Quote :

"her 'experiences' have apparantly turned her into a bigoted Quota Queen..."

Quota Queen? Based on what?

5/29/2009 2:35:45 PM

I've heard that she is under the opinion that the 2nd amendment does not have anything to do with owning firearms.

Can anybody out there substantiate this claim? I cant find anything.

5/29/2009 7:54:46 PM

Gun Rights Groups Are Wary Of Sotomayor

Quote :

"In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.'"

Quote :

"Souter rejected the idea of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right; in her 2004 joint opinion, so did Sotomayor."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml

[Edited on May 29, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2009 8:10:23 PM

Quote :

"Remember that case a while back where there was some 18 year old dude had sex with his 17yr old gf and got nailed by a mandatory minimum law. It would be wrong for the judge not to abide by the law in his sentancing"

This is 100% DEAD wrong. Perhaps you missed the discussion in 9th grade ELP. The US is a common law country not a civil law country.

People who bitch about judges "legislating" from the bench need to check up on this fundamental difference.

5/29/2009 10:21:19 PM

^^that is scary

Our Constitution will not be the same Constitution once this administration is done with it.

5/29/2009 11:40:52 PM

reading the U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar decision, I don't see how ^^^that conclusion was reached. Here's the short summary (edit: i see the footnote now and it's a quote from a different case, see the second quote box):

Quote :

"Holding: The Court of Appeals held that police officers' discovery of gun in defendant's possession while they were located in place from which they plainly could see the gun gave officers probable cause to believe that a crime of possession of a firearm was being committed under New York law, creating probable cause for both the seizure of the weapon and the arrest of defendant. Affirmed. "

basically the guy was charging that the cops illegally searched him. but since owning that firearm is illegal in NY and they could plainly see the firearm, there was no illegal search.


and this is where the quote that you use comes from (she was referencing a case from 1984 which was referencing a case from 1939):

Quote :

"He concedes, however, that the statute passes constitutional muster if it rests on a rational basis, a concession which is clearly correct since the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right, cf. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (in the absence of evidence showing that firearm has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Second Amendment does not guarantee right to keep and bear such a weapon), and since illegal aliens are not a suspect class."

which if i'm reading it right (which i invariably am not with lawyer-speak) means that it is acceptable to have laws limiting guns if it rests on a clear and rational basis.

[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/30/2009 12:56:17 AM

Quote :

" This is 100% DEAD wrong. Perhaps you missed the discussion in 9th grade ELP. The US is a common law country not a civil law country. People who bitch about judges "legislating" from the bench need to check up on this fundamental difference."

laying down the science

5/30/2009 5:19:05 AM

Quote :

" This is 100% DEAD wrong. Perhaps you missed the discussion in 9th grade ELP. The US is a common law country not a civil law country. People who bitch about judges "legislating" from the bench need to check up on this fundamental difference."

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

Federal courts do not have the power to make law, all rulings in federal court must be associated with preexisting statutues or regulations. To quote wiki real quick:

Quote :

" Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law"

Thanks for playing, try harder next time.

5/30/2009 7:23:05 AM

Quote :

" Wouldn't it be great if Judge Sonia Sotomayor had a decades-long paper trail detailing, in minute detail, her views on race, affirmative action, fairness and discrimination? If we did -- if we knew how she acted on her beliefs in past, we might be able to predict how she'd act on them in the future. Right? Well...... Turns out that race comes up fairly frequently in legal proceedings adjudicated by United States courts of appeals. Sotomayor participated in 100 such cases. Tom Goldstein decided to read them all to see whether Sotomayor was likely to be sympathetic to claims of racial discrimination. After 50 cases, here's his interim report: In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.) On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection. In other words: her decisions -- her actions -- are fairly convincing evidence that she does not have a penchant for ... well, it's not clear what the accusation is -- penchant for racially-based decisions? -- I'm not sure. Her views -- as expressed through her actions and writings -- are conventional. "

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/sotomayor_and_race_read_her_opinions.php

I can't believe the Republicans would try to use the fact that she's not white to make people think she hates white people. That is so un-like them.

5/30/2009 11:37:18 AM

You're joking right? The Democrats have made race the issue, along with the press. She was chosen solely because of her race. I think Republicans have a pretty good argument against her for that reason alone. Everyone knew that a Hispanic woman was going to be nominated a day after Souter announced his retirement.

Why weren't Asians considered? Why weren't Indians considered? Why weren't Native Americans considered? Politics. You can't honestly call out the Republicans for this when this has been the most racially, and politically, motivated nomination I have ever seen.

5/30/2009 1:19:08 PM

the only way that republicans would say that this pick was qualified would be if it was of a white male. otherwise it's obviously a pick based solely on race and/or gender.

[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2009 2:01:05 PM

More lies from the liberal media about Sotomayor's record on race:

Quote :

"Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals. Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1. ... In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

5/30/2009 2:17:38 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for playing, try harder next time."

Suck my balls faggot

5/30/2009 4:29:59 PM

Personally, I like the Sotomayor nomination. I am not a lawyer or anything but she at least seems well qualified. I wonder if anyone complaining about Sotomayor being an "affirmative action pick" would say the same about Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas.

If so, it seems like the only way we can "be sure" the candidate was not a racially-motivate hire would be if its a white man. way to stack the deck.

That is all.

[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ``]

5/30/2009 4:31:11 PM

what about "if not"?

5/30/2009 4:46:28 PM

Quote :

"Why weren't Asians considered? Why weren't Indians considered? Why weren't Native Americans considered? Politics. You can't honestly call out the Republicans for this when this has been the most racially, and politically, motivated nomination I have ever seen. "

So Newt and Rush and the other usual suspects haven't been going around saying she's racist? This thread wasn't started on the premise that she may not like white people?

And it's really dickish of you to diminish her entire career and asserting that she must have been picked solely because she's hispanic.

attack her politics, not her race, says this conservative...

Quote :

"Given my politics, I am probably not going to like how she rules on many, maybe even most, issues. But almost none of those issues involve racial preferences, which, even if they are a problem, are a small problem for America, affecting fewer people than almost any of the other major policy questions we're debating today. Making race, or racial politics, the central complaint, makes it seem like your biggest policy priority is making sure that not one minority in the land gets anything they don't deserve. But hey, we all get things we don't deserve. I'll go further: almost all of us get something we don't deserve as a result of our race, including white people. Perhaps even especially white people. If you don't believe it, ask yourself why repeated studies show that resumes with identifiably black names get fewer interview offers than identical white resumes. Being identifiably black hurts your chances worse than having a felony conviction."

- http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_problem_of_affirmative_act.php


[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2009 5:20:36 PM

^^ if not, they need to explain what makes Sonya Sotomayor different from O'Connor and Thomas.

5/30/2009 11:17:25 PM

Quote :

"What’s more the lady judge is a card carrying member of La Raza (The Race) and served on the board of Latino Justice/Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, two far left extremists groups which plays nicely into the racist angle. They oppose enforcement of our immigration laws and support amnesty. Obama wanted empathy and he got it -- too bad it’s at the expense of Americans. -- Bay Buchanan "

6/2/2009 12:27:46 AM

commentators have brought up a good point about her. She's Catholic, and if she is staunchly against abortion (she's made no opinions known on her stance thus far) it may be a concession that conservatives can make to drive home their pro-life agenda

6/2/2009 4:07:33 PM

Quote :

"And it's really dickish of you to diminish her entire career and asserting that she must have been picked solely because she's hispanic. "

But she was. I have to laugh if you are honestly trying to argue that she wasn't selected due to the fact that she was a women and Hispanic. Now, she might very well be the best Hispanic women candidate. It was pretty common knowledge that Obama was going to pick a Hispanic well before Souter even announced he wanted to retire. Are you arguing that she was the most qualified candidate, the person with the best judicial record and experience regardless of race or sex?

6/2/2009 4:41:38 PM

^^5/9 of the SC is Catholic now

After she replaces Souter,the SC will be 6/9 Catholic

Congress is made up of mostly Catholics

Many Catholics are going to remain pro-choice, no matter what the pope says.

No way would she undermine women's rights and vote to overturn Roe V Wade

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 4:43:16 PM

Quote :

"Are you arguing that she was the most qualified candidate, the person with the best judicial record and experience regardless of race or sex"

that's never been the criteria for picking a judicial nominee. they should be qualified and experienced. but the "most qualified and experienced" isn't always who one would want in that position. judicial philosophy factors into it, as does age (see roberts) and ease of being confirmed (among MANY other considerations i'm sure). and to pretend like there's some sort of application process that can determine how someone will perform on the ussc over the course of a lifetime appointment is just silly. there isn't one.

6/2/2009 4:54:31 PM

I don't know why the presidents don't consult the Hierarchical Database of Most Qualified Supereme Court Nominees when choosing their nominee. Do these people charge too much to access this list? I know we're in a recession and all...

6/2/2009 5:09:57 PM

Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC: It's payback time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5df9Hrl7g

6/2/2009 5:10:08 PM

I guess elected officials feel that votes are more important than their afterlife

6/2/2009 10:55:30 PM

Quote :

"that's never been the criteria for picking a judicial nominee. they should be qualified and experienced. but the "most qualified and experienced" isn't always who one would want in that position. judicial philosophy factors into it, as does age (see roberts) and ease of being confirmed (among MANY other considerations i'm sure). and to pretend like there's some sort of application process that can determine how someone will perform on the ussc over the course of a lifetime appointment is just silly. there isn't one."

Yeah, and on that list of age, philosophy, and ease of being confirmed, you have race. Which is the point. Again, if anyone is saying that race wasn't a huge factor in her being picked, they are deluding themselves greatly. But just keep your blinders on and keep telling yourself that race wasn't an issue until the evil republicans dared to question our Great Leader.

Talk about twisting words and completely avoiding the issue. Did anyone say there was some sort of magical application process? Nope.

6/3/2009 7:38:37 AM

Quote :

"I don't know why the presidents don't consult the Hierarchical Database of Most Qualified Supereme Court Nominees when choosing their nominee. Do these people charge too much to access this list? I know we're in a recession and all..."

-moron

haha thread winner.

I think this sums up why the complaint that SS may not be the "best or the brightest". The simple fact is that it isn't that easy to measure. There are a million different factors that go into picking a SC judge. He will want to pick someone that will be confirmed, and someone that he believes will make good decisions as an SC justice. The fact that Obama picked her shows that he things she is the best, based on these criteria. But its an inherently subjective judgement. And even if you don't want it to, race and personal history will play into all of these factors. Its the facts of life folks.

6/3/2009 9:21:08 AM

Also, why are Republican Presidents not accused by their base of playing "affirmative action" with their picks? I can't find any examples of Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas being called "affirmative action" picks.

Hell, even when Bush picked Harriet Miers no one accused him of playing the "gender card" (that I can find), though most everyone (including many Republicans) thought that she was a grossly underqualified pick.



Its all just fucking politics it seems to me.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ``]

6/3/2009 9:24:15 AM

^^^i wasn't twisting anything. i was questioning people saying "pick the best person." who is that? how can that be determined? it can't. sotomayor is certainly qualified and experienced. is she the MOST qualified? i don't know. and there isn't a way to know



[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM. Reason : whatev]

6/3/2009 9:26:19 AM

Quote :

"I can't find any examples of Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas being called "affirmative action" picks."

In both of those cases, they were chosen because they were the single most qualified people in the entire nation based on entirely objective measurements. Just look up the person's Composite Supreme Court Nominee Qualifications Index (CSCNQI) and pick the person with the highest number. It ain't rocket science. Clarence Thomas's was over 9000.

6/3/2009 9:43:24 AM

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!

6/3/2009 10:35:44 AM

Has this been posted?



Makes a lot of sense

6/8/2009 1:44:35 PM

girl can't even walk straight... what makes us think she can judge straight?

6/8/2009 6:17:09 PM

Quote :

"We have suspected enemy combatants detained in secret and given different process than criminals. One can certainly justify this type of detention under precedent and current law."

--Sonia Sotomayor, Indiana Law School, 2003

Awaiting link. . . .

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 8:37 AM. Reason : Are some of you still high on her? ]

6/16/2009 8:36:41 AM

^ Link--as promised.

Page 20:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/Sotomayor/upload/Supplemental-Attachment-14-3-21-03-Indiana-Course-In-Criminal-Procedu.pdf

6/16/2009 11:22:36 AM

I've heard from a few analysts that shes the democrat version of John Roberts.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason : untouchable that is.]

6/16/2009 12:32:55 PM

BREAKING:

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

Quote :

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals court judge."

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.abajournal.com/news/supreme_court_rules_for_white_firefighters_in_reverse_bias_case/

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2009 10:40:28 AM

Facts:
Affirmative action is racist.
Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.

6/29/2009 11:28:13 AM

^ neither one of those are facts

6/29/2009 11:48:10 AM

so getting preferential treatment based on race alone is not racist? news to me. Or do you have a new PC spin term you prefer to call it? AA is the definition of racism. It might have a noble purpose/goal, but to say it isnt racist is a joke.

6/29/2009 12:09:50 PM

Racism is defined as the belief in racial superiority, which is not what AA is.

And sotomayor was on a panel of judges, the majority of which shared a legal opinion with sotomayor. And if you actually read the ruling they put out, you would be able to clearly see that there was no "racist" motivation behind the appeals court ruling. I guess I can't be surprised at how grossly misinformed you are regarding the previous ruling, when you just lap up Limbaugh and Hannity's slop though.

6/29/2009 12:24:40 PM

Fact: It was a 5 to 4 ruling. Souter was part of the dissent.
Fact: Both the plaintiffs and defendents in this case are white.
Fact: The official ruling only decided whether the City of New Haven would have been liable for discimination suits. They decided "No", and thus it was unneccesary to throw out the test.

6/29/2009 1:13:27 PM

Quote :

"In the end, it seems to me that the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci is an outright rejection of the lower courts' analysis of the case, including by Judge Sotomayor."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

6/29/2009 1:26:52 PM

Quote :

"neither one of those are facts"

lol...

Facts:
Affirmative action is racist.
Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.
moron is a moron.
racism has 2 definitions:
1) racial prejudice; discrimination based on race
2) racial supremacy; a particular race is superior

Quote :

"Racism is defined as the belief in racial superiority, which is not what AA is."

You're right... affirmative action isn't the belief in racial superiority, but unless you're really a moron, you know that "racism" has 2 definitions. Affirmative action is, in fact, discrimination based on race -- it employs racial prejudice -- it is... racist.
(Seriously, you must do some serious mental gymnastics in order to believe that affirmative action isn't racial discrimination, aka racism.... crazy.)

Quote :

"And sotomayor was on a panel of judges, the majority of which shared a legal opinion with sotomayor. And if you actually read the ruling they put out, you would be able to clearly see that there was no "racist" motivation behind the appeals court ruling."

Legal opinions have nothing to do with how racist the laws they rule on, are. The laws that create and allow affirmative action are wrong. Period. Apparently you disagree, but fortunately, our Supreme Court sees such laws as unfair because of their racism.

Quote :

" I guess I can't be surprised at how grossly misinformed you are regarding the previous ruling, when you just lap up Limbaugh and Hannity's slop though"

Why are you convinced that people who believe in liberty and justice for all, the constitution, and equality under the law are socially ignorant, military-supporting, corporation-hugging, xenophobic or fundamentalist republicans? I don't listen to either of those guys. Looks like you're prejudiced as well – no wonder you support what the british call "positive discrimination"....

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 1:35:55 PM

Quote :

"but fortunately, our Supreme Court sees such laws as unfair because of their racism."

Is that so? Do you care to point out where it even remotely implies that in their decision?

And are you suggesting that the lower courts were ruling on whether or not the law is "racist" and not on a particular facet of this case, that is actually legally defensible?

Quote :

""And sotomayor was on a panel of judges, the majority of which shared a legal opinion with sotomayor. And if you actually read the ruling they put out, you would be able to clearly see that there was no "racist" motivation behind the appeals court ruling." Legal opinions have nothing to do with how racist the laws they rule on, are. The laws that create and allow affirmative action are wrong. Period. Apparently you disagree, but fortunately, our Supreme Court sees such laws as unfair because of their racism."

ha
In 1896, the Supreme Court issued the decision Plessy v. Ferguson which held that states could, consistent with the Constitution, have separate "white only" schools and "black only" schools. Obviously this was overturned in the 1950's in Brown v. Board of Education.

Lets say you have a Court of Appeals judge in 1930 with a case before (at the time, they were all male) him challenging plessy v. ferguson. The only argument raised is that the case was wrong.

Would the court of appeals judge be "racist" for upholding Plessy because he does not have the constitutional power to overturn a supreme court decision?

And I guess I owe an apology to eyedrb, because it is clearly Willy Nilly that is misinformed.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 1:37:22 PM

^
Thanks for making my point. (What kind of straw-man are you trying to build, anyway?) Courts simply rule on law... based on the constitution -- both of which can be wrong. But you know what is always wrong? [public] affirmative action.

Quote :

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race,"

That's only the crux of what the Supreme Court found "unfair". (or, is that an inaccurate headline?)

Quote :

"And are you suggesting that the lower courts were ruling on whether or not the law is "racist" and not on a particular facet of this case, that is actually legally defensible"

Are we talking about the lower courts now?

Quote :

"because it is clearly Willy Nilly that is misinformed."

Is it? Am I "clearly" misinformed? You don't even know what "racism" is.....

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 1:47:46 PM

Quote :

""The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race," That's only the crux of what the Supreme Court found "unfair". (or, is that an inaccurate headline?) "

Wait a minute, your argument is based on a headline? And you still deny you don't know what you're talking about? haha

Quote :

""And are you suggesting that the lower courts were ruling on whether or not the law is "racist" and not on a particular facet of this case, that is actually legally defensible" Are we talking about the lower courts now?"

We're talking about Sotomayor who was part of a lower court ruling, or did you not realize this too?

Quote :

"] The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion was eight sentences long. It characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy to the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]". The panel concluded by adopting the trial court's opinion in its entirety.[15] ... Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), concluded that the City’s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII:[20] 1. In these circumstances, the standard for permissible race-based action under Title VII is that the employer must "demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." 2. The respondents cannot meet that threshold standard. "

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

OMG!! Sotomayor and the rest of the lower courts are racist!!!11!!

6/29/2009 1:56:02 PM

Quote :

"Wait a minute, your argument is based on a headline? And you still deny you don't know what you're talking about?"

Which argument? Oh wait, you're a troll... so this is the part where you refute one thing I said, and apply it to my [whole] argument. Do people fall for that? Do you have much luck trolling people with that technique?
Besides, you clearly claimed that racism is not "racial discrimination" but instead "racial superiority" -- and not both. Back-peddle all you want, but you are the fucking moron here.

Quote :

"We're talking about Sotomayor who was part of a lower court ruling, or did you not realize this too?"

And I'm talking about the fucking Supreme Court decision announced today. You goddamn loser troll idiot. But no... you're right .... make your fucking straw-man bullshit, then claim that I don't know what I'm talking about because I won't acknowledge your weak-ass attempt to change the subject. We are not talking about the lower court rulings, you fucking turdstink. Yes, the Supreme Court decision had to do with lower court rulings -- they often do. Does that mean that the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled is necessarily the same basis on which the lower court rulings were argued? No. No, you straw-man building moron. Shut the goddamn fuck up already.

Quote :

"OMG!! Sotomayor and the rest of the lower courts are racist!!!"

Sotomayor? Yes. The lower courts? I seriously doubt it. (Again with your straw-man.... )

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 3:07:18 PM

These are the facts of the case and they are undisputed.

6/29/2009 3:20:49 PM

^^ haha you are really angry, a trait that often goes hand-in-hand with stupidity...

So YOU bring up Sotomayor in the context of the supreme court ruling, yet you were not talking about Sotomayor in the context of this ruling? I never realized that turrets also carried over to written communications as well. You should PM hooksaw and ask him what doctor he gets his meds from.

And what basis do you have for claiming Sotomayor is a racist? That's right, you have no real basis, because you have no idea what you're talking about. But people have had stupid opinions for eons based on their own ignorance, so there's probably not much hope for you either. The best thing I can do is sit back and watch the show, I guess.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 3:22:16 PM