Our NEW? supreme court justice- my land is your land?

Not exactly paragons of impartiality there..."

-> You're using Google—after Google gave $750,000 to Obama?

You'll note that in my next post, from Tue, 06/09/2009 - 12:48pm., I found two articles in the NYTimes detailing her membership in La Raza, at which point I said "That's a shame, she appeared to be a pretty safe candidate".

You're implying that Google is skewing their search results "liberal", that's very cute. Do they have unicorns in your world? If Google was "in the bank" for the left, wouldn't they suppress Freep while featuring Kos more prominently, rather than the way you seem to be accusing them of doing it? Ah well, I guess no one ever accused Google employees of being all that bright...

You'll notice I make the same "very biased site" accusations against Kos and Huffpo, which is why I don't cite data from them.

Oh, that's right: They're probably affected by yesterday's Terrorist attack and dealing with FBI investigators.

Speaking of "yesterday's attack", here are some more examples of right wingers flipping out and killing "liberals" or "democrats" in the last year:

Jim David Adkisson, the ex-soldier who wanted to "Do the world a favor and kill Democrats 'til the cops kill me".

Scott Roeder - We're familiar with him. Right-wing anti-government militia member. I don't know that his "mental illness" defense is going to hold up, considering he drove 170 miles from where he lived to attend Tiller's church. That seems pretty pre-meditated to me.

Arkansas state Democratic chair Bill Gwatney, shot three times.

Richard Poplawski murdered three Pittsburgh police officers because he was afraid that Obama was going to take away his guns. He was also afraid that the country was under "Zionist control", which is odd, because one of the things the Right criticizes Obama on is that he's not pro-Isreal enough.

Of course I have a point. Don't you think maybe DHS was right to investigate right-wing extremist groups?

So, including yesterday, that's 6 that I can think of off the top of my head. There was another right-wing nutjob in Illinois, but he had lyme disease, so he might actually be a physically tetched-in-the-head nutjob, so I'm leaving him out.

The murderer of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad is just as tragic, and I don't want you to think I am not mindful of him. However, we are already monitoring Muslim extremist groups, in fact there was an awesome FBI sting against some guys in NY recently where they got SAMs and plastic explosives (both inert because they were supplied by the investigators :-)

We've given up so much of our expectation of privacy (the Constitution contains no "right to privacy") in the pursuit of terrorists from outside our borders, why not target likely internal threats, wherever they're from?

...What's the problem, the Republicans can't read fast enough? ...

She hasn't provided the content of her past speeches that could very well impact her approval if documenting her racist stance. She says, in essence, "They were mostly all 'canned speeches'". (Saying the same thing to different audiences).

Her courtroom decisions, of which 60% went on to be overturned, ARE known.

The baseball strike decision was viewed by George Will, an expert on baseball. He said it set baseball contract-negotiations back 20 years.

...I want to see how closely they question her with the Latino vote breathing down their necks...

As a member of La Raza, she would not likely overrule a state's wanting to be bilingual—English/Spanish. Nor would a border state (or Colorado) that wished to merge with Mexico be ruled against: Demographics will eventually bring up the issue.

Those states could become protectorates—like her native Puerto Rico. OPM would support them financially, while they continue to enjoy Federal Government protection. Demographics are on their side.

Every year, Quebec raises secession from Canada. (It would make them wealthy). Even now, you can read of Quebecois who praise the elimination of English in their bi-lingual country [mandated bilingual country].

Is this what over 1 million Americans died for? (Or is this what YOU want?)

Another issue has come to the fore that impacts a citizen's Right to Bear Arms: U.S. Customs wants to outlaw pocket knives that fold!

They have liberalized the definition of "switch blade" to include 80% of pocketknives: Even Leatherman tools could be an issue. Perhaps by breaking off the blade(s) would make the Leatherman comply with the new law? If your blade "locks" open, it will probably be illegal to transport across state lines as a result of a SC ruling.

It's not just your land they can take.

Is the Leatherman covered or not? I don't carry one in my pocket, but on my belt. We had 30 days to post comments with Customs.

QUOTE:
"The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is proposing a new definition that could be used to eliminate 8 of 10 legal pocketknives in the United States right now, according to activists who are gearing up to fight the plan.

"The federal bureaucracy is accepting comments – written only – that must be received by June 21 before its planned changes could become final, but Doug Ritter of KnifeRights.org, said the implications of the decision would be far-reaching, since many state and federal agencies depend on the agency's definitions to determine what is legal in the United States.

"For a long time, those switchblades that have long stiletto blades that are spring-ejected powerfully from the side or end of the handle have been illegal in the United States, but now a review by the agency of its own approval in 2008 of a particular type of knife for import is raising serious alarms..."

PTW, I don't consider La Raza to be a racist organization, that is just your perverted take on them.
I don't consider Judge Sotomayor a racist, but rather an excellent jurist who will have no problem getting nominated.
Benjamin Cardozo may actually have been the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice. I wonder what all of your dinosaurs, Asner, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Sununu Sr. Rumsfeld and Cheney, would say about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo#Buildings_and_organization...

It depends: Are they ostensibly backed up by one-sixth of the Earth's population who dance in the streets when such attacks occur?

Here you go, two birds with one stone. First, look at the picture and tell me that's not terrorism. Second, read the story and see the links between McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army.

As for your comment above, are the IRA not terrorists because they're not Muslim? Are ETA not terrorists because they're small separatists?

There are unaffiliated terrorists, there are splinter groups.

"Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies". That sounds a pretty solid definition.

So does blowing up a federal building count now? How about killing a doctor because the state refuses to make his job illegal? That'll teach people to be doctors.

I think a white supremacist walking into a Holocaust museum and popping off guards pretty much speaks for itself. And your original comment, in the context of that story, becomes really quite crass. In fact, yeah, the same Muslims who would be "dancing in the streets" over muslim Jew killing would be "dancing in the streets" over a Christian Jew killing.

They are terrorists. Book it.

I don't know where to begin with this. If you don't think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, your view is way narrow.

In your world, ETA aren't terrorists, because it's not about religion? Blowing up a federal building for non-Religious ideological reasons=Not Terrorism?

If Christopher Hitchens starts blowing up every bridge in London for the sheer joy of it, not a terrorist? How about the ALF and whackjob "eco-terrorists", they are also not terrorists to you?

You also lump all Muslims in as terror supporters, "Those Muslims who knew of this shooting probably were likewise suitably impressed by the news".

Do you even read the news? Individual Pakistani Muslims are fighting the Taliban by hand to defend their territory. Most Muslims are sickened by terrorists, and I would fucking hope to say that most Christians were likewise sickened by the acts of these domestic terrorists walking into churches and killing those they disagree with.

So, to sum up, a single Muslim convert with no known ties to any group kills Army private = Terrorist

6 right-wing ideologues march into churches (3 of them), a museum, or a campaign office, or just gun down cops because he thinks The Left is going to take his fucking guns away, and kill people for beliefs = Not Terrorist.

Got it.

Let me take this moment to whip out a little catch phrase that has served us well these past years:

"Science creates airplanes; Religion flies airplanes into buildings".

Religion also kills men dead in their churches.

"I'm going to kill Democrats 'til the cops kill me" -- Written by a True Non-Terrorist before he entered a church and shot 8 people.

You have just made the single worst argument for your cause I could have imagined.

What happened to Sotomayor? ???

I responded to Tis' note about finally giving you something to argue against, inline with another reply about Sotomayor. You then started responding with bullet-points and questions about Jeremiah Wright, and I started doing what I do at that point: Read your post of disconnected talking points, then I research the shit out of them.

My last post wasn't very researched, just pretty much stunned disbelief.

One thing I've noticed after several such threads is that they'll go down like this:

You state O'Reilly/Hannity/Rush/Beck talking point of the day, I research talking point, post facts showing that it's misleading at best. You then drop that line of argument and respond with 5 more talking points.

Vis: Stop the ACLU, O' Canada

To be fair, I do have my fair share of frustration that obviously leaks through.

I must assume you've read the entire speech, and not the single quote that Limbaugh and Gingrich in particular have used to brand her a racist, of course. I've linked the speech in this thread before, but I get the distinct impression you didn't give it a glance.

Read the quote in (a little more) 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.

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 you're still inclined to think it's "racist", here's the distillation. There is a famous quote, attributed alternately to two different Supreme Court Justices, which says that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion on issues.

EDIT for clarity: Since I forgot you seem incapable (or un-willing, actually) of inferring intent from written text (and possibly speech), here is the meaning in black and white terms: "If a judge has to rule on racial or gender equality, a female minority judge would be less likely to rule to suppress women or racial minorities". Don't worry, she's still _catholic, so she probably still discriminates against teh gheys.

However, Sotomayor points out, two eminent Supremes, themselves Wise Old Men, upheld racist and sexist laws. A Wise Old Minority Female wouldn't have upheld those laws, because she has different experiences in her background.

Yeah, Fuck Newt Gingrich. He really backpedaled as hard as I've seen anyone when confronted with the audio of his very own speech. When asked if it was appropriate, he denounced it as if it had been delivered by his worst political adversary.

Though he knows all about compassion, divorcing his cancer-ridden wife in the middle of treatment as he left her for newer cancer-free model. Real stand-up family-values kinda guy.

In fact, he refers to his own queer sister as a fascist:
"Discussing actions by individual protesters of Proposition 8, Newt Gingrich stated: "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."

At least Dicks Cheney supports his queer relative, not like Gingrich and Alan Keys, who disowned his lesbian daughter and threw her out of his house.

Sorry about that tangent, but I mistakenly searched for gingrich "lesbian daughter" instead of "lesbian sister" and got Keyes and Gephardt links instead. I wonder how these "top 10 list" of the republican party don't have their daughters and sister arrested for child molestation, which in another thread, you've indicated is a 100% certainty.

"...If you're still inclined to think it's "racist", here's the distillation. There is a famous quote, attributed alternately to two different Supreme Court Justices, which says that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion on issues..."

I have no difficulty with that quote—whatsoever.