Devisive Supreme Court Judge

[jillian]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that......it is nothing short of outrageous....it is pure discrimination....we have seen Obama do this already....we live in a supposed democracy where the majority rules....but what has been happening at an increased pace since the sixties is the un-natural accrument of power by one particular minority especially out of all proportion to the percentage of the total population they represent....they have been able to do this because there are a lot of people aka liberals who want to destroy the America we have all known and loved...they want to make it into something that goes against things America has always stood for.....aka truth, justice and the American Way.

your idea on what is divisive is backwards. if you want to know what a divisive justice is, i'd suggest you look at scalia or Thomas.

 

[Truthmatters]

well its your damned fault they vote for dems idiot bedowetter

 

[Sawbriars]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that......it is nothing short of outrageous....it is pure discrimination....we have seen Obama do this already....we live in a supposed democracy where the majority rules....but what has been happening at an increased pace since the sixties is the un-natural accrument of power by one particular minority especially out of all proportion to the percentage of the total population they represent....they have been able to do this because there are a lot of people aka liberals who want to destroy the America we have all known and loved...they want to make it into something that goes against things America has always stood for.....aka truth, justice and the American Way.

your idea on what is divisive is backwards. if you want to know what a divisive justice is, i'd suggest you look at scalia or Thomas.

I am no fan of the so called Supreme Ct.--it has done much damage to America and will do more. Thomas is a bootlicker who only got in because of his race...like Sotomayor....both affirmative action incompetents.

Bottom line...we must have rule by the majority or our democracy is finished.

 

[Sawbriars]

Still doesn't get it. Color me surprised.

Next font size it is then.
Again, where exactly does she advocate the power of one group over others?

Read that again. Which of those words is bigger than the others? It's because they're crucial. Where does she say this? Where is it? Where it is? It is where?

Perhaps you should phone a friend to figure this out. Or poll the audience.

Ridiculous....the intent of her statement is quite obvious...only a dullard would have any difficulty understanding her intent............and most especially when one knows a little of her background.

Newt Gingrich pegged her along ago. Study up Chump.

Excellent. The old "Okay she didn't say it but I know what she really means" song and dance.

Or as we say in graphic terms:

Idiot.

Truth Revolt) – On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that she believed that women and minorities had to crash the halls of power.

Can you understand what she is saying here....or do I have to get out my color crayon?

 

[Pogo]

what part of the minority that will eventually be a majority doesnt always have to vote for one party dont you get lib dinosaur?

Is there an English version of this?

 

[Pogo]

Ridiculous....the intent of her statement is quite obvious...only a dullard would have any difficulty understanding her intent............and most especially when one knows a little of her background.

Newt Gingrich pegged her along ago. Study up Chump.

Excellent. The old "Okay she didn't say it but I know what she really means" song and dance.

Or as we say in graphic terms:

Idiot.

Truth Revolt) – On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that she believed that women and minorities had to crash the halls of power.

Can you understand what she is saying here....or do I have to get out my color crayon?

I understand you're illiterate. I get that. ("devisive")

So once again the question is:
where exactly does she advocate the power of one group over others?

What part of "over others" is over one's head here?

Do you need this in some other language or sump'm?

 

[Sawbriars]

what part of the minority that will eventually be a majority doesnt always have to vote for one party dont you get lib dinosaur?

Is there an English version of this?

and I thought English wasn't your native language....I do not think even someone of just average intelligence would have a problem understanding what he said...but obviously you do...why is that?

 

[Sawbriars]

Excellent. The old "Okay she didn't say it but I know what she really means" song and dance.

Or as we say in graphic terms:

Idiot.

Truth Revolt) – On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that she believed that women and minorities had to crash the halls of power.

Can you understand what she is saying here....or do I have to get out my color crayon?

I understand you're illiterate. I get that. ("devisive")

So once again the question is:
where exactly does she advocate the power of one group over others?

What part of "over others" is over one's head here?

Do you need this in some other language or sump'm?

O.K. I went and fetched my color crayon just for you.....the very essence of 'power' means to be able to influence, to control, to dominate....I posted the definition of power already....thus if minorities accumulate or gain power it will be at the expense of and over the majority group...this is not rocket science chump.....and of course it is plain as day that is what she is advocating and that was the reason behind Obama selecting her...she is doing exactly what he wanted her to do...to advocate for minority power. Ah Duh!

 

[Pogo]

 

[Sawbriars]

What some others are saying about Sotomayor's outrageous speech.....................................

MekongDelta69 • 18 hours ago

More babbling from another "perpetually oppressed minority victim."

NoBama is a dictator and he has put into place a regime which says that if you are a straight, white, conservative, male, who is a legal American citizen/Vet, you are the 'evil villain.'

Half of SCOTUS is a complete travesty...


DaveMed • 18 hours ago
in order to “change the dialogue in this country.”

"Dialogue" is an inappropriate word, as it implies 2 (or more) parties involved in the discussion.

The reality is that the only voice that reverberates through every aspect of American (and European) society (and, indeed, the only one allowed) is that of the anti-Whites. And if Whites could be honest about their feelings without fear of punishment, I'm not sure that dominant voice would really reflect the true vox populi.

Whitetrashgang • 18 hours ago

WT doesn't even have a say in his own government, why doesn't she just s#@ in a upside down outhouse for practice.

r j p • 18 hours ago





Sotomayor shouldn't be teaching law at a third tier law school, let alone be on SCOTUS.


D.B. Cooper • 18 hours ago





And not ONE white republican has even considered trying to get this thing removed from office.
The GOP knew good and well back in 2008, there might be two Supreme Court vacancies.
No opposition from the political party I now want dismantled.

16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

bluffcreek1967 > D.B. Cooper • 14 hours ago





Very true! The fact that the Republicans in Congress did little or next to nothing to oppose the two latest seats in the Supreme Court illustrates clearly how they have abandoned the majority base of their party!

Why any genuine conservative would even want to be part of the contemporary GOP is beyond me! How much more do they need to betray us before we realize that they're nothing more than a bunch of traitors?

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

ejXinMI > bluffcreek1967 • 13 hours ago





As Bushy presided, I spat nails... then prayed the GOP would be outlawed. Traitors-- the lot of them. I never imagined our country would choose to continue self-destruction. Boy was I wrong.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
















Avatar

Tim_in_Indiana • 18 hours ago





Minorities have the power to “change the dialogue in this country.”

We know what that means! And minorities will also have the power to change the concerns, the priorities, and indeed, everything that America formerly stood for.

Is anyone dumb enough not to be able to read between the lines here and know what this woman is really saying??

20 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

IstvanIN > Tim_in_Indiana • 18 hours ago





Kill YT?

6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Groovy > Tim_in_Indiana • 18 hours ago





Amoung other things it is saying "Amnesty now for minorities so they can change the dialogue in this country"

6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Berserker > Tim_in_Indiana • 16 hours ago





She is pedaling anti-Whiteness.

6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

bluffcreek1967 > Tim_in_Indiana • 14 hours ago





Right on! "Changing the dialogue in this country" is liberal code-word for 'We're gonna change the way Americans think about this nation, its founding, and what we believe and stand for.' This isn't about a "dialogue," it's about a Leftist monologue, a one-way communication of telling whites how to think and act.

4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

IstvanIN • 18 hours ago





The only change she wants is for this entire country to be one, gigantic Puerto Rico-like failure of a nation from coast to coast.

19 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Einsatzgrenadier > IstvanIN • 8 hours ago





And when that happens, we'll all be "equal", which is exactly what the liberal extremists want. They can't bring the 3rd world up to 1st world standards, so they might as well destroy the 1st world by flooding it with massive 3rd world immigration.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

David Ashton • 18 hours ago





What does the Nordic Episcopalian think (sic) about the implications of this statement at government level?

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Puggg • 18 hours ago





She loves minorities so much.

Why doesn't she go back to her Puerto Rico, an island full of her people? All minorities.

She might enjoy life on food stamps.

30 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Pro_Whitey • 18 hours ago





Change the dialogue? Right, by screaming like a bunch of howler monkeys and drowning out thought and debate. No thanks.

16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Rhialto • 18 hours ago





There was a time that judges tried to create the impression of being above politics, and only concerned with impartial adjudication. They did not give politicalized speeches. That time is long gone.

By the way, WTF does "change the dialogue of this country" mean in normal English?

9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

bigone4u > Rhialto • 18 hours ago





By the way, WTF does "change the dialogue of this country" mean in normal English?
________________________
It means you and I have to shut up. Libspeak is easy. Every trite phrase means shut up if you don't agree with me.

21 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

bigone4u • 18 hours ago





Evil woman. No one would pay her any attention if she hadn't been given an AA slot in college, an AA law degree, an AA seat on the bench, and an AA SCOTUS seat. Now she wants every job, every position, filled with AA incompetent scum such as herself. Evil woman.

24 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

D.B. Cooper > bigone4u • 18 hours ago





If you want to get rid of it, the first obstacle involves getting rid of greater threats:






16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Alexandra1973 > D.B. Cooper • 17 hours ago





Dude, I'm tired of seeing that guy's picture. The eyes creep me out!

5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

IstvanIN > Alexandra1973 • 17 hours ago





They eyes do cut right through you. But it is the "prissy" smile that creeps me out.

4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

D.B. Cooper > IstvanIN • 16 hours ago





I want everyone to be reminded of the personification of the GOP's problems. I did, however, manage to find a more fitting picture of the man with no brain.






7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

bilderbuster > IstvanIN • 11 hours ago





Does anyone remember that creepy Hale Bop cult, comet couple where everyone in it committed suicide wearing Nike sneekers?
He looks related to them.

△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›

















Avatar

shmo123 > bigone4u • 17 hours ago





I realize life isn't fair, but it really gets me that this woman sits on the Supreme Court. I can only imagine some of the brilliant legal minds--who could run circles around this woman intellectually--whose resumes were tossed aside in favor of this AA pick.

18 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

bluffcreek1967 > bigone4u • 14 hours ago





Yeah, but she's such a 'wise Latina'!

5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

Spartacus • 18 hours ago





I'm very optimistic about the power of White men to exterminate you and all the other worthless mongrels . But first they need to wake the (%&*$ up ...

18 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

rentslave • 18 hours ago





The next Republican President and Congress must expand the number sitting on the Court to that of a grand jury to negate Obama's judges.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Bartek > rentslave • 14 hours ago





Probably the next corporate boy will just hire on some more non-Whites to sell the 'brand' to the "up and coming" demographic.
Whites will never find representation in "American" government, the "USA" is the walking dead.
Whites need to look beyond this train wreck to a better, separate, future.

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

Alexandra1973 • 18 hours ago





She needs to brush up on her English. That's MONOlogue. That's where they talk, we listen or we're eeevil racists.

8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Truthseeker • 17 hours ago





We talk in terms of the majority and "minorities" all the time. The only thing holding these "minorities" together is that they aren't white, and therefore feel opposed to whites on some level. If whites were no longer the majority, do you think suddenly the other "minorities" would welcome whites into their coalition and start fighting whichever group was the new majority? Somehow I doubt it. They've seen us as adversaries too long to acknowledge us as real people with particular interests.

8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

JSS • 17 hours ago





The only power "minorities" have in the western world is that which Whites surrender with out a fight. On their own they can't even run water.

16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Bartek > JSS • 14 hours ago





We know what that says about the Browns and Blacks, but what does that say about the Whites?

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

dave • 17 hours ago





If Antonin Scalia said those same words concerning whites,all hell would break lose in the media. He would be called a racist, white supremist and other names. Since it's a hispanic female who got where she is through affirmative action,all is ok. The double standard is sickening

8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Frank_DeScushin • 16 hours ago





I don't have much confidence in a Supreme Court Justice whose optimism isn't grounded in reality.

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Bon, From the Land of Babble • 16 hours ago





Wow. Now I understand why Lindsay Graham and Juan McCain voted for this fair, impartial, highly qualified legal expert with a brilliant mind to sit on the highest court in the land.

John Lott writes:

“Not even Democrats were particularly impressed with Sotomayor...In May 2009, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote Obama: ‘Bluntly put, [Sotomayor is] not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.’”

But this is Amerikka 2014 where identity politics trumps all: it is FAR more important to have lesbians and “wise latinas” on SCOTUS than it is to have qualified jurists.











see more

14 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

BillMillerTime > Bon, From the Land of Babble • 9 hours ago





That Elena Kagan is a lesbian isn't the problem. At least it's not a problem for me since I believe that no one picks the direction that his (or her) weather vane points. The fact that Kagan is deep in the closet about it says something. She can't level with the American people about who she really is. And of course her totalitarian left-wing ideology is a huge problem also.

1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

Nancy Thomas • 16 hours ago





More hate from the unwise latina.

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

thomas edward • 16 hours ago





Sad - such a poor excuse for a woman...

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Bartek > thomas edward • 14 hours ago





Even Kagan needs someone to love. Guess there really is somebody for everybody.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›















Avatar

John K • 15 hours ago





Oh, I'll bet that hag is optimistic, because right now it looks like they'll take over the country. I, however, am optimistic that Southern whites will take back the South and send these "minorities" up north to live with the northern whites who've championed their cause for so long.

7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

RisingReich > John K • 14 hours ago





You have an inability to see many Whites in the North are diametrically opposed to dark skins, obviously.

You should qualify your statement to call out New England. Northern Westerners are suffering just as much as Southerners are.

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›













Avatar

Bartek > RisingReich • 14 hours ago





Whites in the North who aren't Yankees probably would be better off going back to Europe. We aren't to blame for the East Coast idiocracy. When I look around at the pig sty the nation has become, I find it hard to believe my ancestors wouldn't feel like a real scam was pulled on them.
White Northern lives would be better spent defending our ancestral homes than worrying about this lost territory.

1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

John K > RisingReich • 11 hours ago





"The North" I am talking about is the northeast panhandle extending to Michigan & Wisconsin; basically the north of the Civil War, or the war of northern aggression. This country would be far better off if Southerners were in control.

These northerners I'm talking about have been looking down their noses at Southerners for too long, and they are largely to blame for what the darkies and other non-whites are doing to to the country.

3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
















Avatar

DudeWheresMyCountry? • 15 hours ago





Evil person alert. She isn't acting like a Supreme Court Justice, her small mind is having her act as an anti-White community organizer. I wonder where she got that. Separation or civil war, either sounds better than more of this mongrel.

7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

A Freespeechzone • 14 hours ago





Make NO mistake that Sotomayor and her ilk support retribution and 'payback' against the majority and will use the court to make it so.

They expect us to be complacent and 'take it'.

I won't.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

DieWulfe • 14 hours ago





Thought Supreme Court justices represented everyone. I must be delusional to think that.

2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Avatar

Massif1 • 14 hours ago





I have nothing against women in power. Let them take cushy jobs, get popcorn, and watch them. Marissa Mayer was given a top job in Yahoo, a job to save a company that can't be saved. Sheryl Sandberg was given a job as Facebook's CEO and Mark Z is still making all decisions. Looks like Sheryl is just at Facebook to promote her feminist ideology. I'm waiting to see how Microsoft will fail in the next 5 to 10 years.

1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›














Bartek • 14 hours ago

I'm very optimistic about the power of a few grains of powder to keep what I have.
More and more, it looks like the people in Crimea have the right idea.

 

[Truthmatters]

we will take this country back from the cheaters.


You and your lie filled platform will not kill democracy.

 

[aplcr0331]

we will take this country back from the cheaters.


You and your lie filled platform will not kill democracy.

You go grrllll!!!

 

[katsteve2012]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that......it is nothing short of outrageous....it is pure discrimination....we have seen Obama do this already....we live in a supposed democracy where the majority rules....but what has been happening at an increased pace since the sixties is the un-natural accrument of power by one particular minority especially out of all proportion to the percentage of the total population they represent....they have been able to do this because there are a lot of people aka liberals who want to destroy the America we have all known and loved...they want to make it into something that goes against things America has always stood for.....aka truth, justice and the American Way.

The demographic ratios in America have been undergoing change now for years. Women outnumber men because they live longer than men.

Besides that, as Americans become more accepting of diversity there is bound to be a change over time in who the so called "majority" is.

The article dd not specify "one particular" minority that is experiencing an marked increase in ""accrument" of power in America as you state.

So as opposed to to using this article as a thinly veiled swipe at a statement that you wish to make, why not just make whatever statement you wish to so your obscure point has an opportunity to gain some credibility?

 

[katsteve2012]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that.....

Ummm.... where exactly does she advocate the power of one group over others?

Oh wait, that's right -- she doesn't.

Reading is a lost art.

Precisely. And not only is "reading a lost art", "a mind is a terrible thing to waste".

 

[katsteve2012]

At the most dangerous time in the entire history of America we have an affirmative action President and two affirmative action supreme court judges...........can anyone say....A Nation of Fools?



In her first broadcast interview, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Scott Pelley how affirmative action affected her life leading up to her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.



Affirmative action played a role in her admittance to Princeton, she admits, and she remembers it drawing the scrutiny of an adult at her Catholic school in the Bronx. "The first day I received in high school a card from Princeton telling me that it was possible that I was going to get in, I was stopped by the school nurse and asked why I was sent a possible and the number one and the number two in the class were not," she recalls. "Now I didn't know about affirmative action. But from the tone of her question I understood that she thought there was something wrong with them looking at me and not looking at those other two students," says Sotomayor.

And yet she sees nothing wrong with it ...because like most minorities she feels a sense of 'entitlement' because she is a minority.

Are you in a coma? Or do you live on another planet in a different galaxy? Being a "Woman" she IS NOT a minority. Women outnumber men in America. Besides that, over 95% of Supreme Court justices that have served have been white males, so you need to put away the "race card".

And just out of curiousity, who do you think is the "other" so called "Affirmative Action" Supreme Court Justice?

 

[katsteve2012]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that......it is nothing short of outrageous....it is pure discrimination....we have seen Obama do this already....we live in a supposed democracy where the majority rules....but what has been happening at an increased pace since the sixties is the un-natural accrument of power by one particular minority especially out of all proportion to the percentage of the total population they represent....they have been able to do this because there are a lot of people aka liberals who want to destroy the America we have all known and loved...they want to make it into something that goes against things America has always stood for.....aka truth, justice and the American Way.

your idea on what is divisive is backwards. if you want to know what a divisive justice is, i'd suggest you look at scalia or Thomas.

I am no fan of the so called Supreme Ct.--it has done much damage to America and will do more. Thomas is a bootlicker who only got in because of his race...like Sotomayor....both affirmative action incompetents.

Bottom line...we must have rule by the majority or our democracy is finished.

Finally you are right...one time in a row. Clarence Thomas most certainy is a "bootlicker", and it just so happens that he OPPOSSES Afformative Action.


Clarence Thomas Suggests Affirmative Action is Like Jim Crow - US News

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In addition to the most devisive President in history since Abraham Lincoln we now have a justice who has gone on record to advocate for minority power.

Sotomayor: 'I'm Very Optimistic About The Power of Minorities...' | Truth Revolt

Unfortunately....very few will see the implications of this....well let me try and spell it out---I see no problem with anyone advocating that minorities should be treated fairly and equally before the law....however when someone like a Supreme Ct. Judge or any other influential governmental official goes on record and says they will work to increase the power of one group of people over others and a minority group at that......it is nothing short of outrageous....it is pure discrimination....we have seen Obama do this already....we live in a supposed democracy where the majority rules....but what has been happening at an increased pace since the sixties is the un-natural accrument of power by one particular minority especially out of all proportion to the percentage of the total population they represent....they have been able to do this because there are a lot of people aka liberals who want to destroy the America we have all known and loved...they want to make it into something that goes against things America has always stood for.....aka truth, justice and the American Way.

Ever occur to you the reason there's not just 1 Supreme Court Justice is precisely so there's almost always dissent?

 

[Pogo]

What some others are saying about Sotomayor's outrageous speech..................................... <snip>

That's what this board needs -- more open spaces.

Wow dood; not only referring to another message board but actually quoting it?

Enjoy the pinkitude.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Devisive Supreme Court Judge

Nonsense.

You’re an ignorant, tedious partisan hack whose thread premise has failed because it’s a lie – accept that and move on.

Associate Justice Sotomayor is not ‘divisive,’ your animus toward the Justice is predicated solely on the party affiliation of the president who nominated her, having nothing to do with anything she’s said or the opinions she’s rendered.

 

[Sawbriars]

Devisive Supreme Court Judge

Nonsense.

You’re an ignorant, tedious partisan hack whose thread premise has failed because it’s a lie – accept that and move on.

Associate Justice Sotomayor is not ‘divisive,’ your animus toward the Justice is predicated solely on the party affiliation of the president who nominated her, having nothing to do with anything she’s said or the opinions she’s rendered.

You have no more of an idea regarding what is 'divisive' than pogo has regarding the meaning of 'power' in the world of politics.

Regarding divisive....A prominent Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to apologize for saying that she would hope a "wise Latina woman" often would reach a better conclusion than a white man.

Now you tell me if a white justice on the Supreme Ct. issued a statement like that aka....."I would hope that a wise white man will often reach a better conclusion than a negro" what the repercussions would be...........there would be protests and marches and probably even lootings and burnings to force out the waycist.

Is that simple enough for you Chump?


Now pogo is so clueless he does not understand when one group accumulates power it will always be at the expense of another group...that is a given and any person of even average intelligence should be able to understand that....aka if a minority group is given power it will be at the expense of the majority group. Nothing complicated about that at all.

Bottom line ....what is at stake here....and what all this is really about is whether or not we will have majority rule or not....it is a long accepted conclusion that the majority should rule in this nation...that is the essence of democracy.....the majority rules. I already posted a scholarly article on that....scroll up and look at it.