Sonia Sotomayor to be the next SC Justice.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:52 pm

If this guy's picking her, she must suck worse than we knew.

President Obama will nominate appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history to be elevated to the high court.

Sotomayor, 54, who has been a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998, has a formidable resume. From 1992 to 1998, Sotomayor was a federal judge for the U. S. District Court Southern District of New York. She served as an assistant district attorney for New York County from 1979 to 1984. Sotomayor also worked in private practice for the New York-based law firm Pavia & Harcourt from 1984 to 1992.

Bill Clinton nominated Sotomayor for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1997. George H. W. Bush nominated Sotomayor as a federal judge in 1991 -- a position that made Sotomayor the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York and the first Hispanic federal judge in the state.

A New York native, Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1976. She earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 1979. Sotomayor has received honorary degrees from Lehman College, Princeton University, Brooklyn Law School, Pace University School of Law, Hofstra University and Northeastern University.

Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, N.Y., to Puerto Rican parents. Her father, a manual laborer, died when she was nine-years-old. Her mother, a nurse, raised Sotomayor, who was diagnosed with diabetes at age eight.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05 ... sotomayor/

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:19 pm

Great. An angry, leftist, bitter cunt. Fits the description of most liberals that stink up this place.

whoa!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:35 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:Great. An angry, leftist, bitter cunt. Fits the description of most liberals that stink up this place.

Too soon to judge. She could just be an angry, clueless, bitter cunt like most of the 'independents' that stink up this place.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:39 pm

A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

If we're going to try and appease minority groups, where is the Asian representation in this country?? Why is it always blacks and latins, but never Asians, except as news channel (female) anchorpeople?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:52 pm

Oppressive, right-wing tards melting harder than when Onogga was first elected. Once Wolftard chimes in, we'll all know Onogga made the right choice.

WAR ONOGGA!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:55 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Oppressive, right-wing tards melting harder than when Onogga was first elected.

Link, racist bitch?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:59 pm

Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:02 pm

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?

That very well could be a male. It sure would explain alot if it was.

Somebody do a drive-by.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:19 pm

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?

Mea culpa.

That being said, I wouldn't put it past him to go for an Hispanic tranny.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:23 pm

Van wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?
Mea culpa.

That being said, I wouldn't put it past him to go for an Hispanic tranny.

Why? Because he married one?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:25 pm

Van wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?
Mea culpa.

That being said, I wouldn't put it past him to go for an Hispanic tranny.

I'd say a Asian-American tranny should be up next.

So many groups to pander to, so little time...

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Unless she is planning on voting to overturn Wickard, she's just another hack.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:31 pm

Moving Sale wrote:Unless she is planning on voting to overturn Wickard, she's just another hack.

Good luck with that.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:35 pm

It will take more than luck.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:48 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:Great. An angry, leftist, bitter cunt. Fits the description of most liberals that stink up this place.

whoa!

The spic will easily claim the title of Ugliest Guy on The Court

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:00 pm

Cuda wrote:
Sirfindafold wrote:Great. An angry, leftist, bitter cunt. Fits the description of most liberals that stink up this place.

whoa!
The spic will easily claim the title of Ugliest Guy on The Court

I'm calling it a coin toss...

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:13 pm

Sonia Sotomayor blinded by ideology

Bring it on, Biotches.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:14 pm

Not even close to as ugly as ruth buzzy.

Seeing as she has juvenile diabetes, she's on borrowed time already. That makes this a good pic. She should kick off about a year into the next republican administration.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:24 pm

smackaholic wrote:Seeing as she has juvenile diabetes, she's on borrowed time already. That makes this a good pic. She should kick off about a year into the next republican administration.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Best argument for a Dem nominee ever. I'm sold.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:41 pm

In Pappas v. Giuliani,[44] Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the NYPD could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.

Well, Avi and his fake ilk should feel some relief that they can continue their current activities knowing they've a friend on the highest bench in the land.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:24 pm

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:A female latina. Nope, nobody saw that coming.

You'd prefer a male latina?

somebody call me?

Q, West Coast Style · Tue May 26, 2009 11:59 pm

Diogenes wrote:If this guy's picking her, she must suck worse than we knew.

George H. W. Bush nominated Sotomayor as a federal judge in 1991 --

Q, West Coast Style · Wed May 27, 2009 12:10 am

Papa Willie wrote:Why are liberals so god damned ugly?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:22 am

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
Diogenes wrote:If this guy's picking her, she must suck worse than we knew.

George H. W. Bush nominated Sotomayor as a federal judge in 1991 --

You are quite the idiot.

The higher courts are often the stage for ideologically-based confirmation fights. The lower district courts, are, in the words of one former Bush official, "darn near patronage jobs." Senators, even those in the opposing party from the White House, wield great power over who is nominated to the district court seats in their states. And in 1991, when Sotomayor was nominated, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.

By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

And at that moment, in 1991, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."

But continue with the bullshit talking points.

Q, West Coast Style · Wed May 27, 2009 12:30 am

Diogenes wrote:[But continue with the bullshit talking points.

Says the guy who's desperately spraying links to other people's arguments.

Oh, and MV, 'sup?

Bobby42 · Post by **Bobby42** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:30 am

Diogenes wrote:I'm calling it a coin toss...

Yeah but she's got the drool bib. And spillage is a big concern.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:35 am

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
Diogenes wrote:[But continue with the bullshit talking points.
Says the guy who's desperately spraying links to other people's arguments.

I'm just too lazy to type all that shit. Which is common knowledge to everyone except your moveon comrades.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:41 am

And how about a little recent history...

...key Democrats are denying their own support of the filibuster on all sorts of judges — from district to appeals courts to the highest court in the land.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told ABC's "This Week" that “we never filibuster Justices of the Supreme Court.” In fact, Leahy himself supported the filibuster.

Leahy's historical revisionism has been echoed by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who told The Hill, "Historically, Supreme Court justices have never been filibustered."

A clarification; Supreme Court justices have not been successfully filibustered when a majority of the Senate supported the nomination. Twenty-five Democratic senators supported the filibuster of Justice Samuel Alito's nomination, led by Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry.

One of those 25 was a newly elected senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who now criticizes any disagreement as "obstructionism."

"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Sen. Obama explained to the Chicago Tribune at the time. "We need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch.’”

With Justice Alito providing a check on the executive branch now known as the Obama administration, one can only assume Obama wanted to block consideration of Alito because of some perceived lack of empathy.

And the hell with whether or not they have the votes to block this cow. The point is to drag her record out into the public, force the Dems to invoke cloture, and hang her around their necks Nov 2010. And for anyone who missed Jon Kyl and Ben Nelson this Sunday...

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, as senator Kyl pointed out, you were one of the leaders of the so-called Gang of 14 that back in 2005 prevented a blow-up over the issue of filibusters.

Do you see any justification in this case, from what you've heard about the possible nominees, for the Republicans filibustering President Obama's choice?

NELSON: Well, I haven't studied their backgrounds to any great extent. I'm waiting until it's narrowed down, till you see who's really out there.

But as sort of an author of the words "extraordinary circumstances," I do understand that there can be certain circumstances where you would -- you might vote against somebody on the filibuster.

But let me just say it this way. I don't care whether they're liberal or conservative. I just want to make sure they're not activist. I don't want an activist on the -- on the bench.

When I was governor, I appointed almost 81 -- over 81 judges -- the entire Nebraska supreme court, two chief justices, the entire court of appeals, and that was my -- I had no litmus test, but I did have a test, and that was did I believe that they were going to apply the law or were they going to be an activist and try to engineer the law.

Quite honestly, I think we want to read the law. We don't want to have to read judges' minds. So I think that's the test -- will they be an activist or not -- and I -- I would hope that there wouldn't be any circumstances that would be so extreme with any of the president's nominees that the other side would feel the need to filibuster or that I might feel the need to filibuster in a case of extraordinary circumstances.

That's what the Gang of 14 was all about.

This could be fun.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed May 27, 2009 1:58 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:In Pappas v. Giuliani,[44] Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the NYPD could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.

Well, Avi and his fake ilk should feel some relief that they can continue their current activities knowing they've a friend on the highest bench in the land.

So Nicky, if instead, said employee used his free time to post semi-coherent (at best), anti-Semitic "Zio-Nazi" rants on an interwebs board, you'd be cool with that?

I'll let you in on a little secret. It doesn't really matter whether you find the speech in question objectionable, or whether I do. Simply, the First Amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on if it doesn't protect the right to speech that others might find offensive. Much as I dislike the comments, I recognize the right to express them.

A true liberal ought to be a First Amendment absolutist, or at least pretty damn close to one. Sotomayor happened to get this particular one right.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:59 am

Diogenes wrote:That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

Back in the early part of the century- maybe 2002 to 2005, the DemocRats were demanding to be "consulted" on judicial appointments before they were made, even though they were in the minority. So who in the Stupid Party did Ojigaboo & the DemocRats consult with on this pick?

Terry in Crapchester · Wed May 27, 2009 2:37 am

John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Almost immediately this board, 99% of whom had never heard of Palin the day before, weighed in 90% positive for Palin.

Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice. Almost immediately this board, 99% of whom had never heard of Sotomayor the day before, weighed in 90% negative for Sotomayor.

When it comes to politics, this board is nothing if not utterly predictable.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:18 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
A true liberal ought to be a First Amendment absolutist, or at least pretty damn close to one. Sotomayor happened to get this particular one right.

So how in the world did she fuck up the douche bag ruling?

Terry in Crapchester · Wed May 27, 2009 3:37 am

jiminphilly wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
A true liberal ought to be a First Amendment absolutist, or at least pretty damn close to one. Sotomayor happened to get this particular one right.
So how in the world did she fuck up the douche bag ruling?

She had it right, the majority had that decision wrong.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:50 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Almost immediately this board, 99% of whom had never heard of Palin the day before, weighed in 90% positive for Palin.

Bullshit. As soon as her name was mentioned, all the lefties were piling on multiple threads with all the latest idiotic sleazy moveon talking points. And just because you never heard of her doesn't mean some of us hadn't.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice. Almost immediately this board, 99% of whom had never heard of Sotomayor the day before, weighed in 90% negative for Sotomayor.

I'm all in favor of her. She'll show what an irresponsible POS Obama is, and hopefully croak before the next decade is out. And create a perfect issue for 2010.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:When it comes to politics, this board is nothing if not utterly predictable.

The lefties are. Predictably full of crap.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed May 27, 2009 7:56 am

Sure, Dio, .."MoveOn Talking points"....so are you into the single malt scotch or have you moved to the smoother gin--or bourbon or quality rye?

Crapper, of course it's a proper decision that OF COURSE should hopefully apply to anyone voicing outrage at our government being hijacked by ZioNazi warmongering lunatics like these outright world-class war criminals

But as you know, even mentioning the fact that Israel's apartheid thuggery and ruthlessness has far surpassed even that of the brazen Boers will get you fired, blacklisted, denied tenure, etc., and the very same fuckstain above (with the abnormally huge head) is still calling shots as the current nightmare continues to unfurl.

WAKEY WAKE

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:21 am

The Jewboy in your avatar says to take your meds.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:46 am

Van wrote:If we're going to try and appease minority groups, where is the Asian representation in this country?? Why is it always blacks and latins, but never Asians, except as news channel (female) anchorpeople?

Swiflty growing Latino voter base.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:19 am

Justice is supposed to be blind to whomever seeks it. From what is being said about Mrs. (or is it Ms.) Sotomayer, she has "empathy." What does that have to do with upholding the Constitution ?

Here’s the oath Supreme Court justices must take:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

No empathy there either.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:07 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
A true liberal ought to be a First Amendment absolutist, or at least pretty damn close to one. Sotomayor happened to get this particular one right.
So how in the world did she fuck up the douche bag ruling?
She had it right, the majority had that decision wrong.

The decision came from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court last May, regarding Lewis Mills High School student Avery Doninger. While running for Senior Class Secretary, Ms. Doninger found reason to object to the school's cancellation of a "jamfest" event, and characterized those who scotched the event as "douchebags" on her off-campus LiveJournal blog (she also characterized a school official in that same blog posting as getting "pissed off"). The school officials, in turn, took umbrage, prohibited Avery from running for Class Secretary, and disregarded the plurality of votes she received, anyway, as a write-in candidate. Avery sued the school officials, and the Federal District Court supported the school. Avery appealed to Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court.

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Sotomayor's Court proceeded to affirm the District Court's ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school's right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students "shared values," which include not only the importance of free expression but a "proper respect for authority".

So how did she have it right, Terry?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:21 pm

jiminphilly wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:So how in the world did she fuck up the douche bag ruling?
She had it right, the majority had that decision wrong.

The decision came from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court last May, regarding Lewis Mills High School student Avery Doninger. While running for Senior Class Secretary, Ms. Doninger found reason to object to the school's cancellation of a "jamfest" event, and characterized those who scotched the event as "douchebags" on her off-campus LiveJournal blog (she also characterized a school official in that same blog posting as getting "pissed off"). The school officials, in turn, took umbrage, prohibited Avery from running for Class Secretary, and disregarded the plurality of votes she received, anyway, as a write-in candidate. Avery sued the school officials, and the Federal District Court supported the school. Avery appealed to Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court.

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Sotomayor's Court proceeded to affirm the District Court's ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school's right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students "shared values," which include not only the importance of free expression but a "proper respect for authority".
So how did she have it right, Terry?

The fact that our Douchebag in Chief nominated her means all of her decisions are right by definition.