When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
There is one other area where she may be vulnerable that has nothing to do with racism or sexism and has been shown to be a political hot potato for the Dems already. The Second Amendment.
Win or lose, she should be questioned closely to see if she still holds these views…
“…Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights…”
She also had a ruling overturned regarding terrorism suspects.
“…In that case, she determined that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. Her controversial decision was later overturned by an Appellate Court, but still influenced current policy…”
Since the race card is bound to be played to it’s fullest, If it were up to me it would be in areas like these that I would be focusing attention.
There is no reason to believe this is true. The purported source is “American News Inc.” The link to this alleged news source is dead. In a quick Internet search, I found no such organization.
Further, the text of the article is self-refuting. An undergraduate at an Ivy League school, including Princeton, would write only one thesis. (Perhaps two if she were an exceptionally hard-working double major.) It would be unheard of for a student to write more than three, as the article claims she did. Nor would anyone who actually knew what a Princeton thesis was describe it as a “legal” thesis.
Moreover, Sotomayor was intelligent enough to graduate from Yale Law School Princeton Summa Cum Laude. It is inconceivable that someone of such intelligence (or even of modest intelligence) could have written a thesis asserting that the Second Amendment actually outlawed gun ownership outside of the militia.
Updated update: Commenters explain that Princeton students write two junior papers and one senior paper; only the latter is called a “thesis.” Other commenters point out that her senior thesis was about the Puerto Rican politician Luis Munoz Marin. The blog which created this item has a small tag on the article which says “satire.” Although all of the commenters on that blog seem to have taken the article seriously, as has every other cite to it on the web. People who want to read satire on the web would be better off with Iowahawk, which can be recognized as satire because it is sometimes funny.
Looks like someone’s taking everyone for a ride. Too bad when there are ample cases that are verifiable and on record for dissent.
Also, I spent quite a bit of time trying to find a 2002 Sotomayor case about battlefield rights for terrorists… as that struck me as a story that would have made the news big if it happened. I don’t believe it did, and there is nothing on record on such a major decision by a judge.
Lastly, the only real brush with the RKBA had to do with nunchucka and a NY attorney who claimed his rights had been violated in Maloney v. Cuomo. She was part of a panel that issued a per curiam opinion affirming a district court’s rejection of the claim, saying the the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
1903A3
14 years ago
question her hard on isssues as needed,but remember who she is replacing. one lib for another will it make that big a deal.If the repubs need to pick a fight,then the time in my opinon would be for the next candidate,where the balance would change.fwiw,I belive shes not a good pick for the court,unless your a dem. wayyyy to radical.
mathman
14 years ago
Sonia Sotomayr is unqualified for a position on the Supreme Court.
She will violate the oath of office if she is sworn in.
She was nominated by President Obama, who routinely violates the oath of office which he made.
President Obama is not a believer in the rule of law. In his view the law applies only to others; he is exempted from the law. He promised that no lobbyists would serve in his Administration. That was false. He has rigged the automobile settlements to favor (grossly) his friends in the UAW. He promised that he would sign no earmarks into law. That has not happened. He has done his best to alienate our traditional allies. He has done his best to befriend our traditional enemies. So our allies are not there for us anymore, and our enemies see weakness which they can take advantage of (see North Korea).
When I was young I was taught that Justice was blind, having regard only for the law and having no regard for the status of plaintiff or defendant.
When I was young I was taught that the Federal role in controlling the currency was to maintain a sound dollar.
Both of these teachings have been superseded.
Money is to be printed as required, without consideration of the assets to back such printing. Justice is to be dispensed by empathy and not by law, making all contracts void.
OLDPUPPYMAX
14 years ago
The republican party is not being run by “moderates” who have lost their way, who are clueless as to the desires of the base or who have made the mistake of pandering to strictly democrat owned groups. It is in the hands of deliberate traitors, working to sell-out the nation and the American public by destroying the republican party from within.
Hmmm, verrrry iterrrresting. Disinformation to demoralize, like Tokyo Rose. “Give up, G.I. Resistance is futile. You cannot win, so why perpetuate the useless slaughter. Give up. Give up.”
They are REALLY ticking me off!
Bryan
14 years ago
I’m not saying it’s racist to question her beliefs, but I do think the GOP is approaching it the wrong way if it says a white male is more qualified. I think Republicans do have some real racial issues (look at their leader, Rush Limbaugh, the head racist) and really need to avoid this sensitive topic if they want any chance of winning our (Hispanics’) votes again. My advice is to just question her based on her beliefs and avoid anything that touches on or even near race.
Mata, thank you for that information. As you said, after researching it more thoroughly I can’t find independent corroboration either. She seems to have (like Obama) left a minimal paper trail even in decisions she was directly involved in.
Even so, it’s an avenue worth exploring. The Second Amendment Foundation has called her nomination “a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment” in a Forbes article from yesterday. They cite the case of Maloney v. Cuomo as well and she had to do something that appellate courts rarely do which was to ignore a recent Supreme Court ruling. SAF asks:
“…While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.
Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.
“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”
Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be released under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.
“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information?” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated…” http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/05/26/businesswire124996906.html
She also seems to have an unusually high reversal rate on her decisions:
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
I couldn’t find anything concrete on a reversal of any decision about detainee’s rights either. However, Glenn Sulmasy, of the Coast Guard Academy’s law faculty, suggests some national-security questions for Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing that I believe should definitely be posed, one of which is the question of the status of detainees and their rights:
Sonia Sotomayor said this: “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.”
I think Republicans do have some real racial issues (look at their leader, Rush Limbaugh, the head racist)
Oh goody!
A Wednesday afternoon attack on Rush Limbaugh.
Examples to support your accusation please Bryan.
Examples please.
really need to avoid this sensitive topic if they want any chance of winning our (Hispanics’) votes again.
Given his history for appointing Hispanic individuals to Cabinet level positions, and his history of nominating Hispanic jurists to the courts can you tell me, in 50 words or less, what you think of President George W Bush.
In addition, I would also like to know in which election(s) did you vote for President GW Bush?
Exit questions:
Which political party actively and vigorously opposed the passage of civil rights legislation?
Which political party featured the KKK at their convention?
Which political party has a Senator currently serving who was a Grand Kleagle in the KKK?
Bucko Bryan: I’m not saying it’s racist to question her beliefs, but I do think the GOP is approaching it the wrong way if it says a white male is more qualified.
Kindly point out where anyone has said a white male is more qualified.
As to the rest, you give a great example of what a racist and bigot, as well as liar, looks like. And how nice he proclaims himself the spokesperson for all Hispanics…. ahem.
Well delusions of grandeur and belief in self as the chosen one are all new requirements for POTUS, I guess. Perhaps Bryan has himself a great future in his party of class and race divisionists.
As for ignoring your advice at our “own peril”… LOL… OMG, another know it all progressive liberal with “advice” on how to save the GOP (like that’s what they want)…. I think it’s much better stated that we shall just ignore YOU.
Bryan
14 years ago
Fine, keep dodging the issue.
For GOP’s sake, it should stay out of the racism business. It does not help their bottom line, which is getting elected in areas that are not the Deep South.
Bryan #7: I’m not saying it’s racist to question her beliefs, but I do think the GOP is approaching it the wrong way if it says a white male is more qualified.
Aqua #9: Sonia Sotomayor said this: “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.”
Now, who is racist?
Bryan #11: Fine, ignore my advice at your own peril.
Mata #16: Kindly point out where anyone [GOP] has said a white male is more qualified.
Bryan #17: Fine, keep dodging the issue.
For GOP’s sake, it should stay out of the racism business. It does not help their bottom line, which is getting elected in areas that are not the Deep South
Typical child of Alinsky you are, Bryan.
You accuse the GOP of saying a white male is more qualified. Aqua points out the only one who has stated superior qualifications based on gender and race is Sotomayor herself… NOT THE GOP.
I ask you to point out any GOPer who has stated a white male is more qualified. No response.
Just who, pray tell, is “dodging the issue” and is actually engaging in the “racism business”? Your side of the fence.
You can talk all day long until your blue in the face, but it won’t change the facts that it is you and Sotomayor who have proved themselves inept bigots.
I suggest you continue on this racist approach at your peril.
Well, I’ll be. Looks like you nailed him! ….@Bryan:
At least he seems to be a good sport, though, so maybe there’s hope.
I would like to see him try to put together a well reasoned argument which defines this nebulous “perile” which we are supposed to be in dread of, and why. Perhaps the exercise will help him realize how contrived it is, and we can wipe some of that grease-paing off his face, and get some of the cobwebs out of his brain.
There is one other area where she may be vulnerable that has nothing to do with racism or sexism and has been shown to be a political hot potato for the Dems already. The Second Amendment.
Win or lose, she should be questioned closely to see if she still holds these views…
Sotomayor: Gun Ownership “Unconstitutional”
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-gun-ownership.html
“…Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights…”
She also had a ruling overturned regarding terrorism suspects.
“…In that case, she determined that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. Her controversial decision was later overturned by an Appellate Court, but still influenced current policy…”
Since the race card is bound to be played to it’s fullest, If it were up to me it would be in areas like these that I would be focusing attention.
wardogs
Just to let you know, wardogs, The Volokh Conspiracy considers that thesis stuff “highly dubious”.
Looks like someone’s taking everyone for a ride. Too bad when there are ample cases that are verifiable and on record for dissent.
Also, I spent quite a bit of time trying to find a 2002 Sotomayor case about battlefield rights for terrorists… as that struck me as a story that would have made the news big if it happened. I don’t believe it did, and there is nothing on record on such a major decision by a judge.
Lastly, the only real brush with the RKBA had to do with nunchucka and a NY attorney who claimed his rights had been violated in Maloney v. Cuomo. She was part of a panel that issued a per curiam opinion affirming a district court’s rejection of the claim, saying the the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
question her hard on isssues as needed,but remember who she is replacing. one lib for another will it make that big a deal.If the repubs need to pick a fight,then the time in my opinon would be for the next candidate,where the balance would change.fwiw,I belive shes not a good pick for the court,unless your a dem. wayyyy to radical.
Sonia Sotomayr is unqualified for a position on the Supreme Court.
She will violate the oath of office if she is sworn in.
She was nominated by President Obama, who routinely violates the oath of office which he made.
President Obama is not a believer in the rule of law. In his view the law applies only to others; he is exempted from the law. He promised that no lobbyists would serve in his Administration. That was false. He has rigged the automobile settlements to favor (grossly) his friends in the UAW. He promised that he would sign no earmarks into law. That has not happened. He has done his best to alienate our traditional allies. He has done his best to befriend our traditional enemies. So our allies are not there for us anymore, and our enemies see weakness which they can take advantage of (see North Korea).
When I was young I was taught that Justice was blind, having regard only for the law and having no regard for the status of plaintiff or defendant.
When I was young I was taught that the Federal role in controlling the currency was to maintain a sound dollar.
Both of these teachings have been superseded.
Money is to be printed as required, without consideration of the assets to back such printing. Justice is to be dispensed by empathy and not by law, making all contracts void.
The republican party is not being run by “moderates” who have lost their way, who are clueless as to the desires of the base or who have made the mistake of pandering to strictly democrat owned groups. It is in the hands of deliberate traitors, working to sell-out the nation and the American public by destroying the republican party from within.
@MataHarley:
Hmmm, verrrry iterrrresting. Disinformation to demoralize, like Tokyo Rose. “Give up, G.I. Resistance is futile. You cannot win, so why perpetuate the useless slaughter. Give up. Give up.”
They are REALLY ticking me off!
I’m not saying it’s racist to question her beliefs, but I do think the GOP is approaching it the wrong way if it says a white male is more qualified. I think Republicans do have some real racial issues (look at their leader, Rush Limbaugh, the head racist) and really need to avoid this sensitive topic if they want any chance of winning our (Hispanics’) votes again. My advice is to just question her based on her beliefs and avoid anything that touches on or even near race.
Mata, thank you for that information. As you said, after researching it more thoroughly I can’t find independent corroboration either. She seems to have (like Obama) left a minimal paper trail even in decisions she was directly involved in.
Even so, it’s an avenue worth exploring. The Second Amendment Foundation has called her nomination “a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment” in a Forbes article from yesterday. They cite the case of Maloney v. Cuomo as well and she had to do something that appellate courts rarely do which was to ignore a recent Supreme Court ruling. SAF asks:
“…While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.
Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.
“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”
Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be released under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.
“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information?” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated…”
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/05/26/businesswire124996906.html
She also seems to have an unusually high reversal rate on her decisions:
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/?iref=hpmostpop
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
I couldn’t find anything concrete on a reversal of any decision about detainee’s rights either. However, Glenn Sulmasy, of the Coast Guard Academy’s law faculty, suggests some national-security questions for Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing that I believe should definitely be posed, one of which is the question of the status of detainees and their rights:
5 questions for Supreme Court candidates
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/25/EDQ517OUM0.DTL
wardogs
@ Bryan
Sonia Sotomayor said this: “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.”
Now, who is racist?
@Bryan:
Oh goody!
A Wednesday afternoon attack on Rush Limbaugh.
Examples to support your accusation please Bryan.
Examples please.
Given his history for appointing Hispanic individuals to Cabinet level positions, and his history of nominating Hispanic jurists to the courts can you tell me, in 50 words or less, what you think of President George W Bush.
In addition, I would also like to know in which election(s) did you vote for President GW Bush?
Exit questions:
Fine, ignore my advice at your own peril.
@Bryan:
Why are you ignoring the questions Bryan?
They’ll only get tougher from here.
Bonus Question:
Who has expressed an opposition to Sotomayor based on her Hispanic heritage?
psssssst, hey, Brian.
I feel sorry for you that you don’t know any of the answers, so here’s the crib sheet.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/dear-democrats-letter-from-lt-colonel.html
Now you should be able to answer all the questioins, and get an “A.”
Bryan: Something tells me you would prefer Republicans LOSE elections so I’m sure you will understand if I ignore your advice.
If Hispanics are THAT shallow and easily manipulated by the disinformation put out by the Democrats then I pity them.
As for Rush Limbaugh being a racist, I take it you never listen to Rush Limbaugh yet are willing to accept what someone with an agenda says about him.
Judging by your comment it may well be the truth that Hispanics are largely misinformed and easily manipulated.
@yonason:
@Mike’s America:
Poor Bryan found himself ass deep in alligators.
Heh.
Kindly point out where anyone has said a white male is more qualified.
As to the rest, you give a great example of what a racist and bigot, as well as liar, looks like. And how nice he proclaims himself the spokesperson for all Hispanics…. ahem.
Well delusions of grandeur and belief in self as the chosen one are all new requirements for POTUS, I guess. Perhaps Bryan has himself a great future in his party of class and race divisionists.
As for ignoring your advice at our “own peril”… LOL… OMG, another know it all progressive liberal with “advice” on how to save the GOP (like that’s what they want)…. I think it’s much better stated that we shall just ignore YOU.
Fine, keep dodging the issue.
For GOP’s sake, it should stay out of the racism business. It does not help their bottom line, which is getting elected in areas that are not the Deep South.
Typical child of Alinsky you are, Bryan.
You accuse the GOP of saying a white male is more qualified. Aqua points out the only one who has stated superior qualifications based on gender and race is Sotomayor herself… NOT THE GOP.
I ask you to point out any GOPer who has stated a white male is more qualified. No response.
Just who, pray tell, is “dodging the issue” and is actually engaging in the “racism business”? Your side of the fence.
You can talk all day long until your blue in the face, but it won’t change the facts that it is you and Sotomayor who have proved themselves inept bigots.
I suggest you continue on this racist approach at your peril.
Bozo
@Bryan:
Bryan,
I see that you’ve returned to once again try and pass off the DNC talking points.
Some sites may not be astute enough to recognize your drivel for what it is.
Unfortunately for you, this site is not in that group.
You’ve already been asked multiple questions up to, and including, who is focusing on Sotomayor based on her race.
As of this moment you have not answered any of the questions posed to you.
Seems that you’re the one who is dodging.
I didn’t figure you had the mental acumen or, more importantly, the stones to answer the queries.
@Bryan: Do you really think that all Hispanics are so easily manipulated by such obvious misstatements and lies?
I hope not.
Otherwise, they deserve to be Democrats.
Just to add on to Mata’s response to Bryan.
Wow!
Why don’t the conservatives keep pushing thier own message, and answer all attacks with conservative priciples?
When all peoples see and hear the message they will come.
The statists arguements are empty.
Wise citizens know our history and can thank the founders.
READ THE BOOK: LIBERTY AND TYRANNY!! Mark Levin
It’s a damm good start
Semper Fi
Bryan’s talking points are remarkably similar to this guy:
I wonder if Bryan’s close proximity to metro DC has anything to do with that.
Hmmm.. 🙂
@MataHarley:
Well, I’ll be. Looks like you nailed him! ….@Bryan:
At least he seems to be a good sport, though, so maybe there’s hope.
I would like to see him try to put together a well reasoned argument which defines this nebulous “perile” which we are supposed to be in dread of, and why. Perhaps the exercise will help him realize how contrived it is, and we can wipe some of that grease-paing off his face, and get some of the cobwebs out of his brain.