Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
79 replies to this topic

#16 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:01 PM

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," she said. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."


Why can "minorities" get away with saying stuff like this?

Shouldn't the letter of the law decide a judgement? Every fat liberal will now sue Taco Bell for making them fat and the law is on their side. Go get your chalupa and cinnamon twists while you still can.

#17 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:04 PM

National Review says she screws up a lot and disregards law in her opinions. Has been called down by Clinton appointees.

Looks like the president saw "latino" and "woman" and said "I'll take her"


the national review is a rothbardian rag who cares

#18 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,339 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:07 PM

She's AWESOME man! Let's break out the pom-poms for another amazing Obama move. Rah rah! It's not even June yet and we've got our very own SC justice in the mold of the 1 nutball that opposed today's Prop-8 ruling. Love to read that dissenting opinion, I'm sure it's chock-full of amazing constitutional law citations. Way to go Obama...you're just so freaking cool.


Anthing like how all the guys who wrote the Constitution allowing only white male landowners to vote were all white male landowners? You mean legislating like that?

#19 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,374 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:07 PM

I just hope he didn't pick her based on looks... :puke:

#20 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:07 PM

Why can "minorities" get away with saying stuff like this?

Shouldn't the letter of the law decide a judgement? Every fat liberal will now sue Taco Bell for making them fat and the law is on their side. Go get your chalupa and cinnamon twists while you still can.


Flip the statement...imagine a white male saying the same thing with the appropriate racial portions reversed.

#21 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:09 PM

Flip the statement...imagine a white male saying the same thing with the appropriate racial portions reversed.


they did, it was called the constitution

#22 Kyle82

Kyle82

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:09 PM

I just hope he didn't pick her based on looks... :puke:



Yeah...she is a little rough around the edges. :yesnod:

#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:10 PM

Anthing like how all the guys who wrote the Constitution allowing only white male landowners to vote were all white male landowners? You mean legislating like that?


That has absolutely NOTHING to do with court decisions today. Your statement is spoken like a true Obama-bowler.

#24 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:11 PM

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with court decisions today. Your statement is spoken like a true Obama-bowler.

yes the constitution has nothing to do with decisions today.

#25 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:12 PM

they did, it was called the constitution


:smilielol5: LOLZ........................

oh, wait. You are probably being serious.

F*ck it! :smilielol5:

#26 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:13 PM

yes the constitution has nothing to do with decisions today.


The demographic makeup of the authors...yes...that has nothing to do with decisions made today. But you can keep being disingenuous if you so choose.

#27 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:16 PM

The demographic makeup of the authors...yes...that has nothing to do with decisions made today. But you can keep being disingenuous if you so choose.


considering american law is based off a constitution and a bill of rights written over 250 years ago, I think that yes the demographics and professions (white, male, slaveowners) of the writers have a lot of bearing actually on the laws and decisions today.

unless of course you believe that this small, unrepresentative group of elites with the equivalent of modern day middle school educations somehow managed to come up with a set of pure, egalitarian laws that absolutely transcend gender, racial, and economic inequality more than two centuries later.

in that case i would encourage you to study for your upcoming test in 8th grade civ

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,339 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:17 PM

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with court decisions today. Your statement is spoken like a true Obama-bowler.


You douche, a lot of the reasons there have been amendments to the Constitution is to expand the rights the nation guarantees to people other than white male landowners. It has EVERYTHING to do with court decisions today. Our nations history has been based on how many freedoms the nation was ready for at any particular time, and that truth is not going away.

Can you not take a minute to actually learn about the history involved with the crap you pretend to know about?

#29 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,900 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:18 PM

yes the constitution has nothing to do with decisions today.


Of course it does

http://www.loc.gov/r...hamendment.html

#30 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:18 PM

hey g5jamz where did you study con law i want to begin a promising career working for the Cato institute


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com