quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So willbur you don't beleive Hispanic voters will care,nor remember the treatment the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court receives?
Really?

Not at the voting booth. They are generally voting Dem no matter what happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So willbur you don't beleive Hispanic voters will care,nor remember the treatment the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court receives?
Really?

Not at the voting booth. They are generally voting Dem no matter what happens.

So no sense trying to change some minds, heh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Okay subrob,tell me what is the Republican choice here...do they stand in the way of the truck coming down the road.....and as an extra added incentive alienate a large voting bloc.Or....realising the Dems have the votes to confirm.....treat her with kid gloves and behave themselves......possibly attracting instead of repelling a large ,and growing exponentially, voting bloc(I am not suggesting all Hispanic voters see all issues in all ways...no flames please).

They should do exactly what they are doing. Question her on her prior decisions and on judicial activism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harddaddy4u

The Palin bashing on this site borders on mental illness. You libs really need to get a grip.

I like Sarah Palin and while she's not perfect, she's got a lot going for her, and we'll see her in politics again - count on it.

By continuing to single out and ridicule Sarah Palin, you only show your smallness, and complete lack of perspective. But then, that is the oldest trick in the left wing playbook - single out an effective Republican and try to smear and belittle him/her until the false labels begin to stick, and that person is effectively destroyed and/or neutralized. It's not as final as putting a bullet through someone's head, but it's the next best thing, and has worked for your side in the past. That's why they call it "character assassination". But it's really unbecoming and childish. In her case, it has become obscene and extreme, as the left continues to try and destroy her by singling out her children, etc.... That has never happened in politics before, and goes to show the desperation, and I would even say the depravity and sickness, of those who are seeking to harm this woman.

You libs should really consider taking a look at the dozens upon dozens of corrupt, morally bankrupt, embarassing people on the left, none of whom I've ever seen a single post about on this site.

As to abortion, that is not the issue, and never was. The issue is - what is human life and when does it begin? Science and biology tell us in no uncertain terms that it begins at fertilization - at that point an entirely new human being's life has begun, and nothing is added during the nine months of gestation but time and nutrition. Everything you are today you were at conception, only smaller and less developed.

The Constituttion and the Declaration say that no person can be deprived of the right to life. The reason Roe (which was not a law passed through the legislature, but a Supreme Court decision) was decided as it was is because the justices decided that the unborn was not a person. They did not consider any of the scientific facts in coming to their ludicrous conclusions.

Anyone who has seen a sonogram or an ultrasound (which were not available in 1973), or even heard a fetal heartbeat (which begins at 17 days after conception), knows that the unborn IS a person.

Roe is on a collision course with itself. Even the justices who voted for it said that if the case for personhood could be established (and who can deny the obvious fact that the unborn is alive and human, and remain intellectually honest?), the entire case collapses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

you're still well past mocking her by refering to her as a plastic doll. I see now where you got you wild claims about previous events, you have no sense of scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

you're still well past mocking her by refering to her as a plastic doll. I see now where you got you wild claims about previous events, you have no sense of scale.

           Ken, I used an example from our very own forums that stuck in my head.  Caribou Barbie was clever.  I won't go reading those threads again to present items for your determination of filthy content.  I saw sexism in every form imaginable, and I am applying it to a candidate "your side" brought to the party.  I am playing with a toy that was completely unacceptable only a year ago.  Sucks, don't it?

         I see no further point in discussion of your demands I justify my disgust.  Perhaps it is a trick of the light, from our various vantage points, but you are somehow blind to a thing I find glaring, or deaf to a high frequency tone that grates on my spine.  Perhaps you were able to casually swallow what caught in my throat.

        Nice to know that your sensitivity to such attacks on women was only malfunctioning, and not completely broken.  Of course, I will say that Judge Sotomayor is a smart, competent woman, of considerable accomplishment.  Think any of the folks who brought the bar down here will say that about Sarah Palin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     Yup.  Caribou Barbie.  Some real insightful analysis there.  Welcome to the bed you helped make.  [:D]  Sexist attacks are completely ok.  Now that is some Change we can believe in, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    Yup.  Caribou Barbie.  Some real insightful analysis there.  Welcome to the bed you helped make.  [:D]  Sexist attacks are completely ok.  Now that is some Change we can believe in, huh?

Would that be anything like Barack the Magic Negro?

TheHill.com - RNC candidate distributes controversial Obama song

quote:

The title is a reference to the magical negro, a stock character in fiction who commonly helps the white protagonist to get out of trouble. The song builds upon David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt.[3] The song's lyrics explicitly refer to this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

From a term stolen off a left wing reporter....really

quote:

The title is a reference to the magical negro, a stock character in fiction who commonly helps the white protagonist to get out of trouble. The song builds upon David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt.[3] The song's lyrics explicitly refer to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_the_Magic_Negro

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Of course, I will say that Judge Sotomayor is a smart, competent woman, of considerable accomplishment.  Think any of the folks who brought the bar down here will say that about Sarah Palin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MMercurial

Again, this is one of this bitch's rulings. Does anyone here read?

This is what they want America to be like: Mexico with bribes, on steroids:

in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: MMercurial

Again, this is one of this bitch's rulings. Does anyone here read?

This is what they want America to be like: Mexico with bribes, on steroids:

in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."

Well, how about another perspective on it, the key point in the following article being that:


Although property rights advocates have been harshly critical of Kelo, they cannot properly quarrel with judges on lower courts, including Judge Sotomayor, who are required to adhere to Supreme Court precedent.

Unable to do so, they have attacked Judge Sotomayor by attempting to cast two Port Chester property owners, Bart Didden and William Brody, as judicial victims.


(Text & History » Debunking Conservatives' Rhetoric That Judge ...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harddaddy4u

The Palin bashing on this site borders on mental illness. You libs really need to get a grip.

I like Sarah Palin and while she's not perfect, she's got a lot going for her, and we'll see her in politics again - count on it.

By continuing to single out and ridicule Sarah Palin, you only show your smallness, and complete lack of perspective. But then, that is the oldest trick in the left wing playbook - single out an effective Republican and try to smear and belittle him/her until the false labels begin to stick, and that person is effectively destroyed and/or neutralized. It's not as final as putting a bullet through someone's head, but it's the next best thing, and has worked for your side in the past. That's why they call it "character assassination". But it's really unbecoming and childish. In her case, it has become obscene and extreme, as the left continues to try and destroy her by singling out her children, etc.... That has never happened in politics before, and goes to show the desperation, and I would even say the depravity and sickness, of those who are seeking to harm this woman.

You libs should really consider taking a look at the dozens upon dozens of corrupt, morally bankrupt, embarassing people on the left, none of whom I've ever seen a single post about on this site.

As to abortion, that is not the issue, and never was. The issue is - what is human life and when does it begin? Science and biology tell us in no uncertain terms that it begins at fertilization - at that point an entirely new human being's life has begun, and nothing is added during the nine months of gestation but time and nutrition. Everything you are today you were at conception, only smaller and less developed.

The Constituttion and the Declaration say that no person can be deprived of the right to life. The reason Roe (which was not a law passed through the legislature, but a Supreme Court decision) was decided as it was is because the justices decided that the unborn was not a person. They did not consider any of the scientific facts in coming to their ludicrous conclusions.

Anyone who has seen a sonogram or an ultrasound (which were not available in 1973), or even heard a fetal heartbeat (which begins at 17 days after conception), knows that the unborn IS a person.

Roe is on a collision course with itself. Even the justices who voted for it said that if the case for personhood could be established (and who can deny the obvious fact that the unborn is alive and human, and remain intellectually honest?), the entire case collapses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If Sotomayor had ruled the other way in Kelo, against precedent, conservatives would now be slamming her for being an activist judge.

BTW why does anyone expect a good appelate judge to rule contrary to established precedent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If Sotomayor had ruled the other way in Kelo, against precedent, conservatives would now be slamming her for being an activist judge.

BTW why does anyone expect a good appelate judge to rule contrary to established precedent?

wrt to 1: youre not a mindreader, don't try to be one
wrt to 2: because there is actually such a thing as bad precedents. If there weren't slavery would still be legal.

There are thousands of cases where stare decisis
wasn't adhered to.

"Stare decisis is not a strict doctrine but an "administrative and social convenience," writes Antonin Scalia. "Courts do not have the time to reconsider every legal issue anew, and citizens cannot confidently plan their actions if what the Supreme Court has said a statute means today is not in all probability what the Supreme Court will say it means tomorrow. (Some modern systems, of course, have not thought this administrative and social convenience worth the trouble, and, in principle at least, forgo the doctrine of stare decisis.) And since it is just an administrative and social convenience, the doctrine of stare decisis is not applied rigidly, as it used to be at common law." "

quote:

....try to make nice,thereby hopefully making some inroads into the large bloc of Hispanic voters.....or is it business as usual...in other words more pandering to their base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Scalia's views on stare decisis are out side the mainstream, to say the least.