Obama Nominates A New Supreme Court Justice

[KRAM1]

She is an activist judge who believes that the court sets policy. That is enough to do everything possible to stop the confirmation of this nominee. That belief and attitude is absolutely wrong in so many ways. Her rulings and her comments may well stall this nomination, but I would imagine she eventually will be seated on the supreme court. The repbulicans just don't seem to have the "backbone" to stand up and really fight this left-wing nomination. This is absolutely no surprise. Obama and his supporters seek two options:

1) retention and expansion of their own power; and

2) a new society that suits their personal tastes...everything else is an incidental.

(by the way...these two "options" come from a quote by a gentleman named Joseph Sullivan. Just wanted to give credit where credit is do...it puts things in perspective regarding the current administration quite well)

It's too bad that any opposition will be branded "raciest", and that the process will not be about actual qualifications. This is all about one more "grandstand play" by Obama and his crew, and one more "soldier" to march to his far left agenda. Too bad!

Edited May 27, 2009 by KRAM1

[UNTflyer]

When I saw some of the conservative bloggers attaching Harriet Miers because she went to SMU instead of one of the Ivies, I just became further convinced of the intellectual emptiness of many on the right;

I don't know what "conservative blogs" you are reading, but this was hardly an issue. The significant reasons conservatives opposed Miers was her lack of experience and her questionable conservative judicial credentials (wasn't a constructionist).

[keith]

how about the reverse discrimination case she is arguing that is, currently, before the u.s. supreme court??

Is this one going to be reviewed this session or could it possibly slip and not be heard until Sotomayor is seated? I guess she would have to recuse herself on that review.

On the radio this morning they reported that 3 of the 5 decisions of hers that were reviewed by the Supreme Court were over-turned. Those do not seem like very good odds to me, but the President should be shown deference by the Senate. If she is qualified, she should be confimed.

I don't have a problem with a woman or Hispanic or Catholic or Jew or any other race, gender or ethnic group being on the Supreme Court. What does bother me is candidates being nominated, in part, *because* of their gender or ethnic background. That potentially sets up the Justice going in with a constituency or a group he or she is supposed to "represent" on the bench. Personally, I find this troubling. Congress and to a lesser extent the President are there to represent. The only constituency a judge should have is the law.

Keith

[UNTflyer]

On the radio this morning they reported that 3 of the 5 decisions of hers that were reviewed by the Supreme Court were over-turned. Those do not seem like very good odds to me, but the President should be shown deference by the Senate. If she is qualified, she should be confimed.

I would say a judge with a record of having a high number of decisions overturned, not just by the Supreme Court but by appellate courts, is not qualified.

Edited May 27, 2009 by UNTflyer

[emmitt01]

emmit-

do you really think "if" a white man said what she said about a hispanic it would not be racist???....... a white man can make better decisions that hispanic women?? would you consider that racist??? of course you would but it is NOT racist when a liberal socialist says that of individuals of european origin.

how about the reverse discrimination case she is arguing that is, currently, before the u.s. supreme court?? disallowing more qualified new haven, conn. firemen to be passed over for a minority. (maybe rick can identify with this) well, that has happened all over the country with other civil servants and in various law schools....... including police.....case in point chief bolton (of the dallas pd....sergent who became captain (how many better qualified officers were passed over?). well, at least you do not have to personally worry about that since that works in your favor.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=47838

what this is leading to is how much the 1964 civil rights act and its subsequent amendments have destroyed equal protection/job guarantees under the law. basically she has favored discriminatory laws from her "personal opinions and making law from the bench (really not too unusual since other federal judges have done the same, especially over ruling popular vote to enact gay marriages in states).......and.........not the law how it has been written constitutionally. This is what people are worried about......and......it has nothing to do with her being p.r..

If there is one thing I hate more than a weak argument (and you present a nice fat juicy one with the Terrell Bolton reference...I'll explain if you absolutely must know) it's when someone takes what I say and summarily ignores both the words I type and their meaning in the English language. I wasn't aware that I wrote my last comment in Arabic (whoops, didn't mean to say Arabic, I might incite some of our more right-wing posters). I asked the question, in a pretty straight forward fashion no less, if Rush Limbaugh was the best person to take lessons on what is/isn't racist. Where, please enlighten me so that I know you didn't just have an aneurysm before posting three paragraphs having nothing to do with my post, did I make the claim that her comments about hispanic women being wiser or better qualified to make a decision were right, wrong, or innocuous? How did you take an indictment of Rush Limbaugh and turn it into a endorsement of affirmative action policies?

Now, let me put words into your mouth...or, better yet, let me take the words that actually came out of your mouth (more specifically your keyboard) and paint you with as wide a brush as you have attempted, weakly, to paint me with. Could it be that you read my comments and, knowing that I am African-American (also Hispanic-American and Anglo-American if you're keeping score at home. Guess my family believed in taking affirmative action into the bedroom as well...bunch of stinkin liberals) you read what you wanted to read? I think that may very well be the case. After all, as a black person I must be a huge proponent of affirmative action since,

at least you do not have to personally worry about that since that works in your favor.

Yep, that's me, big ol' affirmative action cheerleader. Let's discount completely that I have been qualified/overqualified for each and every opportunity that has ever come my way. Nah, let's ascribe to me, instead, an attitude of entitlement because I'm a poor black man in America. Still waitin' on my forty acres and a mule damnit! (Anyone who knows me well knows that I'm now simply taking your lack of reading comprehension and running with it to the nth degree, purposefully no longer even on point or discussing anything you laid out in your missive just to illustrate how ridiculous it is when someone runs off on a tangent simply for the tangents sake)

Edited May 27, 2009 by emmitt01

[UNTflyer]

Whoa, let's back up here...

Emmit, don't just read the headline and respond. EE's link was to support his point that she will be confirmed with the help of moderate Republicans, who are afraid to be called racist if they oppose her. The link also pointed out that Rush's comments, always off the cuff, not well thought-out, and almost always taken out of context, just ensures that Republicans will go along to avoid the broad brush.

Is this the best way to choose a nominee? The moment the pick was announced, the term "latina" was attached by the media... not Republicans, not Rush Limbaugh. And her very own words show that her race and gender play a role in her decisions.

What happened to the color blind society Dr. King dreamed about?

Edited May 27, 2009 by UNTflyer

[emmitt01]

Whoa, let's back up here...

Emmit, don't just read the headline and respond. EE's link was to support his point that she will be confirmed with the help of moderate Republicans, who are afraid to be called racist if they oppose her. The link also pointed out that Rush's comments, always off the cuff, not well thought-out, and almost always taken out of context, just ensures that Republicans will go along to avoid the broad brush.

Is this the best way to choose a nominee? The moment the pick was announced, the term "latina" was attached by the media... not Republicans, not Rush Limbaugh. And her very own words show that her race and gender play a role in her decisions.

What happened to the color blind society Dr. King dreamed about?

Did you actually read his post? I don't disagree with anything you said, my issue is with his assumption that I have no problem with affirmative action because I might somehow benefit from it. I also took issue with the tyrade in his first paragraph in which he assumed I view her comments as acceptable or don't take issue with them...otherwise why the "shoe on the other foot" hypothetical? Come to think of it, did you actually read MY post?

[UNTflyer]

Did you actually read his post? I don't disagree with anything you said, my issue is with his assumption that I have no problem with affirmative action because I might somehow benefit from it. I also took issue with the tyrade in his first paragraph in which he assumed I view her comments as acceptable or don't take issue with them...otherwise why the "shoe on the other foot" hypothetical? Come to think of it, did you actually read MY post?

I was referring to his original post, not the follow-up. And you do not seem like the "Hooray, affirmative action" type to me.

[CMJ]

I would say a judge with a record of having a high number of decisions overturned, not just by the Supreme Court but by appellate courts, is not qualified.

She's written nearly 400 opinions(380 something if I remember right). Six have been reviewed by the Supreme Court and of those 3 were overturned.

That's not exactly a high number.

When the Supremes accept a cert to review something only like 35-40% are affirmed and the rest are reversed(I mean usually they only take a case in the 1st place if they think it might need reversing). So I'd she has a decent record of non-reversals.

[UNT90]

Stupid discussion.

Liberal Presidents appoint liberal judges. Conservative Presidents appoint conservative judges. Some the the conservative comments on here are the old cheerleaading thing again. I bet you were not on here complaining about the appointment of Justice Roberts, now were you. I'm sure, to the other side, he is just as polorizing as this obvious liberal appointment is to conservatives. Get over it.

It's like rooting for a freaking football team. It's ok when the ref blows a call that favors my team, but just watch me go nuts at the littlest call against my team. Seriously conservatives, unless you can show me where you were concerned that Roberts was overly conservative, please take a seat. And liberals, please don't try to pass her off as a moderate or you are playing the same ridiculous game.

[UNTflyer]

Seriously conservatives, unless you can show me where you were concerned that Roberts was overly conservative, please take a seat. And liberals, please don't try to pass her off as a moderate or you are playing the same ridiculous game.

Show me a liberal judge whose main concern is interpreting law rather than legislating from the bench and I will support him or her.

I don't want judges like this one who says the appellate court is for making policy.

[eulesseagle]

emmitt-

your first post said "discus"

your second retort was to post rush limbaughs 10 famous racist statements from some ebony type magazine.

what are you upset about?

(1) The Bolton incident is true.....sgt to capt......come on emmitt.....even you can see that. I believe he was fired from his next job, too. Is that not affirmative action and racial quotas above qualifications?? These are just facts.....

(2) Didn't read your post??? what was there to read? nothing but a link to some ebony type magazine. nothing too intellectual there.

(3) African - American? I think 99% of us know you are A-A.....so what? Do you not agree that as an A-A, and other minorities in civil service, that you have a better chance of promotion than a Euro-American as how current racial quotas are applied from the lowest county level to federal government?? I would say that we, as a nation, are all aware of what the civil rights laws are all about which were, incidently, diametrically opposed to MLK's wishes of equality for all.

How could I take anything you said out of context since you didn't say anything?

Your comments appear to be defensive based, naturally, on territorial pride.....which is only natural.....however, it should be based on logical and fair outcomes. It is similar to the statue of "Blind Justice" holding the scales......fair and balanced. Nobody wants to read your rants on 40 acres and a mule, etc...ect....ect......a little over the top I thought.....but interesting.

lastly, congrats on passing your tests. be safe out there.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Stupid discussion.

Liberal Presidents appoint liberal judges. Conservative Presidents appoint conservative judges. Some the the conservative comments on here are the old cheerleaading thing again. I bet you were not on here complaining about the appointment of Justice Roberts, now were you. I'm sure, to the other side, he is just as polorizing as this obvious liberal appointment is to conservatives. Get over it.

It's like rooting for a freaking football team. It's ok when the ref blows a call that favors my team, but just watch me go nuts at the littlest call against my team. Seriously conservatives, unless you can show me where you were concerned that Roberts was overly conservative, please take a seat. And liberals, please don't try to pass her off as a moderate or you are playing the same ridiculous game.

Conservatives by nature of their philosophy do not legislate from the bench. They believe in simply judging based on what the Constitution says. Even liberals were not worried that Roberts was going to enact pro-conservative legislation from the bench--they were worried that he would be too much of a "strict constructionist."

And if it's a stupid discussion, you can blame it on the liberal who started it.

[GreenMachine]

If there is one thing I hate more than a weak argument (and you present a nice fat juicy one with the Terrell Bolton reference...I'll explain if you absolutely must know) it's when someone takes what I say and summarily ignores both the words I type and their meaning in the English language. I wasn't aware that I wrote my last comment in Arabic (whoops, didn't mean to say Arabic, I might incite some of our more right-wing posters). I asked the question, in a pretty straight forward fashion no less, if Rush Limbaugh was the best person to take lessons on what is/isn't racist. Where, please enlighten me so that I know you didn't just have an aneurysm before posting three paragraphs having nothing to do with my post, did I make the claim that her comments about hispanic women being wiser or better qualified to make a decision were right, wrong, or innocuous? How did you take an indictment of Rush Limbaugh and turn it into a endorsement of affirmative action policies?

Now, let me put words into your mouth...or, better yet, let me take the words that actually came out of your mouth (more specifically your keyboard) and paint you with as wide a brush as you have attempted, weakly, to paint me with. Could it be that you read my comments and, knowing that I am African-American (also Hispanic-American and Anglo-American if you're keeping score at home. Guess my family believed in taking affirmative action into the bedroom as well...bunch of stinkin liberals) you read what you wanted to read? I think that may very well be the case. After all, as a black person I must be a huge proponent of affirmative action since,

Yep, that's me, big ol' affirmative action cheerleader. Let's discount completely that I have been qualified/overqualified for each and every opportunity that has ever come my way. Nah, let's ascribe to me, instead, an attitude of entitlement because I'm a poor black man in America. Still waitin' on my forty acres and a mule damnit! (Anyone who knows me well knows that I'm now simply taking your lack of reading comprehension and running with it to the nth degree, purposefully no longer even on point or discussing anything you laid out in your missive just to illustrate how ridiculous it is when someone runs off on a tangent simply for the tangents sake)

this sounded like a Jesse Jackson rant. Lot of big words, some even used properly, and a lot of hot air.

[eulessismore]

Conservatives by nature of their philosophy do not legislate from the bench. They believe in simply judging based on what the Constitution says. Even liberals were not worried that Roberts was going to enact pro-conservative legislation from the bench--they were worried that he would be too much of a "strict constructionist."

And if it's a stupid discussion, you can blame it on the liberal who started it.

It sounds like they're more perfect than I'm convinced any human is. Here's a quote from that liberal turned conservative, the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky: ""So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship." I just wish I could find his quote about the left having no monopoly on stupidity, but, that's it in a nutshell.

[emmitt01]

emmitt-

your first post said "discus"

your second retort was to post rush limbaughs 10 famous racist statements from some ebony type magazine.

what are you upset about?

(1) The Bolton incident is true.....sgt to capt......come on emmitt.....even you can see that. I believe he was fired from his next job, too. Is that not affirmative action and racial quotas above qualifications?? These are just facts.....

(2) Didn't read your post??? what was there to read? nothing but a link to some ebony type magazine. nothing too intellectual there.

(3) African - American? I think 99% of us know you are A-A.....so what? Do you not agree that as an A-A, and other minorities in civil service, that you have a better chance of promotion than a Euro-American as how current racial quotas are applied from the lowest county level to federal government?? I would say that we, as a nation, are all aware of what the civil rights laws are all about which were, incidently, diametrically opposed to MLK's wishes of equality for all.

How could I take anything you said out of context since you didn't say anything?

Your comments appear to be defensive based, naturally, on territorial pride.....which is only natural.....however, it should be based on logical and fair outcomes. It is similar to the statue of "Blind Justice" holding the scales......fair and balanced. Nobody wants to read your rants on 40 acres and a mule, etc...ect....ect......a little over the top I thought.....but interesting.

lastly, congrats on passing your tests. be safe out there.

Since you continue to harp on the Terrell Bolton thing as proof of your point, wrongly, allow me to educate. He promoted people from Sgt. to assistant chief (there is no captain rank, but thanks for playing). He promoted his friends, some of whom were black and some of whom were not. The wrong in what he did was promoting people based on a personal relationship and not qualification...not because he did anything based on race. Similar to what Ivy league schools and businesses have done for whites for decades...again, based on personal relationships and not race. By the way, I enjoyed the tenor of your "even you can see that" comment. Even I can? Why, becasue I'm black? Because I'm a police officer? Because I'm male? Please do expound...

Second, you contradict and indict yourself within your last post:

How could I take anything you said out of context since you didn't say anything?

If I "didn't say anything" then how did you manage a solid three paragraphs of preaching about the ills of affirmative action, liberal thinking, or the comments made by Obama's Supreme Court nominee? Better yet, how did you mange to ascribe to me an opinion on any of these matters when I "didn't say anything" for you to use for fodder or to respond to? Perhaps you should go back and read what I said in my last response directly to you so as not to make further thinly veiled attempts to speak to me based on racial assumptions about my political leanings or views on things. You know, since I quoted an "ebony type magazine." Man, I couldn't make this stuff up. And as to

Your comments appear to be defensive based, naturally, on territorial pride

comment...wtf? Which territory are we referring to here? Dallas? America? Which territory am I, in your miopic view, supposed to be proud of? I don't think I could ever have an intelligent conversation with you (which begs the question of why I am trying) when you will never be able to have a discourse not based on your own predilections towards hating all things liberal or your suppositions of what my position must be from the start.

And please, pretty please, don't commit the most egregious of sins often committed by ultra right-wing thinkers. Don't invoke the name of MLK or some other ethnic hero to deflect any/all possible claims of racism and then go further to bastardize the ideologies of these people by assuming what position they would take on an issue...like affirmative action for instance. Yes, MLK was in favor of equality for all...when, and if, we could somehow reach a state of a level starting baseline. I'm not gonna say that he would/would not have been in favor of affirmative action at its inception but I will say that quoting his near utopian dream, all the while ignoring the true state of affairs in this country, is naive at best and abusive at worst. And while we're on the subject how exactly did you manage to bring affirmative action up in this conversation? Are you suggesting that Obama made his nomination based on race alone? And, if you are, did you have these thoughts before or after you learned anything about her personal or professional history? I'm willing to bet it was before because it best fits your left-wing hysteria views.

[emmitt01]

this sounded like a Jesse Jackson rant. Lot of big words, some even used properly, and a lot of hot air.

Brilliant summation. Any other actual substantive analysis you'd like to grace us with or shall I expect more comparisons to someone that the right considers the boogey man followed by a curt closing?

[UNT90]

Show me a liberal judge whose main concern is interpreting law rather than legislating from the bench and I will support him or her.

I don't want judges like this one who says the appellate court is for making policy.

The point is, who do you expect Pres. Obama to appoint? Justice Alito? Ain't gonna happen. He won the election, he gets to appoint his judges, as long as they fall within acceptable parameters to the American People, who pushed those parameters considerably to the left in the last election. We asked for it, we got it. As long as she hasn't shown horrible judgement from the bench, she gets appointed, no problem. Just pray for the health of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and, depending on what day it is, Kennedy (another dissapointing appointment by a conservative, Ronald Reagan). Pray no accidental deaths or heart attacks befall these Justices.

If Reagan and Bush had done thier job and not tried to play nice (the dems NEVER have) and appointed stronger judges than Souter (outright liberal) and Kennedy (judicial fence sitter), The Conservative judges, or law interpreters, would have had a 6-3 edge on the court for the past 10 years. The Texas law against homosexual conduct would have never been overturned, hence there would be no gay marriage debate (if it's illegal, marriage isn't an issue), so many more favorable decisions for law enforcement. Affirmative Action may well be a thing of the past, as it should be.

So many things could be different, if only conservatives weren't afraid to be conservatives.

[eulessismore]

Tiring thread, with all arguing in different ways for the same conclusion: Obama will nominate and the Senate will confirm.

Just to let you conservatives know that even the first justice you loved to hate has good advice for us all:

“I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures." - Earl Warren, American Politician, Judge

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor,

So she plans on judging cases based on personal experiences, rather than based on the constitution. Since she's never had a child(as far as we know so far?) it should be interesting when B.O. starts to push his abortion free for all's down the road.

Rick

---That comment really bothers me. I thought she was a good choice to start with. Any racial comment really turns me off. I understand what she is trying to say about the environment she came from but she should have been smart enough to leave the racial part out. That show bad judgement to me (for a judge) .... just as McCain showed terrible judgement (for a Presidential candidate) picking his VP --a woman from the wilderness who had never been to Europe or Asia (could not possibly understand life there) and had no understanding of large American cities and their problems either..

PS.. there are other issues in America besides the right to life one... the economy, international conditions, immigration, and the needless war are some. I hate abortion but I also hate pregnant 12,13, and 14 years olds, prostitutes dropping kids, unwanted and abused kids, and rape victims as well. Try teaching in a public school for awhile and maybe your attitude would change a bit. It is all abour making the best of a bad situation... I absolutely do agree with you on late term ones though... No one supports abortion, they just tolerate it in a bad situation.

[UNT90]

just as McCain showed terrible judgement (for a Presidential candidate) picking his VP

The Republican Party showed terrible judgement in picking McCain as thier nominee.

Good to see a liberal use the "A" word and not call it choice. Much props.

Edited May 28, 2009 by UNT90

[Mean Green 93-98]

No one supports abortion, they just tolerate it in a bad situation.

You haven't spent much time in the Northeast.

[CMJ]

The Republican Party showed terrible judgement in picking McCain as thier nominee.

No Republican was gonna beat Obama last November. Ronald Reagan would've lost. Not because Obama was a strong candidate(tho he arguably was with his oratory and such), but because the GOP was just plain toxic across the board to voters. Voters were blaming pretty much every problem in the country on Republicans according to polls. One guy, no matter who he was, couldn't save the ship. That ship was going down.

Honestly, I think McCain did pretty well not to get his ass totally kicked like a Mondale or McGovern. The GOP was in THAT dire of straits.

Edited May 28, 2009 by CMJ

[Censored by Laurie]

You haven't spent much time in the Northeast.

Ohhhhhh...snap...churchie droppin the hamma!

Did you know that the Skull and Bones Society at Yale got its name because of all the carcusses of 8 month term fetuses (or is it fetui...eh, who cares if you're just gonna kill 'em anyway) that collected in the Quad outside their house? It was an act of initiation...they had to knock the girl up, then 8 months later the abortion is performed in front of all the active brothers...the sexual organs are then roasted and feasted on by the pledges while the rest of the brothers play a game not unlike football with the remaining dead baby.

The Wire Coat Hanger Society is similar at Dartmouth...but no where near as classy...but then those Dartmouth-ites never are.

It might do you some good to leave your insular nest every once in a while.

[bstnsportsfan3]

No Republican was gonna beat Obama last November. Ronald Reagan would've lost. Not because Obama was a strong candidate(tho he arguably was with his oratory and such), but because the GOP was just plain toxic across the board to voters. Voters were blaming pretty much every problem in the country on Republicans according to polls. One guy, no matter who he was, couldn't save the ship. That ship was going down.

Honestly, I think McCain did pretty well not to get his ass totally kicked like a Mondale or McGovern. The GOP was in THAT dire of straits.

thats what i said when the election was happening and even before the election...it sucked...