and early 90’s and found: “The myth of political correctness has become accepted as gospel when describing the state of American universities.”

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
3:15 pm

Thanks, Normal.

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
3:19 pm

Enter your comments here

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
3:21 pm

Wait a minute…..I didn’t type that or spazz out and hit my submit button by accident at 3:19 – I smell a conspiracy going on.

First Dusty’s posts that have my name in them won’t go through, and now my name mysteriously appear at 3:19 – when I didn’t do that.

Hmmmmm……

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:24 pm

Whoopee, Bosch, I hope you have a good time. Love that beach! Sand in the toes, waves slapping ya around, beach plovers doing their little races and seashells all pretty. And…getting all blistered. Wear your sunscreen lavishly and your safety belt on the surf board. Ahhh..the beach!

Bosch

May 26th, 2009
3:30 pm

Dusty,

Thanks! I’m excited. We haven’t been anywhere in about 19 months. We got some respite care for the old folks and we’re hittin’ the road!!! I will wear lots of sunscreen and wiggle my toes in the sand. I even like it when the little fish that hang out in the shallow surf nibble at your toes. Ya’ know? People pay big bucks now a days to have fish eat the dead skin off their feet in them fancy salons.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:30 pm

Bosch..it’s those “activists” at work! Better watch it. They’ll filter you into the first beach bum conservative.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:35 pm

B-o-s-c-h, these f-i-l-t-e-r-s don’t like y-o-u. I just lost another post.

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
3:39 pm

I give up. No more playing here today. B-o-s-c-h, glad you are getting your feet cleaned. Better to do it every 19 months or so. Have fun.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
3:42 pm

Quote of the day on this subject from Kevin Drum….

“but Obama, as usual, is looking a few moves ahead and understands that a shrieking meltdown from the usual suspects will mostly help the liberal cause: the American public already thinks the conservative rump running the Republican Party is crazy, after all, and this will help cast that feeling in stone. Most normal people think empathy is a good thing, not a code word for the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Dusty

May 26th, 2009
4:01 pm

Dear Mz Godzie,

“Normal”@ 3:12 only likes your posts because he, too, likes stilletto heels.

nudge nudge wink wink

I see you still like to cut’n'paste. Can’t drop the old habits, huh?

Bye now. Gotta get busy with the empathy, the sympathy and the geocentrophy for those proletariats…Who’d a thought it???

Mrs. Godzilla

May 26th, 2009
4:10 pm

Dusty

If information is useful and available to post, why is cut n paste so offensive to you? I most certainly have changed some old habits,
I respectfully use your correct name now…..

And yes, I would never have thought you could handle empathy, sympathy and geocentropy.

Pogo

May 26th, 2009
4:17 pm

You libs aren’t insulted by Midori’s racist “Slappy” comment about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? The lack of your outrage means your credibility is like, none. So is yours Jay for allowing that nitwit to say something like that. This blog, with its repetitive “Wingnut” comments and daily liberal diatribes fostered by you is incredibly boring. Jay, you better pick a new format for your blog before this thing self-implodes. This type thing won’t float you in “The Show”, if you know what I mean. The non-thinking lizards on here are liking watching the same old movie over and over and over again. Same thing. We all know the lines. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. And you ain’t much different Jaybird.

Greg Mendel

May 26th, 2009
4:41 pm

So, the wingnuts don’t like Sotomayor. I’m not surprised, but who would they prefer? Cotton Mather? Torquemada? Roland Fleischer? Clarence Scalia II?

Greg Mendel

May 26th, 2009
4:44 pm

“The non-thinking lizards on here are liking watching the same old movie over and over and over again.” — Pogo

Well said, Pogo!

Jack

May 26th, 2009
5:04 pm

Well done Obama, she is the real deal and part of the change most real Americans voted for.

N.J,

May 26th, 2009
5:09 pm

Pllttt. Some of the most famous and best jurists of Islamic Andalusia were….women:

Fatimah bint Ahmed bin Yahia was a knowledgeable scholar deducing legal rulings‭, ‬and her husband‭, ‬Imam al-Motahhar‭, ‬used to consult her about the difficulties he ever encounter in some issues and about the lessons he prepares for his students‭.‬

In the Islamic Maghreb‭, ‬Fatimah al-Fihria built al-Qarawyeen Mosque in Fes‭, ‬in the third century Hegira‭. ‬Shortly after that‭, ‬the mosque became the first Islamic university in the world‭. ‬She was a virtuous generous scholar‭, ‬and so was her sister‭, ‬Maryam‭, ‬who built al-Andalus mosque in Fes‭, ‬too‭. ‬One of the most famous transmitters of the Prophet’s tradition‭ (‬Mouhaddiths‭) ‬in Andalusia was Um al-Hassan bint Soulaiman‭, ‬who narrated after the Andalusia Mouhaddith Baqy Ibn Mukhallad‭, ‬through listening and reading‭. ‬She went to pilgrimage and met al-Hijaz scholars taking from them jurisprudence and knowledge of the Prophet’s sayings‭. ‬She went back to Andalusia before she observed pilgri-mage for a second time‭, ‬and died in Makkah-al-Mukarramah‭.‬

Fact is that most Americans are totally unaware that in the Islamic world, women had more rights than women in America until about 90 years ago. And that most of the current status of women in the Islamic world came from copying what they learned from Europeans as they came into contact with them.

The Muslims gave the west mathematics, musical instruments, musical notations, modern medicine, the various pure sciences, and we gave them various forms of bigotry.

For every one of those quotes about women in the Quran, you can find ten similar quotes in the Bible. In fact most of the quotes in the Quran about women occur in portions where the biblical stories are being retold.

Most of the most famous scholars of the Islamic Golden age, people like Averroes, got their ideas from the women scholars, jurists, doctors, and poets who taught them. Of course as a qadi (judge) Averroes (his arab name was Ibn Rushd) gave many legal judgements in which he asserted that women were the equal of men in all arenas, both at peace and war.

Historical accounts from Muslim Spain list 70 women Quran copyists and calligraphers during the period of a single caliph.

One of the most famous, Walladah bint Mustakfi (d. 1091). Despite the decline of the caliphate, Walladah styled herself as the reigning debutante of Córdoba, hosting exclusive salons for poets, musicians and artists. She challenged certain upper class social conventions such as veiling.

Walladah possessed an irrepressible spirit, symbolized by her public love affair with the virtuoso poet, Ibn Zaydun. Her confident nature was clearly evidenced by the words stitched on her sleeve: “I am, by God, fit for high positions.”

http://www.islamicspain.tv/Andalusi-Society/WomenofAl-Andalus.htm

Basically most of the ideas with regard to the veil, were not Islamic, but were copied by the Muslims as they started spreading out into areas controlled by Christians. Wealthy Byzantine women wore veils so that the hoi polloi couldnt look at them and the Muslims tended to copy the traditions and habits and fads of the wealthy in the areas they took over from the Byzantines. The veil was basically an Eastern Roman empire idea, picked up by the Muslims. Most of the worse ideas that exist in Islam today were picked up from contact with the west. The current anti-jewish anti Semitism among Arabs and Muslims did not exist until the mid 19th Century, when the French brought it with them to their colonial holdings in places like Lebanon, Syria, and North Africa. Before this of course, the medieval Jewish Golden age occured in the Islamic world, and it was to the Islamic world that Eurpean Jews tended to try to escape to during various pograms and persecutions that went on in Europe. Most of the greatest of jewish philosophy written in the middle ages were not written in Hebrew, but in Arabic. As were all of the works of Moses Maimonides, who rose to become the physician of the Islamic Caliph.

Bud Wiser

May 26th, 2009
5:16 pm

Whoever was bleating about the judges in Californikation earlier, the panel that overturned the gay marriage blockage via prop 8 was the Cal Supreme court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, also in San Fransickeningfreako, is probably the most activist bench in the country.

They must all have bank accounts in the Bahamas.

pat

May 26th, 2009
5:35 pm

When I saw the picture, I thought obama got another dog.

DebbieDoRight

May 26th, 2009
5:38 pm

Wow — great comments today!!!

Fla ’cause you’re not cute enough to live in Ga: She said in a covering statement that a Latino Woman would more often than not make a better decision than a White Male, without the latino’s experience.

Fla you’re taking that WAY out of context and you know it!! Good try though!!! :)

Demming: Prior to the announcement of Obama’s nominee, the GOP had already indicated that they viewed the nominating process as an opportunity to replenish the coffers of the RNC.

In other words, no matter WHO the Pres. picked the elephants’ll kick up a fuss!! Elephants are so predictable sometimes…..

Obama is leading America in the right direction!! 1.8T budget deficit the first year, 40% drop in Dow coupled with a 10% drop in GDP, since election, N. Korea test-fires two more missiles off its east coast, a day after nuke test

And GWB had NOTHING to do with any of this!!! Why the budget was BALANCED and Obama came into office with a SURPLUS of funds!! — Oh, wait that was DUBYA who came into office with a balanced budget and surplus and then decided to decimate it in less than 2 years, not Obama…..hmm… well anyway, N. Korea NEVER fired missiles until Obama took office!! Why when Bush was pres, they backed down and towed the line just like bush told them too ………oh wait, that’s not true!! OK here’s another salient point!!! well the economy was NEVER bad while Bush was president!!! Why that TARP thing that Obama thought up in October was just, just………oh wait…..Obama wasn’t president in october and he didn’t think of the TARP program…..that was Bush….. DANG IT!!! THat history keeps biting your comments in the butt every time!!! We should BAN HISTORY!!! That’ll teach ‘em!!

DAve R: Two words…. HARRIET MYERS!! Beat that one!!

Dusty: Redneck is COOL!! He always gets a good laugh AND he’s always saying nice things about you!! Heck you gotta laugh at politics sometimes, or you’re just gonna cry all day long!! Give Redneck a break!!!

Redneck: Always a fan!!!

md

May 26th, 2009
5:54 pm

Why should anyone look at her “qualifications” when she herself denied the promotion of firefighters based on race and quotas. Every man taking that test had the same opportunity to study and pass, race should not even be a factor.

Wake up America, this is were we are headed. Those firefighters will have to share their grades with the underachievers in order to get a promotion. Sound familiar?

n22s

May 26th, 2009
7:05 pm

I remember lots of things taken out of context. In the 90’s, for example, Newt Gingrich said something about letting Medicare wither on the vine and was flogged with that comment for years. Of course, he said in the same statement that he wished to replace Medicare with something BETTER, causing Medicare to wither on the vine but, hey, he was a Republican and hypocrisy is okay when it furthers the causes of Democrats.

One of the biggest problems with judicial activism, administration policies that ignore the constitution, the Patriot Act, etc., etc., is their impact on the country 20 or 50 or 100 years from now and not just today’s world.

What if the political winds blow in a different direction 20 years from now? Does any liberal relish the thought of another Bush or Nixon controlling a car company or nationalizing banks?

It wasn’t long ago that the Democratic party was considered out of touch with America.

It has been said that judicial activism put GWB in office in 2000. Is judicial activism only a problem when the results don’t coincide with your views?

How many of you today are praising Sotomayor’s nomination yet complaining about California’s Prop 8 decision? Perhaps if we were all confident about our court system being about the law and state and federal constitutions we could have more confidence in its decisions.

And if you are a liberal and tell me that conservatives are hypocritical because they supported judicial activism with respect to Bush aren’t you saying they are your moral equivalent? Does their hypocrisy justify yours?

Or perhaps you are just as hypocritical, cheap and immoral as you claim conservatives to be.

danjonglee

May 26th, 2009
7:18 pm

Good Choice….How many times has she been overturned on cases? Anyone know?

n22s

May 26th, 2009
7:26 pm

I’m just curious. Robert Bork had similar degrees, experience, intellect, etc. but was denied a place on the Supreme Court because of his views being out of the mainstream. If the public perceives Sotomayor’s views to be out of the mainstream because her views are too far to the left will it be appropriate to deny her a place on the court?

A recent poll revealed 51 percent of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life. If she believes in abortion, any time on demand, would this be too far out of the mainstream?

Why is it that your views are always mainstream but those who disagree with you are out of the same mainstream?

What gives you the right to decide? Why is your current view on what is constitutional be considered correct and older views, incorrect?

Perhaps if we had an unwavering standard, something agreed upon as a rock, unchanging based upon whims and fads we wouldn’t have that problem.

Maybe if we had a Constitution that was more of a rock and less of a living breathing guideline that, because it can mean anything, really mean nothing?

n22s

May 26th, 2009
7:37 pm

If the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can change as today’s world sees fit, does that mean laws deemed Constitutional 100 or 200 years ago are just as valid and moral as the laws deemed constitutional today?

100 years ago, there were many laws against contraception and abortion that were considered constitutional. In fact, primitive polls of the time indicated people supported such laws.

Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist who viewed contraception and abortion as a means of holding down the populations of those she deemed “unfit” changed a lot of those views. I suspect racism was at the heart of a lot of those who supported her views and led contraception and abortion laws to be overturned.

Because laws against contraception and abortion were overturned by evil views only the most vile in the population hold to these days, should the laws be reinstated?

Wow, this whole judicial activism thing gets complicated when viewed 30 or 50 or 100 years after the fact.

vuduchld

May 26th, 2009
8:02 pm

I find it funny that right wing ditto heads can cry about “judicial activism” from liberal to middle of the road judges without looking at their own reactionaries. Alito, Scalia and Thomas are conservative judicial activists. So, I guess it’s okay for them to craft laws that favor conservatives, no matter how narrow minded in scope. A new day has come, we the people could care less what your feelings are because you have proven time and again to be complete dimwits.
You thought you could fire up your bogus base by spoiling for a fight with President Obama. He threw the first punch, knocking your silly asses out. When will you scumbags ever learn!

md

May 26th, 2009
8:22 pm

vuduchld,

Lets see, “ditto heads”, “dimwits”, “silly asses”, “scumbags”.

I’m an independant, but is this an example of the “new” left. Seems a lot like the “old” left.

Are you by chance over the age of 13, or is this what we get to look forward to in the coming generations?

N.J.

May 26th, 2009
9:47 pm

There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the judiciary cannot “legislate from the bench” by determining that a law passed by the federal government is unconstitutional. This is what conservatives mean by “legislating from the bench”, doing their job. That is their job, to look at any new laws, at the federal, state or local level and determine if these laws are constitutional or not.

The entire conservative idea of strict construction is absurd. The body of the constitution clearly stated that blacks did not have rights as citizens to vote, but the slave owning states could count them as “population” with regard to the branch of government whose membership is proportional to population..the House of Representatives. The Court could have determined that freeing the slaves and giving rights to blacks was unconstitutional because the constitution said they only counted as 3/5th of a person.

Quite the contrary, on issues like abortion, the Conservative justices are quite “activist” because there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that can be contrued to give rights to the unborn, NOR is there any real common law going back for nearly a thousand years by which such can be construed. However Conservative justices tend to be anti-abortion, where there is no legal or constitutional precedent that supports this position. They are every bit as activist as Democratic justices in their interpretations, as they insert their personal opinions into places where there is no legal precedent to support those positions. The fact that the constitution limits some rights of citizens by age is a clear indication that there are some points where rights begin. For example, conception does not allow an unborn child to run for, and serve as president, or senator, or congressman. There are defined age limit where a citizen can serve in each office. These rights are in effect, conditional

Keith

May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm

Wow this country is screwed! Pretty soon no white people will be at the top. We all know how great black leadership is. Just look at Atlanta.

TnGelding

May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm

ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY!!!

May 26th, 2009
12:52 pm

I don’t hold Teddy in quite as high esteem as Cuomo. I’ve always liked the way he expressed himself.

N.J,

May 26th, 2009
5:09 pm

Great stuff, but you’d better hire a body guard.

Dr.R

May 26th, 2009
10:03 pm

As a guy on the outside of the whole “pro-life, pro-choice” endless, pointless debate (I do not, as it turns out, have a uterus so it ain’t my fight), it dawns on me that we’d all be better off if the squeaky wheels on both sides had themselves been vaccuumed out before birth. Can we PLEASE find something more important to argue about? Preferrably something that affects the lives of all of us, not just the hypocrites on one side who want to force their religious views down your throat so you’re forced to have a baby you’ll abandon (which they, too, will then ignore) and the others who want to mate with everyone that moves without the negative consequences. A pox on all of you. Abort, don’t abort, I could not possibly care less.

TnGelding

May 26th, 2009
10:05 pm

Keith

May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm

We’re going to have to control the legal immigration as well, but I haven’t heard anyone even suggest it but me.

The Obamas represent what Dr. King dreamed. Let’s hope they are able to live up to his expectations, and ours.

Dave R

May 26th, 2009
10:08 pm

DebbieDoRight, just remember, it was the conservatives who got Meiers to back out, not the libs. At least some people can recognize when a nominee isn’t qualified.

You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.

Right Wing Noise Machine

May 26th, 2009
10:26 pm

Jay why do you cooks continue to mock the right wing noise machine? They are growing and flourishing while you and this paper are decaying!
I guess you’ve been aborted so to speak! Sotomayor. What a perfect name for a liberal jusdge. I’ve read thru some of writings and speeches. This woman is nothing but a liberal activist judge. She is not a legal powerhouse nor does come across as particularly that bright. How many points were added to her to get into Princeton in the first place. I will say on a positive that she does appear fairly tough on crime. Much more so than Souter. What’s funny is that she’s a big plaintiff’s advocate except when the plaintiffs are white male fireman. She is a simpleton unable to see thru her own biases. She looks like a racist and sexist pig. Typical lefty!

Jay

May 26th, 2009
10:32 pm

“You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.”

Hey Dave R, remind me again: What’s your stance on torture?

N.J.

May 26th, 2009
10:44 pm

Well unless the Republican Party wants to see polls showing those who self identify as “Republicans” take the next inevitable dive into single digits, the will make their little stink, but will not filibuster this.

Anyway, there IS always the “nuclear option” that Republicans asserted was completely legitimate to use when Alito and Roberts were nominated.
They demanded an “up or down” vote, and even though they asserted that no one had ever filibustered a presidential nominee (another falsehood, they filibustered one of LBJ’s nominees)/

Like it or not, they are going to have to allow a vote, and all it takes is a simple majority

N.J.

May 26th, 2009
11:11 pm

Yes, regardless of their assertions, virtually all of the anti-abortion stances are based on religion. There is no real historical legal precedent with regard to allowing abortion laws to exist, nor is their much medical support for the anti-Roe v. Wade position. Most of the arguments that resulted in Roe v Wade turning out the way it did relied on various aspects of a half millenia or more of both RELIGIOUS and common law positions on this issue.

The right wing noise machine created something that does not exist at all. An liberal activist judge. All these judges have done is look at existing laws, or ones about to be passed, and determined if they were constitutional or not. Conservative judges do this all the time when it comes to conservative issues. The positions that Alito and Roberts take on abortion, for example, are extremely activist. They basically take guesses, based on their personal beliefs, about abortion and insist that the founders MUST have mean that rights extend to the unborn, when there is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution by which they can draw this conclusion. The founders were completely silent on this issue, and all that we can directly conclude from a strict constructionist position is that we are BORN with rights, not that we had them before birth. The fact that rights can be legally denied to minors, backs this up as well. The law CAN deny full rights to a person below the age of majority. They are not allowed those rights until they have reached that age.

Every judge that Bush nominated, fits does exactly the same thing when it comes to conservative issues as they assert a “liberal activist judge” does when they interpret a law as “unconstitutional.

It was rather activist for the conservatives on the court to overturn the gun ban in Washington DC.

For example ONE of Scalia’s “activist” decisions:

Justice Scalia’s views on federalism – which now generally command a majority on the Supreme Court – are perhaps the clearest example of the problem with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants’ rights. But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states’ rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by “Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” But it’s been interpreted to block suits by a state’s own citizens – something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution’s express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that “despite the narrowness of its terms,” the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court “to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms.” If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia’s reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

What Scalia did here was AMAZINGLY activist in that he expanded the very narrow wording of an amendment to the extreme of his defining the founders meaning in terms that go well beyond ANY possible meaning that the founders could have meant by it, in a way that completely violated the “strict constructionist” view that Republicans continually assert that they hold.

Those who hold “Strict Constructionist” and “Non activist” views on the court are CONTINUALLY overturning laws passed by states, as well as amendment to state constitutions when it suits their particular political leanings, such as:

Conservative politicians insist that courts should defer to the democratically elected branches, but conservative judges do not seem to be listening. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority regularly overturns laws passed by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The court has even established a bizarre series of hoops Congress must jump through to pass a law protecting Americans’ 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. Congress must prove in many cases that the law it passed is “congruent” and “proportional” to the harm being addressed. Even John Noonan Jr., an appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan, has said these new rules – which Justice Scalia eagerly embraces – reduce Congress to the level of an “administrative agency.”

Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go. In his view, the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. (The Supreme Court has held just the opposite.) He is dismissive when inmates invoke the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to challenge prison conditions. But he is supportive when wealthy people try to expand the “takings clause” to block the government from regulating their property.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

Roberts and Alito have also been just as hypocritically activist on scads of conservative issues they support, taking the most extreme and non literal interpretations of the Constitution and the amendments when it suits conservative priorities and then take extremely NARROW positions on liberal issues.

This is the most direct and succint definition of activism.

Most Conservative, self styled “Strict Constructionists” have gone through far more contortions, turning themselves and the law inside out whenever it deals with conservative issues.

Liberal BS Noise Machine

May 26th, 2009
11:21 pm

I sure am glad that our political bullcrap machine is spinning
louder and better than the right wing machine. I mean heck
it is easy to dupe Jay but we must have a really loud machine
to keep duping all the rest of the suckers in America.

Bud Wiser

May 27th, 2009
8:08 am

From Jay: ““You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.”

Hey Dave R, remind me again: What’s your stance on torture?”

I am certain that whatever it is, it is better than the liberal refrain –

‘Let us sacrifice innocent Americans in the name of our stance on enhanced interrogation! Innocent, ignorant Americans come cheap – just look at the roll call of them that voted for Obowo. We are replacing them every day with illegals that will soon be able to vote, if they do not already. And the blacks, lockstep democrats for generations, will always be there for us if we keep tossing them some crumbs, and whip white America over the back some more with the lash. Oh we are great at sacrificing what is not ours; it is, after all, our motto – take from the haves (except we the party elite, who skip paying our taxes anyway) and give to the have not/will not crowd.

Sacrificing Americans for our cause is no big whoop.”

There.

That should about cover it.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
8:52 am

And another humiliation for the fact-free ravings of DaveR:

“The difference is that Meier’s nomination was pulled because she wasn’t qualified. No chance for this one. She sail through regardless of her lack of qualifications.”

Except, of course, that Sotomayor IS qualified–exceptionally so, in fact.

“Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America`s leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.”

So, y’know… Dave R is completely wrong. AGAIN. As always.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
8:54 am

Bud Wiser: You really don’t understand, do you? You honestly don’t “GET” why Americans should care about such irrelevant nonsense as values, principles, or even the Constitution.

How sad. It’s sad to realize that so many of our fellow Americans really couldn’t care less about America itself, have no patriotism, and are utter, spineless cowards.

I’m just glad nobody’s listening to (or voting for) them any more.

Bud Wiser

May 27th, 2009
9:45 am

I guess that pretty much sums up the fact that you’re part of the problem, and not the solution to terrorism.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
10:14 am

Given that your attitude is what makes the problem WORSE, rather than solving it, I’m afraid your reasoning fails.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
2:57 pm

Well, the Republican lose this one in the polls. Those around so far suggest that between 70 and 80 percent think she is the correct choice.

The most recent Time Poll shows that 83 percent think she should be confirmed. The CNN Polls beleive show that 89 percent of people polled think Sotomayors judicial experience is more than enough to qualify her for the bench.

She currently has MORE judicial experience than ALL other members of the court had when they were nominated.

Even before the nomination Sotomayor led polls as to who should be Obama’s nomination by a very large margin.

Of course in 1998 when she was nominated to her current position, a large number of conservatives supported her nomination to that position. They all noted that she was a “moderate”. Including most of those who are now calling her an activist.

More importantly polls that ask if the Republican should filibuster her nomination come in even more dismally for the Republicans.

Even Republican consultant say that opposing Sotomayor would be the last nail in the coffin for the Republican Party. Primarily because she already has won two nomination processes before with a rather large number of Republican votes, both on the floor of Congress as well as in committee. Seven CURRENT members of the Senate Judiciary committee approved her past nominations.

Most commentary is discussing how this nomination will even further split the Republican party paring off even more moderate elected officials from its base.