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
Tips & Feedback
220 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?
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.
Brother, that's a pretty short drive.
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!
Eric, you completely missed the point of Greg's original post. The point is, the media isn't telling us anything about her except that she's hispanic/Puerto-Rican. He's not condemning her – we don't know enough about her yet to judge her – he's condemning the (largely liberal) press. They're focusing strictly on her race to make it difficult to take her to task on her record. It's a deplorable, but proven, tactic.
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.
by the bye, our pal auntie visited my site over the last couple of days. Not sure whether to be miffed- or honored… perhaps they think Barry has control of ECHELON and they can come after us. Either way, really dislike seeing that icon up in our spot. Feel better if it happens elsewhere…
It seems to me that there was and still is a thing called the Electoral College. When did Scalia and Thomas go against the will of the people. What I remember is that Bush won Florida – agreed? Get over it. Bush WON Florida and everyone who counted the votes there said he did. I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but that made him the winner. But you will never get over it because Gore didn't win. You liberals always want to change laws because it didn't turn out how you wanted. Deal with it. Bush won fair and square according to the laws at the time and the ones still on the books. Bush WON!!!!
By the 1st Amendment you are free to demonstrate your polished skills against Abdullah when he brings along some IED's and an AK on a visit to your 'hood. Please arrange a video recording of the encounter for educational purposes.
The writer of this article admits his ignorance, at least–"Granted, I don’t know the first thing about Sotomayor"–but I find–easily–article after article on-line that mentions in detail more than her "identity politics."
The ones that seem to obsess about "identity politics" (while pretending not to be able to learn anything else from the same articles) are web sites and articles like this one.
Have you ever heard of IP logging? Just curious. See you later.
Too late as Clarence Thomas IS already a Member of the Supreme Court. That arguement doesn't hold water and is merely a deflection form the issue of Sotomayor's proposed appointment. If she were a dwarf miget gay hispanic transsexual it still doesn't matter. It's judicial record that is the basis for qualification according to the Law. No other attributes are to be considered. But wait, she was appointed by a guy who isn't qualified to be president and was elected on the color of his skin, liberal activism record, ignorance of the law and the glibness of his tongue, so here we go……
She doesn't understand that the Legislative branch makes the laws.
Check the time of posts, school is out, better suited for Central and further west than Eastern. I detect someone doesn't have an afterschool job.
No, no, no…she's a New York-rican. LOL!!!
I can already see the poignant autobiographies in Borders, the interview on Oprah, and the made-for-TV rag to riches prime-time movie. Meanwhile, her legislative decisions will be largely ignored. Funny, I don't remember the same kind of love when Clarence Thomas was appointed.
I don't agree, because winning the war requires heightening the contradiction of Democratic Coalition politics. Which is explicitly allied against Straight White Men. Most of Democratic legal and political theories are organized (Sotomayor a good example) at punishing White Men to advantage women or gays, or Blacks or what-not.
We ought to make it clear, in Obama's America, there's one rule for the favored: Hispanics, Women, Blacks, Gays, and another rule, separate and unequal, for Straight White Men, who are defined as "evil."
This is another "So's your Dad" argument or incoherent whine from a liberal. What else would you expect?
Sotomayor tried to deep-six the appeal by the New Haven (White Male) firefighters who scored highest on the exams for promoition, but were passed over in favor of Black and Hispanic candidates who failed the test. [The city threw out the Test in violation of civil service standards in order to promote Blacks and Hispanics].
The role of the opposition should be to point out that White Men have to get on the back of the bus, get treated unfairly, and as Government assumes the role of the employer of pretty much everyone under Obama, White Men get treated unfairly, particularly under Latina Sotomayor who's made it clear that White Men live separate and unequal lives under her regime.
She'll get confirmed. But we must make clear that Obama's judges create law based on skin color and gender, with White Men last in line.
Bull. The first words out any liberal that describes anyone is their race, gender, etc. People are only a number to the left. Just something to count or tally. You haven't responded to any of the points that have been brought up about her documented past. Try that out for a change.
When you look past the 3/5 compromise Devil's bargain, it should be noted.
I'm responding to this article on this site —
–which ONLY mentions identity politics. And makes it sound like that's all the "boogah-boogah" media focuses on. And that's simply not true.
Even on the admittedly left-leaning sites, they seem to manage to talk about something–anything-else. Even the dreaded Huffington Post has articles on her that mention identity politics in either in passing, or (gasp!) that don't even mention it all.
It's sites like this one who focus on it. CONSTANTLY. To the exclusion of anything else.
The writer of this article didn't even try to find information–that is more than readily available on-line.
Whatever happened to the idea of the'best qualified' in service to the 'common good'.
Although I'll admit to not being well informed about this candidate's background, it seems that Obama is playing a game of 'divide and conquer' politics.
The affirmative action idiot-savant in the White House was babbling about how a jurist needs to be compassionate. Someone should inform this dimwitted clown that we’re a nation based on laws not “compassion” on a case-by-case basis. This is why the Roman goddess of justice is blindfolded; compassion is irrelevant, what’s relevant is whether a law was broken or not.
Don't worry sir. We will airdrop an industrial size container of sanitizer.
1. Hispanic IS NOT A RACE. It is an ethnicity.
2. I don't frankly care about her ethnicity.
3. She was entirely to eager to bury the New Haven case that is currently before SCOTUS.
4. I'm hispanic so don't bother with the racism whine. I don't believe that she has what it takes to be on the bench.
[...] Daily Gut: The Reign of Race by Greg Gutfeld [...]
He's making fun of the media's obsession with race. Have you ever read or watched him?
Scot-British with smidgen or Portuguese – American myself. And I am SICK of the man keepin' me down!!
Just wait until the next justice vacancy, Obama will nominate a dog. Imagine how the news outlets will revel over the first dog nominated to the Supreme Court.
I hope he picks a border collie. Them dogs is smart!!
I am Northern Western European, whatever that means.
I thought that same thing originally but it was pointed out that she is not just left of centre but she is so far left of centre that she couldn't find the centre if she went looking. it is not just that she will choose to support lefty ideas but that she will support whackjob lefty ideas. she will take SCOTUS to areas where no sane person would go.
I fully understand the feeling. My gut screams out for revenge. But I think we need to resist that temptation. Obama will likely have two appointments which will affect little change in the actual judicial makeup of the court. We're not rolling over and playing dead if we ask the questions vet the nominees, then vote it up or down. I say this recognizing that the third nomination, if we're so unlucky as to face that, could radically alter the prevailing judicial trends on the Supreme Court. If we get too angry, too nasty, and shout "poltical appointment" and "judicial activist" at every nominee, by the time it really matters, the left will be lying in wait to say "there they go again with the same tired arguments" and will have major support for that from the MSM. I didn't say don't fight the battle, I simply said don't fight the battle and put all your ammunition into it only to be out of ammunition when the truly important one comes along.
Sotomayer will do a fine job of Creating new Policies, while protecting the rights of those of Spanish-Euro via Central American ancestry. And It's good to see a White lady be able to take advantage of her classification as a member of the oppressed special class.
There is a difference between being a person who judges with the slight influence of your upbringing versus being a person who uses their upbringing/political leaning to entirely determine their judgments.
Sotomayor is the latter. Her only concerns are advancing a race-and-gender-based agenda. Not surprising, considering the man who nominated her has the same priorities.
Me too! Hilarious! Now if we could only get some Western European Americans on the Supreme Court, it would be a news story!
Nice job with that "what" troll, by the way. When you posted that info, everything suddenly became clear who we were dealing with.
Auntie never visits me. I'm jealous. I don't supposed she brought pie? LOL!
You know what's funny about this activist judge issue? The left can never see it when they like the result. But when it goes against them, it's all a fascist conspiracy.
even though that is widely misunderstood (it was 3/5th of a vote; not a man) that is duly noted…
The difference is that conservative political views are enshrined in the Constitution. If that's an agenda, then agenda away, I say. Leftism, on the other hand, is an alien, anti-American doctrine which seeks to redefine the Constitution or, failing that, subvert, overturn, and/or ignore it.
It's not like there's some big mystery about what the Founding Generation ratified when they ratified the Constitution. And it DEFINITELY had nothing to do with Marxism, baby killing, and/or high school sodomy lessons. Roe v. Wade is a textbook example of judicial activism at work–making up law out of whole cloth–and there is no comparable act by conservatives you can point to. On the other hand, lefties are at it again with their so-called "gay marriage" findings, which amazingly discover alleged blatant discrimination in places where no one ever, in the history of this country, understood it to be.
no pie… if ACORN thugs show up at the door we will then know it is indeed a communist fifth column; if not then we shall demand tasty pie and demand it now!
y'know, tehstupid one just doesn't have the same vicious moxie- we noticed their very lame and limp response to you and it just didn't have any snap, crackle- or pop.
One supposes it's getting difficult to even find a serviceable troll…
dude you live on this site. really.
Yeah, thestupid is a weak troll. I suspect he's a little high schooler venturing out into the big bad world that has so abused him. How sad.
We should start protesting ACORN gatherings with signs demanding pie. How funny would that be — especially if we didn't tell the media what it meant.
conservative judges are plenty "activist". but my point is that it's not an actual argument, it's a prepackaged slogan. it's a talking point. not an argument but a crappy stupid robotically repeated slogan.
u guys are sooo tough and manly. where do i learn how to be so rugged and tough?
lol
Personally, I believe that she will make Mr. Obama look like a Conservative.
you're going to stop a terrorist attack by buying a gun? lol. maybe you can set a terrorist trap in your backyard – stock it full of soft targets, lay out some hummus and pita. i hear they like nuts.
4. From what? There's been hardly anything written about her yet. No one cares anyway.
I have to say I really love the game you guys are playing. Pretend that it's not you who are bringing up the racial component, but… THE PRESS! So you just HAVE to talk about because THE PRESS are obsessed with it!
NICE
You left out transgendered.
what a spectacularly good idea! We have shown some non-ideological types the site and the smart dialogue that can occur; they were, as you might say, LOL over the pie filling… a truly brilliant inside joke that would certainly crack US up when seen on CNN. PIE NOW! or MORE TASTY FILLING- LESS CRUST! maybe RHUBARB IS RED AND SO ARE YOU
this has to happen…
At long last we'll have a Justice with the gravitas and gravity of the late Thurgood Marshall. I can't wait to read some of her opininions.
From the ideology that can't pass their stuff through legislation or initiative, have to go this route through the "Shadow Legislature" aka the judicial branch. Black helicopter stuff.
True, only in this case it's more black robes than black helicopters. They will never win the hearts and minds of the public, so they seek to impose their policies through backdoor means.
Do you know how much the MSM would freak out that they don't know what it means? It wouldn't be long before we started seeing frantic reporters going on and on about the "mysterious Pie Conspiracy" or "The Great Pie Menace."
You're right. . . this has to happen.
all we need is one person with one PIE NOW sign. ALthough we saw some pretty creative ones at the Tea Parties that the cameras shied away from to show the angriest ones… still. it is a 'delicious' thought, indeed.
But this is standard Liberal thinking. They group any one who speaks Spanish into "Hispanic". I never met a Pureto Rican who thought of themselves as "Hispanic". They thought they were….Puerto Ricans.
The Democrats are convinced that "Hispanics" will be a voting block like "Blacks" but I really don't see it. Besides language, Latin people are a very diverse group. I believe that young Latin people, like younger whites will gravitate towards conservative positions as they build lives/bank accounts/businesses.
"delicious thought" — nice.
And yet The View continues to be all women.
God help us if it ever happens that the entire spectrum of all the peoples of America becomes represented in our government. What ever will we do then? Wail – Moan – Gnashing of teeth – the tearing of our garments. That would be just too American like I guess.
you guys just won't be happy if its not 100% ALL WHITE MALE, huh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Some things never change.
She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme court!!!
She believes she makes the laws
She is not qualified.
This site is starting to devolve into a rightwing version of Kos. This talking point that "she's going to legislate from the bench"… does not comport with what we know of her at this point. The other bias I'm hearing in the blogs and on talk radio based on her out of context comment about appelate judges making policy…. prompts the question: name one supreme court opinion, even when based conservatively on precident, that does not affect or change policy?
It's a Steroid freaks game now.
Thank you, thank you. I knew if you folks knew the odds that I have overcome, you would support my nomination and ascendency.
I am a Libertarian by nature. Does that hurt me or help me with the Moca?
I am, and you shall bow down to me!
Race, smace. If we like Clarence Thomas, it is because he is a Tom. Ditto, Tom Sowell. If we DON"T like Obama, it is because we are racist.
Nice ot have it both ways isn it moron!
You can read Spanish?
Step One, have a job and earn your own money. Try physical work, I suggest factory, farm, and construction jobs. You could also sign up for the military, just the National Guard or Reserves until you're used to it would be a start.
It may be awhile until you'll get to Step Two as first you may have to not win the lottery and get kicked out of the house.
How embarrassing for you to be such a moron.
The next attack would likely not be by a plane, thus airport security restrictions would not be an issue. The .45 ACP is arguably the best widely-available cartridge that has a reasonable chance of stopping a vehicle without being ruled as excessive against human targets. Something like a trap for terrorists in my backyard, a normal looking armed citizen is the least expected obstacle. Your bait sounds ideal for vegans, such a diet being useful for creating brainwashed cult members. Even brainwashed minions of terrorists eat better than that, which one should guess by merely watching the released training videos.
As opposed to the brilliance of "hope" and "change" et al. Check.
At least not at that time – they sure are giving him the knee pad treatment now that he's shown his true colors as a liberal – no pun intended!
Yeah, that's the ticket! And if she doesn't work out, let's dig up some dead liberal activist guy or gal and prop them up in the court. Might be a bit smelly, but hey, let's represent all the demographics here. I mean they get the dead to vote for liberals in all the elections, they may as well have one on the court too. Sarcasm off.
The "nuclear option" would have to be enacted by the Democrats as the Senate currently stands, thus your phrasing "you'll all" appears to be referring to this board as if it were primarily used by Democrats. Are you trolling multiple political sites leading to being confused as to which one you were on?
"Granted, I don’t know the first thing about [subject heading]…" is perhaps not the best place from which to build a thesis.
You missed the part where the media mentioned she was the FIRST hispanic woman EVER nominated for SCOTUS. The emphasis is not on her race or heritage, it is on her unique historical position. Funny how you don't choose to acknowledge that little angle of the story.
Actually, one of the plaintiffs in the New Haven case is Hispanic. Decide for yourself if that is significant or merely unavoidable collateral damage.
Brings to mind these satirical newspaper parodies:
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/senators-empa...
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-unveils...
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/lawyers-advis...
I concur with you.
And I'm Puerto Rican, too.
God help us if we had a government comprised of only competent qualified individuals regardless of minority status. The resulting increase in efficiency would yield massive job losses among unneeded personnel, reduce the demands of elected officials to normally part time status resulting in public outrage over pay and benefit levels, plus cascading economic effects due to less reportable news about government and subsequent downsizing, etc. TV networks may have to resort to traditional entertainment to fill time. With a government that quietly served all equally well, people may even stop thinking minority status must be an important issue. Heaven forbid.
[...] via Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Daily Gut: The Reign of Race. [...]
It was basically the entire first segment on Nightline. It would seem they want us to talk about it.
Personally I think Hillary Clinton would be an excellent choice. She does have a law degree. Ponder the political and personal implications.
Personally I think Hillary Clinton would be an excellent choice. She does have a law degree. Ponder the political and personal implications.
That one has neither a long enough experience nor at a high enough level to be taken seriously as a nominee.
"It's no coincidence that you're an idiot and that your posts are idiotic."
Your family must be Stupid-American.
"…as the US takes a step toward representative diversity."
Thank you. It had been awhile since I had learned a new liberal codeword.
I'm a Northern Eastern European – I must be a minority! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Goat alert! I mean, gloat alert! It can't be a goat – trolls eat goats.
Then they're gonna love you. Please remember that mantra while you're offering your neck to the scimitar.
Political ideology trumps race/ethnicity/religion/splinter group allegiance. If only the cowering groups that knee-jerkedly support the Democratic party (any racial-ethnic group, Jews, old folks, etc. that have been conned into supporting the Dims) finally figure that out and vote for those that best support their issues and not their skin color, age, religion, etc.
I expect that Sotomayor will rule no differently than Octomom would rule, if Octomom were put on the Court.
Palin is stupid…no media bias
Of course, if she were pro-freedom instead of just another State-shtupper, the case wouldn't be so closed.
Great! Another underqualified left wing zealot hell bent on tearing down the U.S. The only way most of these people rise in the world is through quotas.
isnt the supreme court for the best and the brightest among legal minds? why have quotas? the left spins everything based on race. while the right gets pooped on. she should be debated on her credentials. not on her lifes story.
Here's the other problem… she's already said she would consider foreign law when determining her decisions, not the US Constitution or other US laws. Anyone who makes that kind of comment when up for the SCOTUS… Is a "no go" for me.
Of course, that and the "feelings' comment are going to be completely ignored by the US media.
Estrada… Republican nominated.. and Democrat whacked.
Thomas.. Republican nominated.. and accepted.
Myers (at least that was the discussion at one point)… was considered as a republican nominee..
So you want to try again?
Chris Matthews slobbered all over her yesterday by submitting that she was top of the class at Yale… "the best"…
I am getting sick of that yardstick too!!
1. Yale and those ivys have quotas up the ying-yang
2. So what you are top of the class???? Many people study and kiss up and/or get labeled A students but can't practice in field worth a darn.
Her statement of having a better opinion because she is Hispanic is disgusting and exactly how libs work the system. Hold your nose and make friends with one and they will tell you!!!
I commend our beloved leader "Il Dufe" for trying to bring more diversity to the Supreme Court. It is his dream to have all groups represented on the bench: a Puerto Rican statist, a Gay statist, a handicapped statist . . .
Greg awesome. And I missed the show because we no longer have our FIOS going…I "sniff' missed Duff! Did somebody hopefully, maybe Youtube it? Please?
Icolo or Icolo e Bengo is a town, commune and municipality in Bengo Province in Angola.
Angola, finally got independence from the Portuguese in 1975, immediately went into several decades of civil war. Rated one of the 10 most corrupt countries in the world in 2005. Government is leftist (formerly known as People's Republic of Angola), same leader since 1979, next elections "scheduled for" Sept 2009. Median age 18, life expectancy 38.2 years. Conscript military. Currently has essentially been bought by the Chinese with a $2 billion line of credit later extended to $7 billion, is China's biggest oil supplier. Great national resources, crushing poverty. Has diamonds which fueled the civil war (any reviews of that ABC 2-parter I recorded but haven't watched?), and uranium.
For an example of a third world hellhole, point there. Apparently there has been some progress, as someone (or a group) self-identified with a commune has internet access and can troll a site of a successful country.
I will predict that the ACLU is right now readying cases on behalf of criminal aliens to this country. They will try to extend the right of citizenship to these lowlifes.
That is where Obama's pick for the Court comes into play. Hey, you can't ask all those criminals to leave, can you?
The real complaint against Sotomayor is her refusal to hear a case of reverse racial discrimination against a white fireman who was among those with the highest scores on an exam for promotion within the fire dept. He was told that since there weren't any blacks with high enough scores to be considered, no promotions would be made. Sotomayor tossed the man's case aside without even allowing him a hearing! Other judges were apalled at her actions and appealed the case up to the Federal Supreme Court – who DID agree to hear the case, and is now about to rule on it. The irony will be that the very court for which she has been nominated will almost certainly overturn her careless and wayward ruling.
It seems obvious that Sotomayor is a partisan activist masquerading as a judge, and is a purely political choice by Obama to reduce heat on himself regarding other hispanic political issues – illegal alien amnesty, for instance.
It's a safe prediction that with Sotomayor on the bench, the Supreme Court will eventually rival Congress's low teens national approval (respect) rating.
Observing American national structure these days is like seeing in torturously slow motion various vital parts grotesquely deform and weirdly disconnect during a future car crash test of Obamamobiles.
(Think I'll start staying home and have booze delivered).
[...] life story” meme and Obama picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS slot Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Grand Rants: Sotomayor on Video (Sotomayor’s Outrageous Comments) First Things – The [...]
[...] To Appoint A Racist! Fort Hard Knox: Thanks, Obama, Now Dump Her Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Grand Rants: Sotomayor on Video (Sotomayor’s Outrageous Comments) First Things – The [...]
In essense since the vote applied to slaves who did not have the right to cast their own vote but had it cast for them one understands that the policy actually was to favor abolisionists. This is what I understand of it. I wonder if the policies of the south would have been any different if large slave owners did not literally have the ability to buy votes in this way.
OK so just when is it that you do that 'cause we are all tired of your childishness….
Maybe what we should do is make an announcement that we will accept her nomination but because democrats have engaged in terrible attempts to disparage and slander any conservative that is on this bench that we will spend the next 100 days hiring private investigators to scour every aspect of this women's life for anything wrong, even if she is already confirmed before we are through. We will not just limit it to her but every single person related to her by so much as a second cousin. Then we will pay millions to propagadize absolutely every negative thing that we can find.
Then after the announcement stating we will do this we personally apologize to Mrs. Sotomayor in advance saying that it is not personal but we are so offended by this tactic from democrats that we feel we have to utterly destroy your reputation so terribly that it will shock your party to quit acting in this terrible manor. Then have the spokesman go on Oprah, the view and every other liberal show defending this policy citing every bogus charge these people have made. After the statement is made we don;t even have to spend the money or defame her, the libs reaction to it would do the work for us.
Maybe what we should do is make an announcement that we will accept her nomination but because democrats have engaged in terrible attempts to disparage and slander any conservative that is on this bench that we will spend the next 100 days hiring private investigators to scour every aspect of this women's life for anything wrong, even if she is already confirmed before we are through. We will not just limit it to her but every single person related to her by so much as a second cousin. Then we will pay millions to propagadize absolutely every negative thing that we can find.
Then after the announcement stating we will do this we personally apologize to Mrs. Sotomayor in advance saying that it is not personal but we are so offended by this tactic from democrats that we feel we have to utterly destroy your reputation so terribly that it will shock your party to quit acting in this terrible manor. Then have the spokesman go on Oprah, the view and every other liberal show defending this policy citing every bogus charge these people have made. After the statement is made we don;t even have to spend the money or defame her, the libs reaction to it would do the work for us.
You don't get it do you……….
This statement should never be made by any Judge laughing or not. I heard the comment on the radio and you know what she was not joking. You left out the "but" the last word of the quote. The pause let out was telling.
The state of Nevada had a tax imposed by an activist judge because a balanced budget ammendment was not held. The judge actually imposed the tax by judicial fiat and not by kicking it back to the legistature as to how to handle this. The fact that you would even defend this statement and practice says volumes about "your" morality. The current activist judges we have today are authoritarian immoral monsters taking land from their rightful owners so that hacks can build shopping malls. You attitude sir is directly responsible for justifying these reprehensible abuses of greed and evil. They are shameful and you know what there are no softer more genteel words for them. Despotism is despotism.
No, the voices in your head keep saying the same thing, apparently.
[...] Meet Clarence Thomas Fort Hard Knox: Thanks, Obama, Now Dump Her Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Hot Air: Gibbs warns: Be “exceedingly careful” in how you criticize Sotomayor and The [...]
That's ok, I call my self either Euro-American or Anglo-Saxon-American (since my family came from Germany, Denmark and England)… and if Caucasian is on the demographic portion of a survey, that's what I put…
Hear hear!!!
Crud… even the Mexicans doen't think themselves has Hispanic… I was taught by a Mexican girl that there is a difference between Hispanics, Mexicans and Latinos…. And don't mix them up either..
[...] Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Fort Hard Knox: Thanks, Obama, Now Dump Her CQ Politics: Sotomayor Spin Wars Have White House [...]
[...] Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Fort Hard Knox: Thanks, Obama, Now Dump Her Frugal Café Blog Zone: Rush Limbaugh: Shhh! [...]
[...] Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Frugal Café Blog Zone: Obama’s Infamous 2001 Interview: Criticizes US Supreme Court for [...]
[...] Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Frugal Café Blog Zone: Obama’s Infamous 2001 Interview: Criticizes US Supreme Court for [...]
[...] Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: America Ranks 114th on the ‘Happy Planet Index’ and Daily Gut: The Reign of Race Works and Days: David Letterman, Rev. Wright, and Thoughts on a Creepy Culture: The Demise of David [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.