California SC upholds Prop. 8.
People 1, extremists 0
Sotomayer (sodom meyer) nominated to federal SC
People 1, extremists 1

We gain at the state level, lose the Constitution. What'r ya' gonna do?

LLoyd

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:59:04 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

California SC upholds Prop. 8.
People 1, extremists 0
Sotomayer (sodom meyer) nominated to federal SC
People 1, extremists 1

We gain at the state level, lose the Constitution. What'r ya' gonna do?

LLoyd


No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

Yeah,
Where is Harriet Miers when you need her?
LOL

JC

On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

After all.he has been doing in many ways...following in Bush's foot
prints.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
m:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later, when it
makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.


After all.he has been doing in many ways...following in Bush's foot
prints.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them.

Except that Lenin never said it. The first recorded use of the phrase
occurred in 1949, and it wasn't attributed to Lenin. It's just another turd
in the right-wing mythology.

When you quote foolishness as truth, you become a fool yourself.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Where is Harriet Miers when you need her?


Not on the court thankfully.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!


I said the same thing when Roberts and Alito were nominated...except for the
latina feminist part.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
m:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later, when
it
makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.


After all.he has been doing in many ways...following in Bush's foot
prints.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them.

Except that Lenin never said it. The first recorded use of the phrase
occurred in 1949, and it wasn't attributed to Lenin. It's just another
turd
in the right-wing mythology.

When you quote foolishness as truth, you become a fool yourself.

--
Ed Huntress


What about when you're just a fool to begin with?

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later, when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress


How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want. I
personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might bring
something to the table.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
m:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later, when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress


How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up forever.

I personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might
bring something to the table.

Well, good for you, Tom. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 May 2009 07:23:44 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
m:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later, when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress


How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want. I
personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might bring
something to the table.

Like 49 million of her closest kin?

Are you signed up at WSJ? Check out the article on her from yesterday
or the day before. One scary activist, she is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347199490860831.html


P.S: I saw these and thought of you, Tawmy boy.
http://www.wellie-boots.com/hunter-o...gton-boots.htm

-
Press HERE to arm. (Release to detonate.)
-----------

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up forever.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 07:23:44 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
om:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.

Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd

Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.

We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later,
when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress


How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want. I
personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might
bring
something to the table.

Like 49 million of her closest kin?

Are you signed up at WSJ? Check out the article on her from yesterday
or the day before. One scary activist, she is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347199490860831.html

Fer Christ's sake, Larry, that polemic is written by Karl Rove. He never
says a single word to inform. To him, words are bullets you use to
manipulate opinion. As we know, he's so good he can make a turd smell like a
president of the United States.

Besides, what do you want? Another dried-up old white man? There are enough
of us on the Court already. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 07:23:44 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.
Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd
Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.
We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later,
when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want. I
personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might
bring
something to the table.
Like 49 million of her closest kin?

Are you signed up at WSJ? Check out the article on her from yesterday
or the day before. One scary activist, she is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347199490860831.html

Fer Christ's sake, Larry, that polemic is written by Karl Rove. He never
says a single word to inform. To him, words are bullets you use to
manipulate opinion.

Words won the White House last year.
Pretty words, and lots of them. Little substance.

As we know, he's so good he can make a turd smell like a
president of the United States.

Seems like an accurate assessment

On May 26, 1:59*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
California SC upholds Prop. 8. *
* People 1, extremists 0
Sotomayer (sodom meyer) nominated to federal SC
* People 1, extremists 1

We gain at the state level, lose the Constitution. *What'r ya' gonna do?

LLoyd

Why is it that when a judge is nominated by a President who won his
election by a huge landslide, you consider it a loss for the "will of
the people?" If he had nominated a right-winger, you probably would
have been happy, but THAT would have been going against the will of
the people.

The election was over in November. Get over it.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up forever.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that time.
If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the commentariat's
b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that will give them big
numbers. They haven't found it yet.

And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed Rollins
(former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ins.sotomayor/

That's where they are. Since Bork, no one is going to talk about Roe v. Wade
before they're confirmed.

BTW, I read the decision regarding the 2nd Amendment that she was involved
in. I don't know what the NRA has said or will say about it, but she was
exactly right in her decision. In fact, right after the Heller decision, the
NRA and the Cato Institute started looking for a case to follow up Heller so
they could get the decision incorporated. Morton Grove and Wilmette changed
their laws before they could become the victims. g Sotomayor was, very
conservatively, sticking to the law as it had been written and to the rights
issue as it had been decided in Heller. Circuit Courts of Appeals generally
do NOT take it upon themselves to incorporate rights under the 14th until
the Supreme Court has done so in a decision of their own.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up
forever.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that
time. If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the
commentariat's b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that
will give them big numbers. They haven't found it yet.

And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed Rollins
(former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ins.sotomayor/

That's where they are. Since Bork, no one is going to talk about Roe v.
Wade before they're confirmed.

BTW, I read the decision regarding the 2nd Amendment that she was involved
in. I don't know what the NRA has said or will say about it, but she was
exactly right in her decision. In fact, right after the Heller decision,
the NRA and the Cato Institute started looking for a case to follow up
Heller so they could get the decision incorporated. Morton Grove and
Wilmette changed their laws before they could become the victims. g
Sotomayor was, very conservatively, sticking to the law as it had been
written and to the rights issue as it had been decided in Heller. Circuit
Courts of Appeals generally do NOT take it upon themselves to incorporate
rights under the 14th until the Supreme Court has done so in a decision of
their own.

I've subscribed to Newt's weekly letter Ed.
http://www.humanevents.com/

Count me out if this is the future of the Republican party.
You can count Republicans out at the polls while you are at it.

JC


--
Ed Huntress

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 07:23:44 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:58 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

No..she simply replaced a leaving Liberal..so there is no net loss.

A gain would have been nice..but..no loss.
Yeah, but she's SO friggin' radical... Anti-everything-personal-
freedoms, and a militant latina feminist. Danger, Will Robinson!

LLoyd
Its not actually going to be a problem. When the word gets out
amongst
the voters...they will raise enough of a ruckus that she wont get
into
SCOTUS.

After a few of these nominational disasters...Obama is going to have
to
pick a Liberal Lite for that spot. Or even a Centrist.
We'll record your prediction, so we can throw in it your face later,
when
it makes you look ridiculous, once again. g Almost all of the
serious
government watchers on both sides say her nomination will go through.

Ed Huntress

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.
I
personally don't have a problem with her and what I've read, she might
bring
something to the table.
Like 49 million of her closest kin?

Are you signed up at WSJ? Check out the article on her from yesterday
or the day before. One scary activist, she is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347199490860831.html

Fer Christ's sake, Larry, that polemic is written by Karl Rove. He never
says a single word to inform. To him, words are bullets you use to
manipulate opinion.

Words won the White House last year.
Pretty words, and lots of them. Little substance.

It appears you're not a big fan of words when they're used to shape the
facts. RB, meet Karl Rove -- you'll really hate him.


As we know, he's so good he can make a turd smell like a
president of the United States.

Seems like an accurate assessment

Rove is good, no doubt about it. His kind is the greatest internal threat to
the republic.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they
want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up
forever.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that
time. If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the
commentariat's b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that
will give them big numbers. They haven't found it yet.

And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed
Rollins (former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for
CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ins.sotomayor/

That's where they are. Since Bork, no one is going to talk about Roe v.
Wade before they're confirmed.

BTW, I read the decision regarding the 2nd Amendment that she was
involved in. I don't know what the NRA has said or will say about it, but
she was exactly right in her decision. In fact, right after the Heller
decision, the NRA and the Cato Institute started looking for a case to
follow up Heller so they could get the decision incorporated. Morton
Grove and Wilmette changed their laws before they could become the
victims. g Sotomayor was, very conservatively, sticking to the law as
it had been written and to the rights issue as it had been decided in
Heller. Circuit Courts of Appeals generally do NOT take it upon
themselves to incorporate rights under the 14th until the Supreme Court
has done so in a decision of their own.

I've subscribed to Newt's weekly letter Ed.
http://www.humanevents.com/

Count me out if this is the future of the Republican party.

Well, it will be a small, select group, like maybe the backup Bridge team
for the Palm Beach She-Crab Booster Club.

You can count Republicans out at the polls while you are at it.

Soon, you will be able to count them on your fingers and toes.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up forever.


I seriously doubt they will do that.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that time.
If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the commentariat's
b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that will give them big
numbers. They haven't found it yet.

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling. I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling. Law isn't touchy
feely, I feel your pain sort of stuff.


And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed Rollins
(former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for CNN:

Up by her bootstraps? No affirmative action, public assistance, government help?

The dems want her fast tracked, I'm for staying within the norms of the time it takes for
senate confirmation.

IIRC, the current POTUS voted against both Alito and Roberts. He did set the standard for
partisanism.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.

There really isn't any reason to be Wes. Concerned , that is.
The ruling, and the case itself, had nothing to do with discrimination.
The Appelate Court was asked to rule, in effect, whether the City had
exceeded the law in canceling the test.
The "why" of it was never really considered. It's sort of funny because that
is exactly what a non-activist judge would do.
She simply applied the law and unlike most folks, I wouldn't be surprised to
see the decision upheld.
My understanding is that the experts believe it will be reversed.


IIRC, the current POTUS voted against both Alito and Roberts. He did set
the standard for
partisanism.

Alito is incompetent. Roberts is another matter. That vote was political
calculation. He new Roberts would be confirmed.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Alito is incompetent.

Is that a trait of editors of the "Harvard Law Review" ?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Alito is incompetent.

Is that a trait of editors of the "Harvard Law Review" ?

Oh he's smart eough Wes.
The other element in a Justice is Judicial temperment.


JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they
want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up
forever.


I seriously doubt they will do that.

I wasn't suggesting that they would. I was just responding to Tom's comment
that the Democrats can get what they want because they have the votes.
That's not true in the Senate, which is the body that has to consent.



Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that
time.
If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the commentariat's
b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that will give them
big
numbers. They haven't found it yet.

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.

You could look it up on the law sites and see what commentary and annotation
is already out there. Or wait for the confirmation hearing. It will get
plenty of air time. g

I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.
Law isn't touchy
feely, I feel your pain sort of stuff.

Alito said the same thing in his confirmation hearing -- that the experience
of his family (Italian) in facing discrimination influenced his thinking.
That's just acknowledging a fact of life. David Brooks, the
quirky-conservative columnist, has written before about recent studies on
cognition and the fact that one's background influences relative values and
perceptions, and in the last day or two he acknowledged that what Sotomayor
said is a simple reflection of reality. Objective perception is a myth.



And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed Rollins
(former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for CNN:

Up by her bootstraps? No affirmative action, public assistance,
government help?

Apparently not. When you're valedictorian of your high school, graduate
summa cum laude from Princeton, and edit the Yale Law Review, you don' need
no steenking affirmative action, man. d8-)


The dems want her fast tracked, I'm for staying within the norms of the
time it takes for
senate confirmation.

IIRC, the current POTUS voted against both Alito and Roberts. He did set
the standard for
partisanism.

Wes

The "standard" was set over Bork. Alito had well-publicized positions on Roe
and favored the neocons' idea of a "unitary executive." Those are hot, hot
issues, and I wouldn't expect liberals to vote for him.

Likewise, I don't expect, nor should we expect, conservatives to vote for
Sotomayor. It isn't the voting or the legal issues that are nasty. It's the
personal attacks.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The other element in a Justice is Judicial temperment.

Is that a code word like economic justice?

I like a Constitution that isn't interpreted into whatever temperment the judge has.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.

You could look it up on the law sites and see what commentary and annotation
is already out there. Or wait for the confirmation hearing. It will get
plenty of air time. g


I'm going to buy a lot of pop corn for that one.

Wes

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


I'm reading it now.

First problem, she isn't an immigrant. Citizens of Puerto Rico are US citizens. The NY
Times blew that one. Her parents have been US Citizens since 1917. She was born after
that date.

I wonder about a person that talks about her racial heritage in that lecture. I might
understand a black discussing that due to that abomination of slavery we subjected them
to. I don't give much thought to being English and Dutch nor do I give much thought to my
siblings being English, Dutch and Polish.

Americans of Chinese heritage were ****ed on heavily years ago, you don't hear them going
off on how they were mistreated and how that gives them perspectives, they got over it and
moved on as we got more enlightened as a society.

I'll go as far as say a woman will often see things differently than a man and I don't
think it matters if she is liberal or conservative.

Obama is obligated to put a woman on the court. The only one serving may not have long to
go. Catching the Hispanics with a twofer is good politics.

I know you don't think much of Rush as an oracle of ideas and comment but he mentioned
that some women's groups are a bit nervous about her since her stand on abortion isn't
totally locked up.

Swaping her out with Souter isn't a world changing event.

I'm still going to stock up on popcorn to watch the hearings on Cspan. Should be fun.

Wes






--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The other element in a Justice is Judicial temperment.

Is that a code word like economic justice?

No, it's actually one of the qualifying factors the Senate considers.
It's supposed to prevent things like the ruling allowing a municipality from
excercising immenent domain in order to award ownership to someone who
promises more tax revenue.

I like a Constitution that isn't interpreted into whatever temperment the
judge has.

I'm surprised you think Alito was a good choice then.
He was selected because of his "activism" as much as anything.

JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


I'm reading it now.

First problem, she isn't an immigrant. Citizens of Puerto Rico are US
citizens. The NY
Times blew that one.

It was her speech Wes. The only thing added was the comment by the paper as
a lead in.

Her parents have been US Citizens since 1917. She was born after
that date.

I wonder about a person that talks about her racial heritage in that
lecture. I might
understand a black discussing that due to that abomination of slavery we
subjected them
to. I don't give much thought to being English and Dutch nor do I give
much thought to my
siblings being English, Dutch and Polish.

You would if you were speaking before a group awarding an honor for
"English, Dutch and Polish" Jurists.
She was speaking at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture.


Americans of Chinese heritage were ****ed on heavily years ago, you don't
hear them going
off on how they were mistreated and how that gives them perspectives, they
got over it and
moved on as we got more enlightened as a society.

I'll go as far as say a woman will often see things differently than a man
and I don't
think it matters if she is liberal or conservative.

Obama is obligated to put a woman on the court.

Not really.
He could as easily have nominated a man and seen the guy confirmed.


JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


I'm reading it now.

First problem, she isn't an immigrant. Citizens of Puerto Rico are US
citizens. The NY
Times blew that one. Her parents have been US Citizens since 1917. She
was born after
that date.

I wonder about a person that talks about her racial heritage in that
lecture. I might
understand a black discussing that due to that abomination of slavery we
subjected them
to. I don't give much thought to being English and Dutch nor do I give
much thought to my
siblings being English, Dutch and Polish.

Wes, if you lived out here and knew how "da spics" were treated until maybe
30 years ago, you'd understand. My grandfather had a bunch of them working
for him at his tree nursery. They were not treated like white workers. In
most of south Jersey, the PRs were housed in converted chicken coops and
worked as migrants on the truck farms. Think "Grapes of Wrath."

As for the way they were treated in the Bronx, I lived just over the
northern border of the Bronx in 1956 - 57. We didn't talk to the spic kids.
No WASPs or us white Catholics did.


Americans of Chinese heritage were ****ed on heavily years ago, you don't
hear them going
off on how they were mistreated and how that gives them perspectives, they
got over it and
moved on as we got more enlightened as a society.

I'll go as far as say a woman will often see things differently than a man
and I don't
think it matters if she is liberal or conservative.

Obama is obligated to put a woman on the court. The only one serving may
not have long to
go. Catching the Hispanics with a twofer is good politics.

I know you don't think much of Rush as an oracle of ideas and comment but
he mentioned
that some women's groups are a bit nervous about her since her stand on
abortion isn't
totally locked up.

Swaping her out with Souter isn't a world changing event.

I'm still going to stock up on popcorn to watch the hearings on Cspan.
Should be fun.

Wes






--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:21:08 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


I'm reading it now.

First problem, she isn't an immigrant. Citizens of Puerto Rico are US citizens. The NY
Times blew that one. Her parents have been US Citizens since 1917. She was born after
that date.

I wonder about a person that talks about her racial heritage in that lecture. I might
understand a black discussing that due to that abomination of slavery we subjected them
to. I don't give much thought to being English and Dutch nor do I give much thought to my
siblings being English, Dutch and Polish.

Americans of Chinese heritage were ****ed on heavily years ago, you don't hear them going
off on how they were mistreated and how that gives them perspectives, they got over it and
moved on as we got more enlightened as a society.

I wish Hispanics, Blacks, and Jews would do the same thing today.


I'll go as far as say a woman will often see things differently than a man and I don't
think it matters if she is liberal or conservative.

Verily.


Obama is obligated to put a woman on the court. The only one serving may not have long to
go. Catching the Hispanics with a twofer is good politics.

....but not good public policy.


I know you don't think much of Rush as an oracle of ideas and comment but he mentioned
that some women's groups are a bit nervous about her since her stand on abortion isn't
totally locked up.

Swaping her out with Souter isn't a world changing event.

I'm thinking it will be if and when we go into court over the North
American Union.


I'm still going to stock up on popcorn to watch the hearings on Cspan. Should be fun.

CSPN fun? We have a saying in AA: Some are sicker than others.

-
Press HERE to arm. (Release to detonate.)
-----------

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:21:08 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in the discrimination case in Connecticut and her
ruling.
I didn't care
for that piece where she indicates that her heritage affects her
ruling.

Did you read it Wes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1


I'm reading it now.

First problem, she isn't an immigrant. Citizens of Puerto Rico are US
citizens. The NY
Times blew that one. Her parents have been US Citizens since 1917. She
was born after
that date.

I wonder about a person that talks about her racial heritage in that
lecture. I might
understand a black discussing that due to that abomination of slavery we
subjected them
to. I don't give much thought to being English and Dutch nor do I give
much thought to my
siblings being English, Dutch and Polish.

Americans of Chinese heritage were ****ed on heavily years ago, you don't
hear them going
off on how they were mistreated and how that gives them perspectives, they
got over it and
moved on as we got more enlightened as a society.

I wish Hispanics, Blacks, and Jews would do the same thing today.


I'll go as far as say a woman will often see things differently than a man
and I don't
think it matters if she is liberal or conservative.

Verily.


Obama is obligated to put a woman on the court. The only one serving may
not have long to
go. Catching the Hispanics with a twofer is good politics.

...but not good public policy.


I know you don't think much of Rush as an oracle of ideas and comment but
he mentioned
that some women's groups are a bit nervous about her since her stand on
abortion isn't
totally locked up.

Swaping her out with Souter isn't a world changing event.

I'm thinking it will be if and when we go into court over the North
American Union.

Do you seriously think that's possible? It's not. It's pure right-wing
bull**** and paranoia. I hope you haven't swallowed *that* nonsense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 30 May 2009 01:00:18 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Wes said:
Swaping her out with Souter isn't a world changing event.

I'm thinking it will be if and when we go into court over the North
American Union.

Do you seriously think that's possible? It's not. It's pure right-wing
bull**** and paranoia. I hope you haven't swallowed *that* nonsense.

I've been praying that it couldn't happen, but things seem to be
lining up toward it. Unfortunately, politicians don't act rationally.

-
Press HERE to arm. (Release to detonate.)
-----------

How can she NOT be confirmed? The Democrats can do anything they
want.

Not if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. They can tie it up
forever.


Maybe they will even 'Bork' her.

They don't have enough material to work with, Wes. Bork was known to
have
come down against Roe v. Wade and that issue split the country at that
time. If you look at the poll taken a day or two ago and the
commentariat's b.s.'ing today, the right is grasping for something that
will give them big numbers. They haven't found it yet.

And she has a pretty thick protective cover -- she's an
up-by-your-own-bootstraps type. The smartest comments today from the
conservative side, which some other pundits are praising as the best
thinking about it that's seen print over the last few days, was Ed
Rollins (former RNC Chairman and Reagan's political director) piece for
CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ins.sotomayor/

That's where they are. Since Bork, no one is going to talk about Roe v.
Wade before they're confirmed.

BTW, I read the decision regarding the 2nd Amendment that she was
involved in. I don't know what the NRA has said or will say about it,
but
she was exactly right in her decision. In fact, right after the Heller
decision, the NRA and the Cato Institute started looking for a case to
follow up Heller so they could get the decision incorporated. Morton
Grove and Wilmette changed their laws before they could become the
victims. g Sotomayor was, very conservatively, sticking to the law as
it had been written and to the rights issue as it had been decided in
Heller. Circuit Courts of Appeals generally do NOT take it upon
themselves to incorporate rights under the 14th until the Supreme Court
has done so in a decision of their own.

I've subscribed to Newt's weekly letter Ed.
http://www.humanevents.com/

Count me out if this is the future of the Republican party.

Well, it will be a small, select group, like maybe the backup Bridge team
for the Palm Beach She-Crab Booster Club.

You can count Republicans out at the polls while you are at it.

Soon, you will be able to count them on your fingers and toes.

--
Ed Huntress


Don't you mean you won't be able to count US on your fingers and toes? Last
I recall you still were calling yourself a republican. Has something
changed? Have you taken my advice and finally left that bunch of zealots
that used to be a political party? If not, why not? It's like with Colin
Powell. How can a guy that has his values and beliefs still call himself a
republican? I guess old habits die hard, especially for republicans.

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The other element in a Justice is Judicial temperment.

Is that a code word like economic justice?

No, it's actually one of the qualifying factors the Senate considers.
It's supposed to prevent things like the ruling allowing a municipality from
excercising immenent domain in order to award ownership to someone who
promises more tax revenue.

Excuse me. That didn't work so well. The conservative side of the court did fine but
lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


Wes

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm still going to stock up on popcorn to watch the hearings on Cspan. Should be fun.

CSPAN fun? We have a saying in AA: Some are sicker than others.

Sometimes I liken it to a facination with the rifles and ammunition that the firing squad
will be using to execute you with in the morning.

Wes

rangerssuck wrote:

Why is it that when a judge is nominated by a President who won his
election by a huge landslide, you consider it a loss for the "will of
the people?" If he had nominated a right-winger, you probably would
have been happy, but THAT would have been going against the will of
the people.

The election was over in November. Get over it.

2008 Presidential election Obama
52.9% 45.7%

1996 Presidential election Clinton
49.2% 40.7%

1984 Presidential election Reagan
58.8% 40.6%

Reagan was a landslide. Obama did pretty good. Clinton did better than Obama. Obama's
victory was not a 'huge landslide'.



Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The other element in a Justice is Judicial temperment.

Is that a code word like economic justice?

No, it's actually one of the qualifying factors the Senate considers.
It's supposed to prevent things like the ruling allowing a municipality
from
excercising immenent domain in order to award ownership to someone who
promises more tax revenue.

Excuse me. That didn't work so well. The conservative side of the court
did fine but
lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London



OK, I'll excuse you Wes, but the case makes my point perfectly. The majority
decision was the reverse of what people "feel" as far as I'm concerned but
the law was clear and the decision came down with the Court in accordance
with the law rather than anyones feeling about right or wrong. One of the
Justices involved in that decision had one of his own properties
tangentially involved and ended up voting the law against his own best
interests. Rather than "make new law", the courts applied what was on the
books and left it to the states to change the law - which is what ended up
happening.

Thomas' seperate writing was an embarrasment and it made me wonder if he'd
ever been to law school.
You asked about "Judicial temperment" and "code word"s, not liberal or
conservative decisions.

JC