You’re a typical lib. You present no facts IRO your assertion on the erosion of rights by Bush and Cheney, because there are no such facts to support your assertion.
Typical of libs/Dems, you’re a “true believer” [google the term, it’s the title of a book], a koo-aid drinker. When you’re in the gulag, you’ll still praise big brother just before you’re done in by big brother (c.f., G. Orwell’s 1984). The Dems are Big Brother.
Watch out, America. Our constitutional republic rapidly is eroding under the corporatist libs/Dems policies.
Look at global warming. Who are the biggest proponents of it? Honeywell, the nuclear industyr, car makers, GE, & other makers of products that would have to be replaced by others ‘eco-friendly’ products made by these same companies. Heck, do any of you wonder why Swiss and Munich Re are big proponent of global warming? Look at their rate filings and charges. It’s a money-maker for them, too.
Libs/Dems are easily fooled people that never bother to research an opinion for themselves. They just await Big Brothers latest order/edicts.
Boy, there is a lot of trash talking of Sotomayor by a lot of people who apparently have never read any of her (or any judge’s) opinions or given her a chance to explain herself and some of her statements. People just running off at the mouth with the over-the-top conservative talking points. Turn off Fox and Rush for a minute and read something. Stop reciting the labels that have no meaning and no application to her. She has extensive experience as a corporate lawyer and a judge and has as many opinions that displease liberals as she does opinions that upset conservatives. She shows no signs of being an idealogue–looks like she makes decisions based on each case and its facts. BTW- Yes, she has been reversed by the SC but most cases the SC touches are reversals of lower courts– that’s why the high court takes them. Also some of the decisions that have some of you concerned were by a 3-panel of judges, not individual opinions written by her. Also–she won scholarships to Princeton and Yale because she worked hard and is smart– not because she got taxpayer money. She graduated at the top of her classes. The person who raised that issue should be ashamed. Finally, should her entire career be judged by one or two public statements? How would any of us fare under that scrutiny?
Is she perfect, probably not. Only her critics can claim that status.
Georgie, no one is ashamed of anything. You didn’t read all of the comments, because her most egregious decision in Didden vs. Village of Port Chester was cited in the blogs and commented upon by other commentators on this blog.
As for your comment on the affirmative action comments, let’s see a transcript of her grades. Did she take corporation, UCC courses such as Art. 2, sales, Art. 9, secured transactions, banking, ag law, advanced property law (other than the 1st year course), trusts and wills, or any other difficult law school course?
Or did she take courses such as poverty law, women’s law, theory of this or that law? If yes, then she took BS courses taught by the most liberal law professors that aren’t scholarly courses, but courses of indoctrination wherein the most indoctrinated liberal students get the highest grades. So, in a manner of speaking, she claims that she’s smart. So, show us the money (your law school transcript).
I would imagine her law school transcript will become part of the record and you can judge for yourself by the facts– unless you’ve already made up your mind that she just took the easy route through both Princeton and Yale. Why do you ASSUME she isn’t smart? I would think the assumption should be that she is smart.
It’s OK to disagree with someone or their judicial record but why do so many people on here have to attack her character, patritoism, motives and morals? It’s a bit over-the-top, don’t you think?
Also, is either of you aware, not just of Didden vs. Village of Port Chester, but also her opinions in Tasini vs. NYT; Malesko vs. Correctional Services; Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch; River Keeper vs. EPA; and, most notoriously, her opinion in Ricci vs. DeStefano? But Didden is a very chilling opinion.
She’s a socialist who has zero understanding of the importance of strong property rights in a free society. Why don’t both of you read Didden and then, being the generous lib/Dems that you are, simply deed over to your local government everything that you own.
As I posted earlier, when you’re in the gulag, you’ll still love Big Brother.
You’re avoiding my question about whether you’ve read any of her cases. Have you? What do you know about Didden? Do you care? You’re the one who engaged in personal attacks on some of us bloggers, that being a typical lib/Dem response to any issue.
There’s nothing wrong with anyone asking to check the credentials of anyone. I want to know: Did she take tough courses in law school, such a securities/SEC law, banking law, UCC courses?
We know that her undergraduate degree was a puff degree with no rigorous scholarship involved or real learning for that matter. She merely had to parot the current lib/Dem kool-aid lines to get good grades for her u/g degree.
So, it’s fair to assume that she took the same route in law school.
I don’t pretend to have read every one of her decisions. But I bet for every one that has you concerned there are 5 or 6 you, the husiness lobby and conservatives would agree with. If you want to find cases to shoot her down, you can– just as Dems did with Roberts before they voted for him. This unfortunately is how the politics is played. It’s not good for the court, the candidates or the country in my opinion. BTW- she signed onto Didden but didn’t write it so we don’t really know her own reasoning on it. It might be good to find out before hanging her.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Unless you just want to fight with Rs, Didden vs. Village of Port Chester has to at least make you scratch your head. Do you really like that case?
We are in deep Doo Doo
D,
You’re a typical lib. You present no facts IRO your assertion on the erosion of rights by Bush and Cheney, because there are no such facts to support your assertion.
Typical of libs/Dems, you’re a “true believer” [google the term, it’s the title of a book], a koo-aid drinker. When you’re in the gulag, you’ll still praise big brother just before you’re done in by big brother (c.f., G. Orwell’s 1984). The Dems are Big Brother.
Watch out, America. Our constitutional republic rapidly is eroding under the corporatist libs/Dems policies.
Look at global warming. Who are the biggest proponents of it? Honeywell, the nuclear industyr, car makers, GE, & other makers of products that would have to be replaced by others ‘eco-friendly’ products made by these same companies. Heck, do any of you wonder why Swiss and Munich Re are big proponent of global warming? Look at their rate filings and charges. It’s a money-maker for them, too.
Libs/Dems are easily fooled people that never bother to research an opinion for themselves. They just await Big Brothers latest order/edicts.
Boy, there is a lot of trash talking of Sotomayor by a lot of people who apparently have never read any of her (or any judge’s) opinions or given her a chance to explain herself and some of her statements. People just running off at the mouth with the over-the-top conservative talking points. Turn off Fox and Rush for a minute and read something. Stop reciting the labels that have no meaning and no application to her. She has extensive experience as a corporate lawyer and a judge and has as many opinions that displease liberals as she does opinions that upset conservatives. She shows no signs of being an idealogue–looks like she makes decisions based on each case and its facts. BTW- Yes, she has been reversed by the SC but most cases the SC touches are reversals of lower courts– that’s why the high court takes them. Also some of the decisions that have some of you concerned were by a 3-panel of judges, not individual opinions written by her. Also–she won scholarships to Princeton and Yale because she worked hard and is smart– not because she got taxpayer money. She graduated at the top of her classes. The person who raised that issue should be ashamed. Finally, should her entire career be judged by one or two public statements? How would any of us fare under that scrutiny?
Is she perfect, probably not. Only her critics can claim that status.
Georgie, no one is ashamed of anything. You didn’t read all of the comments, because her most egregious decision in Didden vs. Village of Port Chester was cited in the blogs and commented upon by other commentators on this blog.
As for your comment on the affirmative action comments, let’s see a transcript of her grades. Did she take corporation, UCC courses such as Art. 2, sales, Art. 9, secured transactions, banking, ag law, advanced property law (other than the 1st year course), trusts and wills, or any other difficult law school course?
Or did she take courses such as poverty law, women’s law, theory of this or that law? If yes, then she took BS courses taught by the most liberal law professors that aren’t scholarly courses, but courses of indoctrination wherein the most indoctrinated liberal students get the highest grades. So, in a manner of speaking, she claims that she’s smart. So, show us the money (your law school transcript).
They won’t. They didn’t obstruct Ginsberg and she wanted to legalize drugs and prostitution. Not that I disagree, I’m just saying…
I would imagine her law school transcript will become part of the record and you can judge for yourself by the facts– unless you’ve already made up your mind that she just took the easy route through both Princeton and Yale. Why do you ASSUME she isn’t smart? I would think the assumption should be that she is smart.
It’s OK to disagree with someone or their judicial record but why do so many people on here have to attack her character, patritoism, motives and morals? It’s a bit over-the-top, don’t you think?
Also, is either of you aware, not just of Didden vs. Village of Port Chester, but also her opinions in Tasini vs. NYT; Malesko vs. Correctional Services; Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch; River Keeper vs. EPA; and, most notoriously, her opinion in Ricci vs. DeStefano? But Didden is a very chilling opinion.
She’s a socialist who has zero understanding of the importance of strong property rights in a free society. Why don’t both of you read Didden and then, being the generous lib/Dems that you are, simply deed over to your local government everything that you own.
As I posted earlier, when you’re in the gulag, you’ll still love Big Brother.
George,
You’re avoiding my question about whether you’ve read any of her cases. Have you? What do you know about Didden? Do you care? You’re the one who engaged in personal attacks on some of us bloggers, that being a typical lib/Dem response to any issue.
There’s nothing wrong with anyone asking to check the credentials of anyone. I want to know: Did she take tough courses in law school, such a securities/SEC law, banking law, UCC courses?
We know that her undergraduate degree was a puff degree with no rigorous scholarship involved or real learning for that matter. She merely had to parot the current lib/Dem kool-aid lines to get good grades for her u/g degree.
So, it’s fair to assume that she took the same route in law school.
I don’t pretend to have read every one of her decisions. But I bet for every one that has you concerned there are 5 or 6 you, the husiness lobby and conservatives would agree with. If you want to find cases to shoot her down, you can– just as Dems did with Roberts before they voted for him. This unfortunately is how the politics is played. It’s not good for the court, the candidates or the country in my opinion. BTW- she signed onto Didden but didn’t write it so we don’t really know her own reasoning on it. It might be good to find out before hanging her.