BORK HER !!!

Well it seems our yuckster-n-chief pulled a wild card today.

He nominated a (are you sitting down?) drumroll please....

...
...
...
...

Minority Woman.

SURPRISE SURPRISE

A racist (is that reverse racism?)
A sexist
A DIABETIC ?? (WOW THIS IS HISTORIC !!!)

"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." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Concerning Constitutional Law??
She can't possibly be serious?
maybe.....

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ug-qUvI6WFo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it... blah blah blah ..... LOOKING TO HOW THE LAW IS DEVELOPING AND THINKING OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS RULING IN THE FUTURE.....

hmmm....

If the Republicans can scrape together 33 vertebrae between the lot of them then we can BORK HER !!!

OR

Obama nominated her because she is Hispanic and if the Right comes out against her they will be accused of racism. :gaah:


THIS IS HISTORIC PEOPLE !!!!!
HISTORIC !!!!

A diabetic on the high court !!!
Finally the diabetics will have their day!!!!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH !!!!!!

can she be BORKED?

YES OR NO?

dang
I should have called it

"Give her a BORKING she'll never forget !!!"

any chance someone could change this?
I'll be gooooood......... :shrug:

Stole this
from here
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/...mayor-sampler/

IS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL RIGHT WING??????

The now infamous Duke speech: For starters, there’s the speech she gave at Duke back in 2005. Click here for the YouTube video. The controversial quote: “Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I shouldn’t say that because we don’t make law . . . I know. . . I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it . . . ”

In that same speech, Sotomayor explained the difference between judging at the trial court level and judging at the appeals court level: “When you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case, so you’re looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is not precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you’re looking to how the law is developing so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. So you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step of the development of the law.”


Workplace Discrimination; Ricci v. DeStefano: In Ricci v. DeStefano, a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., challenged the city’s decision not to use an employment test for use in promotions when the use of the test results would have had a disproportionate benefit to white applicants over minority applicants. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld the city’s determination, calling it “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned.”

In January 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. A decision is due next month.

The First Amendment; Pappas v. Giuliani: One of Judge Sotomayor’s more controversial First Amendment cases came down in 2002. The case, Pappas v. Giuliani (click here for the opinion), involved whether an NYPD employee was properly terminated from his job after mailing bigoted and racist material and comments in response to requests for charitable contributions.

On appeal, two judges on the three- judge panel ruled that Pappas could be rightfully terminated. In dissent, Judge Sotomayor found fault with the majority’s decision to award summary judgment to the police department. While she found the speech “offensive, hateful and insulting,” she ultimately found the NYPD’s concerns over race relations “so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.”

The Second Amendment; Maloney v. Cuomo: A New York attorney challenged a state law prohibiting the possession of a so-called chuka stick, a weapon used in martial arts, claiming the ruling violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The district court denied the attorney’s claim, ruling that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. On appeal, the three-judge panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, agreed with the lower court, ruling that an 1886 Supreme Court ruling called Presser v. Illinois dictated the outcome. It is “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on one’s right to bear arms.

Maloney’s lawyers have said they might seek Supreme Court review on the matter.

Environmental Law; Riverkeeper v. EPA: (This recap comes courtesy of our friends at the WSJ’s Environmental Capital blog). In 2007, Sotomayor sided with the fishes and against power companies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In Riverkeeper vs. EPA, she argued that the EPA can’t weigh costs and benefits in deciding what the “best technology” is for protecting fish that get sucked into power plants. In a nutshell, she ruled, there’s no point in tallying up the marginal costs of extra environmental protections when Congress has already decided they’re worth it.

From her 2007 decision:

The Agency is therefore precluded from undertaking such cost-benefit analysis because the [best technology available] standard represents Congress’s conclusion that the costs imposed on industry in adopting the best cooling water intake structure technology available (i.e., the best-performing technology that can be reasonably borne by the industry) are worth the benefits in reducing adverse environmental impacts.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned that decision in a 6-3 ruling; justice David Souter, who Ms. Sotomayor would replace, was one of the dissenters.

The final four under consideration were all women. I find it rather disconcerting that this post is being filled per a quota system rather than simply considering the person best qualified for the job. I know it might have been disappointing for some, but it just might have been possible that the best person might have been a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

The final four under consideration were all women. I find it rather disconcerting that this post is being filled per a quota system rather than simply considering the person best qualified for the job. I know it might have been disappointing for some, but it just might have been possible that the best person might have been a man.

---

Dude, believe me, there are many excellent women jurists. Women are very well represented in the practice of law numberswise, and there is no reason why there should not be more women on the Supreme Court.

I completely dislike her as a choice. But considering Congress.......she might as well start tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igitur55

Dude, believe me, there are many excellent women jurists.

---

First of all, so says you.

second dude

He said "might" twice dude.

So, like, what I'm trying to say dude, is how are you going to find the best man for the job if you only look at women.

post on dudeman !!!:rock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

I know it might have been disappointing for some, but it just might have been possible that the best person might have been a man.

---

Welcome to the ruination of America ... pushed down our throats by the politically 'correct'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

He said "might" twice dude.

---

Hmmm, he also said that this seat on the Court is being filled through a quota system, which I think is wrong. The last guy filled the two vacant seats that came up during his term with men, but I don't remember anyone saying that was a result of quotas.

What about Sotomayor's decisions? Tell us why you think a borking is in order.

Ahem. As an infamous right wing talk show host has oft times said: "elections have consequences".

Sounds like a vineyard of sour grapes to moi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igitur55

The last guy filled the two vacant seats that came up during his term with men, but I don't remember anyone saying that was a result of quotas.

---

One thing at a time.
No freebies today :nono:

"The last guy" nominated at least 4 women to the judiciary
Priscilla Owens
Carolyn Kuhl
Janice Brown
Harriet Miers (supreme court)

Spectre and others have been saying for some time that there should be another woman on the court.
The Dems have been pushing this wheelbarrow since 2005.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igitur55

perhaps you could tell us why a Borking is in order?

---

If you can watch that video and not be disgusted
I hope that is played 10,000 times this week and I hope someone explains it to the American people.
Some of us OBVIOUSLY don't understand the function of the court according to the Constitution (and not Ms Sotocracker)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Ahem. As an infamous right wing talk show host has oft times said: "elections have consequences".

Sounds like a vineyard of sour grapes to moi...

---

Everything has consequences.

If we were playing cards but I was cheating and stealing your money would you complain?
No.
You just sit there and lose your money buddy and don't say a word. :nono:

These people seek to break rules established expressly to limit their power.