sikis

Watch the segment again here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/oreilly-targets-commenters/

You see Sniper, there’s a REASON Hot Air and TP called out O’Reilly on this, and it’s because O’Reilly combed through comments on these sites without saying who authored these despicable quotes. That is wrong and sleazy.

Deflect arguments away from the issues and gain votes and power by calling conservatives “racist”. It is a winning formula.

It comes down to politics. There is much to be gained by painting the opposite party as racist. The Democrats are winning the propaganda war when it comes to race, but that’s all it is, propaganda with no substance behind it.

Now this is no doubt a racist statement but O’Reilly broadcast it as if a writer from TP wrote it. Pretty slimy, isn’t he? Comments like CParis’s appear on liberal AND conservative blogs (how often is anybody’s guess), but O’Reilly never airs the latter. What a tool.

On the second part, if you “listen” to Sotomayor, it is plainly obvious that she believed that her job on the court of appeals was to make policy.

Appeals courts do set policy, which is the different between appellate and district court …

… which was the point.

You can’t evaluate arguments if you’re ignorant of the issues at hand.

Your arguments are not terribly compelling.

Regarding the first — you may be willing to take the Obama teams word for it that she’s qualified, but I think we better go ahead and take an objective look into the credentials. Conservative or Liberal, never underestimate the politicians capability to make mistakes or work in their own self interest.

On the second part, if you “listen” to Sotomayor, it is plainly obvious that she believed that her job on the court of appeals was to make policy. She was clearly downplaying this in a tongue in cheek way, which is clearly illustrated by her sarcastic and comdedic tone. Arguable, but if you really listen to this clip in an unbiased way, you can see she supports this view. Maybe we could give her the benefit of the doubt — It will be good question to aske at the confirmation.

Your third point was the weakest, and skirts the issue. Sotomayor is the one who implies that race and gender have bearing on her qualifications. If all the justices where white males, would you select clearly inferior judge just to avoid having another white male on the bench. If you really believe in the country and the justice system, you must support the “most qualified” candidate.

Interestingly, there is a reverse discrimination case at the Supreme court now, which Sotomayor previously rule on, and was criticized for.. you may want to check into it.

Her history of court decisions is lackluster at best (See Turley). I don’t think we need to fall into the Tim Geithner “only one for the job” trap again with an important choice like SCOTUS, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to do the homework and find someone who really has the sterling credentials.

Obviously, the Obama SCOTUS team has done more “homework” than anybody, and this is who they came up with. Nobody else has worked more on the issue.

.

PaulMorphy Says:

#2. This justice has gone on record as an activist who feels justices should “make policy” -

The context:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy.

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made,” she said, laughing a bit through the next part: “And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I know.”

Case closed. STFU.

.

PaulMorphy Says:

- and also, “discriminatory” position that being a minority woman, she is better suited to interpret the US constitution.

Better than the however-many white guys they already have there. Please explain how another white guy would be “better suited” than her.

Her history of court decisions is lackluster at best (See Turley). I don’t think we need to fall into the Tim Geithner “only one for the job” trap again with an important choice like SCOTUS, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to do the homework and find someone who really has the sterling credentials.

#2. This justice has gone on record as an activist who feels justices should “make policy”, and also, the “discriminatory” position that being a minority woman, she is better suited to interpret the US constitution. These statements are very unsettling, and I think should disqualify her. I’m sure there are plenty of other qualified candidates..

We shouldn’t be so hasty to settle for less. We must consider the the source as well….not much of track record with picks from the guy who recommended her. Lets take a little extra time with this one and really make sure this isn’t another big mistake…

…the least valid is the notion that she is not intellectual or intelligent. Her academic credentials speak for themselves.

I’m of a mind that anybody who shoots off their trap about how “intellectually qualified” she is needs to have their own intellectual qualifications vetted thoroughly and publicly.

The GOP is obviously going to attack Obama’s choice for SC justice, no matter WHO is selected. It’s the nature of the game both sides play. It’s what they do.

Unfortunately, with respect to the Republican Party, lately it is ALL that they do.

Remember, there’s going to be a special election in Texas when Hutchinson runs for governor. The TX Republicans are certifiable, so you can expect them to make complete fools of themselves. Now wouldn’t that be a kick in the ass if the 60th Democratic senator is a Texan elected because the nutcases just couldn’t help themselves?

And then there is Arizona, where McJerk is up in 2010. He voted against Sotamayor twice. His colleague, Kyl, is a charter member of the Nutcase Brigade. Interesting times for the Republican Party! Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): “I will focus on determining whether Judge Sotomayor is committed to deciding cases based only on the law as made by the people and their elected representatives, not on personal feelings or politics.”

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): “We will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.”

Charles Grassley (R-Iowa): “The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.”

John Cornyn (R-Tx.): “She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences.”

Note how they all use the same phrasing? They don’t actually have opinions in terms of thinking about it and coming to a conclusion. Rather, they got their “opinions” from the same faxed talking points memo this morning.

I imagine the people who live in their states have got to start wondering about just who their elected representatives are actually representing.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

It wasn’t that long ago we had a president who thought he was the hotshot QB on the high school football team, being led by the obsessive, miserly VP of a head coach who asked, “Who are we going to KILL…and how are we going to Lie!?!” to inspire the administration each and every day.