Limbaugh and Gingrich only?

Seems to me Tancredo, Beck, Hannity and others have all pulled out the racist card already.

I think it's entertaining to watch a group of mean-spirited people who live on the margins blow their load already on a nominee who is not a "token" liberal.

These "blowhards" as you call them are not elected officials, that's true, and it so it makes it even more entertaining since even people like Orrin Hatch are going to vote for her.

The blowhards are so freakin' angry and upset inside about their own racist attitudes about how they think the country is slipping away from them that it's blinded them from actually opposing this nominee for legit reasons.

They should have sucked it up this time, and saved the FALSE OUTRAGE!!! for a moment that is more deserving of it. However, by them acting like crazy chickens with their heads cut off, when Obama picks the next judge and actually puts up someone who is a more token liberal, their cries will fall on even more deaf ears.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

She has 380 published opinions that have precedential value where she wrote the majority opinion and decided thousands overall. All losing parties in a decision decided by any Circuit Court may petition the SCOTUS to review it. The SCOTUS only chose to hear and decide 5 requested reviews in total with one pending. Two were affirmed and three reversed but two in very divided split decisions.

__________________

Wow, that's interesting. Thanks for the link.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court - Washington Times

I have to quote Goob on this one.

Sotomayor has a stellar batting average actually.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

No different than usual. We are not allowed to discuss race or culture if the person is a liberal or a minority.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

yes that seems to be the case.

Be that as it may-In fact, the more I study, the less clear as to evidence of any real slant she may be attributed with/too as practiced in the decisions she has made or been party too.

Imho justifying a slant would require 75% of her decisions to be seen or interpreted honestly as 'lib' or activist.

here are a bunch, I don't see anywhere near that quotient, admittedly this site is a sample over a myriad of issues, but there are like 30 decisions there and simple explanations as to each-

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Obama may be looking for a protection she may not in fact need.

We have all said and done stupid things, what she said was ill advised, but in the end, with her length of service over 300 decisions to parse, IF she were walking the talk, we would see it, so far I have not.

Heres a red meat case where in, here, as to similar cases where school discipline etc. is before a court we have waylaid the libs whom allow kids to get away with trashy behavior, she in fact was having none of it.



Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case" | NBC Connecticut

EDIT-

further-


Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set
Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This! (2 Diggs)

I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...full-data-set/


thats like an 8-1 ratio. The Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002) decsion is especially interesting. I hope the Hill reps are evaluating this info., talk about an elephant trap.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Go figure, the “New Hispanic” woman and the “Militant” Jew are two sides of the same coin…

You see…, the “New Hispanic” woman is burning with rage, angrily decrying her roots (slovenness / unambitiousness); the Militant Jews are fiercely self-important and driven (Nazi-like—this where Nazi Thugs often stopped Jews on the street and forced them to clean statues, ect.); so you put them together with the frenzied, self-flagellation practicing, New American Nazi Hierarchy …

"After the seizures in late 1942 of five US enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist F. Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen 'enemy national' relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly discovered government documents reveal," (The New Hampshire Gazette, Nov. 7, 2003)

"I have had plenty of opportunity in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime ... They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." (Quoting US Ambassador to Germany (William Dodd), Facts and Fascism, G. Seldes, p. 122, also, Trading with the Enemy, C. Higham, p. 167).

“Hitler was also funded by these very same banking families. David Rockefeller started an Oil Company for Lolo Soetoro (Obama’s step-father) … Stanley A's (Obama’s mother) father worked for David Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Lolo later set up shop in Indonesia as a front for Standard Oil (called Mobile Oil co.).” (Thought Provoking / Atlas Shrugs)

“1927, Standard Oil and IG Farben founded the company … president was the oil dealer William Farish from Texas.”

“Standard passed to IG Farben the patents about the coal hydrogenation processes and the Germans gave them the patents how to manufacture synthetic rubber. This alliance wasn't well regarded by the US-government, above all after the entered into the war after Pearl Harbour , on December 7 th , 1941.”

“Officials … opened a formal investigation against Standard Oil. The accusation was that the company hid patents from the US -Navy and supplied fuel to German submarines.”

“ John D. Rockefeller said that he wasn't aware of that and Farish pled "no contest" to charges of criminal conspiracy with the Nazis.”

“In March 1942, the Pentagon begged President Roosevelt to stop the investigation, to protect war production and oil supply. Roosevelt agreed. The Company paid a fine of 5000 dollars and promised to stop fuel supply for the enemies.”

What colleagues say of Sotomayor:

“She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering …”

“…not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.”

“Sotomayor … rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.”

“…a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.”

Above from: The Case Against Sotomayor / The New Republic

Here consider Sotomator’s Dissenting Opinions:

+ USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn’t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with undercover agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000 on him.

+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this).

+ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. = Trucking Company shouldn’t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants).

+ Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion—“For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York’s police officers.… In the words of Justice Holmes,‘A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’”= dissent opinion—where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency’s successful functioning is minimal = also the “statements” were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature—“… the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation …”

+ S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision—child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion—child can be returned to Hong Kong.

+ L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state—rather than a British Overseas Territory.

+ USA v. J. Gori = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was subsequently busted with kilo of cocaine = he told cops that someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery man came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = suspect consented to search of apartment = busted for cocaine…= majority opinion—quotes Katz (389 US at 351)“A suspect in her open doorway becomes ‘as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.”= dissent opinion—“’[t]he right of the people to be secure in their … houses …’”=“…the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.”

Shhhhh......

If you keep bringing reason and the actual historical record up, I won't be able to watch the monkeys dance.

It's like you're trying to take away their peanut or something.

Oh, you mean goober's peanut?

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Sotomayors bating average with the U.S. Supreme Court is in peril. Out of the 5 Sotomayors cases that were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme court--3 of them were overturned.

Next month her case over the Fire Department's examination is to be reviewed. This case consisted of 20 white & latino men passing the examination & expecting promotions over it. Apparently--she reversed the lower courts opinion because no blacks passed the examination. The Supreme Court may overule her decision--making for a poor record of loosing 4 out of 5.

It would be very wise for our senators to wait until this case is heard & ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme court before taking a vote on her nomination.

The United States Supreme Court--"chooses" the cases they hear. Meaning they are selective.

In other words--there could have been many more of Sotomayors decisions that could have been brought--or requested to debate in the high court--that were turned away by the U.S. Supreme court.

The point being--out of the 5 Sotomayor cases the U.S. Supreme court ruled upon she lost 3 of them. NOT GOOD

One thing for certain--Federal appelate court judges always concern themselves with stepping on the toes of the U.S. Supreme court & being embarrased by being overruled by them. To me--her losses shows her lack of understanding of the United States Constitution.

Right, and because she tried "stepping on the toes of the US Supreme Court" 2% of the time, how does that make her batting average bad?

You're grasping at straws and strawmen.

You don't have a case except to be against her just because the wingnuts you listen to on FOX and elsewhere say so.

What does it feel like to be a sheep?

She has more experience on the bench as a nominee than anyone currently serving on the SCOTUS did. And along with that, she's been a very fair judge all in all, that is, if you take the time to review her entire record.

By behaving like crabby old geezers peering through window blinds, terrified of the changing cultural landscape in the country instead of simply accepting it, it renders illegitimate any future grievance the conservatives in America can have about Obama's next choice for the SCOTUS because they pulled out the "racist" card and acted like fools on this one. And Sotomayor is clearly a moderate. Only 4 out of 50 times did she rule in favor of people who brought discrimination suits forward. That's hardly "liberal".

But because the far right acted like fucking idiots on the case of a highly qualified nominee who isn't a token liberal, they have no credibility on any other objections they might have in the future on nominees who are actually on the far left.

Just shot yourselves in the foot conservatives. Way to go.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

no her rulings along those lines are;

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.


but I have long past expected you among others to actual read anything pertinent even if it sppts your case, that’s why you continue with the rants etc........sheep? Hardly but if it pleases you to think so have at it.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I should have been more specific, I read two articles linked from wiki in "50 most recent cases". That's why my numbers reflect the ones you just posted.

About 10% of the time she agreed with the claim of discrimination.

We're saying the same damn fucking thing. So what's your point?

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.