Surprised there has been no mention of this. Sotomayor overturned.

[baddog]

So, how do you think this will effect her getting the seat on the SC?

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by baddog

So, how do you think this will effect her getting the seat on the SC?

personally, i'd rather see you on the supreme court... your lack of subjectivity makes you perfect..

and i mean that in a somewhat genuine way...

[Sly]

It won't.

[David!]

Nobody cares, they're all entranced by the chosen one.
It's gonna get crazy

[Rangermoore]

The demotards are all in a trance by black jesus...

[IllTestYourGirls]

Cap and Tax gets passed by congress, Sotomayor gets over turned. No one cares.

[Rochard]

What they need to do is put a twenty-one year old there....

I remember watching the head of the congressional panel on technology (he was from Alaska) and I kid you not, during a hearing about some Internet law he used the term "the email thingy". How in the world can we put older people at the highest level of government - who advises the president on technology issues - who doesn't even understand the basic concept of email?

I fear that none of these people understand society. Our boy Obama there made some $2mil last year. Someone who makes $2mil a year, year after year, has lost their grasp on society. A seventy year old man who hasn't worried about making their house payment for the past twenty years has no clue of what it's like to loose their job and to be at risk for loosing their house.

How the fuck can the leader of the congressional panel on technology that advises the President of the United States not fully understand what email is - and it's impact on society?

[Sly]

I'm not really sure why any of you guys are "upset" about this. Judges get overturned. Period. It was one case. The Supreme Court was even split on the decision 5-4. How would you expect her to vote?

[Helix]

It should be interesting.

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...s-fodder-to-f/

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by baddog

So, how do you think this will effect her getting the seat on the SC?

It won't happens all the time.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Cap and Tax gets passed by congress, Sotomayor gets over turned. No one cares.

Nothing to care about. I have more improtant things to worry about. I mean people worry worry worry. Just kill yourself already if you worry all the time about shit.

[brassmonkey]

who's that

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not really sure why any of you guys are "upset" about this. Judges get overturned. Period. It was one case. The Supreme Court was even split on the decision 5-4. How would you expect her to vote?

Who is upset? The question is because it has already been suggested that she votes with her heart instead of by the law. I believe the pundits were suggesting reverse racism on her part.

Today's ruling kind of supports that notion.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by baddog

Who is upset? The question is because it has already been suggested that she votes with her heart instead of by the law. I believe the pundits were suggesting reverse racism on her part.

Today's ruling kind of supports that notion.

I don't know about that. If it was unanimous, it might be an issue, but the result was 5-4. The guy she is replacing was on her side on the issue as well. If the pundits believe she is a racist, they would have to say the same about the 4 dissenters on the Supreme Court. I think the "reverse racism" talking points they are laying out are just to strum up the base that doesn't view minorities favorably.

In any event, being in this industry where free speech is an important industry, I'm more worried about her stance on obscenity than I am about issues like this. Does anyone know if she has a stance on it? Assuming the Republicans are against her, I'd imagine she would be more favorable to our industry.

[$5 submissions]

No effect. It wouldn't really change the ideological balance of the court. Now if she was nominated as a liberal and suddenly turned conservative (it's usually the other way around--e.g. Earl Warren, David Souter, etc) like Kennedy-nominated Byron White, that would be something else.

[slavdogg]

Here is another attack on sotomeyer
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...&pageId=102710

but unlike SC overturns, this one doesn't seem that significant to me.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by baddog

Who is upset? The question is because it has already been suggested that she votes with her heart instead of by the law. I believe the pundits were suggesting reverse racism on her part.

Today's ruling kind of supports that notion.

What Really Divides Us?

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees ? while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

December 24, 2002

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Assuming the Republicans are against her, I'd imagine she would be more favorable to our industry.

You are one of those that will never get it when it comes to the SC.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by baddog

You are one of those that will never get it when it comes to the SC.

The please explain to me how a conservative judge is good for the adult industry. I'm just basing my opinion off the littany of decisions over the years.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What they need to do is put a twenty-one year old there....

I remember watching the head of the congressional panel on technology (he was from Alaska) and I kid you not, during a hearing about some Internet law he used the term "the email thingy". How in the world can we put older people at the highest level of government - who advises the president on technology issues - who doesn't even understand the basic concept of email?

I fear that none of these people understand society. Our boy Obama there made some $2mil last year. Someone who makes $2mil a year, year after year, has lost their grasp on society. A seventy year old man who hasn't worried about making their house payment for the past twenty years has no clue of what it's like to loose their job and to be at risk for loosing their house.

How the fuck can the leader of the congressional panel on technology that advises the President of the United States not fully understand what email is - and it's impact on society?

Are you talking about Ted Stevens?



It's quite shocking that they let people like that make decisions about technology...

[Snake Doctor]

It won't affect her. It'll give the republicans something to complain about, but they were going to complain regardless.

If the decision had been overturned 9-0 that would be a different story. As it is, the guy she's going to replace voted to uphold her ruling.

[DaddyHalbucks]

This proves that she lets her personal feelings and status as an "oppressed person"* interfere with her decisions.

*Princeton University, Yale University, and life as a judge and political insider

[Sly]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

This proves that she lets her personal feelings and status as an "oppressed person"* interfere with her decisions.

*Princeton University, Yale University, and life as a judge and political insider

It doesn't "prove" anything. Four of the sitting judges of the current Supreme Court voted against this decision. All four of them let their personal oppressed histories interfere with their decision?

[Young]

You're not hearing anyone mention it because it doesn't matter. She's through barring some huge disaster. Revealing that she was once abducted by aliens might do it.

[LiveDose]

Honestly who gives a fuck. One side is always pissed and one side is always happy. Same story every time. Honestly that court is filled with a complete bunch of asshats if you ask me.

[Mordhaus]

Originally Posted by baddog

Who is upset? The question is because it has already been suggested that she votes with her heart instead of by the law. I believe the pundits were suggesting reverse racism on her part.

Today's ruling kind of supports that notion.

The term reverse-racism irritates the hell out of me. It implies that only white people are capable of racism.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Helix

It should be interesting.

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...s-fodder-to-f/

Samuel Alito had 100% of his decisions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned.Also that wasn't her decision alone it was a panel of three if memory serves me right.

[Sausage]

You mean there are other people in the Democratic party apart from the black hypno-jesus ?

Say it ain't true!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Sly

It doesn't "prove" anything. Four of the sitting judges of the current Supreme Court voted against this decision. All four of them let their personal oppressed histories interfere with their decision?

Sly, you're talking to a guy who thinks Glenn Beck is, and I quote, "a breath of fresh air"

Best to just leave him to his delusions and seek conversation and logical debate elsewhere

[todhunter]

Originally Posted by Helix

It should be interesting.

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...s-fodder-to-f/

Oh, stop.

The right-wing Washington Times says "Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed."

But I look at it this way:

Three of the thousands of opinions written by Judge Sotomayor since she was elevated to the federal bench in 1992 were reversed by the Supreme Court.

60 percent reversal rate. Pull the other one.

--t