Hey folks,
Finally it is FRIDAY! Happy Friday to you. First a quick note. Yesterday was not my fault. Comcast was doing some "Routine Maintenance" which shut down their Internet connections for all of Stuart and neighboring area's. By the time it got back up, it was to late for me to discuss what I wanted to. Perhaps on Sunday.
Since it IS Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. This one was sent in by our friend BG. He does find some great stuff. It is from the Heritage Foundation. Here it is.The Facts on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee
President Barack Obama this morning nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
» To ensure lawmakers, the media and the America can get all the facts on the Supreme Court vacancy, The Heritage Foundation has created a Rapid Response web page. Be sure to check back for all the latest updates.
Senators should "engage in robust advice and consent to assure that if confirmed Judge Sotomayor would not use her seat…to advance liberal policy preferences," argues Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow and former Attorney General Edwin Meese.
The "advice and consent" process, mandated by the Constitution, is a delicate and timely one. Senators should use it to determine whether Judge Sotomayor will faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution and laws of this nation -- and not shape them to her policy preferences.
"Nominations should be judged by a common standard: Will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning?" asks Heritage expert Conn Carroll. "Or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench?"
Judge Sotomayor, who sits on the Federal Court of Appeals in New York, has a long record of statements about the proper role of judges, many of which raise important questions. Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:
Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.
Some of her thoughts on judges' role in shaping policy were captured on video.
President Obama has established an "aggressive confirmation timetable," writes Heritage senior policy analyst Andrew Grossman. But his push to complete all hearings and vote before Congress' August recess may be hasty and "risks shortchanging the Constitution's commands."
The Senate "should not delay" the confirmation process, Grossman argues, "but nor should it be rushed." - Amanda Reinecker
LINK: The Heritage Foundation
Now to address my new fan, "Nameless cynic," and those that think like he does, for just a second. Yes, I understand that she will be replacing a Lib LEANING Judge. I said that. But she would have NEVER got elevated to where she is now, if it were not for the sole purpose of the fact she is a Hispanic Female that does NOT agree with the Constitution. She is a Racist, and follows in Obama's Racism tendencies. She will be a Lackey. That's it. But of course pointing things like this out just get me and others called Racist. {Smile}
The fact is, she stands for and will push for Obama's agendas. Some of which are EXSTREMELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not that people like Nameless care about the Constitution. I and most American DO.
More and more people are waking up. They are seeing Obama for what he is. A fraud and a failure. Trillions spent. NOTHING solved. Him coming out yesterday saying that the economy is coming back from the brink is just completely pathetic. He is either outright lying to the American people, or, he truly is that ignorant. I'm not sure what's worse.
See you all Sunday.
Peter
Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.
5 comments:
It has been obvious to me years ago that the Supreme Court is partisan.
The fact that judge SOUTER choose to retire under a democrat president rather than a Republican was specifically designed to get a liberal judge to replace him.
Now we see such a hopefully in Sotomayor an obvious person who you and others have seen is nothing more than a person who went to law school and decided to use those laws to wipe her backside with because from her history it shows she is inclined to use her feelings rather than the law to judge cases.
For all it is worth she could have skipped law school and become what she is now presently.
Well, it's good to know that I've found such a warm place in your heart.
Since I've already discussed most of this "racist" garbage in your previous post (and you've still never told me who you're mistaking me for), let's look at some facts.
I mean, that's what this post is about, right? It's right there in the title.
Not that people like Nameless care about the Constitution.
Excuse me? I spent 21 years in the military, supporting that Constitution. What have you done for your country lately, aside from allying yourself with the political party that destroyed the economy and shredded the rights given to us by that Constitution that you mumble empty platitudes about now?
Now, why do you claim Sotomayor is racist? We've already looked at her "wise Latina woman" statement, which becomes a non-issue when little things like "context" are applied. So what you you have? You're remarkably light on "facts" here. You seem to be a big fan of hearsay, though.
Let's look at her voting record. Where's the evidence of racism there?
Now, for my evidence, let' go to to the experts. See, there's this law firm with 13 offices across the country, with the unfortunate name of "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld." And some of the partners in Akin Gump set up the SCOTUSblog. Now, they aren't bi-partisan, they're non-partisan: they have one focus, and that's the Supreme Court.
And here's what they had to say on the subject.
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. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.)...
Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.
The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.
In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.
So, other than the flaccid maunderings of radical, unhinged right-wingers who already determined, prior to selection, to oppose any candidate Obama selected, what do you have?
Yeah Your Right Sam,
I get it. Obama's selection of her tells us more about Obama than it does her. She will not have as free a range as some are implying she will, but he could have picked any other Hispanic, or Female. He chose HER for a very specific reason.
People like our new friend "Nameless" simply calls people like us Racist because we DARE to question Obama or his pick. Did you catch the comment about Ms. Lee? White Supremacists? Oh? I did not know that they we allowing Black Women into their folds. I guess Nameless sent me right there.{Smile}
Peter
Hey again Nameless,
Welcome back.
"Now, for my evidence, let' go to to the experts. See, there's this law firm with 13 offices across the country, with the unfortunate name of "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld."
Well, you have given me some research to do. You say they are "non-partisan?" Well, just in the few minutes I have left. I say follow the money. Other than McCain, who we all know is a Lib, who received $72,350 from 16 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld Llp employees All their Political contributions are to Democrats.
$30,100 to John Kerry
$22,500 to Barack Obama
$5,223 to Thomas Allen
$4,750 to Patrick Kennedy
$4,600 to Hillary Clinton
So on so forth. I would be willing to bet that the McCain thing is to give the impression of Bipartisanship. But like I said, we all know he is nothing more that a RINO and is without a doubt on the same page as the LIB kooks running the show. He would have been as President as well.
Anyway, Interesting stuff. I will have to look more closely at what you posted here. But facts are this. There are many overturns in her history, and many still being litigated. It's not just me. Many, including the NYTs call her a Liberal, and many say Race plays a big part in her decision making.
But then there you go again M, "Nameless," "radical, unhinged right-wingers" Just because we do not agree with a Racist Statement she MADE and the fact we do not agree with Obama, We must be "radical, unhinged right-wingers" along with Racist, chauvinistic, Homophobes. Right? {Smile}
Got to run for now. See you all tomorrow.
Peter
OK, let's see if I've got this straight.
The donations you've pulled up (not the total, just the ones you feel like printing) show:
$72,350 to Republicans
$67,173 to Democrats
Are we clear on this?
Your explanation, of course, is that McCain must be a "lib", because... well, I guess because, despite being the Republican candidate for president, he lost? Is that it?
That's all I'm coming up with. And really, that's kind of a sad argument.
Despite giving a majority of their contributions to the GOP presidential candidate, they're a liberal group.
You know how pathetic that sounds, right?
Post a Comment