Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor
 

Not all democrats are fans of Sotomayor:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

Here is a snippet from the article: The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

What a surprise....lol! It will be interesting to see the conservatives justify opposition after a number of them voted to confirm her in the past. Looking forward to a lot of crap...like she's a bully...lol again! Better they celebrate their "victory" against civil rights in California!

In case you didn't notice, the article was from a liberal newspaper.

Not responding to the specific article, merely predicting the politics of the future. Obviously I love the quandary the right finds itself in....

that is a shame :(

Obama is opposed to same-sex marriages. Does that make Obama against civil rights?

and i just saw this on my home page:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298/


The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.


they're bound to uphold what? a constitution that can be changed at a whim? based on a vote? i hope our u.s. constitution is more airtight than that!! the majority isn't supposed to rule, with the ability to gang up on an outnumbered minority, and take their rights away.

I'm pretty sure Obama will have his thumb in the air when it comes to this issue.

Whichever way the public is going at that particular time is what he will support.

Very Clinton-esque.

The Constitution can be amended of course, but not merely at a whim...it takes a lengthy process, years and years for common sense and decency to hopefully prevail. The California court was gutless...hardly unexpected. Rather than run into Constitutional issues, they let 18000 marriages stand but deny the same equality to others. The right says they support equal rights, as long as they are separate....now where have we heard that before?
A local woman wrote a letter to the Chambersburg newspaper in which, intermingled with a lot of psuedo-Christian references, she made the statement that "gays" had no right to the word "marriage" as "everyone" knows that "marriage" is a Christian word....do you laugh or cry?

I disagree with Obama on this issue...yes, I feel that a stand against "gay marriage" is against civil rights...equality can never be obtained by separation.

Cry because about 54% of the country feels EXACTLY the same way. Its all about the Bible. And its very ridiculous.

They have everything backwards... supposedly banning gay marriage is the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do!?!?? When actually denying Americans from having the same rights as everyone else is the MORALLY WRONG thing to do.

This is not politically correct enough in my book. They need to find a lesbian african-american with HPV and a bum leg.

Yes

i know there are steps in place, and it should take years. Interesting, and sad, that the equal rights amendment can't bet ratified, but cali found it so easy to amen their state constitution. glad i don't live there.

as for christian words...i guess stoning is one as well...at any rate, i wonder what the original christian would have to say to his 'followers' about this?

A clerk said that... another Judge's clerk... good source.

Her academic record says the exactly the opposite.
As does her work as a circuit judge. She
has very well written opinions that are well thought
out. And she is clearly liberal. The real sticking point.

She does like to argue. But it is much more constructive
and much less bullying than Scalia. And I am sorry, if Clarence
Thomas gets in with extremely modest credentials, this lady is
a lock if it is a question of brains.

The Republicans are going to have to find a pubic hair
on a glass to get this blocked. They need dirt. They
will have to fillibuster. The Democrats would be wise to let
them. Since Obama has been elected it is a party with no ideas
and nothing but destructive intentions. That status will continue.

The Republicans should be touting that the surge in Iraq did
do its job, when Democrats said it would fail. The Republicans
should say their strategy to get the local Iraqis to handle the
problems have worked. Where are the positives?

Lead in with good ideas on domestic issues or get out of the way.

LOL ..What was it that he said (that made her lose it for real?) I can't understand what he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPiwC...eature=related

That judge is quite attractive imo.

This can be turned around at the ballot box in California (if it's an off year election.) Problem with that is it can be reversed at the ballot box by the Conservatives(in a heavy Presidential election.) It's a form of discrimination(based on the sex of the two people involved.) It's an interesting situation here, because Democratic Blacks and Latinos usually vote against gays. The Gays pick up some support from the money Conservatives(dat be you, Honu.)

Well......it's not like we didn't know he would pick a liberal judge!....I've seen some plusses and minuses to her being on the Court, if her history is any indication. Too early to tell now,though.