Obama's Pick for Supreme Court - Page 8 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #71 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 06:52 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiletto View Post
...
One thing is FOR SURE… Folks like her are usually full of %hit without that morning coffee.
You caught me, no question!

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #72 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 07:09 AM
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
In order for her to get out of committee, she has to have 10 votes, one of which must be a Republican. Anyone wanna bet who gets a bunch of stimulus money?



Are you suggesting that you would support Republicans that would trade their vote for stimulus money?
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #73 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:34 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakarta Expat View Post
Are you suggesting that you would support Republicans that would trade their vote for stimulus money?
No more than you would accept a President who would bribe a senator to get a vote in committee.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #74 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:42 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
What issue? That RWNJs would squawk over a SC justice nomination by the Obama administration? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Of course, that would happen no matter who was nominated, essentially rendering the objections moot.
You live in quite the dream-world GS. Don't let reality smack you in the ass on your way out!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #75 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:44 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
'Tell us about the gravity, George.'
I thought it was about the frequency, Kenneth...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #76 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:51 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiletto View Post
Take a close look at this video..

Clearly this woman has peaked from her morning caffeine buzz. Just look at the clutter of beverages she has on her desk compared to the others whom are clearly less distracted with such self servitude. She finds herself lost in the moment stumbling over her own words yet can not seem to draw the power to pack it in. Meanwhile everyone else displays a phony smile or acts like they aren’t paying attention to her.

This woman could be the key to their undoing, especially if Obama gets a little Lewinski star in his eye.

One thing is FOR SURE… Folks like her are usually full of %hit without that morning coffee.
OMG! The thought of her giving Obama a Lewinski just freaks me out. BTW, are you on kcmbca.org?

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #77 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:59 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
BEAR

Damn bear! Merging all of our threads is giving me mental whiplash!! And my browser just crashed trying to figure out where I should be in this morass. I agree w/ some above that you are trying to bury the fact that there are so many reasons to reject this Supreme Reject. I believe that the number of threads on a particular topic is directly proportional to the magnitude of concern about the subject of the threads. And you just buried the importance of this subject. And don't try to tell us you were just doing a little housekeeping, because we all know better!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #78 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 08:59 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
CNN. They had the comprehensive list instead of just throwing out a number that lacks context. Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases - CNN.com

But I noticed you avoided discussing either the Alito or Roberts percentages. Problems with seeing things in context?
I did post that Sotomajor has been overturned 4 times by the SCOTUS. It is not the number of times that was important to me, but the fact that all 4 times were based on a misunderstanding of the law applied to the cases. And the SCOTUS cases were decided with judges we normally think of as liberal. Not the facts, not the application of the facts to the law, the law itself was not used or applied correctly. That is serious legal error. In my meager experience that would be like being stopped for speeding and the cop checks the box for "failure to yield right of way."

I wouldn't worry unnecessarily about Roberts or Alito. Each one of the confirmations is independent and unique. Or, their appointments are "settled law" as the Dems are wont to say.

McBare's vocabularly is stuck on "context" this week. That is the best evidence of Dem talking points. Remember "gravitas?" which went around for several weeks like the common cold? Context is what you refer to when you don't want someone to pay attention to the core matter at hand.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #79 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 09:02 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Stuantle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Topic of the day will be her stance on the 2nd amendment. Gun sales just went up this morning.
Stuantle is offline  
post #80 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-28-2009, 09:08 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism

I was going to start a new thread w/ this important article, but I knew it would get bearied...

What damage did Democrats suffer when they attacked Miguel Estrada?

Both President Barack Obama and Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had "empathy" and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.

"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.

Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.

Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.

The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.

Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.

Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina 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." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

Both Mr. Obama and the Republicans are also are denied things in this nomination. Republicans are denied an easy target. Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story, attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids.

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.

Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.

The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.

Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.

'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism - WSJ.com

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court KILL JOY Off-Topic 99 11-09-2016 04:12 PM
    Prop 8 upheld by CA Supreme Court 6-1 Check Codes Off-Topic 266 05-30-2009 09:11 PM
    2nd Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court! Bruce R. Off-Topic 112 07-01-2008 06:06 AM
    The other recent Supreme Court ruling and your money bgoin Off-Topic 0 07-07-2007 05:33 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome