Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Out of Context": Part II
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


As the mainstream media circles the wagons around Judge Sonia Sotomayor, to protect her from the consequences of her own words and deeds, its main arguments are distractions from the issue at hand. A CNN reporter, for example, got all worked up because Rush Limbaugh had used the word "racist" to describe the judge's words.

*** Special Offer ***

Since it has been repeated like a mantra that Judge Sotomayor's words have been "taken out of context," let us look at Rush Limbaugh in context. The cold fact is that Rush Limbaugh has not been nominated to sit on the highest court in the land, with a lifetime appointment, to have the lives and liberties of 300 million Americans in his hands.

Whatever you may think about his choice of words, those words and the ideas behind them do not change the law of the land. The words and actions of Supreme Court justices do. Anyone who doesn't like what Rush Limbaugh says can simply turn off the radio or change the station. But you cannot escape the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Nor will your children or grandchildren.

What does it say about a nominee to the Supreme Court that the most that her defenders can say in her defense is that her critics used words that her defenders don't like?

What does it say about her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters' biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds-- Richard Nixon-- had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.

Much in the past of Sonia Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. Both have a history of connections with people who promoted resentments against American society. La Raza ("the race") was Judge Sotomayor's Jeremiah Wright. If context is important, then look at that context.

Sonia Sotomayor has, in both her words and in her decision as a judge to dismiss out of hand the appeal of white firefighters who had been discriminated against, betrayed a racism that is no less racism because it is directed against different people than the old racism of the past.

The code word for the new racism is "diversity." The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.

What the Constitution says is "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans-- and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all of that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word "diversity."

The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have "empathy."

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.

It was not the law, but the judges, who changed equal rights into special rights and thereby set the stage for the new mantra of "diversity" that trumps equal rights. Diversity was Judge Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut.

When all else fails, supporters of Judge Sotomayor say that she is Hispanic and a woman, and that it would be politically dangerous to deny her a place on the Supreme Court. This is as much an insult to the intelligence of Hispanic and female voters as it is to the Constitution of the United States and to those who put their lives on the line for equal rights.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Big difference between Rush Limbaugh
And Sonia Sotomayor as you pointed out Dr. Sowell.

Nothing Rush has to say has the FORCE of Law.

Everything this woman seeks to do has the FORCE OF LAW.

Even if she perverts the very meaning of Law, the people of today do not know the difference it seems.

The Court has assumed unconstitutional powers as she has already shown "equal rights" is up to her to decide.

This woman is a very dangerous person to have so much power and she cannot be trusted to use it lawfully as she has already demonstrated in the fireman's case.


Constitutionally dangerous to ALLOW her


Thomas Sowell writes: "When all else fails, supporters of Judge Sotomayor say that she is Hispanic and a woman, and that it would be politically dangerous to deny her a place on the Supreme Court."


The neutered RINOs and politically correct hacks who say such things ought to be more concerned that it would be dangerous to EVERYONE's freedom and liberty to *allow* Sotomayor a place on the Supreme Court.

But true to their superficial nature, they are more concerned with the 'perceptions of the present' than with the consequences of their actions in the future.




Sydney J Harris on struggle
The late, lamented popular philosopher Sydney J. Harris wrote many years ago on the subject of struggle, suggesting that it can be crippling as well as strengthening:

"Men who have to struggle ferociously from an early age acquire weaknesses as well as strengths; they tend to become harsh, rigid, contemptuous of any values but conflict and victory, and incapable of adjusting to changing times and conditions. Since such men tend to rise to the top, they generally lead their countries into inappropriate combat, like a Napoleon or a Hitler.

"Everyone is aware of the perils of too much ease, but it is not as clear at first that struggle itself can be damaging if the handicap is so great that a man must sacrifice a large part of his personality in order to make King of the Hill. This is why so many public “successes” are private failures."

President Obama's nominee presumably does not have the potential to be a Napoleon or a Hitler, but she may well have an inappropriate loyalty to ideas inimical to our freedom.


Her Votes Are Already Cast
Does anyone really not know how Justice Sotomayor will vote on cases before her? We would do better by just automatically casting her 'vote' and then we wouldn't have to see any written opinions that effectively nuke current law. Or we could just give Justice Ginsburg two votes. What is the difference

We can't stop it
Obama's party and his minions in Congress have the numbers to vote this nutty racist and Constitution-hating woman onto the Supreme Court, and there is nothing that sensible people and lovers of the Constitution can do to prevent it, even if they tried, and it appears that the gutless RINOs in Congress are afraid to try.

How our government fell into the hands of these people I will never understand, but they are going to do damage to our government and way of life that cannot be undone.

I fear that the real America, the one our Founding Fathers envisioned, is on the way out, undone by an invasion of illegal immigrants, dumbed-down government education, and the poisonous political correctness and "affirmative action" of the 1960s that put this racist, anti-American fool Obama into the presidency, are ramming Sotomayor into the Supreme Court, and have put similar people in control of Congress.

As we descend now into socialism and tyranny as a result, those of us who lived in the old, great America will remember it fondly.

LET'S NOT FORGET...
.
...the OTHER QUOTE which is

EVEN MORE TROUBLING :

"...appellate court is where policy is made."

AHEM.

*U*N*I*T*E*D*
*S*T*A*T*E*S*
*C*O*N*S*T*I*T*U*T*I*O*N* , anyone?!

It's NOT "all about race/gender"...

...or Animal Farm "pigs" who think they're "wise latinas."

IT'S ABOUT STANDING UP FOR AMERICA's MOST PRECIOUS DOCUMENT.

The Eminent Domain Cases

Brody v. Village of Port Chester and Didden v. Port Chester are two cases where Sotomayor voted against the private property owners and allowed the local government to grab land or ownership through eminent domain. In the Didden case, the mayor of Port Chester threatened to condemn private property, if the owner did not "joint venture" with one of his cronies.

The best description of the Court's decisions in the two cases is "an extortionate use of the state's power of eminent domain."

Maybe all is not lost ...
A few suggestions to those conducting the hearing on her nomination:

1. Call some retired judges who understand "equality under the law".

2. Call Dr. Sowell. After all, he should be able to appreciate the empathy argument (sarcasm off).

3. Ask her for some examples from her past as to how her being a Latina played into her decisions. Of course, she'll spin that one, but her evasion would itself be very telling!

Maybe all is not lost (part 2) ...
Looking at her past decisions should be perfectly OK. The Left certainly did that to Justice Clarence Thomas!

The Real Sad State Of The Case.
We've been watching the circus of controversy that surrounds Barry's Supreme Court nominee and I hope we continue to beat the dead horse of racism with the proverbial common sense stick.
I'll give Judge Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt that she'd probably like to take that idiotic statement back, but then you look at the Ricci Case and you wonder, what was she thinking? Ruling with the City of New Haven in the name of "Diversity".
I am embarrased (as a Black Man) to note that Black Firefighters in New Haven didn't pass the test. It wasn't like some passed, but not with high enough scores, all of them failed the test period. In my humble opinion this is truly the sad state of this case. And to make matters worse the city legislator in the name of "Diversity" threw out the test scores, they screwed up just like they did when they tried to support Immigration Legislation by instituting the dreaded "Elm City Card" you would think they would've learned by now, no dice.
They see themselves as proud LIBERALS trying to help their fellowman when in fact they're just enablers of really bad ghetto behavior.

Bork her!
I think the Republicans are full of chicken feed! Why use kid gloves, when the Dems have NEVER worn the same? Need examples?

Bork, Thomas, Scalia. Only the latter made it without them making it personal, on a level that Thomas called "a high-tech lynching."

Make it ugly, GOP, or lose. Bork her.

There are no accidents ...
What Sotomayor said and how she acted in Ricci are the true indicators of her thinking process. Nevermind that she is sorry to have been caught now that she needs a clean slate. I'll bet that Geithner (sp?) wishes that he had paid his income taxes too.

I'm about the same age as Tom (Sowell) and in my life I've never seen a president acting as brazenly as is Barack Obama!!

Btw, thank you BigBelly ... your last line is perfect.

Sotomayor's LIFE in context!

Even the NYSlimes wrote that Soto's career has been "advancing persons of color, over whites, based on race and national origin."

Reporter David Kirkpatrick writes, Sonia "has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career."

While at Princeton, Sonia headed up Accion Puertorriquena, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare DEMANDING that her school hire Hispanic teachers.

At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that DEMANDED more Latino professors and administrators.

She "shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke."

"After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics."


Sotomayor's statement, “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.” capsulated exactly what she’s all about and it’s NOT the CONSTITUTION… which btw, she has already sworn to uphold and has NOT!

Context
Aside from quoting someone else to show how poor that someone else's judgment is; in what conceivable context is it good to say that X race is better at Y job than Z race because X race's A characteristic is different?

In or out of context Judge Sotomayor said "I would hope 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."

Short version: She expects that Hispanic women who grew up poor make better judgments than middle-class white males BECAUSE of racial and class differences. Not despite, but BECAUSE.

More context
Here's some context for Judge Sotomayor's racist statement (from the same lecture):

"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. ... I am ... not so sure that I agree with the statement."

She said the part about a wise latina making better decisions than a white male as one of her reasons for not agreeing with Justice O'Connor.

Why should it be
a surprise that a man unqualified to be president, who has appointted unqualified people to nearly every position in his administration has appointed another unqualified individual to the supreme court?

Doug: You're right, it shouldn't be

a surprise, any more than it shouldn't be a surprise that he's appointed thugs like Holder, etc.




IF
The criteria for a Supreme Court Justice has been 'changed' to the "richness" of life experience and "empathy", then a 'born alive' baby of abortion having survived and grown up, SHOULD BE THE VERY BEST APPOINTEE.

We all knew
what kind of judge's Ovomit would pick if he were elected. One that will do his bidding while helping to shred the Constitution.

It's really hard to believe that Free Americans elected this Marxist monster!

Let the show begin...
...The confirmation hearing will surely be televised on C-SPAN,and as a retiree political junkie I expect to watch all of it.But as a veteran watcher of this show boating Supreme Court procedure,I know that deals will have already been worked out in smoke-filled back rooms by the committee members.The Dem chairman will already have promised some Pub member a judgeship in his district,to appoint whoever the Pub wants to appoint,for political reasons.The Dem chairman may also have given some Pub member an opportunity to rant and rave on national TV,because the Pub is up for re-election.Politics never ceases on Capitol Hill because,after all,that is what they do for a living.When the Pubs are in the majority,the same thing goes on.

The Latina will be confirmed.You can take that to the bank.

Racism = collectivism
Racists apply the supposed attributes of an entire race to an individual who happens to be of that race.

To a racist, the characteristics of an individual are superseded by the [often stereotyped] characteristics of the collective (race).

BTW, it makes no difference if the particular characteristic is good or bad. The remark "all purple people are intelligent" is as racist as the remark "all purple people are lazy".

It is no surprise that Leftists [who espouse collectivist viewpoints in politics, economics ..] are also guilty of RACISM, another form of collectivism. In fact, they are just being consistent with the rest of their collectivist ideology. Wrong, but consistent!

Supporters of Judge Sotomayor's bristle with rage when her comments are termed racist. In their minds, the life-experiences of a non-white female liberal give her a free pass against such charges. Her critics - mindful of Judge Sotomayor's 'special' immunity - feel the need to say that she is guilty of REVERSE racism.

However, viewed in the REAL context of the above definition of racism, Judge Sotomayor's remarks clearly show her racist world view.

Note: as far as I know, Ayn Rand was the first writer to identify Racism as a form of collectivism.

Criteria
Today's criteria for DC Supremes include the willingness to amend the Constitution anytime that five of the nine want to do so. They have already eliminated our republic (Article 4, Section 4) and instituted a "wonderful" democracy so that current fads can supercede established principles.

Nam65-66: I have no doubt you're right..

"The Latina will be confirmed."

The most I'm hoping for is that the Republicans will (for once) do their job; ask tough and pointed questions, and at least be on record opposing her.



A Privilege and a Pleasure
Dr. Sowell, thank you again for an intelligent, non-shrill, "matter of fact" article. I look so forward to reading anything you write and catching you on the radio and TV. I especially liked your last line "This is as much an insult to the intelligence of Hispanic and female voters as it is to the Constitution of the United States and to those who put their lives on the line for equal rights." Just because the person who is being nominated to the bench is a women, DOES NOT mean that she is automatically going to represent me, nor should I expect that the only way that I will get my "justice" in the Supreme Court is by having and woman, black, hispanic, gay and on and on. In fact, I would have to say that her partisan politics and race/gender based beliefs would DISQUALIFY her as a rational, constitutional and dispassionate jurist for our highest court in the land. Why do we women think is it ok to disparage men while they face certain annilation if they so much utter something about us? (Larry Summers, Harvard fiasco)

Republicans, wimps or not?
Republicans are still debating on how to market themselves for the next election. We will soon see if they have any principles or if they will remain bipartisan--another term for collaborating with the enemy.

Racism
Racism works both ways. If I said, " a decision made by a white male with the experience that that entails, will in more cases than not, be a better decision than that of a hispanic woman", it would be called a racist remark and I a racist. If anyone denies that, he or she is a liar. So, it can also be said that Sotomayor's comments are racist. Furthermore, the statement was not taken out of context. If you read the whole speech it is more damning that when taken alone. The full emphasis of that speech was that she was superior because she was a hispanic woman and not any other kind of person.

As an aside, if white males have attended all the great schools and have had all the great training that they are claimed to have had, and at the same time, all others have been discriminated against and therefore have a lesser education and experience, then it follows that a white male's decisions would indeed be superior to those of hispanic women. Therefore, all judges and people in charge of governmental operations should be white males. Afterall, my goodness gracious. Now you can see how bad her statements are. Put the shoe on the other foot.

Such talk that anyone is better because of their race, ethnic background, or gender is nonsense. That is what she believes; nonsense. Do we want a justice who utters nonsense? We all think not, whether we admit it or not. Now you know.


A Mother
would in my opinion make better judgments than a
woman who made a wrong choice in her marriage (divorced) and never had to worry about providing for and nurturing anyone other than her self. A man or women who is determined to achieve a goal surely has an easier time if not "burdened" with the need to maintain relationships with a spouse and children. Having a successful marriage and raising children would surely provide better experience and judgment. An American citizen who joins any group that works against our nation's laws and terrritory(La Raza)is not worthy of confirmation.

Oldprof
Thanks for your comment. I had not heard that view of "struggle" before. Great insight. See, your education and experience do have merit.

Sotomayor
Once again I remind everyone that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. Sotomayor will be a very liberal judge, which means she will disavow the constitution as it is plainly written, and substitute a different document when she makes herdecisions. She hasalways done so, and will continue to do so. Her life's experiences will allow her to do nothing else. Now you know.

What the Constitution is
Chief Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Just what will this travesty of an appointment say the Constitution is once she gets on the bench!

It is time to take back our country
Dr.Sowell makes such a good & valid case for us citizens to TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY! Now is the time. Let us begin doing it, by whatever means necessary! This is revolution not a picnic! Let us reinstate our Constitution!

You've been told folks...
...that your property rights and guarantees under the (old) Constitution are worth zippo in the views of your new-ish federal administration.

Given the general trend of statist control behaviour these days, I'd not wait for them to "come for your neighbour" before I speak up, were I you.

And those who think themselves safe because of their politics need to look closely at the political reality of Germany in 1933 to 1939. The winds of "change" often change course in the midst of such complacency.

Latinos
I have no clue how South America got dubbed with
the name latin America, since there are hardly any latin people in all of related lands. There
are so few latin descendants in Mexico it actually is laughable.
This may seem trite, but if you don't know who you are it's hard to tell someone else, much.

La Raza in not acceptable.
Membership in La Raza alone should disqualify Sotomayor from the Supreme Court. She will disregard the constitution and use her "empathy" and promote diversity in many ways.
Tom Sowell has it exactly right. She is not qualified.

Bill_FL: I agree, "Membership in La Raza

alone should disqualify Sotomayor from the Supreme Court."

But with the liberal Congress, I'm afraid Nam65-66 is right..

"The Latina will be confirmed."


Empathy...
is NOT justice.

Empathy...
is NOT justice.

WHAT?
Is our entire society so embroiled and hypnotized by the soap opera of our politics that they do not realize the REALITY that We the People are LOSING our Country and our Freedom under our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law?
We have been reduced to being the governments audience, having bought their ticket for their never ending programing. Liberal left programing which is locking all exit doors and trapping us all within their theater of DEPENDENCE.

This is NOT a fail accompli.
The dims do not yet have 60 seats, if the republicans want to start their come back, this is where they should draw the line in the sand.

This women and obama are in the pay back business, the rule of law means nothing to them, it's about decreasing whatever power the white establishment still holds and they will PC this to the Nth degree to get this racist women on the bench.

When people like these who see everything through a prism of whatever their particular persuasion might be, we all lose. As Dr Sowell so ably points out, it's supposed to be equal opportunity for all, if you can't cut it, that's on you.

In the Ricci case this women showed that she is not fit to sit on any court, no less the highest in the land...someone should call for her impeachment, not her elevation.

Saying what you mean
I would guess that the only time Dr. Sowell has to clear up what he says is to educate the listener on the subject at hand, not to manipulate the meaning.

Like planted seeds, if the soil is poor to begin with, the plant won't produce. That's why keeping people dumb about rules, means the rule makers get to always win. We've seen contract law reinvented without proper legislative procedure, so guess what else is equally vulnerable? I would think anything in the document it is found in.

I detect a sense of ire
in Dr. Sowell's comments, and for good reason. The founders intended our nation to be one of limited government, and for the courts to act as a check on legislative authority. It is neither Judge Sotomayor's job nor Obama's job to attempt to foster "empathy" and/or to remake this country in accordance with their ideals. It shouldn't matter if Judge Sotomayor had to "struggle" -- what matters is her commitment to applying the constitution in the manner in which the framers intended. Period.

poorgrandchildren, Justice Hughes was
WRONG!!!

Dr. Sowell, Thank you! I have seen you on Glen Beck the last couple of days and it should be required viewing and your books required reading for everyone in Congress and the SCOTUS. They need to then provide a book report on what your book means. The reports should be posted so that we can then decide if they have what is necessary to keep their jobs.

Soto
Will indeed do a disservice to the SCOTUS with her empathy rule. Start now, people. NO, NO, and NO to your reps in Critter land.

WAKE UP People
WE the people are getting screwed. How much more can this present administration take away what my ancestors fought for during the American Revolution.

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"The founders intended our nation to be one of limited government, and for the courts to act as a check on legislative authority."

While the Framers of our Constitution designed a "limited Federal Government" they created a Republic, a "government of laws and not of men." The Federal Courts function was to see that the laws were applied as written and enacted, including our Constitution. The Courts were never "empowered" to applied the law according to the "spirit" of the Constitution. Somewhere, perhaps in Marbury v. Madison, this all changed. An empathic Judge is not a problem as long as he simply executes his function to apply the written law. It only when the Supremes began to perceive the "spirit" of the Constitution that their "empathy" became a problem.

Soto....
How can she be a judge period if her comments would disqualify her as a juror? The irony is mind blowing.

Dr. Sowell, you always make solid sense.
Thanks so much for your words.
And thanks for appearing on Glenn Beck's show so that your words of wisdom can be spread.



Re: The Supremes Oath of Office
The oath of office for Supreme Court Justices was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which passed by the 1st U.S. Congress. It is very edifying with regards to the duties of the Supremes:

Section 8.
And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Each Supreme Court Chief and Associate Justice swears to "administer justice" without "empathy" for either party. Additionally, they swear to "perform all the duties incumbent" on them - "agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." In otherwords, to apply the law, not make it up as they go.

As Congress, according to Article III of our Constitution has the authority to "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It cannot be much of a limitation on the authority of the legislature.

Rich not Wealthy
I do believe that you have it figured out! If everyone had to read Dr. Sowell's books and opinions and then furnish a report on them, it would clear up a lot of years of the dumbing down of the electorate. We could then start electing people that actually were intelligent enough to serve. Well done!

Dr. Sowell
Thank you sir. John Acton,good post.I would suggest to all people to read the book Political incorrect Guide to American history,you will learn many things not taught in schools and why they weren't

Re: Here come da Judge
"The dims do not yet have 60 seats, if the republicans want to start their come back, this is where they should draw the line in the sand."

Unfortunately the GOP Senate includes Snowe and Collins.

The Constitution ?
I question your, " This is as much.....female voters.." I'll bet the majority, by far, support her and do not feel insulted." That's because they, too, disregard the Constitution and equal rights and merely think of "Latino" and "female."
Do you really think that with the falling standards of education in the U.S (see "Dumbest Generation Getting Dumber" in today's Townhall)the Constitution is understood? Especially by new immigrants.
Good job we have you to remind us but how many will read this site ?

Appoint David Duke
If LaRaza is no big deal a a racist organization why not appoint the head of KKK as a Supreme Court Justice, it is equally stupid.

The key element here is the Unitied States Constitution not someone's idea of feel good law!!

This adminstratioin is out of control and the RINO's in congress that are helping to take down our country must go at the next election.

Just Another Nail.
As much is being said about Dear Leader's choice for SCOTUS,it is, in the grand scheme of things, just another nail in our coffin.

Our obituary was written when Barack Hussein Obama was seated in our White House. We had all manner of hints at who and what he was from his compadres in Chicago.

We turned over the keys to the kingdom to a man we know almost nothing about...his place of birth,his beliefs,his foreign ties with militant Muslims,etc.

Yes,I'm afraid our funeral plans are set. It did not need to be this way and it still can be stopped.

It will take some person with clout and charisma. At present I don't know who that is. I think everyone is afraid of antagonizing the
powerful. We have seen too much retribution already.

Query . . .
if one's background/life story is so important to shaping one's viewpoint, why should we not conclude that Obama embraces the views of Jeremiah Wright?

I'm all ears lefties. Feel free to educate me, and try not to use the name "Bush" in your reply.

Re: Demographics 101
"I have no clue how South America got dubbed with the name latin America, since there are hardly any latin people in all of related lands."

Hmmm! Then where did all those Hispanic Surnames come from? They all can't be in the US of A, can they? BTW, Mexico is not part of South America.

LAW APPLICATION
IT SEEMS THE BIGGEST VIOLATORS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT. BOTH ARE SWORN TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION BUT BOTH ONLY USE IT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL OR POLITICAL ENDS. IS IT TIME FOR A NEW REVOLUTIONARY WAR? IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET OUR RIGHTS AS SET OUT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ARE BY FORCE.

JUST LOOK AT AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. THIS IS DEFINITELY A VIOLATION OF THE "EX POST FACTO" PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION BUT OUR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS KEEPS PUSHING FOR AMNESTY. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE SWORN TO PROTECT AND DEFEND. GOD HELP US. CONGRESS AND THE LAW WILL NOT.

poorgrandchildren
Wow! The definition of bipartisan is collusion with the enemy! I knew I hated that term.
anglersreward
You are on to something. All of the senate hearings are starting to look too much like the Roman coliseums where the innocent, and politically incorrect, were fed to the lions for the amusement of the "democracy".
Is there any such thing as a republican member of congress with a backbone? How long will conservatives fiddle while America burns?

Re: Here come da Judge
"If LaRaza is no big deal a a racist organization why not appoint the head of KKK as a Supreme Court Justice, it is equally stupid."

We have already had one, Hugo Black, an FDR nominee to the Supremes in 1937. Black's Kluxer's "empathetic" hatred for Catholism lead to his terrible 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, where for the first time the idea of "seperation of Church and State" was found in the "spirit" of our Constitution. Many of his anti-religious decisions included Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which declared state-sanctioned prayer in public schools unconstitutional.

Bullseye . . .
As always, Dr. Sowell's remarks hit the bullseye squarely in the middle. Is there any way he could become a Supreme Court Justice? We need more Supreme Court Justices who would base their opinions on the Constitution and on the facts, not on empathy as defined by the goals of political correctness.


Re: Workers of the World unite
Barry (Karl) Hussein Obama was elected as a great healer, one who would bring the country together. So far his entire Administration has been directed at one thing - Class and Race Struggle - ala Karl Marx. Senorita Sotomayor's Supremes nomination is another pawn in his strategy.

Of course, like lemmings "the People" continued to be "charmed" by the flute of this "Pied Piper."

jacton
A hispanic surname doesn't make you of latin descent, no more than a slave taking on the master's name. It is absurd for you to say that.
Instead of demographics look at History.

BIGbelly
Excellent post and much appreciated by someone who was born and raised in New Haven.

When I was in elementary school (Edward's Street), prejudice abounded. The room was always filled by an order that the teacher's obviously didn't think was noticed. All the smart kids went into aisle 1, and the slower you looked and the darker your skin, the farther along you were placed. The one black boy (Carl) was in the last row and the last seat. (After 70 years I still remember Carl because #1. No matter how well he did, he stayed in the same seat while I was able to move to aisle 1 and #2. He was the only boy who could beat me in a race.)

I had hoped that things had changed over the years, but I am fooling only myself. Ya can't go home again, so when I left Florida, I chose to come west.

Good luck!

The Constitution
is being hijacked by those with their own agenda; not the good of this country. I would imagine that Mr. Obama and Ms Sotomayor both received their educations through the system of quotas for minorities or some such other favoritisms and with the help of we taxpayers.
Equal justice under the law means nothing any more.
As for the Republicans---right now, they can't find their hind-ends with both hands. I seriously doubt they mount any opposition. In fact, you hear very little from any Republican!

Liberal definition of equal rights
To wit: All those ideas, ideologies, policies and propositions supported by liberal theology shall be equal unto all. Anyone who fails to recognize said rights without question will be mercilessly persecuted as a bigot, racist, homophobe and anti-intellectual.

Dr. Sowell
Just loved the two columns. You say so well what the good people of this country are thinking. This would be a know go for a white man, and or conservitive. Thank you again for pointing out the racist intent of the lib. establishment.
Kirk

Obama Citizenship Issue Rages ON!
Use these links to get involved in the raging controversy to force Fake POTUS B. Hussein O. to release ALL documents required to prove that he is a natural born citizen:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/obama_petition


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 98546


http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?
DEPARTMENT_ID=13&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=84&ITEM_ID=2866



Visit these links. Spread the word. Help to reveal the truth.

Thanks,
USPatriot56

What About Red State Dem Senators.
The method by which the democrats took control of congress was to run more conservative candidates in states that lean towards the Red side of the spectrum. These candidates won victories due to the fact that voters now had an alternative to their GOP counterparts who spent like drunken sailors with Bush, got involved in scandals, (Jack Abramhof, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, etc.). These democrats are pro second amendment, and some are pro life. They were against the Iraq war. Combined with their other more conservative positions and the general distrust of the GOP, these blue dog democrats were propelled into victories in traditionally conservative states. Because of those victories, Democrats now control both houses of congress. Some of them have already stood up to the new, liberal, marxist president in a couple of areas. Gun control was one of them.

How will these blue dog democrats react to Sotomayor? Will they toe the party line and give her their vote? Or will they take a stand and vote against her? It is likely that she will still be confirmed. However, if she has a very slim margin, this could be a rebuke to Obama and might give a boost to conservatism, even if in a small manner. I don't think she'll get a huge majority of the Senate votes for her confirmation. I "hope" there are still many Senators who will vote with the constitution in mind, and not PC politics.

Brain dead in D.C.
DR. Sowell is absolutly correct. Unfortuneatly, most of the U.S. senate is not only useless, but totally brain dead. Abandon all hope. Regards, ARROW.

Imagine
how Sotomayer will rule when New York City sues Tempe, Arizona over water in the Colorado River.

Those in the know,
like Harry Reid, for instance, who hasn't read any of her decisions, will force this idiot "woman" through the confirmation hearings. Our idiot RINO's won't do anything, nor say a word, for fear of not getting re-elected or for want of a particular favor.

I'm disgusted with the whole process. I, for one, will not vote for John Cornyn if he doesn't at least make an effort to exert some pressure on this "administration." Our republican senators are failing the American people miserably and we should show what we think of that in 2010. Don't want to oppose her to get the vote? Let's see how that works for them in the next elections.

Re: Demographics 101
"A hispanic surname doesn't make you of latin descent, no more than a slave taking on the master's name. It is absurd for you to say that.
Instead of demographics look at History."

Hmmm! So your father, grandfather, great grandfather, great-great grandfather's surname is no indication of your hertigage. Interesting hypothesis. Your corollary being that virtually everyone living in "Latin America" can trace their ancestry back to a male slave. I am sure you have datum support your interesting hypothesis. Would you care to share?

BTW, Latin America is called "Latin America" because it was discovered and conquered by folks from countries who spoke Romanic languages that were derivatives of Latin. Mainly Spanish and Portuguese, although the French got involved also. As I recall, those "evil" European White Men were credited with the virtually annihilated the native American population.

Pre-Columbian estimates of the total population of both North and South America combined ranged from 8 to 145 million. David Stannard in his book "American Holocaust" puts the "butcher's bill" at around 100 million killed. Those that were shared of female persuasion were probably ravished and raped, as were the customs of the times.

Powerful stuff
Dr. Sowell again overwhelms the stupid with powerful reasoning. Terrific article. If you feel that all racial, gender and cultural stereotypes are wrong, then you have to admit that the "positive" stereotypes are just as wrong as the negative ones. If Ms. Sotomayor had substituted the word "different" for "better" there wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Would she reach a "different" conclusion because of her life experience? It's not a particularly desirable trait in a judge, but understandable. Claiming that she can reach a "better" decision because of her culture is an undeniably bigoted statement.

Dr. Sowell draws a clear line in line in the sand on the subject of identity politics. The Sotomayor hearings may provide the best opportunity yet to discredit this corrupting idea.

Our Washington Republicans
are the people who could really make a statement. All I read about is how they are worried about their seat in the government. While this is probably a justified concern for them, don't any of them have the courage and cojones to do what is right?

I am amazed and disturbed by the news almost every day. We are on a fast track to socialism.

Re: The "Civil War" Part Deux
"If the Texas State House and Senate voted to declare unConstitutional the EPA, HHS, etc, then those agencies would be legally null and void in Texas, and the Governor would have authority to send the Rangers to close all of those offices."

I believe the last times States tried something like this it started a Civil War.

Facism anyone?
We are so obviously headed to Facism folks. This Nations's citizens are mostly dum-dums thanks to the Department of Uneducation and the MSM. We are nothing more than a flock of sheep being herded toward Facism!
True history, which isn't taught any longer, is being repeated.
Long live the Czar!

Another great column--
Since this Sotomanure belongs to la raza as has been reported, that to me is a dangerous factor in itself. But we can only imagine the spineless sell-outs of both political parties will go through the motions of "questioning her" but in the end she will be unfortunately placed on the supreme court. And hey, I don't care if she is a wise latina, I am a wise American of Nowegian and Russian heritage. But am proud to be a 2nd generation American. Maybe, just maybe all the caucasians of let's say Scottish, or Czech, or German, or Italian, or Irish, or Icelandic, or Ukraine or Swedish background would make the case that their expeiences due to their ethnic heritage would make them a better judge than a latina. Can you see the whiners screaming their liberal brainless heads off.
Anyway, let's hope that she feels the heat too much and goes back to puerto rico for a 40 year vacation.

Like I already said...
...it is unsurprising that an America-hating fascist and racist of a president has nominated an America-hating fascist and racist to the Supreme Court.

The only thing that should give us solace is that she is only replacing another America-hating fascist and racist on the court. No decision she makes will be any different from the decisions Souter would have made instead.

Sotomayor is NOT Puerto Rican
Man I get tired of hearing about Puerto Rican heritages from those born and raised in New York and other places in the states. Those people who often dont speak Spanish and have never set foot on the island. What do they know about Puerto Rican heritage? If anything she's a Newyorican as we islanders call them. They even consider themselves above the islanders. So Svara's statement about her "going back" to Puerto Rico is just as ignorant. Dr. Sowell has hit another one out of the park. He presents yet another facet of the argument overlooked by all the talking heads. Wasnt it Obama who said "words matter"? Well then, lets look at those words why dont we?

So no to more liberal judges today!
Send a message to Congress and say "NO" to more libeal judges and yes to the Constitution.

Join the "NO Liberal Judges" campaign - and pass it on!
http://www.conservativeoutpost.com/campaign/cta/no_liberal_ judges

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"The Constitution does not list any 'qualifications' for being a Supreme Court Justice. That is because the Senate is required to 'Advise and Consent' to the appointment. The Senate is supposed to serve as a check if the President nominates a foolish or unlearned person."

Actually, the reason for Senatorial "Advise and Consent" for Federal Judicial Appointment, as well as for other key Federal positions, was to limit the President's opertunity for nepotism or rewarding unqualified partisan paybacks.

Article III also provides: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ..."

Interestingly, there seems to be little or nothing in law with regards to removal of a Supreme Court Justice, or other Federal Judge from office should that fail the "good Behavior" test. In fact, there is no definition of what constitutes behavior that may classified as less than "good."

There has never been a Federal Supreme Court Justice removed from office, although many Judges of lesser Federal Courts have been impeached. Constitutionally, should ever the case arrive that a Chief Justice of the US Supremes be impeached, only that Chief Justice is "authorized" to preside at their Senatorial Impeachment Trial. Very interesting!

Sotomayor, go home
OK.

It's clear to all that Sotomayor is A PROBLEM. She is a liar, too, as are her enablers. The Court does not need this. The country does not need this.

Listen social engineers: Sotomayor's being a “Hispanic” means nothing other than that she may want to "press 2 for Spanish" and that her skin has a pinch or two of melanin in it.

Big deal.

Her being a woman means nothing except that she sits down to pee and is out of sorts once a month every month.

So what?

For this we're all supposed to put our lives on hold, turn to her and genuflect?

We don't need Judge Sotomayor's “empathy,” as we do not need That One's -- or his lying mantra about “change.” What we need is a judge who understands law and applies it, who knows the Constitution and honors it, who knows the place of a judge and refuses to overstep.

This platano-munching, South Bronx-bred Madame DeFarge who has “struggled in life" is not that judge. And we have no need of or interest in her life “experiences” anyhow.

Our only legitimate interest is in the establishment and maintenance of justice for all -- under the Constitution. As Mr. Sowell says, the new breed of racism they call “diversity” is not the means of pursuing these ends. It is an appalling outrage and a hellish lie.

OK, she knows, she knows -- this is on tape, and she should never say that. Ha-ha. She knows, and she's not promoting that, not advocating that; no, she's just … you know … Jenny from the Block.

Sotomayor GO HOME. And take That One with you.

Thomas Sowell
There is no one that I know of that can put pen to paper and say it better then Thomas Sowell, what an American treasure.

SOMETIMES A WOMAN CAN REACH A BETTER
CONCLUSION than a White man who hasn't lived that life.

I realize a Supreme Court Justice must reach conclusions based on the law. However, I am sure she has witnessed cases where the law was wrong. I am not advocating legislating from the bench, just ponting out that her conclusions may be justifiable based on her life experiences.

Until the 1960's my state, county or city did not prosecute male spouses for beating their wives. It was just considered domestic disputes. A woman could be beaten to a pulp and by the legal system it was something the couple had to work out. When a woman who was raped the courts presented it to look like she invited the brutal rape. Thank goodness the laws were changed, but from a woman's point of view then I would have judged these situations differently than a white male would have. Just as the women in the Muslim world would do today.


On rational dialogue
I want to thank Dr Sowell for once again bringing a rational argument. I have come to the point where I will no longer read either sides emotional points if they are not backed up by facts. I live in SF now and had to listen to another "blame Bush for our economic problem monologue last night". The left wants no responsibility for congress. The right, however, is sounding just as unreasonable to me. We need to limit ourselves to the facts as Dr. Sowell does so well. Only facts eventually beats arguments based on rhetoric and emotion. I take that back. More overblown rhetoric often wins out too. But do we really want people in power, who start telling how we have to pray? I was watching Mitt Romney on CNN last night and wishing I had taken a closer look at him in the last election.

Rowly-Anne-Nee-Joel-Doug-HappyJake-Other
It STILL comes down to this:
http://www.lawyersstationery.com/graphics/Bronze%20Lady%20J ustice%20Statue.jpg

The blindfold and the scales make American Justice what it is. If they are out of the equation, we might as well return to being an English colony.

Interesting....
I've been reading Town Hall and the comments for a couple of years now and I can't recall ever seeing such a one sided group of comments... There is nearly always a counter-point; whether it's a good point or not; there is always somebody to counter the argument. I'm not seeing it this time... Maybe this is a positive signal for us... that nobody will step to the plate to defend her because her opinions are indefensible.

While Sonia is on page one....
We fail to read Chavez saying Obama is left of him, and OBL is threatening more attacks because of Obama, Iran goes nuclear and Korea launches missle and detonates a nulear bomb. Whoever is backing our president and Muslim Manchurian Candidate is smiling

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"I realize a Supreme Court Justice must reach conclusions based on the law. However, I am sure she has witnessed cases where the law was wrong. I am not advocating legislating from the bench, just ponting out that her conclusions may be justifiable based on her life experiences."

"Wrong" in what respect? If a law is contrary to the written Constitution or excedes Congress' Article I Section 8 authorities it is an easy call. However, if a judge believes an otherwise proper law doesn't allow for them to reach their "preferred" conclusion based only on their "empathy" because they wouldn't have written the law the way that the Congress had enacted it, then their only choice is to "apply the law as written," quit the bench, and run for Congress, and change the law.

If sotomayor is

approved by the Senate, will all of the SOTUS cases in which she participates be null and void once it is accepted that obama is ineligible to be POTUS? Or will it just be those cases in which she is part of a 5-4 majority?

Bottom Line: Sotomayor will be confrimed
All you repubs/cons can whine, cry and complain all you want. The bottom line is Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and seated on the ussc. Simply put, republicans dont have the numbers to stop or derail her nomination.

It would not have mattered who Prez Obama nominated for the ussc because repubs/cons were prepared to denounce whoever it was as a "leftist". the question then is did they truly expect a leftis potus to nominate someone
other than a leftist jurist? you have got to be kidding.

Elections due have consequences and to the victors go the spoils. democrats are exercising
their newfound political muscle and there is basically nothing the repubs can do to stop them.

do the math..

We will only be the greatest country
if the best person gets the job. Screw diversity. What a stupid concept.

Reba;
Why we have laws, and the means to change them through reason and debate. Once these laws are passed and put in place, we all know the rules and how they should be followed. If, a judge, supreme or otherwise makes the rules on his or her feelings, how will we know what rules to follow. The laws apply to us all and provide our guide. The world changes from the telegraph to the computer. Our laws change too with the times. Our Constitution has laid the ground work for this nation. We mus continue to build and rely on that foundation. It is fine to have "empathy" but we must rely on the laws as they are written.

Sotomayor
feels a need to be empathetic instead of impartial. Empathetic toward whom? Middle age white guys. White firemen? Empathy means taking the law into your own hands. She has power issues. She feels she knows better than the law of the land. Is it because she is a wise latina? Only she can tell. Puerto Rico is not poverty stricken. If she was poverty stricken in NYC welcome to the club. Most people are just trying to keep their heads above water there. TAXES.

Left Angle...please
Use your head. The reason we are so incensed about Sotomayor is her BLATANT racist statement and her CLEAR record of social engineering. No one in the history of SCOTUS nominees is as FLAGRANTLY biased and willing to shred the constitution as Sonia Sotomayor. Is THIS the kind of unchecked power you Democrats think is a GOOD thing? If you do, ya'll are terds...

Judges should be Robots?
according to what I am reading repubs/cons think judges should be robots. there is no human factor involved or mitigating circumstances. the law says what it says and if a person breaks it, the jury should be given instrutions as to and up or down decision. did the defendent break the law or not. if they did then the judge has no choice in sentencing. the defendent is guilty and there should be no variance in sentencing. the penalties are already written.

Maybe we need to eliminate judges and juries and replace the whole judicial system with computerized machines and let them administer justice . then the human element will be eliminated, just as repubs/cons like. an automated judicial system..think of THAT

"Out of Context":
Another first rate article! Thank you Dr. Sowell for your many lucid points.

I'm tired of hearing Hispanics being called a "race". With that, of course, comes the mountain of baggage that "race" engendered, like perpetual victimhood and an inordinate, skewed sense of entitlement. In my mind, there is no "race" except the human race. Just because I was born Belgian does not make me a member of a separate race. Insisting that you are disadvantaged because of race is a sure way to keep your place there in perpetuity, except for the token handout to the whiners, instead of proving your individual worth through hard work. For instance, most Asians don't play the “race” card and don’t see themselves as victims and many, even most, make the best of the many opportunities available to all regardless of "race".

Charles Krauthammer on Sotomayor and the Ricci case: "And on her statements about the inherent differences between groups, and the superior wisdom she believes her Latina physiology, culture and background grant her over a white male judge. They perfectly reflect the Democrats' enthrallment with identity politics, which assigns free citizens to ethnic and racial groups possessing a hierarchy of wisdom and entitled to a hierarchy of claims upon society."

Miguel Estrada
Did the left defend him?

Hey, Left Angle , do the spelling
Yes, you crow that Sotomayor will be “confrimed” and seated on the 'ussc.”

And you've included the obligatory droolings about conservative “crying” and “whining” and all your other leftie projections. Any idiot can say all of that. And any idiot did.

But can you answer a few simple questions?

Contrary to you diaper-soiling savages on the Left, who resort only to character-assassination in opposing judicial nominees (Bork, Thomas, etc.), we on the right make consistently clear what our philosophical objections are to left-wing candidates. We know what's up with Sotomayor.

So tell me:

Who was it that ever said personal “experience” has anything whatsoever to do with the institution of justice and the rule of law? Chapter? Verse?

What does Sotomayor bring to the table that involves the principles of constitutional jurisprudence?

What has she said or written to inspire confidence in the rest of us that she understands these principles and poses no threat to this republic concerning social engineering, favoritism, redistribution or rank racism from the bench?

When has she demonstrated reverence for individual liberties (the Bill of Rights)?

Where is the evidence of Sotomayor's intellectual and legal acumen -- anything that would approach the reasoning of a Scalia, a Roberts or a Thomas? Where is the evidence that she is up to the task?

Where's the evidence that this is anything other than politics, an appointment driven merely by statist obsessions with “gender,” "class" and “race”?

How does this appointment aid and protect this constitutional republic rather than being proof of its decline and a sure means of its eventual destruction?

Re: Another "Westside Story"
"Man I get tired of hearing about Puerto Rican heritages from those born and raised in New York and other places in the states."

"I like to be in America!
O.K. by me in America!
Ev'rything free in America
For a small fee in America!"

Duncan It really doesnt matter
Repubs/cons were prepared to denounce WHOMEVER Prez Obama nominated because they dont want a LEFTIST on the ussc period.

If another opening comes up on the ussc during
prez obama's term, it will be more of the same and I expect with more opposition intensity, especially if it is one of the conservatives on the court. the 5-4 conservative majority on the ussc will be over. the power will then shift to the left. THAT is what repubs/cons DONT want to see. comprende?

democrats, facts is there enemy
Obama, The wanton man, the liberals pampered pet. Obama and his many faces, and several birth places, from Kenya to Hawaii, Obama followers have a hard time, not only with the constitution, but in truth telling both are inconvenient, folly and Frivolous to them.

Here are some facts that the dems don't want to share, Obama has made some statements, stating that the civil rights act didn't go far enough, but didn't tell the whole story that it was the democrats that blocked the civil rights act in 1964 with Richard Russell who Organized an 18 senator filibuster against the civil rights act, but 80% of republicans in the house voted for the civil rights act and in the senate the republicans vote 82% for the civil rights act. It was a White Republican President that ended Slavery now that is true empathy and sympathy being used appropriately and is truly righting a wrong.

The dems do not own up to anything Like the failures of all the government run programs Like FDR's social security, Like, Lyndon Johnson's Medicare Program, that are both Broke, show me a government run program and I'll show you a broke one or one that just doesn't work, and now they want more government run programs, the dems have been wrong about most everything And now they are JUST WRONG about SOTOMAYOR and the Supreme Courts Role in America PERIOD.

Face the facts...
The Constitution is dead. It died many years ago. The only thing more sad than that is when you hear intelligent writers define how Justices must base their judgements on the Constitution. Give me a break. The only way to get the Constitution back will require blood and tears. Will Americans make the effort is the real question? Or have Americans accepted the bilge pumped daily by the societal engineers of the MSM and the left?

Well Put...

I am so sick of that buzz word. Surely the Dims can look up a better or more descriptive word.
Like American. This Country has always had diversity!
You can well imagine how much distaste I have for Sonia Sotomayor.
Sure wish the Republican party had the intestinal fortitude to take a stand and let fellow Americans know we are not a bunch of mealy mouthed milquetoast.
Do all Republicans need a shot of Testosterone??? Both the men and women serving?
I'm not the least bit afraid of ticking off the Hispanics, Blacks, or Jews. But I would like them to know we are not cowering nim-computes!

Re: Transnational Conservative?
"If another opening comes up on the ussc during prez obama's term, it will be more of the same and I expect with more opposition intensity, especially if it is one of the conservatives on the court. the 5-4 conservative majority on the ussc will be over."

Only a nitwit would consider Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy a conservive!

Racism as a disqualifier
As always, great article, Thomas.

Bob Lonsberry, a local conservative radio host (in UT), put Sotomayor's words in a different context. He asked what would happen if she had said the same things while being considered for jury duty. In that situation, her words would have disqualified her from serving, and rightly so. How then, when she is ineligible for the position of juror, could she possibly be considered for the position of Supreme Jurist?

I think he makes a great point.

Hey, Left Angle, do the spelling
Yes, you crow that Sotomayor will be “confrimed” and seated on the 'ussc.”

And you've included the obligatory droolings about conservative “crying” and “whining” and all your other leftie projections. Any idiot can say all of that. And any idiot did.

But can you answer a few simple questions?

Contrary to you diaper-soiling savages on the left, who resort only to character-assassination in opposing judicial nominees (Bork, Thomas, Estrada, etc.), we on the right make consistently clear what our philosophical objections are to left-wing candidates. We know what's up with Sotomayor.

So tell me:

Who was it that ever said personal “experience” has anything whatsoever to do with the institution of justice and the rule of law? Chapter? Verse?

What does Sotomayor bring to the table that involves the principles of constitutional jurisprudence?

What has she said or written to inspire confidence in the rest of us that she understands these principles and poses no threat to this republic concerning social engineering, favoritism, redistribution or rank racism from the bench?

When has she demonstrated reverence for individual liberties (the Bill of Rights)?

Where is the evidence of Sotomayor's intellectual and legal acumen -- anything that would approach the reasoning of a Scalia, a Roberts or a Thomas? Where is the evidence that she is up to the task?

Where's the evidence that this is anything other than politics, an appointment driven merely by statist obsessions with “gender,” "class" and “race”?

How does this appointment aid and protect this constitutional republic rather than being proof of its decline and a sure means of its eventual destruction?

Dr. Sowell
thank you for allowing me to see another side to this argument. I have always looked at the "struggle" as a good thing. But I can see how it could have a negative affect. Instead of being proud, you could be bitter. Could you be impartial, if you perceive yourself to be a victim? If our culture did not encourage people to hold on to supposed grievances and wallow in self-pity, the struggle would probably be a good thing. What ever happened to the phrase"put a band-aid on it and move on?"

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"Judges should be Robots?
according to what I am reading repubs/cons think judges should be robots. there is no human factor involved or mitigating circumstances. the law says what it says and if a person breaks it, the jury should be given instrutions as to and up or down decision. did the defendent break the law or not. if they did then the judge has no choice in sentencing. the defendent is guilty and there should be no variance in sentencing. the penalties are already written."

You are confusing the roles of Judges with that of Juries. Juries can and have nullified a law. Judges cannot. Their sole duty is to equally apply the law. Their "feelings" can play no part in carrying out their sworn duty. If they think a law is wrong, than they should step down from the bench, become a politician, run of legislative office, and change the law properly.

Do you have any concept at all of just what is a "government of laws?"

Malevolent Strugglers
Thomas, you missed one of the most obvious "strugglers". I'll give you a two-word hint; Mein Kampf!

CharlieECHO - IL
While I agree with all of your comments, it is not likely any judge on any bench has not been influenced by his/her life experiences. Why else would we have spit decision when each judge votes believing their interpretation of the law. Even judges have established their own ideology when they are on a bench making decisions.

There have been many decisions made by judges in the past that I did not agree with. One example was the Vermont judge who gave a one year sentence for a child molester. What is the ideology of this kind of judge?
The Supreme Court Judges must always look to our constitution to make decisions, but they don't always agree. Is it because of a difference in their ideology?

What bothers me most about Sotomajor is that 60% of her decisions have been overturned. We need to know why.

By the way, I am very conservative and do not agree with the Obama administration at all, I just like look at both sides of any issue.


Sotomayor....Just Another Nail

As much is being said about Dear Leader's choice for SCOTUS,it is, in the grand scheme of things, just another nail in our coffin.

Our obituary was written when Barack Hussein Obama was seated in our White House. We had all manner of hints at who and what he was from his compadres in Chicago.

We turned over the keys to the kingdom to a man we know almost nothing about...his place of birth,his beliefs,his foreign ties with militant Muslims,etc.

Yes,I'm afraid our funeral plans are set. It did not need to be this way and it still can be stopped.

It will take some person with clout and charisma. At present I don't know who that is. I think everyone is afraid of antagonizing the
powerful. We have seen too much retribution already.

Georgetwin
I believe the gap between left and right is wider than ever before. Thanks to Obama. I think it is by design,too.

The left doesn't care about anything now as much as they do ridding themselves of the 'Rightwing'. We are holding them back. Keeping them from having a free hand in 'changing'what they want changed.

I see no way to exist with them without a fight. They are determined to get rid of us and nothing we can do will stop them,except to fight fire with fire. Who will step up?

Creation and Liberals

In the beginning God created the Universe and created a man and woman.

God told the man and woman to procreate and be fruitful on the Earth.

This made Liberals very angry and they considered God's creation a 'Bad Move'.

Liberals began exterminating as many babies as possible to soothe their anger.

God told the man and the woman to bond together and become 'One in Marriage', this angered Liberals even more and Liberals began to reward those who chose to become Homosexuals and not procreate, with all of benefits of a man and a woman.

God created mankind equal and this made Liberals even angrier.

Liberals began sorting out humans and placing them in classes and categories where some classes of humans were more 'Equal than Others'.

God told the man and the woman that He wanted them to work hard and provide for themselves and their families.

This made Liberals insane with rage and they began 'Stealing' from the producers and giving the 'Stolen Goods' to the indolent and those who refused to work.

Liberals began calling that stealing, a 'Sacrifice for the Common Good'.


Re: Here come da Judge
"Contrary to you diaper-soiling savages on the left, who resort only to character-assassination in opposing judicial nominees (Bork, Thomas, Estrada, etc.), we on the right make consistently clear what our philosophical objections are to left-wing candidates."

Case in point our esteemed leftist Vice President, Joe "the Switch Hitter" Biden. At the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork to the Supremes the then Senate Judicary Chairman Mr. Biden chastised Judge Bork for NOT RELYING on Natural Law in his judicial decision, and adding to our polical lexicon the term "Borked". A few years later, the same Chairman Biden chastised Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas because he DID believe that Natural Law should be taken in account in certain judicial decisions. Proving once more that the left can go either way philosophically depending of whose ox they propose to gore.

BTW, had Judge Bork been confirmed there would be a real conservative Catholic majority on the Supremes, as Kennedy replaced Bork.

Obama is ANTI-Christian & ANTI-LIFE
So if you really want to make a differnce then:

Use these links to get involved in the raging controversy to force Fake POTUS B. Hussein O. to release ALL documents required to prove that he is a natural born citizen:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/obama_petition


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 98546


http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?
DEPARTMENT_ID=13&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=84&ITEM_ID=2866


Visit these links. Spread the word. Help to reveal the truth.

Thanks,
USPatriot 56

Speaking of Context
Remember, the Democrats (like Chuck Schumer) who are pressing the need for "context" are the same ones who simply say that Rush said "I want Obama to fail" and completely ignore the first half of that sentence, when he says "If he pushes socialist policies..." They only care about context when it's one of their people who said something they probably shouldn't have said.

Context shmontext.

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"While I agree with all of your comments, it is not likely any judge on any bench has not been influenced by his/her life experiences. Why else would we have spit decision when each judge votes believing their interpretation of the law. Even judges have established their own ideology when they are on a bench making decisions."

Which is exactly WHY the Constitution never granted to the Federal Judiciary the authority to interpret our Constitution. Else they would not have created a Republic - a "government of laws," but instead an Oligarchy as in Plsato's "Utopia," ruled by the "Guardians" - i.e. a "government of men."

Aside: Someone on this thread mentioned the possibility of Thomas Sowell become a Supreme. Interesting both Judge Bork and Professor Sowell have in common an economics degree from the Uniterity of Chicago, although Professor Sowell's was a doctorate.

REMEMBER THIS GUY ?

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have look like if Moses had run them through Congress"
- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God , then we will be a nation gone under.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan


Do we ever need him now!


pc
Dr. Sowell says what needs to be said . . .

. . . and, in this pathetically PC society, only a black man who had to struggle could say it like this.

Thank you, Sir.

Re: Reading the Law
At the time our country was founded and our Constitution was ratified anyone wishing to become a lawyer and then a judge was said to "read the law." Abraham Lincoln qualified as Illinois attorney because he had "read the law" and was tested on his knowledge there of.

The term to "read the law" meant exactly that - not interpret the law but to merely read and understand its written word. Of course when you consider that the law creating the entire Federal Judiciary that was written and enacted in 1789 was not more than a few pages, and the Budget Act of 2009 was 1380 pages, very few which were read by anyone in Congress voting on it, the concept of "reading the law" take on a whole new meaning.

Yeah Dave, Any Idiot Can Say it.
daves whines:

"How does this appointment aid and protect this constitutional republic rather than being proof of its decline and a sure means of its eventual destruction?"


That question proves my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesnt matter what Prez Obama does or whom he appoints to whatever position during his term because you are going fault with EVERYTHING he does or says.

to put it simply, you repubs/cons see everything Prez Obama does in a negative light.
Democrats see just the opposite.

You repubs/cons keep predicting that the obama presidency will be:

THE END OF THE USA AS WE KNOW IT BECAUSE HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT TO DESTROY IT..

I think you are a bunch of sore losers spouting sour grapes and that you have a pure case of amnesia about the last 8 years under the incompetent bush administration, 6 of which you had total control of the federal govt. The destruction of the usa already happened during those 8 years which left the country in the mess it now is in.

The majority hired the dems to clean up this inherited mess and thats exactly what they are doing. what you are witnessing isnt the downfall of america. you are witness it's rebirth and the destruction of the ill fated bush/reagan legacy plank by plank.

I applaud their efforts and have no dout they will successful and that Judge Sotomayor will be a fine addition to the USSC.

Dems scared of the truth
Obama, The wanton man, the liberals pampered pet. Obama and his many faces, and several birth places, from Kenya to Hawaii, Obama followers have a hard time, not only with the constitution, but in truth telling both are inconvenient, folly and Frivolous to them.

Here are some facts that the dems don't want to share, Obama has made some statements, stating that the civil rights act didn't go far enough, but didn't tell the whole story that it was the democrats that blocked the civil rights act in 1964 with Richard Russell who Organized an 18 senator filibuster against the civil rights act, but 80% of republicans in the house voted for the civil rights act and in the senate the republicans vote 82% for the civil rights act. It was a White Republican President that ended Slavery now that is true empathy and sympathy being used appropriately and is truly righting a wrong.

The dems do not own up to anything Like the failures of all the government run programs Like FDR's social security, Like, Lyndon Johnson's Medicare Program, that are both Broke, show me a government run program and I'll show you a broke one or one that just doesn't work, and now they want more government run programs, the dems have been wrong about most everything And now they are JUST WRONG about SOTOMAYOR and the Supreme Courts Role in America PERIOD.

Left Angle Conned by Barack Obama

Conned by 'Obama' a Snake Oil Salesman

Barack Obama has never held a job that did NOT involve talking- unless you consider 'Organizing Communities for Communists' a job.

Barack Obama has 'ZERO' executive experience - he has never even run a lemonade stand.

Barack Obama was elected President of Harvard Law Review but published 'NOTHING".

Barack Obama was an Illinois Senator 1996-2004 - voted 'Present' 129 times.

Barack Obama never authored and brought to vote ONE BILL of his own. You know, the stuff, senators are supposed to do. Not just show up and vote 'present'.

Barack Obama, as a US Senator logged 143 days of which he accomplished 'NOTHING'.

Barack Obama (off teleprompter) name the most significant thing you have ever done? uhh umm er uh duh

Barack Obama could not even run his own campaign - David Axelrod did.

Liberals are bragging about being 'Conned' - how funny!

if you are a good enough 'Con Man' like Barack Obama – which involves appearing not quite good enough and rather sympathetic to those they 'Con' – you will get away with it.

Barack Obama is not what he seems, nor is he otherwise.

Barack Obama walking the path between the 'Obama Current Truth' and the delusions of those who trust him - this apparition is either a fiend or the 'Messiah'.

The advantage Barack Obama has over his 'Rubes', is that his lies about his past and lies about the future of his 'Rubes' are so outlandish - the Obama lies are transmuted until the 'Rubes' rejoice in their being conned.

This orgiastic moment could only be achieved on those decadent 'Rubes' that think they are so intelligent that they could NOT possibly be conned - what a group!

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
In addition to "reading the law", court in a "Common Law" system normally follow what is know as Judicial Precedence - "In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."

This theory is based on the theory that the layman - someone who has not "read the law" can rely on an existing court decision to aid their understanding of the laws application.

Of course, Judicial Precedence does not apply to the Supremes. If it did, Texas and most of the other States would still have on their "books" a law criminalizing the "detestable and abominable act" of sodomy; the same sex marriage debate would not have occurred; and June would not have been declared LGBT Pride Month by our fearless leader.

Irony
Jumping on Limbaugh for calling Sotomayor a racist. The left has called Limbaugh and other conservatives much worse. They revel in name-calling. It is their standard way of arguing most points. Thanks, Dr. Sowell for refocusing the issue.

Is It 2010, Yet?
Where will YOU be on July 4th?

Reba
Every single adult in the world can find an example of injustice from the justice system.
Every one of us has knowledge of some failure of the Courts, a Lawyer, a Police Officer and a person holding high office.

This woman gets no points for having an experience with some injustice and it gives her more wisdom than a white or a black man.

For her to frame her basis of wisdom in her gender or skin tone is a CRIME against the LAW.
Period.

That is an area the Justice System is BARRED from consideration so they CAN PROVIDE a true hearing and TRY THE FACTS.

If we allow the Supreme Court to hi-jacked to this woman's (or any other) self willed ideas of equality, the Court itself has undermined confidence in the Justice System.
She has already done this very thing and is not fit for a life time appointment to the highest Court in the land.

God forbid this racist and sexist woman gain a seat on the Supreme Court

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"That question proves my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesnt matter what Prez Obama does or whom he appoints to whatever position during his term because you are going fault with EVERYTHING he does or says."

Au Contraire, mon ami! Just let him nominate that great jurist, Robert Bork, and he will receive my enthusiastic support for his nominee.

Obama is Anti-White & Anti-Life
So if you really want to DO something about it then ...

Use these links to get involved in the raging controversy to force Fake POTUS B. Hussein O. to release ALL documents required to prove that he is a natural born citizen:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/obama_petition

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 98546

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?
DEPARTMENT_ID=13&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=84&ITEM_ID=2866

Visit these links. Spread the word. Help to reveal the truth.

Thanks,
USPatriot 56

We're not the 'whining' side, Left Angle
That would be the empty-headed calumniators in that vile tribe commonly referred to as the left.

And don't call me "Dave."

That is reserved for my friends, and you are not among those.

But because you're so quick to gloat, you are welcome to show us how serious you are by beginning to answer those questions I posed to you.

Go ahead. We're waiting.

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"That is an area the Justice System is BARRED from consideration so they CAN PROVIDE a true hearing and TRY THE FACTS."

The Supremes are rarely, if ever, the "trier of facts." That task is left to the court of original jurisdiction. The Supremes' job is normally an appelate one, merely determine if the law, as written, was applied correctly by a lower court, or if certain "deliniated" Constitutional Rights may have been violated at some point in the records of the particular case. No more - no less!

Cynicism
Is the inspiration that inspired obama to choose this woman.


Cynicism
# An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
# A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: “She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms” (Henry James).

This is the spirit he lacks.

Unity
# The state or quality of being one; singleness.
# The state or quality of being in accord; harmony.
#

1. The combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification.
2. A combination or union thus formed.

# Singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity: “In an army you need unity of purpose” (Emmeline Pankhurst).


Intentional division is what obama seeks to do by appointing such a divisive woman.

This is clear as her own record shows her to be one of the most reversed Judges in America.

Having a record of being reversed 60% of the cases she wrote the decision of a case she heard.

This is an amazing failure in itself for a Judge and still hold their jobs.

Its saying there is no Judge in the entire Justice System of the United States that has made good decisions based in law and never reversed.

This is installation of POLITICS into the Justice System by obama.

If this woman is confirmed, there will be the spirit of Cynicism overshadow the Supreme Court and NOT the spirit of JUSTICE AND TRUTH

Obama a Cunning Narcissist

Barack Obama a Cunning Narcissist

I do not believe that Barack Obama has a high IQ.

I do believe that Barack Obama is an extremely 'Cunning' individual.

Cunning = dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources (as skill or knowledge) or in attaining an end, characterized by wiliness and trickery, has great skill in subtlety (as in inventing, devising, or executing).

Obama the 'Narcissist' has detailed his lack of identity, self-worth and self-esteem in his books and interviews.

Obama the 'Narcissist' feeds his 'Needs' from the feedback of his followers and anyone who will listen to him and praise him.

Obama finds his 'self induced' visions of grandeur hard to maintain. Obama does NOT like any challenge to 'His Reality'. Obama is NEVER himself but identifies with the image of his 'Reality'.

Obama believes any challenge that would ask him to account for his actions, decisions or positions, is 'Unacceptable' and does NOT give him the 'Reverence' he so justly deserves.

Obama wants everyone to look at him with admiration, gratefulness and awe, to feed his insatiable appetite to feed his inner lack of self-worth and self-esteem.

Obama will sacrifice anything and everyone that does NOT contribute to his self-image.

Obama will become 'Ruthless' towards anyone or anything that does NOT acknowledge that Obama is 'The One'.

Obama will NEVER be satisfied with just Americans proclaiming 'Obama is the ONE', he seeks the acknowledgment of the 'Entire World'.

Barack Obama should NOT be underestimated - he is very cunning and manipulative.

Right on
Dr. Sowell

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"That is an area the Justice System is BARRED from consideration so they CAN PROVIDE a true hearing and TRY THE FACTS."

Interestingly, the actual "trier of facts" is the jury, who in most cases determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Judge's job, because he has presumibly "read the law," is to inform the jury as to that written law and keep order in the precedings. The appellate courts judges have the job of determining whether or not the "trial judge" correctly instructed the jury and applied the "written law" correctly. It is actually pretty simply really, were it not for our overly complex laws passed by legislators that our made up of too many lawyers.

As Shakespeare wrote: "First, we kill all the lawyers!"

Dave S...I would suggest
that the answer to all of your questions will come during the confirmation hearins..

why dont you fax your list over to the republicans on the committee?

Barack Obama creating jobs for Americans

Barack Obama will need hundreds of workers for his 'Socializing America Tour'.

Experienced chanters are needed.
--------------------------------
1) 'Yes we can' - experts
2) 'Change we can believe in' - experts
3) 'Hope' - experts
4) 'Yes We Can' - experts
5) 'God Damn America' - experts to assist Mentor Wright.
6) 'Obama is the One' - experts when Obama arrives.

Experienced fainters desperately needed (bring smelling salts).

People to carry water to fainters.

People to assist those experiencing extreme leg shivers and to mop the floor around them.

People to assist those having involuntary orgasms that will not stop. (Bring wipes)

People to hand out 'Save The Planet' tire gauges.

People to hand out 'Obama Current Truth Flyers' as Obama changes solutions.


Apply for employment today!

Para hablar en Espanol Oprime el Numero Uno

Press 2 For English

NOTE: Ask for your free video on the New 'O' Car - equipped with the Obama-Messiah protection system.

Re: Law for Constitutionally Challenged
"There have been many decisions made by judges in the past that I did not agree with. One example was the Vermont judge who gave a one year sentence for a child molester. What is the ideology of this kind of judge?"

A prime example of a judge's "empathy" causing to fail in his duty to "apply the law." Fortunately the "Green Mountain State" as little or no gun control laws on the books so when this pervert again violates a child, the child's parents can take the law into their own hands.

All libs. think they know better
Bork Sotomayor.

Dr. Sowell
Thank you, sir, for your clear, accurate evaluation of the situation. The on;y people who should serve on the Supreme Court are the ones that will see all of us as equal under the law. I don't want any particular perspective to distort the issues. Thank you for speaking up. I always find your commentary to be clear, concise and expertly stated.

Left Angle, here's why:
It's because I do not WANT the Republicans to answer those questions.

I want YOU to answer the questions.

That is why I asked YOU.

When I decide I want the Republicans to explain themselves to me, I know how to go about that without any advice from you.

But the questions remain unanswered, I see. And so does every Townhall reader on this thread.

Now that you have shown these good people that mile-wide yellow streak down your back, why don't you dazzle 'em with your brilliance? Don't you want to?

And did you not understand that part about not calling me "Dave"?

Did you not, Left Dingle-berry?

David S., re: "Left Angle"

Do not expect a reasoned or coherent response to your excellent questions from the likes of "Left Angle".

You see, such answers would require independent thought of which he is incapable or too lazy to attempt.

He has already dismissed your questions as irrelevant because you (and we conservatives) are merely "sore losers" who'd find fault with ANY Obama candidate.

It matters not to him if he'd support Sotomayor had she been nominated by, say, George W. Bush instead of Obama.

But if he was honest with himself, he'd actually consider such due diligence.

Of course, if he were REALLY honest with himself, he wouldn't be a Leftist.

A racist by any other name...
I'm not sure how exactly it isn't racist when a City determines people of races A and B cannot be promoted simply because the criteria they used did not result in the inclusion of people of race C, unless of course, if the criteria used favor people of races A and B.

I will say it upfront that if the content of the test itself did indeed favor people of race A and B, then it is absolutely reasonable to uphold City's practice, albeit still not in the way Sotomayor buried the case.

Think about it, if either race A or B is black and race C is white, and 19 black firefighters completed the test above their white counterparts, but the City denied their promotions because no white firefighters can be promoted, would the media and the whole country not cry "racist" in unison?

If the law is to apply equal protection to all, then should it matter what races A, B and C are? If a judge indeed rules (or worse yet, try to bury the facts) based on what races A, B, and C are, does she quality to be a racist? Of course, except for people who are so blinded with diversity based on race that justice means nothing.

A racist by any other name is still a racist. Sadly with so many elected officials so blinded by race and sex based diversity, a racist may indeed be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Hilarious!

Just heard on Rush:

"al-POTUS has just touched down in Saudi Arabia on Magic Carpet One".

Made my day...

Re: Here come da Judge
Or the parents could apply the Gospel remedy to the pervert:

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."

IRS files tax lien on John Kerry

IRS files $800 thousand dollar tax lien on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign.

Do any Democrats pay taxes?

Dave....once again...
I suggest the confimation hearings...I am not going to waste my time getting into a tit for tat with you because I already know what your responses to my answers would be before i even
submit them...stock rnc talking points.

yellow..hardly...I am very confident.

I just told you before I think without a doubt
Judge Sotomayor is going to be confirmed and seated on the ussc..I also think she is going to be a fine addition to the court.

you have shown me absolutely nothing to think anything differently because you know you are going to lose on this one just as the repubs have been losing dems on just about everything lately...good luck and good riddance..lmao

Arkansas Shooting a Jihadist Plot?

"A senior U.S. official tells FOX News that more targets were found on the computer of a man charged in the fatal shooting at a military recruiting center in Arkansas — suggesting the accused gunman may have been part of a larger plot to attack military targets and may not have been acting alone.

Officers found maps to Jewish organizations, a Baptist church, a child care center, a post office and military recruiting centers in the southeastern U.S., New York and Philadelphia, according to a joint FBI-Homeland Security intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press.

After Monday's attack outside the Army-Navy Career Center in Little Rock, detectives searched a computer linked to suspect Abdulhakim Muhammad, and discovered research into multiple sites in different states, according to the memo....

The latest information seemed to contradict a local police official's denial earlier Tuesday that the shooting was part of a larger conspiracy, though details of possible accomplices and their involvement weren't immediately disclosed...."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026420.php

The Problem With Many Liberals
It is clear when reading some comments here they are written by prejudiced people. They have probably been educated in government schools by Teachers Union instructors using biased manuals and books.

They now have a revisionist history written by left leaning authors. Most of these posters have no idea of political history. Many were not interested in the political scene until their Godfather Obama made his debut.

They know nothing about what happened B.O..Before Obama. Yet they have the nerve to come to a conservative site and try to debate those of us who lived through much of the history of politics they talk about.

Primus54..obviously you think
Judge Stotmayor is unqualified to be on the ussc and thats your opinion.. as it is with most any conservative..

In your mind do you do actally think that Prez Obama is going to pull her nomination, it will
never get out of committee or that she WONT be confirmed and seated on the USSC? that

IMHO If you actually believe that you are a fool off somewhere in dreamland. Simply

OK, Left Ding-a-ling, you wrote:
"yellow..hardly...I am very confident."


-- No, you are yellow.

And you are dense, too.

Hey, Left Dangler, you wrote:
“I think you are a bunch of sore losers spouting sour grapes and that you have a pure case of amnesia about the last 8 years under the incompetent bush administration, 6 of which you had total control of the federal govt.”


-- YOU can call US “sore losers”? With a straight face?

Care to recall for us the etymology of the “Sore-Loserman” campaign-ad takeoff of 2000? Was that born of Republican/conservative “sour grapes”?

Do the words “Florida recounts” mean anything to you? Or have YOU got amnesia? WE haven't.

The Republicans had total control of the government for six years out of eight, you say? Well, maybe that was why the Bush administration failed to reform “social security” -- because it had “total control.”

As for “the incompetent bush administration” and “The destruction of the usa” that “happened during those 8 years which left the country in the mess it now is in” -- I think you should kneel and kiss the duffs of both Bush and Cheney, whose “incompetent” administration kept you safe from terrorism for eight years: long enough for you to haunt Townhall today, showing off your jaw-dropping stupidity.

You're welcome, you leftie coward moron.


You wrote:
“The majority hired the dems to clean up this inherited mess and thats exactly what they are doing.”


-- Both you and the “majority” deserve a meeting with your own descendants, to give them the opportunity to pound your sorry as$es into the pavement for the way your Chump-“Change” “candidate” has sold them into slavery, poverty and dictatorship for generations to come.

What the Dumbo-Craps are actually doing, I can't say, but “cleaning up” will never describe it.

Anyway, before you lefties presume to call ANY government “incompetent,” you'll need to get rid of Nancy “I've lost my notes” Pelosi.

left angle this kiss is for you
Left Angle, I have told you before "That you would give your old Man a Blow Job, just to cheat your old lady out of a fucccck." you never got back to me!, is it a supreme Court decision that you are waiting for.

Hey Lefty! Who won the debate between you and Chris Matthews over whom gets the bigger thrill running up there leg? should we let SOTOMAYOR make a ruling?

Caution!!!! Don't drop the soap in front of Matthews, he is easily excitable, as you know, and may take it out on you

there are bigger problems at hand

Wash, rinse, repeat.

All of these policies, appointments and programs that have been coming out of Washington over the last several decades are nothing more than temporary diversions.

America is broke. Repeat, America is broke.

I know how disappointing it must be for the Democratic liberal social engineers, just when they get their itchy little fingers on the reigns of the federal power and government bank account, they get a slew of over draft statements. Oh, they had such grandiose designs for engineering a New World Order. What a pity.

And all of you so called fiscally conservative Republicans who sat idly by and watched Wall Street and the federal government disassemble America's middle class jobs and ship them over seas, and give huge tax breaks to the rich scoundrels to boot. "Oh well, I got mine you said".

Well folks, regardless of what the man behind the curtain is telling you, payment comes due tomorrow for both liberal and conservative alike.






Not a done deal?
Republicans and responsible (heh, heh) Democrats alike have an obligation to seriously consider if these statements by Sotomayor, as a sitting judge at the time, call into question her impartiality and ability to decide cases objectively. Further, they have an obligation to look at her decided cases, both for their reasoning, or lack thereof, and for any tinge of partiality (whether called racialism, ethnicism, diversity, or whatever). They have an obligation to raise these facts in reasoned and respectful debate, so that Americans can know that there are answers to these lingering questions, or not. Her nomination may be a done deal, but such a debate would help expose racial identity politics for what it is, and make the next appointment more difficult to ram through. As one who practices before the Second Circuit has opined, "an average judge is now going to be on the Supreme Court because she's a she and [a] Hispanic she to boot." Sad state of affairs.
And, having gone to Princeton at the ripe old age of 17 with minimal world and no work experience, one might question what "struggles" she shares with most Hispanic minorities.

David: REALITY...part#1
Prez Obama (d) is potus until 2012

Dems control BOTH Houses of THE u.s. congress until 2010 aand are favored to add seats a midterms 2012 thus sustaining their control until 2012.


With Sen. Arlen Specter rejecting the repubs-then becoming a democrat along with Al Fraken about to welcomed into the u.s. senate dems will have a 60 vote fillibuster proof SUPERMAJORITY...do you know what that means dave? dems can pass practically any legislation they want into law WITHOUT a single republican vote.

Judge Sotomayor is going to be confirmed easiluy and seated on the USSC. Vote against her if you dare..It will put more hispanics and women in the dem column..lmao

Prez Obama will be nominating vacancies to the USSC until 2012..do you know what that means dave? if one of those vacancies is from the conservtive side..the 5-4 conservative majority is history...the shift we be 5-4 liberal..

Dems got 95% of the black vote and 75% of the hispanic vote in 2008..those are the largest minorities and they are growing daily as we speak (especially the hispanic)..When Prez Obama starts bringing troops home from Iraq and Iran that will lock up the suburban white soccer mom vote. When the economy starts recovering and gets back on it's feet that will lock up the independents. finally dems will split the white male vote with you 50% -50%...so tell me dave how are you repubs cons gonna couter all that? by "ernergizing your base? rotflmao

How does this appointment aid and protect this constitutional republic rather than being proof of its decline and a sure means of its eventual destruction?

David, I'll answer for Angle
I understand why he called you "whiney." After reading your well-articulated, difficult to answer questions about Soto, he became whiney and was projecting his chronic condidtion on you.
The following is an abbreviated version of your questions and my answer to them.
1. Who said personal experience had anything to do with qualification for supreme court justice.
A: Obama, and lock-step democrats who have an agenda to fill.

2. What principles will she employ involving constitutional jurisprudence.
A: Personal ones. Her experiences involving life in public housing. That's how she will thank the people who paid for it as well as the people who made it possible for her to obtain her education and elevation in life.

3. How confident can we be that she will pose no threat of imposing social engineering, favoritism, redistribution or rank racism.
A: No such confidence can be had.

4. Will she demonstrate reverence to the bill of rights and individule liberties.
A: Only to those who possess the favored race, gender or class at the time of ruling.

5. Where is the evidence of Soto's intellectual and legal acumen.
A: There is none.

6. Where is the evidence that the appointment was not political, driven by obsessions with gender, class and race.
A: There is no evidence of such. All evidence points to the liklihood that the appointment was all of those things and intended to be a mirror of Obama's vision of the supreme court.


REALITY Part#2
The gop is in a full state of demise and dissaray... you have no leaders and those who call themselves so are buffoons..you have no ideas on how to solve the nations problems and only offer only negativity.

fewer and fewer people are identyfying themselves as republicans. the gop has become
isolated from teh mainstream and regionalized in the midwest and deep south. conservatism is DOA...

If all is just posted is "jaw dropping stupid" then so be it..I'll take it anyday because ITS THE TRUTH...

you sir are a mental midget barking around my shoetops.. living in a dreamworld where repub/cons still rule? WAKE UP..LMAO