"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' constitution!"
Posted on 05/27/2009 9:20:28 AM PDT by Starman417
He opposed both Roberts and Alito purely for political reasons and it paid off!
You can already guess the confusion in the back rooms of those nameless "GOP strategists" the "news" media is always citing anonymously as the voice of reason within the GOP. No doubt the same gutless wonders who thought McCain would be the ideal candidate to appeal across party lines are fretting that an aggressive conservative opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court will hurt the GOP's image with Hispanics, or women or moderates or some other splinter group the "strategists" think we should be pandering to.
As usual, they are WRONG. AGAIN!
The nomination of Sotomayor provides a perfect teaching moment for the GOP to illustrate once more the profound differences we have with Obama's plan to implement socialism with a smiling face in America.
Let Obama's minions scream that it's racist or anti-women to oppose a candidate whose views toward the judiciary are rooted in the soft bigotry of a New York socialist. GOP Senators must question her closely on her view that somehow an Hispanic or a woman from the housing projects in the Bronx of New York City would make a better judge than anyone who does not come from that experience.
But there are even more fundamental differences with Sotomayor which gives great advantage to the GOP. Sotomayor's claim that the courts are where "policy is made" is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
Yes. Scorched Earth. Drag her down into the gutter. I certainly would like to see her video rental lists leaked, her ex-husband put on the stand, all traffic tickets brought forward and bascially the same crappy treatment that the libtards gave Bush nominees.
Of course they should oppose her.
“Yes. Scorched Earth. Drag her down into the gutter.”
Concur.
Take no prisons and offer no quarter.
Conservatives should see to it that every question that was asked by a liberal demiwit of nominees Roberts and Alito, should be parroted by a conservative Republican of
Souter-mayor.
Also, another question should be posed (from as many different angles as possible): what is her take on the Constitutional provision regarding eligibility to be President, particularly as concerns status at birth, and particularly as concerns a person whose status at birth is nebulous, and particularly as concerns a person whose birth circumstances, citizenship status, etc., are nebulous, and whose vital documents concerning same are being withheld at great expense. The premise of the question is that the issue is likely to become more a factor as the swarm of immigrants to this country results in a large percentage of the population having nebulous citizenship status. Should be fun.
Obama opposed the white guys?
Yes, we should oppose her, but I don’t endorse the “drag her down into the gutter” part. The Republican Party needs to be civil about its opposition. Grill her on the issues, and make it clear that she is a far left radical who thinks legislating from the bench is proper judicial conduct. Rake her over the coals for saying she is superior to white males. And yes, EVERY Republican Senator should vote “no” if it is still clear she is what she now appears to be. But, we need to do it in a civil and decent way — it’s one of the ways we differentiate ourselves from the thugs on the other side.
She will be confirmed.
She is an intellectual lightweight and will be intimidated by the great minds of Alito, Roberts and Thomas. She will vote with Breyer and Ginsberg but she will not draw her own arguments or fashion her own agenda. She is just too stupid for that.
Expose her for the racist and sexist that she is and let the Democrats have their lightweight liberal nominee. Obama will rue the day he appointed this clown.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Then examine some of her cases and point out how in the past she hasn't made decisions "without respect to persons", etc. Then drop the quote on her about the superiority of Hispanic females. Remind her how offensive that statement is and how un-empathetic the statement is to people of diverse backgrounds.
We have to go on the record as strongly opposing this woman. The fact that 60% of her decisions have been reversed by the higher courts is enough all by itself. This is not a competent judge. That is a staggering % of reversals.
If we sit on our hands & play go along to get along, we have to take responsibility for the mess she will make of things.
And it’s a can of worms about BO that we are obliged to open.
She’s a lib. I’d rather go down in flames for my principles then bend over in glee for the sake of looking bipartisan.
Any USSC nominee to the left of Justice Roberts should be Borked to the fullest extent possible!
I would fight tooth and nail over this nominee even if they did lose. This nominee will completely embarrass herself just like all of Obama’s nominees.
She will get “foot in mouth” disease and it will look very bad for Obama and the Dems.
Riiight! It’s all about the image to Hispanics and minorities. sarc/
We don't need to dig into her ex-husband's grievances, her old swimsuit photos or the dust-bunnies under her futon.
If diligent research finds that she's lazy, subliterate, or inclined to play judicial Santa to the socialist PACs, she should be swept away with a yard-wide broom, and good riddance.
But anyone who doesn't care to actually do the research, and who prefers the gutter approach, is creating the National Perspirer politics we all claim to despise.
We need to be the masters of the facts - not purveyors of pernicious propaganda
You are right, and perfectly expressed it. My suggestion that we get her video rentals was supposed to be ironic / sarcastic.
On the other hand, looks like there's no lack of combustible stuff on Sotomayor making its way to the surface already. I like a good argument. This should be interesting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.