That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.



Just. Damn.

(07-15-2009 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.



Just. Damn.

Relax. Your right to shoot yourself(please do it soon) is not going to go away.

(07-15-2009 11:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Relax. Your right to shoot yourself(please do it soon) is not going to go away.

If all the conservatives like me up and disappeared, who'd pay for your government cheese?

(07-15-2009 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.



Just. Damn.

It probably would have stumped Souter too, based on his record.

If fiscal conservatives are to reverse the course to destruction that Obama has us on (and to be fair, his predecessors had us pretty far down the road), then they need to pick their fights. And this ain't the one to pick.

Let her be confirmed, and focus on the really big problems, like health care and the economy. We probably can survive Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. We probably cannot survive Obamanomics and Obamacare. At least, not as a livable country.

we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.

That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

(07-15-2009 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.



Just. Damn.

It probably would have stumped Souter too, based on his record.

If fiscal conservatives are to reverse the course to destruction that Obama has us on (and to be fair, his predecessors had us pretty far down the road), then they need to pick their fights. And this ain't the one to pick.

Let her be confirmed, and focus on the really big problems, like health care and the economy. We probably can survive Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. We probably cannot survive Obamanomics and Obamacare. At least, not as a livable country.

Ignoring the "little" problems along the way has led us to the big problems.

As an outside example, don't you think that a little nomination of a person like this

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id...&utm_term=

has contributed greatly to the complexity of Obamacare?

Obviously SG and SC aren't the same, but I guarantee you that court nominations like Sotomayor only guarantee that you are stuck w/ Obamanomics and Obamacare. They aren't independent of each other.

bottom line is they have 60 votes and Obama still has political capital(though deflating).

The GOP should inform the public of how Radical and idiotic this woman is, but thats about all they can do. Unless somehow they turn some red state Dem senators, like Ben Nelson into filibustering.

the problem with this, and why the Libs decided to start using the courts for their policies, is that a good 1/3 of the country this stuff is all over their head. Only the bases of the parties understand the significance of these Judges and their ideologies.


she's a bigger idiot than Souter, not by alot though. The big one, barring an untimely death, would be Kennedy resigning. Right now that would assure the Court from going Centrist to Leftist on all 5-4 votes. Right now Kennedy is basically the defacto Dictator of the country.

(07-15-2009 11:31 AM)GGniner Wrote:  we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.

That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

We are going to get to the point of no return a whole lot quicker because of other things--if we haven't already passed it. I would say the 2010 elections are the last chance to save things--and opposing Sotomayor is not the way to win the 2010 election.

(07-15-2009 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:31 AM)GGniner Wrote:  we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.

That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

We are going to get to the point of no return a whole lot quicker because of other things--if we haven't already passed it. I would say the 2010 elections are the last chance to save things--and opposing Sotomayor is not the way to win the 2010 election.

don't be so sure, she's not popular

Quote:A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% of voters now favor her confirmation while 43% are opposed. Importantly, those who are undecided have a positive view of President Obama and are probably willing to give him and his nominee the benefit of the doubt…
In our Tuesday morning write-up of the results, we noted that the single night data from Monday night showed improvement for Sotomayor. However, that improvement did notcarry over to last night’s polling. At this point, it is impossible to know

and one way to defeat Obama and the Dems in the future is to gradually chip away at their current shine, by exposing fruitcake picks like this woman among other things.

The strategy of modern politics that works(just a simple reality), is that negativity(warranted or not), over a period of time works.

Self defense my ass. How do you defend yourself against what Obama is doing to us?

(07-15-2009 12:23 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:31 AM)GGniner Wrote:  we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.
That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

We are going to get to the point of no return a whole lot quicker because of other things--if we haven't already passed it. I would say the 2010 elections are the last chance to save things--and opposing Sotomayor is not the way to win the 2010 election.

don't be so sure, she's not popular

I realize she's not, but make her an issue and you punt the Hispanic vote, particularly coming on top of the immigration debate, and that's not the way to win in 2010.

(07-15-2009 12:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Self defense my ass. How do you defend yourself against what Obama is doing to us?

Laser sharks.

(07-15-2009 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:23 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:31 AM)GGniner Wrote:  we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.
That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

We are going to get to the point of no return a whole lot quicker because of other things--if we haven't already passed it. I would say the 2010 elections are the last chance to save things--and opposing Sotomayor is not the way to win the 2010 election.

don't be so sure, she's not popular

I realize she's not, but make her an issue and you punt the Hispanic vote, particularly coming on top of the immigration debate, and that's not the way to win in 2010.

I don't think you can generalize Hispanics like that. Mexicans have no use for Puerto Ricans, and vice versa.

(07-15-2009 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:23 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:31 AM)GGniner Wrote:  we get a majority of the court thinking like Sotomayor, and we can't survive that. That is were the real power is. England has ruined itself over the last decade because Labor held power for so long and their courts got infested with idiots like Sotomayor.
That would be the point of no return, well the return would come in the form of a revolution of some sorts.

We are going to get to the point of no return a whole lot quicker because of other things--if we haven't already passed it. I would say the 2010 elections are the last chance to save things--and opposing Sotomayor is not the way to win the 2010 election.

don't be so sure, she's not popular

I realize she's not, but make her an issue and you punt the Hispanic vote, particularly coming on top of the immigration debate, and that's not the way to win in 2010.

Then there is no hope. You can't compromise on principle. That's what got Sotomayor a judgeship to begin with.

If you can't win this fight, better to go down swinging. Losing by increments is no way to go.

Nevertheless, I don't think SC nominations are an issue that generates enough passion. I could be wrong (I certainly have bashed Daschle for his racist approach to Estrada) but I suspect other urgencies will overwhelm this.

Look, replacing Souter with Sotomayor is like pinch-hitting Roy Oswalt for Wandy Rodriguez--it won't make a big difference.

The impact on the SCt will come when one of the conservatives dies or steps down. Conservatives need to hope that comes after the 2010 elections, and that republicans do well enough in 2010 to alter the calculus. Since I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative, I'm not as troubled by the SCt as some of you are, so that may give me a slightly different viewpoint. Make no mistake, I'm willing to accept some social conservatism to get fiscal conservatism, so I do root for conservatives in the end.

It is precisely by compromising on principle that liberals have swung the agenda in their direction over the last 50 years. Take a little here, take a little there, eventually you get what you want. Conservatives are going to have to do the same thing in order to shift the pendulum back the other way. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Pretending it's not is killing you.

(07-15-2009 12:35 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 12:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Self defense my ass. How do you defend yourself against what Obama is doing to us?

Laser sharks.

Will ill-tempered mutant sea bass suffice?

(07-15-2009 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Look, replacing Souter with Sotomayor won't make a big difference.

There is some legitimacy in that point. I think it's worth pushing on this though. And opposing an ulitimately successful nomination will be helpful, not hurtful.

Quote:It is precisely by compromising on principle that liberals have swung the agenda in their direction over the last 50 years.

I'm not seeing history the same as you.

(07-15-2009 01:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is precisely by compromising on principle that liberals have swung the agenda in their direction over the last 50 years.

I'm not seeing history the same as you.

OK, take gay rights, for example.
That's actually an issue where my views are pretty tolerant/liberal.
How many people in 1968 have imagined that things would be where they are today?
Very few, probably including most gays.
Did gays get everything they wanted up front?
Of course not.
Would they have gotten where they are today if they had insisted on everything up front?
No way.
So they compromised on principle, picked their fights, took a little here and a little there, and look where they are today.
That's what I'm talking about.

Republicans are known for nominating liberals for the bench. Have Democrats ever nominated conservatives? In the past 40 years?

its not all about the President, who controls the Senate is also key. and then the Democrats have the MSM which is also a factor in getting confirmed.

Souter was a prayer thrown up against a Dem Senate, it backfired. They knew Thomas was conservative, and I'd say he'd got shot down by the Dems if he wasn't black....and it was close at that. and they smeared him too, made sure he wouldn't peel any votes away from them.

the Dems successfully got away with lying and smearing Bork, they controlled the Senate and Media.

Scalia got through a GOP controlled Senate.



Did the GOP ever control the Senate during the Clinton nominations is the question I'd like to know, and during the Carter years as well???