PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court and Sonia Sotomayor



badger
5/26/2009, 09:23 AM
So... chicks on the bench?

Thoughts on the new girl that might be replacing the old guy?

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 09:34 AM
I wonder, did she get the job cause of her qualifications, or because of her skin color and gender??

And we thought racism was over. HA!

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 09:36 AM
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.


For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment [inherently belonging to minorities] which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.

It appears that Sotomayor believes that some individuals are better than others merely by fact of the identity group to which they belong. I think there is a name for this for this kind of belief system.

badger
5/26/2009, 09:52 AM
And the response from the Republicans is...

Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.

I think Republicans have to realize that a pure conservative is not going to get nominated by Obama, so the best they can hope for (just as the best Dems could hope for when Bush got to nominate two Supreme Court justices) is that the candidate is fair and will uphold the Constitution of the United States.

It will be interesting to see how the hearings go.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 09:58 AM
The Republicans don't have enough to stop this, do they?

Chuck Bao
5/26/2009, 10:07 AM
The Republicans don't have enough to stop this, do they?

I hope they try and it further exposes them as how they are out of touch with America.

Sotomayor seems like a great choice. She seems like she will honor the constitution and our civil liberties. Nanny state Republicans be gone.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 10:12 AM
Only hope to stop this train wreck is the moderate donks nuking this like they did with Zeros plan to bring terrorists to the US.

But then you get into the race thing all over again. Even if she is bat **** crazy, no good liberal would ever vote against her based on her skin color and gender. Qualifications for such a high office is of lesser concern to libz.

achiro
5/26/2009, 10:18 AM
The Republicans don't have enough to stop this, do they?

Yes, they could prevent it(the nomination) from even getting a vote in the Senate

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 10:21 AM
She seems like she will honor the constitution and our civil liberties.
And what do you base that on???

Its painfully obvious she is a statist of the worst kind, and maybe even worse than that, and will work very hard at "remaking America" by making laws from her seat on the court, or legislating from the bench as they say. She says as much from some of the stuff I am reading right now.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 10:24 AM
I don't know a ton of her politics, but what I'm reading right now I don't know if I'd support her:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html

Crucifax Autumn
5/26/2009, 10:24 AM
Yes, they could prevent it(the nomination) from even getting a vote in the Senate


While possible, this is doubtful. The Dems have a big majority on the judicial committee and are only one vote short of having a filibuster breaking vote while 8 of the Republicans voted to confirm her to past appointments.

The house gets no say on this.

badger
5/26/2009, 10:25 AM
I just don't know enough about her yet to really know whether or not this is a good nomination. I mean, W. also had a bad nomination before going with Alito, remember?

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 10:25 AM
Only hope to stop this train wreck is the moderate donks nuking this like they did with Zeros plan to bring terrorists to the US.

But then you get into the race thing all over again. Even if she is bat **** crazy, no good liberal would ever vote against her based on her skin color and gender. Qualifications for such a high office is of lesser concern to libz.Heh, Tuba is confusing qualifications with politics, how unexpected. She is a Princeton and Yale educated judge, with DA and private practice experience, and has been on the Fed bench for almost 20 years.

I don't care for the facted that she punted without certifiying Ricci, but I think the Republicans only get one shot to stonewall (if that) and I wouldn't use it on this nominee.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 10:28 AM
Heh, Tuba is confusing qualifications with politics, how unexpected. She is a Princeton and Yale educated judge, with DA and private practice experience, and has been on the Fed bench for almost 20 years.

I don't care for the facted that she punted without certifiying Ricci, but I think the Republicans only get one shot to stonewall (if that) and I wouldn't use it on this nominee.

She has made a point to say that life experience leads to better decision making and better judgments, along with the fact she's indicated that she makes policy from the bench. So, I'd say it's completely fair to bring her politics into her qualifications. Why not, she does?

Crucifax Autumn
5/26/2009, 10:29 AM
She's definitely qualified from an experience perspectuve so let's just drop that part.

The only real argument that can hold water from both sides is if she will attempt to legislate from the bench.

Let's argue that instead of silliness. That is a legitimate argument and the rest is just partisan bickering as usual.

badger
5/26/2009, 10:31 AM
Dr. Tom Coburn's take here. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090526_298_0_hrbRel829914)

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 10:32 AM
Nice:
VIDEO: Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

I love having unelected appointed for life people in black robs make "policy".

So much for that whole "she will uphold the constitution" BS. She just comes right on out and says she will be a political acitivist on the supreme court.

Awesome.

Thanks Obama!!!

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 10:34 AM
Dr. Tom Coburn's take here. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090526_298_0_hrbRel829914)

I really like that dude.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 10:36 AM
She has made a point to say that life experience leads to better decision making and better judgments, along with the fact she's indicated that she makes policy from the bench. So, I'd say it's completely fair to bring her politics into her qualifications. Why not, she does?Well, you cannot use the two interchangeably as they have distinctly different meanings. I don't agree with Justice Robert's policy, but that doesn't mean I think he's unqualified. Which leads me to my second point, every judge crafts policy, hence why it's called judicial policy. I know there is this pie in the sky idea that back in the good ole days they didn't, but they did. Hell, judicial activism is pretty much deifined as the bench holding up policies to which you disagree, I'm sure Dred Scott thought the court was pretty freaking active.

Also, this should come as a surprise to no one, Obama specifically mentioned that he was seeking an empathetic nominee to the American social structure, sort of an anti-Souter.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 10:43 AM
What I was getting at and maybe didn't express clearly enough, is that I believe judicial policy is a bad thing. I think ideally we'd want to get away from it, not move further towards it. By her clear support of it, along with her politics, it speaks to me of her qualifications. I realize she's got a solid educational background, but she has bad decision making in her history. That is a poor qualification. But, if you don't mind judges making the law, then I can understand why you wouldn't connect the two.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 10:56 AM
What I was getting at and maybe didn't express clearly enough, is that I believe judicial policy is a bad thing. I think ideally we'd want to get away from it, not move further towards it. By her clear support of it, along with her politics, it speaks to me of her qualifications. I realize she's got a solid educational background, but she has bad decision making in her history. That is a poor qualification. But, if you don't mind judges making the law, then I can understand why you wouldn't connect the two.My point is that judges of all stripes craft policy, they are a component of government and it's a job requirement, if one was inclined to be an orginialist, then I could maybe see the technical argument, but not the pratical one as the court has been a useful and needed check on excutive and legislative power.

And I think that "craft" policy is a bad turn of phrase in that legislatures are responsible for writing policy, but I think the court is a needed step of amendment because, frankly, sometimes legislatures get it wrong. Long story short, you are going to have to make the political argument, not a qualification one, and with Senate make up as it is, good luck.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 11:10 AM
My point is that judges of all stripes craft policy, they are a component of government and it's a job requirement, if one was inclined to be an orginialist, then I could maybe see the technical argument, but not the pratical one as the court has been a useful and needed check on excutive and legislative power.

And I think that "craft" policy is a bad turn of phrase in that legislatures are responsible for writing policy, but I think the court is a needed step of amendment because, frankly, sometimes legislatures get it wrong. Long story short, you are going to have to make the political argument, not a qualification one, and with Senate make up as it is, good luck.

I'd agree that a large portion of my objection to her is likely political, and making the argument against her politically would likely be fruitless. However, I feel that much of the government has continued to stray from the original intent of the constitution. I don't like that, and would like to move back towards the original intent of that document. The odds of that happening any time soon, especially under this administration, are nearly zero. But, I can whine and cry about it on the innerwebs message boards. It makes me feel better.

Scott D
5/26/2009, 11:40 AM
What I was getting at and maybe didn't express clearly enough, is that I believe judicial policy is a bad thing. I think ideally we'd want to get away from it, not move further towards it. By her clear support of it, along with her politics, it speaks to me of her qualifications. I realize she's got a solid educational background, but she has bad decision making in her history. That is a poor qualification. But, if you don't mind judges making the law, then I can understand why you wouldn't connect the two.

I just want to point out that bad decision making is how someone ends up getting noticed by, and ending up in Washington DC.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 11:44 AM
Also, this should come as a surprise to no one, Obama specifically mentioned that he was seeking an empathetic nominee to the American social structure, sort of an anti-Souter.

didn't surprise me.

I knew The Squanderer would do his best to select based on skin color and sex, and not actual qualifications. And compared to the other he should have nominated, she doesn't even come close to being a middle of the run qualified person.

Its too bad we cannot escape racism, even when we are supposed to be past it at this point.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 11:54 AM
didn't surprise me.

I knew The Squanderer would do his best to select based on skin color and sex, and not actual qualifications. And compared to the other he should have nominated, she doesn't even come close to being a middle of the run qualified person.

Its too bad we cannot escape racism, even when we are supposed to be past it at this point.Meh, you're too political to seperate the idea of judicial positioning from qualifications, don't take it bad if I frankly don't care what you have to say one way or another. Frankly, she is qualified to be a justice, you just don't want her to be, and I'm pretty sure if Obama nominated Bork, you would find a way to twist it into a socialist plot.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 11:55 AM
Hey, look. Tuba's criticizing Obama's SC nominee. I know I'm surprised, how about you?

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 11:56 AM
Ultimately, if you look at her credentials, she's well qualified.

That you disagree with her politics and jurisprudence does not change that fact.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 11:57 AM
Also, hey, aren't you glad they didn't do away with the ability of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees now that the shoe is on the other foot?

NormanPride
5/26/2009, 12:01 PM
Legislating from the bench is bad, and she should feel bad.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 12:06 PM
We've got a common law system here. Legislating from the bench can't be helped.

The best judges are the ones who know when to limit the impact of such actions, and when to break out the hammer.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 01:34 PM
don't take it bad if I frankly don't care what you have to say one way or another.
Indeed I care not about what you have to say either.

Whether she is Qualified is not the question however.

Is she THE MOST Qualified is the question. And that is hardly even up for debate. She indeed is not. Not by a long shot, even by liberal standards.

The fact is, she was chosen because of her skin color and her gender.

A fact you seem all to happy to ignore for some reason.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 01:36 PM
Some more goodies we will never see in the MSM.


Ricci v. DeStefano. In this 2008 case, Sotomayor participated in a one-page decision that allowed the City of New Haven, Connecticut to scrap the results of a promotion test for the city’s firefighters because no African-Americans passed the test. In April 2009, the Supreme Court said that it would review the Second Circuit’s decision.

I'm sensing a theme here. Very scary.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 01:39 PM
Indeed I care not about what you have to say either.

Whether she is Qualified is not the question however.

Is she THE MOST Qualified is the question. And that is hardly even up for debate. She indeed is not. Not by a long shot, even by liberal standards.

The fact is, she was chosen because of her skin color and her gender.

A fact you seem all to happy to ignore for some reason.Heh. So now the criteria is MOST qualified? Your metric is beyond ridiculous in that there is no possible way to quantify it. Just admit that while she's qualified you don't like her political positions and that is the basis of your disdain, otherwise your dog doesn't hunt.

badger
5/26/2009, 01:44 PM
Before we pull the race/gender card on this choice... let's think... would she have been chosen if not for her race and gender?

She has tons of experience and isn't too conservative, so it's possible. The fact that everyone is making a big deal out of her being Hispanic is probably annoying to Hispanics and to Sonia herself.

She's probably had to be an outstanding student to get into an Ivy League school despite her background (immigrating to NY from Puerto Rico, having blue collar parents, etc), she's probably had to be extraordinary to get to the position she's currently in despite the fact that she doesn't fit the profile of people who have generally held the same positions in the past.

It must annoy the hell outta her that instead of people looking at her qualifications, the headlines are "FIRST HISPANIC, OMG!!!!1!!!!111" across the nation.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 01:52 PM
Before we pull the race/gender card on this choice... let's think... would she have been chosen if not for her race and gender?

She has tons of experience and isn't too conservative, so it's possible. The fact that everyone is making a big deal out of her being Hispanic is probably annoying to Hispanics and to Sonia herself.

She's probably had to be an outstanding student to get into an Ivy League school despite her background (immigrating to NY from Puerto Rico, having blue collar parents, etc), she's probably had to be extraordinary to get to the position she's currently in despite the fact that she doesn't fit the profile of people who have generally held the same positions in the past.

It must annoy the hell outta her that instead of people looking at her qualifications, the headlines are "FIRST HISPANIC, OMG!!!!1!!!!111" across the nation.I think she was picked because of her judicial philosphy, but the fact that the lily white faces of McConnell, Cantor, and Newt leading the charge against her is going to play right into Democratic gaming of the hispanic vote probably didn't escape the White House.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 01:56 PM
3 years and 7 months to go???

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 01:58 PM
I think she was picked because of her judicial philosphy, but the fact that the lily white faces of McConnell, Cantor, and Newt leading the charge against her is going to play right into Democratic gaming of the hispanic vote probably didn't escape the White House.

Because Obama is already campaigning for 2012.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 02:03 PM
Because Obama is already campaigning for 2012.He started Nov 5th. While I generally find Obama acceptable, I'm not so naive to think that he didn't get where he is by being anything but shrewd and gaming. Since the demise of the convention picking nominees, I generally have a healthy dose of distrust toward any president, the masses simply lack the ability to properly choose a president.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 02:09 PM
Heh. So now the criteria is MOST qualified? Your metric is beyond ridiculous in that there is no possible way to quantify it. Just admit that while she's qualified you don't like her political positions and that is the basis of your disdain, otherwise your dog doesn't hunt.

I'll admit that anytime, she is qualified and her politics disgust me.

And I believe it is possible to quantify quality over skin color. People do it everyday in any job function. How is the judicial bench any different?? Funny you don't see this.

The fact you won't admit that this was nothing but a choice based on racism and sexism instead of qualifications is telling though.

I wonder what other biases you would simply sweep under the carpet just because it agrees with your political leanings?????

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:11 PM
Some guy named Barry Soetro called and left a message at my house asking if I wanted to work for him, but I didn't answer because I didn't recognize the number on the caller ID.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 02:14 PM
Once again Tuba dazzles us with a montage of nonsensical racist posts.

Bravo!

Scott D
5/26/2009, 02:15 PM
I'll admit that anytime, she is qualified and her politics disgust me.

And I believe it is possible to quantify quality over skin color. People do it everyday in any job function. How is the judicial bench any different?? Funny you don't see this.

The fact you won't admit that this was nothing but a choice based on racism and sexism instead of qualifications is telling though.

I wonder what other biases you would simply sweep under the carpet just because it agrees with your political leanings?????

What Bias? The pandering to the Hispanic vote by this selection? If Bush had more reliable advisors, he would have looked for a qualified conservative Hispanic candidate instead of Roberts.

There's a reason that people feel the Republicrat party is out of touch.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 02:17 PM
I'll admit that anytime. And I believe it is possible to quantify quality over skin color. Funny you don't.

The fact you won't admit that this was nothing but a choice based on racism and sexism instead of qualifications is telling though.

I wonder what other biases you would simply sweep under the carpet just because it agrees with your political leanings?????If by her own merit she didn't qualify and was chosen I would agree with you, she has more judicial experience than Roberts did at time of confirmation though, sorry to break it to you, but by education and experience, she goes.

I will never convince you in that we all know your schtick, the fact that you are groping for reasons to justify your dislike outside of politics is unsurprising.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:19 PM
They shouldn't nominate her because she eats her boogers.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 02:24 PM
The "offending quote" in context:

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy.

"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."For more perspective:

The remarks, four years later, have hit (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/kristol_on_sotomayor_the_supre.asp) the central nerve (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22229.html) of the conservative psyche. Figures within and outside the GOP have already announced -- even before Sotomayor was tapped to be Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court -- that they would be painting her as an activist from the bench.

But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.

"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."

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."

Freedman, who was a classmate of Sotomayor's at Yale Law School, noted that while the Supreme Court will decide roughly 90 cases a year, the court of appeals will weigh in on "many thousands." They are, indeed, "the final stop for the most important decisions in the federal system." They also are the forums where vagaries and gray areas of the law go to be clarified.

"One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent," Freedman explained. "But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn't go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it... So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent."

"I would be surprised if you got a different opinion from a fair-minded observer in the legal world," he added.Video of the comment:
OfC99LrrM2Q&eurl

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:28 PM
That's a liberal fabrication designed to make us all legalize international burrito importation without customs review and inspection.

LIBERAL.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 02:29 PM
Was it Obama who called his mom or grandma a typical white women? whats that suppose to mean?

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:33 PM
http://www.nndb.com/people/538/000072322/cleavon1-sized.jpg

WHERE ALL DE WHITE WIMMEN AT!?

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 02:36 PM
she has more judicial experience than Roberts did at time of confirmation though, sorry to break it to you, but by education and experience, she goes.

Education:
John Roberts: JD magna cum laude Harvard
Sonia Sotomayor: JD Yale

hmm, sorry, education goes to JR on that one. But better luck next time trying to make racism sound like its OK!

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:37 PM
John Roberts also shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 02:38 PM
What Bias? The pandering to the Hispanic vote by this selection? If Bush had more reliable advisors, he would have looked for a qualified conservative Hispanic candidate instead of Roberts.

Ha!

If only Bush had picked a conservative Hispanic instead of one of the top constitutional scholors.

If only every persons job was based on the color of their skin instead of their qualifications!! Imagine what a great place this would be!!!!!!

If only indeed!!!

Tulsa_Fireman
5/26/2009, 02:40 PM
Besides, I thought Alberto Gonzales was the cannon fodder for that.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 02:42 PM
Once again Tuba dazzles us with a montage of nonsensical racist posts.

Bravo!

So calling out racism is now racism??? Awesome.

Only in a liberal mind is that possible.

soonerscuba
5/26/2009, 02:49 PM
Education:
John Roberts: JD magna cum laude Harvard
Sonia Sotomayor: JD Yale

hmm, sorry, education goes to JR on that one. But better luck next time trying to make racism sound like its OK!Wow. So now in your dizzingly retarded argument as to why her nomination is racist, you are bringing up distnictions from lower ranked Ivy League law schools while ignorning that the fact that she has more judicial experience than anybody currently in the court. I think you have outdone yourself.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 02:56 PM
1. HER UPBRINGING: Judge Sonia Sotomayor has arguably lived the American dream. She was born to a Puerto Rican family and grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx.
Her father was a factory worker with a third-grade education, and died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother raised Sotomayor while working as a nurse. After her father's death, Sotomayor reportedly turned to books for solace, and she says it was her love of Nancy Drew books that ultimately led her to the law.
2. HER EDUCATION: Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.
3. HER WORK OFF THE BENCH: After law school, Sotomayor spent five years as Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, trying dozens of criminal cases. Robert Morgenthau, who chose her for the position, described her as a "fearless and effective prosecutor." She entered private practice in 1984, working as an international corporate litigator handling cases involving everything from intellectual property to banking, real estate and contract law.
4. HER JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE: As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog writes (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/), "Almost all of her career has been in public service -- as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name." The White House notes:
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. ...
In 1998, Judge Sotomayor became the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. She has participated in over 3000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 opinions, handling difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations."
(The New York Times has summarized her most notable court opinions and articles (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html).)
5. HER STRUGGLE WITH DIABETES: Sotomayor is a Type One diabetic. She has been open about her diabetes in the past, noting that when she was diagnosed at he age of eight, it foiled her hopes of becoming an investigative detective like her heroine, Nancy Drew. While hardly a debilitating disease -- indeed, recent medical advancements have made it quite manageable to live with -- there remain enough late-in-life health implications to have sparked debate in legal, political and medical circles over whether it should be a factor in her nomination (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/sotomayors-medical-histor_n_203032.html).

6. SOTOMAYOR SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS: In 1992, Republican President George H. W. Bush appointed Sotomayor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Later, in 1998, President Bill Clinton nominated her to the 2nd Circuit, and she was confirmed with bipartisan support in a 67-29 vote (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/current-senators-voted-35-11-to-confirm.html).
All Democrats voted in favor of Sotomayor (although three did not vote), while Republicans opposed her by a 29-25 majority. Among those Senators who are still in the chamber today, however, Sotomayor's margin of confirmation was a bit more comfortable: 35-11.Indeed, five current Republican Senators voted in favor of her nomination then: Sens. Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe. Among the no votes were current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, current Minority Whip John Kyl and Sen. Jeff Sessions, currently the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Additionally, the White House points out, "Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time."
7. SOTOMAYOR ON ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE: Sotomayor's record on two key hot button cultural issues is thin. But, quite notably, her sole opinion regarding abortion was in line with the anti-abortion movement's position. Some details (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/05/26/sotomayors-abortion-ruling.aspx) from the anti-abortion site LifeNews.com:
"Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," the pro-life group Americans United for Life noted in a recent analysis of potential Supreme Court candidates.
Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.
Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but AUL says the significance of the decision "may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit's earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy."
AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
That said, pro-choice groups hailed her nomination, with Planned Parenthood declaring that she "understands the importance of ensuring that our Supreme Court justices respect precedent while also protecting our civil liberties."
Sotomayor has also not ruled on any cases involving gay civil rights, but gay legal activists described her positively (http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=91669):
Long-time gay legal activist Paula Ettelbrick said she met Sotomayor in about 1991 when they both served on then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo's advisory committee on fighting bias.
"Nobody wanted to talk to the queer person at that time," said Ettelbrick, who represented Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "She was the only one [on the advisory committee] who made a point to come over and introduce herself. She was totally interested [in gay civil rights issues] and supportive."
"From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding choice - fair and aware, open and judicious," said Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization. "I believe she has the demonstrated commitment to principles of equal protection and inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court. In choosing Judge Sotomayor, the first Latino candidate for the Supreme Court, President Obama has made a strong and appealing nomination that should and will receive the supportof those committed to equality for lesbians and gay men."
8. SOTOMAYOR WOULD BE FIRST HISPANIC JUSTICE: If confirmed, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Tom Goldstein notes (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/):
To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.9. SOTOMAYOR "SAVED BASEBALL": "During a brief period in 1995," the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1), "Judge Sonia Sotomayor became revered, at least in those cities with major league baseball teams. She ended a long baseball strike that year, briskly ruling against the owners in favor of the players." A bit more (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1):
The owners were trying to subvert the labor system, she said, and the strike had "placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial."
After play resumed, The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined forever the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams. The Chicago Sun-Times said she "delivered a wicked fastball" to baseball owners and emerged as one of the most inspiring figures in the history of the sport.
10. SOTOMAYOR ON THE CONSTITUTION AND "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM": The ubiquitous conservative attack on Sotomayor stems from a 2005 statement she made describing the role appellate justices have in forming policy, which they claim is akin to an endorsement of "judicial activism."
"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." But as legal scholars have noted, Sotomayor's statement is entirely factual (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html):
"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."
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."
Indeed, during her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."More info for you to put in your brains.

Or...we could use TubaWorld "logic" and infer that since George H. W. Bush appointed her originally, he's a racist, too. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 02:58 PM
So calling out racism is now racism??? Awesome.

Only in a liberal mind is that possible.You are the only one focusing on race here. Not her. Not us. You.

You feel that she is only getting the job because of her race. You are ignoring her qualifications.

That's racist, in any mind; including this Moderate Republican's.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:00 PM
I could be mistaken, but I believe that as a consequence of Yale Law not ranking its students, it also does not grant such honors as cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude.

As such, I think it's impossible to tell exactly what kind of student she was from the lack of a "* cum laude" distinction.

The fact that she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal is probably more telling.

TUSooner
5/26/2009, 03:01 PM
Having worked in federal and state courts, mostly appellate, for 15 years, I suggest that judicial decision-making is not nearly as exciting and earth-shaking as all of this political hysteria suggests. Sure, you get your occasional Roe v Wade, and some criminal law shifts, but usually it's nuts and bolts and boring technical stuff and "applying the law," even on the SCOTUS. This time it's the Republicans' turn to over-react and sling flaming balls of horse sh*t all over the place due to what - so far - looks like a fairly decent and unremarkable nomination. The completely apolitical, mechanical judge and the Constitution-shredding activist judge are both mythical beasts as far as I can tell. 99% of appellate judges both follow the law as closely as possible AND necessarily make some law from time to time. Overall, I give this thread a great big "meh," and Tuba stays on "ignore" until football season.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 03:01 PM
"Will you teach me to football"

TUSooner
5/26/2009, 03:02 PM
You are the only one focusing on race here. Not her. Not us. You.

You feel that she is only getting the job because of her race. You are ignoring her qualifications.

That's racist, in any mind; including this Moderate Republican's.

That too.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 03:04 PM
LAS, why don't u like the posse?

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 03:11 PM
The media is making a huge deal out of her race. She makes a huge deal out of her race. I don't think this makes Tuba a racist. I don't think I'm a racist, but I do believe it played a part in her appointment. Just like I think Palin being a woman had to do with HER appointment. Obama is pushing the firsts a lot. That's likely a good thing, but pointing it out doesn't make you a racist.

Back to your regularly scheduled poo flinging...

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 03:13 PM
LAS, why don't u like the posse?I like Olevet. He's fuggin' funny. And a reasonable guy.

I've never had too much respect for a herd of followers, however.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:17 PM
Of course race and sex had a part. Obama's not stupid, he's trying to score points, like any politician.

Really, when you get to this level in the court system, the way I expect it works is that you have a vast pool of qualified people who could be given the nod. They're all top of their class, were law editors at their respective highly prestigious schools, great judges, with little to distinguish between them other than their politics and what kind of political points you can score by giving them the nod.

It's unfortunate that the political groups you can pander to often line up along racial lines, but there you go.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 03:19 PM
Of course race and sex had a part. Obama's not stupid, he's trying to score points, like any politician.

Really, when you get to this level in the court system, the way I expect it works is that you have a vast pool of qualified people who could be given the nod. They're all top of their class, were law editors at their respective highly prestigious schools, great judges, with little to distinguish between them other than their politics and what kind of political points you can score by giving them the nod.

It's unfortunate that the political groups you can pander to often line up along racial lines, but there you go.


so is that being racist by obama then?

Scott D
5/26/2009, 03:20 PM
Ha!

If only Bush had picked a conservative Hispanic instead of one of the top constitutional scholors.

If only every persons job was based on the color of their skin instead of their qualifications!! Imagine what a great place this would be!!!!!!

If only indeed!!!

Oh come on, even your tiny political ideological pea brain can comprehend that it would have been the perfect power move for the GOP to push a Hispanic candidate the way they're allegedly pushing Bobby Jindal. Makes the party seem like they have a broader appeal, and pick up a few of the Hispanic votes in the process.

Instead, once again Republicrats let Obama beat them to the punch, glad you support such a second rate set of skull****ers.

Scott D
5/26/2009, 03:21 PM
so is that being racist by obama then?

nah, it's pandering to a growing demographic in this country. something republicrats forgot how to do between 1984 and 1996.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 03:23 PM
Of course race and sex had a part. Obama's not stupid, he's trying to score points, like any politician.

Really, when you get to this level in the court system, the way I expect it works is that you have a vast pool of qualified people who could be given the nod. They're all top of their class, were law editors at their respective highly prestigious schools, great judges, with little to distinguish between them other than their politics and what kind of political points you can score by giving them the nod.

It's unfortunate that the political groups you can pander to often line up along racial lines, but there you go.

I think that's the point Tuba is trying to make, that he doesn't like that she was picked from that pool based on her race and gender. Again, to me that's just politics. I think his point is that there are more qualified people out there, and to that I cannot comment. However, from the link I supplied earlier, it did appear there were a lot of her rulings that were overturned by the SC, or agreed to but said her reasoning was wrong. I would think that sort of thing might indicate a misinterpretation of the law, but I dunno.

The race line thing I think will eventually bite the Dems in the butt, like it did with Prop 8 in Cali. They'll find that once they get many of the hispanics and blacks out voting, they turn out to be fairly socially conservative. But, that will only come after they get past electing more Dems simply because they pander to the minority vote. But, I'm just speculating.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:24 PM
so is that being racist by obama then?


Yeah, there's an element of racism involved. Is it Obama being racist, or is it Obama appealing to a political constituency for which race is a factor (eg, that is itself racist?)

Personally, I don't think Obama himself has any preference for or against a Hispanic nominee, outside of the political points it can get him. So, Obama himself, personally, racist? I doubt it. The act itself, and the political group it's pandering too? Yeah. There's definitely a racial preference here.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 03:25 PM
Oh come on, even your tiny political ideological pea brain can comprehend that it would have been the perfect power move for the GOP to push a Hispanic candidate the way they're allegedly pushing Bobby Jindal. Makes the party seem like they have a broader appeal, and pick up a few of the Hispanic votes in the process.

Instead, once again Republicrats let Obama beat them to the punch, glad you support such a second rate set of skull****ers.

Jindal is being pimped because he's a conservative that's gained popularity for fighting corruption in a historically liberal state. Although, it doesn't hurt he's not white.

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 03:26 PM
The act itself, and the political group it's pandering too? Yeah. There's definitely a racial preference here.

Does that make Tuba right?

TUSooner
5/26/2009, 03:26 PM
Where Tuba is 100% wrong (well, one of the many ways he's 100% wrong) is that he says race and gender were the only thing that mattered. The nominee is not a hotel maid Obama plucked off the street. :rolleyes:

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:27 PM
However, from the link I supplied earlier, it did appear there were a lot of her rulings that were overturned by the SC, or agreed to but said her reasoning was wrong. I would think that sort of thing might indicate a misinterpretation of the law, but I dunno.

Because of the way our court system works, I think it's hard to look at the statistics and say that. Because of how politically charged the Supreme Court is (IMO, just look at all the 5-4 rulings), it's hard to say just how much of this is misinterpretation/misapplication of the law, and just falling on the wrong side of politics.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:28 PM
Does that make Tuba right?

Answering that question would require me to read what Tube wrote with the intent of taking it seriously, something no sane person ever does.

The guy hasn't written anything worth reading since I've been here. I stopped reading anything he said with any real seriousness -- other than to perhaps point out a factual error -- some time ago.

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 03:28 PM
I'm sure she would have voted OJ innocent.


;)

BornandBred
5/26/2009, 03:29 PM
Because of the way our court system works, I think it's hard to look at the statistics and say that. Because of how politically charged the Supreme Court is (IMO, just look at all the 5-4 rulings), it's hard to say just how much of this is misinterpretation/misapplication of the law, and just falling on the wrong side of politics.

It did look to me like it wasn't always one side against her. Meaning, from what I read, she erred on EITHER side, and not always the same, liberal or conservative.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:31 PM
I don't know, and it's not going to be something I'm going to spend a lot of time digging into.

I railed against the Bush administration for about 6 years, and I'm happy to let the other side dig up the dirt and facts and tell me why Obama's bad, instead of doing it myself. :)

Scott D
5/26/2009, 03:33 PM
Jindal is being pimped because he's a conservative that's gained popularity for fighting corruption in a historically liberal state. Although, it doesn't hurt he's not white.

in case you didn't hear, SicEm would prefer that he was.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 03:34 PM
Really, I've already stated that there was clearly an element of selection for race and sex here.

From a strict point of view, yes, there was racism here, and I won't waste time denying it.

But whether it's because Obama himself is racist, or he's just smart enough to know that selecting a female hispanic will get him votes -- well, I expect it's the latter more so than the former.

Take from that what you will, that's about as much as I can say on the matter.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 03:59 PM
So was Dubya racist for nominating Alberto Gonzalez?

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:00 PM
The guy hasn't written anything worth reading since I've been here.

So why do you keep posting answers to what I write then???

Hmm...

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:01 PM
I wouldn't read much into it, I do lots of things that aren't worth doing.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:02 PM
Where Tuba is 100% wrong (well, one of the many ways he's 100% wrong) is that he says race and gender were the only thing that mattered. The nominee is not a hotel maid Obama plucked off the street. :rolleyes:

And you are 100% wrong that I said it was the ONLY thing that mattered.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:05 PM
Does that make Tuba right?

Heh.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:07 PM
From a strict point of view, yes, there was racism here, and I won't waste time denying it.

Not sure why anyone else here is trying to deny it either.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:08 PM
Oh, that's easy. It's for the same reason a bunch of righties like to deny waterboarding is torture.

It's politically inconvenient to admit it, not to mention the situation is more complex than applying the simple strict point of view.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:10 PM
Well, I don't consider something we do to our own soldiers to be torture, but thats another debate...

BTW, when is The Squanderer going to release those documents showing the attacks that were prevented because of waterboarding three terrorists???

No wonder he won't talk about it anymore. Gotta hide the truth at all costs!!

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:11 PM
Notice how Tuba avoids all the posts that completely destroy what he's trying to do? And all the posts that expose him for what he is?

A leopard doesn't change his spots.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:14 PM
Notice how Tuba avoids all the posts that completely destroy what he's trying to do? And all the posts that expose him for what he is?

A leopard doesn't change his spots.

Like which posts??

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:17 PM
BTW, when is The Squanderer going to release those documents showing the attacks that were prevented because of waterboarding three terrorists???

Logic error: You're assuming those documents exist. It's real easy for ex-Bush administration officials to claim that they exist, since they aren't in a position to produce them anymore. I mean, it's not like the Obama administration can really prove the non-existence of hypothetical secret documents. They're secret, right?

Better question: Why didn't the Bush administration officials calling for the release of said documents release them before the Obama administration took over?

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:20 PM
Like which posts??Go back and re-read the thread, genius.

Then explain your argument to us again.

Be sure to contrast this nomination to that of Alberto Gonzalez and show how Bush WASN'T pandering to a minority but Obama IS. Explain to us how Obama is racist for nominating her, but George H. W. Bush WASN'T racist for nominating her. Explain how her comment regarding "making policy from the bench" WASN'T taken out of context. Show us how Justice Alito is quantifiably more qualified than she is, now that her resume has been put up on here.

Those should get us all off to a good start.

I'll pop the popcorn. :pop:

StoopTroup
5/26/2009, 04:21 PM
I like Olevet. He's fuggin' funny. And a reasonable guy.

I've never had too much respect for a herd of followers, however.

Suck my Posse.

StoopTroup
5/26/2009, 04:22 PM
All I want to know is how is she going to react if someone she works with slips some pubic hair onto her Coke can...

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:23 PM
Why didn't the Bush administration officials calling for the release of said documents release them before the Obama administration took over?

Probably because said officials weren't being threatened with prosecution, and didn't want to release any classified info, just my guess though.

And again, the only thing Obama didn't release was the outcome of the interrogation program.

Don't you find it odd that he would release everything except what the outcome was???

Again, its no surprise he shut up about so quickly. Cheny kicked his *** on that topic.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:25 PM
Please, they knew exactly what the Obama administration and the Democrats at large were going to do when they took over. Everyone knew it. Quit being so ****ing disingenuous.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:28 PM
Go back and re-read the thread, genius.

Then explain your argument to us again.

Be sure to contrast this nomination to that of Alberto Gonzalez and show how Bush WASN'T pandering to a minority but Obama IS. Explain to us how Obama is racist for nominating her, but George H. W. Bush WASN'T racist for nominating her. Explain how her comment regarding "making policy from the bench" WASN'T taken out of context. Show us how Justice Alito is quantifiably more qualified than she is, now that her resume has been put up on here.

Those should get us all off to a good start.

I'll pop the popcorn. :pop:

So your saying Obama is just as racist as that evil white republiKKKan Bushilter??? :D

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:28 PM
If the documents existed AND were releasable, the Bush administration would have done so in order to cover their asses. I'm willing to give them enough credit to think they're smart enough to do that -- I don't know why you're not.

They're only calling for the release of said documents because they know they can't be released -- otherwise, they would have done it themselves.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:31 PM
Please, they knew exactly what the Obama administration and the Democrats at large were going to do when they took over. Everyone knew it. Quit being so ****ing disingenuous.

So why did Zero just drop the whole thing instead releasing the outcome of the interrogations then???

Or did Pelosi just F'k it all up as she usually does??

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 04:31 PM
I like Olevet. He's fuggin' funny. And a reasonable guy.

I've never had too much respect for a herd of followers, however.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Romeo999/Tissue.jpg

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:33 PM
They're only calling for the release of said documents because they know they can't be released -- otherwise, they would have done it themselves.

So there is nothing that shows what information was recovered from the 3 top terrorists, and 9-11 masterminds, in our custody???

You realize how stupid that really sounds, right???

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:36 PM
So why did Zero just drop the whole thing instead releasing the outcome of the interrogations then???

Or did Pelosi just F'k it all up as she usually does??

If the documents aren't releasable, or don't exist, you only lose by saying "I'm sorry, the documents aren't releasable."

There's absolutely no gain to be had by continuing to let the other side hammer away at it, and plenty to be lost. You look like you're hiding something no matter what you do. So, don't play that game and move on to something else.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:41 PM
So there is nothing that shows what information was recovered from the 3 top terrorists, and 9-11 masterminds, in our custody???

You realize how stupid that really sounds, right???

I'm certain that there's documentation describing the intelligence gained from them.

What's less certain is:
(1) That said documentation can be released to the public at large.
(2) The Bush administration was stupid enough to document details of their interrogation that would be used against them if it was ever released to prosecutors.

Hence, why I question (1) whether such documents exist (specifically, documents that would permit one to draw the conclusion that the "harsh" interrogation methods yielded said intelligence), and (2) whether they are releasable.

I don't know about you, but if I'm doing something that could get me put in the slammer, I'm not going to document it in detail. And let's not pretend that they didn't think they could be prosecuted. We've prosecuted people for less in the past.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:42 PM
Cover your eyes Vae, this won't he easy....

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

Quick, let's prosecute the agents that saved America from another attack!!!!

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:43 PM
Suck my Posse.*shrug*

The truth stings a bit.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:44 PM
I don't know about you, but if I'm doing something that could get me put in the slammer, I'm not going to document it in detail.
Problem is, it was all documented. How else would we know about it????

Even Pelosi knew!!!!!!!

And protecting this nation should never get someone put in the slammer IMO. Of course they didn't do anything illegal, so that helps keep you from being put in the slammer then.

I guess we disagree though.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:44 PM
Cheny kicked his *** on that topic.
Dick Cheney is a traitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold.
He is a traitor to the United States of America.
He is a traitor.

And he got pwn3d by Obama.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:46 PM
So your saying Obama is just as racist as that evil white republiKKKan Bushilter??? :DNo.
I'm not.
But I'm also not surprised that that was all your simplistic mind could get out of that post.
Like I said...a leopard never changes his spots.


So why did Zero just drop the whole thing instead releasing the outcome of the interrogations then???Referring to Obama as "Zero."
How very Aggiesh of you.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Romeo999/Tissue.jpg
Oh, did you post this so the rest of the "Posse" could wipe their tears from the sting of truth?

I'm certainly not in need of any tissue.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:48 PM
Gotta love it.

Dropping water on a terrorists (who killed 3,000+ innocent Americans) head = war crime.

Killing an innocent unborn child = OK!

Logic is great!!!

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:49 PM
Dick Cheney is a traitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold.
He is a traitor to the United States of America.
He is a traitor.

And he got pwn3d by Obama.

Yeah, he sure did get owned by Obama!!!!! So owned that Obama shut the hell up about the whole thing and DOJ just said screw this and won't even talk about it either.

Hahahaha, awesome!!!

Glad to see a liberal calling someone a traitor for once.

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 04:51 PM
No.
I'm not.
But I'm also not surprised that that was all your simplistic mind could get out of that post.
Like I said...a leopard never changes his spots.

Referring to Obama as "Zero."
How very Aggiesh of you.


Oh, did you post this so the rest of the "Posse" could wipe their tears from the sting of truth?

I'm certainly not in need of any tissue.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k16/thyholygoof/flyers/midol.jpg

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:51 PM
And protecting this nation should never get someone put in the slammer IMO. Of course they didn't do anything illegal, so that helps keep you from being put in the slammer then.

I guess we disagree though.

There are certain things which a reasonable civilized society should never condone as a matter of policy. Torture is one of them.

However, this is also why we have juries that can nullify.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:54 PM
CLEARLY I bruised SOMEONE'S vagina. LOL :D

Collier11
5/26/2009, 04:54 PM
I like Olevet. He's fuggin' funny. And a reasonable guy.

I've never had too much respect for a herd of followers, however.

followers, not hardly...friends who respect the guy and enjoy his company, def! Now go on back to your lonely world where no one enjoys your company

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 04:55 PM
CLEARLY I bruised SOMEONE'S vagina. LOL :D

Yep, yours.

I figured you were limp wristed, but damn..

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:55 PM
Yeah, he sure did get owned by Obama!!!!! So owned that Obama shut the hell up about the whole thing and DOJ just said screw this and won't even talk about it either.

Hahahaha, awesome!!!

Glad to see a liberal calling someone a traitor for once.Glad to see you can finally admit it.

And just because I'm not a ultra-right wing religious whack job who can't think for himself without a sheet of Neo-Con talking points in front of me, doesn't make me a "liberal."

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 04:56 PM
There are certain things which a reasonable civilized society should never condone as a matter of policy. Torture is one of them.

However, this is also why we have juries that can nullify.
i agree.

And if this WAS torture, which is isn't, then we could agree.

But again, this is something that we do TO OUR OWN DAMN TROOPS!!

We did it to three terrorists, and it worked very well and saved thousands of lives. I can't wait till Obama gets around to releasing the official report on how well it worked.
:texan:

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 04:56 PM
followers, not hardly...friends who respect the guy and enjoy his company, def! Now go on back to your lonely world where no one enjoys your company

He's like the dorky kid in school that no one likes...

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:56 PM
Yep, yours.

I figured you were limp wristed, but damn..Aww...Sugar Pie. Don't cry. I'm sure your knitting circle will comfort your bruised possy. ;)

Collier11
5/26/2009, 04:56 PM
LAS, its your views and opinions which you proudly display around here do make you a liberal though

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 04:58 PM
Call out the Knitting Circle and the thread goes off the rails.

Figures.

Bunch o' babies.

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 04:59 PM
Really, I think you guys totally misunderstand my position regarding these sorts of activities simply because of your preconceived notion of what a "liberal" believes.

I know we do this sort of thing. And I think it has it's place. This sort of thing is why we have black ops and deniable assets, in short, why we have the CIA. And there's a reason why the military was never before, as a matter of policy, permitted to be involved in these sorts of things.

There's a game nations play, and part of it is pretending that we don't do these things, and other nations politely ignore it when we do, so long as we give them a plausible excuse to do so.

The main crime regarding these enhanced interrogation techniques, as far as I see it, is that the Bush administration was dumb**** enough to let on publicly that we were doing these things, and to try and make it lawful.

Nations do these things. But when the people doing it get caught, the nation throws up its hands, says, "Wow, we had no idea," and throws them under the bus. That's how it's done, that's how it's always been done, and there are damn good reasons for doing it that way.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 05:01 PM
LAS, its your views and opinions which you proudly display around here do make you a liberal thoughReally? Perhaps you should try READING my "views" and "opinions" which CLEARLY make me a moderate Republican. Don't believe me? Ask Veritas.

Unless logic, even handedness, intolerance towards bigotry and overreaching government, intolerance for deficit spending, intolerance for nation building, intolerance for people who disregard for the Constitution and a desire to get back to the principles the Republican Party was founded on...make me a "liberal." :cool:

Vaevictis
5/26/2009, 05:01 PM
I also think that Obama's enough of a realist to realize that, and his actions are trying to get us back to playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:01 PM
you are the one crying about it, dont you have some D-movie producer to go down on?

Oh, sorry ;)

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 05:02 PM
Really? Perhaps you should try READING my "views" and "opinions" which CLEARLY make me a moderate Republican. Don't believe me? Ask Veritas.

Unless logic, even handedness, intolerance towards bigotry and overreaching government, intolerance for deficit spending, intolerance for nation building, intolerance for people who disregard for the Constitution and a desire to get back to the principles the Republican Party was founded on...make me a "liberal." :cool:

Your only supporter?

:D

CrimsonJim
5/26/2009, 05:02 PM
CLEARLY I bruised SOMEONE'S vagina. LOL :D

Not with your little spekker....

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 05:02 PM
He's like the dorky kid in school that no one likes...


followers, not hardly...friends who respect the guy and enjoy his company, def! Now go on back to your lonely world where no one enjoys your companyYeah...I've got NO friends! LOL

Vet's a good guy. Some of his lemming/wannabees? Let's just say the copies are never as good as the original. ;)

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:02 PM
Really? Perhaps you should try READING my "views" and "opinions" which CLEARLY make me a moderate Republican. Don't believe me? Ask Veritas.

Unless logic, even handedness, intolerance towards bigotry and overreaching government, intolerance for deficit spending, intolerance for nation building, intolerance for people who disregard for the Constitution and a desire to get back to the principles the Republican Party was founded on...make me a "liberal." :cool:

its your lefty views friend, and thanks for the Red...I guess you are the one crying afterall

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 05:03 PM
Yeah...I've got NO friends! LOL

Vet's a good guy. Some of his lemming/wannabees? Let's just say the copies are never as good as the original. ;)

Im glad you like him so much.

Do you think he feels the same way about you?

:D

CrimsonJim
5/26/2009, 05:05 PM
Call out the Knitting Circle and the thread goes off the rails.

Figures.

Bunch o' babies.

I read the entire thread, and you my fine feathered friend, are the one that started poking at "the posse". If you don't want a response in kind, don't bring it up.

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 05:05 PM
Your only supporter?

:D


you are the one crying about it, dont you have some D-movie producer to go down on?

Oh, sorry ;)


Not with your little spekker....


its your lefty views friend, and thanks for the Red...I guess you are the one crying afterall


Im glad you like him so much.

Do you think he feels the same way about you?

:D30+ years on this Earth...and this is the best you've all got.

*sigh*

Like I said...stir up the Knitting Circle...and another thread bites the dust.

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:06 PM
LIke I said earlier, we make our associations known whereas LAS and his buddies hide behind each other and act like we are the ones ruining this place.

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:07 PM
no one was stirred up til you came around again with your idiotic views and fake political associations

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:07 PM
LAS crying to a mod in 3...2...1...

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 05:08 PM
I read the entire thread, and you my fine feathered friend, are the one that started poking at "the posse". If you don't want a response in kind, don't bring it up.Try reading it again.

I was asked a question, out of left field, about the posse to which I gave an honest reply.

Then the vaginas got bruised, the lambs starting screaming, and the Knitting Circle came roaring in to defend their honor, skirts hiked up above their cute little knees.

It really was quite precious.

But before that question was asked of me, I never brought 'em up. ;)

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 05:09 PM
LAS crying to a mod in 3...2...1...

Oh, so he is the snitch?

:D

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:09 PM
Really? Perhaps you should try READING my "views" and "opinions" which CLEARLY make me a moderate Republican. Don't believe me? Ask Veritas.

Unless logic, even handedness, intolerance towards bigotry and overreaching government, intolerance for deficit spending, intolerance for nation building, intolerance for people who disregard for the Constitution and a desire to get back to the principles the Republican Party was founded on...make me a "liberal." :cool:

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU

LosAngelesSooner
5/26/2009, 05:09 PM
LIke I said earlier, we make our associations known whereas LAS and his buddies hide behind each other and act like we are the ones ruining this place.


no one was stirred up til you came around again with your idiotic views and fake political associations


LAS crying to a mod in 3...2...1...*sigh*

20 minutes more work and it didn't get any better.

Well, this thread is off the rails. Thanks to the Knitting Circle for ruining yet ANOTHER thread of the S.O.

I'm gonna leave before a mod decides to put this stupid thread out of it's misery.

Collier11
5/26/2009, 05:10 PM
you are just leaving cus no one likes you, see ya. Im out as well, I have some knitting to do

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 05:11 PM
*sigh*

20 minutes more work and it didn't get any better.

Well, this thread is off the rails. Thanks to the Knitting Circle for ruining yet ANOTHER thread of the S.O.

I'm gonna leave before a mod decides to put this stupid thread out of it's misery.

*****

Scott D
5/26/2009, 05:12 PM
A Tuba thread derails from **** to horse **** in a day, at least some things around here never change.

OklahomaTuba
5/26/2009, 05:17 PM
Funny how LAS gets on these things and drags everything down to his preschool level of debate.

Love the spek LAS. Keep it up man!!

badger
5/26/2009, 05:19 PM
..and another thread bites the dust.

fortunately, howzit started a thread virtually the same time i did on the same topic and probably for the same reason (nobody else had started one yet) so no biggie. just shut this one down and we can take a mulligan on the topic and try again.

i really need to stop starting threads on the south oval... it makes me want to post more often than i should here.

NYC Poke
5/26/2009, 06:29 PM
FWIW, my ex-gf interned for Sotomayor during law school when Sotomayor was a trial judge for the SDNY.

reevie
5/26/2009, 06:34 PM
So who is she going to give the kids to when John and Kate divorce?

olevetonahill
5/26/2009, 06:40 PM
Heres My take on this appointment
Is she qualified ? From what im hearing YES
Experience ? Yes
Politically expedient ? A Big yes

Do i have a Prob with this? A Big NO

Until and Unless there is proof to the Contrary.
everyone needs to

GADOCADWI

Just mho ;)

yermom
5/26/2009, 07:07 PM
Cover your eyes Vae, this won't he easy....


Quick, let's prosecute the agents that saved America from another attack!!!!

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

cover your eyes Tuba, like i'm sure you did the last time i posted this:


"In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." ... But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

repeating lies don't make them true.

how many former military personnel have to call waterboarding torture before the true believers will accept it?

it's not like that is the only torture methods they used.

just keep your head in the sand. i'm not really sure what you get out of it being there though.

Scott D
5/26/2009, 07:27 PM
So who is she going to give the kids to when John and Kate divorce?

didn't you hear, Octomom gets them.

olevetonahill
5/26/2009, 07:29 PM
didn't you hear, Octomom gets them.

OH Noes :eek:
I really had never heard of jon an kate till just a few weeks ago :cool:

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 07:30 PM
OH Noes :eek:
I really had never heard of jon an kate till just a few weeks ago :cool:

I enjoy it sometimes..

;)

reevie
5/26/2009, 07:56 PM
didn't you hear, Octomom gets them.

Excellent, the next King Soloman

AlbqSooner
5/26/2009, 08:40 PM
*disclaimer* I have not researched the appointment process of every Justice to the SCOTUS. *dislclaimer*

That said, I would be surprised to find that any appointment to that austere body was made for reasons other than political expediency. That is to say, given a pool of equally qualified candidates, the Prez, of either party, will choose those whose appointment will most likely benefit said Prez at the next election.

Sotomayor is qualified. I personally don't care for her politics, but my party is not in the majority and I recognize that "to the winner goes the spoils".

I will predict that her appointment, assuming she is confirmed, will do little to the current philosophical balance of the SCOTUS. Having said that, we have been surprised in the past by the leanings of a Justice once they actually get to the Court and begin writing and voting.

Race and gender played a role. They filled the political expediency role for the nominating Prez. They were simply langiappe accompanying an otherwise fully qualified candidate for Justice of the SCOTUS.

Oh yeah, and LAS over-generalizes in his indictment of the membership of the posse. Many of us are members because we feel more kinship with that group than with other individuals on this board. Sorry LAS, but you do not seem like the type of guy with whom I would go to happy hour.

Collier11
5/26/2009, 09:40 PM
Oh yeah, and LAS over-generalizes in his indictment of the membership of the posse. Many of us are members because we feel more kinship with that group than with other individuals on this board. Sorry LAS, but you do not seem like the type of guy with whom I would go to happy hour.

Exactly...now he might be the guy that hits on every girl, goes home alone, and then goes thru half a bottle of jergens and goes to sleep alone

CK Sooner
5/26/2009, 10:00 PM
Exactly...now he might be the guy that hits on every girl, goes home alone, and then goes thru half a bottle of jergens and goes to sleep alone

+1

JLEW1818
5/26/2009, 10:03 PM
+1

to dirty to type

TUSooner
5/27/2009, 08:24 AM
Just a reminder: The President gets to choose SCT nominees.

If the GOPs think he's going to choose a clone of Robert Bork, they need to lie down until they can figure out how to become relevant again. If they "go Tuba" against Sotomayor, they'll only look even more radical and out-of-touch, and they'll alienate even more sensible people.

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 08:36 AM
After having a night to sleep on this and debate it in my head I came to a couple conclusions:

1) We lost, to the winner goes the spoils. (Just like AlbqSooner said)
2) I shouldn't be surprised he picked someone of a minority. It was, and will continue to be a deciding factor in is decision making processes in the future. I still think it's reverse racism, but at this point, not much I can do about it. Once she is confirmed, it will be enforced from the bench.
3) It could be MUCH worse.
4) If the Republicans want to prevent this in the future, they shouldn't **** the bed so bad in previous administrations.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/27/2009, 08:41 AM
Now go get me a taco.

badger
5/27/2009, 08:53 AM
I shouldn't be surprised he picked someone of a minority. It was, and will continue to be a deciding factor in is decision making processes in the future. I still think it's reverse racism, but at this point, not much I can do about it. Once she is confirmed, it will be enforced from the bench.


One thing people may forget about the previous administration is that when W. first made his appointments for his cabinet, he chose many minority candidates himself... Colin Powell... Condi Rice... Elaine Chao... Melquiades Rafael Martinez... Norman Yoshio Mineta... Roderick Paige... in all, there were Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, women... he made his first cabinet incredibly diverse. He also had at least one Clinton-appointee stay on in his cabinet, making his cabinet also diverse politically.

I see Obama taking the same strategy in his first few months in the office... and I think it's for the same reason that W. did - to be inclusive. If Bush was applauded for doing that in 2001, why can't Obama do it in 2009?

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 09:00 AM
One thing people may forget about the previous administration is that when W. first made his appointments for his cabinet, he chose many minority candidates himself... Colin Powell... Condi Rice... Elaine Chao... Melquiades Rafael Martinez... Norman Yoshio Mineta... Roderick Paige... in all, there were Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, women... he made his first cabinet incredibly diverse. He also had at least one Clinton-appointee stay on in his cabinet, making his cabinet also diverse politically.

I see Obama taking the same strategy in his first few months in the office... and I think it's for the same reason that W. did - to be inclusive. If Bush was applauded for doing that in 2001, why can't Obama do it in 2009?

To be brutally honest, I wasn't paying attention in 2001. I had just started school and was simply trying to not get arrested, which I failed at.

I'm all for diversity. But I also think the best candidate should be picked, regardless of race/gender/shoe size. Of the 40 candidates they looked at, they were narrowed to 9ish. Every single one was a woman. I'm not saying they weren't all relatively qualified, but it's pretty clear to me that being a woman was a requirement, which is sexism. But because it's the promotion of a historically disadvantaged group, it's applauded. It's much like affirmative action, to which I'm also opposed.

Collier11
5/27/2009, 09:07 AM
Affirmative Action, now theres a sh*t box of failure

badger
5/27/2009, 09:11 AM
Of the 40 candidates they looked at, they were narrowed to 9ish. Every single one was a woman. I'm not saying they weren't all relatively qualified, but it's pretty clear to me that being a woman was a requirement, which is sexism. But because it's the promotion of a historically disadvantaged group, it's applauded. It's much like affirmative action, to which I'm also opposed.

What'd I say in the first post? CHICKS ON THE BENCH! Gawd, I love Simpsons :D

Judge: Your sister says you have something to tell me?
Bart: What? Uh, um, yeah, uh, I just, I just wanted to say how great it is to finally see some chicks on the bench.
Judge: Hmm.
Bart: Keep up the good work, toots. [forced laughter] [runs out]
Judge: Hmm.
Lisa: [sheepish] Heh heh, "chicks on the bench". [forced laughter]

Seriously though, I think that Bush tried to do the same thing on his second nomination after Roberts - it's just that he chose a dangerously unqualified candidate that got exposed in the Senate confirmation hearings, so they went with another dude. I think it is pretty much an unwritten rule now that the Supreme Court needs two "chicks on the bench." Quite frankly, there should be at least 5 - because half the population is teh wimmenz, and teh wimmenz live longer, so they deserve the majority! :D

Collier11
5/27/2009, 09:16 AM
I think it is pretty much an unwritten rule now that the Supreme Court needs two "chicks on the bench."


Wouldnt they be better served in the White House kitchen? :eek: :pop: :D

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 09:20 AM
Wouldnt they be better served in the White House kitchen? :eek: :pop: :D

No, but those eating at the WH would be..

OklahomaTuba
5/27/2009, 09:30 AM
cover your eyes Tuba, like i'm sure you did the last time i posted this:



http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

repeating lies don't make them true.

how many former military personnel have to call waterboarding torture before the true believers will accept it?

it's not like that is the only torture methods they used.

just keep your head in the sand. i'm not really sure what you get out of it being there though.

Seems like more and more people are understanding that calling water boarding torture is pretty stupid. The fact we do it to our own folks is enough to make the assertion laughable at best.

Where does my link say anything about 2002???? Must be another one of those lies the CIA keep telling, according to Numbskull Nancy.

Heres an idea, lets have Obama release all the information about the outcome of this and see how many lives it saved. He keeps talking about transparency, so lets have some then!

He seems more than happy to release everything else except that little part of it, and I wonder why????

Pricetag
5/27/2009, 10:10 AM
Does anyone think another airliner attack on a building would actually work?

47straight
5/27/2009, 10:57 AM
Heh, Tuba is confusing qualifications with politics, how unexpected. She is a Princeton and Yale educated judge, with DA and private practice experience, and has been on the Fed bench for almost 20 years.

I don't care for the facted that she punted without certifiying Ricci, but I think the Republicans only get one shot to stonewall (if that) and I wouldn't use it on this nominee.

Confusing qualifications and politics is what our current President did when he voted against Justice Roberts. So even if Tuba is doing it, he's in good company, no?

47straight
5/27/2009, 10:59 AM
Just a reminder: The President gets to choose SCT nominees.

If the GOPs think he's going to choose a clone of Robert Bork, they need to lie down until they can figure out how to become relevant again. If they "go Tuba" against Sotomayor, they'll only look even more radical and out-of-touch, and they'll alienate even more sensible people.

Why? The democrats called Estrada "dangerous" and got away with it.

Scott D
5/27/2009, 10:59 AM
So why are people up in arms, I mean first nominees never ever ever get in ;)

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 11:00 AM
Not as qualified as some other women that were passed over:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/shapiro.scotus.identity/index.html

47straight
5/27/2009, 11:03 AM
The news is that Sotomayor bats .400 in the big leagues when her decisions have come up for review.

So, I have my own opinion of how good of a batting average that is. I would love to hear from our own TU about the relevancy of this statistic.


And please, please, before any of you even try, spare me quoting the number of decisions that haven't come up for review. The overwhelming majority of decisions when you have mandatory review are going to be slam dunk no-thinkers.

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 11:07 AM
So why are people up in arms, I mean first nominees never ever ever get in ;)

This could be worse for republicans. I say we just take our lumps and pass her. The next one may be a Clinton, who knows.

NYC Poke
5/27/2009, 11:12 AM
The news is that Sotomayor bats .200 in the big leagues when her decisions have come up for review.

So, I have my own opinion of how good of a batting average that is. I would love to hear from our own TU about the relevancy of this statistic.


And please, please, before any of you even try, spare me quoting the number of decisions that haven't come up for review. The overwhelming majority of decisions when you have mandatory review are going to be slam dunk no-thinkers.

If you don't mind my usurping TU, I'll take a stab at that. The Supremes grant cert to reverse, not to affirm. That statistic more likely reflects the number of important cases that she's heard more than her ability as a jurist.

47straight
5/27/2009, 11:17 AM
If you don't mind my usurping TU, I'll take a stab at that. The Supremes grant cert to reverse, not to affirm. That statistic more likely reflects the number of important cases that she's heard more than her ability as a jurist.

I just found a stat saying that the average was 75%. With only 5 cases, maybe you're right and she just hasn't heard a lot of important cases.

JohnnyMack
5/27/2009, 11:26 AM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10249

NYC Poke
5/27/2009, 11:26 AM
I just found a stat saying that the average was 75%. With only 5 cases, maybe you're right and she just hasn't heard a lot of important cases.

Having 5 go to the Supreme Court is quite a few, given that they don't hear very many per year. This sort of statistic is more telling for trial judges, where people can appeal as a matter of course. In that case, there will be a large sample size, and the overturn rate over time can be indicative of a sloppy judge.

The SCOTUS has discretional jurisdiction for most cases, meaning they pick and choose the cases they want. If they pick a case, it is usually either an area of unsettled law, where the Districts are in conflict, or where they want to reverse standing precedent.

Anyway, I am not familiar with any of the 5 cases, but I find it doubtful they were overturned based on sloppy reasoning on her part.

stoops the eternal pimp
5/27/2009, 11:27 AM
This could be worse for republicans. I say we just take our lumps and pass her. The next one may be a Clinton, who knows.

Hopefully Roger

BornandBred
5/27/2009, 11:30 AM
Hopefully Roger

I was thinking more along the lines of George.

olevetonahill
5/27/2009, 11:33 AM
I want Billy Carter next
He still alive ?

NYC Poke
5/27/2009, 12:09 PM
I want Billy Carter next
He still alive ?


That would be awesome.

yermom
5/27/2009, 12:14 PM
Seems like more and more people are understanding that calling water boarding torture is pretty stupid. The fact we do it to our own folks is enough to make the assertion laughable at best.

Where does my link say anything about 2002???? Must be another one of those lies the CIA keep telling, according to Numbskull Nancy.

Heres an idea, lets have Obama release all the information about the outcome of this and see how many lives it saved. He keeps talking about transparency, so lets have some then!

He seems more than happy to release everything else except that little part of it, and I wonder why????

your link? how about mine?

(from W's archives, linked in the other slate link)

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html


We Also Broke Up Other Post-9/11 Aviation Plots.

* In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay two months ago, KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

TUSooner
5/27/2009, 12:31 PM
Uh, who did Sonia waterboard?
Oh, my bad, I forgot that this is a political thread, so any and all political rants, cant, and dogma are in play.

Scott D
5/27/2009, 12:33 PM
Sonia waterboarded Tuba...unfortunately like on this board, it didn't get him to disclose any relevant information about anything..

TUSooner
5/27/2009, 12:43 PM
****
And please, please, before any of you even try, spare me quoting the number of decisions that haven't come up for review. The overwhelming majority of decisions when you have mandatory review are going to be slam dunk no-thinkers.

Where do you get your .400? as a Dist ct judge, a circuit judge or both?

The thing you want to ignore is important. Why should slam dunks not count? Too easy? That's horse poop. Plus, cases don't go up to the SCT (non-mandatory review) unless there's a fair likelihood of reversal anyway --- so the ones where cert is denied should count as essentially affirmed.

Estrada? Irrelevant to my point. If a Republican were nominating, I'd say the same thing. Please do not lay that "wrong + wrong = right" math on me. That the dems had clout that the pubs now lack doesn't change what I think.

NormanPride
5/27/2009, 02:47 PM
Watching some people discuss politics is like watching Luke Walton play in the NBA. Most of the time they look incredibly inept and stupid, but the occasional 3 pointer causes them to celebrate like they won the damn lottery.

badger
5/27/2009, 02:51 PM
Watching some people discuss politics is like watching Luke Walton play in the NBA. Most of the time they look incredibly inept and stupid, but the occasional 3 pointer causes them to celebrate like they won the damn lottery.

Watching Luke Walton play in the NBA is like watching OSU fans this past football and basketball season. Most of the time they look incredibly inept and stupid, but the bid to the NCAA tourney and not going to sh!tier bowl causes them to celebrate like they won the damn lottery.

NYC Poke
5/27/2009, 03:02 PM
I'd like to win the lottery. :(

47straight
5/27/2009, 04:01 PM
Where do you get your .400? as a Dist ct judge, a circuit judge or both?

The thing you want to ignore is important. Why should slam dunks not count? Too easy? That's horse poop. Plus, cases don't go up to the SCT (non-mandatory review) unless there's a fair likelihood of reversal anyway --- so the ones where cert is denied should count as essentially affirmed.

Estrada? Irrelevant to my point. If a Republican were nominating, I'd say the same thing. Please do not lay that "wrong + wrong = right" math on me. That the dems had clout that the pubs now lack doesn't change what I think.

.400 as a circuit judge. 2/5.

47straight
5/27/2009, 04:05 PM
Having 5 go to the Supreme Court is quite a few, given that they don't hear very many per year. This sort of statistic is more telling for trial judges, where people can appeal as a matter of course. In that case, there will be a large sample size, and the overturn rate over time can be indicative of a sloppy judge.

The SCOTUS has discretional jurisdiction for most cases, meaning they pick and choose the cases they want. If they pick a case, it is usually either an area of unsettled law, where the Districts are in conflict, or where they want to reverse standing precedent.

Anyway, I am not familiar with any of the 5 cases, but I find it doubtful they were overturned based on sloppy reasoning on her part.

Out of the 2nd circuit, that doesn't seem like a high number to me.

But there's one way to really answer this - reading her reversals.

47straight
5/27/2009, 04:06 PM
I'd like to win the lottery. :(

I think if the lottery would actually change your life you're probably better off not winning.

NYC Poke
5/27/2009, 04:15 PM
I think if the lottery would actually change your life you're probably better off not winning.

DON'T JINX ME!!!!

StoopTroup
5/27/2009, 05:07 PM
*shrug*

The truth stings a bit.

The truth?

Maybe as you see it. Truth is...I've been on SoonerFans for quite awhile and I plan to be here as long as Phil and the gang let me. I've never been banned, disciplined or given a card for my actions on this board.

What about you?

Quit being such a **** stirring bastage.
You shouldn't bash everyone you think is against you.

Doing so validates your being a dumbass in the eyes of others around here. I know your not a dumbass.

Thing is...I maybe you don't really care about that anyway...

LosAngelesSooner
5/27/2009, 11:26 PM
Clearly it stung a few people. Just look at the venomous responses such an offhanded comment elicited. ;)

And I don't "bash everyone I think is against me." In fact, I didn't even single anyone out. That was what was so priceless about the responses I got. Those who aren't like that, shrugged it off and knew I wasn't referring to them. Those who are, however...(and I'm not saying you're one of 'em)

But the gang mentality of banding together and attacking any thought that runs contrary to the accepted norm has gotta end eventually. And lately it's been really tearing the S.O. apart and ruining quite a few threads with either "Intelligent Conversation" potential or "Humor" potential. And that sucks.

CK Sooner
5/27/2009, 11:30 PM
Clearly it stung a few people. Just look at the venomous responses such an offhanded comment elicited. ;)

And I don't "bash everyone I think is against me." In fact, I didn't even single anyone out. That was what was so priceless about the responses I got. Those who aren't like that, shrugged it off and knew I wasn't referring to them. Those who are, however...(and I'm not saying you're one of 'em)

But the gang mentality of banding together and attacking any thought that runs contrary to the accepted norm has gotta end eventually. And lately it's been really tearing the S.O. apart and ruining quite a few threads with either "Intelligent Conversation" potential or "Humor" potential. And that sucks.

Would you like some cheese with that wine?

Collier11
5/27/2009, 11:34 PM
Clearly it stung a few people. Just look at the venomous responses such an offhanded comment elicited. ;)

And I don't "bash everyone I think is against me." In fact, I didn't even single anyone out. That was what was so priceless about the responses I got. Those who aren't like that, shrugged it off and knew I wasn't referring to them. Those who are, however...(and I'm not saying you're one of 'em)

But the gang mentality of banding together and attacking any thought that runs contrary to the accepted norm has gotta end eventually. And lately it's been really tearing the S.O. apart and ruining quite a few threads with either "Intelligent Conversation" potential or "Humor" potential. And that sucks.


now youre the good guy who only cares about this board, you are unbelievable with the stories you come up with but I do appreciate the continuous plot twists

stoops the eternal pimp
5/27/2009, 11:40 PM
Would you like some cheese with that wine?

deer lowered, do you keep copying and pasting this same post?:D

CK Sooner
5/27/2009, 11:45 PM
deer lowered, do you keep copying and pasting this same post?:D

Yessir

:D

stoops the eternal pimp
5/27/2009, 11:50 PM
thought so.....oh..n00b!:D

Crucifax Autumn
5/28/2009, 12:03 AM
I'm still tryin' ta figger out what any of this has ta do with my scrotus...

stoops the eternal pimp
5/28/2009, 12:04 AM
ck can help you out I think..he is all about the scrotus

Crucifax Autumn
5/28/2009, 12:10 AM
My scrotus itches right now...Think he'll scratch it or is that too close to gay marriage?

Too bad we don't have 9 or so people to decide this for us!

stoops the eternal pimp
5/28/2009, 12:13 AM
ohh..I think he like one of those christian folks who talks about it being wrong, but he's out bonin a dude in a bathroom somewhere..

Crucifax Autumn
5/28/2009, 01:10 AM
So he's a foot tapper? lol

Scott D
5/28/2009, 09:40 AM
foot tapper extraordinaire...but that's alright, because it's accepted at the highest levels of government.

NormanPride
5/28/2009, 11:00 AM
And I thought bi-partisan mean that they liked both parties.

JohnnyMack
5/29/2009, 10:40 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10260

JLEW1818
5/29/2009, 11:53 PM
I'm not trying to start stuff.... but whats so damn good about her having compassion about workers getting laid off? and having empathy for criminals with bad back grounds?



I just don't get what so good about that? I'm not saying it's bad, but if that is her selling point????

I mean what is she trying to say? If you commit a crime and your from the Bronx, its okay?

I mean cool, she is gonna feel sorry for people?

I don't understand.

And just b/c Obama thinks she is great, means shes the best one for the job.?

so it seems?

Curly Bill
5/30/2009, 12:03 AM
Just give me someone that has empathy for the constitution.