Solomayor
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 02:43PM Obama has the liberal votes to put just about any fool on the US Supreme Court and apparently he has chosen to go that route.
Sotomayor may not be a racist or sexist, she just says racist and sexist things with the intention to sound smart and rub it in her perceived enemies – white people, especially men.
This is a recognized part of her type of jurist we do not often see at the Supreme Court level, but it had to happen eventually.
What will the new court look like with a loud, not too bright, unable to contain herself activist on it? I don’t care. She will cast her opinion exactly the way the tiny bookworm, Sad Little Souter, who supposedly hates DC but fell directly under its spell did when he got there. There is little concrete judicial gain in this replacement of Souter by Obama except those of race and gender. And even with these two obvious changes the difference is still very slight.
Oh, but the possibility for embarrassment, as in with his VP pick of Clueless Joe Biden. Here we have two personalities carved from the same soap.
Joe Biden has that same super-elitist opinion of himself which has in the past compelled him to try and put down an opponent (caught on video) by wielding his very slight education credentials – somewhat enhanced with non-existent achievements. Biden enjoys his attack dog status as well, but it must be noted that attack dogs sometimes chew on shoes whereas Biden puts his foot in his mouth. Big difference.
Sotomayor is said to spend her days and nights huddled with a team of underlings who substitute for a family and normal life. Yet with all the emersion in law she is not able to pull off but one decision out of five sent for appeal that was not reversed. She likes to dress down lawyers and political opponents and flaunt her power, such as her statement (caught on tape) about policy being made at the bench. That was simply reckless and arrogant.
This makes me wonder how intellectuals currently on the bench will interact with her, if at all. My guess is that she who does not suffer fools will be in the position of suffering…and if her past behavior and temperament are any guide it will not be in silence.
Goodbye Souter, the “Hero of Kelo,” you will be replaced but not missed. This one woman Bronx cheer will more than fill your old robe.
The Supra decision results will remain the same, Sotomayor will not be a guiding light on this court or challenging anyone with her intellect, not even the other lefties.
Obama wasted a pick.
Reader Comments (20)
I hope you're having a bad day over this gay marriage thing - is it threatening the sanctity of your marriage?
:lol:
from that bastion of "liberal" journalism, the wall street journal! http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/06/04/detractors-don%E2%80%99t-diminish-voters%E2%80%99-support-for-sotomayor/
The marriage thing is not about 'sanctity' as much as it's about another socialist $$ entitlement redistribution of the wealth... <shrug>
That's what you leftist loons are all about isn't it?
Have you looked at Bork's record?
Please compare. I think it is interesting.
You lost on Bork. You'll lose on Sotomayer. People don't like what you're selling.
It's not even about sex or tolerance but that angle is used to get people to feel guilty and vote for 'rights'. It's not rights, you don't petition the government for your 'rights' you petition them for money and that's all this about -- has nothing to do with tolerance of the gay lifestyle.
And just as predicted, now come the polygamists! I wonder what Governor Flinch will do? What a jerk.
(Link lifted from another blog... http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287)
You leftist loons don't give a crap about people, all you care about is redistribution of the wealth.
That's what you leftist loons are all about isn't it?
Isn't it odd how the Buckley crowd sold out the bi-sexuals in this homosexual marriage bill LYNCH supported from his very first election.
I guess all love isn't the same to the homosexual marriage crowd. It's every man for himself.
To Ed: I have NO idea what you're talking about. Bi-sexuals can't get married? What? I guess it doesn't really matter, because it's law now and it's not going to get overturned.
You have no idea?
Take a shot. Rep. Jim Splaine may want to open his arms to Bisexual Marriage in his next bill. It is one of the standard positions of the Human Rights Commission that they support bisexuals. What about a marriage?
And how much money did you collect from lobbyists by the way. There has to be a few bisexual bucks floating around.
Oh how gratefull LYNCH must be to you and yours for letting him sign this bill.
I LOVE THAT PART!
For several months, Ed has been trying desperately to somehow link same-sex marriage to bi-sexual discrimination. Most readers have the same response as you: HUH?!
It seems to make sense to no one but him. But please don't ask anymore questions, I'm worried he may try to explain it.
Ed's Bald Spot: Why do you think Ed is so concerned about the bi-sexual's right to marry? He seems unnaturally interested.
Was your plan to make Lynch into a liar?
Nice job. Keep laughing in your coffee.
Lynch is fine. What are you talking about with bi-sexuals? Why are you so interested in them?
Check out the Human Rights Commission. They claim to represent bisexuals. So if that is true, how come your homosexual marriage bill did not allow for bisexual marriage?
Come on Ray, am I outside your phony, narrow argument for "fairness" in marriage?
Now that is not too hard to understand for a guy who can run the democrat party and find his way around Amsterdam is it?
I would remove "Marriage" from all the state laws and substitute "Civil Union" in its place. If you want the Sacrament of Marriage go to your Church. Get the states out of "personal relationships".
Now for Sotomayor. I was speaking with a physician friend who has become very politically aware driven by Obama's plans to regulate his right to make a living. He suggested that his readings show Sotomayor to be very conservative on many issues, especially criminal. He suggests that she may be Obama's Souter.
He believes she will only be a short term problem since she has been an insulin dependent diabetic since childhood and their life expectency is drastically reduced to say 65- 68 yrs of age.
My problem, as with most who still believe in the Constitution, is that Sotomayer is on the board of directors of a major terrorist organization known as LaRAZA.
They are part of the Aztlan 'reconquista' movement.
Translation? These reconquistas want to annex most of the south west to Mexico.
They seem to be doing a good job of it too with the help of our progressive traitors in the government.