• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

If I was Sotomayor....

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I'd tell those sacred white men on that hearing panel to shove it up their microscopic white azzholes and get up and leave. :mad: :mad: :mad:


Jeff Sessions, is the biggest prick of all and he of all people should understand how one, itty bitty statement can get twisted.

I think he's of the mindset that he got trashed yrs ago due to a statement getting twisted....so , " If I didn't get it....you're not either"


Credit where credit is due...it's taking all she's got to sit and take it and answer the same question over and over.


It's like listening to Sandhusker....................
 

Mike

Well-known member
I would go after her with intense scrutiny. There is NOT just one "itty-bitty" statement in her past that can be construed as "judicial activism".

She has a whole host of questionable positions that can be used towards her Constitutional inadequacies.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

Which other Constitutional Amendment may be tossed aside by a "State"? :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I'd tell those sacred white men on that hearing panel to shove it up their microscopic white azzholes and get up and leave. :mad: :mad: :mad:


Jeff Sessions, is the biggest prick of all and he of all people should understand how one, itty bitty statement can get twisted.

I think he's of the mindset that he got trashed yrs ago due to a statement getting twisted....so , " If I didn't get it....you're not either"


Credit where credit is due...it's taking all she's got to sit and take it and answer the same question over and over.


It's like listening to Sandhusker....................

"Statement getting twisted"?? She made the same statement numerous times. And the statement in question was taken from a "prepared speech", not an off the cuff remark.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
jigs said:
kolanuraven said:
It's like listening to Sandhusker....................

Sotomayer is a Husker fan??? then HELL NO she does not get on the bench!

She's not that I know of, but Clarence Thomas is, and he's one of the usual four that show common sense and good judgement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Yeah, I'll believe Diane Feinstein....... :lol: :lol: :lol: Now THERE'S a pot of credibility!


One of the attorneys stuck his head in the office today and said he'd been watching the hearing and even heard old Lindsey Graham again say he thought he might be able to vote for her...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Yeah, I'll believe Diane Feinstein....... :lol: :lol: :lol: Now THERE'S a pot of credibility!


One of the attorneys stuck his head in the office today and said he'd been watching the hearing and even heard old Lindsey Graham again say he thought he might be able to vote for her...

Can you post proof of that oldtimer? Or is this one of those things you heard that someone heard????? Isn't that hear say???????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Yeah, I'll believe Diane Feinstein....... :lol: :lol: :lol: Now THERE'S a pot of credibility!


One of the attorneys stuck his head in the office today and said he'd been watching the hearing and even heard old Lindsey Graham again say he thought he might be able to vote for her...

Can you post proof of that oldtimer? Or is this one of those things you heard that someone heard????? Isn't that hear say???????

You wouldn't know the difference between hear say- and your passing gas... :roll:

Like I said- its what a fella told me today-- but I didn't see it...

Heres Grahams previous comment:

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "I Could Vote For" Sotomayor
By Rachel Slajda - July 8, 2009, 2:11PM
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who's criticized Sonia Sotomayor for her temperament, thinks he may vote for her confirmation.

"I honestly think I could vote for her,'' he told McClatchy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/sen-lindsey-graham-i-could-vote-for-sotomayor.php

Heres the only comments I could find for today on Graham:

"She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/14/sotomayor.hearing/index.html

Rightwingernuts will be peeing down their legs if one of their champions decides to put qualifications over politics and goes against the anti minority/anti woman rightwingernut base....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
That is a totally assinine thing to say considering that she was nominated because of race and sex. :roll:

Do you libs ever look in the mirror before posting?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
That is a totally assinine thing to say considering that she was nominated because of race and sex. :roll:

Do you libs ever look in the mirror before posting?

You saying that maybe old Lindsey and a few more Repubs are realizing they have some women and minority folks/voters in their states too.... :???:

"She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said.

Since she's perfectly qualified (actually more qualified than any current sitting SCOTUS member) just voting against her for general rightwingernut principles ain't going to pack it...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
One of the attorneys stuck his head in the office today and said he'd been watching the hearing and even heard old Lindsey Graham again say he thought he might be able to vote for her...

Can you post proof of that oldtimer? Or is this one of those things you heard that someone heard????? Isn't that hear say???????

You wouldn't know the difference between hear say- and your passing gas... :roll:

Like I said- its what a fella told me today-- but I didn't see it...

Heres Grahams previous comment:

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "I Could Vote For" Sotomayor
By Rachel Slajda - July 8, 2009, 2:11PM
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who's criticized Sonia Sotomayor for her temperament, thinks he may vote for her confirmation.

"I honestly think I could vote for her,'' he told McClatchy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/sen-lindsey-graham-i-could-vote-for-sotomayor.php

Heres the only comments I could find for today on Graham:

"She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/14/sotomayor.hearing/index.html

Rightwingernuts will be peeing down their legs if one of their champions decides to put qualifications over politics and goes against the anti minority/anti woman rightwingernut base....

That is all I asked for oldtimer!!
YOU have been known to lie so much that it gets harder to believe anything you say
As far am passing gas I am surprised anyone would want to poke a head in YOUR office seeing as how yoiu are so full of hot air, which is considered GAS :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
That is a totally assinine thing to say considering that she was nominated because of race and sex. :roll:

Do you libs ever look in the mirror before posting?

You saying that maybe old Lindsey and a few more Repubs are realizing they have some women and minority folks/voters in their states too.... :???:

"She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said.

Since she's perfectly qualified (actually more qualified than any current sitting SCOTUS member) just voting against her for general rightwingernut principles ain't going to pack it...

What I'm saying is that you're out of line to call the other guys racist / sexist when your boy is making hiring decisions based on race and sex.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
So the Washington Post and a liberal disguised as a conservative (Graham) sign off on her and we are supposed to as well? Wonder if Harry Reid likes her? Ted Kennedy? Micheal Moore? Barbara Boxer? Until those stalwarts of conservatism give the O.K. I'll have to wait and see! :roll: You libs want a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-war, bigger government, pro-union, anti-insurance co., anti-states rights, anti-pharmacutical co's nominee! Suprisingly, as a conservative i find that choice pretty spooky! :shock: Go ahead and scream how old fashioned and ignorant I am!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is the disarming move of a confident and mature woman, a wise Latina, if you will, not that anyone should suggest that men and women move through the world and relate to each other differently, of course.

Blasphemy-- pure Blasphemy to the rightwingernut cult to suggest that men and women don't think ideally the same and see and relate to everything identically-- and therefore they should step aside and let men do all the thinking for them... :wink: :p
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
leanin' H said:
So the Washington Post and a liberal disguised as a conservative (Graham) sign off on her and we are supposed to as well? Wonder if Harry Reid likes her? Ted Kennedy? Micheal Moore? Barbara Boxer? Until those stalwarts of conservatism give the O.K. I'll have to wait and see! :roll: You libs want a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-war, bigger government, pro-union, anti-insurance co., anti-states rights, anti-pharmacutical co's nominee! Suprisingly, as a conservative i find that choice pretty spooky! :shock: Go ahead and scream how old fashioned and ignorant I am!

Lindsay Graham is a liberal?! No one told the liberals that.

And she's actually a darling of law enforcement and the law and order folks so you have characterized her totally off base.

Graham is cut from McCains cloth! In my opinion! :wink: A lot of law enforcement folks want to severly limit if not ban guns!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
That is a totally assinine thing to say considering that she was nominated because of race and sex. :roll:

Do you libs ever look in the mirror before posting?

You saying that maybe old Lindsey and a few more Repubs are realizing they have some women and minority folks/voters in their states too.... :???:

"She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said.

Since she's perfectly qualified (actually more qualified than any current sitting SCOTUS member) just voting against her for general rightwingernut principles ain't going to pack it...

What the hell are your qualifications to pass judgement on the qualifications of any sitting supreme court justice OT???? Like it or not, they all passed congressional tests.
 
Top