Hey, calm down. I didn't come out and say she was a racist. I said it looks like she might lean that way. Please read my post again. You see how these things work? If someone repeats your last sentence, it could read "Keedy's racist allegations are inflammatory"
Inflammatory rumors and reputations can be ruined with just one sentence Mr.Kahuna. Please be careful of personal flaming.
But while on the subject, Ted Kennedy's allegations that putting Bork on the court will result in back alley abortions seems to be not inflamatory?????
Hmmmmm Keedy

I hope..
 

that our senators look at her as closely as we are.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Hum...

Imagine the reaction if a candidate said " I would hope that a white guy could reach a better conclusion then a person of color because the writers of the constitution were white"

Keedy

Or,

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic male who hasn’t lived that life."

Can you even imagine the backlash? Let a liberal say it and it gets swept under the carpet.

We're told now by BO's press secretary that we need to be careful. This after
the Democrats ripped limb from limb Estrada, Gonzalez and Thomas.

Remember?

:agree: I like your analogy better then mine. ;)

Keedy

I think that Limbaugh has to beat the GOP over the head with this one until they wake up.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

There's been a lot said about the "New Haven" case and the what and why of the decision Judge Sotomayor was a part of. For those who want to know more about it, other than the sound-bite version, so they can appreciate the litigated issues:

1. the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court can be found at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...9.shtml#ricci1 and are quite extensive.

2. the transcript from the Oral Argument of the case before the Supreme Court on 22 April 2009 can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/07-1428.pdf and is typical on how oral argument before an appellate court occurs.

3. the decision of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which Judge Sotomayor participated as a panel member) can be found by going to http://www.ca2,uscourts.gov/opinion and at the "search in" box select "Opinions and Summary Orders" and at the blank "find decisions that contain"box, type "06-4996-cv" and then hit the "Search" button.

While the plaintiff's viewpoint has been the one in the news, as it sounds like they were getting s****** by the City of New Haven, once you read the respondent's position, the issue is radically different. The city's position is that, in trying to comply with federal law, they found themselves in a position where they would be subject to lawsuit if they certified the promotion tests, and no matter what they did, they were in a "d***** if you do, d***** if you don't" situation. So the battleground is conflicting federal law on a publicly sensitive issue, and how that conflict needs to be resolved so that employers and employees don't have to play guessing games on what's the "legal" thing to do.

And again, the "Latina woman" comment came from a speech given 8 years ago, and the full transcript (so you can see the context and not just the sound bite) can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...3&pagewanted=1

Contrary to what some may believe, judges cannot create decisions out of thin air. If there are existing precedent decisions in their jurisdiction (or higher) on the topic, the judges are bound by those decisions unless they can present a legal argument (with other precedents to back them) showing why the existing precedent decision(s) don't apply and the judge(s) reasoning is superior.

The New Haven case sounds like the Nuremberg defense to me. We were just following orders. You can't do what is wrong just because it is convenient. The problem is that New Haven was going to be sued either way. The chose to go the PC way rather than the right way. The judge would not let the case be heard. New Haven was wrong. They shoulh have done what was right and let the federal government sort it out. Perhaps we would have ended up with a better law.

As far as her statement goes....... she said what she said. She said what she meant. Don't forget the other statements that she made like the one about making law.

She is what she is. We need to honest about things like this. We can't let people double-speak is into capitulation.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

It was said a few weeks ago that they were looking for a Latino woman. That being said, that means that no white people were even considered. The gall of these people is unbelievable.
On a side note...doesn't she look a little like Roseanne of the TV show from the 1990's ?

Keedy

I hear you, but I disagree. SOMEONE must play the role of the grownup. Both Democrats and Republicans have been acting childlike - my way! My special interest! Me being in the majority, etc.

I vaguely remember when both parties agreed that politics stops at the waters edge. A Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, said this during a Democratic Administration – Harry Truman’s.

Just as Senator Vanderburgh saw the need for a united policy, it is time again for the Republican Party to lead us back to sanity.

We need to work at the local and state level to elect truly conservative Republicans. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I was truly offended when my party invited Limbaugh to give a keynote address. As a regular contributor to the RNC, I have stopped all contributions and asked that I be taken off their mailing lists. The only exception if Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by Jeb Bush in his caducity for the US Senate.

For all of you – both liberal and conservative – we need to learn to work together for the future of our country. I do not want us to wind up as another ‘banana republic’ where the first task of the new regime to to kill the members of the old regime whether physically or through the media.

The problem is, it doesn't work that way. When you have two (or more) conflicting laws -each basically nailing you to the same penalty - you try to find some way where you can avoid being nailed by one, and lessen the potential of being nailed by the other, so even if you end up in court, at least you can show you tried in good faith to work through an untenable situation.

"Letting the federal government sort it out" - Who? Congress with a <15% approval rating and moves at the pace of snail? The Courts? All on your dime, as legal fees just keep adding and adding no matter whathappens, as there's always another court after the one you just finished at?

What this really shows is that the <15% approval rate Congress - filled with folk with 15-20-30-40 years in office - just gets folk more at each other's throats than make things better. The comment that folk must work at the local level to get better representatives is dead on the money. Until Congress is flushed out of deadwood who are too lazy to read the legislation they vote on, the "New Haven" type cases keep a-coming at a greater and greater rate.

I don't care who the judge is, or what their personal leanings on issues are. I just want the judge to try as best as a human being can, to be impartial and apply the law when it's direct, and make some sense of the law when it is conflicting. I may not agree with how they tried to sort out legislative messes, but I can respect when they make a good faith effort.

Yea, Those words were spoken alot during the last 8 years...how did that work out for us? Problem with GOP is they let the media and democrats walk all over them. Bush never fought back...The best defense is an offense. The dems already got that figured out. They have been aggressive while while the GOP whines like a little school girl on the playground.
People, you need to get your head out of your collective asses. The GOP had at least 6 years of passive control. How did that work out for us? Look what the democrats have done the last 4 months. Wake up people. We need to get mad and fight aggressively. There was so many things the GOP could have done. The oppurtunities are all gone now.
We need more people like Rush...not people who vote and go alonng with the democrats like the traitor Powell.
I got some news for you all...maturity does not win wars...strength and strategy wins wars.
OK...Rant over...Back to the regularly scheduled poster.....

Keedy PS. If you don't think we are at war...you haven't been paying attention. The progressives have been at war with the fabric of our society. Religion, freedom of speech (conservatives get shouted down at major Universities) Big government, massive taxes, political correctness etc.,etc.

Kahuna, it's all in the context. It was not an allegation but a fact that three of the five opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. Ergo, the premise for your attack on those who you say made an "inflamatory" claim to "incite the loyalists" and calling for its removal is in fact false. It is uncharacteristically judgemental and unlike your usual articulate, "middle of the road" objectivity.

I know that under normal circumstances you appreciate factual input. Here is a fact that I believe, although you may respectfully disagree, has a serious implication on the other personal annoyance on your list and in your post.

Obama's car czar, Steven Rattner, started as a New York Times reporter. He was a personal friend of a Times owner. Those with a conservative leaning would understandably raise an eyebrow given the Times proclivity for extreme bias to the liberal left. For myself, I personally know a few good people who worked at the Times and would give him a cautious pass and the benefit of the doubt that he might not be political just because he had a track record with the icon of liberal journalism.

That cautious pass turned into reasonable suspicion when I learned that Mr. Rattner's wife, Maureen White Rattner was the National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party. In the hope that this comment on the "car dealership closing issue" passes muster, here is the link from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner

I don't agree with your cavalier self serving declaration that allegations about Chrysler dealerships are patently false. I believe the bright light of public scrutiny needs to shine before your dismissive judgement precludes any discussion that conflicts with your opinion.

As Sgt. Friday would say, "Just the facts please, just the facts.

It's always a pleasure to disagree with you.

Sorry for the hijack Kayacker. I tried to follow the drift of you excellent thread and couldn't resist the diversion when the opportunity arose.

[QUOTE=BBQMan;206331]I hear you, but I disagree. SOMEONE must play the role of the grownup. Both Democrats and Republicans have been acting childlike - my way! My special interest! Me being in the majority, etc.

I vaguely remember when both parties agreed that politics stops at the waters edge. A Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, said this during a Democratic Administration – Harry Truman’s.

Just as Senator Vanderburgh saw the need for a united policy, it is time again for the Republican Party to lead us back to sanity.

We need to work at the local and state level to elect truly conservative Republicans. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I was truly offended when my party invited Limbaugh to give a keynote address. As a regular contributor to the RNC, I have stopped all contributions and asked that I be taken off their mailing lists. The only exception if Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by Jeb Bush in his caducity for the US Senate.


I may be wrong but I don't believe it was "your party" that invited Limbaugh. It was the conservatives, not the RNC. Not the same, thank God.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition