You heard it here first. Pro Amnesty, Anti Life, Liberal, Judicial Activist
Hey folks,
Happy Hump Day. For those of you who are true OPNers, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is no surprise. I told you back on May 5, 2009, that she fits the Obama Agenda. Democrats Want Lackey Judge
"There is speculation that he is looking at Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in NY. Remember her? Sotomayer was on the panel that rejected a new trial for the former radical activist, Judith Clark who is imprisoned for being the getaway driver in a 1981 Rockland County armored-truck robbery. The incident left three people dead, including two police officers.
"See? She is not a Radical. She did not advocate from the bench. She would make a great Judge. She was even appointed by President George H W Bush."
However, The Wall Street Journal called her a "liberal." The Free Congress Foundation called her a "Judicial Activist." Amnesty groups pushed for her confirmation in 98. She was confirmed on October 2, 1998 in a 67-29 vote, and she received her Commission on October 7.
She is a big Amnesty Advocate and a big Anti-Life Advocate. {Pro-Choice} So she fits the Obama Agenda...."
Obama did pick her yesterday. This is his choice for the highest court in the land. According to some news out there, she found her inspiration reading Nancy Drew. Uh, OK. She had a hard life. OK. She is Hispanic. You don't say. She is a Woman. Really? "A Victory for Latina Moms?" Of course the Left is calling this "Brilliant, Historic, Wise."
It's called Identity Politics. It is also called putting someone up, that RACE can be used to defend her, leaving facts aside, to get a lackey in place to further an agenda. If you dare say anything against her RECORD. Her own STATEMENTS. Her own ACTIONS. Then YOU are a Racists. That is how Obama got elected. This is how Sotomayor will be confirmed. But facts are facts.
Even the New York Times said this yesterday.
Judge Sotomayor "has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not."
It is clear who she is and where she stands. In 2001 when delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California-Berkeley Law School, Sotomayor said this.
Hey folks,
Happy Hump Day. For those of you who are true OPNers, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is no surprise. I told you back on May 5, 2009, that she fits the Obama Agenda. Democrats Want Lackey Judge"There is speculation that he is looking at Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in NY. Remember her? Sotomayer was on the panel that rejected a new trial for the former radical activist, Judith Clark who is imprisoned for being the getaway driver in a 1981 Rockland County armored-truck robbery. The incident left three people dead, including two police officers.
"See? She is not a Radical. She did not advocate from the bench. She would make a great Judge. She was even appointed by President George H W Bush."
However, The Wall Street Journal called her a "liberal." The Free Congress Foundation called her a "Judicial Activist." Amnesty groups pushed for her confirmation in 98. She was confirmed on October 2, 1998 in a 67-29 vote, and she received her Commission on October 7.
She is a big Amnesty Advocate and a big Anti-Life Advocate. {Pro-Choice} So she fits the Obama Agenda...."
Obama did pick her yesterday. This is his choice for the highest court in the land. According to some news out there, she found her inspiration reading Nancy Drew. Uh, OK. She had a hard life. OK. She is Hispanic. You don't say. She is a Woman. Really? "A Victory for Latina Moms?" Of course the Left is calling this "Brilliant, Historic, Wise."
It's called Identity Politics. It is also called putting someone up, that RACE can be used to defend her, leaving facts aside, to get a lackey in place to further an agenda. If you dare say anything against her RECORD. Her own STATEMENTS. Her own ACTIONS. Then YOU are a Racists. That is how Obama got elected. This is how Sotomayor will be confirmed. But facts are facts.
Even the New York Times said this yesterday.
Judge Sotomayor "has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not."
It is clear who she is and where she stands. In 2001 when delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California-Berkeley Law School, Sotomayor said this.
"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."
Some say this is a very controversial and even offensive statement. But that is what Obama TOLD you he was looking for. Not someone with experience in the Law. Not someone that believes in the Constitution, he doesn't, but someone that will rule by life experiences. Empathy.
Yes, with the MMD {Mainstream Media Drones} simply keep hammering that this is brilliant and you are a Racist if you disagree, and of course the fact she has a lot of friends on the Left that have the power to rush her into the Seat, this is a done deal. Elections have consequences. She can not be stopped. Look for Amnesty, Prop 8 to be visited, and of course Abortion, to be on the docket once she is in place. Constitutional Challenges? I doubt you would like the outcome of those. No folks. Another blow to Freedom and Democracy. Another Radical to be put in place.
Some say this is a very controversial and even offensive statement. But that is what Obama TOLD you he was looking for. Not someone with experience in the Law. Not someone that believes in the Constitution, he doesn't, but someone that will rule by life experiences. Empathy.
Yes, with the MMD {Mainstream Media Drones} simply keep hammering that this is brilliant and you are a Racist if you disagree, and of course the fact she has a lot of friends on the Left that have the power to rush her into the Seat, this is a done deal. Elections have consequences. She can not be stopped. Look for Amnesty, Prop 8 to be visited, and of course Abortion, to be on the docket once she is in place. Constitutional Challenges? I doubt you would like the outcome of those. No folks. Another blow to Freedom and Democracy. Another Radical to be put in place.
The only way you can slow any of this down at all, is to get ready, get educated on what is happening right in front of you, and go VOTE when the time comes. Do it before your vote no longer matters.
Peter
Sources:
OPNTalk - Democrats Want Lackey Judge
NYT - Sotomayor’s Rulings Are Exhaustive but Often Narrow
Peter
Sources:
OPNTalk - Democrats Want Lackey Judge
NYT - Sotomayor’s Rulings Are Exhaustive but Often Narrow
10 comments:
Dude, calm down. You've got a lot of anger going there. Mommy issues, maybe?
Let's see what you've got to complain about. You spent a paragraph complaining that she's a female hispanic who once read Nancy Drew. I'm just curious - would you spend the same amount of time whining if the choice was a white male who read the Hardy Boys?
Because you know what? That would be identity politics, too. The difference is, you would have sat there smug and happy because somebody who looks just like you was nominated. It would be somebody who isn't a perfect match who'd complain.
Now, let's look at this thing we call "context." It's used in legal circles sometimes, so it's almost related to the meta-subject here. But in a more specific way, it relates to your use of Judge Sotomayor's quote, "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."
Wow. That sounds almost like she's answering a question, doesn't it? In fact, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases.
Looking back over your blog, I don't see where you mention that it was a "very controversial and even offensive statement" when John Yoo wrote the following:
As his memoir shows, Justice Thomas's views were forged in the crucible of a truly authentic American story. This is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him. A man like this on the Court is the very definition of the healthy diversity his detractors pretend to support.Ooh, look at that. John Yoo is a radical liberal!
I really like the scare talk you dip into toward the end. "She can not be stopped. Look for Amnesty, Prop 8 to be visited, and of course Abortion, to be on the docket once she is in place."
That's cute. Here, let me see if I can explain this in words short enough for you to catch on.
Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will be replacing another liberal vote on the Supreme Court. So, as one in nine votes, the most junior justice, who doesn't even change the balance of power, how is she going to do all of that?
Can I recommend that you install guardrails, Petey? Because you are seriously in danger of falling over the edge into complete, gibbering insanity.
I’m not completely sure of any of this as far as how important it is.
She seems to have a great empathy for something or other (Spanish people I guess).
However the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret and hence to defend the Constitution.
I would think there would be better out there more qualified, then some bleeding heart inexperienced liberal judge. (their heart my blood). As far as Obama trying to get what he wishes; well really, all presidents do that.
The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for the past 200 years, and their irresponsibility to the Constitution has only been outdone by our Congresses.
Hey Nameless,
Welcome to the OPNTalk Blog.
I'm going to respond to you here for the sake of those who do not know how you are, and to address your points. Since you took the time to leave a post here, I'll take the time to respond. For now.
First and foremost, THANK YOU! You CLEARLY illustrate my point brilliantly. I'm not even sure you know you did it, but you did.
"I'm just curious - would you spend the same amount of time whining if the choice was a white male who read the Hardy Boys?"
I would have a hard time with ANYONE that thinks one group of people is better than another group of people based solely on Race. It is the Left that always see things through the Prism of Race. Obama would NOT be President if he were not Black. She would not be where she is, if she were not a Hispanic Female. But because I criticized her based on FACTS and what SHE SAID, you want to try to label me a Racist. {Laughing}
As far as her being better at
"race and sex discrimination cases?" We know she has favored Minorities over Whites in the past, with NO addition of Constitutional reference. But we all know why. This is one of the main reasons Obama picked her. He is a Racist that thinks this country is evil and run by "Rich White Folks." Like he said yesterday.
"This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice."
I guess Justice can only start with a Radical Liberal Latino Woman. Right? Someone who is as Pro-Death, Pro Amnesty, Anti-Constitution as he is.
Now, now, now, Mann,,,UH, Nameless, The quote you quoted says Diversity is good. I agree with that. What she said is a Latino Woman will make BETTER judgements than a White Male. What if it were a White Male that said "White men made better decisions than Black women, or Catholics better than Jews?" After all, would a Jew not be in a better position to hear a Discrimination Case involving Jews? You get the point. Well, I doubt it, but one can hope.
I already said that this will not change the dynamic of the Court all that much. But the fact that she will be the next SC Justice is disturbing because of who she is. Because she will be put in place, the Kooks out there will attempt to bring all these things back to the court. I said REVISITED, not PASSED into law. Just more of a waste of Courts time.
I understand that you do not believe in the Constitution. I doubt that you even read it. I understand you have drank the Obamaid, because that is what you were told to do. I get it. But to point out someone's Racial Tendencies a Racist does not one make. To point out that this particular Racist Judge believes that Policy is made from the Bench and that is the way it should be, does not make one a Racist either.
Obama could have and most likely SHOULD have picked another person. I do not care if they are Latino {As long as they are a legal citizen} Black, Male, Female. Even a White Male, {God Forbid} As long as the person is qualified and UNDERSTANDS the ROLE of a Judge and the ROLE of the Supreme Court and one that UNDERSTANDS what that little piece of paper called the CONSTITUTION actually SAYS.
Peter
Hey D.S.
"The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for the past 200 years, and their irresponsibility to the Constitution has only been outdone by our Congresses."
I agree with that one hundred percent. Now Congress has been outdone by our current President, and NO ONE is calling them on it. But such is our brainwashed and ignorant populace.
It all starts in Public Schools and goes right through Collage. No one is taught that Communism or Marxism is bad. Hell, they do not even REALLY know what Socialism is all about. They do not teach the Constitution anymore. One school I KNOW is teaching that the Constitution was a good idea at the time, but it should be a living document and able to change with the times. Idiots.
But then you get what we got now. An ignorant, easily lead, citizenry that believes what they are told without the ability to think for themselves.
They are told, Obama will pay off them homes, hell, he even gave a women a home, will pay off their autos, will take money from those Evil Rich White Folks, and give it to them.
Yet. Trillions spent. Utter Failure. Banks still closing, buying other Banks, still not making loans. People losing their homes in RECORD numbers. Unemployment Record highs. Auto industries going out of business. Healthcare SKYROCKETING! Gas prices going back up. No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking, "WHERE ARE ALL THE TRILLIONS WE SPENT?"
My problem with this pick of Obama's is that she is nothing more that a Racist Liberal Extremist Judge. Just another Lackey that Obama is putting into place to further his quest for Tyranny. But then again, we have a Tax Cheat in charge of the IRS, ACORN doing our census, and a Amnesty proponent in charge of Homeland Security. Just to name a few. So why not? {Sigh}
Pete
"Mann..."? I'll have to assume that you believe you know my secret identity (and perhaps the combination to the Cynic Cave). Feel free to tell me - I'm curious who I am, too.
("for the sake of those who do not know how you are"? Hmm... how am I?)
Now, I see by your answer that you have an ugly habit of seriously reading into things. At what point did Judge Sotomayor ever say that Hispanics are better than whites? The National Council of La Raza , despite all the blatherings of that useless, pinheaded moron Tancredo, is not "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." They're a support group, fighting poverty and discrimination in the Hispanic community. (You can read about them here - I doubt you will, though. Sounds like you have your mind made up already.)
I love this "racist talk - let's look at the sources. I've already mentioned that useless gasbag Tancredo, who sings Dixie with the white supremacist "League of the South," and whose entire presidential candidacy was built on bashing Latinos. Rush Limbaugh (can I just say "Donovan McNabb and leave it there, or do I have to go on?); Glenn Beck (who links illegal aliens to everything that's ever gone wrong with the country, probably to include the shooting of Lincoln); Ann Coulter (whose latest book tries to pass off the racist Council of Conservative Citizens as unfairly-labeled victims, and who once wrote an article on immigration called "Bush's America: Roach Motel"); Newt Gingrich (who campaigned on the theme that the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan"); and Pat Buchanan (whose recent books just rehashed old white-supremacist eugenics from the early 20th century, whining about white privilege being overturned by the evil brown tide).
(Oh, and notice how I did that: not only did I give specific examples of these people's racism, but for the most part, it's specifically the racism that NCLR is set up to fight.)
"I understand that you do not believe in the Constitution. I doubt that you even read it."
Dude, you're definitely mistaking me for somebody else. I spent 21 years in the military upholding that Constitution. What have you done for your country lately? Aside from supporting the party that destroyed our economy and shredded the rights given to us by that self-same Constitution?
But due to the semi-anonymous nature of teh Internets, all I can do to prove my identity is point to my blog, where I at least have three years of background in this identity.
Like I said Nameless,
I'll play along for now. But I have already gotten two emails that pretty much agree that you sound and act just like someone on ETP. Someone that I will not respond to there, so you came here. But as I also said, since you took the time to come here, I will respond for now.
"At what point did Judge Sotomayor ever say that Hispanics are better than whites?"
Seriously?
"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."
"would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male"
Even Obama said she should have worded it differently. Why? Because it is a Racist statement. Had it been a White guy, regardless of the content, regardless even of his record, he would have had his name withdrawn and the Media would have been calling for his head. But SHE will be confirmed. That's the point.
This will be pointless, but I'll play along with this as well. You say these people are Racist.
Rush Limbaugh (can I just say "Donovan McNabb and leave it there, or do I have to go on?)
Completely ridiculous. He was saying who the Media saw McNabb. But I understand you most likey just got this off some Kook Far Left Website. There is not one Racist bone in Rush's body. He would not still be on the Air if he was as Racist as the Kooks claim him to be. Look at Imas. Even Al Sharpton knows Rush is not Racist.
Glenn Beck (who links illegal aliens to everything that's ever gone wrong with the country, probably to include the shooting of Lincoln)
Your opinion. Not true. But because he is against Amnesty, you call him a racist. See? It's easy to throw a word out there thinking it wins the argument. It doesn't. Just shows YOUR mentality.
Continued......
Continued,,,,
Ann Coulter (whose latest book tries to pass off the racist Council of Conservative Citizens as unfairly-labeled victims, and who once wrote an article on immigration called "Bush's America: Roach Motel"),
Again. But then again, she was criticizing Bush, but because she was talking about AMNESTY, you call her a Racist. Meanwhile, you call Council of Conservative Citizens "RACISTS!!!!" You see how old this gets? I know I know, you most likely subscribe to the Huffy Post or some other Far Left Lib Sites out there that WANT to portray anyone that is NOT Far Left Liberal Kooks, "Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes. Anyone who is Christian as Redneck Hicks that cling to their Guns and Bible. A comment that you most likely see nothing wrong with.
Newt Gingrich (who campaigned on the theme that the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan"); and Pat Buchanan (whose recent books just rehashed old white-supremacist eugenics from the early 20th century, whining about white privilege being overturned by the evil brown tide).
Your whole argument here completely cancels itself out. You take things out of context, do not argue the REASONS, nor even post the ACTUAL quote, but then make statements like these
"who links illegal aliens to everything that's ever gone wrong with the country, probably to include the shooting of Lincoln"
"the racist Council of Conservative Citizens"
"rehashed old white-supremacist eugenics from the early 20th century, whining about white privilege being overturned by the evil brown tide"
You claim these folks to be Racist, then you make you Racist Opinions as Statements of fact. Sorry, just doesn't fly. You are the one that is showing Racial Tendencies here. Anyone that disagrees? RACIST!!!!
"I spent 21 years in the military upholding that Constitution" I'll take your word for it. I'll even say THANK YOU for your service. Even though I seriously question how ANYONE that believes in the Constitution can support those seeking to ignore it, and even those calling to CHANGE it to fit their agendas.
Obama and the Left have destroyed this economy. Started with Fannie and Freddie when the DEMOCRATS Protected them and let them fail. I did not support Bush nor the Republicans at all with their Out of Control Government Growth nor with their Out of Control Spending. But Obama and the Left have taken it to a whole other level. One that will be nearly impossible to return from.
As for this? all I can do to prove my identity is point to my blog, where I at least have three years of background in this identity.
Like I said, for now I'll play along. Hi, I'm Peter Carlock coming to you live From Stuart Florida. I sign all my posts and take full responsibility for what I say. YOU?
Peter
Just to be different, let's go backwards here.
I've used "Nameless Cynic" for almost a decade now - I should change it for you? I take full responsiblility for everything I say, do or feel.
(And incidentally, I don't even know what ETP is. And Google isn't a lot of help, either.)
I seriously question how ANYONE that believes in the Constitution can support those seeking to ignore it, and even those calling to CHANGE it to fit their agendas.
Huh. You're right. You didn't support Bush or the Republicans (you know, habeas corpus, Freedom of Speech, Cheney's many nuanced and strangely fascist views of the powers of the Executive Office and his place it it, that sort of thing).
But all that's entirely secondary to the discussion at hand.
Why would denigrating illegal immigrants be racist? Well, let's hear it from Pat Buchanan in his own words.
(They) are not assimilated into America. Many Hispanics, as a matter of fact, you know what culture they are assimilating to? — the rap culture, the crime culture, anti-cops, all the rest of it.That's a very common perception. People have to change to become "just like us," and abandon every vestige of their culture, language and history. Why is that? Because the "white culture" (whatever the hell that is) is so much superior to theirs? What's the word for that attitude? Wait, it's right here on the tip of my tongue... starts with "R"...
You claim these folks to be Racist, then you make you Racist Opinions as Statements of fact.Oh, I'm sorry. You can't do your own research on these folks, so you want this to be a really long post? Well, OK, then. Thought I was doing you a favor, but here you go.
Council of Conservative Citizens
Hell, let's just take it straight off their website:
(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.
Translation: "Ew, the scary brown people are coming! Our culture is so much better than theirs, and we can't have the mongrel races infecting our own pristine white cities!"
(You know, I wonder if any of these fine, upstanding white gentlemen ever denigrated the French during that whole "Freedom Fries" stupidity. After all, France is "European" too, isn't it?)
Are you seriously going to try to claim that a white nationalist, white separatist group isn't racist? Really? They're still up in arms about interracial marriage - these guys are a joke. They can't even cut the holes in their sheets without poking themselves in the eye.
(continued)
Pat Buchanan
The tag for his 2002 book, Death of the West - "The Death of the West is an unflinching look at the increasing decline in Western culture and power.The West is dying. Collapsing birth rates in Europe and the U. S., coupled with population explosions in Africa, Asia and Latin America are set to cause cataclysmic shifts in world power, as unchecked immigration swamps and polarizes every Western society and nation.The Death of the West details how a civilization, culture, and moral order are passing away and foresees a new world order that has terrifying implications for our freedom, our faith, and the preeminence of American democracy."
Do I really need to say it? Scary brown people, the end of white people being the privileged class (despite their obvious superiority), yadda yadda yadda.
His 2006 book, State of Emergency specifically brings up the importance of race-based statistics (which is where the "eugenics" argument comes from, by the way).
He has at least stopped talking about Martin Luther King as "divisive figure."
In his own words:
"I'd like the country I grew up in. It was a good country. I lived in Washington, D.C., – 400,000 black folks, 400,000 white folks, in a country 89 or 90 percent white. I like that country."
On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)
In a 2/25/89 column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi "costume": "Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks."
In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, in his column on 2/7/90, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this."
In a column on 9/17/89, he referred admiringly to the apartheid regime of South Africa as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?"
In a 1977 column dug up by the Guardian in 1992, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
Are we clear on this yet? I can do that for each and every one of the people I mentioned. And it would usally take that long or longer. Difficult to do with a limit of 4,096 characters.
(continued)
But as for your continued harping on a cherry picked "wise Latina woman" quote, I guess I've got to provide you with the context, since you keep going back to it. Again, this takes more room than the 4,096 character allotment.
So you're going to have to read it yourself. However (and that page included the big scary "wise Latina woman" quote), for people who actually employ critical thinking skills and not just cherry-picked quotes (which I'm starting to realize is beyond your ability), Sotomayor is cautioning against relying on those life experiences and advocating constantly checking against the assumptions that we all make.
But you're going to ignore that in favor of your political agenda. I'm coming to realize this; it's kind of sad.
Post a Comment