Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2009, 09:36 AM
 
3,555 posts, read 7,836,960 times
Reputation: 2346

Advertisements

USNret wrote;
Quote:
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination.
Uh, NO! But I realize that this has been such a talking point for the right that it's become "fact" over the years. Estrada was opposed by a lot of groups, for a variety of reasons. Among the reasons;

He had a very anti-individual, pro-business tilt to his ideas and in the way he answered questions.

He still espoused "anti-loitering" laws, even after they had been struck down by the SCOTUS.

He opined that citizen's groups should not have the right to constitutionally challenge laws.

He thought that we should "try out" new laws for awhile and "see how things work" before trying to overturn them.

He thought that once the Chicago City Council passed an an anti-loitering law that no one had the right to challenge it.

So, how would that anti-loitering law have worked out for the "tea parties"?

Quote:
They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.
No, Bush could have appointed another (to use your laughable term) "first-rate Hispanic" in the person of Alberto Gonzales. Except that the right wing of the Republican party did not think Gonzales was "politically reliable", in other words, they didn't trust him on Abortion! Of course by tipping their hand that they only planned on leaving Estrada on the DC appellate court until another SC seat opened up may have been a bit of a miscalculation. Had he put "Gonzo" in the seat and then elevated him, we might today be witnessing the first impeachment of a SC Justice since ??? Given Gonzales' penchant for lying and "not remembering" under oath.

And the whole thing about Estrada having a "compelling life story" is laughable. A rich kid from any country, who goes to the best private schools, learns English as a second language, is poltically tied in and then "makes it" in the Republican corporate/legal world is not "compelling". No more than GW Bush's business "success" is when boosted by his family's friends and supporters.

golfgod
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2009, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
3,770 posts, read 4,973,597 times
Reputation: 1823
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
First of all, Sotomayor will get the nod and become the next justice, so there is no need for the left to worry about that.

Second, every nominee goes through the same grilling as Sotomayor. The dems were much harsher on most of Bush's nominations. Does Robert Bork ring a bell? (Regan Admin).

Judge Sotomayor's case law decisions, as well as her public speeches indicate that she is an "activist" judge who considers the U.S.Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law as living, conditional documents subject to her own personal "ethnic" interpetation and jurisprudence.

If a moderate or conservative Supreme Court nominee would have espoused such rhetoric or comments, they would have been skewered by the Left and liberal MSM before ever reaching the senate comfirmation hearings.

Your speaking to a man that understand what I see, hear and even smell.

And this smells Fishy!

I feel the very same way about Clarence Thomas he is a "activist" judge also.

Why subject her the way they did and not vote for her? If the Repubs had the majority of votes in the House, She (Sotomayor) would have never been elected to the Supreme court.

Me and few other Hispanics will remember this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,886 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post

I agree that what Sotomayor said in speeches is irrelevant versus her record of how she ruled over time as the reason for voting her up or down but I also think that same principle should be applied to candidates running for President. It's irrelevant what he said in speeches, people should have voted for or against Obama based solely on his history.
I did.

Senator Barack Obama oversees ethics overhaul
Senate Passes Coburn-Obama Bill to Create Internet Database of Federal Spending
Judge Him by His Laws
Obama, Lugar Secure Funding for Implementation of Nonproliferation Law (http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019 - broken link)
Senate Passes Obama-Hagel Provision Aimed at Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
Quote:
. . .[Senator Obama] introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Just because you didn't bother to actually examine his record, doesn't mean no one else did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Which just proves you know diddly squat about that case or the ruling that the appeals panel made, and why. They were strictly adhering to the law and following precedent. The Supremes just made new law with their ruling. The appeals court isn't allowed to do that. They don't get to "legislate from the bench". Total fail on your part.

Last edited by Jill61; 07-29-2009 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:35 AM
 
4,657 posts, read 8,697,997 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinion View Post
This is different.

In my Opinion this is politically driven. Sotomayor is thee best canindate for this positions. The Repubs are trying to throw a wrench into anything Obama decides on!

Basically Sotomayor is in the middle of a fight between 2 parties.

Why not vote for the best canidate, they couldn't dispute her history!

Do you know how many racist insulting statements Republican sentators have made recently? It's like they can say what they want and get away with it.
Such as? Why aren't you upset at Sotomayor's racist bigoted views?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:50 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,405,802 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
I did.

Senator Barack Obama oversees ethics overhaul
Senate Passes Coburn-Obama Bill to Create Internet Database of Federal Spending
Judge Him by His Laws
Obama, Lugar Secure Funding for Implementation of Nonproliferation Law (http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019 - broken link)
Senate Passes Obama-Hagel Provision Aimed at Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype Just because you didn't bother to actually examine his record, doesn't mean no one else did. Which just proves you know diddly squat about that case or the ruling that the appeals panel made, and why. They were strictly adhering to the law and following precedent. The Supremes just made new law with their ruling. The appeals court isn't allowed to do that. They don't get to "legislate from the bench". Total fail on your part.
No, you just proved you have zero understanding that race, creed, nationality..etc have absolutely no ability to be injected into a ruling. It's the law ya know... or maybe ya don't. *shrugz shoulders* Government employees are especially sensitive, in most cases, to this FACT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,886 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post

No, you just proved you have zero understanding that race, creed, nationality..etc have absolutely no ability to be injected into a ruling. It's the law ya know... or maybe ya don't. *shrugz shoulders* Government employees are especially sensitive, in most cases, to this FACT.
Truly, your intellect is dizzying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 11:02 AM
 
6,022 posts, read 7,816,330 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Lindsey Graham is a RINO because he said that Ron Paul does not represent the Republican party.

The left like Graham because he, like SotoMayor, is a racist. Plus,
1.he represents WAR just like Obama does.
1.so you dont like president bush either i suppose?
2.there are plenty ohter republican conservatives who says ron paul does not have their views why is that, why is ron paul declared a radical by prominent republicans(conservatives and many moderate ones)

3.so all in all anyone who disagrees with ron paul is a rino right, and that mean most republicans are rinos by a large %..

if parties are ran by ideas(liberal, conservative/specific wings(left right middle) how can a party itself have an idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 11:05 AM
 
6,022 posts, read 7,816,330 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04
First of all, Sotomayor will get the nod and become the next justice, so there is no need for the left to worry about that.

Second, every nominee goes through the same grilling as Sotomayor. The dems were much harsher on most of Bush's nominations. Does Robert Bork ring a bell? (Regan Admin).

Judge Sotomayor's case law decisions, as well as her public speeches indicate that she is an "activist" judge who considers the U.S.Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law as living, conditional documents subject to her own personal "ethnic" interpetation and jurisprudence.

If a moderate or conservative Supreme Court nominee would have espoused such rhetoric or comments, they would have been skewered by the Left and liberal MSM before ever reaching the senate comfirmation hearings.
liberals and the left? liberals are the left do u even know what u are talking about?
are u implying democrats are left, do the middle and right of center democrats not count as democrats?

dumbing down of american politics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
3,770 posts, read 4,973,597 times
Reputation: 1823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrise View Post
Such as? Why aren't you upset at Sotomayor's racist bigoted views?
The speech was figurative!

She retracted her comments. She didn't mean to say that she is smarter than White men. (case closed)

Your cohorts have said some racist comments recently. Where you upset with those bigoted views?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 11:14 AM
 
6,022 posts, read 7,816,330 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinion View Post
The speech was figurative!

Your cohorts have said some racist comments recently. Where you upset with those bigoted views?
of course he/she wasnt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top