Showing posts with label judge sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge sotomayor. Show all posts

Monday, July 20, 2009

Letterman: “our goal is to put a man on Sonia Sotomayor”

July 16, 2009

Yep. He’s still a pig. And the way he laughed and smiled he knew he was going to get away with it. And he has. I was looking for a video and didn’t even see any comments on the “joke”.

He was talking about the upcoming anniversary of the small step and giant leap and he said:

It’s been forty years since we put a man on the moon — now our goal is to put a man on Sonia Sotomayor.

He’s basically calling Judge Sotomayor a lesbian. She doesn’t have a shrill voice or cackle and he has to be careful about race jokes so he attacks her sexuality – just like he does with every woman. He has major issues. Especially with powerful women. He never refers to them by their titles. Ever heard him say Barack? And how many times have you heard “Hillary” and “Sarah” and even just Michelle?

How often did dave joke about Justice Souter’s sexuality or lack there of? And he had Anderson Cooper on as a guest – did he make any gay jokes about him?

No. He talked about Bernie Madoff’s “butt boy”.

Bernie Madoff – well his accountant, his little buddy, his little butt boy — what did I say? Did I say butt boy? I’m sorry. That’s how we get those Emmy nominations.

And what was actually funny wasn’t intended as such. I’m glad I found a video because it’s easier to see cooper’s body language than describe it. The meaning is clear.

Superwerko

Cooper was there hyping his interview with barry in Ghana. First 30 seconds of the video

dave says: Help me out here. I think I know what this is –”President Obama’s African Journey” – first trip back to his HOMELAND since he’s been president. Is that correct?

Cooper smiles: TECHNICALLY, his homeland is America.

dave: His ancestral home.

Cooper laughs: He was born in America.

Then he smiles, shakes his head and pulls on his collar, proving he knows the birth certificate is a real issue.

And why do you suppose he didn’t specify Hawaii?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Sen Lugar: Yea to Sotomayor

July 17, 2009

barry’s travel buddy and ever-important swing state Republican, Sen Dick Lugar (R-IN), is the first Republican to officially back Judge Sotomayor.

From the Office of Senator Dick Lugar:

I have listened to the testimony of Judge Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee, carefully reviewed her public service record, and reviewed recommendations from Indiana constituents and colleagues here in the Senate.

Judge Sotomayor is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and she has demonstrated a judicial temperament during her week-long nomination hearing. Judge Sotomayor has had a distinguished career of public service. She is well regarded in the legal community and by her peers.

I will vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sen Specter: Yea
Sen McConnell: Nay.

Sen Specter: Yea to Sotomayor

July 17, 2009

Sen McConnell: Nay
Sen Lugar: Yea

Who’s listening to the politically bi-curious Arlen Specter nowadays?

The people he represented for decades?

Or the people he said for decades were were the problem?

From the Office of Senator Arlen Specter:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor brought to the Judiciary Committee hearings an outstanding record academically, as a prosecutor and as a commercial lawyer plus 17 distinguished years as a federal judge. At the hearings she displayed intellect, restraint and judicial demeanor.

As the third woman and the first Hispanic, she will add needed diversity to the Supreme Court.

I intend to vote for her and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Sotomayor

(REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

July 13 – Senator Arlen Specter talks with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her mother Celina, at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings in Washington.

Sen McConnell: Nay to Sotomayor

July 17, 2009

Yeas: Sen Specter & Sen Lugar

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not Judge Sotomayor fan and will not be voting to confirm her like he didn’t in 1998. His formal opposition will be delivered Monday (20th). Here are some “unembargoed excerpts” of prepared statement. Emphasis added.

I don’t know McConnell’s beliefs or policies or voting record or his view toward women in power or women in general – but he makes very good points that are backed up with Judge Sotomayor’s own words.

From the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell:

From the beginning of this confirmation process, I’ve said that Americans expect one thing when they walk into a court room, whether it’s a traffic court or the Supreme Court — and that’s equal treatment under the law. Over the years, Americans have accepted significant ideological differences in the kinds of men and women that various presidents have nominated to the Supreme Court. But one thing Americans will never tolerate in a nominee is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others. Nothing could be more offensive to the American sensibility than that. Judge Sotomayor is a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But above all else, a judge must check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice even-handedly, as the judicial oath requires.

Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggest an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. For that reason, I will oppose her nomination.

In her writings and in her speeches, Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly stated that a judge’s personal experiences affect judicial outcomes. She has said her experiences will affect the facts that she chooses to see as a judge. She has argued that in deciding cases judges should bring their sympathies and prejudices to bear. She has dismissed the ideal of judicial impartiality as an ‘aspiration’ that, in her view, cannot be met even in most cases. Taken together, these statements suggest not just a sense that impartiality is not possible, but that it’s not even worth the effort

Judge Sotomayor’s record on the Second Circuit is troubling enough. But, as I said, at least on the Circuit Court, there’s a backstop. Her cases can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This meant that in the Ricci case, for example, the firefighters whose promotions were unfairly denied could appeal the decision. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court sided with them over Judge Sotomayor. If, however, Judge Sotomayor were to become a Supreme Court Justice, there would be no backstop. Her rulings would be final. She’d be unencumbered by the obligation of lower court judges to follow precedent. She could act more freely on the kinds of views that animated her troubling and legally incorrect ruling in the Ricci case. That’s not a chance I’m willing to take.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Letterman monologue re: Judge Sotomayor

July 14, 2009

Letterman – Gov Palin post

The old standby of female politician shrillness isn’t going work with Judge Sotomayor.

So she’s ugly:

Had the place going crazy…right off the bat she opens up with I Dreamed a Dream.

A reference to Britain’s Got Talent’s Susan Boyle.

He smiles and laughs.

And then it’s that –

When everyone settled down Clarence Thomas sent over a mojito.

And then a weird video clip with Lindsay Graham.

After watching him more than a few times since his disgusting Palin daughter “jokes” I don’t get how he is supposed to be funny.

Take away the 6th Grade, ageist and sexist/sexual objectivication of women “jokes” and there’s what?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Judge Sotomayor opening statements (video/text)

July 13, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s opening statements – Day 1 Senate confirmation Hearings.

Sotomayor’s background. Video/text of announcement of nomination.

VIDEO of statement: Politico44

Also noted at Politico: Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe [as in Roe v Wade] was one of four people arrested for “shouting anti-abortion slogans”. Wonder of Fr Weslin was there too. Have to do a follow up on Notre Dame.

TRANSCRIPT of statement: The Washington Post

————–

SEN PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Judge, now we will administer the oath, and I’ll let the two senators step back, if they’d like, if we can. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

SOTOMAYOR: I do.

LEAHY: Thank you. Please be seated. And I thank my two colleagues from New York for the introduction. And I — I appreciated it, because I know both have known you for some time. Judge, you’ve also introduced a number — members of your family. And now the floor is yours.

SOTOMAYOR:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for their kind introductions.

In recent weeks, I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting 89 senators, including all of the members of this committee. Each of you has been gracious to me, and I have so much enjoyed meeting you. Our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the 50 states and invaluable insights into the American people.

There are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. I am deeply appreciative for their love and support. I want to make one special note of thanks to my mother. I am here, as many of you have noted, because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother, Juan, and me.

Mom, thank you.

I am very grateful to the president and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

The progression of my life has been uniquely American. My parents left Puerto Rico during World War II. I grew up in modest circumstances in a Bronx housing project. My father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, passed away when I was 9 years old.

On her own, my mother raised my brother and me. She taught us that the key to success in America is a good education. And she set the example, studying alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse.

We worked hard. I poured myself into my studies at Cardinal Spellman High School, earning scholarships to Princeton University and then Yale Law School, while my brother went on to medical school. Our achievements are due to the values that we learned as children, and they have continued to guide my life’s endeavors. I try to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many godchildren and to students of all backgrounds.

Over the past three decades, I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives — as a big-city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge. My first job after law school was as an assistant district attorney in New York.

There I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless death of loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement has in protecting the public.

In my next legal job, I focused on commercial instead of criminal matters. I litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks.

My career as an advocate ended, and my career as a judge began, when I was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a trial judge, I did decide over 450 cases and presided over dozens of trials, with perhaps my most famous case being the Major League Baseball strike in 1995.

After six extraordinary years on the district court, I was appointed by President Clinton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On that court, I have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us.

I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice.

In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. Simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law.

And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my circuit court.

In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand. The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged.

That is why I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. My personal and professional experiences helped me to listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.

Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country. Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggle. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects a dream — a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago. It is our Constitution that makes that dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Senators, I look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the American people learn more about me, and to being part of a process that reflects the greatness of our Constitution and of our nation.

Thank you all.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

When will Judge Sotomayor speak re: her “poor choice of words”?

June 2, 2009

WH Press Briefing

MR GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Robert, did Judge Sotomayor consent to the statements by the President and you that she would now use different words in that Latina white male statement that has been out there?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the basis for what I said and the basis for what the President said were the result of conversations that had been had with the Justice — with the Judge, excuse me — and members of the team working on the confirmation.

Q Is there a possibility she would issue a statement to that effect?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I assume that she’ll likely get this today, maybe in her meetings, and I think she’ll have a chance to talk to senators about that. And I have no doubt that the working press will get good readouts from their senators.

No, as yet she hasn’t. Judge Sotomayor is a barry clone, which makes one wonder what it is she is hiding. Something that wasn’t important for her other confirmations but would potentially cause her trouble as a Justice. No idea.

barry says he doesn’t know her views on abortion. How much do they really expect The American People to believe. Well, I guess they’ve bought everything so far. It’s what he doesn’t say that’s more than what he does say. By saying that he doesn’t know – how considered could his choice have been since that was the major issue on his stumps? Since that was a/the major Hillary Clinton women crossed over. It argues that she was just a big and little check box – and just another “first. I am convinced she is pro-life because Gibbs and barry make a point of mentioning that she believes strongly in precedence and “strict adherence to precedence”.

Whatever happens, his panderment is on record. If she is pro-life it’s a checkbox for across the aisle. And if he is truly diabolical – he could have picked her hoping she would one day overturn Roe v Wade and it would be out of his hands.

This is the June 2nd press conference. On the 3rd, Sen Dianne Feinstein, evidently the chosen one’s chosen one – came out with a statement that “obviously it was a poor choice of words”. If it were that obvious, she would have admitted to it. She hasn’t.

So no statement except from barry, Gibbs and Sen Feinstein that it was a “poor choice of words”. None of it counts because they didn’t say the words.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Harry Reid don’t know nothing ’bout Judge Sotomayor

June 4, 2009

There is something shocking about Sen Harry Reid’s pronouncement that I can’t articulate. Why would the Senate Majority Leader a) not ever have read Judge Sotomayor’s rulings; b) be proud of the fact that he hasn’t; and c) hope to never have to? What good are senate confirmation hearings if the confirmers don’t know, don’t care, and have no plans of finding out what the potential confirmee believes in? But it does put his endorsement of barry in proper perspective.

stixflix2008

HARRY REID: I understand that during her career, she’s written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven’t read a single one of them. And if I’m fortunate before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Limbaugh: “I can see a possibility of supporting…”


June 3, 2009

Ok it’s gone full circle.

Judge Sotomayor (2001 “racist” statement), Rush (”reverse racist”), Newt’s tweets (new racism = old racism), barry (”would’ve restated it“), Republican video highlights, Gibbs (word choice poor), Sotomayor (poor choice of words), Newt (her words are unacceptable, barry and Gibbs agreed I shouldn’t have said racist) and then Rush(it was definitely a racist statement but I may be able to get around if she’s pro-life enough).

Limbaugh could support Sotomayor, but said he still thinks she is a racist.

I have to think Judge Sotomayor being pro-life is the cause of these pink-faced men’s conversions. Who knows. it’s all political theater. When has barry not gotten what he wanted? Who besides Germany has said no to him?

And it’s barry’s MO to have someone test the waters before he even makes a verbal stand. Did he ever react to North Korea’s missile launch? I can see Sen Feinstein being the one. Roe v Wade has about as much chance of being overturned as Brown v The Board of Education. Even Roe hasn’t been able to make headway.

Anyway. Rush has seen the light…a halo to be exact….and it’s not barry’s.

LIMBAUGH: I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense.

I don’t know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she’s a Catholic, she’s a devout Catholic, she’s a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn’t got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record.

And about the Twittering Newt?

LIMBAUGH: I didn’t know why he retracted it. What is it? It’s racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it’s still racism, and she would bring a form of racism and bigotry to the court. But as I said yesterday, folks, I’m — I’m — I may look past that.

Newt reconsiders original tweets re: Sotomayor

June 3, 2009

Judge Sotomayor capitulated through a third person that she “made a poor choice of words” and now Gingrich is backing off from his initial position made known through a coupla tweets. They both meant what they said. She didn’t know it would matter when she said it and Gingrich got the response he wanted…relevance.

They are simply doing what passes for bipartisanship – it’s always just a matter of who goes first.

NEWT GINGRICH: from op-ed in conservative Human Events.

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words: ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,’” he wrote.

My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

Doesn’t that sound straight out of barry’s teleprompter?

And then Newt says, see, I was right – time to rehabilitate myself until next time….

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).”

That is the exact distinction of the Double Standard. In one direction, the words are racist and the person saying them is a racist. The other way it’s unacceptable and of course they’re not a racist.

President Obama and White House aides said Sotomayor’s choice of words was a poor one, but immediately fought back against critics who branded the judge racist.

I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last Wednesday.

Newt got to be relevant, then he got to watch barry squirm, then he got to apologize, and then he got praised…and the cycle will start anew when he gets lonely again…..

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I’m very glad he backed off. I think that’s unusual, that commentators do that, and I think it was very good that he did. I think that will… help us. I think that will help us have a real good discussion about the serious issues that the nations faces and the court faces.

Did barry leave his teleprompter behind?

Judge Sotomayor “racist” comments “Poor choice of words”

June 3, 2009

Judge Sotomayor is a barry clone. She goes through intermediaries (who can claim to have “misheard” or “misunderstood) instead of going on the record. She still refuses to address her “racist comments” head on and it appears Sen Dianne Feinstein has volunteered (been chosen) to be the mouthpiece.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

CNN: Sen Dianne Feinstein for Judge Sotomayor:

“She said, ‘Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words.”

And Sen Feinstein is putting out the good word on abortion as well. Though I’m not clear on what Feinstein is intimating.

Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added that she and Sotomayor “generally” discussed the issue of abortion, and that the judge believes strongly in legal precedent.

“I believe she has a real respect for precedent and … if that is really true then I will agree with her and I believe it is,” the senator said.

That makes me believe she is pro0life but as far as the law will abide by precedent. Gibbs was pushing the same word the other day: “strict adherence to precedent” So he knows her stand already.

Wasn’t one of barry’s promises to only pick a Justice who believes in Roe v Wade aka a woman’s right to choose?

Pix of the day: “Obama sure likes refried beans”

June 2, 2009

Source: NBC 5’s MARCUS RILEY.

Obama just loves refried beans.

Sign in front of RICHARD TISCH’s Will County Loan Company in Lockport, which is clearly in reference to barry’s appointing of Judge Sotomayor. But it’s not a special occasion. He’s put up other signs, which he refers to as “political satire”. When Bill Clinton was in office it was:

Hillary’s Health Plan: Free Condoms for Wild Bill

June 2008:

My choice for President? Dr. Condoleeza Rice

October 2008, when Sen McCain raised the issue of border security with Mexico:

John McCain just loves refried beans.

What do his customers think?

People read the signs, but they never forget the ones they don’t like. It’s not against the Mexican people. It’s only if you choose to read it that way.

Perhaps someone should clue him in that Sotomayor’s parents are from the Spanish-speaking area of Puerto Rico – not Mexico.

TISCH, obviously not a barryfan, has no problem pointing out that barry is once again pandering to a demographic – this time the Hispanic vote. That barry is trying to “buy the Mexican vote” because “she’s not the best qualified person to do the job.”

Racially motivated?

Some people, for instance the sign that’s up there today, like to put a racial issue there. That’s not what it’s intended to do. I’m simply saying that Barack Obama is probably the smartest politician to hold the office, but he made a decision based on politics and not what’s best for the country.

Chicago-based folks clearly see that barry’s MO consists of one thing and one thing only: political expedience.

He is always looking forward – in this case, reelection – when he hasn’t even started to govern. And it’s because he doesn’t know how – just like he didn’t know how to legislate and never would have made it to the US Senate without Emil Jones sending legislation his way.

How many swing states has he been to? As the polls shift, so does barry’s position. What hasn’t he changed his mind on? Abortion? And if Judge Sotomayor is a real Catholic, as in pro-life?

She is just as good as him at hiding her personal beliefs. After all the years she has spent on the bench nobody knows her views. He was actually going for a twofer – a bog box and a little box: women and Hispanics. But if it turns out she is pro-life, which I would bet she is, it’s going to be the last strike for the Hillary people. And it would be just rewards for NARAL’s gassy-eyed Ms Keenan.

The only group barry hasn’t bothered to pander – and has actively dissed – is the LBGT community because there is no pay off. They aren’t about to vote Republican – so by not pandering he’s trying to capture some of the Bible belt.

Tisch is right. barry’s true political genious has nothing to do with all that lofty not based in reality messiah complex ramblings about Change! and team of rivals and shifting the oceans I will never lie to you because I am The One we’ve been waiting for telepromptering. It has to do with how he gets away with saying it and not doing it. I still can’t figure out if folks – including the barrymedia – don’t care or if they are really that ignorant.

Don’t look at barry’s words – they mean absolutely nothing. Just like his ridiculous fairy tale on Iraq that folks bought at face value when his actions did not in anyway follow his politically expedient “speech”. When it came to action – when he finally had to act and set a timetable – it wasn’t at all like he promised (and won the nomination on). He ended up basically following Bush’s timetable. And it’s the same as FISA, military tribunals, release of torture photographs and will be with Guantanamo Bay.

If you really want to know what barry will do – look at the polls and figure out what would reap the biggest political reward and then put your money down. If you need proof – look back on his “refining of policy positions” throughout the primaries, before the convention, the general election, the transition and since he has become president and compare his words and actions. It’s all right there.

What is it going, folks?

Overturning Roe v Wade?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Pix of the day: “Obama sure likes refried beans”

June 2, 2009

Source: NBC 5’s MARCUS RILEY.

Obama just loves refried beans.

Sign in front of RICHARD TISCH’s Will County Loan Company in Lockport, which is clearly in reference to barry’s appointing of Judge Sotomayor. But it’s not a special occasion. He’s put up other signs, which he refers to as “political satire”. When Bill Clinton was in office it was:

Hillary’s Health Plan: Free Condoms for Wild Bill

June 2008:

My choice for President? Dr. Condoleeza Rice

October 2008, when Sen McCain raised the issue of border security with Mexico:

John McCain just loves refried beans.

What do his customers think?

People read the signs, but they never forget the ones they don’t like. It’s not against the Mexican people. It’s only if you choose to read it that way.

Perhaps someone should clue him in that Sotomayor’s parents are from the Spanish-speaking area of Puerto Rico – not Mexico.

TISCH, obviously not a barryfan, has no problem pointing out that barry is once again pandering to a demographic – this time the Hispanic vote. That barry is trying to “buy the Mexican vote” because “she’s not the best qualified person to do the job.”

Racially motivated?

Some people, for instance the sign that’s up there today, like to put a racial issue there. That’s not what it’s intended to do. I’m simply saying that Barack Obama is probably the smartest politician to hold the office, but he made a decision based on politics and not what’s best for the country.

Chicago-based folks clearly see that barry’s MO consists of one thing and one thing only: political expedience.

He is always looking forward – in this case, reelection – when he hasn’t even started to govern. And it’s because he doesn’t know how – just like he didn’t know how to legislate and never would have made it to the US Senate without Emil Jones sending legislation his way.

How many swing states has he been to? As the polls shift, so does barry’s position. What hasn’t he changed his mind on? Abortion? And if Judge Sotomayor is a real Catholic, as in pro-life?

She is just as good as him at hiding her personal beliefs. After all the years she has spent on the bench nobody knows her views. He was actually going for a twofer – a bog box and a little box: women and Hispanics. But if it turns out she is pro-life, which I would bet she is, it’s going to be the last strike for the Hillary people. And it would be just rewards for NARAL’s gassy-eyed Ms Keenan.

The only group barry hasn’t bothered to pander – and has actively dissed – is the LBGT community because there is no pay off. They aren’t about to vote Republican – so by not pandering he’s trying to capture some of the Bible belt.

Tisch is right. barry’s true political genious has nothing to do with all that lofty not based in reality messiah complex ramblings about Change! and team of rivals and shifting the oceans I will never lie to you because I am The One we’ve been waiting for telepromptering. It has to do with how he gets away with saying it and not doing it. I still can’t figure out if folks – including the barrymedia – don’t care or if they are really that ignorant.

Don’t look at barry’s words – they mean absolutely nothing. Just like his ridiculous fairy tale on Iraq that folks bought at face value when his actions did not in anyway follow his politically expedient “speech”. When it came to action – when he finally had to act and set a timetable – it wasn’t at all like he promised (and won the nomination on). He ended up basically following Bush’s timetable. And it’s the same as FISA, military tribunals, release of torture photographs and will be with Guantanamo Bay.

If you really want to know what barry will do – look at the polls and figure out what would reap the biggest political reward and then put your money down. If you need proof – look back on his “refining of policy positions” throughout the primaries, before the convention, the general election, the transition and since he has become president and compare his words and actions. It’s all right there.

What is it going, folks?

Overturning Roe v Wade?

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Video higlights of Republicans re: Judge Sotomayor’s “racist” statements

May 30, 2009

Nice video recap of all the comments made by Republicans on Judge Sotomayor’s remarks:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Featured: barry, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Wendy Long, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson.

Video form Media Matters

FRED BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.

BILL BENNETT: Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.

TOM TANCREDO (R-CO): If you belong to an organiztion, called LaRaza in this case, which is from my point of view anyway is nothing more than it’s a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you believe to something like that, you have to explain it in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do race.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: How do you get promoted in the Barack Obama administration? By hating white people.

OLBERMANN: Mr Bouncy-bouncy believing Judge Sotomayor is comprable to the former chief of the Klu Klux Klan (David Duke) for her comments on race and gender.

And yet Herr seems to have forgotten that he used the same man to compare then Sen Clinton’s campaign re: Geraldine Ferraro’s statements. Take a gander through his hateful speech.

paperserenade

OLBERMANN: (4:45) And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary… of David Duke.

Rush Limbaugh: Sotomayor – “reverse racist”

May 27, 2009

Limbaugh is going after Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Surprise. barry ought to love this. Limbaugh is specifically focused on a speech Sotomayor made in 2001 at Berkley. He called her a “reverse racist”. What in the hell is that? “Racism” is color coded? I know it seemed that way this election cycle. All the whiteys were racists and black pundits could speak from a whitey’s standpoint but whitey’s couldn’t possibly imagine what goes on in a black church, etc. The Double Standard of racism was made perfectly clear as barry took a step towards a More Perfect Union. Whiteys were racist if they voted for barry’s opponent (aka against barry) but 95% of blacks voting for barry was not racist.

Here’s what Sotomayor said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
RUSH LIMBAUGH on his radio show:

Here you have a racist – you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist.

And the [liberals] of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

She’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be. She’s not a constitutional jurist.

She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire, and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women.

Robert Gibbs’ comments.
barry’s comments.
Newt’s tweets

Source: CNN

Sotomayor: “Court of Appeals is where policy is made”

May 28, 2009

Judge Sotomayor’s controversial 2005 comments and Robert Gibbs’ comments on them. Sotomayor was on a panel talking to Duke University Law School students about clerkships in the district and the appellate (circuit) court. She had been serving on the US Court of Appeals since 1998 and was fully aware she was being videotaped.

thanatogenos

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR:

Court of Appeals is where policy is made.

And I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t “make law” I know.

I not promoting it I’m not advocating it.

Having said that, the court of Appeals is, where before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – it’s interpretation, it’s application.

…On the Court of Appeals you are looking to how the law is developing so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. So you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law.

Gibbs press briefing (May 26) I might be confused but appellate and circuit courts refer to the same thing so his answer makes no sense.

JONATHON: The other quote that’s kind of getting a lot of attention is the YouTube video in which she says that appellate courts are where laws are made — or where policy is made. And she seems to acknowledge that this is kind of verboten because it’s on tape. And I wonder, first, did the President see that YouTube video, was it part of the vetting process? And second, does the President believe that she is saying what she is saying, that the appellate court is where policy is made?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me broaden your question with this answer, because I know there are a lot of people that will look into the quote and I think it’s important to look at not just what’s up on YouTube, but the full context of the discussion that’s being had at the point in which she talks about this.

There are two justices speaking to students who are thinking about applying for and taking clerkships. The previous speaker talks about the notion that there are circuit court and appellate court clerkships. And appellate court — the point she makes is that appellate court — the appellate courts deal with not individual cases, as do circuit courts, but instead complex legal issues and constitutional theory that the appellate courts are where those are discussed.

So I think if you — again, I appreciate a very short, out of context, small YouTube clip, but I think if you, again, look at the full context of the full quote you find that it’s a discussion between clerkships in the circuit and the appellate court. And I think she recognizes that even as she’s explaining those differences that the word could be misconstrued and she seemed prescient to note that it would be misconstrued.

But as I said earlier to a question, I think if one looks closely at 17 years of judicial opinion you’ll see that this is not somebody that you could reasonably argue advocates for or is engaged in legislating from the bench. I think that’s what’s important for anybody to understand.

Q But in a political context — I mean, this is going to confirmation in the YouTube era — and is there some concern that that is the image of Sotomayor, running around –

MR. GIBBS: No, because even if I can’t convince some people in this room, the President is very convinced that people that will look at the full context of this and not rely on, as I said, a small, short, out of context YouTube clip, and more importantly look at the basis of her entire record. I think you come to a broader understanding of who she is and what she meant.

Here he goes into his usual sexist sarcastic mode when he gets pressed on an issue. He says her name and then personally attacks her. It’s hard to believe that he represents the highest office in the land – his press conferences are like frat boy chats.

APRIL: And the second question. Back on this YouTube video that you’re shooting down — yes, one of the videos is short in length, and another one is longer. And no matter what — how long it was, these were her words, and disregarding the video itself, she did say it herself. And you speak of her experience. Now, because of her experience, do you think she has the authority to speak of the inner-workings to say that the appeals court does make policy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, April, certainly you’ve seen the video. I understand it’s her speaking.

Q She recognized the cameras and the –

MR. GIBBS: Right, because she understands that what she’s about to say is likely and largely to be misconstrued — mission accomplished. (Laughter.) But I would certainly say that — again, what I’m saying is, and I think what she would tell you, is if you look at the full context of what is being discussed here, I appreciate that in however many words I deliver in the time I’m up here today, you could clip six or eight of them together and ask somebody else about what I said. I would simply hope that you would read the full transcript of whatever my answer was and –

Q Have you seen the video, the short and the long version?

MR. GIBBS: I have. I have. And I –

Q Did she cause trouble. She’s in trouble from it, isn’t she? She’s in trouble from it, isn’t she?

MR. GIBBS: No, why — I don’t think that’s the case at all.

Q But it was her words that said, policy making, the appeals court. Policy making. You can not – you can’t spin it.

MR. GIBBS: April, just as I’m not going to judge your question, the entirety of your question, on three or four words, as you would be probably quick to scowl and cross your arms, and without me being able to see, tap your feet –

Q Don’t attack me; talk about the issue. Don’t attack me. Talk about the issue; don’t attack me.

MR. GIBBS: I’m not attacking you. I’m simply enjoining you in the richness of the dialogue that we’re having. (Laughter.) But I think — again, to understand — I appreciate that — again, I appreciate there are likely snippets of anything that anybody says that you could eventually say, I can’t believe you just said that. And again, look at the quote. Don’t take it from me, April. Have you looked at the long version?

Q Oh, yes.

MR. GIBBS: Then I can only assume that you would come to the very same understanding of exactly what she’s talking about. And if — I think if you ask anybody in the legal world to denote the difference between what the circuit and what the appellate court does, I think in a very matter of fact, commonsense way, they will explain to you in both the short and the long version exactly what it is I just said.

barry on Judge Sotomayor’s “racist”

May 30, 2009

Funny how barry was quick to come to Judge Sotomayor’s defense about her racist comments when he has yet to amend any of his or defend his disgusting “joke” about the Special Olympics. He usually leaves the dirty work to others. Here’s Gibbs’ comments, Rush Limbaugh “she’s a reverse racist” comments and Newt’s tweets.

SOTOMAYOR’s comments:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

BARRY:

I’m sure she would have restated it, but if you look at the entire sweep of the essay she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through that will make her a good judge.

And his personal thoughts?

When is someone one going to actually push him to answer a question?

Robert Gibbs re: Sotomayor’s “racist” statements

May 27, 2009

Robert Gibbs comments on Judge Sotomayor during his May 26th press briefing. Rush Limbaugh called her a “reverse racist”. Racism is racism. barry’s comment and Newt’s tweets.

Q What does the President think is her greatest quality for the job?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President picked Judge Sotomayor largely based on three criteria, the first being experience — and when I say that, experience as a prosecutor, experience as a litigator, and then experience as both a circuit and an appellate court judge. In fact, we’ve pointed out that she will bring more experience on the federal branch then anybody that’s been appointed to the Supreme Court in a hundred years.

I think, secondly, obviously the President believes strongly in her approach to judging, following precedent and the rule of law. And I think, lastly, obviously the President believes that her life story is a compelling one, and that her voice will be an important addition to the Supreme Court.

On Sotomayor’s comments:

Q And just to get your reaction of one statement that seems to get a lot of attention, a quote she has from 2001 saying, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I just wonder — I presume the President was aware of that statement, and what is his reaction? Did he agree with it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at the context of the longer speech that she makes, I don’t — I think what she says is very much common sense in terms of different experiences that different people have.

Obviously the President has looked at any number of these issues and believes that Judge Sotomayor is well qualified and will be a great justice for the Supreme Court.

Newt’s tweets on Sotomayor’s “racist statements”

May 20, 2009

First Rush Limbaugh then Newt Gingrich comment on Judge Sotomayor’s “racist” comments.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Gingrich brings up the very real issue of The Double Standard.

His tweets:

Imagine a judicial nominee said “my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman” new racism is no better than old racism

9:24 AM May 27th from TwitterBerry

White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.

9:34 AM May 27th from TwitterBerry

Is there a special way to denote tweets?

ROBERT GIBBS press briefing May 27th:

Q And are you familiar with — switching topics for a moment to Sotomayor — are you familiar with Newt Gingrich’s blog — (laughter.) You are not?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q Okay. Well, he apparently — I’m told it is on his blog that he said, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latino woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latino woman racist should also withdraw.”

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation. I think we’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker –

Q He also tweeted us. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: — that they’ll come to the same conclusion that the President did: that judicial experience that exceeds any nominee — federal judicial experience that exceeds any nominee for a hundred years, strict adherence to precedent — I think when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record. And I think that’s what every Supreme Court and every judicial nominee deserves.

I think if you look at — again, I mentioned this yesterday — this is somebody who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, approved by the Senate in each occasion. So I think she is somebody who is highly qualified, of keen intellect, and somebody that’s going to be a great member of the Supreme Court. I’ve heard a lot of people in the last couple days, they’ve mentioned intellect. I’m not entirely sure where people that make that argument — I’m not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it’s not second.

Then he is pushed on the racial and gender aspects and he launches into his usual sarcasm. He is really unprofessional as are the rest of the frat boys who sit and laugh with him and at the person he’s making fun of. It’s not worth putting the whole exchange here – this is enough.

Q In all fairness, a follow to that — it’s not just a racial dimension, but it’s a gender dimension. And do you at least acknowledge that she did say these words? You’re asking us to look beyond.

MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that it appears likely that she intoned both of those sentences, yes.

How will Judge Sotomayor be treated?

May 26, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor sounds impressive.

Editor of the Yale Law Review –

What are the chances they don’t already have everything she’s written?

Has Juvenile Diabetes –

What are the chances they aren’t in the process of getting her medical records?

And what is known about the man who appointed Sotomayor?

Here is yet another chance to see how the media (mis)treats powerful women and how they treat each of the women differently: Former First Lady and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi…First Lady Michelle Obama…First Lady Laura Bush…Governor Sarah Palin and Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And then there’s Caroline Kennedy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

Race was not the enlightenment of this election – unless you want to talk about 1/3 of eligible black voters who couldn’t bother to register and how the whiteys are racists black pundits avoided the issue.

barry’s making it 100% about race was not news – it was the only way he could win.

How is 95% of one – any – demographic group not identity politics?

95% of his voters were not voting for his opponent.

Voters that the week previous had been behind his opponent.

Voters that in the interim hadn’t heard a change in barry’s policies.

How many black blue collar workers were voting for Clinton?

How many white blue collar workers were voting for barry?

A lot more than 5%.

And “hardworking” is some type of racial code word but Donna Brazile’s “Jane and Joe Six pack” isn’t?

Or Roland Martin telling Joe the Plumber to “Go fix a bathtub!”?

barry used race until he finally had to admit to it (after the usual three denials) and then switched to the “Kill Him!”accusations, which were disproved by barry’s own Secret Service, who were in attendance and heard nothing…no one did…but the reporter.

And what did concerned citizen reporter do after hearing terroristic threats on the POTUS’ life?

Did he immediately alert the Secret Service or the local police?

Nope.

They found out about it like everyone else — in the unfounded accuser’s post in a paper that had endorsed barry.

No, the enlightenment wasn’t race — it played out as planned and as implemented.

The enlightenment was the reality of sexism.

How at the core nothing has changed. How accepted and acceptable it is.

Still.

Younger men have tolerance in regards to race, religion and sexuality, but not toward women.

Sadder still, are the young women who think “Girls Already Rule!”

Not even close.

Look at the women in the above list. Take what was said and written about Secretary Clinton and insert a different name.

Imagine if First Lady Michelle Obama were referred to as “It”.

Just “It” as in “It” cried.

And if Glenn Beck were to say the same about Judge Sotomayor?

Would he still have his job?

And Rush Limbaugh is talking about “reverse racism”.

What has been made perfectly clear over the last two years is the Double Standard and the hierarchy of isms.

Will Judge Sotomayor be treated deferentially because she is a minority?

Or will she be attacked with the same old garden variety sexism?

Will she be mercilessly assaulted on all fronts like Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin or coddled like First Lady Michelle Obama?