Obama nominates a racist

Obama only know racists, criminals, tax cheats, homosexuals. He is sort of limited in who he can appoint to anything

 

That reminds me anyone know where I can get the 2009 Geithner version of Turbo Tax?

 

You guys should read more magazine and books. Basing all your political analysis and judgment only on what Rush says isn't advisable.

I'm just saying....

 

==================

O777;
Yes & yes.

King Solomon was known for his wealth & wisdom;
Bible based wisdom.

And just found ouit on CBN News[paraphrase, not quote follows]
That recent hispanic female nominee is 100 % wrong on 2nd ammendment,
which is 100% unacceptable for a female or male judge .

I like King Sol's hebrew/english book;
proverbs, daily.

 

===============================

Wonder if Solomon was alive today if he would be a R or D;
In all labor ther is profit-Prov 14;23a

Sounds Democrat there;
R elswhere.
Most likely non partsian

 

This Supreme Court pick should come as no surprise to anyone. Obama was a member of a racist black separatist church for 20 years. The nomination of a racist judge to the court is par for the course.

Carroll: Did Sotomayor really mean that?

By Vincent Carroll
Posted: 05/27/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

If racial and gender bigotry truly have no place in American public life today, then Judge Sonia Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, needs to utterly repudiate her 2001 assertion that "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."

Putting that statement "in context" or explaining what she "really meant" will not do. Nor can Judge Sotomayor credibly argue that her assertion was an ill-considered mistake, since it was part of a prepared speech at the Berkeley school of law. No, she needs to reject it as the expression of bigotry that it was.

Even then she'd be getting off easy. After all, as Stuart Taylor wrote last weekend in the National Journal, "Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority."

Sotomayor, by contrast, is on the verge of a lifetime post on the most powerful court in the land.

While Sotomayor's comparison of the relative wisdom of Latina women and white men has garnered most of the attention in her Berkeley speech, it was hardly her only eyebrow-raising remark that day. After wondering "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she then added, "Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address."

Is she really suggesting that men and women, as well as people of different races, "have basic differences in logic and reasoning" in approaching legal issues? Once again, can you imagine a prominent white male saying such a thing without a legion of critics demanding that he do public penance?

Why, when Larry Summers was Harvard president, his claim that the distribution of innate aptitude might partly explain the ratio of men and women in science careers provoked such a furor that he was forced to backtrack, grovel and eventually resign (although as director of the White House's National Economic Council, he certainly landed on his feet).

Sotomayor's statement was far less nuanced than Summers', and yet was obviously deliberate, since she restated it within minutes.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . .," she declared, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

Of course, no reasonable person doubts that background and experience influence a judge's outlook and may predispose that person to a particular conclusion in a case. The question is how much judges should attempt to keep their personal biases in check. In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor seemed to be of two minds on this matter, endorsing the idea that judges "transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices" even as she celebrated her belief that impartiality is not only an unattainable ideal, but an overrated goal as well.

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor may believe that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusions when deciding cases, Sotomayor explained, but she is "not so sure that I agree with the statement" — in part because of her expectation that a wise Latina would on average make better decisions than a white male.

The judge appears to believe that some people — people like Sotomayor, for instance — are endowed by their culture and genetics to dispense a superior brand of justice. If so, it's the sort of vision, turned on its head, that you might have expected to hear from a Supreme Court nominee a century or more ago.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12454492

 

I have read more about mullato than most people here and if you want to dispute that there have been lots of miscreants around the idiot POTUS, it's you who should get better informed.
Lots of strange characters (to put it mildly) and no real friends.
Another con job with the same characteristics was Hitler. Able to move masses yet severely disliked by fellow soldiers in the trenches of WW1.
Tell me about one(at least!) close friend of Obama. Every president brings these people around with them to the White House.

Idiot without accomplishments writing books about himself. Never happened before . Do you want to be around person like that unless you have to or wanna get something out of it???

 

I guess it's better with a below average student with friends like Cheney, Rove, Rummy, and Harriet Myers? Look, political extremism and bias I can sort of understand, but to start trying to compare our President with Hitler, or to even infer he's accomplished less in his personal life that Mr. Bush junior, makes you seem like a bit more whacky than the normal whackies on ET. And, yes, from both sides of the aisle. Hitler? Wow.



c

 

Did you feel the same way when liberals compared Bush to Hitler?

 

Yes, but the justice is administered through the impartial and equal application of the law to every individual. There is a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Granted, that application is never 100% fair, and frequently much less than that. However, impartiality should be the goal and the moral foundation of the system.

What is disturbing here is that Sotomayor and pro-activists like Obama explicitly reject that impartiality, and believe themselves competent to inject their own biases to achieve their own version of justice. That's a great idea only so long as you hold the same biases.