Wednesday, July 15, 2009

New Supreme



FACT CHECK: Don't Quote Sotomayor On That, Senator

Honestly, it doesn't matter if Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy ran interference for Judge Sotomayor's wise Latina comments by leaving out the part where she said that she hopes that a wise Latina, "would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Honestly, it doesn't matter how hard the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee grill Sotomayor and make her squirm and deny that she made statements that would give many people pause by her record of judicial activism.

Honestly, you could have video of her eating at an all you can eat buffet of live kittens and she would still be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

This is an exercise in futility.

Getting things rammed down our throats is par for the course, people, when we have abrogated total and complete power to the Democrats.

You get what you vote for.

Remember that in 2010.

19 comments:

jan said...

Change and hope, baby. We gotz em.

Z said...

cube....imagine? Just 3 1/2 years to go. :-(

As for the 'hearings'? I've been pleasantly surprised at the intelligence and good questions from the Republicans. Odd, when they KNOW they can't win, then they show some backbone. GO FIGURE.

cube said...

jan: Change & hope has been a nightmare for me personaly, but I hope it's working out well for the republicans who stayed home on election day & thought they would teach everyone a lesson.

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you guys?

cube said...

Z: You are spot on. How in the world are we going to survive another 3.5 years of this lunacy?

Your point about how republicans go for the jugular when there is nothing to prove is also spot on. This is the kind of republican we don't need on the ticket. Vote them off. Playing it safe hasn't helped our party at all. We need to take some risks.

BeckEye said...

Hmm. Where is this all-you-can-eat kitten buffet that you speak of?

Brooke said...

They will twist the words and circumstance of what that racist, misogynist woman said until it was a 'misunderstanding', mark my words.

She will be confirmed with all speed.

Ananda girl said...

Yuck. Think of the hoopla that would develop if you switch the two around...

"A wise white male would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

And yes, it's yuck too... and that's how we know she is a racist.

cube said...

Beckeye: lol. You must ask Judge Sotomayor where she finds her sweet juicy kittens. I love cats, but not like that...

Brooke: I'm afraid you're right. Anything that she said will sail right through because we can't stop her.

Ananda Girl: Spot on. Apparently charges of racism only count when they come from a person specifically designated by a liberal.

WomanHonorThyself said...

did u see the video..sick!

dmarks said...

Z: They have been good questions. After all, we aren't supposed to rubber-stamp nominees, are we?

There are some cases where she did the right thing. I recently read about another case in Conn where there was a city policy to censor religious displays on public property around holiday time.

She very correctly stated that this violated peoples' First Amendment rights. She based her decision on free speech rights rather than the flimsy abuse of the "establishment clause".

Atheists hate her for this.

indavao said...

hi... just dropping by!
http://www.fileafro.com
http://mobileandetc.blogspot.com
http://kantahanan.blogspot.com

Caz said...

Looking from way, way, way on the outside of things, I thought the exercise was lackluster from all concerned, the questioners and nominee.

More like polite, vacuous, conversation at an afternoon tea than a hearing to determine the suitability of a Supreme Court judge.

Of course, our judges are simply appointed, so we have no similar process in the antipodes.

For all the analysis that has been put into print on Sotomayor's track record, there isn't much to see, and certainly nothing intellectually cutting edge or challenging. She relies almost entirely on precedents, not one to step outside the intellectual shadow of others. Personally I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, but it's not my legal or political system - maybe American's consider her intellectual compliance and lack of leadership to be a good thing.

Always On Watch said...

Honestly, you could have video of her eating at an all you can eat buffet of live kittens and she would still be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

Yep.

The fix is in.

cube said...

dmarks: To be fair, not all of Sotomayor's decisions have been ill-advised, however, there have been a few very disturbing ones.

Added to those decisions are the outrageous statements she has made regarding ethnicity/gender-based decisions that had they been made by a white male would've disqualified them from the running. That is biased in and of itself.

Once on the SCOTUS, there is no other court to out-rule her outrageous beliefs. Is that what we want?

cube said...

indavao: Hey, thanks for the SPAM. I'll be sure and travel to your SPAMMY links and leave a comment regarding how much I love SPAM.

cube said...

Caz: I must admit that I know less about your system of government than you know about mine. Kudos to you for that.

Here, judges don't make the laws, they merely interpret them. Activist judges that rule from the bench can upset the wishes of a voting majority (Case in point: California's gay marriage referendum being overturned by a very liberal court time after time)

Sotomayor strikes me as an affirmative action judge, not particularly brilliant, but who has played the game well enough to rise in the legal profession.

I am troubled with how she will interpret the Constitution (the job of SCOTUS) without imparting any ethnic, gender, empathy, crap onto her decisions. Her speeches regarding how she would hope that a wise latina woman would arrive at a better decision that a white male gives me the heebie jeebies. If a while male said those things they'd be disqualified. Why does she get a pass?

cube said...

Always On Watch: I wouldn't call it a fix. I would say that we abrogated any power we would have to vote against a justice like Sotomayor when the country voted overwhelmingly democrat in the three branches of our government.

Elections have consequences. I hope that all the independents that voted for changey/hopey are realizing this, as well as the republicans who stayed home on election day because McCain wasn't their ideal candidate.

MK said...

"You get what you vote for."

Indeed, even if you didn't vote for them, it'll be shoved down your throat anyway.

xjd7410@gmail.com said...

coach outlet online
oakley outlet
kate spade
oakley outlet
marc jacobs handbags
toms shoes
louis vuitton handbags
coach factory outlet
celine handbags
nike roshe one
air jordan shoes
giuseppe zanotti
cheap air jordans
michael kors outlet
jordan retro 4
michael kors
longchamp handbags
adidas running shoes
coach factory outlet
replica watches
oakley sunglasses outlet
fitflop sandals
adidas originals shoes
ray ban sunglasses uk
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet clearance
nike store
michael kors outlet clearance
louis vuitton
louis vuitton bags
chenyingying2016714