Sotomayor on guns - "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

[SUBMAN1]

Nice. Another person that can't read the Constitution. And she is being nominated for the SCOTUS!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash/

-S

[GoldenRivet]

what an idiot.:nope:

[Sledgehammer427]

I assumed being american meant having that fundamental right to keep raccoons out of your yard with a little 12 gauge medicine...apparently i was wrong.

she must be one of the few that forgot when the revolutionary war took place...

Raccoons=Redcoats(?)

[SteamWake]

Im even more concearned about her desire to legislate from the bench she has even said as much in public and on record. A judges role is to judge according to existing laws not make new ones. Nor should they even express an 'opinion' about said existing laws, including gun control.

Then their is her opinion that she makes a better judge because she is Latin, Femail and can rule with compasion and feeling. If a white guy said that he wold be run out of the country. Justice is no longer blind evidently.

This pick is no supprise she is basically Barry's alter ego. Sure she has an impressive back story. A back story that could not have been accomplished save for this oppressive, mean, country.

[Platapus]

Well Faux News being what it is, why don't we go to a credible source before getting all spun up.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2009/02/second-circuit.html

Second Circuit Holds Second Amendment Not Applicable to States

The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held (Maloney v. Cuomo, 2d Cir., No. 07-0581-cv, 1/28/09).

The statute at the center of this case, N.Y. Penal Law §265.01(1), provides criminal penalties for possession of a broad range of items, including weapons used in martial arts. The plaintiff was charged under the statute after police found fighting sticks, or nunchaku, in his home. He ended up pleading guilty to a different charge and then filed a lawsuit against the county prosecutor and others seeking a declaration that the law offends his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Incorporation Doctrine

For the first half of its life, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was interpreted as constraining only the federal government—not the states. However, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the U.S. Supreme Court began ruling that certain rights were incorporated into the limits on state governments imposed by the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The provisions selected for incorporation so far include most, but not all, of the rights that come into play in criminal cases. For example, the right to indictment does not apply to the states.

Back before the incorporation doctrine took hold, the Supreme Court held, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), that the Second Amendment is a limitation only on the power of the federal government and thus does not constrain state regulations. The Supreme Court's subsequent Second Amendment cases, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631 (U.S. 2008), both involved federal regulations, so the incorporation issue was not really in play. Nevertheless, in a footnote in Heller, the Supreme Court had this to say:

With respect to Cruikshank‘s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Second Circuit, in contrast, has directly addressed the incorporation issue in recent years. In Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 73 U.S.L.W. 1677 (2d Cir. 2005), the court rejected a challenge to a state gun-control law on the ground that the states' power to regulate firearms is not limited by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I thought all you FauxNews followers were in favour of state's rights?

Or are you only in favor of States Rights when it is convenient?

Justice Sotomayor, in this case, was not anti-gun but Pro-State Rights.

Amazing that Faux News left that out :hmmm:

"Fox News: We don't wait for the facts before reporting"

[SteamWake]

"Fox News: We don't wait for the facts before reporting"

LOL little off topic but yea Fox... unlike those other bastions of integrity like Cnn, msnbc, new york times, and on and on. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Oh my gosh! Platapus? Are you for real? Or just an idiot?

The highest law of the land is the Constitution. No State law, and no Federal law can trump it. It is called the law of the land.

And you talk about Fox News not reporting the facts. They reported them just fine. You are the spin master. That ruling above should make your blood boil.

The argument about states rights comes when you talk Federal law. Not Constitutional law. Either know what you are talking about before you open your mouth, or quit spinning the truth, whichever it is you are up to.

-S

[Platapus]

LOL little off topic but yea Fox... unlike those other bastions of integrity like Cnn, msnbc, new york times, and on and on. :rotfl:


Oh I agree, it is so hard these days to find an unbiased news source. Your best bet is to read opposing biased sources and make your own inferences.

I used to like CNN but in the recent years it has really gone down fast. :down:

[Sailor Steve]

Oh my gosh! Platapus? Are you for real? Or just an idiot?
And here I was starting to agree with you. I thought you didn't make personal attacks.

The highest law of the land is the Constitution. No State law, and no Federal law can trump it. It is called the law of the land.
As the article Platapus quoted points out, the Constitution was originally envisioned as applying only to the Federal Government, not the States. That changed in the wake of the Civil War, when the states went out of their way to limit the rights of certain individuals and groups.

Whom the Constitution affects has been the subject of over two hundred years of debate and argument. If you're going to dictate and define it for everyone, please give relevant arguments and details, not just pronouncements from on high.

You are the spin master.
Exactly what and how is he spinning? Some of us aren't able to tell without your help.

The argument about states rights comes when you talk Federal law. Not Constitutional law. Either know what you are talking about before you open your mouth, or quit spinning the truth, whichever it is you are up to.
Again, please explain the difference between the two. I'm curious to see if you know what you are talking about.

Let's have a real debate this time, not just preaching.

[SUBMAN1]

Sailor Steve - Are you for real? Do I need to go on with this sentence?

Show me the proof that the Constitution was never intended to not be the law of the land and that States have the right to ignore it?

Something tells me that you can't.

-S

[August]

Sailor Steve - Are you for real? Do I need to go on with this sentence?

Show me the proof that the Constitution was never intended to not be the law of the land and that States have the right to ignore it?

Something tells me that you can't.

-S

Why don't you answer his question first? That will give you a chance to remove the double negative from yours... :yeah:

[SUBMAN1]

Why don't you answer his question first? That will give you a chance to remove the double negative from yours... :yeah:

That is pointless to do if the Constitution is not meant to be the law of the land. So I wait his first. It is the underlying main point of the argument. If he can't answer it, it automatically answers the other for him.

-S

[Frame57]

The right to own and bear arms is not a priviledge. Which is what they want to spin the lingo on. A right cannot and should not be infringed on.

[Platapus]

The right to own and bear arms is not a priviledge. Which is what they want to spin the lingo on. A right cannot and should not be infringed on.

But they are, show me a right in America that does not have some form of infringement on it?

Of course it all depends on what you define as a right and what is defined as infringement. Hence the debate. :03:

[SUBMAN1]

The point is, we are eating our cheeseburgers blissfully unaware of our rights being stripped away from us all around us. This thread here proves that people accept this as well and that is disheartening. That is probably why I get so attached to this type of thread and I apologize for my comments above Platapus.

-S

[Frame57]

Our rights have been infringed on. I agree. A free society must have the right to bear arms, else it is not free. Our founding Fathers saw the oppression that monarchy and governments can bring on the the very people they govern, hence the right to bear arms....

[Sailor Steve]

Because I asked you first, and you declined to answer.

The Constitution came about because the Articles of Confederation - the contract between the 13 States - weren't working. New York and Pennsylvania were talking war over their border, South Carolina not only refused to help Georgia fight the Seminole indians, but also refused to let North Carolina's troops cross their territory to render aid, and - most importantly - Britain, France and Russia all refused to make trade treaties with 13 individual nations.

The solution James Madison came up with was to form the "more perfect Union". Unfortunately he ran into immediate opposition, which resulted in several months of debate and argument before they finally came up with a document they could sort of agree on.

We ended up with Representatives, or Congressmen, to represent the people, which is why they are popularly elected. The Senators were to represent the will of the States themselves, which desired to retain their autonomy, and which is why until 1913 they were not elected but appointed by the State Legislatures. The President was to represent the country to the rest of the world, and the Congress was to make the laws.

Originally Madison didn't even want a Bill of Rights, because he figured that if he listed some he would forget others, and somewhere down the line someone would use that to say "they obviously didn't mean that one because they didn't mention it." It was only after goading by Jefferson and others that he agreed to write one. Of course it didn't help him that most states refused to ratify the new government without one.

During their arguments over assumption of State debts to the Tories, the establishment of a National Bank and payment of IOUs to Revolutionary soldiers, Madison and Hamilton argued incessantly, but they never once said "THIS is what the Constitution means!" Rather, they both repeatedly said "I think this is what they meant", both admitting that it had been a group effort. Therefore I find it presumptuous for modern-day people to claim they know exactly what the founders meant by anything.

I agree completely about the Second Amendment, as I've written many times. What I disagree with is your arrogant writing dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "an idiot".

Now its your turn. Please give logical and reasonable explanations for your statements, not just preaching and insults.

[CastleBravo]

I have a few ideas on this topic which seems to have gone a bit off topic. Weather or not you believe in gun ownership as a basic right or not, can we agree that the role of the court, especially SCOTUS is to interpret the law, not make it? That role is specifically enumerated to the bi-cameral congress.

Looking past the gun issue it is important in my thinking that no nominee or sitting federal judge should have any history of legislating from the bench. It makes petty dictators, answerable to know one, out of our judiciary. Having strongly held beliefs is
Without doubt human nature, but an individual whose job it is to interpret the law must fight the urge to allow those beliefs enter into their decision making. Not only on gun rights but on all issues which affect so many, who have little or no remedy. Dred Scott v. Sandford is a fine example of SCOTUS making law when none existed before. There are other cases where the court has seen fit to make law, rather than interpreting law, which is their function.

I’m personally concerned about this nominees stand on the way the courts function. In my way of thinking it bodes ill for a nation already ravaged by an ever increasing federal beauracracy, self proclaimed powers, usurption of individual freedoms, and the disdain for private property.

[Aramike]

I thought all you FauxNews followers were in favour of state's rights?

Or are you only in favor of States Rights when it is convenient?The states have no right to circumvent or bypass the Constitution. That's the whole friggin' point of the damn thing.

[Platapus]

CastleBravo, Some very good points there.

I would like to point out that the term "legislating from the bench" is often a term used by political critics to further their agenda. :) "Legislating from the bench" only seems to come up when a decision is not in agreement with someone's agenda. :)

You are quite correct in that judicial decisions should never result in new legislation without going through the appropriate legislative process.

However, the SCOTUS does have great leeway in interpreting existing legislation. In fact, not only do they have great leeway, they have a responsibility to interpret existing legislation.

The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) did not, as you posted, make any new laws. The Dred Scott case centered on two constitutional issues

1. Did the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the issue concerning Dred Scott. The Supreme Court's decision was that no, it did not. Mr. Scott was not legally a citizen.

2. Did the fifth Amendment protect human property? The Supreme Court's decision was that the Fifth Amendment did cover human property and that no lower law (state) law could violate this amendment. The law under consideration were several bills passed by Congress and signed by the President. These were collectively and commonly known as the Missouri Compromise.

Under the auspices of the doctrine of "Original Jurisdiction", the SCOTUS choose to render a decision invalidating many of the laws in the Missouri Compromise. This too was not an example of the SCOTUS making news laws, it was a case of the SCOTUS invalidating laws it decides are unconstitutional.

There was much debate and dissent in the SCOTUS on this decision. One of the dissenting opinions concerned the observation that once the SCOTUS determined that they did not have jurisdiction over the case, they should not have even made the second decision. The case should have been passed back to the appropriate appellate courts.

For all three issues the SCOTUS did not make any new legislation, they interpreted existing legislation or in the last issue, invalidated an existing law. In your post you referenced other instances where the SCOTUS made laws instead of interpreting existing laws. I would be interested in reading your list of them.

Some may refer to this interpretation as legislating from the bench, but that term is inaccurate.

The critical issue is how far can the SCOTUS interpret an existing law before they decide that new legislation needs to be enacted via the Congress? At some point during deliberation, the SCOTUS has the authority to decide that existing laws are not appropriate and that new legislation is required. They pass this decision to the Congress for action. Due to the severe restrictions on what cases the SCOTUS can hear, I am not aware of any instances where this occurred.

So the concern should be "what are the limits of the SCOTUS in interpreting existing laws?" The answer, unfortunately, is none. Hence the SCOTUS being made up of multiple justices and not just one.

[Platapus]

The states have no right to circumvent or bypass the Constitution. That's the whole friggin' point of the damn thing.

That is exactly what the Incorporation Doctrine debate is all about. Over the years our country has been in existence the opinions of the Supreme Court have changed, and may change again concerning this doctrine.

There are those who believe that the Incorporation Doctrine is inappropriate and other who belie that the incorporation Doctrine is appropriate.

Who is to say which is correct? Well the Supreme Court of the United States actually :DL

[SUBMAN1]

Because I asked you first, and you declined to answer....

I do not refuse to answer. You must answer the Constitutional question first. Within that answer automatically sits your answer since it need not be spoken. You are trying to take the topic away from the Constitution. I refuse to follow. If I am right, then you're answered and you are in the wrong. If I am wrong, then I am wrong on both accounts, including your question. I await your reply. Please don't beat around the bush on it.

-S

[CastleBravo]

My greatest fear is that interpretaion is used as an excuse (alternative definition) for ignoring the constitution. Its much like having empathy could be thought of as not being judicially blind. Judge Sotomayor stated 'a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge'. Yet many all white male courts enacted (did I say that) 'interpreted' the constitution to recognize many social misjustices. And that wasn't their job, but it is done.

If Chief Justice Roberts made a similar comment, regarding white males, he would certainly not sit on SCOTUS.

I didn't realize the phrase 'legislating from the bench' would cause offence.
Sorry.

[Platapus]

Judge Sotomayor stated 'a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge'.



If we are going to reference what people say, I would like to suggest that we provide the actual quote. Misquoting or paraphrasing statements can cause people to misunderstand the context.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. 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.

This is just one paragraph from her entire speech eight years ago. A full transcript of the speech can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

What Sotomayor was talking about was experiences. The preceeding and following paragraphs of her speech focus not on ethnic issues but experience issues.

"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.

The emphasis is on the experiences. If you read her speech, I think it will become apparent. This is another reason why we should not take what people say out of context. Context helps us understand the intent.

Does a Justice's experience have an influence on his or her decisions?

To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Supreme Court Justice 1902-1932)

The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men,
have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/cmnlw10.txt

I don't know if I agree with what Sotomayor said. But, after reading the entire speech, I believe she was emphasizing life experiences and not sexual or ethnic identification.

Of course, after reading her speech, others may have other interpretations and that's OK. All that I ask is that no one make such an interpretation until they have read her speech in its entirety.

[CastleBravo]

I have read the speech in its entirety and believe her statement is racist.


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.


The statement pre-supposes that a white male has no richness in his life. And that a latina, who has more richness, is in a better position to reach a 'better' conclusion, 'more often than not'.

[Platapus]

I have read the speech in its entirety and believe her statement is racist.



We are each entitled to our own opinion. :salute:

[Aramike]

I have read the speech in its entirety and believe her statement is racist.



The statement pre-supposes that a white male has no richness in his life. And that a latina, who has more richness, is in a better position to reach a 'better' conclusion, 'more often than not'.Agreed. Her statement was nothing more than racism, or even racial elitism (as if there's a difference).

This woman is not qualified to serve on a jury, much less the Supreme Court.

[CastleBravo]

Agreed. Her statement was nothing more than racism, or even racial elitism (as if there's a difference).

This woman is not qualified to serve on a jury, much less the Supreme Court.

Yep change the words a bit.

Second, I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latin woman who hasn't lived that life.

Sounds racist to me.

[August]

Agreed. Her statement was nothing more than racism, or even racial elitism (as if there's a difference).

This woman is not qualified to serve on a jury, much less the Supreme Court.

I have to agree. Even taken in context it is still a pretty racist statement to make.

[Torpex752]

Agreed. Her statement was nothing more than racism, or even racial elitism (as if there's a difference).

This woman is not qualified to serve on a jury, much less the Supreme Court.


Couldnt agree more!!:salute:

[SteamWake]

The states have no right to circumvent or bypass the Constitution. That's the whole friggin' point of the damn thing.


:salute:

(have to add words) +1

[CastleBravo]

The judge has reasons for her anti-gun rhetoric, and judgements and will no doubt judge based on those beliefs (empathy). I will give her that. But she also believes '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'. So if you believe her views on firearms are an accurate portrail of her beliefs, why wouldn't her views on race also be accutate betrails of her beliefs, and as such totally invalidate he as a justice?

[SteamWake]

Judge & rhetoric do not belong in the same sentince.

[Platapus]

Another interesting quote

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Racist?

[CastleBravo]

Another interesting quote



Racist?

yes . your family experiencing racism in the past does not justify racism now.

Germany waged war on the world in the past. Should we judge the german people who live today as being, lets say war mongers?

[August]

Another interesting quote



Racist?

Put in context with her belief that a latino woman is a better judge than a white man? Yeah kinda...

[CastleBravo]

Put in context with her belief that a latino woman is a better judge than a white man? Yeah kinda...

And that is the bottom line, isn't it. Racism by all definitions expressed by a SCOTUS nominee. No pubic hairs on the soda can, just out and out racism.

[Platapus]

So comments like this should make a nominee for the SCOTUS ineligible for the position?

[Aramike]

So comments like this should make a nominee for the SCOTUS ineligible for the position?Yes.

Clearly you're going to rebuttal with a conservative justice who has said something you believe is similar ... and, if it is indeed similar, I'll also believe that person should be disqualified.

Imagine how the world would be if everyone's sense of right and wrong was unwavering rather than dependent upon the ideologies of the person in question...

In any case, before you try to point out another justice who as done something similar, please make an effort to refute the actual argument at hand. Just like momma said, "two wrongs don't make a right".

[Platapus]

Would your opinions change if you knew that Judge Sotomayor did not say:

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

But that these were two statements made by Judge Samuel Alito during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005?

Full transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html

[Platapus]

In any case, before you try to point out another justice who as done something similar, please make an effort to refute the actual argument at hand. Just like momma said, "two wrongs don't make a right".

There point is: Where was this "outrage" when a white male conservative judge nominated by George W Bush made similar statements.?

[SteamWake]

There point is: Where was this "outrage" when a white male conservative judge nominated by George W Bush made similar statements.?

Who? What? Oh you must be talking about Estrada yea that went well.

[mookiemookie]

Would your opinions change if you knew that Judge Sotomayor did not say:



But that these were two statements made by Judge Samuel Alito during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005?

Full transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e92n-YZL3Vs/SKA035AQFII/AAAAAAAAAH8/_De2FcLuVuI/s320/oh-snap.jpg

[SteamWake]

Spector & Durbin now there is a pair.

I know if I had to 'answer' to these two Id end up in the brig.

After there badgering and berating of Alito he was probably about ready to say anything.

Sotamayor's comment came off the cuff in an almost mocking manner.

But hey its all irrelevant she is going to get the nomination.

[August]

Would your opinions change if you knew that Judge Sotomayor did not say:



But that these were two statements made by Judge Samuel Alito during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005?

Full transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html

Did Alito also claim that his ethnic group made better judges than other ethnic groups? Like I said, it's only racist taken in context with the other comment.

[Platapus]

Did Alito also claim that his ethnic group made better judges than other ethnic groups? Like I said, it's only racist taken in context with the other comment.

Read his confirmation transcripts and make your own inference.

I am not sure that Sotomayor is a good pick, not sure she is an especially bad choice either.

Like every other Justice on the SCOTUS I am sure she will make decisions I agree with and decisions I disagree with.

The take away should be that the "concern" that the GOP is expressing is just the usual political kabuki dance. It has little to do with her or her viewpoints but everything to do with the fact that a democrat nominated her.

If the roles were reversed, the democrats would be doing the exact same thing.

This is what makes me very disappointed in our political system. More emphasis is placed on the party than on the individual.

Our Founding Fathers were wise about the potential risks of factions becoming powerful.

George Washington speaking about political parties

They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers # 10 entitled:

"The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" wrote about the same risks.

Political parties are factions and our Founding Fathers understood how they can be misused. As our recent history (50+ years) has shown, our political leadership is loyal first and foremost to the party and not to the people.

Some people find this acceptable and others unacceptable.

[Aramike]

Read his confirmation transcripts and make your own inference.

I am not sure that Sotomayor is a good pick, not sure she is an especially bad choice either.

Like every other Justice on the SCOTUS I am sure she will make decisions I agree with and decisions I disagree with.

The take away should be that the "concern" that the GOP is expressing is just the usual political kabuki dance. It has little to do with her or her viewpoints but everything to do with the fact that a democrat nominated her.

If the roles were reversed, the democrats would be doing the exact same thing.

This is what makes me very disappointed in our political system. More emphasis is placed on the party than on the individual.

Our Founding Fathers were wise about the potential risks of factions becoming powerful.

George Washington speaking about political parties



James Madison in the Federalist Papers # 10 entitled:

"The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" wrote about the same risks.

Political parties are factions and our Founding Fathers understood how they can be misused. As our recent history (50+ years) has shown, our political leadership is loyal first and foremost to the party and not to the people.

Some people find this acceptable and others unacceptable.
It's not about inference. It's about what he actually said, and what she actually said.

HE said that he takes ethnicity into account.

SHE said that ethinicity makes her BETTER than someone else.

This is a HUGE difference.

[Platapus]

The difference is that one was said during an official hearing with the US Senate and the other was made 8 years ago while speaking to a Latino audience at a Latino event.

But as I said, we are all entitled to our own opinion on this. That's what makes political discussions interesting. :yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

I do not refuse to answer. You must answer the Constitutional question first.
You're playing games again. You said there was a difference between Federal Law and Constitutional law. I asked you to explain and you immediately challenged me to answer your question first. You have refused to answer. I gave you a reply and asked for a response, and you still refused to answer.

You are trying to take the topic away from the Constitution.
Not at all. You throw out allegations that others don't read the Constitution. When asked to explain, you call people names. Please explain everything you mean, and provide actual examples.

I refuse to follow.
Why? Because you can't? I don't believe that for a minute. But it would be nice if for once you would have an actual discussion, instead of a trash-fest.

If I am right, then you're answered and you are in the wrong. If I am wrong, then I am wrong on both accounts, including your question. I await your reply. Please don't beat around the bush on it.
I started with a short discourse on the men who produced the Constitution, and how they themselves disagreed on what parts of it meant. Platapus made a very good statement on "legislating from the bench", and I agree - like a lot of catch-phrases that one comes out when the decisions made are in opposition to the user's opinions and beliefs.

When did "legislating from the bench" begin? With John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, and the first with any real power. (funny that I'm reading a great biography of him right now). In Marbury v Madison Marshall made the Court's first landmark case decision, and changed the balance of power in Washington.

President John Adams was on his way out, and one of his last acts was to make a large number of Federal Judicial appointments, including nominating his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to be Chief Justice. He did this because Thomas Jefferson, his old colleague and current political rival and enemy, had beaten him in the 1800 election and he didn't want Jefferson unstalling his Republican (read anti-constitution and states-rights) ideals.

When Jefferson took office his new Secretary of State, James Madison, discovered that Marshall had left several of the Documents of Appointment in his desk. Jefferson told Madison not to deliver them, and to see what happened.

What happened was that one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Madison for his papers. Since it was a Federal issue and was taking place in Washington it went straight to the Supreme Court. Marshall's ruling was both Judicial and Political - he ruled for Madison and Jefferson and against Marbury and himself, but the Court's official Opinian was a stroke of political genius. Marshall wrote that the Constitution didn't give the Court the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus - a paper ordering the President to turn the papers over. Congress had given the Court that power, but Marshall also said that the Constitution didn't give Congress the authority to grant said power to the court, either.

In one stroke Marshall defused any retaliation Jefferson might have made (Jefferson couldn't complain for the simple reason that he had won the case), and set up the Supreme Court as the main interpreter of what the Constitution means when it comes to legal matters. So it was John Marshall who said the Constitution was "the law of the land" at the same time he was "legislating from the bench".

I agree that Sotomayor's statements seem to indicate a willingness to base opinions on her feelings rather than the law, and I agree that she doesn't seem to be a good choice for the bench based on that observation.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm right and you're stupid" brand of argument. When the answer to a request for evidence is greeted with another question and a demand that it be answered first, there is no longer debate, just childish challenges.

I've answered your questions, and am still waiting for a detailed response to mine. You still haven't replied to questions I asked in other threads many months ago. One real discussion would be nice for a change.

[August]

The difference is that one was said during an official hearing with the US Senate and the other was made 8 years ago while speaking to a Latino audience at a Latino event.

But as I said, we are all entitled to our own opinion on this. That's what makes political discussions interesting. :yeah:

Again inherent racism seems to be ignored. Imagine we were talking about what a potential SJC said to a White audience at a White peoples event.

[Aramike]

The difference is that one was said during an official hearing with the US Senate and the other was made 8 years ago while speaking to a Latino audience at a Latino event.

But as I said, we are all entitled to our own opinion on this. That's what makes political discussions interesting. :yeah:Umm, no - the difference is the one person referred to their race as something they've learned from while the other person referred to their race as something that makes them better than another race.

[nikimcbee]

All I have to say is... isn't political correctness a bitch! You mean saying racist things is bad?:hmmm:

They need to sack for her sympathies with la raza.

[SUBMAN1]

You're playing games again. You said there was a difference between Federal Law and Constitutional law. I asked you to explain and you immediately challenged me to answer your question first. You have refused to answer. I gave you a reply and asked for a response, and you still refused to answer.


Not at all. You throw out allegations that others don't read the Constitution. When asked to explain, you call people names. Please explain everything you mean, and provide actual examples.


Why? Because you can't? I don't believe that for a minute. But it would be nice if for once you would have an actual discussion, instead of a trash-fest.


I started with a short discourse on the men who produced the Constitution, and how they themselves disagreed on what parts of it meant. Platapus made a very good statement on "legislating from the bench", and I agree - like a lot of catch-phrases that one comes out when the decisions made are in opposition to the user's opinions and beliefs.

When did "legislating from the bench" begin? With John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, and the first with any real power. (funny that I'm reading a great biography of him right now). In Marbury v Madison Marshall made the Court's first landmark case decision, and changed the balance of power in Washington.

President John Adams was on his way out, and one of his last acts was to make a large number of Federal Judicial appointments, including nominating his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to be Chief Justice. He did this because Thomas Jefferson, his old colleague and current political rival and enemy, had beaten him in the 1800 election and he didn't want Jefferson unstalling his Republican (read anti-constitution and states-rights) ideals.

When Jefferson took office his new Secretary of State, James Madison, discovered that Marshall had left several of the Documents of Appointment in his desk. Jefferson told Madison not to deliver them, and to see what happened.

What happened was that one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Madison for his papers. Since it was a Federal issue and was taking place in Washington it went straight to the Supreme Court. Marshall's ruling was both Judicial and Political - he ruled for Madison and Jefferson and against Marbury and himself, but the Court's official Opinian was a stroke of political genius. Marshall wrote that the Constitution didn't give the Court the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus - a paper ordering the President to turn the papers over. Congress had given the Court that power, but Marshall also said that the Constitution didn't give Congress the authority to grant said power to the court, either.

In one stroke Marshall defused any retaliation Jefferson might have made (Jefferson couldn't complain for the simple reason that he had won the case), and set up the Supreme Court as the main interpreter of what the Constitution means when it comes to legal matters. So it was John Marshall who said the Constitution was "the law of the land" at the same time he was "legislating from the bench".

I agree that Sotomayor's statements seem to indicate a willingness to base opinions on her feelings rather than the law, and I agree that she doesn't seem to be a good choice for the bench based on that observation.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm right and you're stupid" brand of argument. When the answer to a request for evidence is greeted with another question and a demand that it be answered first, there is no longer debate, just childish challenges.

I've answered your questions, and am still waiting for a detailed response to mine. You still haven't replied to questions I asked in other threads many months ago. One real discussion would be nice for a change.

Again, you refuse to answer the question and beat around the bush. It can be said that both Constitutional law and Federal law are one and the same, but they are not. Judging by you knowledge on the way things were written, it is clear you already know this.

There are two levels for those that do not know and who are of another country, I write this for your benefit. Constitutional law is the highest law of the land. Federal law is laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president. No Federal law can be enacted by Congress if it violates Constitutional law. This is why the 3rd branch of the Government, the Supreme Court exists so as to strike down Un-Consitutional laws and to keep Congress in check from making laws that violate Constitutional law.

The only way for Congress to pass a law that violates the Constitution of the United States of America is to make and amendment. No Federal law can violate this. This has only been successfully 27 times in the History of this country.

As for Sailor Steve, you still haven't answered my question.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Again, you refuse to answer the question and beat around the bush. It can be said that both Constitutional law and Federal law are one and the same, but they are not. Judging by you knowledge on the way things were written, it is clear you already know this.

There are two levels for those that do not know and who are of another country, I write this for your benefit. Constitutional law is the highest law of the land. Federal law is laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president. No Federal law can be enacted by Congress if it violates Constitutional law. This is why the 3rd branch of the Government, the Supreme Court exists so as to strike down Un-Consitutional laws and to keep Congress in check from making laws that violate Constitutional law.

The only way for Congress to pass a law that violates the Constitution of the United States of America is to make and amendment. No Federal law can violate this. This has only been successfully 27 times in the History of this country.

As for Sailor Steve, you still haven't answered my question.

-S

I'm going to put on my Teddy Roosevelt costume. And if I successfully negotiate peace, I'll get the nobel peace prize.:03:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm going to put on my Teddy Roosevelt costume. And if I successfully negotiate peace, I'll get the nobel peace prize.:03:

FYI - Today you have to be Al Gore and lie to the world to get this prize. You will be waiting a long time.

For the rest, a list of our amendments can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

-S

[SteamWake]

I'm going to put on my Teddy Roosevelt costume. And if I successfully negotiate peace, I'll get the nobel peace prize.:03:

Why not try the Nevil Chamberlin model? :yeah:

[Tribesman]

Umm, no - the difference is the one person referred to their race as something they've learned from while the other person referred to their race as something that makes them better than another race.
bollox, put the line from the speech that people are getting riled up about in the full speech so it is in context and then try and justify the hysteria about what was said

[Aramike]

bollox, put the line from the speech that people are getting riled up about in the full speech so it is in context and then try and justify the hysteria about what was saidTypical lefty.

It is completely justified. She said that her racial experience makes allows her to be a better judge than a white male. That is racist, pure and simple.

And now we're going to put this woman on the Supreme Court?

I'll tell you what - convince me that, had John Roberts said that his experience as a white male allows him to be a better judge than a hispanic woman, the left wouldn't go absolutely nuts about it, and I'll believe that you're not guilty of intellectual dishonesty in favor of your ideological agenda.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I apologize

-S

..bloody hell, I was only gone a weekend :o ;)

[Sailor Steve]

I had to go back and look at what question it was you wanted answered.

Show me the proof that the Constitution was never intended to not be the law of the land and that States have the right to ignore it?

Something tells me that you can't.
Actually I can, depending on what is meant by law.

The Constitution of the United States is nothing more than the instruction manual for the construction and running of the Federal Government. It originally had nothing to do with the states at all. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than a listing of things the Federal Government is not allowed to touch, mostly individual rights. Of course we look to the earlier ones more than the later, as they list specific rights, but James Madison was most concerned with the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
His worry was that legal types would try to deny certain rights that he had forgotten to list, including the much-maligned right to privacy.

But what is relevant here is the Tenth:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is what people usually mean when they refer to "The Constitution", is to limit the government, which we know. But what is forgotten is that even though it says "We the People", and not "We the States", it was delegates representing the states who put it together in the first place, and one of the first arguments was over which would take precedence, the States or the Fed.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.
-letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

It wasn't until after the Civil War ended in 1865 that the Federal Government was in a position to pass amendments forcing the states to its will. In that case it was seen as a good thing, but the argument of State vs Federal authority has been an ongoing debate since the beginning.

My point isn't really that the Constitution doesn't govern over all, but rather that it's nowhere near so cut-and-dried as some people try to make it. Far from being a rock that never changes, the Constitution has been altered by amendment many times, and not always for the better. The one time an attempt was made to use it as "the law of the land", prohibition, was a total failure.

So the Constitution is the law for the Government, not for you and me. It doesn't affect our daily lives at all in any direct manner, and except for the failed Eighteenth Amendment, it has never been used as "the law of the land".

Oh, except for the Sixteenth Amendment, which you hate as much as the rest of us.

[CaptHawkeye]

Gotta love it when republicans go into agonized butt hurt mode whenever someone criticizes their ridiculously lax standards on gun control.

Oh whoops, I am a gun owner. Clearly I should be just as demanding of my right to own an AK as the rest of them!

[Aramike]

Gotta love it when republicans go into agonized butt hurt mode whenever someone criticizes their ridiculously lax standards on gun control.

Oh whoops, I am a gun owner. Clearly I should be just as demanding of my right to own an AK as the rest of them!I just think the issue of gun control is a way for many Democrats to say they are doing something about a problem while actually doing nothing at all. It's called "feel-good politics".

When AK-47 violence becomes rampant, then let's talk. From what I understand, the VAST majority of gun violence occurs with legal weapons owned illegally. I just think it's silly to suggest that someone who'd kill another human being in cold blood would really give a damn about whether or not his weapon is legal.

[Tribesman]

Typical lefty.
It is completely justified. She said that her racial experience makes allows her to be a better judge than a white male. That is racist, pure and simple.

But that isn't what she said is it .
So the hysteria is the usual nonsense that you would get from a typical "righty" like Limbaugh.
So Aramike would you like to take what was actually said in the full context of what it was said about and then try and justify your hysteria.....oh sorry I already asked that and you were unable:yep:

[Aramike]

But that isn't what she said is it .
So the hysteria is the usual nonsense that you would get from a typical "righty" like Limbaugh.
So Aramike would you like to take what was actually said in the full context of what it was said about and then try and justify your hysteria.....oh sorry I already asked that and you were unable:yep:That is PRECISELY what she said. Anyone can say anything is taken out of context ... why are you avoiding showing how?

I've read her entire speech - twice. This was perfectly in context.

Even the White House is saying that she should have chose her words better - not that it's being taken out of context.

YOU are making the claim that it is out of context. As such it is up to you to show how, which you're ironically side-stepping. Just like a typical party-line lefty - anytime one of your own says something they shouldn't, the claim is made that its just being taken out of context - without EVER giving the actual context.

It's so sadly ignorant that its funny.

[Tribesman]

That is PRECISELY what she said
No it isn't what she said . Simple isn't it .
She said that in the a limited context of certain types of case she hoped her experience of those particular issues would on balance lead to better judgements based on insight and understanding of those issues that others may not have.

So it isn't racist at all .

[August]

No it isn't what she said . Simple isn't it .
She said that in the a limited context of certain types of case she hoped her experience of those particular issues would on balance lead to better judgements based on insight and understanding of those issues that others may not have.

So it isn't racist at all .

No, that is what she said and it is indeed racist.

[Stealth Hunter]

All I have to say is... isn't political correctness a bitch! You mean saying racist things is bad?:hmmm:

They need to sack for her sympathies with la raza.

It's not that bad by itself; what makes it bad is when you get over-sensitive, whiny bastards who use it to prove a point... or lack thereof.:nope:

[Aramike]

No it isn't what she said . Simple isn't it .
She said that in the a limited context of certain types of case she hoped her experience of those particular issues would on balance lead to better judgements based on insight and understanding of those issues that others may not have.

So it isn't racist at all .Too bad she didn't actually say what you're saying she said.

Care to use actual quotes from the speech?

[surf_ten]

Come on people get with the program, dont you know that only white people can be racists. :shifty:

[August]

Come on people get with the program, dont you know that only white people can be racists. :shifty:

According to the gubmint, Latinos can be White... :yep:

[Captain Vlad]

Anyone else think the 'everyone else we define by ethnicity, but latin or hispanic we define by culture/place of origin' thing is a little odd?

Or conversely, if we must define everyone, is that actually a better way to do it?

[Tribesman]

No, that is what she said and it is indeed racist.
Come on then August quote her, by quote I mean what she said in case you are confused ,.
It's not that bad by itself; what makes it bad is when you get over-sensitive, whiny bastards who use it to prove a point... or lack thereof


woohoo we have a winner, well done Stealth . It is a complete non-issue that has been built by muppets with no foundation.
Now if people want to get into eminent domain then fair enough , but trying to play the race card in this case is a surefire complete loser

[SteamWake]

Unh huh... loser !

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55112V20090602

This will be an issue.

[Aramike]

Come on then August quote her, by quote I mean what she said in case you are confused ,.



woohoo we have a winner, well done Stealth . It is a complete non-issue that has been built by muppets with no foundation.
Now if people want to get into eminent domain then fair enough , but trying to play the race card in this case is a surefire complete loserUmm, HER words: "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."

You're the one saying that she said something else, without quoting her. That begs the obvious question: if she really said something else, why didn't she say it?

You get an "F" for effort.

:har:

[Tribesman]

Umm, HER words
Well excuse me Aramike , but what part of the word context don't you understand?
Come on this is simple stuff why can't you get your brain to function?

[Zachstar]

I just love how yall are further destroying Latin American support for the rethuglican party.

Keep it up! You are helping to ensure a decade long lasting dem majority!

[Aramike]

Well excuse me Aramike , but what part of the word context don't you understand?
Come on this is simple stuff why can't you get your brain to function?
You should look the word context up.

I know what context means. You clearly don't. For some reason, you think it means "interpretation". And what part of "show the context" don't you understand?

I've read the speech. There is no "context" argument. You're just using the standard lefty response of, context, CONTEXT when one of your own is busted. Anyone can claim "context" about anything. But to show it, you must use her other words to demonstrate said context...

...which is something you aren't doing.

Here's the definition of context for you: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contextThe part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.Get it now? You have to use HER WORDS to set the context, which you are not doing.

So why not kick your brain into functioning well enough to wrap around this very simple concept?

Frankly, I think you know you've been proven undeniably wrong, and can't handle it like an adult.

[Aramike]

I just love how yall are further destroying Latin American support for the rethuglican party.

Keep it up! You are helping to ensure a decade long lasting dem majority!
Yeah, isn't it sad how people see race over ideas?

[Tchocky]

Can anyone find evidence that Sotomayor is a racist in her judicial stances?

[SteamWake]

Can anyone find evidence that Sotomayor is a racist in her judicial stances?

I dont know if racisist is the right word but she sure holds a high opinion of her race / background over those of others.

I guess you missed my previous post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55112V20090602

[Aramike]

Can anyone find evidence that Sotomayor is a racist in her judicial stances?The problem with that is that she may very well have taken racist stances but have concealed them through other logic. Or perhaps she may only subconsciously inject racial biases into her rulings. We'll never really know, although SteamWake brings a valid point.

Racists often mask their racism in other justifications - indeed, those justifications are often what actually makes a racist.

The point is that any potential juror saying what she said would be disqualified for even municiple traffic court. Yet, this woman is somehow being considered for the Supreme Court. That statement of hers displays an incredible amount of racial arrogance, and someone believing such belongs no where near our highest court.

Besides, think about your question: let's say a known KKK member was the nominee, but there was no evidence that the judge had ever or would even inject race into his decisions. Would that be okay too?

[mookiemookie]

The problem with that is that she may very well have taken racist stances but have concealed them through other logic. Or perhaps she may only subconsciously inject racial biases into her rulings. We'll never really know, although SteamWake brings a valid point.

Racists often mask their racism in other justifications - indeed, those justifications are often what actually makes a racist.

The point is that any potential juror saying what she said would be disqualified for even municiple traffic court. Yet, this woman is somehow being considered for the Supreme Court. That statement of hers displays an incredible amount of racial arrogance, and someone believing such belongs no where near our highest court.

Besides, think about your question: let's say a known KKK member was the nominee, but there was no evidence that the judge had ever or would even inject race into his decisions. Would that be okay too?

Funny how in that very same answer where she mentioned her Latina heritage she is saying that relying solely on those experiences is a mistake and saying that it's important to challenge assumptions. So basically she's saying the opposite over what you people are saying she said. But by all means, cherry pick quotes all day. Lord knows it's easier than actually taking the extra two minutes to read what she said in context.

My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar....I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

[Aramike]

Funny how in that very same answer where she mentioned her Latina heritage she is saying that relying solely on those experiences is a mistake and saying that it's important to challenge assumptions. So basically she's saying the opposite over what you people are saying she said. But by all means, cherry pick quotes all day. Lord knows it's easier than actually taking the extra two minutes to read what she said in context.Umm, that doesn't change the context.

No one here ever claimed that she would be relying solely on those experiences. We are saying that she believes those experiences would make her a better judge than a white male, WHICH IS RACIST, and is WHAT SHE SAID.

You're the one cherry picking quotes and trying to change the subject. I've read the entire speech. I happen to agree with much of it, but we're not talking about the entire speech. We're talking about the context of one specific statement. Said context does not change that she made a VERY racist statement (which even the White House sees as a mistake).

Period.

How refreshing the day will be when leftists actually employ intellectual honesty rather than defending the indefensible just because its on their side..

[Tribesman]

I know what context means. You clearly don't
If you knew then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For some reason, you think it means "interpretation".
No , I think context means context.

Get it now? You have to use HER WORDS to set the context, which you are not doing.

What ? you mean use her words about a topic to set the context of what she was talking about instead of just picking a line and screaming "racist".
So Aramike what was she talking about?
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.
Ooooh looky ...thats racism she said really nasty things about people of different backgrounds, she said it in relation to judgements on the specific topic of errrrrrr....discrimination:har::har::har:
Honestly Aramike your effort has been pathetic in the extreme , of all the legitimate criticisms available about Sotomayor you had to go and choose a non-existant one

We are saying that she believes those experiences would make her a better judge than a white male, WHICH IS RACIST, and is WHAT SHE SAID.


Errrrrr.....slight problem there , it isn't what she said is it

[Aramike]

Tribesman, this is all that anyone needs to read to know that you're flat-out lying, and making up the rest:Errrrrr.....slight problem there , it isn't what she said is it.Yes it is. It has been quoted on here several times and is public knowledge, also acknowledged by the White House.

Again, "F" for failure ... and content. And for failure to know the definition of context. :yep:

Next.

[Aramike]

Ha! If the quote has been taken so "out-of-context", as you claim, than why are even democrats such as Diane Feinstein going to ask for a clarification?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23226_Page2.html

:haha::haha:

[August]

I just love how yall are further destroying Latin American support for the rethuglican party.

Keep it up! You are helping to ensure a decade long lasting dem majority!

So you're saying a one party system is good for you right?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, this is all that anyone needs to read to know that you're flat-out lying, and making up the rest:
Slight problem there again Aramike , it isn't what she said and you have no understanding of the word "context" .

why are even democrats such as Diane Feinstein going to ask for a clarification?

Because they are thick.

[August]

Because they are thick.

So you're saying you're smarter than everyone else?

[SUBMAN1]

Crud! Is this thread still going on? Too many pages to catch up, but I find it interesting that it is still an issue with this nomination. I think Obama needs a new pick.

-S

[Zachstar]

Matters little what you think or what other rethuglicans think. The repub party is not going to sacrifice itself to block just ONE nominee. Obama would be free to nominate an even deeper left and the thugs could do almost nothing to stop it after losing so much support.

ANY attempt to fillibuster or slow the process will cost the party that tries it MASSIVE amounts of Latin American support which basically means failure in 2010 and 2012.

[SUBMAN1]

Matters little what you think or what other rethuglicans think. The repub party is not going to sacrifice itself to block just ONE nominee. Obama would be free to nominate an even deeper left and the thugs could do almost nothing to stop it after losing so much support.

ANY attempt to fillibuster or slow the process will cost the party that tries it MASSIVE amounts of Latin American support which basically means failure in 2010 and 2012.

I thought you were Libertarian? They are supposed to be in the middle of the Rethuglicans and demo idiots like you say. Sounds like you really are a hard left liner.

-S

[Aramike]

Slight problem there again Aramike , it isn't what she said and you have no understanding of the word "context" .


Because they are thick.
Blah, blah, back and forth, baseless claims without proof, not bothering to qualify statements, standing firm despite absolute proof that you're wrong ...

When you got a minute, can you please tell us all what it is like to live in La-La-Land?

[Zachstar]

I thought you were Libertarian? They are supposed to be in the middle of the Rethuglicans and demo idiots like you say. Sounds like you really are a hard left liner.

-S

I have not been a Libertarian for years. Again I have to remind you (You have a memory problem there?) That I am left of Libertarian and Right of liberal.

Of course only you in my view could make a direct comparison of spectrum vs party. Obviously in my view you selectively forget that there is Hard Left Republicans and Hard Right Democrats.

EDIT: BTW As I am a "Dem" what does my part of the spectrum have to do with tactical Republican decisions? I will happily say "Filibuster!" to them just to watch them politically self destruct but I am not a republican am I? I doubt they will do ask I would like them to do.

[Aramike]

Matters little what you think or what other rethuglicans think. The repub party is not going to sacrifice itself to block just ONE nominee. Obama would be free to nominate an even deeper left and the thugs could do almost nothing to stop it after losing so much support.

ANY attempt to fillibuster or slow the process will cost the party that tries it MASSIVE amounts of Latin American support which basically means failure in 2010 and 2012.Yeah, brilliant ... support the party that caters to the thought-process that race matters.

In any case, I'm not a Republican. And, I'd actually find it sickening if any attempt to block Sotomayor resulted in a backlask SOLELY DUE TO HER RACE or GENDER. That very idea embodies everything that is wrong with this nation. The fact that you and many Democrats think so little of hispanics is saddening, if not sickening.

Seriously, though - why do you think hispanics are so shallow? It can't be evidence or precedence, considering the treatment of Alberto Gonzales...

Have you ever even stopped to wonder why the Democratic Party plays that race card every single time, but ignores the race of those who disagree (Gonzales, Clarence Thomas, etc.)?

Frankly, I find your assertion that hispanics will vote a certain way because of the status of a single hispanic candidate to be sadly misinformed, racist, and indicative of ignorance.

Unfortunately though, you may be right as many on your side of the aisle are actually ignorant enough to think that way.

[Zachstar]

Oh take a hike. Yall love to use that racist word alot lately except of course in the vice versa.

As for vote one way or another. I dont have to assume, many in the hispanic community have expressed outrage over conservative allegations that she is a racist and any attempt to fillibuster makes it seem that the mainstream rethugs are agreeing with their so called leaders like Rush Limbaugh.

You wont turn this back on us. The "Conservatives" are the ones who started this crusade against an able nominee. I would love for yall to fillibuster because not only will you side wish Rush Limbaugh and prove once and for all that the Rupublican Party has gone off the deep end. But shows what a thickle and short sided party they are.

The democrats suck. They are a bunch of lying scumbags who do not deserve the power they enjoy. But I would rather have a bunch of backstabbing punks for congress and office of the president than have the republican party back with another round of "Enhanced Interrogations" Wars we cant finish without massive loss to treasure, and resistance to changes in the time. (Cant have them gays and lesbians have abortions or get married! eh?)

[Aramike]

Oh take a hike. Yall love to use that racist word alot lately except of course in the vice versa.Care to give a reason why it should be used in the "vice versa", or are you blowing smoke as per usual?As for vote one way or another. I dont have to assume, many in the hispanic community have expressed outrage over conservative allegations that she is a racist and any attempt to fillibuster makes it seem that the mainstream rethugs are agreeing with their so called leaders like Rush Limbaugh.Many in the white, black, asian, etc., community have expressed similar misguided outrage. Yet you seem to single out the hispanic vote, as those people of that heritage are somehow further affected.

My wife is hispanic. I won't cost her vote, and I'm pretty sure she'd take your unfounded generalization to be a pretty racist remark as it is based upon anecdotal evidence. You've taken the fact that liberals are outraged by this incident (which include hispanics) and somehow spun that into a generalization about hispanics, when said generalization is no more qualified than if you said whites, blacks, or asians are outraged.

You just did exactly what I HATE the Democratic Party for doing - you took an issue of IDEAS and made it into an issue of RACE.

Sickening.You wont turn this back on us.Who's "us"?

And, if you represent this so-called "us", then you just turned it on yourself. Congrats.The "Conservatives" are the ones who started this crusade against an able nominee. Someone who makes comments that would disqualify herself from any jury in the nation isn't an "able nominee".

Judging upon the sum of your comments, however, I must ask - do you believe that there are no other hispanics qualified to be on the Supreme Court, who have NOT made such comments?I would love for yall to fillibuster because not only will you side wish Rush Limbaugh and prove once and for all that the Rupublican Party has gone off the deep end. But shows what a thickle and short sided party they are.What is "short sided"?

Secondly, what makes you think that the Republicans are considering a filibuster?

Third, how would it be "thickle and short sided" to filibuster the nominee? So far, your only qualifications for her are that she is a hispanic female.

Your broad statements display the pure idiocy of the Rush Limbaugh crowd when, a mere four years ago. he proclaimed the Democratic Party dead.

You are nothing more than a shill that is simply opposite Limbaugh. Don't fault him for what you are.The democrats suck. They are a bunch of lying scumbags who do not deserve the power they enjoy. But I would rather have a bunch of backstabbing punks for congress and office of the president than have the republican party back with another round of "Enhanced Interrogations" Wars we cant finish without massive loss to treasure, and resistance to changes in the time. (Cant have them gays and lesbians have abortions or get married! eh?) You epitomize what is wrong with America ... you can't see that candidates are individuals who may agree or disagree with you on a point-to-point basis. You put them in little boxes and regard them by common definitions. And, in my opinion, the worst offense of yours is your short-SIGHTED view of the issues, so far to the point that you condone racist policies over common sense.

[Tribesman]

Blah, blah, back and forth, baseless claims without proof, not bothering to qualify statements, standing firm despite absolute proof that you're wrong ...

Unbelievable .
So Aramike can you read the quote from Soto I posted ?
Can you take that quote and put it in place with the line you are taking issue with ?
Would you then be able to explain how on earth you are unable to understand "context" and then explain how it is even remotely possible to read the actual statement she made and call it racist ?

Though to be perfectly honest I do think that you have demonstrated that even simple comprehension is quite beyond your ability.

[Aramike]

Unbelievable .
So Aramike can you read the quote from Soto I posted ?
Can you take that quote and put it in place with the line you are taking issue with ?
Would you then be able to explain how on earth you are unable to understand "context" and then explain how it is even remotely possible to read the actual statement she made and call it racist ?

Though to be perfectly honest I do think that you have demonstrated that even simple comprehension is quite beyond your ability.Liar.

I just went through the entire thread twice and you haven't quoted her ONE SINGLE TIME. Which post was it, in case I missed it?

You are out-and-out LYING.

Unless, of course, you don't know that "quote" means using her actual words.

You should visit www.webster.com (http://www.webster.com). While there, look up "context" and "quote".

You have demonstrated that, not only comprehension but also simple intellectual honesty and honest itself is far beyond your ability. With proof.

You lose. Again. And again.

[Tribesman]

Liar.

:har::har::har::har::har:
You are out-and-out LYING.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Unless, of course, you don't know that "quote" means using her actual words.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
You have demonstrated that, not only comprehension but also simple intellectual honesty and honest itself is far beyond your ability. With proof.

And you have demonstrated that you have myopia , well either that or that you was lying when you said you had read the full statement to get the context, because if you had indeed read the full statement you be able to easily indentify the quote I posted .

[Aramike]

:har::har::har::har::har:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

And you have demonstrated that you have myopia , well either that or that you was lying when you said you had read the full statement to get the context, because if you had indeed read the full statement you be able to easily indentify the quote I posted .Umm, a quote is word-for-word and appears in those great little things called "quotation marks". and without commentary interjected from the third person (which is exactly what you're referring to).

You're busted. No amount of "emoticons" and "LMAO smilies" can help you, especially considering that quoting someone doesn't mean summarizing what you believe to be the context of their speech. It is absolutely hilarious how you don't know this. :|\\

Yet again, an "F" for effort and result, as you yet again post something with no qualification despite how easy it should be to prove yourself right if you were indeed right.

You are unintentional comedy at its finest. Please, do continue.

[Tribesman]

Umm, a quote is word-for-word and appears in those great little things called "quotation marks". and without commentary interjected from the third person (which is exactly what you're referring to).

:har::har::har::har::har:
Poor old Aramike has real problems , whats up can't you find the word for word quote that I posted ?
Perhaps its because you are hystericly ranting about what you think she said without actually knowing what she said:yep:

Tell you what as you seem to be having real difficulty with such basic things, if you look very carefully at the little box with words in at the start of this post you will see something , its just a simple word , it says QUOTE:doh:

Yet again, an "F" for effort and result, as you yet again post something with no qualification despite how easy it should be to prove yourself right if you were indeed right.

Oh look another quote. Aramike as you have repeatedly shown you lack of even basic intellect throughout this topic it is hilarious that you think you are able to give any meaningful grades.

[Aramike]

:har::har::har::har::har:
Poor old Aramike has real problems , whats up can't you find the word for word quote that I posted ?
Perhaps its because you are hystericly ranting about what you think she said without actually knowing what she said:yep:

Tell you what as you seem to be having real difficulty with such basic things, if you look very carefully at the little box with words in at the start of this post you will see something , its just a simple word , it says QUOTE:doh:


Oh look another quote. Aramike as you have repeatedly shown you lack of even basic intellect throughout this topic it is hilarious that you think you are able to give any meaningful grades.Umm, right - I didn't use any quotes. :har::har:

Another transparent attempt at muddling the issue, and another F.

It's hilarious how you're standing all by yourself, insisting that you're right, while even the White House says you're wrong. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Are you really that dumb , can you honestly not identify the section of sotos statement I posted ?
Or is it just that the actual statment shows defininativelty that you have been talking rubbish the whole time so you are opting for selective myopia .

[Aramike]

Are you really that dumb , can you honestly not identify the section of sotos statement I posted ?
Or is it just that the actual statment shows defininativelty that you have been talking rubbish the whole time so you are opting for selective myopia .Blah, blah, blah ...

More comedy. :har::har::har:

Are you really so dumb that you think I'm going to humor your garbage any longer after you've been so undeniably proven wrong?

[VipertheSniper]

Are you really that dumb , can you honestly not identify the section of sotos statement I posted ?
Or is it just that the actual statment shows defininativelty that you have been talking rubbish the whole time so you are opting for selective myopia .Blah, blah, blah ...

More comedy. :har::har::har:

Are you really so dumb that you think I'm going to humor your garbage any longer after you've been so undeniably proven wrong?

Maybe he's got an identity crisis an mistakes himself for Platapus or mookiemookie, which after rereading the thread several times are the ones who quoted Sotomayors speech.

[porphy]

Sorry if I interrupt the pie throwing for a second guys. :-?

Clue for anyone struggling to find the somewhat tucked away piece of text that has been the object of recent exchanges... Search for "myopic" in the forum, and you will find the exact quote used by Tribesman, apart from my quote below which also contains said piece of text... :yep:

Apart from that, why not quote at least the two whole relevant paragraphs? Like this, and take it from there. Carry on.

Sotomayor: Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
If anyone want the full context of the statement, the whole speech is here Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) This will of course open up for discussing how the context of the speech should be looked at as well.

cheers porphy

[Aramike]

Maybe he's got an identity crisis an mistakes himself for Platapus or mookiemookie, which after rereading the thread several times are the ones who quoted Sotomayors speech.I was wondering that too.

He never posted a single, direct quote. He posted one summary of something she said, but he clearly doesn't know what "quote" means. :salute:

[Tribesman]

He never posted a single, direct quote. He posted one summary of something she said, but he clearly doesn't know what "quote" means.
Well I never thought someone could really be so blind.
Here Aramike try reading this quote....
Search for "myopic" in the forum, and you will find the exact quote used by Tribesman, apart from my quote below which also contains said piece of text...
But its OK , you are not alone Aramike , Viper obviously can't read either.

[Aramike]

Well I never thought someone could really be so blind.
Here Aramike try reading this quote....

But its OK , you are not alone Aramike , Viper obviously can't read either.Or maybe its hidden in a ton of quotes.

Who knows, who cares? You're so hopelessly wrong on the subject and even the meaning of the word context, I'm kinda way past taking you seriously.

Per Porphy's post, even within those paragraphs that statement is STILL racist.

Like I said, pure comedy.:har:

[Tribesman]

Who knows, who cares? You're so hopelessly wrong on the subject and even the meaning of the word context, I'm kinda way past taking you seriously.

Thats rich coming from someone who just spent a long time proving they are unable to read and comprehend.

[Aramike]

Thats rich coming from someone who just spent a long time proving they are unable to read and comprehend.Umm, I seem to be able to read and comprehend everyone else just fine.

Seems like you have a problem communicating via the written word, also leading to your not being taken seriously. Especially considering that the context which Porphy provided changes nothing, also demonstrating your lack of ability to know what "context" even means.

The statement is STILL racist. :har:

[Platapus]

Wow, six pages and we are still back where we started. :har:

[Aramike]

Wow, six pages and we are still back where we started. :har:Yeah, because most was irrelevent garbage where someone uses the typical "context" cop-out despite it being untrue.

[GoldenRivet]

people like Sotomayer... can just come and take it.

them, the cops, the atf, the feds the f'n army... just come to my house and get it all.

i will defend my home, my family, and my right to bear arms with whatever force seems necessary at the time.

in the end, i will most surely die, but i will die a free man under nobody's boot heel.

but rest assured... there will be a hell of a mess to clean up when its over.

there is only one thing that keeps the government somewhat straight with the people... and that is the fact that there are more of us than them, and we have guns too. period

[Tribesman]

Yeah, because most was irrelevent garbage
Don't put yourself down so much Aramike .
Umm, I seem to be able to read and comprehend everyone else just fine.

Not at all since several people said the same thing and posted the same line to demonstrate that when put in context the speech cannot be described as racist , some even mentioned that I had quoted the passage ....yet you were like a hysterical little child who either was unable to read or was just in such a hissy fit about being wrong that you could only scream "liar" as an infnatile nonsensical response.
Rather sad isn't , but its OK you have my pity about your mental situation and I hope you get better some time in the future .

[Frame57]

You guys are like Hannity and Combs.....:woot::woot:

[Aramike]

Don't put yourself down so much Aramike .

Not at all since several people said the same thing and posted the same line to demonstrate that when put in context the speech cannot be described as racist , some even mentioned that I had quoted the passage ....yet you were like a hysterical little child who either was unable to read or was just in such a hissy fit about being wrong that you could only scream "liar" as an infnatile nonsensical response.
Rather sad isn't , but its OK you have my pity about your mental situation and I hope you get better some time in the future .Blah, blah, blah...

Nice try with the "I know you are but what am I?" comeback, Pee Wee. :haha:

Now have fun in Lala Land and watch as even Sotomayor doesn't claim context at the hearings.

[VipertheSniper]

Well I never thought someone could really be so blind.
Here Aramike try reading this quote....

But its OK , you are not alone Aramike , Viper obviously can't read either.


You know it would've been somewhat easier to find if it wasn't posted like this ..... but like this ......

Thanks I can read, but when skimming through a thread to find a quote, especially one in a post with multiple quotes, it's kind of hard to distinguish between something you're quoting from a forumposter and something you're quoting from someone who isn't a forum poster.

You know I didn't want to jump on you, but that back-and-forth bickering was getting on my nerves and since I couldn't find that quote, I assumed you were in the wrong with regard to having supplied a quote from that speech.

OK now back to the topic on whether or not that part of her speech was racist: It was racist. If she really believes what she said I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. she shouldn't have said what she exactly said 2 sentences earlier, and she probably would've worded it somehow different.

If she would've left the race completely out of it (scratch Latino and white) it would've been actually a sentence most of us could agree with, that someone who has lived a life rich of experiences can judge better than someone who has lived a dull life or hasn't made much experiences yet.

[Aramike]

You know it would've been somewhat easier to find if it wasn't posted like this but like this

Thanks I can read, but when skimming through a thread to find a quote, especially one in a post with multiple quotes, it's kind of hard to distinguish between something you're quoting from a forumposter and something you're quoting from someone who isn't a forum poster.

You know I didn't want to jump on you, but that back-and-forth bickering was getting on my nerves and since I couldn't find that quote, I assumed you were in the wrong with regard to having supplied a quote from that speech.

OK now back to the topic on whether or not that part of her speech was racist: It was racist. If she really believes what she said she shouldn't have said what she exactly said 2 sentences earlier, and she probably would've worded it somehow different.

If she would've left the race completely out of it (scratch Latino and white) it would've been actually a sentence most of us could agree with, that someone who has lived a life rich of experiences can judge better than someone who has lived a dull life or hasn't made much experiences yet.100% agree! :salute:

[Tribesman]

If she would've left the race completely out of it (scratch Latino and white) it would've been actually a sentence most of us could agree with
Yeah right , leaving race out of a speech dealing with racial discriminastion is pretty impossible though isnt it .
But mentioniong race doesn't make it a racist comment in the slightest , unless the context is racist which in this case it clearly isn't.

You know it would've been somewhat easier to find if it wasn't posted like this
Ah but it was aimed at someone who claimed they had read the whole speech more than once so they shouldn't have had any problem spotting it ....well unless they are a complete bull****ter.

[CaptainHaplo]

It boils down to this.

If you waste time debating with tribesman - your doing exactly that - wasting time. How many times does he have to prove reality doesn't really have any applicable leverage to his thought process?

Whats more important is this.... take the same quote - and reverse the race and genders. You get the following:

Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

If a white male judge being considered for the SC had said THAT statement - they would be forced to withdraw their nomination due to accusations of racism and sexism.

This simply test is how you can tell if its a racist or sexist comment. Any truly racist or sexist comment would be insulting to the "other side" if reveresed.

In this case - it was both sexist and racist.

[Aramike]

Yeah right , leaving race out of a speech dealing with racial discriminastion is pretty impossible though isnt it .
But mentioniong race doesn't make it a racist comment in the slightest , unless the context is racist which in this case it clearly isn't.I thought you were the reading/comprehension champion???

Clearly not, considering that Viper said, "If she would've left the race completely out of it (scratch Latino and white) it would've been actually a sentence most of us could agree with."

Note the use of the term "sentence".Ah but it was aimed at someone who claimed they had read the whole speech more than once so they shouldn't have had any problem spotting it ....well unless they are a complete bull****ter. Or perhaps someone was just glancing over the quotes you were posting because you did little to differentiate between forum posters and Sotomayor... Did it occur to you that perhaps some of us never bothered to even read your quote lines because they were a jumble (displaying your lack of communication ability)?

But hey - at least you just proved yourself yet again unable to read and comprehend. Pure comedy. :yep:

[Aramike]

If you waste time debating with tribesman - your doing exactly that - wasting time. How many times does he have to prove reality doesn't really have any applicable leverage to his thought process?It's just fun getting him all riled up, and watching him trip over himself. :yeah:

[Tribesman]

It's just fun getting him all riled up, and watching him trip over himself
Its you who was tripping over yourself with your rather obvious learning difficulties.

If you waste time debating with tribesman - your doing exactly that - wasting time. How many times does he have to prove reality doesn't really have any applicable leverage to his thought process?

Says the man who clearly demonstrated his inability to think during the topic on civil rights:doh:

[Aramike]

Its you who was tripping over yourself with your rather obvious learning difficulties.Yet another hapless "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

You might as well be writing, "What, *I'm* an idiot? No, *You* are."

I think you've been proven so ridculously wrong regarding the substance of this thread that now it's nothing more than a big joke.Says the man who clearly demonstrated his inability to think during the topic on civil rights:doh: So says that man who's abilility to independently think during the topic of ... well, anything.

You're like a plaything - with nothing more than predictably meaningless responses veiled in equally pointless insults, you've become nothing more than a point of laughter for the rest of us who just spur you on for the purpose of reading the next excuse you have for being a mere shill for your political persuasion's viewpoints.

You should really give it a rest and join the single-minded nutjobs at Dailykos.

[Tribesman]

Yet another hapless "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

:har::har::har::har:
Aramike , there is one person who has consistantly been infantile and idiotic in their attempt at reasoning throughout this topic and that is you , you have demonstrated that you havn't got a clue what you are talking about , cannot understand the English language and have no comeback at all...then again its hard to have a comeback when you havn't a clue what youi are talking about .

Tell you what , a bit of free advice . Stick to the nasty police pulled me when I was driving after drink but was still under the legal limit topics....you might eventually make some sense there

[Aramike]

:har::har::har::har:
Aramike , there is one person who has consistantly been infantile and idiotic in their attempt at reasoning throughout this topic and that is you , you have demonstrated that you havn't got a clue what you are talking about , cannot understand the English language and have no comeback at all...then again its hard to have a comeback when you havn't a clue what youi are talking about .

Tell you what , a bit of free advice . Stick to the nasty police pulled me when I was driving after drink but was still under the legal limit topics....you might eventually make some sense thereBlah, blah, blah ... your reputation is pretty well-known, even if you're in denial. :|\\

[antikristuseke]

You are both acting like complete arseheads, take a step back and try again after a few deep breaths. Just a friendly tip.

[Aramike]

You are both acting like complete arseheads, take a step back and try again after a few deep breaths. Just a friendly tip.I'm just responding to his vitriol with continuing jest, as that is all its worth.

Its fun. :yeah:

[Tribesman]

I'm just responding to his vitriol with continuing jest, as that is all its worth.

Really ? I thought you were just demonstrating how bad your reading comprehension is

[Steel_Tomb]

Wow. You guys on the other side of the pond really take this to heart. May I just ask a question, how strictly regulated is the flow of arms in the USA? Do you have to file medical reports etc determining your mental well being etc... so you don't buy an MP5 and go on a rampage. Don't take this the wrong way, I respect you guys for having the right to bear arms freely... but do you think the gov't/nation does enough to prevent arms getting into the wrong hands?

(Lol that last sentence was a real bad play on words I apologise hehe)

[Aramike]

Really ? I thought you were just demonstrating how bad your reading comprehension isStill trying to sell that nonsense? :yawn:

It's nothing but blah, blah, blah, especially considering the source...

[CastleBravo]

:nope:
PAPER: Sotomayor once described herself as 'product of affirmative action'...

...admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to 'cultural biases... built into testing'... Developing...

:nope:

[Tribesman]

Developing...

Not really developing , that was dealt with years ago in court when newspapers made silly allegations about what she had said and represented those statements out of context to make a story out of it....
the courts settled in her favour didn't they .:yep:

Wow its that word again ...context...I wonder what it means to people who don't know what it means:yeah:

[Aramike]

Wow its that word again ...context...I wonder what it means to people who don't know what it meansYou mean, like yourself, whose only argument is screaming "CONTEXT" whenever a fellow ideologue is busted, without providing reasoning?

[Tribesman]

fellow ideologue
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
If a horse was as lame as your "reasoning" it would be shot as an act of kindness

[Aramike]

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
If a horse was as lame as your "reasoning" it would be shot as an act of kindnessMore blah blah blah.

You're like a fat chick in spandex. You think you're hot, but everyone around you is just laughing inside.

[Tribesman]

More blah blah blah.


Thats because the point was made long ago , but you are unable to comprehend .

[Aramike]

Thats because the point was made long ago , but you are unable to comprehend .Yeah, sure, Mr. Fat Chick in Spandex.

You know why this is so hilarious? Even now that people have actually found the quote you're referring to, it doesn't changed the argument and context one damned bit (as has been pointed out)! The fact that you keep clinging to your one little meaningless point is telling, and not in a good way for you. :up: