After six pages of postings on this subject, cutting out all the "personal" beliefs and partisanship, it seems to boil down to the following...

• While Judge Sotomayor was only one of several judges in two courts who ruled on the New Haven case, it appears that the differences between the claimant and the respndent was more the result of poorly written and inconsistent law than anything else.
• Judge Sotomayor made a really dumb statement 8-9 years ago for which she has apologized. There is no evidence that the statement has shaped or affected her judicial duties then or since.
• The earlier allegation that the Chrysler dealerships that were closed were owned by Republicans remains unsupported by any evidence. I do stand by the process someone would have to follow to determine the political leanings of the owners of 1,100 dealerships throughout the country. I'll leave it to the readership here to decide whether the intent of the poster was informational or inflammatory.
• Much of the print media seems to be liberal-leaning, just as several of the broadcast/cable media are conservative. That suggests that people truly interested in the facts regarding the nation's politics should probably seek a variety of information sources in order to form their personal opinions. Relying on a single source or even a few, will likely lead people to incomplete conclusions.
• Are some of the people selected for appointed positions in this or any other political administration truly independent thinkers and free of political influence (the Rattner allegation)? Probably not. But what's new? Reagan had his "California Kitchen Cabinet", Clinton had a bunch from the South, Bush 41 riddled his administration with Texas loyalists. To expect otherwise is probably unrealistic.
• Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? No evidence has been presented that supports that allegation.
• Does Judge Sotomayor meet the test for confirmation of her appointment required by the Constitution of the U.S.? Almost without question she does. In fact, she has already been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican committees and Senates for various levels of federal judgeships.

So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

Why? ...when this one has been so much fun....

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

After six pages of postings on this subject, cutting out all the "personal" beliefs and partisanship, it seems to boil down to the following...

• While Judge Sotomayor was only one of several judges in two courts who ruled on the New Haven case, it appears that the differences between the claimant and the respndent was more the result of poorly written and inconsistent law than anything else.
• Judge Sotomayor made a really dumb statement 8-9 years ago for which she has apologized. There is no evidence that the statement has shaped or affected her judicial duties then or since.
• The earlier allegation that the Chrysler dealerships that were closed were owned by Republicans remains unsupported by any evidence. I do stand by the process someone would have to follow to determine the political leanings of the owners of 1,100 dealerships throughout the country. I'll leave it to the readership here to decide whether the intent of the poster was informational or inflammatory.
• Much of the print media seems to be liberal-leaning, just as several of the broadcast/cable media are conservative. That suggests that people truly interested in the facts regarding the nation's politics should probably seek a variety of information sources in order to form their personal opinions. Relying on a single source or even a few, will likely lead people to incomplete conclusions.
• Are some of the people selected for appointed positions in this or any other political administration truly independent thinkers and free of political influence (the Rattner allegation)? Probably not. But what's new? Reagan had his "California Kitchen Cabinet", Clinton had a bunch from the South, Bush 41 riddled his administration with Texas loyalists. To expect otherwise is probably unrealistic.
• Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? No evidence has been presented that supports that allegation.
• Does Judge Sotomayor meet the test for confirmation of her appointment required by the Constitution of the U.S.? Almost without question she does. In fact, she has already been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican committees and Senates for various levels of federal judgeships.

So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

There is strong evidence that alot of the dealerships that were closed had right-leaning politics
It is very easy to know which ones by a quick scan of the contributions. It is all recorded which ones contributed to which party.
There will be hearings and alot of questions that this left-leaning appointment will have to answer. Who is kidding who? We know and Hussein Obama knows how she feels.
I just hope that they really Bork her. The GOP has nothing to lose by drilling this woman.
Have to go for awhile...I'll try to post later tonite....

Keedy

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

.[/LIST]So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

While your tidy summary may satisfy the intellectual curiosity of some on this important topic, I'm not sure of the propriety of unilaterally recommending the topic and thread for extinction. But...that's just me.

I have also taken a look at the debate over this important Supreme Court appointment. My opinion comes from a slightly different perspective than the nuts and bolts Kahuna has thoughtfully mapped, summarized and condensed for us. The issue is much larger than that.

For decades, radicals, socialists and Communists in America have been in relentless pursuit of destroying capitalism and replacing it with a Marxist system that changes everything that made this country great. They have used violence to facilitate change. They have attacked religion. They have infiltrated our schools and college campuses cloaked as "progressives". They have to a significant extent controlled the media. In spite of all these efforts, in many cases they could not alter the will of a substantial component of the electorate and accordingly many of the legislators the people put in office. The old red state/blue state maps come to mind. With insidious and calculated cunning they turned to the courts to circumvent the will of the people on issues they could not achieve a majority consensus or legislative initiative on. Obama himself was looking for a candidate with empathy which is code for overriding law when it is inconvenient to the political agenda. Sotomayor fills that criteria.

I hate to use a liberal like Barbra Streisand to make a point but in the abstract she put it quite into perspective. I recall her stating in regards to a presidential election, "It's about the (Supreme) Court." In that brief comment, she nailed the progressive, liberal, Marxist strategy. She in effect was saying, when the left can't legislate their will, they must have a court that will circumvent the will of the majority of the people and create policy. I want my Courts to decide law...not policy.

I believe that the Supreme Court should decide matters of Constitutional Law without setting public policy. Judge Sotomayor clearly has stated she believes the Courts set public policy throwing our checks and balances system between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government askew. She will be a tool of the left in circumventing the will of the people and creating policy that cannot be obtained legislatively.

She will most likely be appointed.

Steve, it is a rare moment indeed when I disagree with you. This is one. I still respect and enjoy your thoughful input.

Originally Posted by cabo35

...The issue is much larger than that.

For decades, radicals, socialists and Communists in America have been in relentless pursuit of destroying capitalism and replacing it with a Marxist system that changes everything that made this country great. They have used violence to facilitate change. They have attacked religion. They have infiltrated our schools and college campuses cloaked as "progressives". They have to a significant extent controlled the media. In spite of all these efforts, in many cases they could not alter the will of a substantial component of the electorate and accordingly many of the legislators the people put in office. The old red state/blue state maps come to mind. With insidious and calculated cunning they turned to the courts to circumvent the will of the people on issues they could not achieve a majority consensus or legislative initiative on. Obama himself was looking for a candidate with empathy which is code for overriding law when it is inconvenient to the political agenda. Sotomayor fills that criteria...

I sure can't disagree that much of this has happened...an awfully sad and disturbing admission. The answer of how and why it has happened is equally clear. WE LET IT HAPPEN.

For whatever reason, our culture has changed. The core values that we so important to most of us--the older generation, I have to admit--seem to have been abandoned by those that are following. Whether it be because they're so busy making money, acquiring "things", entertaining themselves, even using a wide array of chemicals to induce good feelings...times have changed. Collectively, Americans have become careless...we seem to CARE LESS about all those things you mentioned.

Now the question before us is "do we have the collective will to change it back?"

Based on the daily cat fights we see from those we elect to govern us...the high-paid people that make outrageous statements that we permit to form our opinions...our willingness limit our effort to only taking a few minutes every now and then to argue back and forth among one another...it sure doesn't look promising that the people who call themselves Americans have the collective will, the energy, and the knowledge to begin to change our culture back to what we remember as "the good old days".

That's an even sadder statement that what you observed in your earlier post. I hope I'm not being too negative. I really want to see some light at the end of this tunnel. But so far, it's pretty dark in here.

Originally Posted by cabo35

...
... I want my Courts to decide law...not policy.

I believe that the Supreme Court should decide matters of Constitutional Law without setting public policy. Judge Sotomayor clearly has stated she believes the Courts set public policy throwing our checks and balances system between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government askew. She will be a tool of the left in circumventing the will of the people and creating policy that cannot be obtained legislatively.

She will most likely be appointed.

Steve, it is a rare moment indeed when I disagree with you. This is one. I still respect and enjoy your thoughful input.

When issues of federal law hit the Supreme Court, they have already gone through at least one of the U.S. Courts of Appeal. There are hundreds (if not more) situations where the same issue has been decided differently by various Courts of Appeal, and thus the "law of the land" is actually different from one jurisdiction to another. Only if someone pushes the issue for a SCOTUS decision, does the issue ever get resolved so that a uniform "national" law exists. And in making its decision, SCOTUS may take any of the lower court's position, or hybrid a decision of its own.

One of the ironies about SCOTUS is that it is staffed not so much liberal-versus-conservative, but Northeasterners versus all others - 5 justices from the Boston-Washington Megopolis, 2 Californians, 2 Midwesterners. This mix doesn't change with the replacement of a Northeasterner with another Northeasterner.

is the reporting by far too many that those who get to vote for/against are concerned what they may say could affect their re-election support by the minority groups involved...hence there will be rubber stamping.

DOing right for we the people....hardly. Do we the people care...obviously not!!!!

BTK

Originally Posted by billethkid

is the reporting by far too many that those who get to vote for/against are concerned what they may say could affect their re-election support by the minority groups involved...hence there will be rubber stamping.

DOing right for we the people....hardly. Do we the people care...obviously not!!!!

BTK

Not when we keep re-electing the same slugs who "earn" a <15% approval rating.

I'm not trying to stir things up but I'm a little tired of the hypocrisy. When women like Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin etc., etc., are introduced into the political spectrum, it is perfectly alright for the medium to dig and look under every rock for dirt but when it is a women that they disapprove of... certain information seems to only trickle out a little at a time.
Why is that so?
Keedy

Judge Clarence Thomas 2001 confirmation hearings:

He could “walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the court does.”

Judge Samuel Alito 2006 confirmation hearings:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

Those confirmation comments generated no criticism in spite of their obvious recognition of the value of ones experiences when evaluating information.

very good point, keedy...

Judge Samuel Alito 2006 confirmation hearings:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

Just to keep it real, he was answering a very specific question about his background and not judaical decisions.

You left out the part where he said right before that, "It's not my job to bend the law or to change the law to achieve any result."

Something that liberal activist judges do all the time.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Just to keep it real, he was answering a very specific question about his background and not judaical decisions.

You left out the part where he said right before that, "It's not my job to bend the law or to change the law to achieve any result."

Something that liberal activist judges do all the time.

dklassen, good pickup on the contrived sound bite..nicely done

kahuna, we agree...

Originally Posted by Yoda

The "conservative" justices are called that because they tend interpret the law as the founders intended. By the constitution. The Liberal justices tend to went to bypass the constitution and create law rather than interpret it.

We only need the Republican party so that there will be 2 viable parties.

The McCain Republican party cant win. A conservative Republican party will win. Over 60% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. Although Obama was elected, in those states that had major ballot questions the conservative position won.

If the GOP couldn't win the Hispanic vote with an amnesty candidate they never will by sucking up to Hispanics. However, most Hispanic voters are conservative. They will support a conservative they always do.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

the conservative judges are called conservative because they tend to interpret the constitution in the way that conservatives would.

I am really befuddled by this argument I keep hearing from the right wingers that says essentially that the reason the McCain lost was because he wasn't conservative enough

Really?? So people voted for someone left of McCain because McCain wasn't far enough right. Does that really even make sense to you??

Originally Posted by Keedy

I personally think alot of which has been said is alot of hooey! This is just more politics from a Chicago politician. The left wants a "live" constitution instead of interpreting what the founding father's wrote. If you twist, stretch, expand, dilute and keep changing the form of the constitution...it will become unrecognizable.

Keedy

Well, I'll have to remind you of the same thing I reminded someone else, in another thread.

If we didn't have a "live" Constitution, one that could be amended with the times, we'd still have slavery as a protected institution, and women would not be able to vote. Neither would Native Americans nor African Americans.

So, I assume that you either want to be able to change it as people's awareness of the original document's social inequities develops, or, you think we should be stuck with the original document, as written , in which case you think those people shouldn't vote, and you think human slavery should continue to be protected in the Constitution.

So, which is it?