Barry's pick for SCOTUS

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by bcj1755, May 26, 2009.

  1. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    I'm starting to not like what I"m seeing....

    Push to confirm first Hispanic to Supreme Court
    AP

    By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 26 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn't foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though GOP lawmakers want to closely scrutinize her legal philosophy.

    "The nominee has serious problems," Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. "But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court."

    "I don't sense a filibuster in the works," the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama's call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.

    The GOP faces an uphill battle in defeating the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents, but Republicans are promising a thorough and perhaps lengthy hearing process that scrutinizes her record and judicial philosophy.

    Democrats hold 59 votes in the Senate, more than enough to confirm Sotomayor but not quite enough to stop a vote-blocking filibuster if Republicans should attempt one. Still, seven Republican senators currently serving backed Sotomayor's 1998 nomination to the appeals court covering New York, Vermont and Connecticut, and she was first nominated to be a federal judge by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

    Sessions did say that Sotomayor "has a good resume. It's the kind of resume I like to see in a nominee." He quickly added that he wants to know "whether she has a tendency to be aggressive" on the bench and impose her own beliefs.

    The senator said Tuesday it was "possible" he could back Sotomayor's nomination, although he was one of several Republicans who opposed her when she came before the Senate as a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998. "We ought to look at her record fresh," he said.

    One possibly complicating issue surfaced Wednesday morning as Sessions appeared in a joint interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer on a nationally broadcast news show.

    Sessions and Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, disagreed about the significance of a remark Sotomayor was videotaped making at a law seminar, where at one point she commented that federal appellate courts "make policy."

    Sessions called that statement "troubling" and said she needs to explain it to the committee. Schumer said the statement had been taken out of context, and that Sotomayor had quickly added that she was not advocating such an activist role.

    Republicans "oppose her at their peril," Schumer said earlier.

    Sotomayor's personal story and her academic and legal credentials earn her respect from all quarters, but conservatives see plenty to criticize in her rulings and past statements. They describe her as a judicial activist who would put her feelings above the Constitution.

    Sotomayor has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."

    "I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

    Any Republican effort to block Sotomayor's confirmation could be risky for a party still reeling from last year's elections and struggling to gain back lost ground with Hispanics, the fastest-growing part of the population and one that is increasingly active politically.

    Sessions acknowledged as much Wednesday, saying the GOP needs to "broaden its tent."

    Sotomayor's personal story and her academic and legal credentials earn her respect from all quarters, but conservatives see plenty to criticize in her rulings and past statements. They describe her as a judicial activist who would put her feelings above the Constitution.

    Sotomayor has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."

    "I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

    The White House and its allies, including Hispanic groups with broad reach into communities throughout the country, are readying a major push to persuade more GOP senators to back her confirmation.

    "We want people to realize that this is kind of like voting for president," said Estuardo Rodriguez, a spokesman for Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary, which is leading a coalition of organizations that plans to push for the judge's speedy confirmation. "You can actually call your senator and say: 'I want this. I want you to vote for Sonia Sotomayor.'"

    The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said, "We will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."

    Sotomayor would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the court and just the third in its history. She would replace liberal Justice David Souter, thereby maintaining the court's ideological divide. A number of important cases have been divided by 5-4 majorities, with conservative- and liberal-leaning justices split 4-4 and Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the decisive vote.

    Born in the South Bronx, Sotomayor lost her father at a young age and watched her mother work two jobs to provide for her and her brother. Her path has soared ever since: Princeton University and Yale Law School, then positions as a commercial litigator, federal district judge and appellate judge.

    "What you've shown in your life is that it doesn't matter where you come from, what you look like or what challenges life throws your way," Obama said as Sotomayor stood at his side at a packed White House event to announce her nomination Tuesday. "No dream is beyond reach in the United States of America."

    Said the nominee, "I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences."

    Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, called Sotomayor's nomination "a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land."

    She said Obama's choice recognized "that excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive."

    Sessions and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Today" show and Sessions also was interviewed on CNN.

    ____

    Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_sotomayor

    Not only is Barry "pushing" the Senate to confirm his pick, but now La Raza is chiming in. They're hoping that she'll help make it easier for the illegals to get a free ride. That's all La Raza does, make it easier for the illegals:rolleyes: I love how The Hussein always "pushes" the Senate to do his bidding, like they're supposed to obey him:rolleyes::rolleyes: Too bad none of him have enough backbone to tell Barry what he can do with his "pushing" and where he can stick it:mad::mad::mad::mad:
  2. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    That statement is is very troubling. A judge needs to apply the law, as written, without bias.
  3. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,854
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Here's some straight skinny on who she is.

    SHE IS NOT A FRIEND OF EITHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT or OF GUN OWNERSHIP.

    She has been reversed in the Supreme Court about as much as the 9th Circuit has ........

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sotomayor: Racial Politics and Making Policy

    By Bobby Eberle

    In just a few short months on the job, Barack Obama has the opportunity to make his first appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Justice David Souter is retiring, and Obama's pick for a replacement clearly points out how far to the left this president really is.

    Obama's nominee to replace Souter is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. More will be learned about her as the weeks go on, but what we already know paints a picture of a liberal activist and someone willing to "make policy" from the bench. This is not the type of person who belongs on the highest court in the land.

    First some general background on Sotomayor. As noted in the gushing Associated Press news story:
    Sonia Sotomayor's path to the pinnacle of the legal profession began in the 1960s at a Bronx housing project just a couple of blocks from Yankee Stadium, where she and her family dealt with one struggle after another.

    She suffered juvenile diabetes that forced her to start insulin injections at age 8. Her father died the next year, leaving her to be raised by her mother -- a nurse at a methadone clinic who always kept a pot of rice and beans on the stove. The parents had moved from Puerto Rico.

    Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, then became an editor of the Yale Law Journal at Yale Law School. She then joined the Manhattan district attorney's office and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

    She spent five years as a prosecutor before joining the midtown law firm of Pavia & Harcourt, where she worked eight years before her appointment to the federal bench.

    Sotomayor is less affluent than many of the typical high court prospects. Though drawing a six-figure income, she lives in expensive Manhattan. Sotomayor earned $179,500 as a federal appellate judge in New York last year, plus $14,780 teaching at New York University's law school and $10,000 as a lecturer at Columbia University's law school, according to her most recent financial disclosure report.
    We can clearly see where the media is going to side on this one. Her "compelling" story is already being characterized as a "triumph over adversity." And leave it to the left wing media (who hates the so-called "rich") to label someone making over $200,000 per year as "less affluent." If she were "affluent" that would clearly make her out of touch with the common man or woman, right?

    She is being hailed for being the first Hispanic nominee to the court and a person with an incredible story to tell. Katie Couric bounced up and down, saying, "[T]he fact that her father was a factory worker who died when she was nine years old, raised by a single mother who raised her brother to be a doctor and, obviously, her daughter to be an extremely accomplished lawyer and now judge. So it is a very, as you say, very, very compelling life story."

    Whenever I hear commentary like that, I can't help but think of Miguel Estrada, the judicial nominee who also had a "very compelling life story" but who was filibustered by the Democrats. Did the media come to his aid? No, because he was a conservative. But you can certainly put money on the fact that Sotomayor's background will be praised, while Estrada's was attacked.

    As far as a judicial record, this video pretty much sums up what Sotomayor thinks of following the letter of the law:

    In addition to her statement that judges "make policy," Sotomayor is also at the heart of the racial discrimination case involving white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. For a full report on this case, please check out my Loft post from April 20.
    Matthew Marcarelli and a group of firefighters took and passed a promotion exam. However, "the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a 'disparate impact' on minorities."

    Marcarelli actually finished #1 on the test, but was not granted a promotion. What kind of message does this send? Work hard, study, finish #1, and.... get skipped over. This is not "reverse" discrimination. It is just discrimination.
    The case found its way to Sotomayor's court where, as the Associated Press reports, "Sotomayor and two other judges issued an unusually brief decision that went against white firefighters."

    According to the AP, "The judges' conservative colleagues on the court strongly criticized their terse decision. Today the Supreme Court appears to have serious questions about the ruling as well."

    So there we have it. This is the nominee being brought forward by Barack Obama. Whenever something like this happens, I can't help but think back to the comments by Fox News commentators such as Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol who actually thought Obama would be a "pragmatic" leader. Hey guys... given the takeover of banks, the auto industry, energy taxes, health care takeover plans, and left-wing judicial nominees, do you think you might have a different opinion now?

    Rich Galen, who writes Mullings, did point out in his recent e-mail update that the "nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court will not change the Court because she has been nominated to replace Justice David Souter. Justice Souter, according to the NY Times, 'came to vote reliably with the Court's liberal members.' Judge Sotomayor, assumedly also a Liberal, would not change the 5-4 Conservative slant."

    Galen went on to note, "Unless she completely bombs during her confirmation hearings - or, unless she didn't pay the taxes on her house keeper or the plant lady - she will be confirmed." Galen used the points above to conclude, "Therefore, the only reason for all the heavy breathing and projectile sweat from the wingers on both the Right and the Left is because nothing presents as sure a path to a great fundraising month than a fight over a Supreme Court nominee."

    This is where I disagree. Standing up for conservative principles and taking a stand is much more than just rhetoric for fundraising. It is a duty and an obligation from our senators to ensure that judicial nominees understand their role in interpreting the law as written and not "legislating from the bench." Regardless of the odds or the outlook or the votes that are stacked against us, conservative values are always worth the fight.
  4. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Washington State
    "I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

    Sonia Sotomayor as quoted in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, October, 2001.
  5. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Democrats don't give a shhhot about the constitution.
    If there is another supreme court pick, I am expecting the same radical left wing, anti constitutional stance.
  6. user

    user New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    There's all this talk about "re-interpreting" the Constitution. Like, that's a surprise? This is a person who has indicated that, when she is confirmed, she will use her power exactly as she sees fit and do what she thinks is "right", regardless of what we've already decided and enshrined in the Constitution.
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  7. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Washington State
    The Constitution of the United States is a troublesome and annoying thing for liberals. How many countries who have no constitution or a constitution that can be changed, manipulated and circumvented at the will of the seated powers have experienced real freedom? Are we headed into a banana republic mode?
  8. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    As bad as it sounds.
    NO woman should hold an office that requires logic.
    Estrogen engulfs them. They can think clearly 25% of the time.
    And then, it's all warm fuzzy stuff they'd like to believe.

    My apologies to the ladies on the sight.:eek:

    Boy am I gonna regret this.:eek:
  9. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Haskell NJ
    Well once again Nobama met my expectations for continuing to attemt to screw the country up to the beyond repair point.
  10. user

    user New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    Well, it's true. And, at the same time, no man should hold such office either. Testosterone, you know.

    Bottom line: it's them derned humans! If we could just get rid of all the humans, the planet would be just fine.
  11. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Carefull there user...that is exactly the goal of PETA.
  12. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash
    Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
    ---
    Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

    Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

    A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

    Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

    Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

    But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

    Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

    "That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

    The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

    The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

    Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

    Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

    "We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

    Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

    "If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

    Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

    "The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

    But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

    He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

    As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

    FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
  13. artabr

    artabr New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,859
    Location:
    New Iberia, Louisiana
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/sotomayor-states-can-deny-2nd-amend


    Sotomayor: States Can Deny 2nd Amdmt

    From Ms. Sotomayor’s decision in Maloney v. Cuomo
    Case pdf: http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/pdf/maloney-v-cuomo-07-0581-cv_opn.pdf

    Maloney v. Cuomo
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    ______________

    August Term, 2008
    (Argued: December 15, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009)
    Docket No. 07-0581-cv

    Plaintiff-appellant James Maloney was arrested at his home on August 24, 2000, and charged with possessing a chuka stick in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1)… This charge was dismissed on January 28, 2003, and Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct… Appellant filed the… complaint… seeking a declaration that N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 are unconstitutional insofar as they punish possession of nunhakus in one’s home… He argues, inter alia, that New York’s statutory ban on the possession of nunchakus violates (1) the Second Amendment because it infringes on his right to keep and bear arms, and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment because it lacks a rational basis. Neither of these arguments has any merit…

    The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008). It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we “must follow Presser” because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997). Thus, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not violate the Second Amendment.

    So by this same reasoning the states can deny citizens freedom of speech. It’s only the federal government that is prevented from doing so.

    It’s funny, but somehow we had gotten the impression that the federal law, and especially the Constitution, took precedence over state and local laws.

    But according to the legal lights of Ms. Sotomayor we were mistaken.

    As were the Supreme Court Justices who decided the case she says “compels” her decision, Presser v. Illinois:

    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265

    But it seems they actually ruled just the opposite.


    Art
  14. Old Guy

    Old Guy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    366
    Location:
    Beaufort County, NC
    The Democrats definitely don't care about the Constitution. That is definitely a proven fact with the illegitimate office holder of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But even more distressing is where are the Republicans? It is one thing to make noise just to make noise as the Democrats did very effectively to get into total power. But, as it stands right now they are all complicit. The first challenge to the birth certificate came from a Democrat in PA. The Republicans did not touch it!!! Based on the performance of all I don't know if any of them really give a rats a**. It is time that "We the People" stand up!!

    Old Guy
  15. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    I hear ya!:mad::mad::mad:

    I think the "TEA parties" are a start in that direction. We all need to support and add to that effort in any LEGAL way we can. Talk to those friends who seem to be more interested in watching "American Idol" than protecting their freedoms. Feed them a little at a time, short attention spans ya know, to plant the seeds. Fertilize and water those seeds with a bit of information, easy reading stuff, from time to time.

    It is up to those of us who care enough to get involved to break the trance of those who are currently blind.
  16. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio

    And now this:


    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

    Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
    American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group


    Posted: May 27, 2009
    11:20 pm Eastern


    By Joe Kovacs
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily




    As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

    According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

    Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

    Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

    The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

    Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!

    The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.

    "I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

    (Story continues below)




    "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

    Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."

    But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact on her confirmation to the bench.

    "She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

    Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."

    The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.

    "Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's president and CEO.

    La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.


    As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

    Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
  17. FM258

    FM258 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." -Sonia Sotomayor



    Piss on her.
  18. Old Guy

    Old Guy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    366
    Location:
    Beaufort County, NC
    GOA has an alert to send to your senators.

    Old Guy
  19. 45nut

    45nut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    +1

    Interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson on the Judiciary Branch of Fedzilla:

    "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet..."
    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.
  20. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    She's a member of La Raza, why am I not suprised. So I have to assume that she's in favor of amnesty and more free gov't coin for the illegals.:rolleyes:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Barry's at it again Feb 8, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Apple picking in NY Dec 29, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum SAF and Alan Gottlieb thoughts on SCOTUS pick May 27, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Intelligence pick wants national ID Mar 10, 2009