GOPer's war on latinos and women

[Yurt]

There you go.

That doesn't change my opinion. Why would the color of her skin or her background lend her to reach a better conclusion of judgement on something than a 'white male' who's come from a different background? That's a completely racist statement. She could have easily left out the race and the sex and said that two people from different backgrounds may judge things differently and come to different conclusions because of that background. Regardless of even that, her background should have nothing to do with any rulings that she would make, that's not how it's supposed to work. Nor would her background give her any abilities to make her decisions 'better' than anyone elses. She talks about the subjectiveness of the meaning of the word 'wise', perhaps she should look at her own subjectiveness in what makes her conclusions 'better' than someone else's because of her race or her sex.

She wasn't trying to be PC so you and other scared white Republicans would accept her. So she included the race, which is part of background.

Again, if you don't think peoples backgrounds have anything to do with the rulings they make, you are hopelessly naive.

strawman...

the issue here is NOT that backgrounds have little or nothing to do with how people make rulings, it is her comment that her background should enable her to make better rulings than white men who have not lived her life. you are advocating that white people then make better decisions concerning white issues, since they have lived that life. you're so hypocritical, you can't even see what it is you are actually advocating, all you see is a democrat and therefore you blindly defend no matter what.

 

[Nik]

why don't you man up and post the full quote...scared?

Try 8 posts ago, moron.

you didn't make it clear that it was her full quote....why don't you LINK to it? nearly everyone gives a link when they give a full quote....let's see the LINK....

and from what i can see of what you posted as allegedly being her full statement, she did in fact bring her race up. you said she did not.

Yes, actually I did. And you don't need the link, its from a blog.

No, I did not say she never brought her race up. But nice try there.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

State housing only works for statists.

 

[Shogun]

Second, 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.


Perhaps this is just a poorly worded quote. Maybe, instead of "better conclusion" she meant to say "better perspective". If so, then this is easier to accept than how the sentence reads on its own.


but, ravi.. come on girl.. let's be honest.. if someone threw a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Why do you automatically assume that THIS woman is THE best choice from the start when, I'd bet, yo didn't even know her name three weeks ago? Aren't you even slightly interested in the vetting process?

I've no idea if she's a good choice or not. Merely pointing out the typical hysterical reaction of the right wing. She's a woman = BAD. She's a latina = BAD. She made a ruling that was on reflection very reasonable = BAD.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to poke fun at them when YOU are doing the exact same thing in her defense? MAYBE SHE IS racist as fuck. do you know otherwise? Maybe she IS a bad choice for that level of our court systems. Don't you think that a position with a lifetime apointment might deserve a bit more critical observation than checking for her sex like a westminster dog show judge? Again, I don't see any criticism because she is a woman OR latina. I see criticism of a few choice quotes that she will need to clarify in the vetting process. The auto-vagina blind support just makes you look like as much of a fool as they are.

 

[Nik]

If you expect white people to be color blind when it comes to things like this then you have to act in kind. If your main focus is her race then why would you expect white people to focus on anything different? Perhaps you shouldn't forget that white people are still the dominant ethnicity in this nation and, in fact, were exactly the ones who created this country AND allowed the kind of equality that makes her nomination possible. I know, I know... why didn't we purge ourselves of whitey back in the 1780s...

What makes you think my main focus is her race? Or hers? She is a federal judge on the 2nd circuit. Shes writes and speaks a LOT. They pulled out two sentences. Thats hardly a "focus".

I don't see anyone condemning her because she is LATINA.. Only because it appears that she let's her ethnicity mold her decisions. If a white judge did the same you'd insist he wore a klan outfit under his robes. Fair is fair REGARDLESS of the gender or race of the judge. Don't expect white people to roll over just because they are still the dominant ethinic group. And, to be honest, don't be shocked when such an important role in our politics causes waves when the nominee makes statements that can be taken as a racist influence. If Clarence Thomas had said that he'd be judging through black lenses then he'd never have been accepted to the supreme court. We are looking for fairness, not retribution for the last 200 years.

Everyones ethnicity effects who they are. Its part of our society. I don't really know what racism is, since I've never experienced it. Someone who has would have a different experience and perspective on it because of their race. If you don't think this influences people, you are incredibly naive.

But aht influence has no place in the Supreme Court of the United States. We don't need Jesse fucking Jackson wearing robes just because YOU think it's time for some color in the bench. I've already stated under what clarification i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt until we are knee deep in the vetting process. If you want to continue to believe that she is the messiah of the judicial system without knowing more about her then EXACTLY the same limited information critics know then be my guest.

Wow, you are stupid.

Did your limited reading ability fail you when I stated, specifically, that she did need to be fully vetted?

That influence exists, whether you like it or not. It exists for white people as well, you just don't notice it since whites men are the dominant force in society.

My messiah? Umm, no. I have limited knowledge of her judicial opinions since I haven't done a full reading on them. But the condemnation of her for that one sentence is asinine.

And, your focus has been nothing other than her race and gender for the last 3 pages. I've seen automatic carwashes do worse jobs than your knee jerk reaction to her nomination.

If you haven't noticed, I've been talking about race and gender because that is what she is getting attacked on .

 

[Nik]

That doesn't change my opinion. Why would the color of her skin or her background lend her to reach a better conclusion of judgement on something than a 'white male' who's come from a different background? That's a completely racist statement. She could have easily left out the race and the sex and said that two people from different backgrounds may judge things differently and come to different conclusions because of that background. Regardless of even that, her background should have nothing to do with any rulings that she would make, that's not how it's supposed to work. Nor would her background give her any abilities to make her decisions 'better' than anyone elses. She talks about the subjectiveness of the meaning of the word 'wise', perhaps she should look at her own subjectiveness in what makes her conclusions 'better' than someone else's because of her race or her sex.

She wasn't trying to be PC so you and other scared white Republicans would accept her. So she included the race, which is part of background.

Again, if you don't think peoples backgrounds have anything to do with the rulings they make, you are hopelessly naive.

strawman...

the issue here is NOT that backgrounds have little or nothing to do with how people make rulings, it is her comment that her background should enable her to make better rulings than white men who have not lived her life. you are advocating that white people then make better decisions concerning white issues, since they have lived that life. you're so hypocritical, you can't even see what it is you are actually advocating, all you see is a democrat and therefore you blindly defend no matter what.

Yes. Peoples backgrounds allow them to make better, or worse, decisions than other people. Racism is likely one of those issues where one needs to experience it to really get the full effect of it, especially nowadays. There are so many people who claim that it doesn't exist anymore, that its just imaginary, that we live in a perfect utopian color blind society where the only racism is against us poor white folk, that yes, we really need people who have actively experienced racism in positions of power.

And what the hell is a "white issue"?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Why should their experience of racism uniquely qualify them for positions of power?

Are they qualified to run banks, auto manufacturers? Take better care of racially diverse patients as doctors or nurses?

What is the contribution of people of color to ending racism? I mean compared to white people's contribution to ending racism?

Name names.

 

[Nik]

Why should their experience of racism uniquely qualify them for positions of power?

Are they qualified to run banks, auto manufacturers? Take better care of racially diverse patients as doctors or nurses?

What is the contribution of people of color to ending racism? I mean compared to white people's contribution to ending racism?

Name names.

It doesn't "uniquely" qualify them. But it is a factor to consider.

And wow...you really are a dishonest shithead.

Blacks contributions? You want names?

MLK, Septima Clarke, NAACP, Rosa Parks.

Of course none of those people could end racism...they had to ask permission from the white folks to end racism, since they had no control over it.

But they did a hell of a lot more work to end racism than Earl Warren ever did, despite the amazing work he did on Brown.

 

[Sinatra]

How predictable - some valid questions are being raised regarding this new Supreme Court nominee - one with a public record if admitting to the activist role of the appellate courts, and the leftist loons bring out the calls of anti-women-Latino rants.

This woman will most likely be confirmed, but she will have to answer some questions regarding her statements promoting the idea of courts creating policy. Those questions are in no way racist, nor against women - they are simply responsible...

 

[Nik]

How predictable - some valid questions are being raised regarding this new Supreme Court nominee - one with a public record if admitting to the activist role of the appellate courts, and the leftist loons bring out the calls of anti-women-Latino rants.

This woman will most likely be confirmed, but she will have to answer some questions regarding her statements promoting the idea of courts creating policy. Those questions are in no way racist, nor against women - they are simply responsible...

Courts do create policy. Its called common law.

 

[Sinatra]

How predictable - some valid questions are being raised regarding this new Supreme Court nominee - one with a public record if admitting to the activist role of the appellate courts, and the leftist loons bring out the calls of anti-women-Latino rants.

This woman will most likely be confirmed, but she will have to answer some questions regarding her statements promoting the idea of courts creating policy. Those questions are in no way racist, nor against women - they are simply responsible...

Courts do create policy. Its called common law.

Not as practice.

So you approve of her public statements on this subject?

Would your approval stand if it was made by a conservative leaning judge, speaking out against Roe v Wade?

If not, then you are simply approving of political sentiment vs practical jurisprudence - something easily embraced by the general population, but to be avoided by judges - particularly Supreme Court judges.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

How predictable - some valid questions are being raised regarding this new Supreme Court nominee - one with a public record if admitting to the activist role of the appellate courts, and the leftist loons bring out the calls of anti-women-Latino rants.

This woman will most likely be confirmed, but she will have to answer some questions regarding her statements promoting the idea of courts creating policy. Those questions are in no way racist, nor against women - they are simply responsible...

Courts do create policy. Its called common law.

Not as practice.

So you approve of her public statements on this subject?

Would your approval stand if it was made by a conservative leaning judge, speaking out against Roe v Wade?

If not, then you are simply approving of political sentiment vs practical jurisprudence - something easily embraced by the general population, but to be avoided by judges - particularly Supreme Court judges.

Nice shot, Sinatra!!!

Yeah, that's the trick. They don't have the authentic victim-of-race experience if they stray off the liberal plantation.

Clarence Thomas, to wit.

 

[Nik]

How predictable - some valid questions are being raised regarding this new Supreme Court nominee - one with a public record if admitting to the activist role of the appellate courts, and the leftist loons bring out the calls of anti-women-Latino rants.

This woman will most likely be confirmed, but she will have to answer some questions regarding her statements promoting the idea of courts creating policy. Those questions are in no way racist, nor against women - they are simply responsible...

Courts do create policy. Its called common law.

Not as practice.

So you approve of her public statements on this subject?

Would your approval stand if it was made by a conservative leaning judge, speaking out against Roe v Wade?

If not, then you are simply approving of political sentiment vs practical jurisprudence - something easily embraced by the general population, but to be avoided by judges - particularly Supreme Court judges.

Yes, they do create policy as practice. This is pretty much a given. And yes, I approve of her public statements on this subject.

Yes, my approval would stand as far as the intellectual thought behind the argument ( in the RvW example) I would disagree with what it was being used to do, but I wouldn't say they don't have the right to do it.

 

[Shogun]

What makes you think my main focus is her race? Or hers? She is a federal judge on the 2nd circuit. Shes writes and speaks a LOT. They pulled out two sentences. Thats hardly a "focus".



Everyones ethnicity effects who they are. Its part of our society. I don't really know what racism is, since I've never experienced it. Someone who has would have a different experience and perspective on it because of their race. If you don't think this influences people, you are incredibly naive.

But aht influence has no place in the Supreme Court of the United States. We don't need Jesse fucking Jackson wearing robes just because YOU think it's time for some color in the bench. I've already stated under what clarification i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt until we are knee deep in the vetting process. If you want to continue to believe that she is the messiah of the judicial system without knowing more about her then EXACTLY the same limited information critics know then be my guest.

Wow, you are stupid.

Did your limited reading ability fail you when I stated, specifically, that she did need to be fully vetted?

That influence exists, whether you like it or not. It exists for white people as well, you just don't notice it since whites men are the dominant force in society.

My messiah? Umm, no. I have limited knowledge of her judicial opinions since I haven't done a full reading on them. But the condemnation of her for that one sentence is asinine.

And, your focus has been nothing other than her race and gender for the last 3 pages. I've seen automatic carwashes do worse jobs than your knee jerk reaction to her nomination.

If you haven't noticed, I've been talking about race and gender because that is what she is getting attacked on .

hehehe.. fucking nubs.. I swear.. if I had a nickle for every mudhole i've stomped in some newby ass...


Listen bitch.. APPARENTLY you don't give two shits about the vetting process because her own words DO invite a closer look. YOUR reflexive reaction in "defending" her against this interpretation of HER WORDS makes yo no less a fucking fool as those whom you point a finger at. They have concerns. NO SHIT. over HER quotes. WHOOPTYFUCKINGDO. Do you think Alito or Scalia, or for christs sakes THOMAS wasn't wring through a fucking grinder for THEIR statements? Maybe you should be less of a giant hypocritical pussy here and actually ACT like you give a fuck about the vetting process instead of shaking like a goddamn dog at the sight of a treat, eh?


And, she isn't a fucking shoe in, fucknugget. No more than Bush's Meyers. Acting as if this is our only choice and that such influence, DESPITE THE ROLE OF THE BENCH, might just blow up in your goofy fucking face. After all, Meyers is not seated either.

And no, the condemnation of that sentence is not asinine. It's a legitimate concern for those of us not reflexively leaping when the masters say jump. I'd like clarification, myself. Acting like you are on PMS and bleeding all over the fucking carpet at every point of concern or criticism is EXACTLY what makes you about as laughable as you think they are. Take your candy fucking ass parade of ignorance on down the road, motherfucker.

ps.. WAAAAH WAAAAAAAHHH! Mommy, THEY pulled my hair FIRST.... thats exactly what you sound like. Disconnect from the internet you waste of fucking bandwidth.

 

[Nik]

But aht influence has no place in the Supreme Court of the United States. We don't need Jesse fucking Jackson wearing robes just because YOU think it's time for some color in the bench. I've already stated under what clarification i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt until we are knee deep in the vetting process. If you want to continue to believe that she is the messiah of the judicial system without knowing more about her then EXACTLY the same limited information critics know then be my guest.

Wow, you are stupid.

Did your limited reading ability fail you when I stated, specifically, that she did need to be fully vetted?

That influence exists, whether you like it or not. It exists for white people as well, you just don't notice it since whites men are the dominant force in society.

My messiah? Umm, no. I have limited knowledge of her judicial opinions since I haven't done a full reading on them. But the condemnation of her for that one sentence is asinine.

And, your focus has been nothing other than her race and gender for the last 3 pages. I've seen automatic carwashes do worse jobs than your knee jerk reaction to her nomination.

If you haven't noticed, I've been talking about race and gender because that is what she is getting attacked on .

hehehe.. fucking nubs.. I swear.. if I had a nickle for every mudhole i've stomped in some newby ass...


Listen bitch.. APPARENTLY you don't give two shits about the vetting process because her own words DO invite a closer look.

The words of her OPINIONS, do. The words she made while making a speech reflecting that, no shit sherlock, background effects decisions, doesn't.

YOUR reflexive reaction in "defending" her against this interpretation of HER WORDS makes yo no less a fucking fool as those whom you point a finger at. They have concerns. NO SHIT. over HER quotes. WHOOPTYFUCKINGDO. Do you think Alito or Scalia, or for christs sakes THOMAS wasn't wring through a fucking grinder for THEIR statements? Maybe you should be less of a giant hypocritical pussy here and actually ACT like you give a fuck about the vetting process instead of shaking like a goddamn dog at the sight of a treat, eh?

Feel free to vet her. Just vet her on shit thats actually important. This whole "omg she made a non-pc quote one time" is fucking retarded.

And, she isn't a fucking shoe in, fucknugget. No more than Bush's Meyers. Acting as if this is our only choice and that such influence, DESPITE THE ROLE OF THE BENCH, might just blow up in your goofy fucking face. After all, Meyers is not seated either.

Actually, she'll pretty much get the nomination. No more than Myers? Right. Myers was actually an intellectual light-weight. The Republicans are trying that line on Sotomayer, but that dog won't hunt.

And no, the condemnation of that sentence is not asinine. It's a legitimate concern for those of us not reflexively leaping when the masters say jump. I'd like clarification, myself. Acting like you are on PMS and bleeding all over the fucking carpet at every point of concern or criticism is EXACTLY what makes you about as laughable as you think they are. Take your candy fucking ass parade of ignorance on down the road, motherfucker.

Try citing her opinions or actually, god forbid, engaging in legal analysis. But no, thats not what we should be looking at. Instead your honky ass wants to cry and whine because a Latina mentioned race.

You want to read her opinions and try to criticize, go for it. But this kind of bullshit? Yeah, I'll laugh in your face, bitch. And good luck getting this shit to stick to her.

 

[Ravi]

Second, 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.


Perhaps this is just a poorly worded quote. Maybe, instead of "better conclusion" she meant to say "better perspective". If so, then this is easier to accept than how the sentence reads on its own.


but, ravi.. come on girl.. let's be honest.. if someone threw a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Why do you automatically assume that THIS woman is THE best choice from the start when, I'd bet, yo didn't even know her name three weeks ago? Aren't you even slightly interested in the vetting process?

I've no idea if she's a good choice or not. Merely pointing out the typical hysterical reaction of the right wing. She's a woman = BAD. She's a latina = BAD. She made a ruling that was on reflection very reasonable = BAD.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to poke fun at them when YOU are doing the exact same thing in her defense? MAYBE SHE IS racist as fuck. do you know otherwise? Maybe she IS a bad choice for that level of our court systems. Don't you think that a position with a lifetime apointment might deserve a bit more critical observation than checking for her sex like a westminster dog show judge? Again, I don't see any criticism because she is a woman OR latina. I see criticism of a few choice quotes that she will need to clarify in the vetting process. The auto-vagina blind support just makes you look like as much of a fool as they are.

Really? Did you read the OP? Why they are bringing up her gender or ethnicity is beyond me...you know damn well a white male wouldn't raise these comments.

I've no idea if she's a racist or not, but if they are going to accuse her of being one the burden of proof is on them. Why would I just assume by their accusations that she is a racist?

 

[Shogun]

The words of her OPINIONS, do. The words she made while making a speech reflecting that, no shit sherlock, background effects decisions, doesn't.

Again, you are fucking wrong. Thomas caught three shades of hell over personal accusations that had nothing to do with a fucking ruling. Doh.. did you forget about that, bitch? of COURSE you did. And, if her background usurps the Constitutional standard by which Supreme Court judges make decisions then I gues you WOULD scream like a nelly little bitch at the hint of rightful criticism.

Feel free to vet her. Just vet her on shit thats actually important. This whole "omg she made a non-pc quote one time" is fucking retarded.

Well, that certainly is your OPINION. And, thus far, it seems to be the opinion of the fucking village idiot. The FACT is that what is important to YOU won't be important to others... which, ironically, is exactly the kind of PERSPECTIVE you keep reflexively defending. amazing.

If Alito was raked accross the coals because of something un-pc that HE said then... OH wait THAT DID HAPPEN AS A MATTER OF FUCKING FACT.

FOXNews.com - Dems Announce 'Significant Concerns' About Alito - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


Seriously, motherfucker.. you might want to take your guppy ass back to a tank that is not filled with sharks.


Actually, she'll pretty much get the nomination. No more than Myers? Right. Myers was actually an intellectual light-weight. The Republicans are trying that line on Sotomayer, but that dog won't hunt.


Ahh yes.. nothing says vetting process quite like THAT pompous fucking response!



Hey clone.. again, you don't know a goddamn thing about this lady. Certainly no more than what we knew about Meyers. Acting asif you have compared their fucking SAT scores is rich. Seriously. You are starting to dig yourself a hole to match the one im stomping in your ass.


Try citing her opinions or actually, god forbid, engaging in legal analysis. But no, thats not what we should be looking at. Instead your honky ass wants to cry and whine because a Latina mentioned race.

You want to read her opinions and try to criticize, go for it. But this kind of bullshit? Yeah, I'll laugh in your face, bitch. And good luck getting this shit to stick to her.


Hey pussy.. I'll match you LINK FOR LINK showing the last three judges going through this same process and being grilled over shit they've said in and out of court. I really don't care if your sole concern is that she's not white and has a pussy. You've already proven what kind of a cognitive gump you are. For real, dude. The mudhole only gets DEEPER from here on out.

 

[Shogun]

I've no idea if she's a good choice or not. Merely pointing out the typical hysterical reaction of the right wing. She's a woman = BAD. She's a latina = BAD. She made a ruling that was on reflection very reasonable = BAD.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to poke fun at them when YOU are doing the exact same thing in her defense? MAYBE SHE IS racist as fuck. do you know otherwise? Maybe she IS a bad choice for that level of our court systems. Don't you think that a position with a lifetime apointment might deserve a bit more critical observation than checking for her sex like a westminster dog show judge? Again, I don't see any criticism because she is a woman OR latina. I see criticism of a few choice quotes that she will need to clarify in the vetting process. The auto-vagina blind support just makes you look like as much of a fool as they are.

Really? Did you read the OP? Why they are bringing up her gender or ethnicity is beyond me...you know damn well a white male wouldn't raise these comments.

I've no idea if she's a racist or not, but if they are going to accuse her of being one the burden of proof is on them. Why would I just assume by their accusations that she is a racist?

Like I said, Ravir.. if I drew a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Indeed, I've read quite a bit about her so far. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not falling over in orgasms just because she's got a vagina.

And, I'll tell you like I'm telling this fucking noobster... I'll show you EXACTLY how the same thing happened to Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. Acting like your pussy is aching now that it's happening to YOUR nomination is a joke. Just say the word, Ravir... You may not remember anyting farther back than the last mcdonalds monopoly game but I assure you that THIS is necessary for lifetime appointments.

 

[Nik]

The words of her OPINIONS, do. The words she made while making a speech reflecting that, no shit sherlock, background effects decisions, doesn't.

Again, you are fucking wrong. Thomas caught three shades of hell over personal accusations that had nothing to do with a fucking ruling. Doh.. did you forget about that, bitch? of COURSE you did. And, if her background usurps the Constitutional standard by which Supreme Court judges make decisions then I gues you WOULD scream like a nelly little bitch at the hint of rightful criticism.

Thomas was accused of COMMITTING A CRIME. If you don't understand the difference between that and a speech, you really are far gone.

Feel free to vet her. Just vet her on shit thats actually important. This whole "omg she made a non-pc quote one time" is fucking retarded.

Well, that certainly is your OPINION. And, thus far, it seems to be the opinion of the fucking village idiot. The FACT is that what is important to YOU won't be important to others... which, ironically, is exactly the kind of PERSPECTIVE you keep reflexively defending. amazing.

Is she applying for a job as a judge, or for a talk show host? Her duties as a judge are what matters, not her talks around the country.

If Alito was raked accross the coals because of something un-pc that HE said then... OH wait THAT DID HAPPEN AS A MATTER OF FUCKING FACT.

FOXNews.com - Dems Announce 'Significant Concerns' About Alito - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

What exactly does what happenened to other justices have to do with what we are talking about here? Oh right. Nothing at all. Go back to grade school, bitch.

Seriously, motherfucker.. you might want to take your guppy ass back to a tank that is not filled with sharks.

Fish metaphors? Umm creative, I suppose. I guess you have to stoop to shit like that when your points are so obviously inadequate.

Hey clone.. again, you don't know a goddamn thing about this lady. Certainly no more than what we knew about Meyers. Acting asif you have compared their fucking SAT scores is rich. Seriously. You are starting to dig yourself a hole to match the one im stomping in your ass.

Myers went to Southern Methodist. Sotomayor went to Yale and Princeton. Myers was white house counsel. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench.

Just a wee difference between those things, you uneducated hack.

Hey pussy.. I'll match you LINK FOR LINK showing the last three judges going through this same process and being grilled over shit they've said in and out of court. I really don't care if your sole concern is that she's not white and has a pussy. You've already proven what kind of a cognitive gump you are. For real, dude. The mudhole only gets DEEPER from here on out.

Wow....it happened in the past, so that makes it justifiable to do it now? Thats your argument? Surely even you can do better than that.

 

[Ravi]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to poke fun at them when YOU are doing the exact same thing in her defense? MAYBE SHE IS racist as fuck. do you know otherwise? Maybe she IS a bad choice for that level of our court systems. Don't you think that a position with a lifetime apointment might deserve a bit more critical observation than checking for her sex like a westminster dog show judge? Again, I don't see any criticism because she is a woman OR latina. I see criticism of a few choice quotes that she will need to clarify in the vetting process. The auto-vagina blind support just makes you look like as much of a fool as they are.

Really? Did you read the OP? Why they are bringing up her gender or ethnicity is beyond me...you know damn well a white male wouldn't raise these comments.

I've no idea if she's a racist or not, but if they are going to accuse her of being one the burden of proof is on them. Why would I just assume by their accusations that she is a racist?

Like I said, Ravir.. if I drew a pussy on a chalkboard you'd support it's nomination. Indeed, I've read quite a bit about her so far. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not falling over in orgasms just because she's got a vagina.

And, I'll tell you like I'm telling this fucking noobster... I'll show you EXACTLY how the same thing happened to Roberts, Alito AND Thomas. Acting like your pussy is aching now that it's happening to YOUR nomination is a joke. Just say the word, Ravir... You may not remember anyting farther back than the last mcdonalds monopoly game but I assure you that THIS is necessary for lifetime appointments.

mmkay...show me, soggy. Show me how Roberts, Alito and Thomas were judged on their race or gender.