Obama nominates a racist

"Ohh yeah, its racism."

Thanks for the confirmation...

(Republicans could have put up a black candidate in the south and the republican majority would have elected the black republican candidate, as long as the republican voters are not actually racist...)

 

Of course George W Bush, a white southern, had the most diverse cabinet ever, but lets not include that fact. Your argument is very weak.

 

Southern voters have not elected a black US senator since reconstruction, and when I asked you why, you wrote:

"Ohh yeah, its racism."

Thanks again for the confirmation...

 

YAWN. I am through with you.

 

The ZZZzzz southern argument is bullshit.

Only three states have elected black senators: Mississippi, Massachusetts and Illinois. Three Republicans and three Democrats (one was appointed).


Blacks in the United States Senate

Hiram Rhodes Revels
Republican Mississippi
1870-1871

Blanche Bruce
Republican
Mississippi
1875-1881

Edward Brooke
Republican
Massachusetts
1967-1979

Carol Moseley Braun
Democrat
Illinois
1993-1999

Barack Obama
Democrat
Illinois
2005-2008

Roland Burris
Democrat
Illinois (Pay to Play Blago pick)
2009-

 

Northern state elected 3 blacks since reconstruction, the south none.

Why is that?

 

2-for1 Friday Special

Following are two good opinion articles on democrat hypocrisy pertaining to Supreme Court nominees.

The Sotomayor Rules
Some were made to be broken.

President Barack Obama has laid down his ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr. Obama nor his party have themselves followed.

Ground Rule No. 1, as decreed by the president, is that this is to be a discussion primarily about Judge Sotomayor's biography, not her qualifications. The media gurus complied, with inspiring stories of how she was born to Puerto Rican immigrants, how she was raised by a single mom in a Bronx housing project, how she went on to Princeton and then Yale. In the years that followed she presumably issued a judicial opinion here or there, but whatever.

The president, after all, had taken great pains to explain that this is more than an American success story. Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor's biography that uniquely qualifies her to sit on the nation's highest bench -- that gives her the "empathy" to rule wisely. Judge Sotomayor agrees: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said in 2001.

If so, perhaps we can expect her to join in opinions with the wise and richly experienced Clarence Thomas. That would be the same Justice Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather. The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black. The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale. (read more)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355478303064587.html#printMode



Obama's Idea of Justice
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 05/29/2009 ET

When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court -- in Barack Obama's America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks "Latina women," because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are "where policy is made" in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.

Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn't lived that life."

Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member. (read more)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=32064

 

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member. (read more)

Beautiful. Getting better and better.
This country is so over.

 

From a Libertarian perspective, Sotomayor appears to be the <b>best</b> nominee we've seen in a decade. A bit weak on gun rights & race issues... but put her next to the fascist shitheels appointed by Dubya, and she comes out looking like Ron-Freakin'-Paul by comparison.

____________________________

(From wikipedia)

Fourth Amendment rights
In N.G. ex rel. S.G. v. Connecticut (2004),[72] Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ decision to uphold a series of strip searches of “troubled adolescent girls” in juvenile detention centers. While Sotomayor agreed that some of the strip searches at issue in the case were lawful, she would have held that due to the “the severely intrusive nature of strip searches,” they should not be allowed “in the absence of individualized suspicion, of adolescents who have never been charged with a crime.” She argued that an "individualized suspicion" rule was more consistent with Second Circuit precedent than the majority's rule.

Property rights
In Krimstock v. Kelly,[79], Sotomayor wrote an opinion halting New York City's practice of seizing the motor vehicles of drivers accused of driving while intoxicated and some other crimes and holding those vehicles for "months or even years" during criminal proceedings. Noting the importance of cars to many individuals' livelihoods or daily activities, she held that it violated individuals' due process rights to hold the vehicles without permitting the owners to challenge the City's continued possession of their property.