Maddow Debunks Sotomayor’s Radical Creds [Video Update]
By SusanUnPC on May 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM in Current Affairs, Souter Vacancy, Supreme Court
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Rachel’s commentary speaks for itself. Judge Sotomayor is a moderate, and has made several pro-business rulings. Here’s Rachel’s source:
From Rachel Maddow’s Web site:
The not very liberal-sounding dissent by Judge Sotomayor referenced on the air by Rachel: 209 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2000)
Below find a screen grab of the top portion of this ruling.
MY NOTE to our readers: Please consider that ANY ONE of us who truly wishes to know what Sonia Sotomayor is made of as a judge must judiciously and openly read ALL of her rulings — including this ruling, in full — and not selectively pick and hammer on a few.
Her abilities are found in the sums of her experience and her judgment — as well as her not inconsiderable academic achievements in the first quarter of her life.
(Click on the image to view the larger version.)
UPDATE:
Lest there be any confusion about Rachel Maddow’s view of Judge Sotomayor, here is the first segment of her show last night:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I could have done without the cocktail metaphor, but I wanted to be sure you understand that Rachel Maddow is in favor of Judge Sotomayor’s appointment to the USSC, but that she is taking great care to point out that Judge Sotomayor is not some far-left radical. Hence the segment on her pro-business rulings.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Exactly. I’m not that excited about this pick but it certainly has nothing to do with her being a woman or Porta Rican. Those things are great actually. I do think it’s important for there to be people of different backgrounds on the court.
But to me she’s not liberal enough. We don’t really know what we’re getting with her. Why couldn’t Obama choose someone who is as obviously liberal as Alito & Roberts are obviously conservative?
Actually, I’m glad he picked Sotomayor; I think it’s a brilliant choice; and I think she will be confirmed. I commend Obama on this choice; and I’m not an Obama supporter.
William Rehnquist once endorsed segregation, and yet rose to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yet, this has created hysteria:
Republicans don’t have a hope in hell of EVER recovering as a political party if they try to kill this nomination calling her a “reverse racist.” Latino/Hispanic voters are the fastest growing voting bloc in this country. Republicans are already losing them over the immigration issue; if they try to brutalize Sotomayor, they are toast.
Forever.
You are on target with this. And let me tell you, I think Obama definitely considered this. Don’t get me wrong – I think he thinks she’s qualified — but the political aspect of it is definitely there. I think he may have just wrapped up 2012 in fact (unless things go really badly, of course.)
You shouldn’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched, Ms. Cleo.
Acidly correct and funny, Ferd!
There is no question that Obama has an alternative political reason behind his nomination. Its called locking up the Hispanic and Woman’s vote in 2012.
It’s very likely he’ll be making another female choice for SC in his first term due to Ginsberg’s health issues. Not that I wish anything bad on her, she’s great. Just as a realist.
I certainly hope he goes farther left on her replacement.
Please, according to the latest Gallop Polls, which have been linked here numerous times, the percentage of voters who identify as being Republicans, equals the percentage identifying as Democrats. So much for your hyperbolic rant…(Before BO, the D’s were in the lead; guess I am not the only one who left the Party after May 29, 2008…)
Huh? Obama has 65% approval in the Gallup polls with 53% of people already saying they plan on voting for him next time around.. and that’s before you count in all of the people who are going to be scared to death of whatever lunatic ends up being the GOP nominee! Obama would easily win 55%+ if an election were held this November against any of the major GOP players… (Huckabee? Palin?) they just don’t have anyone who can compete.
The Right are the ones trying to sell her “radical liberal credentials”. The Left is busy trying to show what a centrist, conservative-leaning judge she is. It’s all bass akwards. If politics made any sense, the Right would be celebrating her appointment and the Left would be moping around.
I’m reminded that Sarah Palin recently made an appointment to the Alaska supreme court, Morgan Christen, a liberal pro-choice woman who actually sat on the board of Planned Parenthood. Palin stood up with great courage, faced her dissenters, and appointed a liberal dream come true. Obama wishes he had half her courage.
Sotomayor is fine with me. She’s a highly educated, extremely experienced candidate, but people should quit pretending she’s a liberal. LOL, but they can’t, Obama’s reputation rests on it, he promised to satisfy his base and save the country from a conservative appointee to the SC. So which is it people, did he lie to you or is Sotomayor a radical liberal? Tricky one, you either have to admit Obama is a bamboozler and you were suckered or you have to admit the Right is correct, and Sotomayor is a radical liberal activist. You can’t try to play both sides of the field.
I’m disapointed with this pick precisely because I’m not sure of how liberal she is. So yes, some of us liberals are “moping” about this pick. I think he should haven chosen someone at least as liberal as Alito/Roberts are conservative.
The Court is clearly far to the right of the American people. It’s time to move it left!
That being said, from a purely political standpoint – it’s a good move by Obama – but that’s just the thing – I’m getting a bit tired of all of the political moves — How about some real moves to the left? I realize he didn’t run as Dennis Kucinich … but damn. Gimme something more O!
That is, unfortunately, something I was worried about for a long time with him…fake left, go right.
What can I say, we’re watching.
Maddow had other segments last night that showed that she is pro-Sotomayor. But this one segment stood out to me because Maddow was attempting to prove that the far right’s condemnations are, to say the least, irrational.
I’m a Hillary Democrat. I’m a moderate Democrat. That said, I wouldn’t mind if the court had a William O. Douglas. There are, after all, NINE justices (!). She will be just one of nine. There is room for all types on the court, and there should be all types on the court.
Maddow’s arguments are really superficial here. She’s not providing context to the decisions, just offering up the ideological results! For example, what were the legal arguments; what were the legal questions being decided by the court? One would need to know those things to have those rulings make an iota of sense.
You make a decent point there. But I think Rachel and other liberals (like me) are very concerned about this pick from the stand point of the importance of the SC and how Souter didn’t turn out to be who people thought he would be. And also from the stand point if W got away with conservatives like Alito & Roberts – then why couldn’t Obama give us a real liberal? Why is the question “is she conservative enough?” (as the right wingers seem to have successfully framed it) Isn’t Obama supposed to be a liberal? Didn’t he just win the election? Why isn’t the question “is she liberal enough?!”
You and your liberal buddies got punked by 0bama. Is that so hard to understand? Some of us Hillary supporters got it on day one and have refused to jump on his bandwagon.
I didn’t get “punked” so to speak. I’ve always been wary of Obama and all of the other corporate Democrats. I’m more of a *real* liberal (ie Dennis Kucinich.) But that being said, I guess I try to hold onto some hope that Obama is doing all of these political moves for pragmatic reasons and that he really is more liberal than he lets on. In other words I *hope* (and this is definitely just a hope, I’m not counting on it) that his long term plan is to move the country significantly to the left – but that he plans on doing it slowly as to remain popular.
You have a link to the ruling.
Oh please, this is more white male bashing. I would call her statements racist (and sexist which they are), but Hispanic is a culture–not a race. Most Americans, especially the ones on this website are too ignorant to know this. Let me prove it.
Sergio Garcia the famous golfer is from Spain & is white European. Roberto Clemente and Sammie
Sosa are famous baseball players from the Dominican Republic whose ancestors were slaves brought over from Africa–yes they had slaves in the Caribbean and South American. Fernando Valenzuela was a famous baseball pitcher from Mexico whose heritage was North American Indian. Yet they are all Hispanic. They are not from a single race.
La Raza is Spanish for race–how racist is that. This is more crap from people who want to destroy the USA by making us all mad at each other. Well, I think their job is almost done.
If you were intelligent, you would dismiss this woman & tell Barack to get another Hispanic woman who doesn’t say racist/sexist things about white males.
Oh please! That’s ridiculous. You are taking what she said totally out of context. She said that everyone’s life experience (including their gender and ethnic background) influence their judgment. If you actually look at her comment in context what she was saying is that she strives to overcome her own personal perspective as much as possible. She’s actually saying the opposite of what you are accusing her of saying. That’s what’s so amusing about all of this. Read what she said (the whole thing) and then apologize for what you’ve said about her.
The WSJ did not see it the same way as you do, read carefully:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html
I guess the WSJ is just a bunch of rich white guys. Well, if I were a rich white guy (I am actually), I would take my $ elsewhere–away from Obamanomics.
When unemployment hits 10% and the printing press is going full blast to pay for illegal health care at emergency rooms–we will see how much people like the community organizer.
WSJ is controlled by Fox News. Come on. That’s a political hit piece. If you can’t see through it then that’s your own issue. I ask you to read what she said in context rather than taking someone else’s word for it.
“When unemployment hits 10% and the printing press is going full blast to pay for illegal health care at emergency rooms–we will see how much people like the community organizer.”
This is the key, not all this other fluff. Obama will be run out of the WH when this happens–just like Jimmy Carter. By the way, it seems like he has more troops in Iraq & Afghanistan than Bush. What is up with that?
“When…” We’ll see. I don’t think it’ll play out like that.
Maybe, but the whole democrat party right now is pretty much about white male bashing. If you are a white guy but aren’t one of those uber rich white guys that smoke long cigars and exploit the third world… well then you are pretty much out. But that is nothing to write home about, and nothing we don’t already know. It could be a lot worse. She seems like a nice personable lady. Let her pass and be done with it. Choose your battles wisely. The carbon tax has been estimated to cost families 3-4K a year in new taxes. We are carbon based and a carbon tax is pretty much the same as a tax on breathing itself. It doesn’t get much worse than that. Fight that fight, it is something everybody can understand and get behind.
There is no “democrat party” – And the Democratic party obviously welcomes white males (Joe Biden and most of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House are white males of course) – I’m a white male and I feel quite at home in the democratic party. So yeah.. thanks for your concern
So, if you can find a grammatical or typing error in a public forum that means the poster is an ignorant hick with a confederate flag in his living room a spitoon by the p.c. and green teeth to go with that? So, reach around and pat yourself on the back genius. But everybody who is a democrat knows that rich old white men are the scourge of the Earth and the ultimate source of all the evil in the world. That is what I am saying. Look at Cheney, do people actually hate him so much for what he did… or what he is?
what he did.
But, nobody hates Colin Powell who sold the war. But then again he is not a rich old white guy.
Bingo!
This is just an observation:
Would you exchange that extra 23% income your demographic receives on average in comparison with mine, for people to look at your demographic in a more friendly way?
Because if the answer is no, y’all sound like a pair of whiners.
So, I guess they get more money “because” they are male and white? Or, is it they worked to get the grades in school, studied while the fun guys partied and saved for their futures instead of taking vacations? I stand by what I said to begin with… If you are a rich old white guy, you don’t really care. If you are a regular guy of a white guy… then whatever people think the rich old white guys have that they shouldn’t… you being a regular guy of a white guy are paying for it, because you color and gender match.
in fact, I do think white men make more than women and minorities due to discrimination, first because they are men, and then because they are white.
pardon the lengthy monologue:
I went to college on the only mathematical and physical sciences scholarship offered by the university I attended and I left after 1 year due to sexual harassment. In spite of the fact that I had the highest SAT scores of anyone entering the college that year (the criterion for the scholarship) and a 3.98 GPA, I found that a male professor was allowed to grope my breasts and ass with impunity. Nor was the that the only incident. When I reported this to the dean of my college and then the dean of my university, I was told they had no plans to do anything about it.
Needless to say being un-degreed has had some impact on my ability to earn money, not that I haven’t worked every week of my life since I was in the 10th grade, and just as hard as you, I don’t doubt.
I have returned to college and it is somewhat better today, but I am still treated as less than the equal of men students despite all evidence to the contrary. Since returning I have maintained a 3.95 average while working full time.
I work in a male dominated field now and earn less than most men in the field do, particularly as I have almost 30 years of experience, and that the field I am pursuing is also male dominated.
I do not expect to ever see any form of equality in my life, though I assure you I was told incessantly when I was young that equality for women would be achieved in my lifetime: yet here we are not 10 cents on the dollar closer after 43 years.
If you don’t like the perception of white men as receiving unearned advantages, then all I can say is tough noogie, you get the bad with the good. And your good is way more than I’ll ever see.
Because you do not perceive that as an individual you have received any special advantages does not signify that your demographic has not.
Did you know that the average woman college graduate starts off earning 11% less than her male counterpart the day they graduate? Did you know that after 20 years the gap will widen to an average of over 30%?
http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf
But there is more than just financial advantage that men enjoy, and white men among them: higher social status in all aspects, higher perception of competence, religious authority, lack of gendered violence, to name a few. And you do receive these benefits, whether or not you have asked for them.
From the day I quit church at age 4 or 5 after the preacher suggested it was my job to serve men, I have stood up as best I can for my rights. It was apparent to me even then that no one else was going to do it for me.
When I see an end to religions that teach that men are made in the image of god (whose image does that leave me, do you think?) and promotes the dominance of men over women and a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing me wage parity, I’ll be inclined to have some sympathy. Until then, not so much.
wrong. I hate Colin Powell. He’s a stooge who sold himself to the neocons back in his Iran Contra glory days before even he was a general.
IMS, Clemente was from Puerto Rico, not the DR.
If YOU were intelligent, you’d get your facts straight before posting a load of crap.
The simple fact is that a Latino (Latina is the feminine form) is someone whose ancestry (which is the main basis of HERITAGE) is from LATIN America (the area is called Latinoamérica in Spanish) and it’s THAT distinction which prevents people from Spain or Portugal being included as “Latinos” (they ARE designated as “Hispanic”* but NOT Latino).
The only people who’ve been trying to “destroy the USA” are the narrow-minded bigots who’ve been in charge of the GOP for the last 20 years or so. If you’re so upset about “racist/sexist things about white males” tell that fatass Rush Limbaugh to quit HIS racist/sexist comments about anyone who’s not a white male. Don’t give that shit about “Limbaugh’s just an entertainer”. He uses his “entertainment program” to spout off on political and social issues and has no problem with offensive comments about people with whom he disagrees. I still haven’t forgiven Limbaugh for all his “feminazi” comments in the 1990s nor his offensive comments about Chelsea Clinton (that even many in the GOP condemned).
As to la raza’s meaning being “racist”, you’re an idiot. Yes, the word is actually Spanish for “race” but it’s no more racist in intent than the “National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People” is a “racist” organziation. The term can be traced back nearly a century to a Mexican writer, José Vasconcelos, whose book La Raza Cósmica described the eventual “race” produced by the racial mixing that was already underway in the Hispanic world.
Again I advise you to learn before spouting off your blatantly anti-Hispanic rhetoric.
*Most people who trace their recent history to Portugal prefer to be called “Iberian” rather than “Hispanic” when lumped in with Spaniards. Also, most Brazilians don’t mind being lumped in as “Latino” but do object to “Hispanic” (since the latter term, in terms of geography, is restricted to Spanish-speaking regions while the main language of Brazil is Portuguese).
This is maybe out of subject, but I think for everybody’s sake, please read this article from; canadafreepress.com. TEA PARTY PROTESTER VISITED BY JOIN TERRORISM TASK FORCE OF THE FBI, posted, May 27,2009
Lisa, that is off-topic, and must be reserved for open threads or relevant posts. You can use any of our radio show announcements as an open thread.
Suddenly right wingers are concerned about people’s rights?
Today it is tea party people, tomorrow it may well be posters on KOS. It isn’t the opinions of the protesters… it is that little people are arrogant enough to have public opinions at all. Remember the Internet as it is today, it probably doesn’t get any better than this.
That’s what us liberals have been saying for years. I just think it’s funny that now that they’re finally out of power – they suddenly care about people’s rights. Humorous indeed!
I certainly believe in freedom of speech, no matter what. Even for neo nazis and the like. I think you should always err on the side of civil liberties.
I have been a republican forever. But, I came by it honestly. I was in high school for the Iran hostage crisis, and I remember where we were under Jimmy Carter. 21.5% prime interest rate, buying gas on numbered days according to your license plate and registering for the draft right after high school. So, what I remember most is Reagan saving the day, he was what I think republicans ought to be about. I am but a RINO now, still holding their card, but with no intention of ever using it again at this time. If republicans had PUMA’s I guess I might be one. But somehow, I think being a republican precludes you in some way. But maybe you haven’t been talking to regular folk republicans. Most aren’t republican because they think like Rush Limbaugh. Most are there because they find the radical left distasteful, if not outright unsettling. Most aren’t rich either, most are just doing the best they can by their families. A lot are religious sure, but for me I believe in GOD, but have absolutely no faith at all in religion. But everybody I know who is republican believes deeply in freedom. I think freedom is the real glue of the party. Maybe that is why Bush fractured it so badly.
Larry: what is this world coming to? Maddog is a hate merchant. A perfect soulmate to Rush. You use Maddog to prove that this person is a moderate? Suddenly I am suspicous. First, too much ado about nothing. Now this.
First of all this is not Larry’s post. Second of all comparing Rachel Maddow to Rush Limbaugh is absolutely ridiculous. Maddow is actually one of the few people on either side who argues in rational logical ways and who doesn’t talk over her guests. She should be celebrated as an example of what a talking head on the mainstream news can be.
wow, really? she’s fair and rational?
she jumped onto the “hillary wants obama assassinated” band wagon.
I call that NUTTY.
She also was delighted to smear Sarah Palin with pure lies and act like an ugly sexist frat boy.
i can’t stand the woman.
Speaking of Maddow, you really need to cover this MORE IMPORTANT CLIP regarding Obama’s plan to create a category of “Prolonged Detention” for terror suspects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY
Sorry, but this Supreme Court nomination leaves me cold; I can’t get behind anything Obama does and 5 articles on it here are MORE than enough. Obama’s busy stripping away our civil rights…I really don’t care about some wishy washy judicial pick of his, meant to throw a bone to women and minorities.
Nicely said
The meat is for their Wednesday soirees not for the little people.
caught in spam filter, please release me!
You’ve been released!
Have you heard Biden latest Gaffe, He was out giving a speech and the wind knocked down the teleprompter. He came out and said, what will I tell the Pres. that his teleprompter broke, what is he going to do now. Then there was laughter from the crowd. LOL
Vice President Biden is about to find out how well his boss can take a joke.
The vice president razzed the commander-in-chief Wednesday while speaking at the Air Force Academy commencement ceremony in Colorado, poking fun at President Obama’s known affinity for his Teleprompter.
Biden made the crack about Obama’s crutch after a strong gust of wind blew over one of the vice president’s Teleprompters. Biden was talking about Colorado’s thin air at the time and when he heard the crash, he added, “and the strong winds.”
Biden Teases Obama Over Teleprompter Dependence, After Mishap:
Then he said: “What am I gonna tell the president when I tell him his Teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?”
The crowd laughed at the joke made at the expense of the absent president, who was in Las Vegas at the time.
Presumably, that line was not on the Teleprompter.
Luckily for Biden, one Teleprompter was still standing and the mishap was toward the end of his remarks. He recovered and thanked the cadets for their service to their country.
Oh, my goodness! Didn’t Biden get the memo way back when? The one entitled, “It is unacceptable to make fun of Obama. He might cry or something!” It seems Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, to name a few, got that memo and tried to report how “flawless” Obama is and that is why they could find nothing to make fun of.
I think Biden and I could hang out at the bar together. I make fun of Obama all the time, too.
I would like to see Obama dump Biden and pick Hillary as VP now. Then Bill can see to it that some nasty documents proving Obama isn’t a natural born citizen and finally, a serious wrong is made right.
Stewart actually makes fun of Obama reasonably often. For example the routine where he plays Obama saying things just like what Bush said. That’s not a light jab either if you think about it. That’s pretty harsh because it’s basically a “joke” making note of how similar some of Obama’s rhetoric is to Bush’s. That’s not a good thing.
Here’s the problem with Stewart (who I really used to like by the way) — we peasants out here at NQ knew Obama was a lot more like Bush than anyone wanted to believe. You can certainly go back to the archives and read all these stories for yourself. I can assure you, if I and others like me figured this out over a year ago — Stewart knew it too. But he chose instaed to pander to his audience instead of calling it THEN like I am sure he saw it then.
So nice of him to find his lung power now, after Pr. Obama has been elected and has conveniently backtracked and reneged on his campaign promises.
Um… nah. I don’t see it anything close to that. I see it as the corporate Democratic party is much like the Republican party. This isn’t about Obama vs. Clinton – I think she’d be doing almost the exact same things he is doing. It’s about the fact that there is no real liberal party in America. Just a conservative one (the Democratic party) and a really conservative one (Reublicans) to choose from.
Empathy isn’t just for Conservatives.
All those people (Limbaugh, Beck et al) calling Sotomayor a “racist” because of a quote she made years ago that’s been taken out of context are in for surprise.
Alito said something VERY similar and even more telling. What’s Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity going to make of Alito’s statements?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/
Alito’s explanation as follows explains it all.
He and all the other Justices have to follow the law and uphold the Constitution, not their hearts, and backgrounds. Just as Sotomayor will have to do if she is confirmed. Empathy is not part of the Judiciary.
Sotomayor has also stated that her duty is to uphold the law.
She’s being berated in some corners because of a comment she made regarding her life experience as a female and a Latina that she brings with her. Alito made similar statements regarding his Italian grandfather and how that affects his views when dealing with immigrants in a courtroom
The joke could work two ways. Those that dislike Obama will read it as recognition that dear leader is thought impaired without TOTUS. Those that like Obama will twist it into dear leader is a regular guy.
Gaffe? Hardly. I think Biden has been letting America know the truth about Obama all along.
Dear Leader is indeed a ZERO
I don’t have a strong opinion about Sotomayor yet but I would think the so-called Left would be mad as hell! I am glad to see a woman and a Latina nominated but I think Axelrod picked her solely to tie up the Hispanic vote….
This is what I’ve read:
She has taken some weird stances when it comes to religion: (upholding a ruling to allow a religious monument in a town square)
Abortion rights: she ruled AGAINST abortion rights activists who were against the Mexico City rule that forbids countries that accept US funds to promote or perform abortions
the left should like one I disagree with:
invalidating a fireman’s promotion test in New Haven CT because no minorities passed it and only whites qualified for promotion
“invalidating a fireman’s promotion test in New Haven CT because no minorities passed it and only whites qualified for promotion”
that is actually taken out of context. the ruling was on the town being able to make their own law. conservatives should like that one actually!
I suppose there is a coincidence that Obama made this announcement right around the same time the Korean Missile launch was beginning to dominate the news cycle. Obama would rather for the MSM and the American citizens to debate his supreme court pick than to focus on his laughable and weak response to the foreign affair issue. This is a convenient distraction and as usual the MSM and the people fall for it every time.
My gut feelings tells me that within due time a lot of ground is going to be made on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to become President. If they can’t get him on the citizenship issue, it would not surprise me at all if ground is made on the allegations of voter fraud and illegal campaign contributions, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if evidence began to be leaked to the MSM.
Obama will become more vulnerable if the economy continues to sink (personally I think it will). However, if things make a steady change for the better then it will make it that much harder for his opponents to bring him down. My view is that this debate of the SC appointment is a convenient distraction. Personally, I truly hope this lady does her homework. Because if any evidence come up that shows that Obama is constitutionally ineligible OR if he won by defrauding then any appts he make can be reversed. I know some of you may think I am talking crazy but my gut is telling me that in due time the s#it is going to hit the fans!!
IMHO, yes – you are talking crazy. and if you wouldn’t be surprised by any of that crazyness happening then you are going to be awfully surprised by reality! because you don’t seem to be living there currently.
As far as a distraction from North Korea? Are you kidding? What? I don’t think people really care that much about that anyway. They’ve tested nukes before.
Somebody needs to care. It isn’t about the nukes, it is about China. Or have we forgot they are lending us the 2 trillion for
ACORN plushope and change. N. Korea wants to come between the U.S. and China to further impact our economy.I don’t like being manipulated. Listening to the glowing reports about Sotomayor is becoming creapy. Obama and his gang of thugs don’t do anything without getting something out of it for themselves. I’m glad it’s a woman nominee but couldn’t give a hoot about whether she’s hispanic. We refer to this country as a melting pot, but continually categorize people according to their ethnic backgrounds. We have hundreds of ethnicities in this country, why should one be prized over another? As a nation of immigrants, we should herald the person, not the ethnic background! This is becoming such a circus – it’s a damn shame.
After fully digesting the comments that Sonia made about white males and the obvious fact that Obama chose this candidate based on Race I’m having a hard time accepting especially when I know down the road that my rights may be violated.
However, I will continue to support Sonia because I believe as Docelder said yesterday that Obama actually wants Kagen who is an intellectual giant and could have greater success at fundamentally changing the constitution.
Even though Sonia has admitted that she rules in favor of race and gender the process that she is about to go through will insure that race is never a big factor in her future decisions.
I also believe that she is a good woman with a big heart and will further the causes of women and the issues special to women.
I will ignore the comments she said about me and give my tentative thumbs up..
Wow, am I on the wrong site? Is this site going the way of Taylor Marsh’s and drinking the Obama kool-ade? Twice in one day – citing Media Matters and now MSNBC and Rachel Maddow. Where are we, Toto?
I know I’ve seen a lot of Obama hate here but I think in the end people get over that sort of party squabble (Obama vs. Clinton) and get back to what really matters – the issues. If you supported Clinton then it should have been because she was a liberal. It should have been cause of her positions. If those were the reasons then you want a liberal agenda (which should be Obama if we can keep on his ass and make him perform) to succeed. That’s what really matters after all. The rest is just personalities. What I really care about are the issues, not the politicians.
I used to be the biggest liberal in town. That’s before the money ran out and we see a capitulation of american power in the world along with class warfare.
I’m glad Hillary came out today and said that we will protect Japan and S Korea.
I supported Hillary because she is a pragmatist and not an ideologue and like myself was a republican before becoming a democrat.
Obama has shown the world that he is weak which I have known would happen since he started his campaign.
Conditions have changed…We need to be steadfast in our foreign policy and be proud and not apologize to anyone.
We simply cannot keep printing money without the real prospect of hyper inflation and the destruction of american society.
That is why I’m a right of center independent now.
If you really care about the issues, then as you have been stating in your many posts above, you are pissed that Obama is renenging on his campaign promises and looking more like Bush every day. I sincerely do not believe Hillary would have done this — she always ran as the general election candidate and would not have had to shift all her positions from the primary to the general as Obama did. That, my dear, is why we don’t “get over it.” And no, this is not a pro-Obama site. We have too much evidence of his actions. This is not about a liberal agenda — I don’t know what the hell Obama’s agenda truly is. I never did — his positions changed as often as his socks.
Well – I’m not pleased with everything Obama is doing – that is for sure. But I do think it’s important to try to look at things realistically. What is the pragmatic way in politics to move forward? I think that’s the way he looks at things. It’s not sort of that idealistic way.
I’m not an Obama guy – I supported Kucinich. But when it comes down to it in the general election we don’t have much choice. We get two corporate candidates each time – the question is which one is more on our side and I do believe that’s the Democrats. Are they perfect? Far from it. But sadly in our corrupt 2 party system they are the only game in town because the Republicans are absolutely scary insane and not even worth consideration in my view.
His agenda is reparations. Listen to Rev. Wright, Flager & Farrakhan.
It is certainly not economic growth to lift all boats.
Kagen could end up replacing Ginsberg.
—
I think you are horribly misreading her comments re: race. Please look at the whole thing in context. She never said anything negative about white males. Again – please read the entire comment in context. You will see what she is actually saying is that she hopes to not let her own personal experience overcome her judicial sense. She said that she always strives to try to understand other people’s experience, not just her own. That’s exactly what Obama was talking about with empathy. Everyone’s background influences their decisions. That’s obvious. Samuel Alito said something similar. What she said is that she must try to overcome that. It’s actually the opposite of what people are accusing her of. That’s what makes these attacks so sad. They are so way off base.
That so many people can accuse this woman of being a “racist” because they misread her quote is just really disturbing to me. People should look a bit more deeply at things before making such accusations.
I will take another look…
Hopefully, by the time Ginsburg goes, Barack will have squandered most of his political capital and won’t be able to “tube feed” Kagan on us. I think Kagan is largely an unknown entity, and is a potential lightning rod. She is an academic, and that doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy to be honest. I would rather see a real person who has years of experience dealing with real people and not books and theory. Also, as somebody commented yesterday, the next justice should be from a western college… maybe Stanford, maybe SMU i.e. somewhere except Harvard or Yale. Diversity goes way past race and gender, in fact this is probably every bit as important a consideration.
I don’t know if I can agree with your point of view. Voting for somebody, just because is a women or men,is just very subjective. I always will vote for somebody by merit, fairness, experience. I voted for Hillary, not because she was a women. I voted for her, because she was the most qualified, intelligent, experienced. I admired her tenanciousness and determination to fight until the end. For SCOTUS, the one choosen has to respect the Constitution, the Law, no matter what. Justice is blind for any gender, race, religion and has to stay in that way.
I hold my judgment on Judge Sotomayor.
My thing is – Who care what RM has been given to program us with? She has become nothing but a corporate media whore who spreads propaganda because she is a money grubbing whore.
Using the word “whore” to describe Rachel Maddow is distasteful to say the least.
I don’t watch msnbc because of the misogyny of their pundits. I’m really surprised to see them being linked on a pro-Hillary PUMA site.
Also, why is it important or worthy of mention that someone is Hispanic? What about those who are of Polish or Irish descent? I don’t get it. I thought we were all Americans. Hispanic is not a race, it’s a cultural heritage.
AG Holder called us a Nation of Cowards for not dicussing racial issues openly. Now we are debating Judge Sotomayor Judicial record and they are calling us racist. Who now make up this nation of coward mantra. Gone are the days wqhen Justice and Judges are supose to be blind folded.
In the era of Judge Sotomayor, Latinas make better decisions than white males. Roberts Gibbs issued a warning to her critics and the leftwing wants her to sail right up to the SCOTUS. Looks like the racial comments are not coming from the conservatives but from the Judge herself and her advocates.