From looking at your link, this was said in 2002, was the citizen online, even online then?
Also, I've asked you and Sniff this before when you use your little pet phrase, when is outrage not situational? I will await your logical response.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

I've been out enjoying life and a particularly special graduation (with honors ).

Hutch, think about this. Our conservative bros are quoting ad noseum a Sotomayor quote from 2001. Are you saying they could not find the Scalia quote made the very next year? Heck, look down one post. MOC is talking about Bork. Bork . My guess is, people find arguments that help their cases and avoid evidence that hurts their cases.

The behavior of nationally respected (in GOP circles) republicans like Rush and Newt will damage your party. No question. It's like a child being given a gun in a bullet proof closet. And your guys haven't figured out how to stop pulling the trigger.

ps. I didn't pen the situational outrage thing. I think even you have used it on me. I've learned from examples I guess.

A couple or three points here, 1. Your question was a little ambiguous and I must have taken it the wrong way. 2. It ain't my party, I'm not a joiner. C. Rush and Newt are no more my guys then Sharpton, Jackson and MckKinney are yours.

I've never used the situational outrage thingy, ever. That's Sniffs pet phrase and while I've asked the question several times I never get the answer, when is outrage not situational?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Had to run off for a bit.

I wasn't clear with my first statement about Scalia's "lower courts make law" comment. I meant that folks who went and found Sotomayor's quote did not bother to find Scalia's. Sorry about lumping you with the Elephants.

The great big hypocrisy (make sure you are sitting) is President Obama trying to urge up or down votes after supporting the filibuster of Alito ( a filibuster that did not happen thank goodness.) Alito and Roberts and IMHO Sotomayor are all qualified for the highest court. I would never support the filibuster of any of them.

ps. All outrage is situational I guess. Just never thought it out.

With honors - OUTSTANDING!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It's a shame I had to find out this way

"You begin to see the conservative movement as being desparate, allowing its message to be shaped around veiled racism and sexism......it basically serves to rob the Sotomayor debate, as well as many others, of intellectual honesty or integrity."

Diva, I think I know what you mean. Kind of like the Democrats handling of the Bork nomination??? Lets revisit that paragon of fair politics shall we???

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward; Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight.[9] Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."[10]

A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his best-selling[11] book The Tempting of America that the report "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[12] TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination."

How it feels to get Borked

This is the way the game is played diva. Your side always does it. You whined on here the other day about when Repubs "oppose, oppose, oppose". That is ALL you guys did for the last 6-8 years. And you think it will be different now? Leave your deserved affinity for minorities out of this. This is politics. It sure as hell ain't ever fair, but it goes both ways.....

Don't want to disappoint you, but being "liberal," other than here in Fayette or Forsythe Counties, is not a crime, and does not disqualify someone from the bench.

Stating my support of our President is about race shows your glistening ignorance. But feel free to think that. Certainly could not have had anything to do with Ms. "you can see Russia from my State" Palin.

You guys crack me up . I'll have to ask my black friends who supported Hillary Clinton if that was about race. Come to think of it, was conservative support for McCain about race? Just wondering.

She has declared so. For example, at a judicial/legal seminar in a liberal setting, she commented that Circuit Judges (like her) probably “should not say this” but “we make policy… . . we make law.” She did not repudiate the comment but merely qualified it. Unlike many conscientious liberals who went to the Supreme Court and yet restrained themselves from making law, Ms. Sotomayor will not. Will she be the worst Justice ever? Absolutely not. It is odds on unlikely that anyone including Ms. Sotomayor will be as bad as say a Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Listen to her words and judge for yourself

For all of our history, our laws have been judged by male whites that have made their judgments based on their perspective as male whites. The citizens of our country are not all 'male whites'. It will be refreshing to have judgments made by two women, one Hispanic, and one 'black'. Come on fellas - the male white perspective is still the majority on the court. Someday there may even be an Asian on the court - we do have Asian citizens. To decry a judge from basing decisions based on the perspective of their gender and race is false. It's been happening in this country since America's founding.

Even with her poor comments, she will simply be replacing another liberal on the court. Hopefully, Roberts and Scalia don't die of a heart attack before we can get our guys back into the White House.

I sure didn't expect Obama to do anything else. We'll probably never see another Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar on the court again.

Mr. President, keep the change!!!

Vote Republican

she will be asked to use.. Her JOB is to decide based on the CONSTITUTION.. that anoying little document you Libs truly seem to dispise..
You seem to imply just because the makeup of the court is not to your liking.. then of course they are all biased... You use your own inbedded bias to project here.. If you can show us where any Supreme Court Judge has used their "LIFE HISTORY" to make a ruling I may grant you the point.. until then you are simply asking for favoritism.. JUST ANOTHER FORM OF ENTITLEMENT..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

S. Lindsey writes from his/her perspective; DM writes from her perspective, Justice Warren wrote from his perspective; Justice O'Connor wrote from her perspective.Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote from his perspective, Their life experience helped to shape their individual perspectives. Get the point? You do not express yourself as I do - because you have not had the same life experiences (life history) as I have had. I cannot write as you do . . .etc., etc., etc.

to a majority or minority RULING is not "DECIDING THE LAW BASED ON LIFE HISTORY"...
Writing for the majority/minority does allow for opinions, but the actual ruling MUST BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALLITY OF THE LAW... Nothing else.. She has stated she will use her "LIFE EXPERIENCES" how does that equate to the Constitution.. SIMPLE IT DOES NOT!!!! DO YOU GET THAT POINT?????

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Her race has nothing to do with it. It's her blatant racism that is the issue.

Sotomayer said "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,"

That statement is patently racist. Of course, liberals will argue all day long that the statement was taken out of context. It doesn't matter. The fact is that she basically said that a Latin woman could come to a better conclusion than a white male.

She's a racist and shouldn't be allowed on the Supreme Court.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

I hope the participants take the time to listen to her words. Fred, all Americans have been affected by 'racism' - but we're not all practicing 'racists'. You have proven yourself to be an adamant practicing racist - and that's your right.

You lose the debate, call me a racist, and claim victory for all bedwetting, liberal, perpetual victim, pissants like yourself.

Good job!

She will be placed on the highest court in the land specifically because of her outrageous racist statments. Not in spite of them, but because of them. Her outrageous statements are why the rabid liberals love her.

If you can't make it on your own start off on the right foot by race baiting and making a blatant racist statement. Tis the way of our country.

If obumbles picked her she is probably a tax cheat too.

Sotomayer a "whacked out racist wench"? It is my turn to be a little amazed at you (remember when I thought that the choice of Geither wasn't so bad?), who suffers no fools and enjoys demonstrative descriptions, but usually doesn't shoot from the hip like that. One statement regarding legislating from the bench, that she immediately qualified (ok, maybe backpedaled on), does not a disqualification or a whacked out racist wench make. Let's see how the hearings go, because they will not be confused with a walk in the park.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

If a white male said this about Hispanic or an African American female he would be immediately blackballed as candidate.

You guys are only going to see what you want to see. Good day.

Don't Spread My Wealth.... Spread My Work Ethic

. . we see what you see. (She'll be confirmed)

Well, there is seeing and then there is focusing. Let's imagine a beautiful woman's face say 10 feet away. The "wow!" factor is at 100%. Now, get closer, say 1 foot away. Still looking good, but the imperfections are starting to show. Get 1 inch away, and the view is limited, imperfections are clearly visible, and the "wow" factor has fallen considerably. Get out a magnifying glass and take a look, and you will see the pores of her skin up close. Seeing the pores up close is not the same as looking at the face from 10 feet away. Same face, different focus.

It is not easy being the carbonunit

Bite me. I'm hardly as shallow you portray me and I can assure you I've been relatively silent, watching and hoping for some positive direction out of this new leadership. Let me assure you... the more ANY sensible person steps back and looks at the complete picture from a distance... if they are honest.... they should be horrified. It pains me to see the foundational standards that made this country become bastardized by leaders who fly by the seat of their pants. Have fun with the view from your cartoon fishing hole which you sit and fish for hope in. You are right where they want you to be.

Don't Spread My Wealth.... Spread My Work Ethic

Bite me.
I'll have to pass, I am trying to quit. I was not portraying you as shallow, I was merely giving a simplistic example. I do that, I am a simple unit. Obviously, you have no use for my communication, other than to use it for a target for crap hurling. So I have to let you know, in my simple way, that my hands are not out to accept what you are giving, so you will have to keep it.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

She's a racist radical who thinks that it's o.k. to legistlate from the bench.

...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

Yeah, nothing racist about that.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

But the "race" thing is also on her side. Easy nomination as the "Repubs" will not stop it.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

She is Sonia Sotomayor (senior soto). I find the right to be quite uninformed when it comes to this issue. Just the Pavlov's dog response of oppose oppose oppose.

Sotomayor was appointed to The Federal bench by George H W Bush.

She is a corporate lawyer.

She was at the top of her class at the country's best law school. Princeton; yale.

She ruled against victims of the TWA 800 crash and sided with TWA.

She upheld G W Bush's global gag rule which stopped funding for international agencies which supported abortion rights.

She ruled against Black prison guards who were claiming reverse discrimination.

She ruled against ball players and for team owners in a football labor case.

Conservatives are using the firehouse testing case and trying to paint her as a wacky liberal. It will not work.
Only the uninformed can think it will. Pat Buchanan tried to call her stupid. What?

As an aside, it is funny how quickly republicans can reverse their stance on filibusters.

I find the right to be quite uninformed when it comes to this issue.

Yeah right. I sense that some on the left are simply clueless as their support is only superficial with no depth. But, she will get seated.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Sessions.. just said "No Filibuster is expected"
Once again the Repubs show what they are made of MUD..
They are the reason I am now an INDEPENDENT/LIBERTARIAN..
TIME FOR THE FREEDOM PARTY as a viable third party option..

Frank Ricci case Link

commentarymagazine article link

Sotomayor and Her Radical Liberal Legal Group LINK

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

before the Supreme Court what 5 times and has been OVERTURNED 4 times.. That is not a great record.. Her "Collegues" who worked with her said she often makes mistakes about the Law and has caused several appeals to be overturned.. They said she is almost ignorant of the Law using instead her "EMPATHY" to judge not the Law.. Intelligent??? I wonder.. Affimative action in action? I can only judge deeds.. and her "deeds" are not so great.
Look at the Fireman case she tried to help cover up.. Where was the Empathy then.. Not enough minorities to count I guess.. Her body of work tells us she is going to rule far far left of Souter.

Frank Ricci case Link

commentarymagazine article link

Sotomayor and Her Radical Liberal Legal Group LINK

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I appreciate you not attacking those with opposing views. You have stated your case. You have been above board. And I hope we can all get back to realizing that at the end of the day, politics is politics. Nothing more. Nothing less.