Comments on: A Racially Motivated (and Racialist) Nominee to SCOTUS

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:58:31 +0000

Left by Pat on May 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Hey, asshole! You dishonest piece of shit! Don’t copy and paste another bloggers writings and pretend it is your own. You pull this crap all the time. And the sockpuppet you quoted is full of crap, too.

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:31:43 +0000

Mohamed, didn’t bother reading the crap you copied and pasted, since you don’t bother to give attribution, and instead display your dishonesty, and try to make us think you are capable of a cogent diatribe.
You truly are pathetic.

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:42:25 +0000

Dianne,
I believe they really want her, bona fides or no.
If conservatives are to accept the liberal premise, that we are the ones who are bigoted, and not them, irrespective of the horrible things they have said about black and hispanic nominees who were Republican, then we might as well not fight at all, but grab the ankles.
Not me, I will fight these lying liberal bastids until the very end, then haunt the crap out of them after that.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:40:43 +0000

Those who scream the loudest about opposing outcome-based and politicized judicial decision-making are so often those who demand exactly that. They criticize rulings because of their dislike of the outcome, not based on any legal arguments. The most obvious example was Terry Schiavo, where a conservative Florida state court judge was faithfully applying clear Florida law, but since conservatives disliked the outcome on policy grounds, they viciously criticized the judge for failing to deviate from the law in order to give them the outcome they wanted. It also happens when state courts — such as in Iowa, California and New Jersey — reach judicial decisions about same-sex marriage based on those state’s Constitutions and the precedent applying it, and immediately, people who don’t have the slightest familiarity with that state’s law criticize the decision: all because they don’t like the policy outcome. The Sotomayor attacks are proving that as clearly as anything else has.

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:39:15 +0000

From the Washington Times hyperlink in the above post.

“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,” she said. “I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the “different perspectives” of “men and women of color” are due to “basic differences in logic in reasoning” due to “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

If a white male had said these openly racialist words in a prepared speech, his chances of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court would be gone in an instant. Instead, it seems that these outlandish remarks are what qualified Judge Sotomayor in Mr. Obama’s eyes.

By: dianne

dianne — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:58:06 +0000

No2 – Hey I agree she’s a racist and is unfit for the court. However, I believe the conservatives are falling for traps set by the administration which end up painting the conservatives as racist. I believe they (Obama et al) wanted this to happen and actually engineered it.

By: Hayley

Hayley — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:08:24 +0000

I’ve been trying to follow this but missed what she said about men and whites. Can someone fill me in?

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:06:55 +0000

Another example of this woman's unfitness for the high court, and to legislate from the bench.

By: No2Liberals

No2Liberals — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:33:52 +0000

Dianne, she is a racist, and a sexist, and believes the court should make policy.
Not calling her out for who and what she is, is not only not being honest, but wimpish.
I’m tired of the platitudinous wimps in the GOP.

By: BBB

BBB — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:48:35 +0000

Hey Pat…Oh, I meant to call you by your other name: Mohammad.

WTF is your post about?

I know in your make believe world, Harriett Miers in on the Supreme Court. After all we all know you hate anything done by George Bush, real or imagined!

But in the real world, the Miers nominate was derailed by conservatives and she is not on the Supreme Court. I know that is a shocking to your lying ass. We conservatives realized Miers was a worthless POS just like you.

I will give you credit for one thing in your stupid post comparing Sotomayor with Miers. Sotomayor is a POS just like Miers and both are unfit for the Supreme Court.

Go away you pathological liar!