I’d like to cite MiHand v. UrFace
(Sonia Sotomayor)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: dunno source via Our LOL Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous DAMN!! | VANDALING Next »
I’d like to cite
» 482 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Tommycat on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Nailin Palin on There’s One! Nailin Palin on There’s One! Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Daily Squee: Interspecies Love - What a Lovely Hat!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Kappa Alpha Tau
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Cyoot Puppy ob teh Day: Redy 4 mai kloseup
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
What?
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
THE BREAD. ITS TOO MUCH.
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Not So Shy Panda
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Poor Reginald
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Let's Get Hammered!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
He's Right About Almost Everything
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Hulk Smashes: The Kardashians
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
This Strawberry Totally Looks Like Goldfish Cracker
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Tweedy Squirrels
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Is it just me or does this look more like HerHand vs HerFace?
No, because you “pimp-slap” with the back of the hand…
Sotomayor’s gotta keep the pimp hand strong.
Is it me, or does anyone else want to see her grab Sessions by his jug-ears and beat the living shtoik out of him??!!
It would be the first honest response she’s given.
You’re funny.
(Feeds troll)
Which responses did you think were dishonest?
C’mon, PM… you know, whatever responses Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck/Coulter and Buchanan told him were dishonest…
Shhesh, you’d think after all this time, you’d know that!!
Didn’t they give Alito a hard time too? I remember, vaguely because I wasn’t that into politics at the time, his wife storming out….?
They filibustered one of Bush’s picks for a lower court. And yes the Dems did give Alito a hard time, but it’s ok he’s a conservative judge, they don’t deserve the same treatment as liberal judges.
a) this chicita made her bed when she said stupid comments like er comment about her knowing better about judge deciscions b/c she’s a latina woman. Think if any white male judge had said that, the public would be outraged there was even consideration to the bench.
b) This woman has clearly shown bias in her rulings, vice the letter of the law.
c) Another liberal agenda push to put an unqualified minority into a place of power to say that it has occurred. IE Obama in the White House, Holder as Atttorny General, and her as the first female latina judge in the Supreme Court. You would thing there would be a better latina woman for the job, just like there were plenty of better African Americans for the job of Presidency (Colin Powell, Michael Steele, and I’m sure others).
Poor poor white males! We’re so OPPRESSED! *eyeroll*
You know what? Screw the “us” I’m going to claim my American Indian heritage and opt out of the “white male” bracket. So let’s try that again!
Poor poor white males! THEY’RE so OPPRESSED! *eyeroll*
Can I get in on that? I think I’m 1/64th Cherokee. At least, I had a great-grandfather that claimed to be 1/8th Cherokee.
Really just looking for a way to secede from “white male” status as well. Too many other white males are embarrassing our demographic. Like when they try to paint a nominee with more judicial experience than anyone in the last fifty years as an “unqualified minority.”
Heh, good luck! I have DNA tests proving I’m 1/12 Native American and at least 1 relative on the reservation registry for the Choctaw Nation. But because he changed his middle name when he got his SS number and left the reservation (to work on the Hoover Dam), I’m screwed! So, WASP female I remain. :-/ And trust me, female doesn’t mean much in my chosen field…70% of all vet students are female.
Jessica: Does that mean you wear the sexy trench coat? HMMMMM good with animals and sexy trench coat!!?!?!?!? (Homer drool)
I think my class was closer to 80%.
Real: Excuse me I’m embarassing white males by stating my opinion. I’ve reviewed Ms. Sotamayor. I do not agree with a lot of her controversial rulings, and apparently neither does the Supreme Court. 3 out of 5 overturned? That’s pretty bad.
Actually, if you look at how many decisions the Supreme Court overturns in any given term (roughly 65% to 80%), 60% is actually ahead of the curve.
But that’s from everyone, not from only ONE Judge.
Eeh, what? Wasn’t that the point?
Umm..that was exactly the point.
This ONE judge has a lower average of overturned rulings than the average of ALL the judges.
See the thing about percentages is…oh, nevermind.
percentages are wrong 65% of the time….. yeah I see where I botched that up… I was errr ummm wrong. However I still don’t think she’s all the qualified (most judges aren’t). I want a judge who follows the constitution, not her inhibitions. Not a fan of Alito either. The Supreme Court HAS become too Political. They’ve gotten away from what they’re supposed to be doing. Come on the DC Gun Ban should have been overturned 9-0. Stop voting party lines, PLEASE!!!
While justice is supposed to be blind of party affiliation, or of everything really, you’re living in a dream world if you think that’s gonna happen. Justice was blind until they got her lasik surgery.
(Now justice is a registered member of the democratic party. Mwahahahahaha!!!!! just kidding, don’t hurt me)
No, the DC gun ban should never have gone to the Supreme Court in the first place. It should have been recycled for use as toilette paper immediately after it was drafted.
Judge Wapner would have knocked that one out before the first commercial break, how on earth did it make it to the Supreme Court?
Judges shouldn’t HAVE a partisan affiliation, they should be ruling based on the constitution and the law.
Yeah, I know. Good luck with that, though. Things that are supposed to be aren’t the way they are. It’d be nice, though, wouldn’t it?
Eric/ Steve: Idealism not just for liberals anymore!!
The issue with Sotomayor is that her rulings are not made by the letter of the law but by the ethnicity of the people involved.
The Constitution is not a living document, you don’t get to “interpret” it (read: twist it) to suit your personal tastes.
Instead of the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves, I wish they’d rise up out of them and eat the liberals!!
Oh yay, someone who believes all liberals need be eaten. Good job wishing mass violence upon an entire group of people, idiot.
“Cuz they have teh best BRRRAIIIINNNZZZ!!!
Kartoon you’re the one who helps feed the fvcktards like “arimareiji”. You’re part of the reason they feel free to generalize. Let’s not be fvcktards ourselves and generalize (well unless generalized upon first). There are many liberals on this site who don’t need to be eaten. And the liberal agenda has some decent idieas, but just don’t transfer well to practicality. We need liberals like they need us, or else this country will free fall into more stupidity.
“Yeah, stop vilifying the ‘fvcktards’ who disagree with me!”… uh, was that supposed to be taking the high road?
No Ari it’s not b/c you disagree with me, it’s b/c you generalize. If you look I really don’t insult all those that diasgree with me. just those that generalize (oh and take a look I insult conservatives that do the same. When was the last time you called a liberal out onbeing a dumb ass?)
(Quite a few times that I’ve seen, PB. Just sayin’, I’ve seen him debunk all KINDS of trolls here prior to your arrival
“I really don’t insult all those that diasgree with me. just those that generalize”
When you start throwing epithets like “fvcktard,” you have given up all pretense at civil discourse. “But I’m justified in doing so!” rings very hollow, because everyone claims they’re justified. Your actual words speak a lot louder than your rationalizations.
Sorry Ari: Once again not seeing how your point can’t be used right back at you. But then again I said my points were lost on you, so it’s quite alright. Maybe fvcktard is too harsh, and I… I… I…. apologize… (ouch)….
You do realize there are plenty of us Liberals who believe strongly in the constitution and the bill of rights….
We’re not the ones who believe that “all men are created equal”….as long as they aren’t homosexuals.
Steve: To me or KartoonNoBrainWerk?
Eat the Liberal’s brains? Poor guys would starve.
That was directed at Kartoon4brains
@NoShogun — re you comment: “Eat the Liberal’s brains? Poor guys would starve.” when did our brains disappear? before the election the conservatives were bashing the liberals for being ‘over-educated elites’ and not having any idea how the ‘real world’ worked since we only hang out at universities; now you’re telling us that liberals are brainless and/or emptyheaded?
i’m sorry but i just can’t wrap my stupid, over-educated liberal brain around that leap of illogic, can you explain using bourgeoisie simple words so i can understand why the flip-flopping
PS: You’re a tool. Read any thing written from the press liberal or conservative and the first thing they talk about is how she’ll be the First Latina Judge, and how it would be a milestone.
PS: The tool is you. Here’s why.
Of course people will note that she’ll be the First Latina Judge. It’s noteworthy. Most firsts are. She’s allowed to be proud of that. Others are allowed to be proud of that.
The problem is that the more the Republicans attack her for being proud of her heritage, the more they sound like whining white guys who think that affirmative action is why they’re not a winner. They sound like… well, Rush Limbaugh. You might be satisfied with the Republicans narrowing their appeal to only those far, far to the right, but I’m not. I’m wanting a rational opposition. I’m wanting a party that I could think of voting for.
And, disagreeing with the Scalia court is not a bad trait for a new justice to have, I feel.
Her heritage should play absolutely NO role in whether she can apply the law. You apply what’s there, not what you want to be there because you grew up a certain way. We shouldn’t even know that she’s Hispanic, if you want to be fair about it.
Ditto to Froo.
I wish there were a way to put the candidate in a dark room and disguise their voice, so we have no idea if they are black, white, brown, green, male, female, or transgendered. Then you’re only going off their record and their answers, not a preconceived notion of them. Of course, that’s a perfect world, and we’re never getting that *sigh*
It’s the new ABC show Datin gin the Dark. Maybe we could do “Confriming in the Dark” or “Voting in the Dark”
froo:
I’d love to see that for any and every job, really.
But … That’s not a perfect world. In the perfect world, that shouldn’t be necessary at all.
I agree Froo…we should stop taking note of “First black president” / “first latina judge” / “first martian governor” etc.
They’re all just people as far as I’m concerned.
Steve, I think “first Martian governor” would be pretty freaking cool…..
Isn’t Arnold the first martian governor?
Oh…wait, he wasn’t the Predator…he killed the Predator.
No, no, no! He LIBERATED the Red Planet, dude!
Steve: But he did play a Martian in Totall Recall!!!
I agree froo. I’ve been saying that it’s stupid that so many people were like “I’m not voting for Obama because he’s black!” Or, “I’m voting for Obama because he’s black!” That’s so stupid. Campaigning should be done by a crew and we should vote on the candidate based on their platform, not their heritage.
It can be noteworthy and not relevant to her position all at once, and it is.
Exactly. Going “Well, that‘s cool.” doesn’t have to mean that you have it in some form of agenda.
Commenting on the phenomenon as such, not this in particular, since I don’t feel I know enough to do that.
SB: I kind of disagree. I believe her race has alot to do with why she was chosen by Barrack Obama. I can’t cite it, but that’s my gut feeling. Once again something that can’t be proven, however just from how I percieve Obama, it’s something he would do. Is she liberal (check). Is she a she (check). Is she a minority we don’t have on the bench (check). She’ll do.
@I Like Peanut Butter says:
“SB: I kind of disagree. I believe her race has alot to do with why she was chosen by Barrack Obama. I can’t cite it, but that’s my gut feeling. Once again something that can’t be proven, however just from how I percieve Obama, it’s something he would do. Is she liberal (check). Is she a she (check). Is she a minority we don’t have on the bench (check). She’ll do.”
so the little factoid that bush chose her as an appellate judge carries no weight for her qualifications? she was all hokey-dokey then but now that you’re all b*tthurt over mcpalin not being in the white house there is something wrong with her qualifications, and judicial opinions?
Well PB, there’s not much point about debating your gut feelings…but remember, there are no brain cells in your gut.
As for me, I am extremely proud that we’ve progressed enough as a society to elect Americans of color to office after hundreds of years of white leadership in government and politics. I voted for Barack Obama because I thought he was the best candidate, but I am delighted that he happens to be black (or at least half black) because it’s a defining event in our nation’s history. I’m a fan of progress.
Sotomayor has a lot of support from both sides of the aisle. I haven’t heard any strong arguments that she doesn’t have the necessary experience or judgement to hold a seat in the Supreme Court. She is certainly not a liberal. By all accounts, the expectation seems to be that she will be similar in her judgements to Souter, so not much will change with regard to balance if she is confirmed.
Bad: I wish you read my posts. I wouldn’t have liked her then if she had said what she said. Or showed or copped to a bias, no matter who appointed her. To me this is not a Republican/ Democrat issue. It’s a bias/ non-bias issue in the Judicial System which is supposed to be blind. You won’t get me to say, well it’s ok b/c it was a different time. I’ll say ONE MORE TIME for those liberals on here who refuse to hear it, ready!!!! “I don’t care who appointed whom. If there is a blatant bias, that person is not qualified to be a part of the highest court in the country, since justice is supposed to be blind.”
SB: As I said before. I have no cares of what nationality the person is. I just want someone qualified. And I ‘m sorry Obama was not that qualified, and sadly enough it’s starting to show. To me (and I’m sure I’ll take flak for this) I would have rather see the first black president be of more substance, and frankly earning. Democrat or Republican is no matter to me there once again. I just don’t want Barrack to fvck up SOOO much that it just feeds the ignorant position, “See black man can’t handle it.” and set the black community back. I would have been more proud if color blind had been a part of this election. Sadly Barrack beat Hilliary b/c he was anti-Iraq and black. And frankly the Democrats could have run a card board cut out for presdient and still won.
I hope Ms. Sotemayor doesn’t rule in the court cases with her bias, and then set the latino/a community back in the eyes of ignorant folks. Hence why I ‘m so animate about getting someone without a confessed bias in that spot. Once again look at what some people are saying about the New Haven Firefighters, “See you put a minority in a position and they will abuse that power, and rule against the white man.”
More judicial experience? One year = a resounding clarion call to her being the best one for the job? Piffle. And the type of experience she has isn’t exactly heartening….
Federal district judge 1992-1997.
Court of appeals judge 1998-current.
(Source for above data: Wikipedia. -link)
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her work as an ADA, a private practice lawyer, or a judge, 1992-2009 is more than one year of judicial experience.
Here is a story (from Politifact) that hammers out the statement about her having more experience and what that means. She’s got a total of a year’s worth of experience, which doesn’t give her any type of an edge over the others. Plus, two of the justices have more appellate court experience than she does. So the claim that she has more experience is technically correct, but leaves the wrong impression of the situation. Her experience in no way outstrips the others, or gives her any type of year advantage.
From your source:
“But drill down into the numbers, and Sotomayor has more total federal court experience only by a single year, and two justices have more appellate experience than she does.
Sotomayor served six years on the district court level and 11 years on the appellate level for a grand total of 17 years. Contrast this with Samuel Alito, who sat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 16 years, or Stephen Breyer, who sat on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for 14 years, with four of those as the chief judge. If you consider Sotomayor more experienced than these justices, it’s only by a margin of a year or two. And constitutional lawyers (or the judges’ moms) might argue that Alito and Breyer’s additional appellate experience is more relevant than experience at the district court level.”
—-
So Sotomayor has one year MORE than the others. Not one year total.
That’s what I said. Where did I say she had only one year?
-
If I wasn’t clear, I was trying to say that one total year more of experience doesn’t make her “more” qualified in any way. It’s certainly not the mandate that it’s being made out to be. She’s at least got comparable years of experience.
-
What was the issue again? LOL
Well… “She’s got a total of a year’s worth of experience” certainly sounded as if that was what you were saying.
Ah for the lack of the word “more”, a whole discussion of nothing was born. You wrote that she had ‘a total of one year’s worth of experience’.
But then again, I can’t claim to perfect, so … have a cookie? Chocolate chip!
I apologize for not being clear! I’ll work on that
In my defense, it made sense to me when I typed it out!
I interpret occasional miss-connections between pen and brain, or between mouth and brain, as a sign that the brain is moving too fast for the body to catch up. So–a sign of smarts!
Where did I say white males were opressed? Oh that’s right I didn’t!!!!! Actually if you read what I wrote I was advocating for minorities, just QUALIFIED ones. I find it entertaining that you don’t find it ironic that people are getting positions and preverential treatment b/c of the color of their skin and gender. Isn’t that what we don’t want, regardless (irregardless) of skin or gender? I thought the liberal aganeda was equality for all, not special benefits for those that are different than the “main” stream? I’m not opressed, I’m just asking you to practice what you preach, is that so difficult?
How is she “not qualified”?
B/C 60% of her controversal rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court. She doesn’t rule by the law, but rather by her own experiences that pertain to the law. She’s admitted to it in her testimony, and during many of her speeches.
First off, citations for the “60% of her rulings” please.
Here’s the cite on her rulings that have been reversed, in an unbiased report on whether that’s a bad thing or not.
3 of the 5 cases that went to the Supreme Court she ruled on were overruled. IE 3/5 = 60%
You were pwned about that 60% (see above) PB old bean. Where’s my apology?
I dont’ think either of you were pwned. I think it’s a lack of actual knowledge about the issue, i.e. whether she was overturned 60% of the time (she was), and whether that’s abnormal or a bad thing (it isn’t).
UMMM what? First off Froos cite didn’t work, and second 3 of 5 = 60% or is my math off?
Why did my cite not work?
I don’t know, I can’t see it. It’s a conservative conspiracy to prove me wrong….. I mean libearl conspiracy… oh shit it’s a conspriacy…..
Hey Ivan, still waiting to hear where I said the white man is oppressed?
Ok, try this: Go to double U double U double U dot politifact dot com and look up the Truth-O-Meter on Sonya Sotomayor. Under her name will be a post about the Libertarian Party saying that she’s been overturned too many times. Read that article
There are mostly half-truths on both sides about Sotomayor, and it’s shameful that people are acting that way. The fact that the Rightys can’t find anything too bad on her, or when they do, spin it improperly to make it worse than it already is, makes them shameful. The fact that the Lefties have to spin what THEY find into good stuff makes them just as shameful, as their need to do it makes it look as though she has no redeeming features. Just go read the article. It’s pretty good!
Fun, and absolutely irrelevant trivia fact:
In Swedish “w” is called a “double-v”. When we pronounce “www”, we don’t say “double-v-double…”, we say “v-v-v-dot-whatever-se”. It’s strange, but it works, because everyone knows what is intended. (And just saying v-v-v is so much nicer.)
I want to move to your country where the alphabet makes sense. Double V, hells yeah!
Spanish is duble ve for W…. I think most places call it double V. Sort of like we call soccer, soccer, while the resto fo the world pretty much call it football.
Froo: I fill actually somewhat vindicated. If you look at it she has a worse record than I thought. Of course Alito was 2 for 2 overturn. But hey not really supportive of him as well. I think Liberatarians would be some of the better Supreme Court judges.
Like I said, neither of you was wrong. It’s just a matter of perspective.
I agree with you about the Libertarians. Far be it from them to try to take more for teh ebil govermentz
PB, the thing is that the average for judges being overturned is 65-70%, therefore her average is 5% below that of other judges. Not too much, but it’s not a reason to criticize her either. Because saying she rules by her own experiences/discriminations isn’t exactly a viable reason to deny someone entry to the Supreme Court if she’s ahead of the curve of other judges.
Tyler I disagree. B/C she’s ahead of other judges, doesn’t necesarily mean to me the other judges are qualified either. Get me a judge who reads that law and doesn’t have a bias thrown in.
I se exactly where you’re coming from, but don’t see how you can get rid of the political bias (either way) with a system where judges’ appointments and promotion/demotion are politically controlled.
Paws: Simple people actually have the testicles to do the right thing when they get there. There’s no way to get a judge off the bench (unless they break the law). Scarey isn’t it? So once you’re there you don’t have to be political, b/c you can’t really lose your job. The Judicial Branch (well Supreme Court) actually has a leg to stand on about having no constituants to make happy. Their consituant is the Law.
PB, no one has ever devised a method for detaching the individual from the circumstances of life, from the fact of his/her involvement (conscious or unconscious) with a class, a set of beliefs, a social position, or from the mere activity of being a member of a society. These factors continue to bear on what individuals do professionally and privately.
It is not an issue of being a “simple person” with “testicles.” Neither of which, might I add, are factors I would look for in a Supreme Court Justice.
Touche on the testicles comment… I relent that. However I believe people have the capability to separate their personal experiences from the law. Though I am sympathetic to a woman who wacks her husband for cheating, she still broke the law. A man lost his job and steals food to feed his family. I sympathize with his case, but he still broke the law. A soldier comes home from war, doesn’t get the support he/she needs at home or from the VA, and snaps and kills his/her significant other, I sympathize and wish the situation was different, but he/she still broke the law.
” thought the liberal aganeda was equality for all”…that would be euality for all unless you are white, conservative and religious.
as usual…
And another witty, pertinent post from WTF. Well done!
Oh yeah didn’t you hear about prop 1.0 in Cali? We’re proposing to make marriages for white conservative religious people illegal. We’re sneaky liberals like that.
Telling a group of people they’re not allowed to enjoy the same rights that other people do is called discrimination.* In this country we take pride in our “progressive, non-discriminatory” ways.
*Providing that to enjoy those same rights they are consenting adults and not breaking any laws.
Damnit. I meant prop 8.0 in Cali that is to ban marriages for white conservative religious people.
don’t forget peanut about all the funds that were poured into cali from religious groups in other states and the misinformation that those certain narrowminded religious groups spread far and wide. would prop 8 have passed if those against it hadn’t thought it was a slam-dunk and weren’t so complacent until the last minute & half…
Charro: Just saying the people voted. We live in a democracy. Am I opposed to disallowing people rights, hell no, I truely believe in our Consitution. And it really wasn’t the religious nut jobbos (remember most liberals ignore them) but the insurance companies. It would cost them, especially in CA millions of dollars.
Exactly. And some issues shouldn’t be left to the states, if the states are going to practice discrimination. Imagine if slavery had been allowed to be decided by the states!
Whether or not anybody is oppressed doesn’t really matter here. Let’s play change a word: “I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life.” How does that sound? If it seems wrong, then so was what she said. At best, it was an extremely stupid choice of words. At worst, it is evidence that she is biased, possibly even racist, against white men. Sure, this is an example of quote mining. Some people are opposed to her nomination, and this was the best they could come up with, and she’s probably not as blatantly prejudiced in her rulings as the quote makes her seem. The point is, nobody should get a free pass to say silly things just because of her minority status.
“Help help! I’m being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!”
Funny how you have not defense but to ridicule. If a conservative was doing that you’d probably say something about how he knows he’s wrong.
Monty Python reference recognition fail.
Go find a sense of humor and then watch the Holy Grail.
Steve you should have added “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”
It would have been the perfect reply T_T
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries!!!
What a strange person…
But it still doesn’t alieviate the point he had nothing substancial to say, so he threw a lone out of a movie that would ridicule what the person said. Just b/c he quoted a funny movie, doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying to belittle what was being said. So go into the woods find the biggest tree and cut it down with……… a herring!!!!
I think anyone who doesn’t have anything interesting or valid to say actually should start using movie quotes because at least then everyone could have a laugh. :\ But that’s just me…
Squiggly: Why am I strange? I was quoting the same exact movie that others were quoting. Showing the Steve and Ivan I know the movie, seen it many a time.
It was another line from the movie ILPB. Granted not one of the more famous ones, but one that has always been a personal favorite of mine. One of the Knights says it to Arthur after the encounter with the French soldier. XD
You are right……..
Sir Gallahad, Sir Lancelot and I jump out of the rabbit……
Sorry PB, but I just choose not to get into a pissing match with you over who’s being oppressed. Because in your eyes, it’s OBVIOUSLY the poor white males.
No, no, no. It’s clearly the RICH white males that are oppressed now because nobody likes them anymore.
Ivan: You missed the urinal and hit your shoe…
No I don’t think we’re opressed. Actually if you read what I write, I want a level playing field. How is that oppressive? How is the being oprressed? We’re not being oppressed, however we’re not being awarded benefits for our skin tone either. (Please don’t use the montra that it had been going on for years so reversal of such treatment is deserved). All I’m asking is that everyone get treated equal, is that wrong to ask? And why is it when I ask that, you jump to me saying that the white man is opressed? I don’t see the connection.
BTW I’m 25% Hispanic, 25% Hebrew and 50% I have no clue….
I’m all for judging folks according to their abilities, and for sticking to the constitution and the law, with a caveat. Have we forgotten that the original constitution was written by land-holding white males? You wouldn’t have been able to vote if you rented rather than owning. And have we forgotten that the majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives is still white and male? People tend to see the world through the lens of their own experiences, and as such it is hard to see how one’s beliefs may be harmful to another. Link to interview of Ruth Bader Guinsberg, recalling how William Renquist’s view of gender-related law changed after he became personally involved in mentoring his granddaughters.
**Crickets**
Because only oppressed and repressed people have anything worthwhile to say, I guess.
No Rocker b/c the only opressed or repressed people in this country are non-white males. B/C White Males only opress and repress people, not that it was mostly white males who died to end slavery. Or it was a White Male President (Nixon) who was the most Civil Rights conscience President besides possibly Lincoln (oh wait another White Male)………
Because..you know…there have been so many Presidents who weren’t white males…
One I think!!!
@The Steve: I read that as “white whales” and found it very suitable – most presidents have been some sort of Moby Dick to the Ahabs of either opposition or internship, I figured…
Danalaba: I believe the answer would be the same, only one President was a White Whale (Taft).
@ I like peanut butter — you might want to research nixon and civil rights a little deeper and not just assume that because he was president that he actually supported the changes in the civil rights laws – in many ways he was a nasty little man who hated just about everyone, especially those who he couldn’t threaten or blackmail into being his toadies. on the other hand, sometimes he did remember that the best way to get what you want is to compromise on something else.
Bad Faire: Did your liberal books tell you that?!?!? I’m sorry but he did agree, he actually pushed most of the legislation through. But once again since he was a conservative he had to be racist, right?
Hey, I’m unoppressed, but now you’re oppressing me!! I’m being oppressed!! And repressed! Which is weird, because I don’t remember being pressed the first time, but now I’m repressed!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *sniff*
Did they get the wrinkles out this time? Because, if not, I swear to God I will SNAP!!
I’ve got a couple left in my forehead they can’t seem to get out. Something about a receding hairline just making that forehead bigger and bigger and I think they were just making fun of me.
That’s not a forehead, dude, that’s a FIVEhead…
Now I’m depressed.
That was impressive.
Really? Michael Steele? REALLY? Back in the day, he would have been known as a “jive turkey”. Today he has no “street cred”. But it IS funny when he lapses into the “ebonics” vernacular…
For some reason, I can’t stand to look at Michael Steele. He looks like a brown version of Professor Bunsen Honeydew, from the Muppets. [Link]
Whoops. Link goes here. c.c
Aha.
[Link]?
ROFLMAOFTW! +eleveny internets for you! So who would you say is Beaker?
Actually, there are very few people who have any problems with the vast majority of her rulings. Even the most negative of Repub senators haven’t been able to get any good fodder for an attack there.
She was originally nominated to the bench by Bush Sr., after all. Can’t be *too* liberal.
Yeah that New Have firefighters ruling was SPOT ON!!!! Or perhaps the two other cases that had to go up the Supreme Court that overturned her ruling. So 3 out 5 controversal cases to the Supreme Court she got wrong…… That’s who I want on the bench. Wrong 60% of the time, when it counts.
So what you are saying is that if the Supreme Court decides it, it must be the right decision. So you agree that Dred Scott v. Sandford was the right decision, when the Supreme Court said that slaves, and the descendants of slaves, had no Constitutional protections? Or from another perspective, what about Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated laws in 48 states against “desecration” of the American flag? And the original Roe v. Wade decision must have been right, yes?
Silly clamboy, they’re not always right. They’re only right when they agree with Fox News. They’re always right.
They’re so right that to make a left, they have to go around the block and make three right turns. If they were birds, they’d only have one wing – the right one.
Hmmm so tempting to just thorw out those stereotypical liberal lines, but you know, you ain’t worth it. Nope not really…….. you just know you’re wrong b/c oyu had to turn to ridicule vice facts. I know it’s tough to admit, but it’s spelled W-R-O-N-G. Try it on for size, it might fit.
Was that supposed to be comprehensible, or a demonstration of word salad?
Once again, spelled W-R-O-N-G…..
By definition the Supreme Court “gets it right”. It is the system of Government that determines the Constitutionality of the Laws. If they fail then the Constitution fails. However there is a check and blance system, ie new Amendments to the Constitution. (for your first case). On the other cases yes the Supreme Court was correct. Under the 1st Amendment people have the Right to burn and desicrate the flag that symbolizes that freedom. And as hte laws are written today, Roe VS Wade is the correct deciscion. However if in the future we change the definition of a fetus to a living person, then Roe vs Wade needs to be re-evaluated as it would condone murder.
Fine, I will accept your definition. But that invalidates your labeling Judge Sotomayor’s decisions, such as in the Ricci case, “wrong.” She followed precedent, which was right, and then the current Supreme Court decided to establish a new precedent. Should she have had foreknowledge of the Court’s new view, in order to avoid being “wrong”? Is every judge who follows precedent prior to the establishment of a new precedent “wrong”? I thought conservatives *wanted* judges to follow the law as it stands, and not “legislate from the bench”!
No she was worng on the Ricci case. The Supreme Court upheld the same presedent. Racism is racsim. It’s a new precedent to many people in this country. The fallacy of the word racism in this country is that too many people (regardless of political leanings) see it as a White on minority, vice what it truely is, judging someone soley on the color of their skin. She (and her bench mates) decided to focus more intently on a portion of the law in order to set a precedent, rather than encompass the entire law. True the law is somewhat ambiguous, however the fact that the entire law was not taken into account on the ruling (b/c the deferred to the lower courts ruling) to me is a gross injustice of her position.
ILPB, your ignorance of how the law works is astounding, which is probably because you get all your information on these cases from your preferred cable news channel rather than from reading.
Do you know what happens when a difficult case is appealed to the Supremes, but they look at the Circuit Court decision and determine the Circuit judges got it right?
They deny the appeal. They don’t hear the case.
When a case is easy, at the trial or appellate level, it gets a brief decision. From a paragraph to a couple pages, that’s it. This is a matter of well settled law, here’s the relevant statute and case precedent, and goodbye, no deep analysis needed. Flip through a volume of case decisions and you’ll see tons of these.
When a case is difficult there are pages and pages of analysis by the trial or appellate judge. And if the Supremes like what they read in those pages? They deny the appeal, short and sweet, no hearing, finished business.
So no, you’re dead bullshite wrong when you say Sotomayor only had 5 difficult cases in her career and booted three of them. You’re so wrong it’s hard to tell where to begin.
Slan: I don’t watch Foxnews actually. I get my stuff pretty much from every source. I don’t listen to Rush, I don’t listen to O’Reilly, and I don’t listen to Hannity, so really you can stop with the generalization horseshit. I’m tired of it. Call me ignorant one more time, b/c I don’t agree with you and I will go fvcking troll on your ass. Be civil and stop acting like a douche.
I’m not being uncivil, I’m pointing out that you are dead bullshite wrong.
You did not address the substance of my argument at all, choosing instead to dwell on the 1% of the post that mentioned cable news (you made the assumption which). Is your silence because you realize I’m right about how the appellate process works? For your sake I hope so, because to anyone with any legal background it’s painfully clear that you are (say it with me now) bullshite wrong.
And you’re already looking pretty trollish to me, so your threats are meaningless.
But you still haven’t supported your apparent assertion that being overturned by the Supreme Court means an appellate judge’s finding must have been “wrong.” As for the Ricci case, New Haven followed the course they felt obligated to follow under the provision related to testing in Title VII. Sotomayor and her colleagues on the bench found that New Haven had acted in good faith in their desire to adhere to the law.
I have no interest in discussing whether Title VII leads to “reverse discrimination,” but I just want to understand why it is that when an appellate judge, following the law and precedent, is overturned by the Supreme Court, that that means the judge in question was “wrong.”
Isn’t that what was determined by the Supreme Court? If something is overturned it was wrong by definition?
So if the Supreme Court did not hear the Ricci case, the appellate court’s decision would have remained “right”? And what about the 4 justices who dissented in Ricci? Are they “wrong”? Is there no case in the history of the Supreme Court that learned, reasonable people would agree was a “wrong” decision, from the perspective of the Constitution and the principles behind it?
It seems to me that you are using very specific definitions of “right” and “wrong” that now differ from your initial assertion, which seemed to be that Sotomayor is unqualified because she’s been overturned by the Supreme Court in 3 out of 5 cases. For your information, the Supreme Court actually overturned 66% of the cases it heard in its last session, and over 70% in the previous session.
Yes I am using very specific definitions of right and wrong. That’s what the judicial system is for. There really isn’t much grey area there, as opposed to other branches. That’s the porblem with our court systems now-a-days.
In the eyes of the law, yes the Ricci case decision would have been right.
If I were to apply for a promotion where my difficult decisions were overturned by management 60% of the time, I probably wouldn’t get that promotion, now would I. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
On the one hand, I wish I could agree with you, but, as I see it, all law always is a grey area. Everything is always a matter of judgment, and everything should always be questioned and up for reevaluation.
I never said revaluation. It’s the Judical Branches job to inforce the laws and find the constitutionality of the laws, ie interpret the laws. It should be fairly simple, however in today’s society we have too many people saying define “is”.
The Legislative Branch is responsible for enforcing the law, not the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch does, as you say, interpret the law, and determine the constitutionality of laws and how they are enforced. Because there is so much “gray area” in law, that’s why there is such diversity of opinion. That is one of the strengths of our legal system actually, as long as the judges differ in their interpretations based on valid grounds and not, for instance in the case of the Supreme Court, on the party of the president who nominated them (though of course there are reasons why presidents choose who they do).
You say “If I were to apply for a promotion where my difficult decisions were overturned by management 60% of the time, I probably wouldn’t get that promotion, now would I. That’s the point I’m trying to make.” The analogy to a corporation is inappropriate in this situation, due to the fact that equally learned and skilled jurists arrive at different decisions all the time (see my question about the 4 dissenters in the Ricci case). Also, remember to consider the different roles played by judges at the different levels.
Finally, Judge Sotomayor has participated in over 230 decisions in her position. Only 3 have been overturned by what you call “management,” a little over 1% (not this silly 60% people bandy around). Wouldn’t such a stellar record of approval, in that over 98% of her rulings stand, be an excellent recommendation for promotion?
Legislative MAKES the law, doesn’t enforce. Technically the Executive branch enforces.
FAIL!!
froo beat me to it. try re-reading the U.S. Constitution. wait – have you ever read it? the judicial branch’s job is to INTERPRET the law, an exercise which sometimes involves reading between the lines or in a new context. the Supreme Court has the duty of interpreting laws and lower court decisions in light of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, a context that is not always directly applied during the original law-making or -applying process.
D’OH!!! I *meant* to say Executive Branch, not Legislative. I was picturing presidents and AG’s in my head, and said the wrong word.
Well now don’t we all FAIL!!! SHIT!!
If you look I had anticipated the other cases coming into veiw hence the caveate of “difficult”. I interpret a difficult to be controversal, or else it wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court. So my logic still stands at 60% of her difficult decscions got overturned by management, so not a very good record for a promotion.
“Difficult” means “controversial,” which means, “got to the Supreme Court”? No, I can’t accept that. There are numerous controversial cases that never make it to the Supreme Court, such as the Dover “intelligent design” case, which wasn’t even appealed.
You are implying that the other 230-some cases that Judge Sotomayor participated in deciding were “easy,” or “non-controversial.” That is hard for me to accept as well, and I am not sure what else you mean: are you saying that she is an eminently qualified appellate judge, or are you implying that 60% of *those* decisions must be wrong?
And what about decisions Sotomayor made which were appealed to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear? Some research might be needed there…
Umm if it isn’t appealled chances are it wasn’t all that difficult, especially in today’s “sue” happy environment.
Sorry I just find it hard to accept her decisions, ESPECIALLY the Ricci case.
And the fact of what she said in the past, and has refused to say “Yup that was a dumba ss thing to say.” Instead she says, “You took it out of context.” The TRUE words of a racist (well only if you’re white). I might be more up to believe her intentions if she said, “That was something pretty dumb to say, however I don’t necesarily see that view today.” Instead she defends it. Would you respect a politician who said a racist remark and then defended it? Probably not.
Hell, even David Duke got away with being a Grand Dragon by saying “Well, I’ve learned my lesson now…” and just letting it die.
Froo SSHHH David Duke was a Democrat… don’t bring the skeletons out of the closet here!!!!
Hey I Like Peanut Butter! I just love to read what you’re writin’
me too!!
Me too! But realize you’re talking to the trolls- when faced with facts and logic, they reply like a gradeschool kid and say ” Yeah? Well, your stupid, you doodyhead!” and then claim you watch FOX.
Isn’t always kinda weird when the trolls starting calling regulars trolls? It’s like a step into the looking glass or some shit.
No it’s a two way mirror. They’re just on the side you can’t see through. However I do think WTF had some minor valid points here (see Ari’s comments about Fox to me). So really it’s sad from both sides….. **holds head down** Now I’m really depressed.
Oh, we’re all trolls together. Group hug!! *sways, sings kumbaya*
You mean if any white male judge had talked about his ethnic background influencing his decisions? Like Alito did, during his Senate confirmation hearing, when he used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making?
“But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country” . . . .
“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
Yeah, but that’s different. Everyone knows Italians are victims of a racist system run by the Hispanic overlords who run the country.
*snort* oh, dang I need to clean the coffee off my screen. Do you HAVE to be so funny? I mean really.
WHY YOU OVERBEARING INSENSITIVE JE– oh wait, that was sarcasm, wasn’t it!
And if I believe it the press villified him for it. Which is my point. He barely got put on the court.
No, actually, he was vilified for being a virtual clone of Scalia with disturbingly retrograde notions of equal justice and executive power. But that was a nice try, keep working at it.
VICE: I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yeah, they did… I’ve watched a couple of nominees in this process in the past, and all I can say is… THANK GOD I DON’T HAVE TO SUBJECT MYSELF TO ANY JOB INTERVIEWS ON INTERNATIONAL TV!!!
I always thought that appointing Supreme Court Justices was kind of a “Spoils of War” for the sitting President in the past; but it has become SOOOOO politicized recently…
I think there needs to be scurtiny. The person has that position for life or quits. There is no recourse for getting it wrong.
Yes. Especially if my preacher doesn’t like them.
So I’m automatically religious b/c I’m a conservative? WRONG!!! Sorry do not pass go do not collect your $200 welfare check.
If you’re trying to amuse me by throwing out a highly improbable (and inaccurate) generalization in response to a generalization that’s more often true than not, you succeeded.
So wait your saying most conservatives are religious wing nuts? I’m sorry but you’ve drank the same kool aid that says that all liberals are on welfare. You’re just as bad as those you’re trying to ridicule b/c you believe in the piety of your ways. Let me guess, liberal arts major?
Maybe not wing nuts, but I believe he was saying that most conservatives follow a religion of some kind.
Oh, well.
Chemistry. Sorry to disappoint your rationalization of why it is that education is inversely proportional to the likelihood someone agrees with your politics.
Tyler. I’m disappointed. I didn’t think you would defend a generalizer.
Ari: I’m being sarcastically generalizing so you can see it’s quite demeaning. You’re not enjoying it when I do it. However my points seem lost on you.
Not defending, just correcting assumptions.
Oh, and Ari’s pretty cool usually- especially useful for bashing Graphjam trolls.
Tyler: He’s coming across as a tool on here though. Sort of like I did when I first joined. He’s de throwing too many gernalizations to the point he’s almost Troll worthy.
I was a net troll once too.
So was I. Then I saw the light….. I just find his words making me want to jump back to generalizing about liberals…. and I have to keep remembering not all liberals are hypocrites who think all conservatives are out to kill them in their sleep.
Again, you claim to be taking the high road when you throw the first epithet of “fvcktard”? You’re funny.
Dude, *I* think all conservatives are out to kill me in my sleep. I’ve got my eyes on you. *glare*
Eric: Well yeah that’s b/c I want your X-Box 360. DUH!!
Ari: See above I apologized for the fvcktard statement.
“Sorry Ari: Once again not seeing how your point can’t be used right back at you. But then again I said my points were lost on you, so it’s quite alright. Maybe fvcktard is too harsh, and I… I… I…. apologize… (ouch)….”
Yuh-huh. Even Clinton’s apology puts that to shame for sincerity or goodwill.
Ari: Seriously dude…….. I said I’m sorry and actually was making fun of myself. Like the ouch was intended that it hurts me to apologize (b/c I rarely do it). GOD you’re so blind to your perception of me that you’re just well whatever. Sorry I called oyu a fvcktard.
Heh. Funny. I come back to see you pretending to amplify on your pretend apology of “You’re wrong and you’re wrong and you’re wrong and maybe I shouldn’t have started throwing epithets,” and scroll up to see that you then immediately resumed the SAME EXACT BEHAVIOR.
You really are even worse at “apologizing” for something you’re actually proud of, but realize looks bad to others, than Clinton is.
Ari: Get over yourself. You ain’t that special. If you can’t take an apology you just show the world how juvenile you really are.
Ari: How about this? I’m sorry I called you a fvcktard. You are not a fvcktard.
I have no problem accepting sincere apologies. And I’m not even vaguely mad at your attempts to feign one while simultaneously continuing the same behavior.
I simply find them and your blatant dishonesty amusing. Have fun with your straw men.
Dude… you really are an ass. Seriously you need to get off your high horse. I was sincere in my apology, and if you can’t accept that, you need some serious mental help. You need to stop being a pavlov dog *Ring* Conservatives are God fearing, soul stealing, 1st amendment whiping, gun toting, ass wipes, and just grow up. Seriously. I was being sincere and you can’t accept that.
Ari: LEt’s try this again. Somehow your responses just make me loose my cool. I believe we’re both being pretty petty, and trollish. I think we’re both in a stoopid pissing contest, and trying to piss higher up the pole. REading back, we both come off as asses (me a bit more insulting of you, yours more implied). How about this? You put down your sword, I’ll put down my rock and we’ll kill each other like civilized men. **Puts hand out**
*rolls die*
Shit. Marvin Gardens…
I have a hotel on that!!! I guess it’s better than Water Works!!
Waiting for Eric to fall asleep….mmhhhhhhhaaaaaa
“Especially if my preacher doesn’t like them” Last I checked it was the democratic party that was the most active in the churches in a political sense.
If you have a source for that, I’d be very seriously interested in it. I’m quite curious how such a conclusion could be drawn.
I drew the conclusion through my personal experience of living in Memphis for 11 years. It was the norm for the democratic side of the isle to speak at many of the area churches during the election cycle. It received much media coverage. It was not the norm for the other side of the aisle to do the same. It was basically a double standard. Though I do not have any “facts” I would bet that if the same where to happen with a republican making a speach at a church the NAACP would be all over that. Of course this is all just my personal opinion.
Got your back, dude.
Clickie.
One of my favorite sayings: The plural of anecdote is not data.
Deep – an article that says “we take a break from our normally scheduled examples of conservative churches to name two examples from the other side” isn’t very compelling unless you’re trying to undermine Semper.
Where does it say that?
And by-the-by, it’s a source to indicate it’s occurring, not as evidence for anyone’s argument.
As is indicated in the article, it’s a pretty even split in regards to prosecuting offenders.
According to a document the group provided to ABP, of the 52 churches AU has reported to the IRS since 1992 for inappropriate political activity, 31 were accused of activity in support of conservative candidates, while 21 were accused of activity in support of liberal candidates.
You have an interesting spin on the matter. If you had said “This group is making an effort to ‘prosecute’ (not really applicable since they’re not criminal lawyers) both sides,” I would agree. But that’s not the same as what you said, which was to infer that both sides are equally guilty because this one group has gone after 31 conservative churches and 21 liberal churches.
60-40 isn’t an even split. Most politicians would be thrilled to win with that kind of a margin.
Right. You’re allowed to paraphrase and I’m not.
You are the biggest fail. Goodbye.
This of course happened in the “bible belt” so may not be applicable to the rest of the country. I would probably place a bet also that Reverand Wright did a little pulpit campaning for Obama but I have neither the time nor the will to spend time looking it up.
So unless I have irreputible factual evidence, which I could argue there is no such thing, my 40 years of living on this earth and any experiences that I have had are all fantasy and not worthy of referring to in these posts?
Not according to metaphysics. Dude.
Not according to science would be more honest. Metaphysics is irrelevant.
Did someone just fart?
I hear a noise and it stinks.
Am I supposed to respond to that with “Nyah, nyah, and you’re another”?
Dammit, Tyler…
“we take a break from our normally scheduled examples of conservative churches to name two examples from the other side” Cite your source. Or is this an anecdote of yours? You seem to be generalizing.
He’s talking about Deep Thought’s article.
That’s the source he cited. Try reading.
I did. Where does it say that?
Meh. Just saying on this nest, Deep, that Semper has failed at reading so hugely…
I know…I was asking arimareiji to source his examples of conservative churches and their involvment in politics. I will not refute that many of the conservative supporters go to church and that there are many similarities in conservative values and church values. I was saying that the liberal side is more active in the churches politically than the conservative side.
Not you, T. Ari — where does it say that in the article I cited? I can’t find that quote.
You’re being deliberately obtuse. You know quite well that I’m paraphrasing, and claim that I’m quoting.
You have it in quotes! That’s quoting.
You’re being an asshole. Goodbye.
Time to flame somewhere else. Thanks for the back up Deep. I think we should probably get back on topic with the LOL quote. That and I have to get back to work before I find myself without a job and making more money accepting government hand outs than earning it
ARi: DO you have a souce that conservatives are religious nut jobs?
I said nothing of the sort. Try again when you want to talk about the actual topic, which was my disbelief at the assertion liberals use churches to spread their doctrine more than conservatives.
Or go back to word salad in lieu of cogency, I really don’t care which. Whatever makes you happy.
Ari: I’m sorry but wasn’t it you that implied that conservatives only agree with what their preacher says? Am I mistaken. How about oyu take your own advice and check what you post.
I think CNN could put that on pay-per-view.
Sotomayor v. Sessions in a boxing ring, that is.
Either that, or for her to start asking the questions, like f’rinstance “Senator, would you care to explain your part in suborning US Attorneys to wage a political vendetta against your state’s Democratic governor, one which even members of your own party have condemned as a travesty of justice? I think it could be very relevant to your credibility, both as your state’s former Attorney General and as a member of a committee charged with maintaining an independent judiciary.”
This whole pay-per-view idea would only work until someone decides to execute their right to bear arms, and then the whole place is in for one hell of a night.
Armless boxing is kinda dull, though.
Well if you do the Tyson way you can get a few good ear chunks!!
I’d forgotten about that! You’re asperlutely right.
Or how about: “Mr Sessions, have you apologized to that attorney you worked with for calling him a disgrace to his race for representing African-Americans? Or to the black prosecutor you worked with for calling him ‘boy’? Or to the NAACP for trying to launch a McCarthyist witch hunt against them? No? Then what legitimacy do you claim in questioning any judicial candidate’s positions on race?”
Can Al Franken be next?
Did you watch his interview of her? He was cracking jokes the whole time. GOOD job MN!!!
Meh. Better to crack a joke than to be one, like his predecessor.
He still needs a good old fashioned slapping. And, not be allowed near serious politicians, for that matter.
Yes. Like Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
No, no, no, Ronnie slaps YOU! Arnie would break your arm, and Bono is dead.
“and Bono is dead”
Again!?
Oh, hah. I will now remind myself to reread a few posts back in any thread when posting. I forgeeeet.
And Sonny Bono is still dead..
Wow!! All three were or are decent Politicians. FAIL!!
Reagan and Schwarzenegger could be honestly debated by people of good will. Sonny Bono? Only if your definition of “decent politician” is “belongs to Republican party.” His term of office (and life) were ended by skiing into a tree while high on painkillers.
UMMM did you not see the coroner’s report. There were no traces of painkiller in his system, and the Valuim was a trace amount, not enough to impair. Once again Fact FAIL!!!
Yes, his wife obviously had no idea what she was talking about when she said he was badly addicted to them.
So the coroner lied in his report? Maybe his wife said that for attention. Why else bring that knowledge to the public?
Wow. A wife who has just lost her husband says he was badly addicted to painkillers. That husband is a Republican. Do you:
a) Avoid the subject?
b) Concede that he had a problem, but point out that in fairness this and Limbaugh’s addiction can’t be generalized to the whole party?
c) Say “Her grief is keeping her from thinking clearly”?
d) Go on the attack and claim “She’s just looking for attention”?
A would be understandable. B, I would agree with. C is getting into sketchy territory. D, which was your choice… that’s just sad, on many levels.
Bono may have had a problem, but apparently that didn’t contribute to his death. So what’s the deal?
Being right is teh jawsome for Ari-hole!!
I R RITE!ELEBENTIESEVENS!!!!11
Ari was looking for another way to generalize me as a typical conservative. You know insult the person, it becomes much easier than to dispute the facts.
PS He still hasn’t admitted to the fact the he was wrong about the drugs contributing to Bono’s death. But Meh, what can we do. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink (usually ends in drowning, which is bad for the horse).
….or to BE a joke like his MN Republican counterpart in the House – Michelle Bachman. Her tether to reality is about as substantial as an eyelash.
-Wanders in-
You mean there are more people like me, PC?
-Wanders away-
Igor – your tether to reality wandering away from you? Nah, your replies on here are pretty in-tune with reality.
Reality?
What’s a reality?
-eyes glaze over and falls on floor drooling-
*mops up Tyler’s drool*
Can’t have anyone slipping and falling now, can we?
-Giggles and runs around in circles, occasionally hitting walls-
By the way, Squiggly, Dragonberry is the official taste of TROGDOOOOR. You in?
*licks Tyler*
Dude they have hand cuffs farther down!!!
Reality is an old man sweeping up the trash after the parade goes by, and all the pretty speeches are done. ^_^
How about the guy picking up the Horse dung?
Gore?
He’s collecting it for us peons so we can heat our houses once crap and steal is passed.
Reality is a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs.
Ha! That’s funny
Yes, she can be slapped along side him.
You mean you haven’t realized the census is an Eebil Soshulist Conspirusee to steal your soul, the same way a camera does? Here, try this tinfoil hat on and see if your thinking doesn’t clear up (And thank you, btw. ^_^)
@ari – I LOVE Michelle Bachmann’s census conspiracy theory (link). She should have someone go on TV with her to stand by and wipe the drool every twice in awhile….
If I recall…almost 50% of the country voted the other way. I am glad there is someone in Washington still trying to represent the other half of the country by asking questions that need to be asked instead of just accepting the messias word for it as we all know he is a stand up 100% truthful kind of guy.
He’s referring to Blagojevich, not Bush, Semper.
My bad. Apologies for all
And? Seriously, I can’t see anyone else she could be raising her hand too.
I wish political debates were like that.
It would give me a reason to watch ‘em
Ever see a Taiwan Parliamet debate?
Or the house of commons questions to the Prime Minister (U.K.)?
Regular fisticuffs.
Did you say hand cuffs?!?! Where’s Diss or Froo, or Viking Gal…. Don’t let Tyler know.
-Winks and giggles-
I’mmmmm ready!
What did I miss while doing actual work?
There’s hand cuffs NOW!!! Tyler has yours… sorry we drew straws while you were working.
*pouts*
Hey you lucked out, you coulda drawn Deep Thought!!!!
I was hoping for Hairy Sexy Troll!
On the bright side, you’d get my virginity.
Doesn’t that qualify for another trophy on the wall or something for women? I thought their mates’ testes went into a trophy room or something.
But then again…
Maybe you shouldn’t be playing with handcuffs the first time out. Silk scarves, would be a better option!
Dude don’t announce that. Chicks dig some experience. It’s us pig of men who prefer the virginity trophy.
ILPB, I’ve never been one for false advertising.
And VG… Out of what? O.o
Some gals like experience. Some appreciate a guy who isn’t a ‘player’ (and praying that the dude isn’t diseased).
With my first guy, I really like that we were figuring things out together.
“Wired” had a great line: Geeks make better lovers, because we keep trying things until something works! Also–gamers have good finger control…
Yay for finger control!
Tyler…. you’re in deep kimshi dude…. viking gal gonna break you in two…. we are still talking sex aren’t we?
VG, I hope you realize that that is absolutely true.
Most of my friends would do just about anything just to know what said act is like or what effects it has.
I would suggest private exploration, and looking/waiting for a partner who really cares about you (and vice versa, of course). Sex can involve awkwardness, potential for emotional damage, plus STD’s and pregnancy risk. But with caution and a caring partner, totally worth it–Fun, humor, caring, all that!
And in case you are wondering–I was 24, first time.
two months away from 21 for me. I had no reason to rush it.
I’d seriously also suggest not putting too much weight into it. Some girls (primarily) seem to get all Bridezilla-like about their virginity. What the devil – it’s just the first penetration occasion. It doesn’t have to ROCK THE WORLD. It’s just sex, for cryin’ out loud.
Not saying that one needs to “pop one’s cherry” asap, but if it turns out to be slightly crappy, that doesn’t mean your life is ruined. ;p
Some gals I knew rushed it, just to get it over with, and ended up with bad experiences. I knew myself enough to know that I would end up in an emotional pretzel if I tried the casual hook-up thing. So I didn’t.
Not putting any bad juju on folks who can comfortably do the casual deal. Just, keep in mind that some of us can’t, that’s all!
Obviously, it’s different for different people. I knew better than to do the whole “emotional connection” thing the first time I had sex, since I had no intention of getting married anytime soon, and I didn’t want to be emotionally attached to someone who would eventually leave. So mine was kind of smarmy
But, I was lucky enough to have the personality to deal with that. Everyone has to do it the best way for them. No two “losses” are alike.
/Agreed.
I don’t generally like the idea of being in very close proximity of anyone who I don’t have emotional attachments to, however. Does that makeses me a prude?
Not a prude. Someone who will get the extra ‘buzz’ from the emotional connection!
I didn’t say that I didn’t have an attachment to this person, just that we weren’t involved in the dating sense. For me, that was the best way. It probably won’t be for you.
The funniest thing for me is I was spending my 17-18 year in the US as an exchange student, and was treated rather meanly by some people. Where I come from, it is not strange for a girl to be friends with a guy – hang out with a guy without the whole “OMG is this a DATE!?!?!?!” thing, but when I was hanging out with some guy friends I made over there, we were NOT allowed to have the door closed because, well, you just KNOW what them there Swedish girls are like, right?
… and I was one of very few (penetrational) virgins in my year. :p
(I did feel very tempted to go “Sorry, luv, but I won’t be giving your tosser of a son the hanky-panky. Dream on, lady.”)
LOL.
We sure know what we WISH those Swedish girls were like.
That would be the awesome if you actually said that..
Although, mostly, my parents did that about me when I was younger if a girl was in my room, just out of respect for her parents- and the fact that they learned from my sister never, ever to trust teenagers.
Right back at you, sister.
You a member of La Raza too?
she must be practicing her backhand
their face to her hand style?
I like this one! Nice work.
My pimp hand. LET ME SHOW YOU IT!!!
Tisk tisk! Mustn’t end a sentence in a preposition!
…but if you get a sentence you’ll inevitably get a proposition.
Wait, whut? It isn’t a preposition….
I think that’s a pronoun actually.
But is it proper? Does it take tea and crumpets?
No, it’s indefinite. It might call you in the morning but its cousin might be in town so maybe next week or maybe not …
Step 1: Softball question for the sake of being on screen
Step 2: Pathetic, ambiguous answer for the sake of being on screen
Step 3: Lavishing praise because we all know she’s going to be confirmed anyway
Step 4:
Step 5: PROFIT!
I wish someone would B*tchslap her , preferably a fireman.
I would find it extremely appropriate if she was slapped by one of the firemen she racially discriminated against.
Or that her ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, her ruling was proven inadequate for our countries highest court, and that the reasonable world can assert that she has racial tendacies. Nothing more, nothing less. Violence is not needed.
have you paid any attention at all to the judicial reasoning behind the new haven decision? it wasn’t up to the court to decide whether the test should have been allowed on the basis of its results. the court’s job in that case was to decide whether the city of new haven had invalidated the exam in question based on statistically fallible results (legal) or whether it had thrown out the test on a basis of prejudice (illegal). the court found that the city was within its rights to toss that exam in accordance with its (the city’s) best understanding of the law and best intentions of executing the law in good faith.
your assertion that sotomayor herself is guilty of racially discriminating against the firefighters by making that decision only serves to illuminate your own ignorance regarding the real substance of her decision. one might as well observe a submarine dive under the surface and then claim it had sunk, therefore its design is obviously and inherently dangerous.
Have you ever read any of her speeches or other writings. She admits to having a racial bias. That alone to me makes her unqualified to sit on the bench. Anyone, even a conservative. So before you throw out Alito and all, I’m not a fan. I want a judge who embraces the law not his/her own personal bias. Remember justice should be blind.
yes. justice SHOULD be blind. and, theoretically, it is as blind as humanly possible.
but wait! there’s that pesky word, “human”.
the truth is that no judge, DA, expert witness, or jury member can ever be perfectly free of bias or prejudice. my stance is that i prefer a justice who openly acknowledges her own shortcomings with regard to impartiality, and is thus better disposed to compensate, than a justice who claims no prejudice. it’s got to be there, whatever the nature and however “inconsequential”, so why not admit it, talk about it, and discuss how it affects your decisions and how you can prevent it from skewing those decisions away from the faithful application of law?
am i at least making some sense here?
Making sense, however I still think human’s should be able to take there own prejudices out of decscions that are to be blind. The law is the law, and needs to be treated as such. No more favortism to whites, blacks, men, women, latino, latina, etc…. put the suspect on trial, not his/her gender or race or religion.
Why doesn’t she use the white version of her name?
e.g. Shtoplmayer
That question is so completely innane and stupid that it doesn’t even register as a complete thought, or a verbal utterance. I believe that all of us are now dumber for having read this.
It’s a fair and balanced question which you’re avoiding.
Does Sqwirk write in English? I think not.
It writes in English, but it’s translated from Moron. That’s why it can pass the lexical and syntactical analyses, but inevitably chucks up errors when it comes to the interpreter.
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
It puts the lotion on it’s skin… or else it gets the hose again.
its
ITS
NO APOSTROPHE, DAMNIT!
Ummm….
So yeah. Please disregard the following slight glitch*. I tend to refer to people as “it” or s/he as long as I don’t know their gender. I might have a slight tendency to lean towards “it” for those who display something indicating a level of stupidity that makes them appear more related to adolescent sloths than to human beings.
And when I say “following”, I mean “the stuff I wrote just before that.
It’s how we do it in Randomly Backwards Land, where I sometimes visit.
Did anybody just notice a fu(king mushroom cloud in the matrix?
*hums innocently*
Randomly Backwards Land?
How the HELL did you get into my bedroom, young lady?!
Not writing something COMPLETELY homoerotic- FAIL.
“young”
Now, luv, you really should see someone about these hallucinations. Seeing them is one thing, but talking to them is just… You need help. I know it’s hard to hear this, but it isn’t easy to say it either.
Just funnin’ ya! Thought it sounded funny…
No worries, I am not hysterically bothered.
(Well, I am as far as the “its”-issue is concerned!!!111!!!one!one!!!11!.)
It does sound funny. And it can feel slightly awkward writing it, but I have realised calling a he a she and vice versa can be much more offending to some people.
Oh, ok, sorry about the its thingy, I don’t pay much attention to my spelling usually.
It’s just that “its” and “whose” are pet peeves of mine. I am a twisted, broken and tragic person in that way*.
*) Amongst others
You know I like Snack Pack. Why can’t you just give me a Snack Pack?
I thought I was your Snack Pack, honey.
I thought you ate the Snak PAck… you are pregnant…
Rule #1-
YOU NEVER EVER TELL A PREGNANT WOMAN SHE’S PREGNANT.
Thank you, male survival instincts.
Rule # 2:
Never call a pregnant woman fat.
Rule #3- Try to avoid pregnant women you aren’t married to.
There is a chance of them jumping you and slitting your throat midway.
That one is on the fly, but really, I wouldn’t spend terrible amounts of time around my friends if they were pregnant.
It’d be terrifying, and I’m not exactly sure where the milk is in the supermarket, so I’d likely get screamed at for being late.
Rule # 3:
Never pat a pregnant woman’s tummy, unless she has invited you to do so.
Rule # 4:
Don’t get between the crackers and the pregnant lady in the morning!
Rule #5-
Never, ever allow pregnant women around Tyler, unless you want your head literally torn off for bringing an annoying friend over later.
Hear, hear! I have never been pregnant, but the entire notion about all women being prey to their wildly flailing* hormones feels rather tired to me.
*) vague simpsons-references-lost-in-space-reference
Rule #7: Just wiat for the end of the 1st Trimester and beginning of the 2nd Trimester when the horny monster appears…… Then’s the time to be aorund a pregnant woman. Especially you Tyler.
I’m actually less prone to hormonal swings pregnant than I am when I’m PMSing, LOL. I even out a LOT when I’m preggers.
Oh, I’m not saying the women are prey, but Froo, I haven’t ever met a girl as stable as you, let alone a pregnant one too
So you get a pass.
Gender change week?
Yeah…
I hate the period.
So much.
It makes me want to slap a baby using a dog.
Why hate the period? Chicks who bleed are naturally moist for penetration. *shrugs*
(hating it for the handicapping pain and whatnots, okay, but as a guy – meh…)
O.o Danbala, have you ever had to deal with a teen going through her first year of PMSes from the outside angle?
Not.
Pleasant.
And besides, it’s not like they would want me to penetrate them, anyway
Danbala: You do realize that women turn into raving lunatics during PMS time. Like psycho…. like there’s a reason men hide during that time…..
-Hugs PB and shudders-
I found out that one of my friends is on her period today, don’t think I’ll be logging into THAT game server for at least a week.
A few, you know – I did have the occasional same-gender friend while growing up… ;p
But. It’s so incredibly individual… It’s easy for me, who have no mood PMS (I’m only rendered totally useless by sheer pain for about 6-8 hours) it’s probably way too easy to say “get your sh|it together, beotch”.
So.
Have you tried handling many teen boys’ awakening libidos, from the outside angle? … As in …
Actually. Every person who survived not only going through their own teens but also being friends with their fellow teens, no matter what the gender, deserves a fecking medal.
@Danbala. Agreed, PMS varies greatly. I only crave chocolate during what would typically be ‘PMS time’. And want to jump the BF during period time. Can’t complain!
Not really
I mostly avoid the ridiculously horny/slutty people from my school. I hope you guys realize I hit on everyone as a joke, not for seriousnesses. 
Tyler: Let me educate you. It’s not the PEriod that’s the problem for men, it’s the PMS. The signs to look out for is when the woman is REALLY horny, and if it’s wife or gf, it’s at the most inoppurtune time (ie bed time, middle of the night, Superbowl, in your case Level 86 Mage in WOW, in my case during the Babylon 5 Marathon, etc etc etc…) and when you turn them down, it’s “You never………..” or “Don’t you find me attractive…..” both TRAP statements. There is no way out of this, you are now entering the what I like to call “Time Wasted” zone. This is where every little thing you’ve ever done wrong will hit you in the face, time and time again. This is where you realize (right after you said “Not now”) that it’s been 4 weeks since this last arguement. It’s too late… you’re done. The next few hours are wasted, while you sit there and try and justify everything you’ve done. You were better off taking one for the team, b/c that time is gone none the less. And whatever you do, DO NOT point out the fact that the fight is b/c she’s PMSing, EVER!!!
Uhm, PB, problem- what if I don’t say no? Cause I’d gladly stop WoW if a girlfriend needed some attention.
Oh, and there is no inopportune time for a teenager.
Just sayin’.
level 86 mage in WoW? Is the next expansion in beta already?
Your post is amusing based on stereotypes, but I seriously can’t see any of that being true. OK SORRY, I am not jesting along in the general jocular mood here. I think this is actuyally a serious issue, because I see people fornicate up their relationships left and right because they’ve bought into the absolute crap of “Men are from Liverpool, Women from Manchester” or whatever the book was called.
Yeha. I apologise for my lack of humour when it comes to man/woman stereotypes.
PB, I’m not stupid enough to point out that it’s cause she’s PMSing.
Sweet Jesus, I’d have black marks all over my body for WEEKS if I did that!
Danbala, no, and could you SEE me playing a mage? Really?
I started out with a 70 hunter when I was 12-13 and I’ve played a pally ever since then. All three sets, full epics on almost everything.
My default is tanking though- and it’s still level 80 cap. He’s just confused.
Danbala: I was jesting about some stereotypes, but also from personal experience.
Tyler: As a teenager, you are probably correct, but trust me when you get older, the rocker recliner gets aweful commfy. And I don’t play WOW, so sorry for the confusion.
“Never pat a pregnant woman’s tummy, unless she has invited you to do so.”
Yes… But, really: never pat, stroke or even consider touching any part of any woman*, before asking first. Non-pregnant women might not be hormone-raging monsters, but we can still bite.
*) A hand-shake may be acceptable.
So long as that hand isn’t a limp, sweating fish.
That just makes me squeeze. Squirming people are amusing.
(Squeeze and grind, baby, squeeze and grind.)
-Zips limp, sweating fish back into pants-
What were we talking about now?
Makes me think of my father. Maybe you and I are related somehow?
That last was to Darbala. NOT Tyler’s limp fish!!
*Danbala. Sorry!
LOL.
You KNOW it.
Well… A normally firm handshake is great. Being proffered the limp fish just pisses me off and makes me feel … predatorial? Is that a word?
I bet limp fish people think they’ve been too challenging with their firm grip and work hard on being more and more “gentle” with every shake, though…
Danbala, if you can feel predatorial guilt and angry at the creature you’ve just squeezed to death at the same time, you truly are a viking.
Rule #8:
Never call a fat woman pregnant.
All I wanted was a Pepsi…just one Pepsi! And you wouldn’t give it to me! Just a Pepsi!
*looks up hotline number*
*distracts SB with a shiny*
Here’s some nice coke for you, SB…
I’M NOT CRAZY!!!
YOU’RE THE ONE WHO’S CRAZY!!!
Not according to my last state mandated psyche evaluation….
Doesn’t matter. I’ll probably get hit by a car anyways.
More likely to die from a mosquito bite.
Or diabeetus from too much Pepsi.
Stop depressing me you guys. You know I have Suicidal Tendencies.
Oh I know… but diabeetus takes a loooooonnngg time
Not if you do it right.
But don’t you have to do it wrong to get diabeetus in the first place…
*hides drugs, sharps and shinies*
WE LOVE YOU, SB!
Alright listen. Let’s compromise. You keep the sharps and shinies, I’ll keep the drugs.
But… drugz R teh shineez…
The kind I like aren’t shiny! More leafy, really.
*sidles up to SB* Hey there.. I hear you have drugs..
*passes the dutchie on the left hand side*
Don’t hide it, divide it, I always say
Oh yeeeeah.. That’s the stuff.
O’Doyle, I’ve got a feeling your whole family’s going down.
If you’re gonna stay home today, you can help me shave my armpits.
What is a horse shoe? What does a horse shoe do? Are there any horse socks? Is anybody listening to me?
Veronica Vaughn. Soooooo hot. Want to touch the heinie!
Billy likes to drink soda. Miss Lippy’s car is green.
Chlorophyll? You mean Borophyll!
froofrou:
Now I am being way OT here, but I saw you embed a video in a post earlier (in some recent thread…) – how do you do that? (And do you know how you do that with pictures too?)
All I can do now is clickable links, which feels very last-year when I see y’all embed stuff so neatly.
The only way I got the dang thing to imbed was by copying the “imbed” code from Youtube, LOL. You’ll have to ask DT how to do it on other stuff.
C-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-ombo breaker!
I WILL KEEL YOU!!!
Hey kids, I bet you thought that I was dead!
…but when i fell over I just broke my leg and got a hemorrhage in my head!
Well, “sorry” doesn’t put the Triscuit crackers in my stomach now, does it Carl?
If peeing your pants is cool,… Consider me Miles Davis
Aah. Okay. That’s a start, at least.
Thanks!
oh…. one last posting for now…
I am the smartest man alive!!!eleventy!!!
I’ll post more on it later, Danbala — it’s html code, and not really that tough… just kind of a pain in the ass.
Cool, cool. html doesn’t scare me much. ;p
Shampoo is betta, I clean the hair, no conditiona is betta…
I think Froo is where I am, as in we don’t understand the question? Or why is it pertinent?
Wow.
Sonia Sotomayor is not Spanish. I think you need to go get an education.
She is a Brown Person, which by definition is Spanish. Because ALL brown people are Spanish. Or Muslin. Geez, VG, you need to pay attention…
Froo, you owe me a sham-wipe!
oops. Sham-WOW. Just shows I don’t watch enough TV.
Can we use a sham-wipe to erase the entire Carter presidency?
Erase entire Bush presidency in 3… 2.. 1.
I dont’ have a Sham-Wow. What about a Slap-Chop instead?
You’re gonna love my nuts!
Ya keepin up with me camera guy?
You forgot the Israeli Jews (or Hebrewish people)
I Like Peanut Butter, Do you have a blog somewhere? If you don’t, you should…
Brown Person = Spanish or woven cotton fabric?? lulz!
Why don’t you use the Puerto Rican version of your name?
“I’m Sonia Sotomayor, B!TCH!”
I Like Peanut Butter, Do you have a blog somewhere? If you don’t, you should…
Joy: Nope I don’t. I just kinda hang out here. No point having my own Blog. I don’t like Conservative Blogs or Liberal Blogs b/c you have too many Trolls or people patting themselves on the back. Like this location, hopefully I can reach some moderates. The radicals will never be changed.
PS. Thank you for the compliment.
PS thank you for the compliment.
Why isn’t wordpress letting my comments through now? Grr.
AI?
;p
I spent about 20 minutes drafting a point by point epic beatdown of ILPB’s argument (Seth would be proud), and stoopid wordpress eated it. Pissed me off no end.
With my really, really long posts, I open a reusable word document and copy and paste them so I don’t lose it.
Learned the hard way.
Oooo Tyler you reminded me, I need to find where I saved my “Your Post Failed” template…
Oh the good times shall ensue if I can ever find the damn thing…
It’s b/c you were wrong, and God striked it from the record. I rest my case. **Takes Bow** Thank you! Thank you!!
It’s going to amuse me no end when you stand before Her and try to justify your arrogance in usurping Her judgment.
Dude/ Dudette that was sarcasm….
No, it was insufferable arrogance. Sod off.
Dude it was pure unadulterated sarcasm. I was joking. I actually don’t mind a nice civil argument. But when you throw out words like epic beat down, then you’re the one who’s kinda sounding a bit well arrogant. True or false?
PS which arguement I have quite a few going. And most of my facts are pretty good so epic beatdown might be an overstatement. Epic to the liberals, probably a speed bump to conservatives.
All right, since speed bumps are all you can handle I’ll go slowly and try to use small words.
1. The “Wise Latina” BS: Obviously you haven’t read the speech, you’ve only heard the 15 seconds of it that Faux Noise has flogged to death. Lazy and stupid of you. In context, what she said was that as a woman of color she’s able to see the assumptions — and yes, prejudices — of the white male dominated power structure that the white males running it can’t, because their social privilege has built assumptions into their thinking that anything that’s good for white WASP males is good for society. The law is not allowed to assume that. It’s tempting to think that because she’s not snowed under by white male privilege and prejudice she’d be a better judge, but here’s the key: she is aware of her potential bias and works to correct for it. (That’s a damn site better than way too many authority figures who are completely unaware of their biases, but clearly still have them.) All that was in the speech that you didn’t read because you were too busy working yourself into a lather over Fox’s sound bites.
2. Her reversal ratio: Lots of people don’t know this apparently, but the Supremes will only take a case if a) the Circuit Courts disagree on a significant point of law, b) they think the time is right to change previous rules of legal interpretation, or c) the legal question has never come up before and they don’t like how the Circuit Court handled it. If none of those three are the case, the Supremes deny the appeal.
Judge Sotomayor has about 400 published opinions on the record. Of those, the Supremes have taken up 5 appeals. That means 395 of 400 times, she got it so right that the Supremes didn’t need to even LOOK at it. Of the 5 appeals they did take up, two were affirmed. That means she got the right result 397 of 400 times. For comparison, Samuel Alito had every one of his opinions that were taken on appeal reversed, and he was still confirmed.
3. Ricci: This was not an “affirmative action” case, as much as you want it to be so. What happened in New Haven was that the city threw out the test results because they exposed them, under laws and decisions that have been settled for about 30 years, to the risk of litigation based on a discriminatory outcome. New Haven reasonably believed they could be sued, and lose, because the test excluded blacks from promotion and proving there was no bias in the process would be hard and expensive. The city won at trial level. The other two judges on the three-judge Circuit Court panel hearing the appeal agreed with Sotomayor. On petition for rehearing to the full 13-judge Circuit, the vote was 7-6 against rehearing. And at the Supreme Court itself, 4 of the 9 Justices agreed with Sotomayor’s panel. The decision of the other five set a new standard for interpreting the law. As the law existed before two weeks ago, the Ricci appeal was properly decided in line with precedent. The Supremes changed the law afterward.
Sonia Sotomayor has agreed with Republican-appointed judges on her panels approximately 85% of the time. She is a moderate. Putting her in Justice Souter’s seat on the Court is not going to change outcomes significantly.
**Sigh**
1. I did read the whole speech. Hate to burst your bubble but pretty much the whole speech was bashing white men. Sorry if the shoe was on the other foot….. I find it entertaining no one has yet to address that. I could call that stupid and lazy of you, but REALLY let’s not rush to judgement.
2. So you’re agreeing with me. If the case is pretty black or white and the lower courts got it wrong, it’s a difficult deciscion that the lower courts “can’t handle”. Kinda sounds like a “controversal” case to me.
3. I never said the words Affirmative Action did I? Let’s see… umm nope, how lazy and stupid of you to say I did. (You’re not going to live that down). I said that it was about racism, where half the law was diregarded. Let’s look at it this way if the Fire Fighters were black, would New Haven have thrown out the test results? Probably not. No the law wasn’t changed, the emphasis of the law changed, sorry wrong again. The Justices can’t change laws, (PSST that’s the Legislative Branch) they interpret them.
3.A. As to her being a moderate? Wrong no moderate would have disregarded 50% of a law. You are right however her replacing a liberal judge won’t change things, but I’m just tired of the marching out someone like that.
4. I never said she was an Affirmative Action candidate (once again words in my mouth, stop being Lazy and stupid). I said that why not pick someone wihtout an admitted bias. Do you really want a judge with a known bias sitting on the bench? That mean justice is no longer blind, which is a sad sad thought. *Sigh* should I respond to the insult, and your trollish behvior? Yeah… you did the troll thing of generalizing thing. In which case, pot, hi there Im kettle, and you’re black.
so what you’re saying, ILPB, is that
1. pointing out the inherent camouflage of white-male bias in a system built by white-males constitues white-male-bashing.
2. . (sic)
3. slan obviously was not using quotation marks as a means of applying sarcastic emphasis to the words contained therein; he obviously WAS failing to quote you directly, thus deserving trollishness on your part. additionally, if the test results had advanced only black (or any other non-caucasian racial affiliation) candidates, the city of new haven would have cheerfully embraced the obviously (if not inherently) race-preferential exam and its results. furthermore, dramatically altering the manner in which the law is applied is IN NO WAY THE SAME AS changing the law.
3.A. “no moderate would have disregarded 50% of the law,” but it’s okay if you disregard the 90% of relevant law in this case by not sparing a single word for its true substance at the level that ms. sotomayor was initially involved in: “[New Haven] threw out the test results because they exposed them, under laws and decisions that have been settled for about 30 years, to the risk of litigation based on a discriminatory outcome. New Haven reasonably believed they could be sued, and lose, because the test excluded blacks from promotion and proving there was no bias in the process would be hard and expensive.” (thank you, slan, for the pithy synopsis.)
4. you want a candidate with an HIDDEN bias, vs. an ADMITTED one, therefore having a justice who is blind to his/her own prejudices. (please tell me you don’t actually believe there is any justice at any bench anywhere, or has been at any time in history, who is/was perfectly free from bias or prejudice of any kind and whose decisions are/were in no way affected by his/her personal life experiences!)
did i get all that straight?
Thanks for the backup, but it’s really not worth it. ILPB is sitting back with his earbuds blasting Fox podcasts saying la la la, I can’t hear you. He’s not just ignorant, he’s willfully so, and thinks he knows his subject inside out when all he has are gross distortions.
Worthless.
Slan: You’re such a true liberal troll. Instead of having a civil conversation it’s let’s insult the person with the first response. Let me guess Jon Stewart and Bill Mahre type of arguing? Once again you’re lazy stupid ass has decided not to read my freaking posts. I don’t watch Foxnews… you freaking hypocrite. Yeah my gross distortions….. sorry I’m still awaiting for the answer to if a white man had said that would you be outraged…. I’m assuming from your posts that you probably would, so I’m sorry you might want to get off your high horse and soap box and realize that you aint’ smarter than everybody.
And what has you contribution been to society today? I’m thinking nothing… so whom is worhtless?
1. Ummm now saying that she has a better grasp of the law than a white male b/c of her past. ONCE again still awaiting if a white-male had said the same thing, what would have been the reaction of people. I don’t get it. How is it that I don’t want anyone to be biased a bad thing? I don’t get it. I thought that’s what liberals wanted. Once again that me iterate, I’m 25% Hispanic, 25% Hebrew, and 50% of I have no freaking idea. So I’m not really the WASP you’re trying to portray me as.
2. ?????
3. So then teh Supreme Court ruled on only 10% of the law. I know about the case, I actually read the court papers. New Haven was in a sticky positon, be labeled racist no matter what. Either grant the promotions and open themselves up to the NAACP and Jesse Jackson/ Al Sharpton, OR disregard the test scores and get nailed from the White (1 Hispanic) firefighters. The true Catch 22. What would have been your opinion if they had opted to grant the promotions? The problem I have is that the standard was set, ALL PARTICIPANTS knew what was on the line for the test. You do realize that people spent money for tudors and such to pass this test. Only one black firefighter came out and said the test wasn’t revelant to firefighting, and that was after the results. Prior to the results a professional group radified the test as unbiased and completely on topic. Once the test was done, b/c the results were not to their liking they changed their mind. What if the results were reversed, would you have agreed with New Haven?
4. I want a candidate without ANY BIAS!! Why is that hard to understand. I don’t care if they are conservative or liberal. I wasnt someone who’s constituant is the law, not the democrats or republicans. I love how I’m getting villified for standing up for the liberal principle of color blindness. It makes me wonder if you truly stand by your word, or only want it when it suits your ideals.
Do I have that straight? You villiying me for wanting an unracist person to determine the law. Since there’s only 5 of them, it’s a lot harder to weed out unlike congress where there’s 100 senators and 435 representatives.
PB, in response to your #4, it is impossible to have a human being without any bias unless they had a lobotomy that removed that part of the brain. One’s life experiences will influence a person’s outlook in life.
Whether it be Sotomayor or Roberts, a Supreme Court Justice will have to put opinions on the line when deciding the constitutionality of a case. If that weren’t true, how come there are 9 justices? They are not all going to agree with each other, so there is an odd number of them so the majority will determine the outcome. Cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which made segregation legal, was left alone by the Supreme Court for a long time until the times changed and the Justices overturned the decision. You cannot say that their experiences during that time did not come into context when making that decision, can you?
Smartz: I think that you can totally put bias out of rulings. Opinions are different than bias, you can have an opinion without a bias, if done appropriately (I mean that within the judicial system). I mean yes I prefer brunets, so in a beauty pagent contest I’d be biased towards that, however that should have no impact on determining the intellignce of the contestant.
PS Smartz: Thanks for being civil and not assuming I’m a religious bigotted wing nut. Much appreciated.
Unbiased meaning the constitution doesn’t need to be interpreted, it just needs to be applied?
I believe the two are mutually exclusive. You can interpret something without a bias.
Oh, and lest we forget.
4. Unqualified affirmative action candidate? Are you on drugs? Let’s see you try to graduate with honors from Princeton and Yale Law School, serve as one of New York’s top prosecutors, do 17 years of service as a judge at trial and appellate levels, then come back and tell us how easy it is to do all that when you’re not qualified. Calling someone with her credentials an affirmative action pick is just marking yourself out as the most phenomenally stupid bigot to troll these pages since Annie McPhee. Maybe even more stupid; she at least starts with a germ of fact before twisting it beyond rationality and recognition.
Test:
see more Political Pictures
Fu(kitt. I need a drink and to do more research. This site should accept its own code…
Nite.
Deep get yer Testes off the comment page! They’re everywhere!
Hee hee good one
Sorry about that. I’m stymied. Doesn’t happen TOO often..
Did froo get ya going about the whole embedding deal?
Sorta. I can usually do it anywhere I go, but something here is stopping me, and I can’t seem to find out what it is.
Mah CDO… stand back so you don’t get splashed!
Its that damn “librul conspiracy” everyone keeps talking about.
At least her short, lawless opinions are easy to read.
and which opinion do you have in mind that was “lawless” or “light reading”?
seriously, i’d love to see what happens when you attempt to express yourself in multiple complex sentences bereft of inflammatory epithets.