Obama '08?

@okie,

Apparently ci don't have the courage to answer a simple question. Will check later to see if he worked up an answer.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Don't know on Coburn. I predict confirmation, but all I am trying to point out is the obvious hypocrisy on the part of Democrats playing the race card. Sotomayor herself has played it in the past. Frankly, I am very tired of it, as is most of us I believe. Can't people stand up and say enough is enough already? I am tired of people being classified every which way. Why not tell the Census Bureau to cease and desist in this swamp of racial and sexual classifications. Is that the way all Democrats look at people, what color are you, etc. etc.?

By the way, I thumbs down dyslexia. He probably opposed Thomas, I am only guessing, and if so I am sure it was because he was black, right dys?

you're exactly right Okie, as you usually are. I did oppose Thomas because he still is black, I only support hispanic illegal aliens.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Answer the question, how many white people voted against Thomas? Did you oppose him? Answer it. The answer directly relates to the program here.

Also, how many Democrats voted against Thomas? How many white Democrats voted against him?

While you're at it, Okie, why don't you get a nose count on Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. How do you think the Democrats handled the nomination of a conservative Latino?

Quote:

Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda (born September 25, 1961) is an American lawyer who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Unable to block Estrada's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2003, Senate Democrats used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote on the full Senate floor. Although a filibuster had been used in 1968 to prevent the elevation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice of the United States, Estrada's filibuster was the first ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee. . . .

. . . .A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General wrote a letter objecting to the Democrats' demand for memos that Estrada had written while he was with the office. While not addressing past instances where such memos had previously been released,[2] the letter argued release of prior memos by government employees to the public would endanger the Solicitor General Office's ability to provide confidential legal advice to the Executive Branch. Some observers claimed that the Democrats also wished to avoid giving Bush points with Hispanic voters. The Democrats hotly contested this; however, internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee.[3] Karl Rove has published a copy of this memo on his website.[4] . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

Compare that to the relatively mild objections and inquiry re Sotomayor.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You will recall, CI, that Sen Sessions was nominated to the court and was rejected. I think that that experience will cause him to ultimately vote in favor of moving her nomination along.
Some Repubs will try to make an issue of Judge Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven case being overturned by the Supreme Court. That was in an Appellate court. Isn't that why we have multiple layers of courts?
It is not like having a baseball umpire making a quick and irreversible decision.
Someone like Debra Law is more qualified than am I about New Haven, but the court on which she served concluded, I think, that New Haven screwed up and it was going to end up in the Supreme Court regardless of their decision. She, and her colleagues could be faulted for writing such a perfunctory commentary on the case.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, What are you trying to say? It doesn't matter if they are both Hispanics. What matters is their knowledge and skills as a judge that are acceptable to the mainstream, and whose judgments are not overly challenged by the higher courts. It really doesn't matter what color, religion, or anything else they are associated with.

The only question should be "are they qualified?"

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I'm really shocked Foxfyre, I didn't expect you to play the race card.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Cornyn, from AZ, voted against her when she was up for the court of appeals. He may vote no again But if he does so he may pay a big price considering the number of Latinos in his state.

2 Replies

@okie,

I supported Thomas, but only because I thought Hill put him through hell based on bogus charges.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Politics does funny things to people in politics - and outside of politics. The huge Latino vote will influence the biggest racial bigots to change their tune. LOL

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I didn't want to be the 1st one to mention the home state politics thing, Advocate, but Sen Cornyn of TX and Sen Kyl of AZ may have their eyes on how a "No" vote may affect them.
Sotomayor would be replacing another liberal justice. This will not be a shift in philosophy on the Supreme Court. I suspect that the Repubs on the Committee and in the Senate will pass on opposing an Hispanic woman.
The real battle will come with the retirement of a Justice perceived as a conservative. That will be a battle.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Everything I've seen and every talking head that has been on television the last couple of weeks concurs that the GOP will not choose this hill as the place to stand and fight. They will do what they are supposed to do and raise all pertinent issues--the few most honestly opposed will vote no, but there will be no effort to block her confirmation.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

While you're at it, Okie, why don't you get a nose count on Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. How do you think the Democrats handled the nomination of a conservative Latino?

Quote:
Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda (born September 25, 1961) is an American lawyer who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Unable to block Estrada's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2003, Senate Democrats used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote on the full Senate floor. Although a filibuster had been used in 1968 to prevent the elevation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice of the United States, Estrada's filibuster was the first ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee. . . .

. . . .A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General wrote a letter objecting to the Democrats' demand for memos that Estrada had written while he was with the office. While not addressing past instances where such memos had previously been released,[2] the letter argued release of prior memos by government employees to the public would endanger the Solicitor General Office's ability to provide confidential legal advice to the Executive Branch. Some observers claimed that the Democrats also wished to avoid giving Bush points with Hispanic voters. The Democrats hotly contested this; however, internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee.[3] Karl Rove has published a copy of this memo on his website.[4] . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

Compare that to the relatively mild objections and inquiry re Sotomayor.

I think the democrats handled the Estrada nomination in the same manner they would handle a John Yoo nomination if "conservative" John Yoo was ever nominated for a seat on the federal judiciary. I do not believe that Sotomayor has a secret cache of legal memorandums that reflect upon her fitness to sit on the bench.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only question should be "are they qualified?"

That question is only a one way street as far as Democrats are concerned. If a Republican opposes a woman, a Hispanic, or a black, they are called racists. Plain as day, people, that is clearly what happens.

If a conservative white male said this, how far would he get into the Supreme Court?

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. "

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. I know."

1 Reply

@okie,

No. You conservatives still haven't proved why Sotomayor is not qualified to be confirmed as a supreme court justice. Has nothing to do with her gender or race.

You're the one who brought up the race card. Why?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

If yall are keeping score at home:
1) Chief Justice John Roberts (born 1955) appointed by George W. Bush;
2) John Paul Stevens (b: 1920) Nixon;
3) Antonin Scalia (b: 1936) Reagan;
4) Anthony Kennedy (b: 1936) Reagan;
5) Clarence Thomas (b: 1948) George Bush;
6) Ruth Ginsberg (b: 1933) Clinton;
7) Stephen Breyer (b: 1938) Clinton;
8) Samuel Alito (b: 1950) George W Bush

I have Stevens and Ginsberg leaving soon and, I think, Thomas retiring also. That would be my surprise bet.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I did not bring up the race card. The race card had already been played, and was being played on this forum, just like everywhere else. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy here. Many of her supporters think her gender and race are important, even crucial.

I don't even know if I would oppose her at this point. I find some of her quotes troubling, but to be honest I don't know enough about her to either support her or oppose her. I think there are other people out there that would judge the law and constitution more accurately based upon what I know about her so far, but I would need to study her decision alot more before voting.

I think she will be confirmed, but I think her appointment is just another example of mediocrity and even incompetence in many of the appointments Obama has made. It all started with Biden, who is a total incompetent.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Politics does funny things to people in politics - and outside of politics. The huge Latino vote will influence the biggest racial bigots to change their tune. LOL

I think you just demonstrated the hypocrisy I have pointed out. Opposition to Sotomayer is bigotry, but opposition to Clarence Thomas was not. According to you of course. Case closed, ci. You have demonstrated the point beautifully.

1 Reply

@okie,

I didn't mention anything about Thomas' nomination or confirmation. Quit putting words into my mouth; you do a piss poor job at it anywhos.

1 Reply

@okie,

I find most of your quotes troubling. So, what's your point? Because she's a woman, she's not allowed to make any verbal mistakes?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You flunked the test on the question, ci. No courage to answer a simple question, none whatsoever.

At any rate, Obama's numbers not looking any better. The lines crossed and haven't recovered for him yet. Still Minus 8, with the "strongly approve" number down to a new low, only 28%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/july_2009/obama_index_july_13_2009/231942-1-eng-US/obama_index_july_13_2009.jpg

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know