RkFast Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I'd call her moderate-left. The important issue to me is that she view the Constitution as a living document, to be interpreted with consideration to the current culture and prevailing beliefs. Im sure you will then accept today's ruling by the CA SC WRT gay marriage without issue. Or, like MOST nimrods, do you define "prevailing" as "my"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Sotomayor was nominated to federal bench by George H W Bush in 1991. So I guess Bush Senior was a Liberal lover. Well. Its too bad the son turned out so different. You people have to STOP believing Thrush Limbaugh's lies. No, he wasn't a "liberal lover", but his vetting process was rather flawed. Souter turned out to be FAR more liberal than expected, and I'd contend that Thomas was more conservative than Bush expected as well. And conservative Presidents have been known in the past to nominate judges that ended up very liberal. The fact that Bush gave her her start on the federal bench is less telling than the fact that Clinton promoted her. She will go through without too many problems. Probably somewhere between 65-70 votes. Some of the conservative's will question some of her rulings like the Ricci affirmative action case where she ruled against the firefighters, or the dumb comment she made about how a latina may be better equipped to rule as opposed to a white man. But all in all, she is somewhat of a centrist and I see this as a non issue, and as you mentioned the conservative base will probably be able to use this nomination for some fundraising. She already has 60 votes. I'd be very surprised if she only gets 5-10 Republicans to vote for her. I'd expect her to end up close to 80 when all is said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Im sure you will then accept today's ruling by the CA SC WRT gay marriage without issue. Or, like MOST nimrods, do you define "prevailing" as "my"? Nobody in their right mind should accept that pitiful ruling. "Gay marriage is illegal...except those that already exist." What the hell kind of a weasely-ass decision is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 That's a lie Aint that the truth Another lie Read her decisions and tell me WHERE her communist leanings are, why don't you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Read her decisions and tell me WHERE her communist leanings are, why don't you... I did and her decisions are clearly influenced by a far-left marxist ideology that would make Stalin cringe.She's an activist judge who legislates from the bench, hands down. She is not only one of the 5 most far-left judges in the country but one of the most far-left people in the country (maybe the world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Read her decisions and tell me WHERE her communist leanings are, why don't you... Are you engaging this troll in conversation? Bored today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Im sure you will then accept today's ruling by the CA SC WRT gay marriage without issue. Or, like MOST nimrods, do you define "prevailing" as "my"? I can't say, I don't know the details of the case or the basis of the ruling. In general, I don't care if gays get married in civil ceremonies, I've yet to be convinced as to how it adversely affects my marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nobody in their right mind should accept that pitiful ruling. "Gay marriage is illegal...except those that already exist." What the hell kind of a weasely-ass decision is that? The whole issue is really beyond me. "Homos can be married but just can't call yourself married." It's like legislating that you can't be called "Tom" and must be called "Thomas." It's a great example of the right over-legislating people's lives and further proof that the difference between Democrat and Republican is slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I did and her decisions are clearly influenced by a far-left marxist ideology that would make Stalin cringe.She's an activist judge who legislates from the bench, hands down. She is not only one of the 5 most far-left judges in the country but one of the most far-left people in the country (maybe the world). You didn't read them, and even if you did, there's NO way you get from those to "Hugo Chavez in drag". Things will go easier for you here if you just admit that you're completely full of crap and shut up, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 You didn't read them, and even if you did, there's NO way you get from those to "Hugo Chavez in drag". I like that line, can I use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Are you engaging this troll in conversation? Bored today? Little bit, yeah. My day is taken up by googling document templates, so diversion is called for. Plus, just found out yesterday a friend of my wife's is dying of cancer (lung, pancreas, liver at least), and will be moving in to our spare room for the last few months of her life (said she's dying, don't know why I'm suddenly running a !@#$ing hospice though). So diversion is even more desireable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I like that line, can I use it? No you may not, because IT'S NOT ACCURATE, you !@#$ing turnip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 No you may not, because IT'S NOT ACCURATE, you !@#$ing turnip. Too bad, I don't need your permission! I'm going to use it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Too bad, I don't need your permission! I'm going to use it! Well at least one of yours posts would be funny and interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Little bit, yeah. My day is taken up by googling document templates, so diversion is called for. Plus, just found out yesterday a friend of my wife's is dying of cancer (lung, pancreas, liver at least), and will be moving in to our spare room for the last few months of her life (said she's dying, don't know why I'm suddenly running a !@#$ing hospice though). So diversion is even more desireable. My condolences, Tom. That speaks well of you and your wife to offer up that kind of care. Well, your wife, anyway. We know you better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Little bit, yeah. My day is taken up by googling document templates, so diversion is called for. Plus, just found out yesterday a friend of my wife's is dying of cancer (lung, pancreas, liver at least), and will be moving in to our spare room for the last few months of her life (said she's dying, don't know why I'm suddenly running a !@#$ing hospice though). So diversion is even more desireable. Tom — Sorry to hear about your wife's friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Tom — Sorry to hear about your wife's friend. Thanks, both. BTW, that was "sad she's dying", not "said". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Not sure if this was posted in this or the other thread. Quite frankly, dont care either. She'll get her seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I look forward to conservatives publicly voicing opposition to a Hispanic woman who grew up in the projects, was previously appointed to the bench by George Bush I, and was previously approved by a number of Republicans in the Congress for her appointed court positions. The war of words between the Hatch/McCain/Powell moderate Republicans and the RNC (Rush/Newt/Cheney) conservative Republicans will be interesting. Conservatives don't like activist judges unless they're active in cases such as reversing Roe vs Wade, Terry Schivo, blurring the lines between church and state, and torture. Keep shrinking that Republican "big tent". Genius, it was activists that overturned abortion as murder. Asking to restore law is not activism, and allowing someone to be murdered is not activism. While I agree with you on torture, and also the justifications for illegal wars and occupations, you cannot rationally believe the division of church and state meant the blurring of reason and state, and history and state, because reason and history verify defending life part of the values of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Do you believe that judges should make law? Sotomayor does. As opposed to electing presidents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts