Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Robert Snow, Aug 6, 2009.
The O/P should read "Another GOP soon to be looking for work".
Only nine Republicans voted in favor.
How do you believe that she received a "GOP nod"?
He was speaking of the nod from this particular Republican.
Glad she got her up or down vote! If the GOP had more members, I doubt she would get that.
Well if you were able to gleen this from the thread title and a couple sentences about three quarters of the way through the linked article you must be clairvoyant.
May I suggest a career as a night club act in Vegas?
So now we have a racist Supreme Court Justice to go along with a racist President.
The difference: She has a lifetime appointment and can do considerably more harm to the cause of ending racial discrimination and no one can vote her out of office.
Thanks for the career suggestion, but it really just takes a normal amount of intelligence.
Not really. I am quite secure in my confidence viasvis my level of intelligence.
The title of the thread is "Another GOP nod..."
It is more common to use the acronym when referring to the Republican Party as opposed to a single individual Republican.
Agreed. White males are in for it now. Any hopes on RvW being reversed are dashed. :tear:
Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee is a big disappontment. We should make note of who these are and also how they will be voting on Obamacare. Careful scrutiny.
Got to admit that its progress. Until now they have unanimously voted NO.
Reversing RvW would be hoping for an activist judge. I thought you guys had reservations about having an activist judge.
Also, if you look at her judicial record, you will see that no one has anything to fear. Her decisions have been legally sound to include the Ricco case. If you look with an unbiased eye you will see the court ruled against civil rights laws by reversing her decision. IOW, the court made law from the bench just as she said it does.
Hold on a minute, LeBuick.
You previously said that if her last case before the Supreme Court was overturned than she should not be confirmed.
It was overturned... so shouldn't you now be against her confirmation?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. You support abortion as law. I would think that would kind of bother your conscience...but what do I know?
Riiiiight...as long as "equal protection under the law" (see firefighters, and "Wise Latina" nonsense) and "Second amendment rights" aren't important to you.
I find it funny that you would admonish anyone to look with "an unbiased eye."
And it's silly to say that when a court knocks down reverse racial discrimination that they are "activist." Don't even pretend that if the races had been reversed, that you wouldn't be throwing a fit...
LB couldn't stick with that view. That might imply that he agreed with a Republican, which is sinful.
Show me where I said that.
Also, my statement was about the dividing ranks of the party of NO. Looks like some of them can think for themselves.
It is not about me supporting anything, it is about me not encouraging or advocating hypocrisy. Activism from the bench has been president since the first swearing in yet it was the right who made like it was a bad thing from Sotomayor statements. Brown vs The board of education, Jim Crow laws the court has always been activist.
If you can agree that the court IS activist and does shape law then sure, hope for a court that overturns RvW but take back all the things that was said in this area about Sotomayor and don't use that rhetoric on the next nomination. Christians ought to seek to be fair with their brother which means being consistent.
Fair or not civil rights laws were passed by Congress and are on the books. The SCOTUS decided contrary to those laws. If I recall what many on the right have been saying, it is not about being fair since fair is a personal decision... It is about going by the letter of the law. That is all I said. She went by the letter of the law (civil rights laws) and the SCOTUS went 5 to 4 against those laws.
I have a different view on the wise Latina comment. Since we have established in previous conversation that the court is activist, does shape law and that judges do include personal views and biases when deciding cases then I see it this way. The court has been overwhelmingly white men so the decisions have been predominately from the perspective of white men. However, this nation contains more than just a nation of white men. We have women, blacks, Asians, Latinos etc... As far as a decision that represents the entire nation and not just white men, a wise Latino woman just might come closer to hitting that nail than a white man.
This is why I prefer an eclectic court. This way you have all views represented in all levels of government.
Now before you say lets twist it background, if law was blind and if courts were not activist then her statement is very incorrect. However, that also means RvW shouldn't be overturned by any court or that court will be equally as wrong as her statement.
Here you go: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1418178#post1418178
Post 31 in the thread entitled - White House Struggles to Defend Sotomayor’s Race Statement
"I agree, I am waiting on the conformation hearings. The comment doesn't bother me since ever justice that has ever sat the bench has used past experience to guide decisions to some degree. I am more wanting to see a clear view of her record and to see the outcome of the case currently before the SCOTUS. If they decide unanimously then I know she did well. If they decide against her then I think Obama should withdraw her name. "
Ok, LeBuick let the spin begin..