Obama nominates flaming liberal bleeding heart Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

I am not sure why you said she is a "flaming liberal"... she is actually considered pretty centrist.

Just FYI: She was also considered by George Bush...

i think the US must be the only place where being "liberal" (which means in my understanding something like "live and let live") is considered a bad thing. whereas the US was founded especially on these values - or did i get that wrong? please someone enlighten my stupid euro ass. thanks

i think the US must be the only place where being "liberal" (which means in my understanding something like "live and let live") is considered a bad thing. whereas the US was founded especially on these values - or did i get that wrong? please someone enlighten my stupid euro ass. thanks

That definition isn't what it is in the US, at least in the common parlance/political mudslinging arena.

Liberal as a put-down here generally means something akin to "increase tax rates, and give free handouts to the poor through welfare programs. Increase the nanny state to new never seen before levels, don't let people run their own lives because we know best".

Now, does it really mean that? Probably not But, that's generally what the "other side" would like people to think.

Conservative has generally in the past matched what you said above, but only in perceived definition - not actual actions. I think the past 8+ years should disprove that theory quite well.

In short, we have absolutely no major party in the US who espouses "live and let live". AKA "Get the living fuck out of my goddamned business, and I will give you the same courtesy in return". If we had such a party, I'd certainly vote for it and actually give a shit about politics again.

The US has moved far from it's days of folks valuing their independence, I really don't think a party following your definition of liberal would go very far this day in age here. Which is pretty sad if you ask me.

-Phil

That definition isn't what it is in the US, at least in the common parlance/political mudslinging arena.

Liberal as a put-down here generally means something akin to "increase tax rates, and give free handouts to the poor through welfare programs. Increase the nanny state to new never seen before levels, don't let people run their own lives because we know best".

In short, we have absolutely no major party in the US who espouses "live and let live". AKA "Get the living fuck out of my goddamned business, and I will give you the same courtesy in return". If we had such a party, I'd certainly vote for it and actually give a shit about politics again.

There are 100 names that are "considered" in order to make one group or another happy during this process. Don't delude yourself into thinking she actually stood a chance with Dubya.






I think the "where policy is made" quote is key here, because hopefully we'll have a debate in this country about what the role of the judiciary is.
It's a co-equal branch of government, not a rubber stamp for congress that the conservatives have tried to say it should be the past 25+ years.

I think that, among many other good reasons, this is one of the key reasons she was picked. Not in spite of that quote but because of it.

The same way that it wasn't a mistake that Obama threw the word "empathy" out there at the beginning of this process and conservatives went into a frenzy over it.

Well in terms of a Supreme Court Justice, liberal = pro choice on abortion.

Which is odd when you consider that the conservatives are the ones who claim the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

Sounds like Libertarian is the party for you.

I disagree with them on alot of things but I have a hell of a lot of respect for them, unlike that other party that claims to like small government, because they're consistent.
They're not only for small government when it's in their best interest. They're always for small government and individual liberty.

All I know is that she is clearly obsessed with bleaching her teeth.

All I know is that she is clearly obsessed with bleaching her teeth.

It's simply a shame "Politician" is a career these days.

-Phil

Yeah, this is the only place I know of where liberal is used as a pejorative.

However, recent elections have shown that the majority of the country don't have a problem with "liberals". The right wing had just managed to delude itself into thinking that the majority of the country was "conservative" because they'd won a few elections. Turns out that wasn't the case.

Wow.
Interesting tidbit that I just came across.

13 of the last 19 appointments to the Supreme Court were made by republican Presidents.

Which also goes to show that you do not always get what you think you are "buying". Those lifetime appointments are a bitch, nothing stops them anymore from saying fuck off I can express myself how I want now with no political concerns.

IMHO, most of our problems can really be boiled down to that.

If all politicians were term limited, and by extension the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions were minimized, things would be alot better than they are.

Things like that pledge of allegiance bill are perfect examples. Most pols would sign that bill because they're worried about their careers. Ventura didn't because he wasn't a career pol.

Agreed. Somewhat.

Term limits by themselves simply don't do it. It would have to be "public service limit" or something, I'm not sure how it would work.

Right now, you generally have career politicians. They don't start off as a senator. They start small, work their way up the chain. It may take someone 20 years before they reach a relative position of power.

Need to somehow limit that chain entirely.. Maybe 12 years total or something like that.

I don't know, I also hate making laws like this in general - as it limits people's freedom. There is nothing wrong with the theory that someone may simply want to be a public servant, and enjoys that work the most (and is good at it). However, the practice just leads to a bunch of either corrupt, or at best completely out of touch, folks in government.

lenny2 = flaming liberal bleeding heart

Said Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network:



Bwahahahahahaha. Come and get some.

I hope the conservative really go after her to the GOP can finnaly implode.

See she's be just the 3rd woman on the SC so bash her so ALL woman can think you picking on her. LOSE the woman vote GOP. She'd be the first Hispanic on the SC. Now Hispanics do vote dem more than repub but they do vote repub 30% of the time. So yes knock that back down to the 10% you get from blacks. Great way to win future elections by alienating potential voters.

"conservative Judicial Confirmation Network"

Yes completely unbiased organisation.

Funny how it's ok for republicans to nominate "activist" judges. In fact the nominate MORE.

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who now leads the National Association of Manufacturers, used to talk about judges with George W. Bush back when the president ran Texas. The two governors found themselves in a similar bind. The corporate executives who filled their campaign coffers were outraged by rising legal costs and wanted to replace the judges on their state supreme courts with jurists more sympathetic to business.

Both Engler and Bush realized that the judges who pleased business -- by limiting legal damages, restricting government regulations, and protecting private-property rights -- did not always match up with the interests of the GOP's socially conservative base, which cared about issues like abortion, the death penalty and school prayer. There is a point [at which] social conservatives aren't always judicial conservatives," Engler said Wednesday. "President Bush understands that." And like Engler, then-Gov. Bush played his hand well. Before leaving office, both governors had helped transform their state judiciaries by appointing a coterie of pro-business jurists with enough conservative credentials to placate social conservatives.

So it should come as no surprise that on Wednesday Engler offered the business community's first major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., a judge who has also received accolades from social conservatives. Before a bank of television cameras at the National Press Club, Engler said he believed Roberts would help preserve the business community's legislative agenda. "I was never very worried," Engler said of the president's selection. "I think he has been pretty clear on the type of individual he would look for."

To date, most speculation about Roberts has focused on how he would approach blockbuster social issues like abortion, civil rights and gay rights. But the White House appears to have considered the interests of the corporate community as well. This has long been a strategy of those close to the president. In the early 1990s, Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, made his name in Texas by rallying corporate interests to help make the state's judiciary more business friendly. The corporate community, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, eventually expanded its effort to states such as Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio.

In recent years, Congress has passed laws that have forced some of the most costly bankruptcy, class-action and regulatory cases to move from state courts to federal courts. The effect has been dramatic: Corporate leaders, who are now far more comfortable involving themselves in judicial selection, have stepped up their efforts to shape the federal bench. "Rather than leave all the headlines to those who want to rant about the hot-button social issues, Governor Engler determined that it was high time that the economic interests were heard," said Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the manufacturers association.

And the business community has made its views known. Months before Roberts' nomination, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had been sharing dossiers with the White House detailing the pro-business records of appellate court judges, though a chamber official said they did not share a dossier on Roberts. A coalition of lobbyists and trade groups, including the chamber and the manufacturers association, also came together to found the Committee for Justice, a group that has bought newspaper and television advertisements to support Bush's judicial nominees. "Roberts was in the top two or three for sure," said committee chairman C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel under the first President Bush who has worked on Clean Air Act cases in the private sector. "He comes from this world."

Senate Democrats have also recognized the increased importance of economic issues, setting the stage for a clear line of questioning in next month's confirmation hearings. "Will he protect average Americans when their rights are abused by powerful corporations?" Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., asked last month after Roberts was nominated. "Will he ensure that private companies aren't allowed to pollute our rivers and our lakes and our air?"

Publicly, corporate and trade group officials use well-worn phrases to describe the sort of judge they would like to see -- "fair-minded" judges who will "interpret the law as written" and not "legislate from the bench." The phrases, which are used by all sides in these debates, mean next to nothing. But according to interviews with several corporate lawyers involved in the nomination process, the real agenda of the corporate community is quite simple. Companies want judges who can set clear guidelines that buffer the bottom line. According to a National Association of Manufacturers briefing paper, the organization seeks a judge that understands "the importance and practical consequences of decisions to business."

"The issues that affect the business community are so broad that you can't characterize whether the business community's position is liberal or conservative," says Stanton Anderson, the chief legal officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. When the federal government imposes burdensome regulations, corporations argue for states' rights, a classically conservative approach. When the regulations come from the states, corporate attorneys argue for federal intervention. Ironically, this has occasionally left conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ruling against business interests on issues of federalism and tort liability.

In his long career as a private attorney, Roberts often took positions opposing the conservative orthodoxy, arguing on behalf of his clients for expansive federal powers. His client list, which reads like a who's who of corporate Beltway influence, includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Gaming Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Associated General Contractors of America and others. Between 1999 and 2003, Roberts also served on a nonpaying advisory committee to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an education group that takes money from corporations and promotes tort reform.

But none of those activities details Roberts' personal views on the legal issues that affect business, a fact that has prevented consumer groups from attacking him. "There really is nothing outside his private-practice record that indicates a terribly ideologically pro-corporate stance," said Kelly Landis, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of environmental, women's and civil rights groups. "He comes down against business as often as he comes down for them."

The endorsement of the National Association of Manufacturers, which will likely be followed by nods from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, comes with a wide range of promised benefits. Engler's group will ask its 50 state affiliates to pressure their state senators to support Roberts. Engler will clear the way for individual corporations to weigh in on the race with contributions to independent advertising campaigns. And he promised to make calls on senators from about a dozen states who he has identified as wavering on the Roberts nomination.

He also said the association, one of the largest trade groups in Washington, would provide election-year support for senators who back Roberts. For wavering senators who face contested elections in 2006, such a promise might be enough to seal the deal. "That's an area where we might be very, very helpful," Engler said.

in the last 40 years the only liberal president US has had was jimmy "the cocksucker" carter who has gone down in history as the worst US president ever. Obama will follow his footsteps to hell as well. Clinton was not a liberal but more of a conservative / centrist president on a lot of the issues.

Now here is the list of conservative presidents over the last 40 years
Nixon + Ford 8 years
Raegon 8 years
Bush 4 years
GW Bush 8 years

Now someone point out a Supreme Court judge one of these presidents appointed that doesn't believe in a constitution ?? The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

I believe the judge she is replacing sides on the liberal side more often than not and he was appointed by George HW Bush. Explain that one.

Now someone point out a Supreme Court judge one of these presidents appointed that doesn't believe in a constitution ?? The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.