Daily Gut: The Reign of Race
by Greg Gutfeld
So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
So what do we know about her?
Well, she’s Hispanic.
Also, she’s Puerto Rican.
And…she’s Hispanic.
Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.
Case closed.
That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup – and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”
So far, every single headline I’ve seen mentions the woman’s race – which, as you know, is by design. It’s a terrific strategy, this vaccine against scrutiny. Simply make sure you nominate anyone who is the “first” of anything and you create an impenetrable cone of immunity around the nominee (protecting mainly against the media, and of course, conservatives). You could say this strategy worked with great success during the last presidential election – that if Barack wasn’t black, he would have just been another white policy wonk – a less persuasive version of John Edwards, without the wayward weenie.
Granted, I don’t know the first thing about Sotomayor (I’m sure she’s a nice lady!) other than she’s Hispanic, and an “inspiring woman” who grew up in “poor surroundings,” etc… But it all sounds a bit familiar in an unnerving way. The bottom line is, when a person’s “story” is the story, it’s purely a diversionary tactic to take you off the ideological ball.
It’s a clue to everyone – especially the media – that this time you should do more than order the commemorative plates.
TONIGHT: we’ve got rocker Duff Mckagan, Courtney Friel, finance dude Eric Bolling and comedian John Devore.
sounds like fun, fun, fun…and fun!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
568 Comments
My father began demanding in his later life that he be referred to as a "Kentucky-American". He said if everyone else got to mention where they came from then he should too. I think the media should begin referring to everyone by their national origin, even if they have to go back 200 years to come up with it. Maybe that would take some of the stupidity off the tables if we all share in it.
Well, she had this to say.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn… Read More’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
I've translated this into a different bigotry framework:
"I would hope that a wise gentleman, a member of the Order of the British Empire, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a commoner who hasn't lived that life," said Sir John Flopcock, privileged bigot born to a better set of rights than commoners.
the other thing we know about Ms Sotomayor is she plans to legislate from the bench; she is on video as saying
"the appellate court is where POLICY is made"…
WRONG. The legislature makes policy and is answerable to the electorate. If life-appointed judges start 'making policy' from the bench our constitutional republic is no longer. She also believes "a hispanic female is more qualified to rule on certain issues than a white male" for empathetic reasons… this is utter nonsense.
Can you imagine a white male saying he is more 'qualified to rule' because of his gender and race? He would be run out of town on a rail and justifiably so. Attention Lefties: you cannot have it both ways.
Now, let's hear the spin…
I refer to myself as a Western European American, when I am trying to drive a Liberal nuts.
Clarence Thomas had a similar (poor, disadvantaged, supposed "affirmative action" attributed career path. And look what they tried to do to him.!?!
Wonder if anyone in the media will bring THAT up?
I just hope the Senate (especially the Republicans) will consider this nominee with the same objective, nonpartisan approach that Senator Obama used when he considered Justices Alito and Roberts.
(And hope the Democrats in the Senate have over come the manifest racism against Hispanics they demonstrated when Miguel Estrada came up for a vote. Or didn't get a chance to come up for a vote.)
The job a SCOTUS is to determine the "Rule of Law" nothing else, not feeling's, emotions and not even, common sense.
I can't help wondering if Sotomayor might turn out to be the Obama mis-step that was performed earlier by Bush with Harriet Miers. The conservatives went after her because she appeared to be conservative, but was more of a political insider who might easily be swayed by the go-along to get-along attitude that pervades Washington. Like Miers, Sotomayor is no great legal scholar, and might be easily pushed around by stronger justices on the court. The left may discover that despite her ethnic and liberal traits (including her positive attitude toward judicial activism) which are abundantly clear, she might yet be swayed by powerful conservatives on the court into re-directing her views into a more moderate course. The left may come to think that Sotomayor could very well be the unpleasant surprise for liberals that Souter was for conservatives.
So what? It's a big milestone. And the fact that the media focuses on such milestones (were you alarmed by the coverage of Condi's appointment as the first black female Sec. State?)
More alarming is how race is the only thing YOU are choosing to focus on. If you use The Google, you can actually find out quite a bit about her. For instance:
- Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class in High School. Graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton, won the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor undergraduate honor at Princeton. She was editor of the Yale Law Journal.
- Sure, it's from the White House, but: "If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge 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. …" If that matters. And if it's false, let us know!
- She's a type 1 diabetic.
- She was appointed by GHW Bush, later appointment by Clinton was affirmed by several Republicans.
- She supported W. Bush's Mexico City policy on abortion (overturned by Obama).
- She ended the baseball strike in the 90s, to some people's joy. (Not me. Boring.)
- Her big controversy? The quote: "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."
Some have issues with the comment, but others note:
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
The statement is a bit harsh, but don't pretend that all that matters about her is her race. That's exciting to some people, and so what if it is? Don't use that as an excuse to feign ignorance.
As a Hispanic, and a Puerto Rican let me just say that I hope this woman's nomination goes down in flames.
The Left's utter obsession with race and gender trumps their concerns (if any) on what is best for America every time.
To liberals, you are ONLY recognized by the color of your skin, your gender or confusion of gender, or nationality. People should be judged by their character, not the color of their skin. Guess that's why MLK was a Republican and not a liberal.
Wow! What a small world! I'm also a Western European American. I assumed there weren't any of us left since the mainstream media never mention us.
Greg — The no doubt sickeningly sordid scene of salacious carnage at your vacation bedroom aside…
YOU have figured out how to run this Big Hollywood thing to your best possible advantage. Props to you, as this formula has heretofore alluded me. (I really have nothing to say here…I just wanted to use the word 'heretofore'.)
But yeah — you clock in everyday, fire off your short fusillade (not getting personal)…and then READ your Daily Gut that evening on RED EYE. Me, I blather on for nineteen hundred words, maybe they read, maybe not…oh sure they SAY they'll come back to it IF THEY FIND THE TIME….maybe leave a comment, maybe not…but…in the end…barking at the moon…barking at the moon.
Wait a second. I just had a thought: what if…now I know this is going to sound silly, but really. What if…it's not all about me?
!!!???
Oh Greg, you a smart guy. You figured it out. Short, short, short, SHORT blogs. (And again, nothing personal.)
It occurs to me, you may be adept in other areas. Do you know if your engine is pinging, it's a fuel-feed problem or do I need a tune up? And what is the social norm in a formal place setting — forks on the right, spoons on the left, or vice versa?
You guys are kidding right? I too am Western European American. Holy cow!
I was in the car listening to Rush earlier this afternoon. He played a tape of this woman which pretty much confirmed she wants to make policy from the bench, a terrible, terrible thing for a potential Justice of the Supreme Court.
She has a track record of legislating from the bench and has been overturned so many times it's stupid to think she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I don't really care what her ethnic background is, that doesn't matter when serving Justice to ALL. Her initial comments are racially motivated and that tells me she will be biased and NOT follow the rule of law. Surely another Latino can be found to serve that is UNBIASED and will follow the Constitution as written? Oh wait didn't that already happen and the Democrats sink the poor guy over partisan BS? This appointment is thinly vieled partisan politics at it's worst. What else would you expect from the kingfish liberal in office?
Brother, that's a pretty short drive.
Were you alarmed how the media that you talk about tears down Condi Rice and Justice Thomas? Because they are Republican. Some in the media called them Uncle Tom or Aunt Jemima. There is a clear media bias that portrays a woman (Palin) as stupid, a minority (Rice, Thomas, Steele, etc.) as less than human simply because they are conservative.
I don't care that she's a woman or Hispanic. I do care that she has the mindset that she feels that she is an appointed legislator and can make policy or law from the bench. That IS a problem. And to sweep that under the rug is doing everyone a disservice.
I'm guessing that the best Republican strategy would be to do a sincere and honest inquiry into the nominee's credentials, and avoid looking as vicious as the Democrats were with Bork, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. There are small hints that Sotomayor may not be as radical as her public statements would indicate. Her attempts to "back-door" certain decisions while serving on the bench are legitimate fodder for investigation. If she is truly the judicial activist she claims to be, we will end up with a court that is basically unchanged. Unlike Souter, she has simply announced her views, but they are not that different from what Souter has actually done. With no basic change in the makeup of the court at stake, this is probably not the time to launch an all-out attack and come off looking as negative as the left has been trying to paint us. The current judicial direction of the Supreme Court will not be changed appreciably if Sotomayor is confirmed, however loathsome we may find her judicial stance. We probably have future appointments coming up when "going nuclear" will be required. I just don't see this nomination as being one of them. Winning a war isn't about winning every battle, only the important ones.
Firstly, what coverage of Condi Rice being the first African American female Sec of State? I don't recall the big hoopla surrounding her appointment or the big parade either. For that matter, what coverage of Colin Powell being the first African Amerian male Sec.t of State?
Secondly, the point being made is that her gender and her race are ALL we know about her from the press.
[...] made the that quote? Why its none other than Sonia Sotomayor, the racist and sexist pick to replace David Souter for judge of the SCOTUS. Thats just the start of it, showing she is a perfect fit for Obama. Michelle Malkin also has more [...]
I think she's going to prove to be entirely erratic. That's what happens when you don't understand your role as judge and you instead try to decide each case on the basis of your own personal views.
If she issues decisions using the "judicial philosophy" that she's espoused to this point, then she will eventually become an albatross around Obama's neck.
well I'm different! I'm a Scot-Irish-English-German American. HA!
Oh wait…
Nevermind.
Of course it's going to be a big milestone. We can't just ignore these things. Race shouldn't matter, but it does. And it makes headlines. It shouldn't define her career by any means, but it should at least me noted as the US takes a step toward representative diversity.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/perspectives_on_obama...
Good point. I don't think that the press had a woody for him either.
Erratic legislation from the bench… great..
Right Dan. The role of the Supreme Court is to apply the law, not to make the law. Making law is the job of the legislature, which is responsive to the people.
If the law is bad, then the people should rise up and demand it's change in the legislature. It is not the role of a judge to make that change. Indeed, a judge who choses to throw aside the bounds of the Constitution and instead take on the role of legislator is a tyrant.
And while the left often likes the results of judicial activism, they would be horrified if the right suddenly adopted the same indifference to the law and right wing judges began imposing their own will upon the law.
I re-read the comments posted by Eric earlier giving the assessment of Eric Freedman as essentially the judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. This is the speech I just referred to above. Freedman's comment is absolute B.S. You need to LISTEN to the tape. There is no question where she is coming from. Just because there is a lot of legal work being done at the appellate level has zero to do with being an activist judge who is looking to make policy (supposedly the purview of the legislative branch.)
You can't fool us Gary, we know you. . . you're Vulcan.
Ah yep. Chaos, it's what's for dinner.
Spooky.
I'm Half Western European American and Half Other Eurpoean American.
But I'm also a Native American
"I'm guessing that the best Republican strategy would be to do a sincere and honest inquiry into the nominee's credentials"
When's the last time the rightwing acted sincerely and honestly? LOL. Good luck with that. And really, could you please try to make an argument using actual arguments instead of Talking Points?
Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist! Judicial activist!
Time to grow up.
What's usually the first thing out of a liberal's mouth when referring to, pretty much anything? Their ethnicity, gender, transgender, etc. Two paragraphs later, they get to something to do with their qualifications. If they're conservative, they usually trash them in the headline. We already have diversity. There are women and blacks on the Supreme Court. The president is black. There are different races and genders in congress. But to advance someone JUST because of a physical attribute is wrong.
This coming from hysterical 9-11 pantswetters
They shot down Estrada because he was Latino and Republican. The Dems have to own all minorities. That's why they savaged Clarence Thomas. How dare he be a conservative?!
No NO NOOOoooooooooooooooo!!!
Hey Lawhawk, it looks like you got something under your shoe there. Have you been near any petting zoos today?
Conservatives turn into liberals on the bench because the axiom: absolute power corrupts absolutely is true. Liberals don't turn into conservatives because they are already corrupt, power mad personality types to begin with. Throw in a life of liberal indoctrination and self righteous moral certitude and there is only one way for her to go. Further Left.
She is qualified, she has credentials, she has done the job. If you think her race and gender are a trap then DON'T FALL INTO IT!
But Limbaugh and the other talk radio jerks are not going to go after her without resorting to quasi-racist attacks. That's not Obama's fault. They have no self-control. Or class.
I'm 6' 4" blond hair blue eyed cracker white australian. So I always mark Pacific Islander. Drives people crazy but I am from an Island in the Pacific. When they tell me I can't be a Pacific Islander cause I'm white, I call them racist. for some reason the PC police don't like that.
Yeah, I'm with Buckwheat. If we get rid of the excuse of identity politics, than a whole lot of liberals will have to start blaming their failures on their own actions, and that would be intollerable.
It is about you—-love to read your opinion, laden with humor, wisdom and insight—-so please, don't you dare change a thing—from someone who reads all nineteen hundred words—-there is room, and the need for, both GGs at Big Hollywood.
I think there is a need for a reagular Gray Graham spot on Red Eye, not unlike Dennis Miller on The Factor–are you game? And FOX, are you listening (and reading?)
Let me ask you this: If you consider women and/or Hispanics to be the equals of middle-aged white men then considering that the entire Court is populated by such white men, wouldn't that mean that the next best pick HAS TO BE a woman or minority?
I was expecting a half black, half Hispanic, Gay, Muslim, handicapped, female – ya know, cover all the bases (pun intended).
Dom1ngo, out of curiosity, I've noticed an abundance of Australians on this web site. Is that just a coincidence or was there some mention of the site in Australia? What gives?
I'm trolling here. Take a hike jerk.
OK Harriet.
Liberals blaming themselves for their failures? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything. I'm just not holding my breath on that one.
What is "representative diversity"? There is no room in America for emphasizing "diversity"; all Americans should be represented by peopleand governments who are totally agnostic as to race, sex, creed, etc. The US Consititution is for every person in the country (legally), and does not need to be intrepreted through a "diversity lens". Equality is just that – we are all united by a common government, Constitution, and set of standards. If you want to be "diverse" then you are in the wrong country. The Constitution is just what it is, a document by which the United States Government is granted certain rights by the 50 States to conduct business which either the Constitution or the States have granted. It is not a "living document", subject to the racial, progressive, modern cultural whims. Those all negate its basic guarantee of individual rights.
It's no coincidence that you're an idiot and that your posts are idiotic.
You're getting a liberal on the court because you got you rears handed to you in the elections. Ha ha!
As a white male does not represent any recognized minority, he should automatically be considered free of bias regarding matters invoking minority status. A person strongly identifying themselves based on minority status should be considered biased towards at least those of their particular minority status, even if the bias is not consciously acted upon. One of the most basic statements from human nature, "They're all the same to me" works both positively and negatively whether inclusive or exclusive.
I ain't petting that!
Wow, honey. Perfect name, BTW. And that was a not-at-ALL transpatent attempt to avoid the argument.
3 questions:
(1) Do you have evidence that the right wing has never acted honestly and fairly? I know this is difficult, because reality has a conservative bias, but disagreeing with you doesn't count. And no, "everyone knows I'm right *footstamp*" will not be accepted.
(2) If she was a brilliant legal mind, her supporters and the Messiah would have brought that up. The fact that all they can say is "Look! Poor! Slanted eyes! Vagina! Perfect!" tells us that she really isn't. So how is pointing that out not a proper argument?*
* Let's ignore for one teensy second that we know that this person is only saying this to avoid actually specifying what her real strengths are. Affirmative action for libs!
(3) So do you have any proof that she is NOT a judicial activist, or any arguments that that should not matter?
TEHSTUPID won't reply to this. I suspect they're a seagull troll.
I agree, except I was born in St. Luke's Hospital, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois…happily it was before WWII, but nevertheless we left in 1942 before the Community Organizer located us…and we've never been back.
The old gag is "a moderate is just a liberal-in-training." It's been all too true for many years. I am looking at a court that for the first time in my adult lifetime has strong and persuasive conservatives in leading roles. That changes the formula a little, but it's not enough to cause me to relax.
Come on…you can't be reasonable and logical with liberals. Bork the B____h! It's good practice for what's to come next.
"considering that the entire Court is populated by such white men"….. seriously? Clarence Thomas is white? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a man? All this time,I never knew…..
And it should be noted that it doesn't HAVE to be anyone. It should be someone that's qualified regardless of their physical attributes. Besides, by your logic, Miers should have had the full support of Democrats just because she was a woman. I don't suspect you know who that is though.
What failures? You must be a right-wing wacko. Any group that has its own Messiah can't fail.
Ok, here's the argument, oh-so-aptly-named-TEHSTUPID:
"the appellate court is where policy is made" (a direct quote from Senora Sotomayor)
It's awfully hard to get your foot in your mouth when your head's up your ass, but somehow you've managed it.
I grew up in the projects and will soon earn my doctoral degree. Surely, there is a place for me in the Obama court of jesters?
Isn't that the main qualification, that and a little bit of pigment?
That's a new one for me. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic. What the hell is representative diversity. Does that mean I get to demand an Irish-American something?
Booo hooo hoooo oh no, the world's biggest retard called me stupid. Whatever will happen to my self-esteem.
You're wasting your time here loser.
of course mentioning shes from PR is a ploy….Of course the liberals failed to mention we dont know where BO is really from
I know your guidance counsel won't tell you this, but you should start practicing your burger-flipping techniques . . . you're facing a pretty steep learning curve for someone with your limited abilities.
Well, yes you are right, in that she is a woman hispanic and we have never had one of those and blah blah blah.
You know, it is time for a gay and transexual also. Wonder if Ginsberg will pass away or retire so THAT can happen.
Ah, what ever happened to Merit.
What's a "quasi"-racist attack? Is that the one where people talk about her legal record and the things she's said?
Baseball is not boring. It's a thinking man's sport. COME ON!!
My girlfriend has a brother with severe autism. He has at least as much pinching flesh experience as Obama had, and he organizes little communities in his sandbox. Let's break the glass ceiling, folks! Sean O'Neill McIntosh for President!
A racist is a person who divides and discriminates against people according to their race. A sexist does the same according to their gender.
I do not care one bit what color or gender Sotomayor is. I literally could not care less. Similarly, I do not care what color or gender the sitting judges of the court are. It makes NO difference to me.
I care about their ideology, their worldview, and their philosophy.
I once sat through a painful diversity meeting at my corporate hell of a job, and I listened to this senior VP sing the praises of of orchestrated diversity. His argument was that the inside of the office should reflect the outside (i.e., the street). I challanged him on this, and said since my department was made of mostly Hispanics and Italians, should we now concentrate on hiring blacks, Asians, or even Aborigines to balance our "look" regardless of their talent level?
His answer was that no baseball team can win if all the players were pitchers. A foolishly bad analogy, to which I pointed out that that was true, but a baseball team can surely win if all the players were white.
The point is that those who look at color and gender so very often are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity.
In the Supreme Court of the United States of America I want QUALITY.
I don't give a rat's fat one what color anyone is.
it is amazing the duality of the dialectic- the insanity that there is one set of rules for certain American citizens and another, subjectively decided on a sliding scale- set of rules for yet others.
This is most definitely not what the framers had in mind…
You got a couple of cities; Chicago and Boston, although I wouldn't recommend living in either.
It has NOTHING to do with Limbaugh or anyone else. You can see her on video saying that she thinks that she is someone who makes policy or law. That's what the legislatures do.
It has NOTHING to do with Limbaugh or anyone else. You can see her on video saying that she thinks that she is someone who makes policy or law. That's what the legislatures do.
You tell 'em!
"I grew up in the projects and will soon earn my doctoral degree."
Oh, you poor man. What a compelling story.
You're in.
Amen. I just wish the Cubs would stop whatever it is they are doing and go back to playing baseball.
does this sort just wait for certain folk weigh in to cast such aspersions? the only thing TEH brings is stupidity… we can't for the life of us, figure out what all that effort nets them…
You didn't address the point of why someone is saying she's an activist. But then again you're a liberal and liberals don't deal with facts. She's said she thinks that she makes policy and/or law. That makes her an activist. Judges don't make law they interpret it.
does being handicapped matter to the left?
Can someone define an "activist judge" for me? I seem to remember that Bush lost the popular vote against Gore, but he was installed as President in a 5-4 decision in which the Court was split on ideological lines. Weren't Scalia and Thomas being "activist" in going against the will of the people? If you know anything about the Supreme Court, you know that each judge has their own interpretation of the Constitution. It seems to me that an activist judge is one that conservatives happen to disagree with.
And if you criticize Sotomayor for letting her personal experience as a latina influence her decisions, then you should also criticize Justice Thomas for letting his experiences as a black law student at Yale influence his. He thinks affirmative action cheapens the value of degree (although he managed to make it to the Supreme Court…go figure), and he resents the fact that people feel or felt that he got into Yale because of it. It influences his decision-making on affirmative action cases — that is a fact.
Well yes you are a waste of time. Loser.
It lets TEH feel like a big boy because he went out on the net and he "stood up" to people in a way that he never could have face to face. It's a delusional way for him to convince himself that he's not a coward. Kind of pathetic really.
After Obama was elected, I heard several Conservatives say "well at least we can get past this race issue for once and for all" I usually laughed. Every single white Liberal I asked could give me almost no coherent argument for voting for him that did not resort to using buzzwords (hopey changitude), mentioning that he was black, and picking on McCain. The Palin treatment focusing on her "inexperience" though she was running as a VP and NOT President shows the rule to be true (Obama was FAR MORE inexperienced and had almost no history and zero media interest in the very troubling questions that any fair minded person would want answered). It is the LEFT that can not and WILL not get past race. Race NEVER enters my opinion of a person until I get to know them. I have lived in rural poor South Carolina, I have lived in the North for most of my life, and I have been abroad many times. There is no other explanation for America's fixation on race other than the fact that the Left drives it. Why else is it "okay" to treat a black republican differently than a black democrat or conservative minority different than a liberal one. This is not a point for debate, it is pure fact looking at media reports. This also shows the shallow dishonesty of the Left's principles. I think that it was Bill Cosby's advice that summed up the conservative position on race politics well Q: "how do you think we can heal racism" A; "Stop talking about it"
If part of the definition of racism is: a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. Who is the true racist group in America? Liberals and Democrats fit the bill pretty nicely, hate crime laws, "free speech zones (gag)", special rules for skin color, and constant identification of ones exterior characteristics can ONLY be racist, there is no other reason to mention those things unless it is on a police report. I don't expect Liberals to "get that" though.
Spot On! I like to use the word "heretofore" wherever possible when I am presenting construction plans to various municiple and county planning commissions. It makes those elected/appointed types think I actually know what I am talking about.
we figured the Left would be armed and ready with their articulated talking points. None of the above makes a hill of beans difference for the Supreme Court. What she has shown is a willingness to bend laws to reach desired outcomes. That alone should prevent her from service.
Ah the deluge of Talking Points repeated ad nauseum begins. "JUDICIAL ACTIVIST!"
I'm sure you'll all be threatening the nuclear option if the Republicans filibuster her nomination right? UP OR DOWN! SHE DESERVES AN UP OR DOWN!
lol
You really need to take a remedial course in trash talking.
Here, let me define it for you:
An activist judge is someone who thinks that race/gender should play a role in law. Someone like Sotomayor. Justice is supposed to be blind.
An activist judge is someone who sees the court as a chance to further an agenda, even at the cost of Constitutional law. Someone like Sotomayor.
An activist judge is someone picked specifically because of their ethnicity/gender to mollify a large portion of your left-wing wacko base, who are upset at all your broken campaign promises. You know, someone like Sotomayor.
People rightfully made fun of Bush for nominating Miers – including Conservatives who fought hard to keep her from getting the job. We know we can't expect the same in Sotomayor's case. Already the various MSM outlets are praising her, soft-shoeing her overturned rulings and idiotic statements, and finding no reason to question the nomination. Her idiotic decision in the 'white firefighter' case alone should have gotten her removed from the bench (it's being overturned as we speak).
Her politics are horrible, but her judicial career is worse. Combine the two and you have the definition of an activist judge: someone who will abuse their power to force through liberal agenda issues.
Lesser battles left lost inspire greater ones that may prove un-winnable. If this candidate is truly unacceptable, the wise strategy is just enough opposition to bring about a nomination withdrawal in favor of a slightly more acceptable candidate. This has already been factored in as there are alternate choices, you are seeing a bold opening move meant to embarrass the other party. Provide opposition solely based on specific cases and certain principles she has championed while signaling a willingness to compromise which will attract sympathizers, accept a candidate which can be claimed to represent a minor concession, show that the opposition is real while allowing it to be underestimated. This will dissuade massive battles while putting you in the best possible position for others.
Yes Merit is the reason that no one beside white men seem to be found on the court. But of course everyone is equal – it's just coincidence that the top crust of judges are white men.
You're getting a liberal
You're getting a minority
You're getting a woman
And no one cares what you have to say about because you are not in power, HARRIET!
As long as you are not a Republican. No hatemongers are allowed to associate with the Chosen One.
Yes of course you are who you say you are
I'm afraid so
yeah- makes sense. Although he appears to be a territorial little troll; he even shagged some newcomer by saying' get lost, I troll this site'… so one suspects a pecking order.
Not good little collectivists, eh?
Every judge furthers an agenda. To think otherwise is naive. Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are all Catholic and all happen to be against abortion. Alito and Roberts were nominated because of their conservative religious and political views, which they are now imposing on the rest of us. They certainly make Rush and all the other white male conservatives out there happy. They are activist judges by your definition.
I marked 9-11 by purchasing a 1911A1 that very day. How did you prepare for future terrorist attacks, make signs with crayon on cardboard proclaiming "We are not your enemy" and "Allah is our God 2"? I presume you got a good grade in art class that day.
How To Stop Sotomayor:
http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com/2009/05/ho...
When have they "Imposed" their views? Please state one instance. To people like you, reading from the Constitution and not filling it with gray areas, that's imposing your view. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about abortion? It doesn't. Nor are they creating law from the bench. She's come out and said that is what she thinks her job is.
You must be logged in to post a comment.