Sotomayor = Highly Qualified

[KYVolFan]

Did they base their endorsement on her almost perfect record of having her ruling overturned by a superior court. The woman is a racist but someone needs to tell her that Latino is a not a race.

Most recently she ruled that the white firefighters could not get their promotions because all the blacks who took the test failed to pass. Tests are not racially prejudiced. Two plus two equals four, Rin Tin Tin was a German Shepherd Dog, George Washington was our 1st President, the Tower of London is in London, England , the US Constitution does not prohibit prayer in school, Bill Clinton lied under oath, General Robert Neyland coached Tennessee Football and most importantly, US Law is created by the legislature not the judiciary irrespective of anyone's; race, sex, social position, national origin, creed, color, political party or religion.

 

[VolDad]

Liberals send journalist/reporters their marching orders.

"On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

...........

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines."

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter | McClatchy

 

[MG1968]

"troubled and litigious" work history?

People for the American Way is a Soros-funded bunch of thugs.

 

[volinbham]

Liberals send journalist/reporters their marching orders.

"On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

...........

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines."

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter | McClatchy

There's that nasty Republican attack machine again...oh wait a minute.

Sounds like the efforts to find dirt on Joe the Plumber.

 

[gsvol]

I havn't forgotten how the Dumcraps tried to sabotage Clarence Thomas with fabricated lies. He has written a book in which he casts liberal elitists as far more racist that the KKK. (and he is right as rain.)

Sotomayor is nominated mostly for the votes she can bring the Ds, there are more Puerto ricans in NYC than in Puerto Rico.

She led the charge against Bork, she should get the same in return, what goes round comes round, except the Republicans don't have the stomach (guts) to really fight the Democrat agenda.

Both Alexander and Corker voted to seat Holder who engineered the pardons for the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists who neither petitioned for release not ever expressed the least bit of remorse.

Cowards both.

Harriet on the Supreme Court makes more sense than the ehtanol mandate and Alexander voted for that.

A tidbit of background on Sotomayor.

In 1990, the PRLDEF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins after the mayor labeled three Puerto Rican "nationalists" who shot five members of Congress in 1954 "assassins." The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN). The PRLDEF said the mayor's comments "lacked sensitivity." Reuben Franco, President of the PRLDEF said: "[Mayor Dinkins] doesn't recognize that to many people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice..."

(Yeah right, just like the freedom fighters in Kosovo, terrorist group one week, freedom fighter the next.)

It's time we quit quibbling with the likes of LG and ask ourselves, just who is running this country?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg the commie ACLU honcho was confirmed 97-3, I know what the Democrat Party stands for and see little the Republicans stand for other than more of the same.

How many qualified Federal Judges nominated by Bush did the democrats block from confirmation??

Democrat vs Repbulican confirmation of judges, a huge gap in credibility.

Obams's very first federal judge nominee ruled "allah yes, jESUS no."

On the one hand, Hamilton made clear that prayers that “use Christ’s name or title” are sectarian. On the other hand, he ruled (on a post-judgment motion) that it is presumptively not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to “Allah”:

Clues for the clueless, how stupip can we be???

It would appear the pathway to power is by shooting congressmen, should I produce a list that needs shooting??

Why not escalate and shoot senators also??

 

[MG1968]

I havn't forgotten how the Dumcraps tried to sabotage Clarence Thomas with fabricated lies. He has written a book in which he casts liberal elitists as far more racist that the KKK. (and he is right as rain.)

ironic given the fact that the KKK was founded by democrats.

 

[gsvol]

Sotomayor and 2nd amendment rulings.

ironic given the fact that the KKK was founded by democrats.

Their greatest deception is that they represent the poor while they are in reality servants of the super wealthy, their second biggest deception is that they have historically been the benefactors to African Americans is.

Tutorial on understanding liberal nuances.

(not that you really need one.)

 

[TennTradition]

ironic given the fact that the KKK was founded by democrats.

I really don't know the specifics...but wasn't the democratic party of the 19th and early 20th century the predecessor of today's republican party? I know that it was the democrats that led the fight for anti-evolution laws in Tennessee and other states in the early 20th century, for example.

If there was such a switch...when did the democrats become today's republicans? And...what were today's democrats before that....republicans, whigs, what?

I'm not saying that the democratic party isn't racist in many ways and a party to many forms of pandering, elitism, etc....but the KKK origins statement seemed to maybe be a bit of a misdirection...

 

[MG1968]

I really don't know the specifics...but wasn't the democratic party of the 19th and early 20th century the predecessor of today's republican party? I know that it was the democrats that led the fight for anti-evolution laws in Tennessee and other states in the early 20th century, for example.

If there was such a switch...when did the democrats become today's republicans? And...what were today's democrats before that....republicans, whigs, what?

I'm not saying that the democratic party isn't racist in many ways and a party to many forms of pandering, elitism, etc....but the KKK origins statement seemed to maybe be a bit of a misdirection...

all I know is that the democrat party's founding platform in 1840 basically stated "hands off" when it comes to slavery.

the GOP was the first party to have a black man's name, Frederick Douglass, placed into nomination. That same year, the GOP also had black delegates to its nominating convention, the democrats didn't seat black delegates until the late 1930's.

it was a GOP President, US Grant, who signed what can be considered the first civil rights legislation, into law.

the GOP was the first party to elect a black man Senator. Hiram Revels, in 1870.

if that era's democrat party has morphed into this era's GOP, I don't know where the switch might have occurred. Some people will point to the dixiecrats, but I don't think I've ever heard a convincing argument for that theory.

 

[gsvol]

all I know is that the democrat party's founding platform in 1840 basically stated "hands off" when it comes to slavery.

the GOP was the first party to have a black man's name, Frederick Douglass, placed into nomination. That same year, the GOP also had black delegates to its nominating convention, the democrats didn't seat black delegates until the late 1930's.

it was a GOP President, US Grant, who signed what can be considered the first civil rights legislation, into law.

the GOP was the first party to elect a black man Senator. Hiram Revels, in 1870.

if that era's democrat party has morphed into this era's GOP, I don't know where the switch might have occurred. Some people will point to the dixiecrats, but I don't think I've ever heard a convincing argument for that theory.

Pure urban myth.

In the twentieth century, Republican president Dwight David Eisenhower did more to advance the rights of African American citizens that any three democrap presidents, no matter their media blitz 'great societies' and 'war on poverty' initiatives.

The biggest setback for African Americans was engineered by Woodrow Wilson, who (the first black president?) Slick Willy liked to praise as one of our greatest presidents, it was Wilson who segregated all government workers along racial lines, prior to that integration of African Americans into mainstream society was coming along well, perhaps a bit slowly for some but still, Wilson set back the advancement of African Americans by a half century. (while making slaves of us all with his central bank and income taxes, neither of which gained such great power until Roosevelt had the [central bank engineered] 'great depression' work with as we now have the current economic crisis as an excure for all sorts of inexcusable governmental actions.

Kennedy made a secret pact with King that delivered the black vote to the democrats, then both were killed by who knows who and the deal was sealed, blacks continue to vote for a pig in a poke.

If you really want to know about blacks and the GOP, find that rare bird that is the old time black republican and you can get quite an earful.

 

[MG1968]

what in my post was urban myth?

 

[TennTradition]

I'm still thinking that the modern-day Republicans were called democrats until sometime in the 40s or so....where am I getting this from? Anyone know? Maybe gs was saying that this thought was urban myth....

 

[gsvol]

what in my post was urban myth?

This;

that era's democrat party has morphed into this era's GOP

The urban myth you were refuting.

I agree with you.

I'm still thinking that the modern-day Republicans were called democrats until sometime in the 40s or so....where am I getting this from? Anyone know? Maybe gs was saying that this thought was urban myth....

Yes, you always get that from those who support the democrat party without reservation. They can never produce any detailed evidence though.

I think the time line would have to be more sixtyish though, until Kennedy the majority of the black vote went to the republicans. Even if you want to say that Kennedy and later Johnson did so much to advance the cause of African Americans, you must note that their legislation would never have passed without solid Republican party support because of strong democrat party resistance and I didn't notice a mass exodus of democrats to the republican party. As a matter of fact I don't remember even one man who switched party affiliation over that.

Reagan switched over to the republicans but he did so because the democrats becane too cozy with the communists and he was solidly against communism.

For that matter the Kennedy family opposed the communists, Jack and Robert were two of the last senators to support McCarthy's investigations and JFK continually complained to MLK about the communists who were gravitating to him.