| Name: |
JustAGuy
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Sotomayor - Snopes.com
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 5:58:20 PM
|
URL: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/sotomayor.asp
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Let's Try Again
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 6:01:19 PM
|
URL: Sotomayor - Snopes.com
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Let's Try Again
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 6:28:43 PM
|
Hate to seek facts. They are unkind to opinion.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Let's Try Again
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 7:41:31 PM
|
She sure sounds like a bull dike to me. Gee, is that "envy" I real into her words.
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Let's Try Again
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 8:55:20 PM
|
Why the personal attack?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Please show caution
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 10:43:55 PM
|
with facts. If confuses and confounds WW and dangerously elevates his blood pressure.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conservatives?
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 11:32:54 PM
|
I would feel a lot better if at least one of you guys would post and say something to the effect ..."Sotomayor doesn't need to be a Supreme Court justice, but this whole "castration" thing was a farce." MartiniMan, you even posted that you doubted that she really said this ... ? I would love for anybody to come out against these viral e-mails, posts, blogs, etc. Thanks.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
lotowner?
|
|
Date:
|
7/13/2009 11:36:26 PM
|
lotowner ... I posted that the "castration" comments sounded so absurd that I couldn't really believe that Sotomayor said it. You replied that you thought it was absurd too, until you checked it on Snopes.com and they confirmed that she really did make these comments. Were you joking? Did snopes originally confirm the comments only to later prove that Sotomayor never made these comments? Please explain. Thanks.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now there you go again ...
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 6:38:31 AM
|
rather than contribute with "a point of view", "supporting your messiah" and maybe even saying "what policies you thing are good and the results you expect" ... you just jump in with a personal attack.
FYI, my blood pressure is 114 / 72 ... just came from the doctor.
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
lotowner?
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 7:17:11 AM
|
What I said was true when I checked with Snopes. Otherwise, I would not have posted. I have been burned a couple of times bases on information passed by friends. The green dot was present. Only after checking with Snopes did I post. Latter, after your comment and going to the same site, I found a totally different article - much longer and with a red dot.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not you, Sotomayor.
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 11:22:10 AM
|
Sorry, should have been more definitive. My comment referenced Sotomayor's comment. As a politician, she's fair game.
|
| Name: |
ecstasypoint
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not you, Sotomayor.
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 11:30:46 AM
|
Nice try Wix. But it certainly seems that when it comes to women, there is no comment out of bounds. It's still an unfounded and unnecessary personal attack on a woman. When it comes to women, there is no protected private part that is too sensitive to attack. Lady, please keep posting. I appreciate your point of view (even if I don't always agree with it).
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Palin
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 11:49:12 AM
|
Does that apply to attacks on Palin and her family by liberals also, or are they fair game?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conservatives?
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 12:18:34 PM
|
They are wrong. But the fact of the matter is she has said some things that scare me just as much. She is obviously biased. Read the "oath" that a supreme court justice needs to take and you be the judge (no pun intended) if she can take it and honestly say that she will uphold it based on past remarks which clearly demonstrate he bias.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
lotowner?
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 2:23:58 PM
|
I figured it was something like that. I wondered if snopes got something wrong, and then later discovered their mistake, would they leave the wrong info and simply add the correct stuff. Evidently when they make a mistake an realize it, they cover their rear ends. Thanks again.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conservatives?
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 2:25:32 PM
|
I took a non-discrimination course years ago, and one of the things they taught us was that everyone has biases based on their life experiences or lack thereof. I would certainly agree with you that Supreme Court Justice is one of those jobs where there needs to be as little bias as is humanly possible.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conservatives?
|
|
Date:
|
7/14/2009 3:06:51 PM
|
No doubt ... but the oath they take does not allow room for ANY bias. We are talking about the highest legal authority of our nation and interpretation of the constitution. The oath requires that they only interpret the law without regard to poor or rich, male or female, or race.
She has not demonstated her ability to do that thus far in both action (decsions she rendered) and words (statements made).
While she will most likely be confirmed because of the democrat majority and rubber stamping whatever Obama wants, it is solely for the reason I outlined above that I (and many others) believe she should not be on the highest and last court in our nation.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conservatives?
|
|
Date:
|
7/15/2009 12:23:08 PM
|
To quote myself, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. I said I doubted this was true because someone who said this should never have been nominated to the Supreme Court.
The fact is there is enough of her quotes that she has admitted to that convince me that if I were a Senator I would vote no. She is a judicial activist of the tenth order, a judge who legislates from the bench and considering 60% of her opinions have been overturned is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. One of Bush's nominees to a lower appellate court was deemed unacceptable by many of the same Senators supporting Sotomayor simply because 50% of his decisions were overturned. Is this just another case of affirmative action?
|
I assumed they decided that they needed to appoint a Latina to the bench because Hispanics and women are under-represented on the Supreme Court.
I've watched a bit of her testimony and I don't think I care much for her. It's a shame they couldn't have found another candidate.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Maybe
|
|
Date:
|
7/17/2009 8:58:20 AM
|
I actually thinks she is exactly what Obama wanted. Yes he wanted an hispanic but not just any hispanic. He wanted an "acceptable" hispanic that will be a judicial activist, legislating from the bench, making decisions based on empathy rather than the law (i.e., ignoring equal justice and using her decisions to right alleged wrongs), will vote for abortion under all circumstances, does not believe Americans have a right to defend themselves, etc.
We saw under the Bush administration what happens to the wrong kind of hispanic nominee. They must be destroyed. This is all part and parcel with Barbara Boxer and her treatment of the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce who wasn't toeing the line with the right kind of blacks (i.,e, the NAALCP on the Democrat party plantation blacks).
|
Wasn't aware that the Supreme Court was deciding abortion cases.
Since the Administration nominated her, I'm sure she must be what they want. You know, they all impose their viewpoints on the point of law. So she'll be in good company. The only total straight shooter on the bench is the one she is replacing -- Judge Souter.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Arkansas Lakes
»
Shores Lake
Login
|
Home
