sotomayor unimpressive

[American Horse]

She's only but slightly more intelligent than the Senators from Minnesota who questioned her....And she's a shoo-in for confirmation.

I weep for my country.

We can always tell..... when we hear the MSM and the Democrat senators say that some one is the smartest, or most eloquent, or the best qualified nominee in a hundred years, that it's obligatory, and no one had better disagree. It's so transparent!

 

[Lycurgus]

She's only but slightly more intelligent than the Senators from Minnesota who questioned her....And she's a shoo-in for confirmation.

I weep for my country.

We can always tell..... when we hear the MSM and the Democrat senators say that some one is the smartest, or most eloquent, or the best qualified nominee in a hundred years, that it's obligatory, and no one had better disagree. It's so transparent!

Add Jillian to that list!

 

[Oddball]

She's only but slightly more intelligent than the Senators from Minnesota who questioned her....And she's a shoo-in for confirmation.

I weep for my country.

We can always tell..... when we hear the MSM and the Democrat senators say that some one is the smartest, or most eloquent, or the best qualified nominee in a hundred years, that it's obligatory, and no one had better disagree. It's so transparent!

What never ceases to amaze me is when lefty pom-pom wavers are stuck for some way to compliment someone who has no really evidently strong traits, they always fall back to going on and on about how "smart" they are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

She's only but slightly more intelligent than the Senators from Minnesota who questioned her....And she's a shoo-in for confirmation.

I weep for my country.

Interesting... a woman who has more federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years and she's "unimpressive"?

over 300 published decisions and only 4 reversed by the high court? and even then, the decision on the big ones were 5-4 and she's "unimpressive"?

see... this is why no one listens to you loons.

Loons? I wasn't impressed with her answers either. Here we have a person with a Doctoral degree and many years of being a member of the federal court system, and she sounded like a 2nd year sophomore at the University of Texas. Her main downfall is not only her basic intelligence level and a command of the English language, she is a racist. If she is confirmed, I will not vote for the senators who confirmed her.

I wonder who actually writes her briefs for her. Hopefully someone who knows the difference in definitions of

eminent and imminent

vagrancy and vacancy

providence and province

as you said her command of the language is sophomoric at best.

 

[Soaring]

Interesting... a woman who has more federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years and she's "unimpressive"?

over 300 published decisions and only 4 reversed by the high court? and even then, the decision on the big ones were 5-4 and she's "unimpressive"?

see... this is why no one listens to you loons.

Loons? I wasn't impressed with her answers either. Here we have a person with a Doctoral degree and many years of being a member of the federal court system, and she sounded like a 2nd year sophomore at the University of Texas. Her main downfall is not only her basic intelligence level and a command of the English language, she is a racist. If she is confirmed, I will not vote for the senators who confirmed her.

I wonder who actually writes her briefs for her. Hopefully someone who knows the difference in definitions of

eminent and imminent

vagrancy and vacancy

providence and province

as you said her command of the language is sophomoric at best.

It's quite obvious to me that if she hires someone to write her briefs for her, she should fire them and hire an English speaking person.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting... a woman who has more federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years and she's "unimpressive"?

over 300 published decisions and only 4 reversed by the high court? and even then, the decision on the big ones were 5-4 and she's "unimpressive"?

see... this is why no one listens to you loons.

Loons? I wasn't impressed with her answers either. Here we have a person with a Doctoral degree and many years of being a member of the federal court system, and she sounded like a 2nd year sophomore at the University of Texas. Her main downfall is not only her basic intelligence level and a command of the English language, she is a racist. If she is confirmed, I will not vote for the senators who confirmed her.

I wonder who actually writes her briefs for her. Hopefully someone who knows the difference in definitions of

eminent and imminent

vagrancy and vacancy

providence and province

as you said her command of the language is sophomoric at best.

I remember that the Libs jumped all over Bork for having a typo in a brief, good thing they hold Sonia to the same high standards.

Listening to her is like listening to the Bowery Boys. I expected her to answer "indubitably"

What a fucking moron.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I remember that the Libs jumped all over Bork for having a typo in a brief, good thing they hold Sonia to the same high standards.

Listening to her is like listening to the Bowery Boys. I expected her to answer "indubitably"

What a fucking moron.

the bowery boys....old Louie who used to run the malt shop....old rocks may be like that....old and grumpy...

 

[Lycurgus]

Loons? I wasn't impressed with her answers either. Here we have a person with a Doctoral degree and many years of being a member of the federal court system, and she sounded like a 2nd year sophomore at the University of Texas. Her main downfall is not only her basic intelligence level and a command of the English language, she is a racist. If she is confirmed, I will not vote for the senators who confirmed her.

I wonder who actually writes her briefs for her. Hopefully someone who knows the difference in definitions of

eminent and imminent

vagrancy and vacancy

providence and province

as you said her command of the language is sophomoric at best.

It's quite obvious to me that if she hires someone to write her briefs for her, she should fire them and hire an English speaking person.

Shhhhhh ................ now, now, "princess" Julian is a expert on this topic and he/she would passionately disagree with you!

The princess knows! LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We are in eminent danger of having an Affirmative Action English Second Language Justice, but one with a wise Latina vagina, fill the current vagrancy on the Supreme Court, which I understand might get moved to Providence, Rhode Island.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

We do not live in a meritocracy.

This is news to you Skull?

Surely you must have had a hint that is true after listening to Bush II for the last 8 years.

Meritocracy? LOL...

NOoooooo... The whole concept of equitible human rights in NO WAY provides for the means of those who are best able to achieve what they can... on the MERIT of their respective individual means....

ROFLMNAO...

That's only THE AMERICAN WAY! That's all...

What the Western Culture has been stampeding towards for the last 60 years, is an IDIOCRACY... with this appointment being one of the final signs; and a beautiful illustration of the foundation depicted in the 'trial scene' in the movie of the same name.

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

She's only but slightly more intelligent than the Senators from Minnesota who questioned her....And she's a shoo-in for confirmation.

I weep for my country.

Interesting... a woman who has more federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years and she's "unimpressive"?

over 300 published decisions and only 4 reversed by the high court? and even then, the decision on the big ones were 5-4 and she's "unimpressive"?

see... this is why no one listens to you loons.

Wow... "More federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years..." Golly... that sounds like a real qualifier...

300 whole decisions... and only 4 were reversed... and the big ones fell to ideology...

So the little ones were on the law... though, ya didn't say whic you feel were big; thus its' hard to respond on the specifics.

But what I want to know, Counselor; is:
#1 Which of those decisions which were reversed, do YOU see as 'Big ones' and why...
#2 Where do you disagree with the fairly honorable Judge Sotowhatsherface... and third...
#3 WHAT DECISIONS IMPRESSES YOU MOST and WHY?
#4 What of her hearing testimony and comments impressed you the most and why?

Now friends, what you're going to find is that the good Counselor (lol... I know... but hush, I'm workin' here...) Julian will be unable to speak directly to any of the points queeried... And this is due to two fundamental flaws... first, she's an imbecile; second, at every point; at least in the threads in which she's participated as I've witnessed them; wherein she has offered a clear and umabiguous position, that position has undermined her previous implications... thus she's unable to sustain any point which she advances, through taking a clearly defined point.

The reason is that leftism as it is projected, does not sum to service its stated goal.

This idiot will claim that she's all about justice... but she's also 'feels' that fairness and justice are equal... as many a fool does... but where fairness is trotted out as justice, it fails justice. Why is this?

Well fairness friends is a subjective inference...an inference which is unique to the indivdual and shaped by their respective perspective. Equality is an overtly objective standard; where each individual enjoys the same opportunities which are sustained and served by the standard itself.

Equality is a concept which the leftist MUST profess, but which it must, by default DETEST... as equality only serves opportunity... and to the addled mind; opportunity serves no purpose to those with no means or desire to take it; thus the left sees 'fairness' and equality as synonymous; serving only or at least predominately outcome and this without regard for, or to opportunity; of course the problem, friends is that such a notion serves neither equality, NOR FAIRNESS... thus it is a LIE... a deception; a delusion of te first order.

And that is why you can never get a leftist to speak to specifics... and that is why all you will ever get from such is dissemblence... because if they are honest... if they come out and state what it is they believe... they are laughed into the street.

As no culture can be sustained on the principle-less, counter intuitive nonsense advanced by these idiots.

Sotomayor will simply be the next step towards the judicial idiocracy... and if you haven't watched that movie... go find it... it demonstrates to perfection the logical extension of a culture that rested upon 'leftist principle'... which against all odds, survived well beyond the means of nature to sustain such. But when viewed from that perspective; it's hilarious...

 

[joeyc]

Everyone who says anything negative about a wise Latina is a racist. There's no two ways about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Everyone who says anything negative about a wise Latina is a racist. There's no two ways about it.

My garlic nose tells me you're 100% correct about that typical white behavior.

 

[Odysseus]

Interesting... a woman who has more federal judicial experience than any justice in the last 70 years and she's "unimpressive"?

over 300 published decisions and only 4 reversed by the high court? and even then, the decision on the big ones were 5-4 and she's "unimpressive"?

see... this is why no one listens to you loons.

During the confirmation hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Justice Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”

Senator Coburn then asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”

Justice Sotomayor replied, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.”

From her own words, it is glaringly obvious that Sonia Sotomayor embraces a political orthodoxy that adheres to the notion that people's rights emanate from the government they are subject to. Such a belief is contrary, almost to a degree of blaspheme, to the founding principles of America.

America was founded under the principle of individual freedom and liberty, and that we are endowed with natural, or inalienable, rights. Not that we are allowed our rights by some perceived benevolence of government. Just the opposite - as Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence, our government was instituted to secure our rights.

For a prospective Supreme Court Justice to espouse a philosophy completely contrary to the philosophy of America's founding, he or she should be immediately disqualified from sitting on the bench of America's highest court.