F107HyperSabr
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,617
- Reaction score
- 375
- Location
- Connecticut
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh took an opposite turn from the party chairman, saying that the "way get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people." Limbaugh also suggested that her nomination would be like picking former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for the position.
Limbaugh is such a ****ing douche bag.
I commend Steele for cautioning everyone to show some class and intelligently discuss her qualifications. Good for him. The right doesn't need to sink to Limbaugh's level to argue against her nomination.
The SCOTUS has no room for racist trash, nor activist judges who claim to "create policy" from the bench, nor someone who doesn't believe the bill of rights applies to indviduals. What ever qualificatons she has are trumped by these massive disqualifications. Although her fascism must delight Adolph Obama and his jackboot throng.
Steele, mealy-mouthed and confused as a newborn, is quickly turning into an idiotic caricature of everything that is wrong with the Republican party.
There is no evidence in terms of her long track record, only emotional "trash" and name calling to support your contention in order to accuse her of:
-racism
- bill of rights applies to indviduals
-policy creation
Can we move this thread to the: "People who like to admonish the GOP while they themselves are vapid left-wingers who would never vote for a Republican" forum?
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to be a racist, and Ricci versus DeStefano doubly confirms it.
Are you calling her a liar, then? She has written it herself and doubly confirmed it in U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar.
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to believe she creates policy and Ricci versus DeStefano and U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar doubly confirms it.
As an aside, I suggest you see a shrink about your odd anal fixation. And maybe a proctologist, too, for the foot I just shoved up your ass.
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to be a racist, and Ricci versus DeStefano doubly confirms it.
Are you calling her a liar, then? She has written it herself and doubly confirmed it in U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar.
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to believe she creates policy and Ricci versus DeStefano and U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar doubly confirms it.
As an aside, I suggest you see a shrink about your odd anal fixation. And maybe a proctologist, too, for the foot I just shoved up your ass.
-racism
-policy creation
- bill of rights applies to indviduals
I read an article on Fox News about how Republicans are approaching the Sotomayer confirmation. Seems to be a bit of division here, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
Republicans Divided Over How to Oppose Sotomayor - Political News - FOXNews.com
"The GOP doesn't want to give Sotomayer a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.
But they're also concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth."
You have not actually read either decision have you? Ricci vs DeStafano is actually an easy read, since it is one paragraph, upholding a lower court decision. How exactly not overturning a ruling is "making policy", I will let you explain. By the way, you are wrong on all counts here.
Oh really I suggest you go and read her oppions on the 2nd Adm. also as someone else has pointed out her ruling on the Firerfighter test prove that she is a Racist if it was a White person then all hell would have broken out by now Uncle Jessy would be screaming for Whiteys Head on a silver plate
Her stance on 2nd Adm should have made her not even on the list you can't tinker with the Bill of rights end of discussion unless your all for an Armed Uprising.
She is clearly making policy. You have no legal right to violate someone's rights merely because you are affraid if you do not violate their rights that you may get taken to court by someone other party.
In a worst case scenario, both options will lead to litigation. There is no pragamatic nor constitutional leg to stand on.
just becasue you or I or Yashu Zasrowski does not agree with a ruling does not make that ruling setting policy or it does not make it "unconstitutional".
She may indeed have ruled in a way that you and/or I do not agree with but that does not not her rulings unconstitutional. You see judges make many rulings over a long career and some of tjose ruling some people will disagree with.
What I am saying it's ok to oppse her nimination but do it with honest reasons and not some knee jerk "she's a racist" blurtation.
There are other racist comments that sh ehas made over the years any of these sort of comment were made by any White person would be attack and that person would have been run out of DC faster then Mr. Clinton eating a Big Mac
She did use poor wording in that 2001 speech but how does one instance of a poor choice of words make her a racist ?
Arguments on either side would carry a lot more weight if they were expressed in well-written English.
This is not her first comment she has made. I suggest you go and do some research on her.
This is a debate forum. Part of the process is to actually substantiate you own case.
She is clearly making policy. You have no legal right to violate someone's rights merely because you are affraid if you do not violate their rights that you may get taken to court by someone other party.
In a worst case scenario, both options will lead to litigation. There is no pragamatic nor constitutional leg to stand on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?