Don't mind if somebody post someones view or words, since not everyone is a great writer but he should have at least given credit.
How very...politically convenient.Obama said Saturday he wants intellectual firepower and a common touch in the next Supreme Court justice and said he doesn't "feel weighed down by having to choose ... based on demographics."
That's what I'm saying. It's one thing to take someone's words and then give them credit for it, it's another to pass them off as your own.Macbeth wrote:
Don't mind if somebody post someones view or words, since not everyone is a great writer but he should have at least given credit.
Uh yeah, I was agreeing with you.Poseidon wrote:
That's what I'm saying. It's one thing to take someone's words and then give them credit for it, it's another to pass them off as your own.Macbeth wrote:
Don't mind if somebody post someones view or words, since not everyone is a great writer but he should have at least given credit.
is this crick as sexy as harriet meiers? we need muy sexy on the super court.
lmfaoPoseidon wrote:
You know, I had a feeling, but I think this pretty much proves it:nickb64 wrote:
It was unlikely Obama will nominate anyone who doesn’t hate America and Americans and especially its Constitution, so I don’t know how big a deal to make over Obama’s choice of Sotomayor. It’s not like we could ever get him to do much better. I just wonder what’s the chance of getting him to nominate a reverse Souter. Like Sotomayor will come in saying, “I promise to rule based on whatever will please the New York Times” but soon after she gets in she says, “I’ve decided to make decision based on what’s actually in the Constitution.” And nothing actually in the Constitution should ever please liberals, because the Founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of fruits.
It doesn't matter what gender or race they are, as long as they would uphold the meaning of the Constitution. The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land, not legislate from the bench.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/su … omination/
Try formulating your own opinions, not copying and pasting off of right wing blogs, k? K. Unless of course you're Frank J, which I highly doubt.
Nick just got caught out.
I realized when I just came back that I forgot the quote things, has been edited now.Poseidon wrote:
You know, I had a feeling, but I think this pretty much proves it:nickb64 wrote:
It was unlikely Obama will nominate anyone who doesn’t hate America and Americans and especially its Constitution, so I don’t know how big a deal to make over Obama’s choice of Sotomayor. It’s not like we could ever get him to do much better. I just wonder what’s the chance of getting him to nominate a reverse Souter. Like Sotomayor will come in saying, “I promise to rule based on whatever will please the New York Times” but soon after she gets in she says, “I’ve decided to make decision based on what’s actually in the Constitution.” And nothing actually in the Constitution should ever please liberals, because the Founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of fruits.
It doesn't matter what gender or race they are, as long as they would uphold the meaning of the Constitution. The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land, not legislate from the bench.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/su … omination/
Try formulating your own opinions, not copying and pasting off of right wing blogs, k? K. Unless of course you're Frank J, which I highly doubt.
oh, is that what happened?
I posted, felt like I forgot something.
I left, came back after a while, looked @ the forums, and realized I forgot to quote when I posted.
Only noticed at first because everybody was like, OMG he's plagiarising that guy's words.
I got like 3 hours sleep last night, I'm a little tired today.
I left, came back after a while, looked @ the forums, and realized I forgot to quote when I posted.
Only noticed at first because everybody was like, OMG he's plagiarising that guy's words.
I got like 3 hours sleep last night, I'm a little tired today.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-05-26 21:09:23)
It's sad that our supreme court is so corrupt. Political leanings should not affect how the law is interpreted.
She is a rascist, but then -look at who picked her.Macbeth wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/ … index.htmlPresident Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, two sources told CNN on Tuesday.
Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed
Obama plans to announce his nominee at 10:15 a.m. ET Tuesday, sources told CNN.
Obama said Saturday he wants intellectual firepower and a common touch in the next Supreme Court justice and said he doesn't "feel weighed down by having to choose ... based on demographics."
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
care to elaborate?
Absolutely,Man With No Name wrote:
care to elaborate?
It doesn't surprise me that a man who has been indoctrinated by the Reverend Wright for the last 20 years wouldn't see a problem with her statement.Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Add that to the FACT that her decisions have been reversed 60% of the time in higher courts suggest that she's either- wrong in her rulings, unfair in her sentencing, or is being a judicial activist.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-27 12:47:38)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I am kinda curious as to how this woman, who comes from a poverty stricken family has risen to such hieghts. Is this where you "progressives" start spouting off about "luck" or "fortune",or can she be an example as to what can happen with hard work, devotion, dedication, ambition and drive comes into play in ones life?
She is now probably considered "rich", how do you feel about stealing her money for your entitlement payouts? Did she EARN it, or was she just "lucky" like everyone else that has anything in life.
She is now probably considered "rich", how do you feel about stealing her money for your entitlement payouts? Did she EARN it, or was she just "lucky" like everyone else that has anything in life.
I could understand why you would feel that way. Although, Im kinda ignoring that reverand wright comment. Sounds like we're still in the campaign here and I just dont see it the way you do.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Absolutely,Man With No Name wrote:
care to elaborate?It doesn't surprise me that a man who has been indoctrinated by the Reverend Wright for the last 20 years wouldn't see a problem with her statement.Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Add that to the FACT that her decisions have been reversed 60% of the time in higher courts suggest that she's either- wrong in her rulings, unfair in her sentencing, or is being a judicial activist.
I think this is the part where youre supposed to complain about how affirmative action made it possible for this puerto rican to make it. Youre going off script herelowing wrote:
I am kinda curious as to how this woman, who comes from a poverty stricken family has risen to such hieghts. Is this where you "progressives" start spouting off about "luck" or "fortune",or can she be an example as to what can happen with hard work, devotion, dedication, ambition and drive comes into play in ones life?
She is now probably considered "rich", how do you feel about stealing her money for your entitlement payouts? Did she EARN it, or was she just "lucky" like everyone else that has anything in life.
Sounds like your trying to start an argument with yourself.
Given that she's an immigrant, no doubt she got to her position thanks to social security and positive discrimination.lowing wrote:
I am kinda curious as to how this woman, who comes from a poverty stricken family has risen to such hieghts. Is this where you "progressives" start spouting off about "luck" or "fortune",or can she be an example as to what can happen with hard work, devotion, dedication, ambition and drive comes into play in ones life?
She is now probably considered "rich", how do you feel about stealing her money for your entitlement payouts? Did she EARN it, or was she just "lucky" like everyone else that has anything in life.
puerto ricans arent immigrants, although there are many in this forum that will call them illegals regardless.
common wealth.
Thank you.Man With No Name wrote:
I could understand why you would feel that way. Although, Im kinda ignoring that reverand wright comment. Sounds like we're still in the campaign here and I just dont see it the way you do.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Absolutely,Man With No Name wrote:
care to elaborate?It doesn't surprise me that a man who has been indoctrinated by the Reverend Wright for the last 20 years wouldn't see a problem with her statement.Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Add that to the FACT that her decisions have been reversed 60% of the time in higher courts suggest that she's either- wrong in her rulings, unfair in her sentencing, or is being a judicial activist.
Sorry, just adding a bit of history to stretch my theory. Let's ignore that.
Regardless of race, age, or sex -I am all for the most qualified candidate being picked. That aside, what I care about is: Is this person the most qualified Judge the United States of America has to offer?
The answer is no. Oh, And She's a racist.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-27 15:21:32)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Are you saying it is proper and correct to select based on race and not qualifications and test acores? There is a word fro that. It is called racial discriminationMan With No Name wrote:
I could understand why you would feel that way. Although, Im kinda ignoring that reverand wright comment. Sounds like we're still in the campaign here and I just dont see it the way you do.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Absolutely,Man With No Name wrote:
care to elaborate?It doesn't surprise me that a man who has been indoctrinated by the Reverend Wright for the last 20 years wouldn't see a problem with her statement.Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Add that to the FACT that her decisions have been reversed 60% of the time in higher courts suggest that she's either- wrong in her rulings, unfair in her sentencing, or is being a judicial activist.I think this is the part where youre supposed to complain about how affirmative action made it possible for this puerto rican to make it. Youre going off script herelowing wrote:
I am kinda curious as to how this woman, who comes from a poverty stricken family has risen to such hieghts. Is this where you "progressives" start spouting off about "luck" or "fortune",or can she be an example as to what can happen with hard work, devotion, dedication, ambition and drive comes into play in ones life?
She is now probably considered "rich", how do you feel about stealing her money for your entitlement payouts? Did she EARN it, or was she just "lucky" like everyone else that has anything in life.
Sounds like your trying to start an argument with yourself.
Affirmative action is a separate issue and one that can certainly be argued. However, affirmative action did not help her EXCELL in school and her higher learning.
now how about addressing my point.
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-27 19:36:43)
Could she have got the position through both?lowing wrote:
Affirmative action is a separate issue and one that can certainly be argued. However, affirmative action did not help her EXCELL in school and her higher learning.
Are we the only two people left who agree with this? Political views should be irrelevant to judges and news reporters. What happened to impartiality?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
It's sad that our supreme court is so corrupt. Political leanings should not affect how the law is interpreted.
Sure if there is affirmative action that selects valedictorians and top academic honors through race instead of scores. If so it is also wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
Could she have got the position through both?lowing wrote:
Affirmative action is a separate issue and one that can certainly be argued. However, affirmative action did not help her EXCELL in school and her higher learning.
now how about addressing my point.
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-28 04:40:43)
My roommate is a liberal and studying for his GMAT - he's for Obama's pick.
I should ask him if he got a higher score on his GMAT, but someone with a lower score got into a Master's Degree program because of the color of their skin or their sexual preference - I wonder what he would say?
I should ask him if he got a higher score on his GMAT, but someone with a lower score got into a Master's Degree program because of the color of their skin or their sexual preference - I wonder what he would say?
That she got the job simply because of her race? Affirmative action? Maybe that's the only reason Obama made it to office too?lowing wrote:
now how about addressing my point.
What is your point?