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.
To approve a SCJ candidate,the Senate needs 50 Sen votes + the VP vote
or 60 Sen votes..?
It depends on whether those Republicans who were so wedded to "every nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote" when Bush was in office decide to filibuster.
(1) He gets a liberal on the court. That's an obvious one
But I think, that he deliberately picked her, because he knows that the far right will hate her, because she's Jewish and a lesbian. And the Far left, being also anti Semitic and Anti Israel, and their concern with the far right about there being "too much Jewish influence".... So basically, there will be more hatred towards Jews, and then Obama can justify anti Israel policies.
Get people to be mad at Jews, you can punish Israel. Yet still have a liberal who otherwise supports your agenda..
The term "lesbian " is wrong...
It belongs to the classical grecoroman culture,which is a racist ,fascist,sexist culture.
A barbaric anachronism.
No greek or roman terms should be used,they are politically incorrect.
The L term is also historically wrong,the woman poet who symbolised "lesbianism " was actually a bisexual who commited suicide for the sake of a man lover...
Also the L term per se is a geographical term,meaning origin from the island of Lesbos...
So,the L word is historically,geographically ,culturally & politically wrong...
The proper term is homosexual or homo or d*ke...
I am sick of seeing you post these hateful labels for homosexuals on these discussions. You couldn't do any more to demonstrate that you have no interest in having a civil discussion.
That wasn't a bigoted remark, it was just an encouragement to other latina women that they could make it too. That they shouldn't let the fact they are latina hold them back.
Nice spin, that is not what she said, and she was on tape many times stating the same thing over and over.
What she said, in her 2001 Berkeley speech was, "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."
In the meantime, I wonder how many of their members are currently searching the ads at RentBoy.com.
Of course she is gay. Unless she is someone who has patterned her life based on her sexuality, it is somewhat irrelevent. I could care less whether she is gay or not. I am more concerned with her marxist views.
Listen up, people. She is not being elected as a representative. Her job is not to represent a set of constituents; her job will be to interpret the Constitution as fairly and consistently as possible. That interpretation will be made with respect to all Americans of all backgrounds, beliefs, opinions, and experiences. Not the majority of Americans, but all Americans. The Supreme Court is not intended to serve a specific demographic or the current status quo of thinking; the institution is intended to interpret Constitutional law in a way that is consistent across every segment of America over all periods of time.
Furthermore, given that we don't want to place our Constitutional future on one individual's interpretation, there will be others in the Supreme Court to counterbalance her. The overall point is that it is good to have a variety of Americans in the Supreme Court who are all highly qualified as opposed to one set of people who all think exactly the same way.
If an associate justices job is to "interpret the Constitution as fairly and consistently as possible" then it sure would be nice to see some written opinions, books or op-ed articles she has written in news journals about the constitution. At least if she did not practice law, we might be able to see how she has viewed the US Constitution in the past.
The possibility that she was discussing theoretical Constitutional law among her colleagues in Harvard is not going to suffice.
If an associate justices job is to "interpret the Constitution as fairly and consistently as possible" then it sure would be nice to see some written opinions, books or op-ed articles she has written in news journals about the constitution. At least if she did not practice law, we might be able to see how she has viewed the US Constitution in the past.
The possibility that she was discussing theoretical Constitutional law among her colleagues in Harvard is not going to suffice.
Perhaps someone can locate the exams she wrote for the courses she taught? If she taught conlaw, you can see what issues she deems important by what she tested on..
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.
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.
