I’m not sure what pisses me off more: the fact that 14 GOP Senators are going to vote to approve of Judge Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court or the fact that some conservatives are quite alright with this.
I’m too damn pissed at BOTH of those issues to gather my emotions and comment rationally on them, so I am glad I came across two comments which echo my thoughts pretty well:
Either she lied to the Senators or her beliefs now are suddenly different from what they have been her entire adult life. The Republicans could have and should have called her a liar to her face and told her that her lack of ethics (lying) disqualifies her for the Supreme Court. Period. If that would have been too harsh they could have disqualified her for any of the following reasons:
-Her membership in La Raza
-Her discriminatory behavior towards white men.
The Republicans should have stood up for us. Instead they caved, as usual. So Obama gets his Hispanic Racist on the Court and the Court moves one step closer to a society where your skin color determines your rights. It’s important to note here that according to Sotomayor, white men have fewer rights than blacks did back unde the seperate but equal days.
Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at July 17, 2009 12:13 PM
Nope, sorry, not gonna be OK with this. It’s the SUPREME COURT. No removal possible. Her views are horrific and the stupidass 14 will join the 8 eternally damned shitheads in the House who voted for cap ‘n’ tax. She will legislate from the bench, and legislate very badly. I submit that this should have been fought hammer and sickle. What the hell are people “saving up the fight” for? Actual gulags? It’s too late by then.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:13 PM
I am really getting sick and damn tired of conservatives accepting the BS unfair playing field on which conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats play. They accept that Democrats can lie, cheat, smear, ridicule to their hearts content with NO consequences whatsoever. YET, when Conservatives or Republicans tell the TRUTH and present FACTS, we are painted as racists, bigots and sexists… and conservatives accept that!??!
WTF. Seriously. W.T.F.
Awesome. Glad to see I’m not the only one who is pissed the fook off here:
I e-mailed the NRSC and invited them to taste my ass. And they scratch their head and balls in wonder… why don’t conservatives donate money to our great cause? I told them I hope a 3rd party rises out of all this back slappin horsesh*t. I’m tired of these good ol boys punching conservatives right in the puss followed by a f*ck you very much.
Posted by: Sparky at July 17, 2009 12:17 PM
“Forgot to add: And she lied under oath and she keeps getting overturned AND I bet she doesn’t look good in black.”
What a lot of normal people forget is, lying isn’t lying to these rat-bastards. Lying is actually “revolutionary truth”… as in, it’s perfectly OK to lie as long as you’re advancing your goals while you do it. You may notice that even formerly respectable liberal pundits will defend a lying liar to the end as long as he or she supports the liberal positions being espoused.
Posted by: ATNorth at July 17, 2009 12:18 PM
Thank you both. And as far as the candy assed view of playing the politics “smart” on this one, bulls**t. It’s that kind of crap that got us where we are today. Stand up and be a statesman fer cryin’ out loud.
Posted by: teej at July 17, 2009 12:19 PM
F*ckin’ A. EXACTLY:
If you’re worried about pointing out bald-faced lies because you’ll be called a racist, what’s the point of questioning anything at all?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 17, 2009 12:20 PM
Another good point here by Vic. Let’s see, the GOP spends their time exposing how Sotomayor is an incompetent lying, racist POS, BUT, then, despite that, turn around and vote to appoint her to the US Supreme Court? And that’s called good, smart politics? Give me a freaking fooking break here. That’s called COWARDICE. And is EXACTLY the reason no one freaking respects Republicans. Not the media, not the Left and not conservatives. PERIOD. Give me someone who FIGHTS and calls out the Left, the media and the Democrats on their utterly despicable BS and THAT will be a statesman I will support to the death.
Drew while I agree that they did about all they could in the questioning and she did come across as a liar and an AA incompetant they still should NOT vote for her.
That defeats the entire purpose of making her look stupid and it continues the practice of “playing” nice while your enemy stabs you in the gut and laughs at you.
Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2009 12:24 PM
My sentiments exactly:
See, this is why so many of us feel dispirited, disenfranchised, and without recourse. Those who purport to represent us aren’t fighting back on these poobags. At all. To my knowledge, NO ONE has called her out on her perjury.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:29 PM
Bingo. As I said at the beginning of this post, upon reading DrewM’s post, I was both immensely pissed the hell off and completely dispirited as well. I didn’t know whether to be mad as hell or depressed and broken. And not just because the GOP are a bunch of COWARDS, but the added fact that DrewM and some others think that this was “inevitable” and we should just sit back and accept this status quo once again.
BULLSH*T. ANY GOP member voting ‘yes’ on this racist, incompetent, lying sack of sh*t judge in UNACCEPTABLE. PERIOD. Can they stop her from being approved? No. Fine. That, I accept, because the American people are utter fools for giving the despicable Democrats so much power. BUT, that does not mean that ANY Republican should be voting “YES” for Judge Sonia ‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor to represent the nation on the United States Supreme Court. Not.at.all. And anyone who does so is a cowardly, despicable POS.
Anyone who points out the fact that someone is a racist, incompetent lying bastard and then supports the promotion of that person has absolutely NO integrity whatsoever. None.
Amen to this:
It’s not just the Rs on the committee, DrewM. You are correct that the questioners did well. But no one outside of those of us who give two sh*ts were even aware that the takedown occurred. To 99% of the country, this story is “First Hispanic (And She’s a GIRL! Who was POOR!) Nominated to SC by The One.” Her actual views are barely out there. The firefighter case alone should have sparked a reawakening of the national debate on AA, but… no. Her mom bought the neighborhood’s first set of encylopedias!
This is where every other national office-holding R should have come into play, not to mention the RNC. Conservatives are horrified by this pick… and we see nothing done about it outside of a few questions. She probably would have been confirmed anyway, but the point is, there was little to no fight on this, just like just about everything else.
Seeing the “conservative” “leadership” rain hellfire down on this nightmare would have 1) thrown a spotlight on her racialist views 2) provided a psycological boost to the base. Make every. single. victory. a Pyrric one for the liberals. They will have to think carefully every time they pile another piece of socialism onto this country. As it is, the less resistance is thrown, the tougher it will get. Again I ask: What are we saving the fight for? Far too late by the time the forced abortions and the reducation camps come barrelling down the pike.
I grow weary of hearing my viewpoint articulated only by people who have radio audiences but no power beneath the Capitol dome.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 12:43 PM
Exactly. There is no victory here at all. Anyone who thinks so has not been paying attention whatsoever the last 8 years:
“No, she doesn’t mean it but it will make for some nice issue adds in the future.”
Which ads will never, ever run. Because they’ll get the Repubs called racist. Which is gonna happen anyway, facts, evidence, and logic be damned. And around the circle we go again.
Not that you’re wrong, Drew; no, there’s not a lot we can do, she’s gonna get in anyway. But anybody who thinks any of this will stop Obamandias, King of Kings, from nominating whatever abomination he wants to for any position whatever needs to take another look at the raving lunatic he’s named as “science” czar. He’s securely in the driver’s seat, and for every weak-tea consolation-prize poll we cite saying Duh Peepul don’t like it, he can always gin up five more that say otherwise.
Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2009 01:11 PM
Excellent point here by CJ. This is exactly MY point when I am pissed off at conservatives who continue to accept the status quo and accept that Republicans can’t do anything. If WE are not willing to fight, then how do we expect Republicans to fight? The fact is that if we don’t start actively fighting all this BS, then we’re going to continue to have spineless GOP representatives curl up and die on all the issues. It starts with we, conservatives. And it frustrates me to no end that some conservatives just do.not.get.it.
I think a lot of people here have it backward: members of Congress REACT to culture/conventional wisdom, not the other way around. It’s bottom up. The GOP will aggressively challenge left wing minority public officials when WE make it safe for them to do so.
Democrats wouldn’t have tried to bork Bork as a ‘threat to civil rights’ if they didn’t think they had adequate cover beyond Capitol Hill. Right or wrong, the storyline of the throw-back Jim Crow bigot hiding behind the “constructionist” mask provided that cover. Republican members of Congress will get the nerve to take on left-wing minorities when conservatives outside the Beltway make it safe for them to do so.
Posted by: CJ at July 17, 2009 01:32 PM
DrewM, that is indeed the smart way to play it in the traditional political system– but my opinion is that system is crumbling. I truly think we’re on the leading edge of a different era now, and in this era we fight. Everything.
I also think that there’s a difference between “reacting” and “framing the debate.” We drop the AA bomb and the perjury bomb, and the issue becomes not her PC credentials, but the worldview of the administration. I think that’s the key reason why Barry has any support at all — too many people are inclined to believe the best of him (I idiotically did during the primaries) and aren’t truly aware of what he’s really trying to do here.
Posted by: Filly at July 17, 2009 01:32 PM
“…[L]ife is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically.” —Rush Limbaugh, June 5, 2009
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. So, the question is: Will Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, be the one who helps to return this country back to being a nation respecting the sanctity of human life by being one of a majority of Justices agreeing to overturn Roe v Wade, thus allowing the people of the United States of America to vote, in each of their respective States, on the legality of murdering babies?
Rush makes a pretty compelling argument that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may, in fact, be Pro-Life: All the Latest on Sonia Sotomayor
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, even more has been learned about Sonia Sotomayor and abortion. And what we have learned here is from a speech that she gave in June 2001, eight years ago, in which she commends liberal lawsuits on abortion, illegal immigration, and welfare reform. Here’s what she said. Now, I know they’re going to climb on me for saying this. She really writes poorly, and people are acknowledging this. There were a couple stories yesterday that it’s amazing how poorly written her opinions are compared to other appellate judges who are all great writers. In fact, it’s one of the trademarks of an appellate judge, Supreme Court justice, is their brilliant writing. So I’ll just read this passage from the speech of Judge Sotomayor in June of 2001.
“In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services money from taking on class-action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion, illegal immigration, or welfare reform. Commendably –” so she agrees with that “– commendably, I know Brooklyn law school’s clinical programs have redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation. These efforts and the volunteer efforts of other law schools, bar groups and lawyers and private law firms are not enough. The need is very great.” She is commending Congress prohibiting lawyers receiving federal legal service money from taking on lawsuits involving abortion. Now, what that means is that she agrees that federal money should not be used to pay lawyers who take on abortion cases. Now, what are we to conclude from this? Well, it’s just more confusion. It just leads to more confusion. Now, here is a woman with rich Latina, wise life experiences, by her own admission multiple times in her life, saying she doesn’t think it’s right for lawyers filing suits on abortion to get federal money to do it.
Now, that would make one tend to think that she thinks one of two things: That the government ought have nothing to say about it via their money, and secondly, if these lawyers want to go ahead and file abortion cases then find the clients to pay up. Don’t ask the government to do it. She is a devout Catholic. She is a devout Catholic. And, folks, I’m telling you the only evidence — and it isn’t evidence — the only evidence we have that she is pro-Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion, is that Obama has assured us. But Obama has said he didn’t talk to her and on her questionnaire that she submitted yesterday she said she wasn’t asked specifically about it. But yet Obama knows specifically, but she says she hasn’t said specifically or even been asked specifically. So I don’t know. I know a lot of you people think this is nuts because you think that Obama would not nominate anybody to the court who was not pro-Roe v. Wade or pro-abortion. But just in a general sense I could agree and understand that, but what if he doesn’t really know? What if he’s just assuming? If he knows, somebody’s lying about them having talked about it, because she says in her questionnaire that she hasn’t. Nor was she asked, directly or indirectly.
Now, it could well be that she’s told, you know, some colleague somewhere who told an Obama White House official, don’t worry about it. She didn’t admit that in questionnaire. She said that didn’t happen. I also saw in a news story that she has spoken highly of Justice Scalia, another Catholic on the US Supreme Court who, of course, thinks Roe v. Wade is horrendously bad constitutional law. Justice Scalia, in fact, in an abortion case — I’ll never forget, give you an example of just how great a writer and thinker Scalia is, but how all of these appellate judges, most of them are really, really good writers. You have to be, when you’re going to explain your opinion and so forth, you’ve got to be a good writer, not just in legalese, but in common sense language as well. And he said from the case that had just been decided, it was apparent to him that, “The mansion that is abortion rights law will have to be torn down doorjamb by doorjamb.”
Now, nobody talks that way. If you go to a party and you’re talking about abortion, nobody is going to say, “You know what, abortion’s like a mansion, and we’re going to have to end it by tearing it apart doorjamb by doorjamb,” but people do write that way. Good writers have a flair for writing unique things. Scalia does. It’s kind of like golf announcing on TV. I play golf and if I make par, I’ll say, “That’s four,” or “That’s a par,” but I will not say, “I authored a par.” Golf announcers will say, “Tiger Woods authored a par.” If Tiger Woods bogeys a hole, they will say, “And he puts a blemish on the scorecard with a five.” We who play golf do not say, after a bogey, “Well, there’s a blemish on my card.” We shout the F-bomb!
RUSH: From the New York Daily News today:
“Dawn Cardi looms very large in the life of Sonia Sotomayor. She constantly refers to her in speeches as her watchdog to make sure she is doing the right thing.”
And then there’s a web link here about Sotomayor sharing joy with her best friend, and the Daily News headline, this is from Friday, May 29th:
“‘Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor ‘Open,’ Will Follow Law on Abortion Issue, Says Friend.’ — Sonia Sotomayor has never made a major ruling on the issue of abortion –“
this we know,
“– and she remains mum about whether she believes in a woman’s right to choose. Sotomayor understands how difficult it is for a woman to decide whether to have an abortion and she knows women who have struggled with that choice, a longtime friend told the Daily News. ‘Years ago, we spoke about abortion, about how difficult a choice it is,’ Dawn Cardi, a lawyer and one of Sotomayor’s closest friends, told the News Friday. ‘It’s a very, very difficult choice, and (we discussed) how difficult it must be for a woman who has to make that choice,’ Cardi recalled. … Asked directly if Sotomayor believes a woman has a right to choose an abortion, Cardi replied, ‘She will follow what she thinks is the law on that, and her personal beliefs will not interfere with that analysis because my view of her is that she does not allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her analysis of legal issues.”
Now, now, now, she clearly does. She has said that her personal beliefs impact her decisions because she said that judges, appellate judges make policy. Now, the reason why I think something’s going on here, Sotomayor is a liberal. She faces no problem being confirmed. She’s got a majority of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a majority of Democrats in the Senate. Most libs are eager to tell you about their Roe v. Wade beliefs, their abortion beliefs. She would not. Her confirmation would not suffer had it been known over the years what her opinion on this was and yet she’s gone to great lengths to keep it quiet. She has gone to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to have it an open question. We know what she thinks of affirmative action. We know what she thinks of a lot of other public issues by virtue of her rulings and what she’s written. But on this one issue, we don’t know. And I would think that if, for example, she is pro-life, she’s probably calculating that could do more harm to her than by admitting she’s pro-choice. Am I correct? She’s dealing with liberals here that are going to vote on her. So no pain, no harm. She might get some grief about telegraphing the way she’s going to rule on an issue, and I know that no nominee comes out and says what they think about this. But she hasn’t said when she thinks about it ever.
My instincts tell me that it’s because people who are her friends on other issues might not appreciate what she really thinks about abortion. As I have continued to delve into this, as I have continued to investigate and research this and try to get to the quick, try to get to the soul of this, where she comes down on it, I have to say that there’s a better than 50-50 shot she’s pro-life. She’s Catholic. I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, don’t misunderstand, Puerto Rican Catholic, they’re devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there. It certainly could not hurt her with her own people for it to be known. It could only harm her with her own people if she’s pro-life and she’s staying mum on it, zipped lips.
So I can’t say for sure, but it sure seems to me that it’s — well, you know, I’ve said that life is such an important issue. If I learned, could be relatively certain and assured that she thinks Roe is bad constitutional law and is a pro-life individual, you’d have to stop and consider maybe supporting that. You can get past the racism and bigotry and other things, but life is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically. So I know it would be controversial, but I could see being in favor of this nomination were she pro-life. Certainly could.