Skip to comments.NOW Prez Admits: Sotomayor 'Very Progressive'
Posted on 05/26/2009 6:49:31 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Dont take a conservatives word for it. No less a left-wing authority than Kim Gandy of NOW has let Sonia Sotomayors liberal cat out of the bag . . .
Gandy today described PBOs pick for the Supreme Court as very progressive. The NOW honcho was a guest on this evenings Ed Show. She was preceded by senior PBO adviser Valerie Jarrett, who danced furiously away from the liberal label. But then came Gandy, who gave the game away.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblog.com ...
NOW prez admits Sotomayor “very progressive” ping to Today show list.
Where was NOW when Sarah Palin was being taken apart like a plucked chicken? Where were they when Carrie Prejean was being roasted and lambasted? NOW is comprised of the biggest bunch of liberal hypocrites this side of ACORN.
Progressive = enemies of America
Translation: As Liberal as they come and then some. We’re happy because she’ll help ruin the American family for us.
Her 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 hasnt lived that life when each is acting as a judge in deciding cases.
Sure wish they’d hurry up and pass that hate law bill. That really hurt my feelings and she belongs in jail for that.
very progressive = took up field hockey in the 1980s
“very progressive”...code word for closet commie.
Progressive - Marxist speak for one of their own.
Seriously, is that a man in drag? Yowsa!
Very progressive = check for female hair in her teeth.
The picture looks like an ugly guy in drag. NOW is made up mostly of very ugly women who the only way they could get a guy is pay through the nose for one. Bet most of em are dykers and lesbos and they probably play a lot of golf and for relaxation engage in synchronized swimming.
In other words, a commie!
Looks like a member of Monty Python in drag...lol
Whoa! I thought it was Keith Olbermann in drag...
It is! it is!!
I’m really confused here. Could someone please explain how “living the life of a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences” makes someone better able to apply the provisions of the U.S. Constitution to reviews of lower-court decisions that have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? Brandeis? Cardozo? Hand? Holmes? Anyone?
Has anyone mentioned the 14th Amendment in regards to this woman’s judicial philosophy?
That appointment of his is so liberal, you can tell she’s a liberal by just looking at her. She seems to have a very angry way about her. I believe she clearly has some axe to grind. Perhaps it’s just me.
This lady is probably somewhere on the far left between Ruth Ginsberg and Karl Marx on the ideology scale. Of course, she’s a trade for Souter, no great loss or shift on the court. We should all pray daily for the health of all non-liberal judges on the courts while this little tyrant is in office.
“Where was NOW when Sarah Palin was being taken apart like a plucked chicken? Where were they when Carrie Prejean was being roasted and lambasted? NOW is comprised of the biggest bunch of liberal hypocrites this side of ACORN.”
Remember according to NOW, only liberal women have rights. I think in the name of intellectual honesty, they should rename their organization to the National Organization for Some Women(NOSW).
Well... I guess if you define a judge who says things like:
“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.”
“the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
Then, yeah - sure, she is progressive. To me - this is worse than any Supreme in the last 100 years. If we have had judges “make policy”, yet not openly admit it - then what will a judge do who openly states it as a fact? What about that old ragged piece of paper known as the US Constitution? OH - yea -we walked away from that years ago (except to protect the “rights” for now “protected” groups.)
I find it interesting that a group created by women, for women’s issues that is populated by women and run by women begins crying about sexism.
Don’t they see the irony?
Is that Keith Olbermann in drag?
1. That's not a woman...THAT'S A MAN, BABY!
2. Hussein nominated a lib who uses feelings to interpret the Constitution. That's the news? Now for tomorrows weather....
To the gulag with you!
We cannot allow the politician who sold himself as a professor of constitutional law to escape from the views of his nominee. We need to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate Sotomayor’s views on abortion, infanticide, private gun ownership and other issues, and then we need to link Professor of Constitutional Law Obama to those views.
Our erstwhile president, ever his bumbling self, has already taken pains not only to call attention to his nominee's ethnic background, but to characterize her as someone who represents Hispanic values. In doing so, he set the table for his own political demise. Someone who feels deliberately killing a child is a constitutionally guaranteed right? Barack Obama may believe that to be the case, but that's not what most Hispanic Americans believe. Nor do they believe, as the president does, that it is right to suffocate or starve a child to death.
President Obama’s election meant the murder of 50,000,000 children in America by abortion, plus others abroad through his funding of abortion groups abroad, including China's brutal one-child (forced abortion,) policy. With this political blunder, he may have given us the opportunity to prevent that.
Of course. That's what the New, Living Constitution says.
I am glad I’d already completely finished my Marie Callender’s turkey and mashed potatoes BEFORE I saw your
Olbergandy pic on #10. Woulda been “you owe me a new monitor” time.
I love the new euphamisms of the left, i.e. “progressive”.
Progressive = Marxist
uh uh uh Hussian!
The term is LEFTIST!!
I prefer that all round term: Leftist.
I use the all around term Leftist so I dont have to parse doctrine.
Gandy has certainly seen better days. The old hag.
Is there ANY way to protest the use of our tax dollars to foreign countries (like to Mexico to fund abortion)? Is there any way to sue the IRS or another part of the Federal Government claiming that the use of funds to promote abortion and such is a violation of our right to worship freely? My money being used to fund abortion makes me a party to what I view is murderous activities, and puts the innocent children’s blood on ALL of our hands without any option to dissent, or not participate... Is there some kind of conscientious objection law anywhere besides in regards to military service???
So many questions... Guess I should go back to school now that my kids are older...
I think your post, addressed in letter form to your representatives, would make a most excellent protest against tax dollars for abortion. Likewise confronting your senators or congressman in person with your questions would make an excellent protest.
But you raise an excellent question. I had thought about putting tax money owed to the federal government in an escrow account, writing my objection to the IRS making my reasons very clear for not wanting my money used for homicide by elective abortion and infanticide. The point was to give the IRS a choice--either seize the money or allow me to donate it to a charity that supports alternatives to abortion for pregnant mothers. Either way, I would not voluntarily be supporting the murder of children, and I was willing to go to jail over the issue.
A wise Freeper suggested doing otherwise. He said that withholding my taxes would not prevent President Obama from funding abortion and infanticide, but that it would turn my life upside down and be counterproductive. He suggested finding other ways to protest.
Basically, 50,000,000 children will be killed if this president gets his way with the SCOTUS nominees. Anything you can do to slow him down is a good protest against the murder of children. One suggestion is to inform your friends about President Obama's views on aboriton, including his work against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and the FOCA. Simply put, most Americans disagree with Mr. Obama, he knows it, and he has lied or otherwise mislead people about his position. Our goal should be to achieve a clear understanding of his positions and to make them widely known to our fellow Americans.
I would suggest writing to your representatives, or calling their offices to voice your objection, and to express your opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama has promised to sign. (Taxpayer funded abortion in this country, no right of conscience clause for hospitals that refuse to commit abortion, elimination of all or most parental notification laws for minors, no mandatory offering of alternatives to abortion, and other activities meant to eliminate any “barrier” to abortion.)
Laughing my butt off at how many posters assumed the “lady” really does look like this!! ROFL!