Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

Socrtease said:
Politically, this nomination is genius. The republicans will look like they are attempting to stop the nomination of the first Hispanic Justice on the Court. Even if some of them have legitimate philosophical differences with her. This is a win win for Obama. Hell, I bet a small part of him almost wants them to really drag this out and delay her confirmation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though from what I have read thus far, that would just be the icing on the cake. From what I have read, she seems to be a decent pick (considering it came from a Dem). I don't like the CT decision, like the Maurice Clarett decision.... want more info on other positions.

What is your take on her time on the bench?
 
Darla said:
"also fail to see the relevance of your analogy other then it's the insecure prattlings of a sexually frustrated female who is envious of males who are in a dedicated monogamous relationship that desperately and passionately love their wives like I do mine."

That's certainly about sex Mott. As are most posts you make to me. You seem to have some complex. Is it the Tucker complex? Do you feel the need to cross your legs when you see my posts?

I have always found you to be a misogynist, as you know, and I don't really care what you think "I'm well on my way" to being. I feel certain you are aware of this, and with every post you become more and more verbally abusive. Anyone can see who it is being abusive here Mott. And it's you.

Now get ahold of your balls, and understand, I don't want them. They're safe, but you should continue caressing them whenever a woman who doesn't address you as sir, speaks. You know, just in case. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, what's the matter? Don't you like being hung by your own petard? You're the one that used a sexual stereo type and I attacked you on that. It was a baseless and sexist thing to say and you deserve to be roundly slammed for saying it you hypocrite. If you can't take the shit honey, don't throw it. Besides, it had nothing to do with the point I was making about those on the political extremes like you.

As for being a mysogynist, oh for christ sakes you don't know what the hell a mysogenist is if you think I'm one. Hell you're just a kid. What do you know about life and love? You're just a far left sexist feminist and I just love calling your bluff on your bigotry cause it obviously gets your panties in a wad and it gives me a chuckle.

But you're missing the point here Darla. YOU ARE A WEAK DEBATOR. You use strawman arguments and ad homin attacks to support your points instead of facts or simply because you have no points or facts to debate in the first place. You advance no original ideas. Just knee jerk reflexes. You're just like Dixie. Your a weak and unchallenging debator. The only thing you seem to do well is throw insults like monkey poo. Congratulations, you're quite good at that! LOL

But the point is, your insults and ad hominins are the sign of a light weight. Hell you can't even stay on topic.

What was your point on Sotomayor you were trying to make?
 
Yurt said:
darla is a nazi fascist....anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint is a lemming and is guilty of parroting talking points, god forbid someone have truthful criticism of anyone from the left side of the spectrum and i firmly believe if darla had the power, she would shoot all those who dont' agree with her or send them to "education" camps

she gives the left a bad name
Click to expand...
Dude, you're a partisan too. Aint that the pot calling the kettle black?
 
Socrtease said:
Politically, this nomination is genius. The republicans will look like they are attempting to stop the nomination of the first Hispanic Justice on the Court. Even if some of them have legitimate philosophical differences with her. This is a win win for Obama. Hell, I bet a small part of him almost wants them to really drag this out and delay her confirmation.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will. She's not like Hariett Miars who was hardly qualified. I know that I was troubled by the Roberts and Alito nominations as I was concerned about SCOTUS being dominated by ideological conservatives but hey, elections have consequences and Bush was President and both men were eminently qualified so that's just the way it goes. So I couldn't really oppose their nominations.

Same with Sotomayor. She appears to have excellent qualifications both as a jurist and as a legal scholar. I predict She'll get 70 to 80 votes supporting her nomination by the Senate.

Rush and Fox and Hannity might get their panties in a wad but the GOP knows what the score is and Obama did a good job of consulting the Senate before nominating her. She'll fly through.
 
Yurt said:
are you seriously comparing me to darla?

and you're wrong, read my posts, i actually support stances on both sides of the aisle....
Click to expand...

Yea, you do have a point, though I'm still a bit skeptical about you, but Darla is certainly a Dixie in a dress. Disagree with her or call her sexist bluff and you're a chauvanistic misogynist. She certainly seems to have trouble presenting a cogent argument and lining facts up to support her arguments. Who knows? Maybe with time and experience on this site she'll get better.

Right now I'd see her as a lesser version of Threedee and Watermark. Fairly bright but the inexpereince of youth shows. Though Threedee and Watermark have both improved substantially since I first started posting here. Time will have to show if she can become as good at political debate as they are.
 
Mottleydude said:
Yea, you do have a point, though I'm still a bit skeptical about you, but Darla is certainly a Dixie in a dress. Disagree with her or call her sexist bluff and you're a chauvanistic misogynist. She certainly seems to have trouble presenting a cogent argument and lining facts up to support her arguments. Who knows? Maybe with time and experience on this site she'll get better.

Right now I'd see her as a lesser version of Threedee and Watermark. Fairly bright but the inexpereince of youth shows. Though Threedee and Watermark have both improved substantially since I first started posting here. Time will have to show if she can become as good at political debate as they are.
Click to expand...

your rep score is 666.....just sayin
 
Superfreak said:
Agreed, though from what I have read thus far, that would just be the icing on the cake. From what I have read, she seems to be a decent pick (considering it came from a Dem). I don't like the CT decision, like the Maurice Clarett decision.... want more info on other positions.

What is your take on her time on the bench?
Click to expand...
Personally I HATE the New Haven decision. That being said, she has intellectual weight, she was number two in her undergrad at Princeton, she was editor of Yale law review (not a liberal law school). In her defense, she stuck to precedent in the New Haven case. The Supreme court decision in the Hawaii case (can't remember the case name right now) was the progenitor of the New Haven case and she hung with stare decisis. She doesn't look like an activist judge and like someone pointed out her statement about Appellate courts making policy when you hear it is pretty much right on. Gonna be hard to paint her as an activist.
 
Socrtease said:
Personally I HATE the New Haven decision. That being said, she has intellectual weight, she was number two in her undergrad at Princeton, she was editor of Yale law review (not a liberal law school). In her defense, she stuck to precedent in the New Haven case. The Supreme court decision in the Hawaii case (can't remember the case name right now) was the progenitor of the New Haven case and she hung with stare decisis. She doesn't look like an activist judge and like someone pointed out her statement about Appellate courts making policy when you hear it is pretty much right on. Gonna be hard to paint her as an activist.
Click to expand...

Thanks dude. I'm not evil anymore! Well.....Darla may argue that. :)
 
Yurt said:
someone fixed it for you.........satan
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular belief I am NOT Satan. I know that many times I sound as if I am channeling him but alas, I am but a poor substitute. I am working on it however. My guess is if I get it perfected I might be able to wage a hostile takeover when I get there. Get rid of the CED (Chief Executive Devil) and then have the board vote me in. I am promising cold beer if they choose to replace the current management with me.
 
Socrtease said:
Personally I HATE the New Haven decision. That being said, she has intellectual weight, she was number two in her undergrad at Princeton, she was editor of Yale law review (not a liberal law school). In her defense, she stuck to precedent in the New Haven case. The Supreme court decision in the Hawaii case (can't remember the case name right now) was the progenitor of the New Haven case and she hung with stare decisis. She doesn't look like an activist judge and like someone pointed out her statement about Appellate courts making policy when you hear it is pretty much right on. Gonna be hard to paint her as an activist.
Click to expand...


I think you may be confusing the New Haven decision that Sotomayer is being criticized for notwithstanding that it was a per curium opinion (relating to Title VII and New Haven firefighters) and the Kelo decision (concerning the City of New London and the takings clause). Sotomayer had no part in the Kelo decision.
 
Dungheap said:
I think you may be confusing the New Haven decision that Sotomayer is being criticized for notwithstanding that it was a per curium opinion (relating to Title VII and New Haven firefighters) and the Kelo decision (concerning the City of New London and the takings clause). Sotomayer had no part in the Kelo decision.
Click to expand...
you are right. I am completely confused
 
Socrtease said:
Contrary to popular belief I am NOT Satan. I know that many times I sound as if I am channeling him but alas, I am but a poor substitute. I am working on it however. My guess is if I get it perfected I might be able to wage a hostile takeover when I get there. Get rid of the CED (Chief Executive Devil) and then have the board vote me in. I am promising cold beer if they choose to replace the current management with me.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you're the lawyer that Satan passed up in favor of Keanu Reeves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top