Judge Sotomayor

[Pell Mell]

"There's little political significance to whatever the court decided today in terms of Judge Sotomayor except to render a fairly definitive opinion that she follows judicial precedent and that she doesn't legislate from the bench," Gibbs said.

Where's Judge Roy Bean when you need him?

[Snag]

"There's little political significance to whatever the court decided today in terms of Judge Sotomayor except to render a fairly definitive opinion that she follows judicial precedent and that she doesn't legislate from the bench," Gibbs said.

Where's Judge Roy Bean when you need him?

What political office is Sotomayor running for? What was Gibbs thinking?

[Lefty]

She's a Obama's Supreme Court Nominee. Gibbs was telling the reporters that this decision will not deter Obama from ramming her through the confirmation process.

[DJofSD]

I understand her original ruling was all of 1 paragraph. No intellectual heavy weight this nomine.

Today's U. S. Supreme Court's ruling, Ricci v. deStephano. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf)

[Tom]

Dumber than........OBamba! :lol:

[jognlope]

Now see here! Obama is extremely intelligent, edited Harvard law review in school, no shlump gets to do that, must have plenty of sound analytical thinking, and he has heart and he cares about the working class of this country. He's extremely poised and quick on his feet.


But I did get a few unorthodox chuckles on the title of this post. She reminds me of a feminist I worked for for about 4 weeks in her Brooklyn brownstone, sort of a passive aggressive huggin you one minute about to kill you the next, I eventually escaped.

[Tom]

Wow jog, you are part of the problem.
It will become evident sooner or later.
We are in deep doo doo and Obama is a liar.

Do you own your own home?
Think carefully here.....you might be surprised.
Home ownership is about to become obsolete.
That is how much he cares.

[Lefty]

jog, if you think Obama cares about anybody in this country, how do you explain Cap and Trade? It will escalate energy prices, and when energy goes up, everything goes up. who will be hit hardest? Yep, us poor and middle class, i.e. "the working class."

[ddog]

lefty


It's always morning in america for someone!

that's the market for you, everyone cant' win.

Some of us will do just fine and we will trickle down the excess from our winnings don't you fret.

:rolleyes:

[ddog]

home ownership will go back to the historical levels of support where without the crazy Clinton/Bush ownership society(really the debtor society) it would have been all along and that's a good thing long term.

I would guess to about 1980-90 level is about correct.

many people should never have been an "owner" and in fact were really just a high class renter, they NEVER had a shot at owning the home.

You will see the "primes" rolling over and dying in the next 2-4 years.

[jognlope]

I haven't followed housing issues, banks will only comply so much since the demand for them is, that's right, "inelastic" and they don't have to listen to nobody.
Give him time, we don't know the other parties and their influence totally.

But if you're determined to hate him, ain't nothing I can do bout that.

[Lefty]

dog, you minimize what'sgoing to be a life altering situation. It's predicted home energy will go up 90% for the individual. Energy prices will cause food and every marketable item to go up. Some will be fine, but most won't. The working class will suffer and even more jobs will be exported overseas.
This is the change some of you voted for.

[Tom]

jog, I was refering to the new Crap and Trade bill, which your representatives did no tread btw, no one did. It wasn't printed yet! If the Senate passes it, one of the provisions is that you cannot sell your own home wihtout a governemtn bureacrat inspecting it and authorizing you to do so. You may be requried to "bring it up to the new code" so to speak. You may have to buy new stoves, freezers, AC, whatever. THe ctriteria is "flexible."
Your right to own your own home is now being abridged, and it just a start.
Arnold has been threatened that if he closed the STATE PARKS due to being broke, the FED might take over the land of any that have previously reveived Fed dollars.

There is a huge agenda here to destroy our constitution and get rid of the states. Our right to own property is in their cross hairs.

This has nothing to do with OBama - I hate the PSO or what he IS and what he DOES, not his stupid personality or his skin color. This is Joseph Stalin Part II.

[jognlope]

I live in an apartment, so haven't kept up with home situation. Keep us updated.

[Pell Mell]

I live in an apartment, so haven't kept up with home situation. Keep us updated.

Sounds like you are just as out of touch as the "Elites" that are sticking it to us.

[NJ Stinks]

I live in an apartment, so haven't kept up with home situation. Keep us updated.

Here's the perpetual update, Jognlope. The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! :eek:

If energy costs did, in fact, go up 90% as somebody obviously told Lefty, do you think the Democrats would allow that to continue? Democrats want to be re-elected for crying out loud!

The absurdity in these doomday posts is endless.

And Obama is going to be around for another 3+ years. :cool:

[jognlope]

I'm just thinking about getting to the Spa....

[newtothegame]

Here's the perpetual update, Jognlope. The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! :eek:

If energy costs did, in fact, go up 90% as somebody obviously told Lefty, do you think the Democrats would allow that to continue? Democrats want to be re-elected for crying out loud!

The absurdity in these doomday posts is endless.

And Obama is going to be around for another 3+ years. :cool:

NJ, the problem with your post as I see it is that you can NOT argue the fact of what cap and trade is. It will be a tax on energy consumption. Now as to the cost per household, I agree that is is debateable as to HOW much. The question is not if it will. If energy cost go up (and we ALL agree they will because energy providers will not just absorb this cost hike), then all who use the energy will be paying more. The idea is to reduce carbon emissions and tax those that continue to use said energy. Yet, we are not even sure that the idea of global warming is real. There are just as many very well versed scientist who say its a joke. Look no further then within the EPA itself who are now being looked at for "covering up" information that would go against this. Anyways, I digress, You would be hard pressed to find items that we all regularly use (that in some manner does not use a form of energy which produces carbon). So in reality, most items we use daily will increase. Now how does that compare to the minor increase most of us saw on our checks recently in taxes? I can promise you that our rates will go up more then twenty dollars a month. So, is Obama and his administration therefore not taxing the people more? I thought he said that he would reduce taxes during his run for the presidency? Or, wait...I get it now...directly lower, but indirectly rape us all? See now he can say he kept his word by not taxing the people. Corporations will be blamed for the price increases.
Then, when the average middle class family has to make decisions on utility bills versus other items (maybe a family vacation), what happens to the economy? Yep...in case you didnt see it the first time, the economy will shrink more. Do you think housing sales will climb or shrink further? EVERYTHING in the economy will shrink further.
Then, add in the fact of the health care programs being rammed down peoples throats (of which if you have a certain dollar amount in coverage through your employer) you will be taxed again...do you see where this is going?
The other item in your post I believe to be false is about the democrats NOT wanting this so they can be re-elected. I think your dead wrong here. The democrats are ALL for social programs. WHY??? Why do you think they ENCOURAGE states to have more people on welfare programs? If you think this is false, just look at how states are being told that if you want federal dollars, you have to expand social programs. The more dollars the fed spends in these areas, the more they CONTROL the masses. Just look no further then immigration laws and where the democrats are heading with it.
JMHO

[dartman51]

I live in an apartment, so haven't kept up with home situation. Keep us updated.

Jog, I don't know you so I won't pretend to judge you, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. You say you live in an apartment, then you need to wake up, son, and smell the coffee. What do you think is going to happen when all the people that are being forced out of their homes, are looking for a place to live? They will be looking to move into apartments. When the demand gets overwhelming, what do you think is going to happen to the rent? Up, up, and up. When the demand outweighs the supply, no matter what the commodity, the price always goes UP. So, my friend, enjoy the rent you pay now, as I can promise you it will CHANGE......... OH, WAIT, that is what OBAMA promised. CHANGE!! I guess that's one promise he will keep. If anyone thinks that OBAMA cares about anything, but how much power he can amass, they've got a rude awakening coming. If HEALTH CARE BILL and the CAP AND TAX BILL pass, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will control OVER 50% of the NATIONS ECONOMY. THAT, is a DISASTER. I've been around a long time, and have seen a lot of presidents come and go. I thought Bush's economic policy sucked, but OBAMA'S policy makes Bush look like a genius. ANYONE, who doesn't think that this country is in a world of hurt and getting worse, needs to get their head OUT OF THE SAND. In case you haven't noticed, and you probably haven't, because you don't watch the news, OBAMA'S popularity is going down. More and more people are starting to realize that this guy's agenda is BAD for AMERICA. :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

NJ, the problem with your post as I see it is that you can NOT argue the fact of what cap and trade is. It will be a tax on energy consumption. Now as to the cost per household, I agree that is is debateable as to HOW much. The question is not if it will. If energy cost go up (and we ALL agree they will because energy providers will not just absorb this cost hike), then all who use the energy will be paying more. The idea is to reduce carbon emissions and tax those that continue to use said energy. Yet, we are not even sure that the idea of global warming is real. There are just as many very well versed scientist who say its a joke. Look no further then within the EPA itself who are now being looked at for "covering up" information that would go against this. Anyways, I digress, You would be hard pressed to find items that we all regularly use (that in some manner does not use a form of energy which produces carbon). So in reality, most items we use daily will increase. Now how does that compare to the minor increase most of us saw on our checks recently in taxes? I can promise you that our rates will go up more then twenty dollars a month. So, is Obama and his administration therefore not taxing the people more? I thought he said that he would reduce taxes during his run for the presidency? Or, wait...I get it now...directly lower, but indirectly rape us all? See now he can say he kept his word by not taxing the people. Corporations will be blamed for the price increases.
Then, when the average middle class family has to make decisions on utility bills versus other items (maybe a family vacation), what happens to the economy? Yep...in case you didnt see it the first time, the economy will shrink more. Do you think housing sales will climb or shrink further? EVERYTHING in the economy will shrink further.
Then, add in the fact of the health care programs being rammed down peoples throats (of which if you have a certain dollar amount in coverage through your employer) you will be taxed again...do you see where this is going?
The other item in your post I believe to be false is about the democrats NOT wanting this so they can be re-elected. I think your dead wrong here. The democrats are ALL for social programs. WHY??? Why do you think they ENCOURAGE states to have more people on welfare programs? If you think this is false, just look at how states are being told that if you want federal dollars, you have to expand social programs. The more dollars the fed spends in these areas, the more they CONTROL the masses. Just look no further then immigration laws and where the democrats are heading with it.
JMHO

Good post, Newtothegame. My response is:

I am willing to pay more if it means a better environment. Will cap & trade produce a better environment? I don't know but I am willing to find out. Of course, if the cost turns out to be prohibitive, I will change my mind.

Where I differ with conservatives is: I'm willing to actually pay for things. That means higher taxes sometimes. I can live with higher taxes if it means a less-polluted USA. I can live with higher taxes if it means everyone in the U.S. has access to health care. I don't care if I already have great health coverage and a change in health care in the U.S. may screw up what I have. I'm willing to chance a change for the greater good. What we have now stinks for too many people.

If the changes that may be coming turn out bad, Democrats will lose elections and these new laws will be changed by Republicans. That's how it works IMO. For example, most Americans feel GWB screwed up and the Dems took over. If the Dems screw up, a Republican will replace Obama in 2012 and Republicans will win back the House and Senate.

If your theory about Dems loving social programs for control purposes held any water, Lyndon Johnson would not have been replaced by Richard Nixon. After all, Johnson pushed through the most expensive social program ever - Medicare. (Senior citizens love that program - and rightly so.)

I'll be the first one here to cry about high takeouts. But I'm not gonna cry about taxes needed to fund a better environment, a better health plan, and better schools. I'm also willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the Iraq War even though I was dead-set against it.

Meanwhile, the "God Bless America" Republicans don't want to pay for spit. Anybody watch Hannity tonight? The first 15 minutes was all about Obama saying he wouldn't raise taxes for most Americans but will with cap and trade. So what. Things CHANGE.

At least Obama's trying to do some things for what I believe is the greater good. As opposed to just saying "We must cut taxes". :sleeping: Cutting taxes is great when you can afford to. When was the last time we could afford to?

Oh yea. When Clinton was president.

[PaceAdvantage]

Meanwhile, the "God Bless America" Republicans don't want to pay for spit. Anybody watch Hannity tonight? The first 15 minutes was all about Obama saying he wouldn't raise taxes for most Americans but will with cap and trade. So what. Things CHANGE. I bet you said the same thing after ol' George Sr. went back on his "read my lips..." promise...:lol:

[newtothegame]

Good post, Newtothegame. My response is:

I am willing to pay more if it means a better environment. Will cap & trade produce a better environment? I don't know but I am willing to find out. Of course, if the cost turns out to be prohibitive, I will change my mind.

Where I differ with conservatives is: I'm willing to actually pay for things. That means higher taxes sometimes. I can live with higher taxes if it means a less-polluted USA. I can live with higher taxes if it means everyone in the U.S. has access to health care. I don't care if I already have great health coverage and a change in health care in the U.S. may screw up what I have. I'm willing to chance a change for the greater good. What we have now stinks for too many people.

If the changes that may be coming turn out bad, Democrats will lose elections and these new laws will be changed by Republicans. That's how it works IMO. For example, most Americans feel GWB screwed up and the Dems took over. If the Dems screw up, a Republican will replace Obama in 2012 and Republicans will win back the House and Senate.

If your theory about Dems loving social programs for control purposes held any water, Lyndon Johnson would not have been replaced by Richard Nixon. After all, Johnson pushed through the most expensive social program ever - Medicare. (Senior citizens love that program - and rightly so.)

I'll be the first one here to cry about high takeouts. But I'm not gonna cry about taxes needed to fund a better environment, a better health plan, and better schools. I'm also willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the Iraq War even though I was dead-set against it.

Meanwhile, the "God Bless America" Republicans don't want to pay for spit. Anybody watch Hannity tonight? The first 15 minutes was all about Obama saying he wouldn't raise taxes for most Americans but will with cap and trade. So what. Things CHANGE.

At least Obama's trying to do some things for what I believe is the greater good. As opposed to just saying "We must cut taxes". :sleeping: Cutting taxes is great when you can afford to. When was the last time we could afford to?

Oh yea. When Clinton was president.

Well NJ, I think you and I may have found some common ground. Let me say I have NO problem what so ever paying to fund a better environment. The problem comes in as to who to believe. There are so many people who say we need this, and just as many opposed. If it can be proven that this needs to be done, I am all for it as it will provide for a better future for my grand children. When I see PROOF that emails are being sent inside the EPA that state in essence , that someone should shut up because it what is being said does NOT fit this administrations agenda, well thats a PROBLEM.

I do NOT believe that conservatives do not wish to pay for better ways of life. What I do believe is that conservatives believe EVERYONE should pay their way. When you look at the MILLIONS of illegals in this country that OUR (yours and mine) tax dollars go to provide health care, well you can see where the conservatives have a problem. Thats just one issue.

As for the government healthcare issues, I too would like everyone to recieve healthcare in some form as to provide them a decent form of quality of life. The problem comes in about the actual role of the government in this. There are very few, if any programs that the government has run successfully. Me personally, I know there are areas of life that require some government control. Where conservatives and democrats and even republicans disagree I think is on just HOW MUCH CONTROL. My employer charges me a fee to provide my family and I a nice healthcare plan. This is and WAS a determining factor in why I chose my employer. Now for the government to turn around and say take "our" plan or we will charge you more in taxes......well I think that is just assinine. I am already being charged by the government on my income. Now they wish to charge me in more taxes based on the healthcare plans that I choose to umbrella my family under? NOT right!

As to Obama, I do think that IN HIS MIND, he believe he is attempting to do the right things. But, you know as well as I that ALL things are based on perspective. And as I mentioned on another thread I believe, I have to do and make decisions on what is best for MY family. I think Obama saw an opening in the frustration levels in the U.S with GWB and IRAQ and some of his policies. So he ran on a platform of CHANGE. The problem was, he never truly explained CHANGE and what it meant. There are definitive reasons his numbers are dropping (and its not just the economy). He has done some major crawfishing since entering office. I dont think I have seen the gay communities this upset in a LONG time. Thats just one example.

Bottom line is, I believe that this administration believe that the government can run our lives better then we can. This administration WILL in my opinion cause many a company to go under based on their tax plans, their healthcare plans, and their pay czars. Business will not just shoulder the burden. Cost of goods will have to rise. When people can not afford them any longer...well you know what happens. More job losses...less tax revenue coming in...more tax hikes to offset the loss in revenue..etc etc... I see it as a never ending cycle. Thats why most conservatives say "you can't tax your way out of recession".

[Snag]

Good post, Newtothegame. My response is:
I am willing to pay more if it means a better environment. Will cap & trade produce a better environment? I don't know but I am willing to find out. Of course, if the cost turns out to be prohibitive, I will change my mind.


NJ, the problem with your logic is that I may not be willing to pay.

Here's a deal. YOU pay more for a while and we'll see if America is any cleaner.

Another problem you've created is that I have to join you for no good reason.

You must be a gambler!

[ArlJim78]

cap and trade won't make us any cleaner, or effect the enviroment. stop drinking the koolaid. its a giant new revenue stream for washington, more government control, more government and union jobs, more pork, etc.

as is the usual case it will probably hurt the enviroment as more jobs are shifted to countries like China and India. this bill is America's anti-stimulus.

[DJofSD]

I am willing to pay more if it means a better environment. Will cap & trade produce a better environment? I don't know but I am willing to find out. Of course, if the cost turns out to be prohibitive, I will change my mind.

And what about those that do not wnat to or can not afford to pay more?

Also, if you change your mind, do you really think you can put the genie back into the bottle?

[Tom]

Meanwhile, the "God Bless America" Republicans don't want to pay for spit. Anybody watch Hannity tonight? The first 15 minutes was all about Obama saying he wouldn't raise taxes for most Americans but will with cap and trade. So what. Things CHANGE.

The problem here is that everyone with a brain temperature over 40 KNEW he was lying when he made those promises - we KNEW C&T would do this,m we KNEW everything he was threatening to do would do this. We TOLD everyone he was lying when he said it. Now you wake and decide things change?????

[jognlope]

NJ doesn't stink. It's got lovely Red Bank, where my cousins used to live, the Pine area, Cape May and all those lovely smock stacks that tell you you're about to go into the Holland Tunnel into my favorite city! Hackettstown, another nice little area. I wouldn't want to insure my car there though.

[NJ Stinks]

I appreciate the fact that nobody took my head off. :) Tom sort of did but rather mildly for him.

I understand the logic in saying "but what if I don't want to pay" for cap and trade. But I must say I didn't and don't want to pay for the Iraq War but since GWB was in charge - too bad for what I wanted.

Anyway, I still maintain that if cap and trade is the bomb you guys think it will be, it will repealed shortly after the 2012 election if not before.

[dartman51]

If your theory about Dems loving social programs for control purposes held any water, Lyndon Johnson would not have been replaced by Richard Nixon. After all, Johnson pushed through the most expensive social program ever - Medicare. (Senior citizens love that program - and rightly so.)



Nixon became President when L.B.J. decided NOT to "seek", nor would he "accept his party's nomination for President." You are probably one of the millions that were pissing and moaning when GWB amassed a 500 Billion dollar debt, but now you're OK with a man who has already put us over 1 Trillion dollars in debt and will be over 3 Trillion by the end of his term. Even if he is voted OUT in 2012, how long do think it will take to get us back to even? ONLY AN IDIOT, OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY, would think that what Obama is doing, is the RIGHT thing for AMERICA. Do you KNOW what is in the STIMULUS bill, or the C&T bill?? If you do, then you know more than the IDIOTS that voted for it. Think about how foolish you really sound. Gee, if I have to drink the POISON KOOL-AID, as long as it's for the GREATER GOOD of the country, I'm OK with it. Hey, if KILLS me I may change my mind. But for now, that's OK.:bang: :blush:

[NJ Stinks]

Nixon became President when L.B.J. decided NOT to "seek", nor would he "accept his party's nomination for President." You are probably one of the millions that were pissing and moaning when GWB amassed a 500 Billion dollar debt, but now you're OK with a man who has already put us over 1 Trillion dollars in debt and will be over 3 Trillion by the end of his term. Even if he is voted OUT in 2012, how long do think it will take to get us back to even? ONLY AN IDIOT, OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY, would think that what Obama is doing, is the RIGHT thing for AMERICA. Do you KNOW what is in the STIMULUS bill, or the C&T bill?? If you do, then you know more than the IDIOTS that voted for it. Think about how foolish you really sound. Gee, if I have to drink the POISON KOOL-AID, as long as it's for the GREATER GOOD of the country, I'm OK with it. Hey, if KILLS me I may change my mind. But for now, that's OK.:bang: :blush:

And to think I thought everybody was taking it easy on me. ;)

[Lefty]

Stinks, did your taxes go up during the time you didn't want to pay for the Iraq war? Did your household energy double? If dims didn't want to use prgms and the tax code for control, then why don't they cut taxes? Everytime taxes are cut, more money hits the Treasury, and the economy comes back.
Cap and Trade will see everything double. Let's see how you like it then.

[newtothegame]

And to think I thought everybody was taking it easy on me. ;)


I agree COMPLETELY with NJ here. Why is it that when we disagree, we seem to have a need for personal attacks? Does ANYONE here think that by attcking a person with an opposing point of view that it will somehow help your cause? I disagree with ALOT of the dims positions on social programs, abortion, fiscal responsibility, taxes etc etc. BUT, with that being said, I can't reasonably think i could change their minds by personal attacks. And if ANYONE on here thinks I have personally attacked THEM versus their position, I APOLOGIZE!
Paul

[jognlope]

I'd be surprised if my rent went up. My town is not an exactly popular mecca and I hope it stays that way. Most of my neigbhors and almost every one of the tenants in my building are on SSI. I haven't seen really working people since I left NYC.

[Tom]

As long as you don't plan on heating it or lighting it, you will be ok. :rolleyes:

[jognlope]

Are you kidding? My heating bill, and I have a very large apartment with high ceilings, but I had weatherproofed til I was ready to take over 3M, with those sheets, was $572 in the coldest month. Heating has already gone up 10 times over since the late 70s, early 80s.

Salaries for many have only gone up by 1/3 to 1/2 if that since late 70s.

Thank goodness, the state feels a little pang of empathy for the working class and you can get those heat grants up to $435 a month, 3 times each winter, and still make a decent salary (not what you'd call decent I'm sure). Otherwise I'd been out of here.

It's 5 o'clock in paris so I'm having a nice glass of rose' with my hamburg. Darn tootin.

[Tom]

California will give you an IOU! :D

[jognlope]

Glad I'm not there, what a mess that state is.

[Tom]

That is the model Obummer is using for the rest of use with his Crap and Tax stupidity. Get ready.....it is coming this way.

[DJofSD]

California used to be the forerunner of a lot of different trends. When it comes to the economic picture I believe it is still true. Get ready, it here it comes.

[Lefty]

jog, look to pay dble that in 1 yr or less if he gets his Cap and trade bill through.

[jognlope]

How will this affect heating bill exactly?

[newtothegame]

How will this affect heating bill exactly?

Jog...you can find literally hundreds of websites which discuss this in detail. I could post some but the problem would be that some on here would say its biased because of my opinions. Just type into your web browser or google "effects of cap and trade".....or cap and trade...and you can find all the information you wish.

[newtothegame]

How will this affect heating bill exactly?

for example....
www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14261/54/lang,en/ (http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14261/54/lang,en/)

[Lefty]

jog, the short answer is that oil gas and electric companies will have a cap on their greenhouse emissions. When they go over, they have to buy carbon credits. This just amounts to a tax. Will they pass that expense on to the consumer? You betcha.

[jognlope]

Well I'm willing to pay for reducing carbon emission as are more people than are admitting. But the problem is paying for the fat benefit packages and profits and gluttonous executive salaries and downright greed.

[Tom]

There will be NO reduction of any of that - China and India refuse to swallow this nonsense and will continue to grow and prosper, While Obama drives us in to the dark ages.

The planet has been cooing for at least 7 years now. "Splain, that Gore.

[Warren Henry]

There will be NO reduction of any of that - China and India refuse to swallow this nonsense and will continue to grow and prosper, While Obama drives us in to the dark ages.

The planet has been cooing for at least 7 years now. "Splain, that Gore.
The libs are doing all they can to suppress the evidence of recent cooling. If they can just get their BS environmental programs rammed down our throats fast, they can claim credit for the downturn.

"See I told you Cap and Trade and windmills and solar panels and all of us driving skateboards with washing machine engines would work". Never mind that the Chinese are adding coal fired plants at an ever increasing rate (and maybe driving hummers too. :lol: )

[DJofSD]

The "discussion" about global warming/climate change is more opening debated in other countries. I guess the Gore steamroller can't control the media everywhere.

[Lefty]

It's a big scam. It's not about the environment; it's about control. If they get Cap and Trade through and Healthcare, the govt will control us fully. We will become Cuba.

[ArlJim78]

what an embarrassment (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/if_sarah_palin_had_said_it_2.asp) this Sotomayor has turned out to be. Even Democrats are cringing at her evasiveness, contradictions, and general lack of intellectual heft. obviously she was chosen based on her overt preferences for minorities, which doesn't seem to bother Democrats.

but she has also shown a remarkably weak understanding of English in her testimony considering the position she's been nominated for. she clearly is in over her head, but that is par for the course with this administration

she used "eminent" when "imminent" was the correct word.
she said "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge"
she used the word "vagrancies" instead of "vagaries"

[Marshall Bennett]

She has a real problem addressing a question directly , or perhaps not so much a problem but a plan . When asked of her personel opinion on an issue she veers the matter towards a standard set by the courts . I'm sure this strategy is all pre-arranged , she's far from a dumb woman , and she knows how to steer clear of danger . Besides , her personel beliefs are well documented , she knows all to well the traps ahead , she won't trip . We'll actually know little more about her when the hearings end than when they started .

[Tom]

We'll actually know little more about her when the hearings end than when they started .

I already know all I need to know about her.
Racist, incompetent......enough?

[jballscalls]

from your description Marshall, she sounds way more like a politician than a judge LOL

[Tom]

from your description Marshall, she sounds way more like a politician than a judge LOL

I thought that was understood - she IS.

[46zilzal]

She has a real problem addressing a question directly , .
Come on EVERY Supreme Court nominee dances around volatile topics EVERY ONE OF THEM

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

[boxcar]

Come on EVERY Supreme Court nominee dances around volatile topics EVERY ONE OF THEM

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

Sure...so, they're all dishonest, right? And we support the ones that are what...less dishonest? The least evil? Hmm...come to think of it very much like many of us do with politicians.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

her problem isn't only to do with volatile topics, and it's not only about dancing around the subject. the problem is that ALL her answers are incoherent and evasive, even ones she should be able to answer. I can never recall a Supreme court nominee struggling so badly to answer questions.

[46zilzal]

her problem isn't only to do with volatile topics, and it's not only about dancing around the subject. the problem is that ALL her answers are incoherent and evasive, even ones she should be able to answer. I can never recall a Supreme court nominee struggling so badly to answer questions.
and of course you are listening with that UNBIASED ear!

[boxcar]

her problem isn't only to do with volatile topics, and it's not only about dancing around the subject. the problem is that ALL her answers are incoherent and evasive, even ones she should be able to answer. I can never recall a Supreme court nominee struggling so badly to answer questions.

A sure sign that she has much to hide. She's probably as dishonest as BO.

Boxcar

[Marshall Bennett]

Come on EVERY Supreme Court nominee dances around volatile topics EVERY ONE OF THEM

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination
You would never accuse any of them of being stupid . They simply dance to keep from falling down . To be intellectually evasive is far better than being a proven idiot .

[ArlJim78]

Another lulu from one of the most brilliant legal minds of our time;

Sotomayor - "And it became clear to me after looking at that case that that process led to affirming the decision of the national labor relationships board that it could and should issue an injunction on the grounds that it claimed."

umm, that would be the National Labor Relations Board, it's not EHarmony.com


I guess thats why Obama said she was chosen for her empathy, because it wasn't for her "story" of knowledge.

[Tom]

My oh my, are we about to put a rutabaga on the Supremes Court???? :D

[Tom]

It appears like she will now be confirmed ( big surprise!)

But temper the enthusiasm for the "first Latino" label.

Bush nominated a qualified Latin MAN who never even got the consideration of a hearing by the dems. The repubs were very fair in their treatment of Sonja, and they provided a lesson the dems would do well to learn - even when you disagree, and party lines are drawn, you can still be a responsible professional and act like an adult while doing your job and allowing the process to work rather than rely on the cheap, scarred to death routine the dems took with many of Bush's nominees.

The lesson, dear dems, is frigging grow up. Supporters of the dems today have nothing to be proud of. And Latinos should still be outraged over the delay in seating one of their own for no good reason.

Oh, yeah, and Al Franken really showed his level of competence asking PERRY MASON questions! Maybe he thinks that show was real! :lol:

[jballscalls]

i must admit, her name is fun to say....Soto may hor!

[NJ Stinks]

It appears like she will now be confirmed ( big surprise!)

the dems would do well to learn - even when you disagree, and party lines are drawn, you can still be a responsible professional and act like an adult while doing your job and allowing the process to work rather than rely on the cheap, scarred to death routine the dems took with many of Bush's nominees.

The lesson, dear dems, is frigging grow up. Supporters of the dems today have nothing to be proud of. And Latinos should still be outraged over the delay in seating one of their own for no good reason.



Thanks for the advice, Tom. Indeed you are right. I think I'll become a Republican.

:lol: :lol:

[DJofSD]

Thanks for the advice, Tom. Indeed you are right. I think I'll become a Republican.

:lol: :lol:
Dr. Martin Luther King as a republican along with the rest of his immediate family.

[46zilzal]

Dr. Martin Luther King as a republican along with the rest of his immediate family.
Horse feathers
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/king-a-republican-at-91927.html

[Secretariat]

It appears like she will now be confirmed ( big surprise!)

Og course she'll be confirmed. Republicans are dumb, but not that dumb. The only question from the beginning is how many Republicans will vote for her.

[PaceAdvantage]

and of course you are listening with that UNBIASED ear!Like YOU? You'll post every stupid thing Bush said, but you have no comment on the dumb-ass words coming out of SOTOMAYOR's mouth?

You're quite the comedian...I give you that.

[Tom]

She finally did say that she supported Roe v Wade Boggs.


:lol:

[46zilzal]

Like YOU? You'll post every stupid thing Bush said, but you have no comment on the dumb-ass words coming out of SOTOMAYOR's mouth?

You're quite the comedian...I give you that.
Strange, What did she say? I haven't followed it a bit as Belmont and Woodbine are much more important to me than a grilling as compared to the rutbaga who is responsible of thousands of deaths and screwing up US relations with the rest of the world. The latter requires observation, the former doesn't.

I have also been reading, with great interest, the 2008 Pulitzer Prize winning expose of Darth Vader called THE ANGLER and realize what I always thought: Dick had the rutabaga puppet on a string as the brain dead cowboy was president in name only.

[Greyfox]

Putting your feelings and opinions aside for a moment about Sotomayor,
ask yourself: "Would any truly brilliant exceptional jurist submit to a public televised grilling of the nature that we have been seeing?"

If you answered Yes. Then there's no problem. Obviously, some bright minds make it.
If you answered No. Then you'd be thinking along the lines that I am. It seems to me this microscopic looking for warts and zits, would prevent many of the best judicial minds from even accepting consideration for a Supreme Court appointment.
This raises other questions:
1. Is this present "transparent" process the best for screening a candidate?
2. If not, is there a better way to screen Supreme Court Candidates?
3. Does it need to be televised?

[Marshall Bennett]

I would say since judges are elected officials ( in most cases ) that the process will always be driven along party lines . It sucks , but its a part of life , and likely here to stay .

[Tom]

But the court has far too much power.
Lifetime appointments are idiotic. The history of the court shows that it has more insane people - literally - sitting than one cares to admit.
Read Men in Black - true stories of the national disgrace we all the Supremes.

Clearly, 10 years terms would be better - one leaving each year, that way, all presidents get an equal shot at appointments. And we need to make the senate confirmation hearings mandatory after 90 days of the appointment so we can prevent the childish behavior of the dumocrats during Bush' term.

[Greyfox]

Clearly, 10 years terms would be better - one leaving each year, that way, all presidents get an equal shot at appointments. And we .

Good idea. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Good idea.
strangely it is

[NJ Stinks]

Clearly, 10 years terms would be better - one leaving each year, that way, all presidents get an equal shot at appointments.

What? Change Article III of the Constitution but we can't change the Second Amendment?

I'm confused, Tom. Perhaps you can expound on your inconsistent positions?

[Tom]

I never said we could not change the Second amendment - there is legal protocol to do that. I have maintained that until we do, it is very clear what it means.

Same with Article III - we need to change it. The legal way.

The constitution has the wonderful provision built in - that we can change it as needed. We now count all Black people as a full person don't we? We let women vote don't we?

I didn't see Barry Bulldodo do that before he hired all those illegal czars, or before he violated contract law to reward the UAW by stealing from legit bond holders.

[Warren Henry]

Putting your feelings and opinions aside for a moment about Sotomayor,
ask yourself: "Would any truly brilliant exceptional jurist submit to a public televised grilling of the nature that we have been seeing?"

If you answered Yes. Then there's no problem. Obviously, some bright minds make it.
If you answered No. Then you'd be thinking along the lines that I am. It seems to me this microscopic looking for warts and zits, would prevent many of the best judicial minds from even accepting consideration for a Supreme Court appointment.
This raises other questions:
1. Is this present "transparent" process the best for screening a candidate?
2. If not, is there a better way to screen Supreme Court Candidates?
3. Does it need to be televised?

What is happening here is nothing compared to what happened to Bork. Where was the outrage then.

Hypocrite!!!

[Greyfox]

What is happening here is nothing compared to what happened to Bork. Where was the outrage then.

Hypocrite!!!

I'm not talking about Bork. I'm not talking about Sotomayor. I'm talking about the process of selection. Name calling is uncalled for here and a little abstract thinking should be applied.

I don't know what kind of candy you are eating, but it seems to me that neither you nor I were members of this board at the time of the Bork Nomination.
In fact, Al Gore was still in the early stages of inventing the internet.
Otherwise, we might have both been expressing rage.

[chickenhead]

it's actually if I'm not mistaken fairly recent that the justices actually go before Congress -- they don't have to, and they never used to.

[NJ Stinks]

I never said we could not change the Second amendment - there is legal protocol to do that. I have maintained that until we do, it is very clear what it means.

Same with Article III - we need to change it. The legal way.

The constitution has the wonderful provision built in - that we can change it as needed. We now count all Black people as a full person don't we? We let women vote don't we?

I didn't see Barry Bulldodo do that before he hired all those illegal czars, or before he violated contract law to reward the UAW by stealing from legit bond holders.

It was such a nice post until we got to the last paragraph. :p

(Good points in there. :ThmbUp: )

[PaceAdvantage]

I haven't followed it a bit as Belmont and Woodbine are much more important to me than a grilling as compared to the rutbaga who is responsible of thousands of deaths and screwing up US relations with the rest of the world. The latter requires observation, the former doesn't.Putting aside the fact that you're essentially a Canadian now, I would think that someone like Sotomayor, who if confirmed will be sitting as a Supreme Court Justice FOR LIFE, should garner MUCH importance and LOTS of "following" on your part...seeing as you are always so interested in the politics of the USA and are always commenting on what is going on in Washington DC.

Strange that you don't feel the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who has the potential to greatly affect America warrants at least some of the scrutiny you reserved for a President who was only going to be around for eight years max....