TexasCHLforum.com

LM230023 wrote: that is a link given to me and I shared such. With that said - once again I am out of here. This is a site for a chosen few and only those chosen whose opinions agree with members of the "click".

I think you mean "clique".

It's not an opinion of the "chosen few" that the web page you posted is "fake news". It says so right up on the header of the page.

Is that our resident "dissident" defending the clique???
JMWY

DoubleJ wrote:Is that our resident "dissident" defending the clique???
JMWY

No, just correcting the spelling.

There's definitely a clique. However you don't have to be in the clique to be able to recognize a fake news source and understand how it is intended to be humor, irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of a Supreme Court nominee.

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

That is a valuable quality for a politician, but thoroughly unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

BINGO!!!

Purplehood wrote:Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

Being proud of your race and heritage has absolutely nothing to do, or should it influence, how you do your job as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of these United States...period...

But it is certainly a necessary thing to discuss to cloud over "other" more applicable issues on a confirmation like this...And the majority is certainly using that to their advantage...

Of course having a junior senator ask a question about a Perry Mason TV show is certainly an applicable question to ask...

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Touche. And whats wrong with a little bit of Latina-pride?

It is not pride, it's bigotry.

However, it is socially-acceptable bigotry. If a white man were to have a record of making the same sort of comments suggesting that a white middle class man would make better judgments than a minority woman, then it would be considered glaringly bigoted, maybe racist or sexist. But we give minorities a pass when they are bigots.

I have a problem with a bigot on the high court. I have a bigger problem with a large proportion of the American people thinking it's ok for minorities to be bigots.

boomerang wrote:In my experience ranging from high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates, education and intelligence are two very different things. Further, although I have seen a positive correlation between intelligence and success in the private sector, I have not noticed a discernable relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector. Therefore, I don't believe her papers prove much of anything.

I believe there actually may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector.

bdickens wrote:

boomerang wrote:In my experience ranging from high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates, education and intelligence are two very different things. Further, although I have seen a positive correlation between intelligence and success in the private sector, I have not noticed a discernable relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector. Therefore, I don't believe her papers prove much of anything.

I believe there actually may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector.

I'm not sure intelligence is lacking in our elected officials. There are some very smart people on both sides of the aisle. What we lack in Washington isn't intelligence, it's common sense. Just my .02 of course.

74novaman wrote:

bdickens wrote:

boomerang wrote:In my experience ranging from high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates, education and intelligence are two very different things. Further, although I have seen a positive correlation between intelligence and success in the private sector, I have not noticed a discernable relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector. Therefore, I don't believe her papers prove much of anything.

I believe there actually may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and success in the public sector.

I'm not sure intelligence is lacking in our elected officials. There are some very smart people on both sides of the aisle. What we lack in Washington isn't intelligence, it's common sense. Just my .02 of course.

and any sort of real connection to the middle class.

An intelligent person would not have answered a question about the right to self defense by citing NY State laws, knowing, that first, the citation would be limited in scope, not applicable in a SCOTUS setting, and second that everyone with any intelligence would see right through her avoidance.

jimlongley wrote:An intelligent person would not have answered a question about the right to self defense by citing NY State laws, knowing, that first, the citation would be limited in scope, not applicable in a SCOTUS setting, and second that everyone with any intelligence would see right through her avoidance.

Well, I am going to go against the grain here and say she is sharp as a tack on these issues...She is exactly what Obama wanted...

She is drawing ire from us and many other single issue people, and any attacks on her can immediately be labled as racist...Perfect liberal political play...And the state controlled media will lap that up like grape kool-aid in Gayana...

This goes to my basic premise...If you do not understand, or in this case, fully understand how to destroy a inalienable, moral right as this is, I have no use for you in any capacity as a politician (elected official) apointed or elected, or even a citizen...

Yep, that pretty harsh, but then again...Its just me...

I still think she is a horrible choice for the SCOTUS. Her rulings so far have mostly been conservative with a few obvious exceptions. The problem as I see it is that if and when she makes it to the Supreme Court there won't be another court higher up to correct her bad decisions. Many judges will take into account that any decision they make might be appealed and would hate to be overturned too often and look foolish. However, this can't happen if is she affirmed here. She will be as free as she can be to be biased in her decisions, while giving us some double talk to make it seem unbiased. There's nothing we can do to stop her then.

We know where she stands on several subjects through her speeches and writings. Also, do we really think she would have been nominated if her positions on abortion, gun rights, property rights, energy, and the environment weren't in alignment with Obama's? Even though she's merely replacing another liberal judge she is another link in the chain.

Is it just me or is there something wrong with being able to label a judge as liberal or conservative anyway? Something doesn't sound right about that.

LM230023 wrote:

preacher wrote:

LM230023 wrote:and -

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2009/06/02/oba ... f-context/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sorry if there is language issue - but this is some of the comments that have been made by this person.

Carbolic Smoke is not a real news source. Please, let's keep it real. I don't think Sotomayor is worthy of being on the SCOTUS, but let's not put (dirty) words in her mouth that she didn't say. I really hope you were trying to be funny.

that is a link given to me and I shared such. With that said - once again I am out of here. This is a site for a chosen few and only those chosen whose opinions agree with members of the "click".

If that were true, I wouldn't be on this board.

It's all very simple.

She's on the record for saying her decisions are based on "A". (even admitting it was something she shouldn't say while being recorded, but went ahead and admitted the truth of her decision making process anyway)

Now she says it's based on "B" as "B" will allow her on the team, if you will...

Once on the team, "A" decisions will come roaring back.

The public will be shocked, SHOCKED, when this inevitability comes back to haunt us.

My guess is that it will be the mostly white males that are shocked.

I would be willing to bet that many members of this forum that have Hispanic women for spouses and in-laws find her statement typical and not the horrible racist statement that some folks are trying to make of it.

As a male with an Anglo-surname and appearance, I have a knee-jerk reaction that screams "reverse-discrimination" to her "wise Latina" remark.

As a male with a grandmother from Mexico and two ex-wives of Latina origin, I know that it is typical of such women to stand up against what they consider the white-male-establishment and not take any guff from it. It does not mean that by default they are going to rule against that same sector of American society.

/off soapbox