sarki dinle
klip izle
liseli kizlar
porno

thank you..

I would be much happier with another Alito than this racist Sonia.

You realize you’re only calling her a racist for saying what he said, right?

The decisions he is required to make are way above his mental pay grade. Although almost always wrong, at least Scalia and Roberts are somewhat thoughtful (well maybe not Roberts). This can’t be said about Alito.

katy Says:
——————————————————————————–

shoeless Says:
If you just arrived from Mars and listened to fools like Newt Gingrich, you would think that rich old white men were the most oppressed people in this country.

newtie too???

Well, Salamander called her a racist. In Republican code, that means she is prejudiced against rich old white men.

Because she hasn’t come out in favor of right-winger’s wet dreams, like disbanding the public school system, eliminating pollution laws, lifting the ban on child labor, ect.

At least not yet.

But then maybe she hasn’t had the chance to rule on them.

She’s a reliable corporatist, who will rule for the State in matters of corporate hegemony, state power, and limiting regulation. her positions on wedge issue are of only marginal importance at the moment–at least until one of the 5 OPUS DEI-sts–I keep hoping it’s the Chief, Roberts, with his falling spells–gets called home…

Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. “[I]f announcing one’s views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be” protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one’s views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often “make law,” since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376–377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).

– Antonin Scalia, 2002, majority opinion for “Republican Party of Minnesota v. White”

The Supreme Court is a court of individuals who have been granted a different, but no less extraordinary power. A lifetime appointment to a court which can truly shape the nature of our laws. At times the justices literally hold the life of a defendant in their hands. They are asked to make judgements based not just on the law is, but on what our guiding principles say the law should be.

Diversity on the court benefits all of us by broadening the debates which will take place in the chambers of the court.

I still don’t understand the logic behind the GOP’s tactic of attacking one’s empathy.

They tend to be authoritarian…so, I think, they are trying to ‘frame’ that word [mentally envision] as a weakness

newtie too???

heard a clip of limpbone announcing that repugs are the oppressed ones…
really!

Then why all the protest from the conservative base if she’s not as liberal as she appears? This doesn’t make sense.

They wanted to attack whoever Obama nominated. Heck, he could have nominated Dubya and they’d be saying horrible things about him. This is because they see a SCOTUS nomination fight as a party-building exercise, as many in the past have been. But they don’t give a crap about the actual qualifications of the actual nominee. She’s just a stand-in.

.

kevsters Says:

I still don’t understand the logic behind the GOP’s tactic of attacking one’s empathy.

I have no idea. They’ve come out against veteran’s benefits, for rape, for torture, for murder… They might want to rethink the sides they’re taking on issues.

It would be one thing to do it old-school where you’re pro-greed on the one hand, but have enough “moral” issues under your belt that it sort of balances out in many voter’s minds. But pretty much they stand for evil across the board now.

I think they’ve completely forgotten about a political strategy of “capturing issues” and are going entirely on character assassination and wordsmithery (a la Rove), which means right now they’re giving up the “right” side of every issue there is. This is what’s killing them.

Ya, you’re right. Thier ideal justice would probably be more like Judge Dredd.

I still don’t understand the logic behind the GOP’s tactic of attacking one’s empathy.

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=731

Purple State / Lavender Boy Says:
——————————————————————————–

Then why all the protest from the conservative base if she’s not as liberal as she appears? This doesn’t make sense.

Because she hasn’t come out in favor of right-winger’s wet dreams, like disbanding the public school system, eliminating pollution laws, lifting the ban on child labor, ect.

how ’bout it, TP… some info to make the righties celebrate?

The only abortion-related case she’s ever touched had to do with upholding the Mexico City rule. That’s the one where doctors in foreign countries can’t mention the “A” word or they lose any U.S. aid.

Corporations also seem pretty happy with her.

ElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–

Druids Dream Says:

The conservative idea of justice is thoughtless and mechanical. Thier ideal judge would probably be a robot.

No, they would hate that. More Scalias would be preferable to them – activists who openly skew the law wildly on behalf of white male bigots everywhere. They don’t actually have a problem with people messing with the law to suit a special interest group, they just have a problem with judges who don’t do it on behalf of their interest group.

The prime example is Bush v. Gore. What could be more activist than when Scalia and gang rewrote the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to protect George W. Bush from the voters fo Florida?

The distortion of Sotomayor’s quote has got to stop! Olbermann read the whole paragraph last night, that even the NYT forgot to include. She said that she holds IN CHECK the part of herself that might be determined by her Latina-ness when making a decision, but that it makes her self-aware of her own possible biases. Alito is just being a bit of a crybaby.

I also like how Keith called out CNN for not reporting the entire quote

From what I’ve seen so far, I think that while Sotomayor may not have been the best available candidate, she will likely be confirmed. While there are justifiable concerns about her that should be thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearings, I also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.

Then why all the protest from the conservative base if she’s not as liberal as she appears? This doesn’t make sense.