View Full Version : MSNBC: NRA'S Thread on Sotomayor misfires
variablebinary
08-01-09, 19:50
MSNBC = Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda
Jawohl, Herr Kommandant!
MSNBC = Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda
She doesn't have the qualifications, period.
She doesn't have the qualifications, period.
Sure she does. She's Latina, that's enough for the commie libs.
Business_Casual
08-02-09, 17:07
Think about it - do you want to be dumbest person in the room for the rest of your life? I wouldn't want to sit there and have Roberts and Scalia rolling their eyes at me everytime I try to write an opinion.
Obama did her and us a disservice.
M_P
She doesn't have the qualifications, period.
Sure she does. She is just as qualified as Barry the Kenyan:rolleyes:
Think about it - do you want to be dumbest person in the room for the rest of your life? I wouldn't want to sit there and have Roberts and Scalia rolling their eyes at me everytime I try to write an opinion.
Obama did her and us a disservice.
M_P
I agree with you 100%. The thing that sucks though is she'd still be called "Supreme Court Justice" no matter how dumb she is.
She's not dumb, she has an ivy league law degree, and she has more time on the Federal bench than many justices did when they were nominated. She's qualified from an education and experience point of view.
She just happens to have political viewpoints that we disagree with. She is a liberal progressivist rather than an originalist. As such we have a right to oppose her nomination as does anyone in the Senate who disagrees with her views. However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence.
variablebinary
08-02-09, 23:57
Think about it - do you want to be dumbest person in the room for the rest of your life? I wouldn't want to sit there and have Roberts and Scalia rolling their eyes at me everytime I try to write an opinion.
Obama did her and us a disservice.
M_P
Please. Ginsburg is utterly unqualified and dumb as a rock. She is probably the most unqualified person on the high court in my lifetime.
browningboy84
08-03-09, 02:19
Please. Ginsburg is utterly unqualified and dumb as a rock. She is probably the most unqualified person on the high court in my lifetime.
Ginsburg was very unqualified when she was confirmed. Sotomayor does have an Ivy League degree, and she does have some time on the bench. Sotomayor has one thing going against her. She contradicts other courts opinion, and allows her bias to shape her rulings. Right is right, no matter how we feel about it. She is an activist judge, and judges are not supposed to legislate!!!! Hence, she has no business being a judge. Her cons outweigh her pros. She is essentially legislating without the voters to have a say in things. That is why I cant stand her!!!! Another reason why she was nominated is Barry the Kenyan is trying to buy Hispanic votes so he can further **** up this country by making it a bannana republic at worst, at best, a socialist country!!!!!
However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence.
Why not? The libs did that to Pres. Bush for his entire presidency. I guess having a higher education doesn't really mean you're smart, unless your a liberal. :rolleyes:
Why not? The libs did that to Pres. Bush for his entire presidency. I guess having a higher education doesn't really mean you're smart, unless your a liberal. :rolleyes:
I see your point. Bush's problem was that he came off pretty poorly when speaking in public. He wasn't stupid, but he didn't come across as really smart in speeches or debates. He lacked smoothness and polish, which aren't reflective of intelligence, but are interpreted that way by many people.
But my point about Sotomayor is that personal attacks will backfire because of accusations of racism. Sticking to the facts about her political bias is the only way to prevail, and there aren't enough votes to prevent her from being confirmed anyway.
"However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence."
What's wrong with hammering her intelligence? Haven't her decisions been appealed/reversed like 60% of the time? How the hell do you apply for the highest court in the land when you **** up 60% of the time?
"However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence."
What's wrong with hammering her intelligence? Haven't her decisions been appealed/reversed like 60% of the time? How the hell do you apply for the highest court in the land when you **** up 60% of the time?
As I said before, her problem is BIAS, not stupidity. She knows what she is doing, and that is ignoring the law in favor of her desired political outcomes. THIS is what makes her a bad choice, and THIS is what we must hammer on.
She doesn't have the qualifications, period.
And she's a racist, and a radical and NOT what we want for the SC.
So it's almost a guaranteed lock that she will be in.
Because anyone who doesn't vote for her...will automatically be a RACIST.
Think about it - do you want to be dumbest person in the room for the rest of your life? I wouldn't want to sit there and have Roberts and Scalia rolling their eyes at me everytime I try to write an opinion.
Obama did her and us a disservice.
M_P
She will be too dumb to realize she is the dumbest person in the room. She will honestly believe she is so enlightened nobody "gets her."
She's not dumb, she has an ivy league law degree, and she has more time on the Federal bench than many justices did when they were nominated. She's qualified from an education and experience point of view.
She just happens to have political viewpoints that we disagree with. She is a liberal progressivist rather than an originalist. As such we have a right to oppose her nomination as does anyone in the Senate who disagrees with her views. However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence.
There is a difference between educated and smart. You can be very educated and still dumber than shit. Al Gore has a pretty decent education for a person who is dumber than shit.
The_War_Wagon
08-04-09, 21:55
She's a wise-ass Latina - therefore, she is qualified. :rolleyes: To whip me up a taco... maybe... :mad:
Senate Confirms Sotomayor - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who rose from the housing projects of the Bronx to the top of the legal profession, made history Thursday when the Senate confirmed her to become the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Sonia Sotomayor, 55, will be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor was easily confirmed in a 68-31 vote. Nine Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting her nomination.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, supported Sotomayor but was not present for the vote because of illness.
Sotomayor, a 55-year-old federal appeals court judge, will be the 111th person to sit on the high court and the third female justice.
She will be sworn in at the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday. Sotomayor was confirmed after senators spent a final day of debate rehashing the main arguments for and against her.
President Obama, who selected Sotomayor on May 26, said he was "deeply gratified" by the Senate vote.
"This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it's a wonderful day for America," Obama said at the White House.
Democrats continued to praise Sotomayor as a fair and impartial jurist with an extraordinary life story. Many Republicans continued to portray her as a judicial activist intent on reinterpreting the law to conform with her own liberal political beliefs.
Among other things, Republican opponents emphasized concerns over her statements and rulings on hot-button issues such as gun control, affirmative action and property rights.
More to article, click on link.
rickrock305
08-06-09, 17:15
She's a wise-ass Latina - therefore, she is qualified. :rolleyes: To whip me up a taco... maybe... :mad:
funny all the cries of "racist" about Sotomayor, yet noone says anything about this?
so i guess blatant racism is perfectly ok for only certain minorities? :rolleyes:
funny all the cries of "racist" about Sotomayor, yet noone says anything about this?
so i guess blatant racism is perfectly ok for only certain minorities? :rolleyes:
Ignore it, focus on the topic at hand, contribute to said topic and move on.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/hinojosa.sotomayor/index.html
Maybe I read this article wrong, but the "Obama owes us" part really angered me. Whether or not I agree with his presidency, political disposition or appointments--I read this statement as "the United States owes us, The American people owe us".
I don't believe the article's intent was to be incendiary, but it was poorly worded at best, At worst--this actually was intended to ellicit the response that it did from me and others in my demographic.
I really take issue with the word "owe"
funny all the cries of "racist" about Sotomayor, yet noone says anything about this?
so i guess blatant racism is perfectly ok for only certain minorities? :rolleyes:
Sometimes ignorance doesn't deserve a response. But you are right nonetheless.
Besides, Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, not Mexican, so the taco comment is about as ignorant as you can get. But it's indicative of the "all hispanics are illegal mexicans" mentality that some people have.
She's been confirmed, so it doesn't really matter now. The consolation is that she will be no more liberal than then one she is replacing, so the balance on the court remains the same.
She's not dumb, she has an ivy league law degree, and she has more time on the Federal bench than many justices did when they were nominated. She's qualified from an education and experience point of view.
late to this
just cause someone graduates with a degree from any school does not mean they are smart !!!
it just means they learned how to pass a class and does not mean they are qualified for anything !!!!
toasterlocker
08-06-09, 19:29
"However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence."
What's wrong with hammering her intelligence? Haven't her decisions been appealed/reversed like 60% of the time? How the hell do you apply for the highest court in the land when you **** up 60% of the time?
You don't really know how appeals work, do you? Generally a higher court won't even see a case unless there is already a known possibility they will reverse the lower courts decision.
I agree with the comments of other posters that the focus needs to be on political bias.
She's not dumb, she has an ivy league law degree, and she has more time on the Federal bench than many justices did when they were nominated. She's qualified from an education and experience point of view.
She just happens to have political viewpoints that we disagree with. She is a liberal progressivist rather than an originalist. As such we have a right to oppose her nomination as does anyone in the Senate who disagrees with her views. However, lets focus on her political bias, not her ethnicity or her intelligence.
Of she is unqualified as she has made the following comment, and its on tape-
"A judges job is to legislate from the bench...I know I shouldnt say that but it is"
That makes her not capable of being in that position as she cannot vote rationally and will vote on how she 'feels' not what the constitution and BoR say
A lot of y'all are seriously drinking the kool-aid, did you vote for Obama too? :rolleyes:
late to this
just cause someone graduates with a degree from any school does not mean they are smart !!!
it just means they learned how to pass a class and does not mean they are qualified for anything !!!!
Do you have a JD and did you pass the bar exam? Those are the qualifications to practice law in this country...
A lot of y'all are seriously drinking the kool-aid, did you vote for Obama too?
Nope, I didn't vote for him and I'm not drinking the kool-aid. My opposition to Sotomayor is based on her political bias, not her ethnicity, or her intelligence level as judged by members of this forum. I agree fully that her bias towards legislation from the bench disqualifies her from her duties to uphold the Constitution. She knows what she's doing, and I think it's wrong.
I see your point. Bush's problem was that he came off pretty poorly when speaking in public. He wasn't stupid, but he didn't come across as really smart in speeches or debates. He lacked smoothness and polish, which aren't reflective of intelligence, but are interpreted that way by many people.
But my point about Sotomayor is that personal attacks will backfire because of accusations of racism. Sticking to the facts about her political bias is the only way to prevail, and there aren't enough votes to prevent her from being confirmed anyway.
Well said.
Do you have a JD and did you pass the bar exam? Those are the qualifications to practice law in this country...
do you ?
you said
She's qualified from an education and experience point of view.
again education does not matter to much you just have to jump through the hoops !
so qualifications are not that important you just have to jump through the hoops
cause someone has a captains lic does not mean they can really captain a boat properly and can get in serious trouble !
experience ? lets see her last big case with the firemen that was great wasnt it !!!!
someone can have 30 years experience at something and still suck at what they do !!!
back to the boats I know a lot of captains that SUCK yet have been at it for years ! and I know a few who are new and ROCK at it
Honu,
I assume from your response that you do NOT have a JD and have not passed the bar exam. I haven't either, but my point is that I respect the achievement. I've studied business law in grad school and it's not easy, nor can you do it if you don't have a reasonable level of intelligence.
It's kind of ironic to have a conversation with someone about another person's intelligence when you can't even use proper English - spelling, capitalization, word usage, and punctuation. That's a means by which many people judge others' intelligence. Doesn't mean it's an accurate measure, but it's still a criteria people use.
If education doesn't matter, then go visit a doctor that didn't graduate medical school or pass the medical boards. And go hire a structural engineer (or naval architect for that matter) who didn't pass college or the PE licensing exam. After all, those credentials don't prove anything, only that they can jump through the hoops...
Education is not the be-all end-all. Experience does count for a lot. And I do agree that there are people who attain the education but do a lousy job in practice. It goes the other way too. But from my experience, I like to hire people with education AND experience. BOTH are valuable, and having both is better than having only one.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.