Sotomayor is a known racist pig, not only believing that a Latina can make better decisions than a white male, but also, she is a member of La Raza, which is as bad as being KKK.
Obama could hardly have made a WORSE choice.
Let's see, is she a lesbian, too ?
I am yet again enraged at the evil of Obama, and the turds that worship his every word.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558159 United States 5/26/2009 3:27 PM
Sotomayor is a known racist pig, not only believing that a Latina can make better decisions than a white male, but also, she is a member of La Raza, which is as bad as being KKK.
Obama could hardly have made a WORSE choice.
Let's see, is she a lesbian, too ?
I am yet again enraged at the evil of Obama, and the turds that worship his every word.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558159
Agreed
Valent!ne User ID: 688176 United States 5/26/2009 3:45 PM
wow barry does not stop with his minority picks, 80% of his staff are minorities
America is full of minorities, so seems fair to me, a representative for everyone.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 661596
"In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curium opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her."
Still seem fair???
Anonymous Coward User ID: 483402 United States 5/26/2009 3:55 PM
You all were idiots for voting in an EVANGELICAL NUT [GWB] instead of a genuine conservative for two straight terms. You have nobody else to blame but yourselves.
misskitty27 User ID: 517471 United States 5/26/2009 4:04 PM
If she weren't a woman and Latina...she wouldn't be qualified.
PROGRESSIVE and liberal...yet another "brilliant" appointment by our "mussiah" (yeah i know I spelled it wrong...) __________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Valent!ne User ID: 688176 United States 5/26/2009 4:14 PM
You all were idiots for voting in an EVANGELICAL NUT [GWB] instead of a genuine conservative for two straight terms. You have nobody else to blame but yourselves.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483402
The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Why is this even relevant?
It does not matter how she got there - it serves NOBODY well. Nobody wins. Go ahead and cast blame, but you're in the same boat regardless of who put us there.
And, seriously? It's not like there was actually a choice. Bush or the other evil, who cares? A real choice was not in place. Much the same as the most recent election, wouldn't you agree??!?!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 454845 United States 5/26/2009 4:20 PM
Conservative christians and people who call themselve 'real patriots' (mostly shortminded WASP-scum) still seem to think that they stand for the REAL USA.
While they are simply a minority among the minorities that the USA is made of.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 454845 United States 5/26/2009 4:36 PM
I tend to keep conversations as civil as possible, but many reactions on GLP during the last months concerning Obama, his policy and his choices are (IMO rightfully) tempting me to put it a lot more blatant:
Its rather obvious that both conservative christians and so called libertarians / millitia-types living in the USA simply are prejudiced, shortminded and brainwashed when it comes to their reactions on anything that might undermine their narrowminded 'believes'.
Instead of pragmatically reviewing Obama and co. on their actual merits, these people seem unable to actually do so, because they blind themselves with mostly unfounded underbelly crap about 'socialists', 'non-christians', 'satanists', anti-americans' and 'NWO-stooges'
Its time the likes of you realise you dont have the majority in the USA, and that you don't deserve it based on your stalled dogmatics.
In fact. It are actually minorities like you that keep the USA from evolving, that sabotage progress with your misguided 'conservative idea's', that show misplace arrogance, when you actually should be ashamed about yourselves.
Evil Twin Senior Forum Moderator 5/26/2009 5:09 PM
showing Sotomayor stating on the record that it's the courts job to set public policy:
Quoting: Apocalypse Troll
She doesn't understand the role of the Judicial branch. That is the most compelling reason to not confirm her. My 1911 beat up your Glock and took its lunch money.
eviltwin618@yahoo.com
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558159 United States 5/26/2009 5:16 PM
I tend to keep conversations as civil as possible, but many reactions on GLP during the last months concerning Obama, his policy and his choices are (IMO rightfully) tempting me to put it a lot more blatant:
Its rather obvious that both conservative christians and so called libertarians / millitia-types living in the USA simply are prejudiced, shortminded and brainwashed when it comes to their reactions on anything that might undermine their narrowminded 'believes'.
Instead of pragmatically reviewing Obama and co. on their actual merits, these people seem unable to actually do so, because they blind themselves with mostly unfounded underbelly crap about 'socialists', 'non-christians', 'satanists', anti-americans' and 'NWO-stooges'
Its time the likes of you realise you dont have the majority in the USA, and that you don't deserve it based on your stalled dogmatics.
In fact. It are actually minorities like you that keep the USA from evolving, that sabotage progress with your misguided 'conservative idea's', that show misplace arrogance, when you actually should be ashamed about yourselves.
Quoting: Huskey 688226
Do you represent the Satanic Stooge Party ?
Huskey User ID: 688226 United States 5/26/2009 5:34 PM
seems Amerika is not totally destroyed yet, next the O man wan't to load up the courts with judges who disregard the letter of the laws and prefer to bend them which ever way they like...
time to reject
Anonymous Coward User ID: 618560 United States 5/26/2009 5:57 PM
Who can argue with that after all of the evidence you have laid out. Thank you for starting the thread with that suggestion and laying out your obvious bias and agenda for all to see.
Go do some research. The evidence is OVERWHELMING.
I just posted a link to the story.
And yes, she would be the most liberal Supreme Court Justice EVAR!
The only bias will be hers.
And Obamas.
YOU DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE. YOU STARTED THE THREAD AND THEN PINNED IT AND LAID OUT YOUR OPINION ON THE NEWS BEFORE THE READER EVEN GOT TO READ IT.
GROW UP MORAN
ALL YOU SEEK TO DO IS FORCE YOUR OPINION RATHER THAN ENTERTAIN ANY SORT OF A DISCUSSION
EDIT: YOU SUCK
Quoting: llaves
The pot calling the kettle black? Or something like that, calling someone a moron when you can't even spell such a simple word right yourself.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 454845 United States 5/26/2009 5:58 PM
Quote:
seems Amerika is not totally destroyed yet, next the O man wan't to load up the courts with judges who disregard the letter of the laws and prefer to bend them which ever way they like...
time to reject
Reactions:
If there is one thing leading to the destroyment of the USA its the shortmindness / ignorance of the evangelicals, who are almost 'dying' to get the Apocalypse here, now, right at this moment!
It doesnt actually seem to matter to them, if they get it by man-made self forfilling prophecy...
The other group being a danger for the future of the US are the smalltown millitia-types.
They see a boogyman, evil NWO or 'socialist' around every corner, and they keep stacking their 'ammo' so that they can ultimately kill their nextdoor neighbours, simply for trespassing their property, just like in the wild-west.
Valent!ne User ID: 688176 United States 5/26/2009 8:04 PM
yep she is not qualified, cant wait till the congressional hearings on this.
she's not qualified because of a ruling she made on one case out of the hundreds that she's dealt with?
she has more judicial experience than any of the justices that have been confirmed to the court in decades.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 454845
Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
yep she is not qualified, cant wait till the congressional hearings on this.
she's not qualified because of a ruling she made on one case out of the hundreds that she's dealt with?
she has more judicial experience than any of the justices that have been confirmed to the court in decades.
Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
Quoting: Valent!ne
i'd wager a guess and say that a number of federal judges have had some of their rulings overturned by the supreme court. it's hardly evidence that she's not qualified, more that the judicial system works as it's meant to work.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Canada