The implication of that term being that if you oppose gay marriage, gay adoption, gay anything you have some kind of mental problem.

I'm fully aware of the definition:03: Heterphobic...is there such 'condition' or term:hmmm:

Let me put it this way. They have nothing to gain by 'going negative' on this for a couple of reasons.

First they dont want to appear to be obstructionists as the democrats were.

Secondly they dont really have the ability to block this confirmation in the first place so why look an ass?

It will be interesting to watch the vetting process as I said way back at the beginning of this thread. Although my 'gut' tells me this is a done deal.

Sonia Sotomayor won :yeah:

She looks good to me, but first the GOP will have to check her out to make sure she's not a gay commie sleeper cell inserted by an unkown terroist group.


Text of Sonia Sotomayor's remarks on Tuesday after President Barack Obama announced her nomination to the Supreme Court, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZJQu1IgIB1qznbDtUVPsfVYE9kgD98E0EV00

That only applies if 100% of sitting Democratic Senators all vote the same way. The chances of that happening are pretty slim.

This is why all the hub-bub about the magic 60 members is really unimportant.

As the past five months have demonstrated, the Democratic Senate aint no rubber stamp Senate when it comes to President Obama.

Which is a good thing :up:

I think she will be just fine....has she paid her taxes:hmmm:

This alone is enough to disqualify her in my opinion. She seems to have not read the US Constitution either.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

LOL the rubber stamp will come out when it is politically expediant. This is one of those cases. Just you wait and see.

Sounded like she was just acknowledging the reality of the situation.

Any time there is a judicial interpretation of a law, there is policy set.

Anytime the court promulgates that a law is or is not constitutional, judicial policy is made.. Judicial policy, not legislative policy. When critics say that the courts should not legislate from the bench, they are correct, however seldom do courts do this. They do, however, set judicial policy from the bench... in fact, that is what they are supposed to do.

This is why the SCOTUS is populated with justices and not simply constitutional scholars.

If all the SCOTUS was supposed to do is read the constitution there would be no need for justices. The job could be better handled by constitutional scholars and historians.

The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution with regards to other laws, precedents, our changing cultures and probably a hundred other factors.

This is also one of the reasons the SCOTUS is able to set judicial precedent and the fact that their precedents carry much more weight than lower court precedents. A precedent is an interpretation. An official interpretation in fact.

There is much more to being a SCOTUS justice then just being able to read the constitution. It requires the ability to interpret the constitution. This is why there are multiple justices and decisions require a majority vote.... different justices have different interpretations.

And this is a good thing.

So, it appears the following people called it:

Aramike, baggygreen, JALU3, magic452, Neal Stevens, SteamWake, UnderseaLcpl

Just ask us if you need any political forecasting :D

:salute:

SWEET!!!

I really hope I get the mug ... Do I get any points for being the first to publically share my vote? :rock:

PS: Kudos to SteamWake for being the first to name the candidate!

Yeah, since you were the first, the mug is yours. PM your mailing address, mate.

Okay... will Obama serve a second term? ;)

Done.

Thanks!