See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 13th, 2009 at 4:12 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

   G’ Morning Michelle. I guess I am not the only one that woke up early and could not get back to sleep! Or have you been up all night?

   Let’s hope we see some backbone from our leaders today and that they ask questions that will expose Sotomayor for what she is – a bigot with an agenda.

2. #2
   On July 13th, 2009 at 5:40 am, graysonret said:

   We’ll get gavel-to-gavel coverage this morning

   Don’t watch too much of that, Michelle; not without plenty of Pepto-Bismol. You may need it.

3. #3
   On July 13th, 2009 at 6:27 am, MrOlympia said:

   I sure wish they would treat her the way Democrats have treated Republican nominees. BORK her!! However I know that is not going to happen.

   She is not a healthy Latina woman as she has had diabetes, a horrible disease, for like 46 years. She won’t serve for a long time, if approved.

4. #4
   On July 13th, 2009 at 6:29 am, zorro said:

   Great primer, Michelle. I think today’s proceedings will be more like a Three Ring Circus. Pray for our country.

5. #5
   On July 13th, 2009 at 6:30 am, 8 My Foot said:

   Why even bother. She’s in, no matter what happens.

6. #6
   On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said:

   According to US Census and other projections, the Hispanic population will triple in the next thirty years. Even if we limit immigration (highly unlikely), Hispanics’ population share will still increase because they have a much higher birth rates than the overall population. The dominance of White people who made 85% of the population in 1960, will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than 50% in 2042. In the opposite trajectory, Hispanic, Black and Asian people will increase in proportion to become majority by 2040. The ethnic and racial profile of this country is also quickly changing because of higher rate of inter-marriages. More and more Americans are getting married to foreigners or someone outside their race/faith. One of my best friends, got married last year to a man from Pakistan and he just got his US immigration visa. The shift in majority status will have profound implications, it’ll prompt a sea-change in the country’s understanding of its politics and culture. It’s already reshaping the electoral landscape. Expect more Hispanics getting more prominent jobs (both governmental and also in private sector). Nothing will stop this trend and the election of President Barack H. Obama and the upcoming nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor are part of this trend. In the near future (whether you like it or not) Spanish will overtake English in the US as the most frequently spoken language (that’s what statistics say). I just came back from a short trip to Miami and in S. Florida, there are far more Spanish speakers than English speakers.

7. #7
   On July 13th, 2009 at 6:56 am, Socky said:

   Um, I’m a recently diagnosed diabetic. I CAN HAS SUPREME COURT JOB?

   Wouldn’t you love to see Frank Ricci ask Sotomayor, “Would do you believe I am not entitled to Justice?”

8. #8
   On July 13th, 2009 at 7:21 am, pokenhorn said:

   Sotomayor will be a disaster for ordinary white males. It is impossible now to get fair treatment with the victim entitlement mentality that has been nurtured by the Democrat party. What do these racial auditors think when they look at the professional basketball and football leagues? Plainly, there are real differences between groups. The great discoveries in Math and Science have been made almost entirely by white males. If we accept the tenets of Sotomayor, we must live a lie. But, we have been doing that for 40 years.

9. #9
   On July 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am, jangar said:

   edelweiss said:

   What does that have to do with anything? She is still unqualified for SOTUS (but would make a fine latino defense lawyer with the ACLU).

10. #10
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:07 am, zyzzyg said:

    My concern is that too many Senators will love the sound of their own voices and not ask enough questions of Judge Stomayor, and/or allow her time to answer them.

11. #11
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:08 am, jjmurphy said:

    “We accept tough questions. But what we are going to object to are questions that misrepresent the judge or that distort her record.”

    LOL! We “accept tough questions”, BUT YOU BETTER NOT ASK ANY if you know what’s good for ya!

12. #12
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:08 am, Ragspierre said:

    edelwuss = racist

    Typical liberal, can only think in terms of racial groups.

    Sotomayor is a judicial train-wreck. She, too, is an avowed racist (like her Presidential sponsor), and an avowed sexist. She detests the Constitution. She is a lock-step collectivist.

    THE ONE chose just who he wants on the Court. The Senate will, most likely, give him what he wanted. Again.

13. #13
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:10 am, jbh45 said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said:

    What, you live in a cave somewhere? There are sections of major cities throughout the country (I happen to live in LA) where you cannot read a street sign unless you happen to speak spanish, chinese, vietnamese, persian…etc. Get with the program. Its already here. Geez.

    Its not about her “ethnicity” its about the politicizing of her rulings. She is not fit for SCOTUS because she has an obvious agenda and would not show objectivity in applying the law to a given case.

14. #14
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:26 am, tiredofit08 said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 5:40 am, graysonret said:

    We’ll get gavel-to-gavel coverage this morning

    Don’t watch too much of that, Michelle; not without plenty of Pepto-Bismol. You may need it.

    that and a few chill pills!! Let’s all hope that both sides are open and honest and question this candidate on her past decisions as a judge…Her personal story shouldn’t be the focus…her record is…her 60% overturn rate is horrible and would get her fired in most jobs…unfortunately there are 12 dimocraps and only 8 repubs

15. #15
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:28 am, granite said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said:

    Nothing helpful.

    One of my best friends, got married last year to a man from Pakistan and he just got his US immigration visa.

    For her sake, and for our country’s, we should hope that your friend married the exception, rather than the rule, from Pakistan. Speaking strictly in probabilities – and, let’s face it, stereotypes exist for a reason – let’s see how that situation has worked for your likely foolish friend in the next 5-10 years.

16. #16
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:28 am, ajmontana said:

    We’ll get gavel-to-gavel coverage this morning on all major networks and CSPAN starting at 10am Eastern.

    I’m waiting for the movie….
    Westminster Dog Show vs. the Kentucky Derby.
    This Dog and Pony Show is sure to disappoint.

17. #17
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am, John Deaux said:

    As usual, the trolls see only race where substance is the issue.

18. #18
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:34 am, babiesgrandma said:

    tiredofit08 said: Let’s all hope that both sides are open and honest and question this candidate on her past decisions as a judge…

    HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! That’s funny — open and honest.

    Someone will have to watch the farce called “hearings” for me – I don’t have the stomach for this anymore.

19. #19
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am, jjmurphy said:

    Why all the jumping all over edelweiss for the comment above? I saw nothing wrong with it. It looked like pretty much common sense as far as demographics are concerned.

    The racist tag is flung around today WAY TOO EASILY. Mostly to try and silence someone you don’t agree with rather than argue the facts. And I know you guys are VERY capable of excellent arguments.

20. #20
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:37 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    edelweiss, I am not sure what your point is. As far as I know the Constitution does not demand nor contemplate a static population mix. It does, however, contemplate a separation of powers between the Judicial and other branches of the government. Sotomayor is a bigot with an agenda and she will, if given the chance, legislate her agenda from the bench. I see that as not only wrong but very very dangerous. Do you think legislating from the bench is good?

    BTW, I meet your profile of the emerging American demographic. I speak two languages, am in a “mixed” marriage and respect other cultures. That does not change my respect for the Constitution and separation of powers.

21. #21
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am, WrathOfKhan said:

    23 “no” votes signals a protest??? You think tea party people are going to be happy with a protest vote if Sotomayor is confirmed??? Not one average American can tell you how many votes Roberts received for or against. All they know (if they even do) is the outcome: Roberts on the bench. This is another reason why people should stop supporting Republicans: they are only interested in the political tug-of-war with the Dems. Start supporting and voting libertarian.

22. #22
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:50 am, jjmurphy said:

    For the record, I do not care if a person is white, black, red, pink, blue, orange, magenta, worships the planet Jupiter, or whatever. What I care about is whether they believe in freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If they do, they are fine with me.

    I would gladly trade any of our home-grown collectivists for an “American born in the wrong country” regardless of where that is.

23. #23
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am, Ragspierre said:

    granite: Speaking strictly in probabilities – and, let’s face it, stereotypes exist for a reason – let’s see how that situation has worked for your likely foolish friend in the next 5-10 years.

    Yep, my experience, too. I wish poor edelwuss’s buddy well, but the odds are long. I know some fine folks from that part of the world, but very few successful marriages between Westerner and Pakistani.

    jjmurphy: Why all the jumping all over edelweiss for the comment above? I saw nothing wrong with it.

    Others (me included) did. That’s why.

24. #24
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:54 am, jangar said:

    Mostly to try and silence someone you don’t agree with rather than argue the facts

    FACT: 60% overturn rate.
    FACT: The Constitution does not provide for a SOTUS judge to be racially sensitive, but to apply the law without bias.
    FACT: She gets poor peer reviews.

    Not a good resume for anyone applying for any job.

25. #25
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:57 am, jjmurphy said:

    Rags –
    

    edelwuss = racist

    You usually have much better arguments. Calling someone a racist should be followed by your reasoning. I have no idea if edelweiss is a racist or not. I saw a post about demographics. Big whoop.

26. #26
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am, jjmurphy said:

    FACT: 60% overturn rate.
    FACT: The Constitution does not provide for a SOTUS judge to be racially sensitive, but to apply the law without bias.
    FACT: She gets poor peer reviews.

    Not a good resume for anyone applying for any job.

    Jangar – Read my post. I was talking about edelweiss’ post, not Sotomayor AT ALL. I think Sotomayor is a disaster and not qualified for the SCOTUS.

27. #27
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am, jangar said:

    Jangar – Read my post

    I did. # 21 saw cool, but #19 left me hanging.

28. #28
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am, jangar said:

    saw = was…sorry.

29. #29
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am, Jeff said:

    Out here in Arizona, they do not consider her a REAL hispanic as, apparently Mexico is the ONLY country with hispanic heritage.
    

30. #30
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am, Ragspierre said:

    You usually have much better arguments.

    Thank you.

    I also make statements, not requiring argument for support.

31. #31
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am, sonofdy said:

    will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than 50% in 2042

    SWEET. Affirmative action jobs for whites!!!

32. #32
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:15 am, Ragspierre said:

    apparently Mexico is the ONLY country with hispanic heritage

    Yep. It’s a 20th Century joke term. Are Brazilians, for instance, “Hispanic”? Cubans? Why not, then, Jamaicans? I could go on, but have work to do.

33. #33
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:21 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Latinos are putting conservatives “on notice” and will watch Republicans “like hawks.”

    At least ONE LATINO will be watching Republicans “Like a Hawk” and demand they call this Wise Latina Women on her racist, Leftist views. Yes edelweiss this hispanic population is increasing…but Constitutional Law must still be defended and this Leftist Loon makes no real pretense of doing so. Miguel Estrada was “hispanic” to enlighten our trolls.

    So edelweiss you are telling us the highly Balkanized Miami is the future? That is a future well worth fighting. Do they still have the Billboard “Welcome to Miami-Capitol of Latin America”? You might try East LA for a Latino Experience-I won’t as I would be spotted at a Norte Americano Marron and not treated well.

    Identity Politics and race baiting are indeed the tools of the fools of the Left-Sarajevo in every City edelweiss? Tell us Sophisticated and Enlightened edelweiss what are YOU doing for the old line Mexican Americans and blacks being chased out of East LA by these Hispanic Gangs? It is also happening in parts of Phoenix–so what are YOU going to do about it edelweiss?

    —

    The death of one is a tragedy–the death of millions is a statistic so keep your powder dry.

34. #34
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am, jsr said:

    Edelweiss: Following is demograhic profile of Potomac, Maryland your hometown:

    As of the census[5] of 2000, there were 44,822 people, 15,655 households, and 13,024 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 1,780.2/sq mi (687.3/km²). There were 15,960 housing units at an average density of 633.9/sq mi (244.7/km²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 79.46% White, 3.93% African America, 0.11% Native American, 13.37% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.90% from other races, and 2.22% from two or more races. Hispanic 5.38% of the population.

    Looks to me like you really don’t like being around all those brown skinned people that you eagerly anticipate being a majority. Better hang on to that Swiss passport because by 2042 you won’t be able to avoid them, even in your gated communities.

35. #35
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am, cheapseat said:

    what’s distressing is her willingness to continue to espouse and rule in the same way which has gotten her slapped down and overruled in the past. when every one keeps telling you 1 plus 1 does not equal 11, why do you keep insisting it does. mental defect?

36. #36
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am, Truesoldier said:

    But wait I thought Obama was going to move us past all this racial sepratism (/sarc).

    As for the attacks on Ricci, it reminds me of the way the media, and certain government officials, went after a certain plumber furing the election.

    Let’s see if the press will be complicite in this smear job as well. If they are it will be just one more nail in their coffin by the voters who are fed up with biased news.

37. #37
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am, jjmurphy said:

    Tempest in a teapot regarding edelweiss.

    Back to the reason for the post. Sotomayor will not be asked questions that should be asked about her beliefs on whether the Constitution is a living document, whether it is a limit on the federal government or what she thinks about various amendments, such as the 2nd amendment. Democrats won’t dare ask her these questions, and the Republicans will be afraid to.

38. #38
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am, Truesoldier said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said:
    Hispanics’ population share will still increase because they have a much higher birth rates than the overall population.

    Expect more Hispanics getting more prominent jobs (both governmental and also in private sector).

    So, you are saying the only way Hispanics can get more jobs is by having more numbers so that it is statisticaly possible not because they are better qualified? And liberals call us Conservatives bigots….

39. #39
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am, Marshall Russ said:

    Just one more I told you so about Obambi’s being moderate. There is nothing moderate about him and his appointments. This is a judicial disaster waiting to happen. And, just as the economy is beginning to be hung around Obambi’s neck so should this attempt to high jack the Constitution. This should be made more about Obambi than Sotomayor and the types of judges he will appoint in the future. This is a chance for Republicans to stand up for what the rule of law means. I am not hopeful based on what the Republicans have said so far. We’ll see.

40. #40
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am, Flyoverman said:

    All who question her have an obligation to measure the content of her character without regard to the color of her skin or her gender.

    It is too bad we do not have a Senator Joe Friday; “Just the facts maam.”

41. #41
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am, rooster said:

    If Sotomayer were conservative, she would have already withdrawn her nomination. There is no commitment to America’s values anymore by any elected vermin, demoncrat, or rino.

42. #42
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am, no2pcbs1 said:

    maldef supporting sotomayor should be more of a reason to dig even deeper. with the groups already making threats, is another indication the foul smell of racism is very much in play. my response to republicans would be to ask real questions and expect real answers, if these so called hispanic groups can’t handle the truth, the hell with them. giving in to these jerks will only enpower them and their demands will become even more idiotic and neverending. step on them like the cockroaches they are, they weren’t going to vote republican anyway.

43. #43
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am, swede said:

    Great op-ed by Barnett in the WSJ this a.m. “The Seinfeld Hearings”

    The questions will likely focus on precedent and Soto’s spast rulings, and will thus be a show about nothing, and with an absolutely predictable ending.

    The questions should be focussed instead on Sotomayor’s views on specific constitutional passages, which would actually reveal her philosophy of legislating from the bench.

    Don’t hold your breath.

44. #44
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am, DBNinKY said:

    Edelweiss: Nothing will stop this trend and the election of President Barack H. Obama and the upcoming nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor are part of this trend.

    It’s an outlier, not a trend; the result of a severe economic down-turn (which, despite the Dems’ and Obama’s promises, isn’t getting any better) and a populace scared witless into voting for the wrong party by the pro Dem/Obama media that hyped it.

    Perhaps you need to go back to stats class for refresher, if you’re still planning on that “med degree.”

45. #45
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am, backwoods conservative said:

    I tried to watch the C-Span stream, but Leahy’s bloviating and distorions were too much to take.

46. #46
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am, DBNinKY said:

    Ricci has leveled no personal attack on Sotomayor, and surely will not do so in his testimony.

    Sen Sessions said it best when he stated that empathy cannot be shown for one party without exacting discrimination against the other (paraphrased).

47. #47
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:23 am, conservativesRus said:

    Much speechmaking but only one important question – and I doubt it’ll be asked.
    What is the role of the constitution?
    (Questions such as Does it supersede “feelings”? or Is it superior to all other “legal” documents? or Does the constitution adhere to it’s original meaning or is it subject to change? – are all subsets of the original)
    Sotomayer has already answered these questions by her past rulings and her answers should give every sentator pause.
    Does it not occur to the senators on both sides that if “feelings” rule – then what if someday the “feeling” is against them and their position and the “remedy” is beheading?

48. #48
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am, conservativesRus said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said

    And exactly what did ANY of that have to do with whether Sotomayer is qualified for the Supreme Court?
    I can’t find a single qualification in any of that other than race.
    Just a question elelweiss – why are you bothering to go to school?

49. #49
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am, Southern Partisan said:

    Senator Sessions made us proud this morning.

50. #50
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am, misterbee241 said:

    Latinos are putting conservatives “on notice” and will watch Republicans “like hawks.”

    Yeah, and you know you dont have to watch the socialist democrats who are already in your back pocket and on your payroll.
    Unfortunately, this nomination process is a farce. The “wise Latina woman” will be confirmed and the Republicans wont do anything about it. They’ve already surrendered.

51. #51
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am, PhredE said:

    “Latinos are putting conservatives “on notice” and will watch Republicans “like hawks.” Estuardo V. Rodriguez, director of something called “Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary,” told ABC News: “We accept tough questions. But what we are going to object to are questions that misrepresent the judge or that distort her record.” (The group includes the pro-racial/ethnic preference Hispanic National Bar Association, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.)

    Translation: Be quiet about Ricci, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and the Wise Latina Woman remarks — or else!”

    Absolutely not! It is not infrequent that intensity of debate about a particular subject is directly proportional to it’s importance.
    Trying to shape or skew the debate before it has begun, is, for lack of a better word, undemocratic.

    And, now she’ll get the opportunity to explain to her potential future colleagues why she did the ‘wrong thing’ on the Ricci case…. awkward, very awkward. That isn’t a job interview where you fall on the banana peel as it evolves, it is one where you’re already down on the ground and have to pick yourself up in full view of the panel.

52. #52
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am, simcoe said:

    Diversity is a non-starter. Diversity should not be a consideration for any court in the land. The law is the law, which is to be applied equally across the board.

    Those who want diversity want it because they already know that their nominee is perverted in that way and will bring that perversion to the court. They are deliberately and willfully subverting the courts.

53. #53
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am, misterbee241 said:

    Ragspierre:

    Dont forget the liberal racist Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

54. #54
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am, Ragspierre said:

    Dont forget the liberal racist and eugenicist Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

    Would that I could…

    Again, typical of the strain….

55. #55
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am, tiredofit08 said:

    well so far this has pretty much gone party lines…kudos for Sen. Sessions for taking the high road and calling her out on her empathy and lack of judicial qualifications. Who the heck was that heckler?? Couldn’t hear what he said but good timing while feinsh*t was speaking though….lol

56. #56
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am, McCloud9 said:

    So during this Confermation Hearing, how many times will La Raza come into the conversation?
    I am wagering NONE!!!
    Even tho it is a vital part of this womans past. People do not have a clue what it stands for, what its purpose is, and what its Final goal is.
    We might as well put Vincente Fox on the Bench!

57. #57
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am, xler8bmw said:

    Botom line CREDENTIALS don’t make the judge!

    This is the only thing the libs have to go on.

    ANY JUDGE THAT HAS BEEN OVERTURNED 60% OF HER DECISIONS BY SC DOES NOT BELONG ON THE COURT THAT DECIDES ON CONSTITUTION!

    SHE OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPALS OR INTERPRETATIONS!

    That is the issue not credentials or race!

58. #58
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am, swede said:

    conservativesRus said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am, edelweiss said

    And exactly what did ANY of that have to do with whether Sotomayer is qualified for the Supreme Court?

    The interesting thing is edelweiss not acknowledging or even realizing the inherant racism in his/her post.

59. #59
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am, DBNinKY said:

    The interesting thing is edelweiss not acknowledging or even realizing the inherant racism in his/her post.

    Exactly, and she claims to be studying as a physician!

60. #60
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am, chapoutier said:

    Can someone please explain to me why David Cone is on the witness list?

61. #61
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am, McCloud9 said:

    Of course she does “NOT” belong on the Supreme Court !
    BUT… In the Last 30+ years, when did The Constitution Matter ?
    This administration has thrown OUR most Prescious Document under the rug. Obama has CZARS for Gods sake, in America! And thats just the tip of the Iceberg as to how they have urinated on OUR Constitution!

62. #62
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am, rightisright said:

    her 60% overturn rate is horrible and would get her fired in most jobs

    I believe her losing ratios is closer to 86%, 6 out 7 reversals.

63. #63
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am, tiredofit08 said:

    Obama has CZARS for Gods sake, in America! And thats just the tip of the Iceberg as to how they have urinated on OUR Constitution!

    you mean like this….

    http://www.mikechurch.com/zenshop/images/Obama_peeing_lg.jpg

64. #64
    On July 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am, chapoutier said:

    She was a primary on the baseball strike! They credit her with the outcome.

65. #65
    On July 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm, rightisright said:

    Many Republicans said they viewed 23 “no” votes as a benchmark,”

    I have to ask myself why is it a problem for Republicans to vote against this nomination, since she is by her own words a racist, sexist, a woman that has and will make judgments based on her life experiences(a minority) rather than opinions based on law. The Ricci case a prime example. No wonder I now consider myself an independent conservative.

66. #66
    On July 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, rightisright said:

    Senator Coburn is reaming her a new one, I love it.

67. #67
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I haven’t had a chance to read the comments yet, and someone has probably already said this, but I have to comment…Do you think that if a famous black entertainer died this a.m., they would pre-empt the hearings for 24×7 on the black entertainer?? I wonder what the choice would be? Well, thank goodness Michael Jackson didn’t die this week. What would they do?

    Two weeks in a row of wall-to-wall crap. I can’t bring myself to watch the liberals double standard bloviating when I remember so well how they treated Alito and Roberts in their hearings. Rude, disrespectful, nasty, sneering, and rambling on and on about their own liberal agenda, not giving the candidates much time to speak. It was unbelievable. And now, I assume they are fawning all over Sotomayor. This is all so tawdry and sickening, I can’t turn it on. I will be watching Little House on the Prairie marathon today, until Glenn Beck at 4:00.

68. #68
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm, RobM1981 said:

    I was surprised to read that Mexico supreme court is comprised of Hispanic’s, just like Sotomayor. I was even more surprised to read that the Mexican Supreme Court is royally f’d up.

    Impossible, I say. Haven’t they read about the amazing powers of jurisprudence attributed to Sotomayor, just because she’s Hispanic?

    I’ve heard that just being in the same room as her can cure cancer, but that’s not confirmed…

69. #69
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    The interesting thing is edelweiss not acknowledging or even realizing the inherant racism in his/her post.

    edelweiss, as is Judge Sotomayor, is a Politically Correct Racist and they do not think that counts The “wise Latina woman” me arse.

    So far I am pleased with the hearings–all the issues are being argued–well by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, lies by Leahy and Shumer and thus answering the bigger question: No, I am sorry, we can not all get along nor should we try.

    I do imagine the Racebaiter in Charge -Eric Holder- is making a list, checking it twice. Await the knock on the door.

70. #70
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, dan708 said:

    Latinos are putting conservatives “on notice” and will watch Republicans “like hawks.”

    Exactly why should this be of any concern to Republicans? The Latinos keep voting against us anyway! McCamnesty kissed up to The Race and see where it got him?

71. #71
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    anyone catch the commodian…talks about himself, talks about the absence of Kennedy, etc…geeze…what a kiss up….

72. #72
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    A short quote, if I may:

    The subjective approach to the law – judging the merits of a case according to the social and economic position of the parties involved – was the third specific aspect of the peasantry’s legal thinking which had an affinity with the revolution. It was echoed in the Bolshevik concept of ‘revolutionary justice,’ the guiding principle of the People’s Courts of 1917-18, according to which a man’s social class was taken as the decisive factor in determining his guilt or innocence.

    A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, Orlando Figes, pp. 100-101

    We are about to see the enshrining of a 19th-century peasant philosophy of jurisprudence on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I cannot understand how going backward can be considered “progressive.”

73. #73
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, AuntiEm said:

    How is attacking someone’s disability supposed to help their cause?

74. #74
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, frontierguy said:

    So edelweiss, is that how we have a black man (I say that very loosely) as POTUS now, because the population demographic demands it? That is how an inexperienced, freshmen senator, community organizer gets the top gubment job? So you did not vote for him because you thought he was the best for the job….racist. At least you are somewhat slick enough to recognize lackluster when you see it, and politically correct enough to choose lackluster when it makes you feel good, thanks for admitting it.

75. #75
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, nail49 said:

    From the AP

    The newest member of the Senate, former comedian Al Franken, was as serious as his colleagues in his opening statement at the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
    Franken said he is “truly humbled” to be on the Judiciary Committee. He also praised Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions.

    Franken told Sotomayor that she was “the most experienced Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.” He said her story is inspirational and one in which “all Americans should take great pride in.”

    gag! “…the most experienced SC nominee in 100 years.”

    A comedian just can’t quit being funny, you know!

76. #76
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Has a coked up Al Franken tackled any GOP solons from behind yet?

77. #77
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, ScottyDog said:

    Any Senator that says they will vote to put this racist bigot on the Court should be asked if they would vote to put David Duke on the court as well.

    Although I wish they would ask if she would support the Constitution as it is written rather than the living breathing Constitution, it is just too much to expect when Senators for the last 60 years basically ignore the Constitution.

    How do you explain that there are only 27 Amendments to our Constitution when there should be hundreds just based on the agencies or modifications to power added to the federal Government like the Department of Energy ect?

    This woman has no business being a judge let alone being a Supreme Court Justice.She should have been impeached after she said she makes better rulings than a white man.

78. #78
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am, McCloud9 said:

    So during this Confermation Hearing, how many times will La Raza come into the conversation?
    I am wagering NONE!!!
    Even tho it is a vital part of this womans past. People do not have a clue what it stands for, what its purpose is, and what its Final goal is.
    We might as well put Vincente Fox on the Bench!
    

    here’s the question that should be asked on that subject (from Steve Sailer on vdare.com) b#

    Judge Sotomayor, you were a member of the National Council of La Raza from 1998 to 2004 . What do the words “La Raza” mean in English?
    ut won’t:

79. #79
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    hit send too quick…oops..

    b# but won’t

    ut won’t:

80. #80
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, marsouin said:

    And also don’t forget the equally dreadful Didden case. She has shown to be a poor defender of private property. Wish she would get raked over the coals during hte hearings for this.

81. #81
    On July 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, Ragspierre said:

    HEADLINE:

    Sotomayor will be impartial.

    And why would anyone NOT accept that at face value?

    (Because we read her words…just like with THE ONE).

82. #82
    On July 13th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Commentary during Mystery Senate Theater 2009 – The Hearing:

    What’s she’s thinking here is “disregard all the things I’ve said in the last 10 years. What I’m saying NOW (to get confirmed) is ‘I will be impartial’!

83. #83
    On July 13th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, SixDegrees said:

    Opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court suggested they would consider it a victory if more than half of the Senate’s 40 Republicans voted against her in this week’s confirmation hearing

    If Republicans think that mustering 20% of the vote is a “victory,” they’re doomed. Although it certainly does explain the sorry state they now find themselves in.

    What’s their goal? To get to the point where they don’t matter 100% of the time, instead of just 80%?

84. #84
    On July 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm, jrgdds said:

    She is not racially biased?

    Will just one Senator please ask this woman to translate the name of an organization of which she was a member.

    Your Honor, what does “La Raza” mean in English?

85. #85
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm, cheapseat said:

    dan708, precisely. when will rino’s get it? republicans can free the slaves, can integrate the schools, can pass the voting rights act, and still 90% of blacks will vote democrat because democrats give them a hand out, while republicans offer only a fair deal. just as with latinos, if rino’s gave them every frigging thing they wanted, they would still vote democrat because that is the party of welfare, afdc, drug legalization and open borders.

86. #86
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm, chilloutyo said:

    How many more qualified white/asian people were not admitted to the schools she attended so that she could under reverse discrimination? How many more qualified people were passed over when she was selected to the positions she had?

    These questions cannot be authoritatively answered, but it shouldn’t mean they can’t be asked.

87. #87
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Just reported: one of those pro-life activists arrested today was “Jane Roe” (Roe v. Wade) herself.

88. #88
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Neglected to include link.

89. #89
    On July 14th, 2009 at 7:26 am, right4life said:

    Any Senator that says they will vote to put this racist bigot on the Court should be asked if they would vote to put David Duke on the court as well.

    some racists are more equal than others…