Is Sotomayor a wise choice for the Supreme Court?

Which is to make the rules up as you go along. In fact, she even joked about it.

Let the Party of No begin their chorus...

Looks more like America... a country that seems to have forgotten its own laws and rules. A country that allows the Supreme Court to make decisions way out of its pervue. A country that allows millions to be rewarded for breaking the law, and punishes those who try to live by the laws and consitution. Sad days are ahead if the silent majority doesn't yell soon. I find it hard to believe how blind so many Americans are to what is going on around them. La la land at its best.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Sotomayor_statements/2009/05/26/218143.html?s=al&promo_code=8061-1

Well.... if the Legislative branch would stop designing vague laws that will then have to go to the courts in order to be resolved, we would not have the so called "activist" judges....

Come on people..... think about it for once!

She is a terrible choice, as is evidenced by her being constantly overturned in her own rulings. She has poor judgment and believes in making law not interpreting it.

Oh well, we get the crappy government that we vote for. I am ashamed to be an American right now as our rights seem to be eroding at a pace I have never witnessed in my life, which is decidedly unAmerican.

Her decisions have been appealed 150 times and overturned 2 times--Seems like a pretty good record to me.

Troy,
What!? Judges do not make policy or laws! For the country's sake, don't be so ignorant of how our government is supposed to operate. Legislature makes laws and amends the Constitution.

She is a terrible choice. She has said that judges make policy and then laughed about it. In 3 of 4 major decisions where she wrote the majority opinion, the Supreme Court overruled her due to her lack of knowledge of law relevant to the cases. Finally, she is a racist and says the Constitution should be ignored when the case concerns a minority.

It doesn't matter who President Obama appoints to the Supreme Court. The GOP is going to oppose that person. The Repubs have no other strategy except delay, deny and obstruct. They have absolutely nothing positive to offer the country.

1 deleted, Johnny Whitfield starting with sexism:

We do NOT need a woman on the Supreme court.

Don't do this.

So there are opinions which are not allowed on NV? I see no CoH violation in the expression of that opinion. Is this what NV has become? A place for the expression of only those opinions of which Tyler approves? If that is truly the case I (and a lot of others) will be out of here.

As for the question, wisdom has little to do with it. It's political expediency and a dependable vote of support for the radical changes Obama hopes to affect on American Government and society at large that counts.

You know if I were in the party that created the global financial

meltdown, I would put my tail between my legs and go away.

Not the GOP. They want to try and blame anyone and anything

for all their problems. They will attack the Supreme Court nominee

not because she deserves it, but because that's what they do...

Amen G.S.

And as Wilfred stated:

It doesn't matter who President Obama appoints to the Supreme Court. The GOP is going to oppose that person. The Repubs have no other strategy except delay, deny and obstruct. They have absolutely nothing positive to offer the country.

You know if I were in the party that created the global financial

Except that that is a fallacy. Try reading a little about Fannie, Freddie, Barney Frank and the CRA.

Try reading something other than corporate or "'christian' right" sponsored propaganda

Of course he has... speaking of quotes, how about this one: "I have a pubic hair on my coke!"

Any guesses?

Your statement:

Obama has moved the court in the direction of a court that more looks like America

IS ABSURD!

What he has done is nominated a person who has stated that "judges set policy".  A totally naive notion, or should be.  The reality is that the "liberal" judges in recent history have done just that.  It is NOT THEIR ROLE!

Should be a very interesting confirmation/rejection!

Obama has NOT MOVED the COURT YET!  And if he does it does NOT REFLECT AMERICA!  IT reflects LIBERALISM! 

I support Obama, as the President of the U. S.  But I do NOT support this choice until I hear a very WIDELY PUBLICIZED RETRACTION from this NOMINEE.  Nominee, not SELECTED JUSTICE!

We did not like Roberts and Alito appointed by Bush. They do not rule by law they ruled by what Bush or Cheney told them. Beautiful choice.

I do not like this lady for many reasons. I am also a Proud half- Puerto Rican American woman from the east coast, but this lady is wayyyy to liberal and I saw a vidoe of her in action and she was very cocky and high and mighty.

I hope and pray that she is not voted orapproved to become a SC judge.

godless you are part of the party that caused the financial meltdown. its called progressivism and is what both parties adhere to. both republicans and democrats are doing the exact same thing: taking away your personal freedoms and enslaving you to your government. if ol w had a d behind his name you would have loved him. your a walking animal farm reference, four legs good two legs bad.

Fortunately for us the rather lame analysis by the great thinkers here and in the media are usually completely different from the prevailing attitudes of the citizens. Most are not as political and thankfully as partisan as the posts here imply. The predictable diatribes that both sides indulge in are meaningless to everyone except the followers who swoon and cheer whenever their leaders speak and boo and hiss whenever the other side responds. Both camps of hypocrites are rather pathetic.

This idea that the court does not set new laws in absolute ignorance of the facts. Only 1/3 of all "law" is set by statute,so called black letter law. The rest is set by precedence reached by court decisions that evolve as society grows and changes. Lawyers are constantly quoting other court cases as opposed to laws passed by some legislature. The law was never meant to be set in stone, many laws are very vague,often deliberately, so that real life circumstances can fine tune them to reality.

A lot of people here talk as though this nomination, regardless of who it is, is going to be the only judge on the bench. There are eight other judges there already, and they have been there for a long time in some cases. The new judge will be exactly that - new, and the Supreme Court has a pretty interesting learning curve.

It still takes a majority to publish a decision, and the actual makeup of the Court will not change one iota in this instance.

John Birdyshaw wrote:

Your statement:

Obama has moved the court in the direction of a court that more looks like America

IS ABSURD!

I'm not so sure about that. It's become very chic to support a member of a racial minority simply because he or she is a member of a racial minority. Sotomayor is a hypocrite who shows her blatant racism by expressing the belief that being a latina woman makes her wiser than a white man because he can't put aside his prejudices, while at the same time declaring that the subjective experiences of her own past (i.e., her *own* prejudices) are an important part of her judicial process.

This is very much in classic tune with the hypocrisy the American public and government has been supporting for decades on the issue of race relations, so if Sotomayor is confirmed, then perhaps it really will look more like America than ever before - the hypocritical side of it, that is.

PINCH wrote:

A lot of people here talk as though this nomination, regardless of who it is, is going to be the only judge on the bench. There are eight other judges there already, and they have been there for a long time in some cases. The new judge will be exactly that - new, and the Supreme Court has a pretty interesting learning curve.

It still takes a majority to publish a decision, and the actual makeup of the Court will not change one iota in this instance.

Your implication is that it's OK to have a judge with faulty juris prudence on the Supreme Court since she'll only be one of many. "Eight out of nine ain't bad, eh?"

Your own statement about the make-up of the court remaining unchanged is in direct conflict with this implication. I know that you were talking about ideological preference, but that's not the only consideration to remember. An improper juris prudence on the part of Sotomayor will *most definitely* change the make-up of the court toward the direction of unfair opinion that is inappropriate for America's highest court.

Well said Carlos T. If the parties were switched it would be the libs screaming and whining.

Patrisan sheep blindly following their party affiliation. Both sides.

gregory -803076 wrote:

Well said Carlos T. If the parties were switched it would be the libs screaming and whining.

Patrisan sheep blindly following their party affiliation. Both sides.

Actually, that's exactly what happened when a republican nominated a hispanic to the US supreme court, but there are objections to this nomination that go beyond party affiliation.

I'm not a member of any American political party. I don't "blindly" follow any political leader or group. I have objections, however, to the nomination of a candidate for any office who so blatantly practices reverse racial discrimination as Sotomayor has done in the past.

The only effect that party affiliation has on my reaction is that I think it's very telling that this particular nomination - considering her racial and gender prejudices - comes from the Democratic party, and indeed from the first black president the nation has ever had, since some of her past rulings have been in (unfair) favor of blacks in preference to whites. If anyone wants to complain about partisan interest here, complain about the partisan interest that Democrats have in supporting reverse discrimination just so they can keep counting on the minority vote.

tyler wrote:

Should've quoted the full thing, I guess.

'We do NOT need a woman on the Supreme court. Especially an Obama favored Liberal. Women make too many decisions based on emotion.'

It's not even that offensive in the grand scale of things but it got reported to high heaven and it's blatantly sexist.

Personally, I'd have to agree. On the other hand, Sotomayor all but admits her own sexism, so while I'd disagree with the concept as a generalization, in this *particular* case, the idea that *Sotomayor* would "make too many decisions based on emotion" stemming from her personal prejudices might very well be accurate. Wouldn't that be ironic?

This isn't to say that I disagree with the comment's deletion. If one wanted to make an argument along the lines that I just have, one could easily have done so without making a generalization that only distracts from the issue at hand.

Should've quoted the full thing, I guess

That would've been a wise idea. However, since I believe sunshine to be the best disinfectant I think it would have been better to leave it uncensored, which incidentally, is the effect of quoting it in full. I did not and do not defend the content, only the free expression, especially in view of the many unmolested comments I've seen that do in fact violate the CoH.

It's working out GREAT for us, Captain Marv --- we've got a President who is both respected and LIKED after 8 miserable years........

Being respected and liked (and NOT by all) are not qualifications for running a country.

Hey Elena? It sure seems to be working out just fine so far. George Bush proved that you can be disrespected and disliked AND make a fine MESS of the country. As for me, I'll take an intelligent and reasonable person as President in the form of Obama who I can ALSO respect.

@Elena: neither is an IQ of 26. Or am I give GW Bush too much credit?

It's still early in the honeymoon..... Bush had unbelievably high approval ratings, especially after we invaded Iraq (a move which both democrats and republicans supported overwhelmingly, BTW). Give Obama's policies a chance to wreak their havoc on this country and let's see what happens to his approval ratings. Spending trillions you don't have will lead to high inflation, high taxes, and stagnation of the economy. (Watch, it WILL get worse).... Interesting that polls show people support Obama but are against big government, higher taxes, government control of the private sector, etc. The honeymoon cannot last.....

Bruce, to set the record straight, again, support to invade Iraq was based on specious evidence of WMD collected and supplied by George Bush. He knew it was spotty evidence but he presented it as "slam dunk" evidence.

Nobody, republicans or democrats alike, would have supported that war had they known what Bush knew.

Let's at least be somewhat truthful when we speak.

had the 'Pubs nominated someone without the stink of the party on them success would have been possible. But alas, W followed the Cheney doctrine and lost. Hardly a surprise but thanks to Obama for setting things back on course for our Country.

You might want to check your history Bruce . . .

Reagan-Bush1 more than tripled the National debt from under 800 billion dollars to about 3 trillion !

Now onto Bush2 - the National debt was still around 3 trillion dollars when Bush2 was selected as president, when he left, the National debt was over 10 trillion, another more than 3 fold increase, so don't talk to me about big spending presidents unless you're going to include the last three Republican presidents . . . and the Republicans had complete control from 2002 to 2006 during which time the debt increased by about as much as it had in the previous 200 years, so don't tell me it was a Democratic Congress that increased the debt !

History tells us there is no choice but to spend our way out of the mess of the last eight years . . .

"The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle the economy gets into. And you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 or 20 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich)" . . . or all of the above !

Go to this website and read the (whole) article under the graph and then the articles on the lower right . . .

Reagan-Bush1 more than tripled the National debt from under 800 billion dollars to about 3 trillion !

Lies... You partisan drone.. The national debt has been in the tens of trillions for MUCH longer. All of these presidents, dems and pubs have been taking from Social Security to PRETEND they have less of a deficit, or worse, lie that it is balanced.

Yes spend our way out... let's see how that works in 5-10 years when we hyper inflate... especially when the SS and Medicare comes due.... Then maybe, America will see how incompetent our leaders have been for the past 20 years... BOTH DEMS AND PUBS.

tick tock, tick tock.....

Mr. Rogers . . .

Get your facts correct before you post and make a fool of yourself . . .

Go to zfacts.com click on National debt graph and read what it says . . .

Yo Cappy, things are great here in America now that we've purged the extremists from office. You should come see the view, it's great.

MRT

Let's be fair here. Bush didn't actually become president until around 2006 when he woke up from enjoying all the fun of living in the White House and realized that other people had been making all the decisions. He had been hand-picked for the job precisely because the people paying the bills and making the plans knew he would react that way.

When the garbage hits the fan, and it will, in spite of all the valiant attempts going on to distract and divert, he will be revealed as the innocent and naive front man he was supposed to be. Being so easily fooled about so many things including WMDs, like so many others, is probably not the legacy he would like, but it beats an abrupt end to his retirement in favor of a jail cell, at the very least.

I enjoyed watching 'W'. AND 'Recount'. Just hollywood entertainment? If we believe that, it can happen again.

Hey Captain Marvelous, last time I checked Harriet Miers is not a Hispanic or a man. I am assuming the "he" you are referring to is Alberto Gonzalez, who was never nominated (and who's tenure at the Justice Department worked out "real" well). Trying paying attention to what is actually happening, not just what you (or more likely, some pundit) think happened in a re-written Bush world.

As my father said, Elena, nobody, except a second-term president, has a record of "experience" for the job. Obama's ability to garner respect from the world community, build bridges with our "enemies," knowledge of law and government, his empathy for all mankind, and his vision for a brave new world gives him leadership skills far beyond those we have seen in any president for 50+ years. He may not be able to accomplish the things he has set out to do. But he has help us to turn the corner and get back to the American ideals we once had. The dream that all men are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness... no matter they're background, where they are from, or their personal belief system -- as long as what one person does, does not harm another. That's what our laws are created for; not to give one's groups beliefs creedence over another. Accepting that ALL humans are created equal and allowing them the right to the pursuit of happiness does NOT endanger the freedom of other individuals. Quite the opposite. When you start legislating the oppression of any one group of people, you put all people's freedom in question. It's a lesson we've learned many times in our history, but always seem to forget when this left-right schism is used as political leverage. Yes, we have enemies with extremist beliefs. People with too much power and too little intellect that would do us harm. But our culture will never evolve into a non-violent, gentler society by becoming like our enemies. We must lead by example. We must lead with compassion. We must lead with a light touch while maintaining a strong conviction. We must lead into the future. And this is exactly what Obama will do.

I could not agree with you more on this!!!!! But when you have a communist in the white house and more than half of America fooled you can do what you want to do, and get what you want. I jsuth ope the republicans pick her apart as the democrats did when the hispanic was nominated for the bench. The democrats would be surprised at her record, She believes that race and ethniticity should determine her rulings. How wrong she is!!!!!!!!

Ms. Sotomayer is for affirmative action ladies and gentlemen. Ms. Sotomayer ruled against a hispanic man and his white co-workers (Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.) .

Here is a direct quote from Sotomayer, "I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government." This sure does sound like a lie to me.

A promotional test was given to a group of fire-fighter captains in order to fill the position of Liuetenant. The fire-fighter's union require's a promotional test be given and that the top 3 scoring applicants are given the new rank of Liuetenant. Since none of the top 3 applicants were black the results were then thrown out. No one white or black was ever promoted in the New Haven fire department.

Ms. Sotomayer voted AGAINST the white fire-fighter's who had the top 3 scores. Actually, in a freak fate of irony one of the top 3 scoring applicants was hispanic. Now, how stupid does one have to be to vote against thier own race?

Captain Marvelous Way to go man! It's time somebody stood up and said it like it is! Everyone seems to think "Gee, Bush Sr. nominated this woman for supreme court, she seems to side "in the middle of the road, she's great. Obama did such a great job picking a mexican and a woman, how marvelous!" I could care less where you come from, so long as you want to work and contribute something to society. People stop asking the government for a handout and at least try to get a job and better yourselves. Your life is NOT the government or Obama's fault!

In Ricci v. DeStafano,

Of course, I would expect the Right to make this solely about putting an Hispanic on the Court and flash back to Alberto Gonzales. His decisions and actions when attorney general and WH counsel were patently unconstitutional, and that is why he was not qualified for the bench. Hispanic or not, he was unqualified. On the other hand, Sotomayer's intellect, decisions, and history make her an excellent candidate for the bench. Hispanic or not, she is qualified. I think change is working out just fine if we base appointments on competence... something the Bush Administration could never fathom.

To set the record straight, she is of Puerto Rican descent. She is NOT a Mexican.

@Captain Marvelous...

GW hoped the hispanic bit would help fend off criticism and allow his entirely outrageous pick of his own unqualified *personal attorney* to skate through. It didn't work, with good reason. Sotomayor is a legitimate and qualified hispanic nominee, not a political hack. There's a world of difference.

Tom, unfortunately Obama is well liked mostly by the uneducated masses who don't understand or care about the issues or current events! Many of them voted for Obama only because of his color and left the rest of the ballot blank! To me that's a shame and a stain on our country....! I like the man personally, but he isn't doing a very good job looking out for American on the National Stage and here at home he's leading us down the path to socialism and that's something the majority of Americans certainly DON'T LIKE! His candidate for the Supreme Court is as liberal as Obama is and will vote the same.

nice try "keen"... He has done none of those things you claim, having been rebuffed by leaders around the world, and plunged our country into more debt with more speed than any in history.

He is the most partisan hack we've had in office in my lifetime as has been reported, and has a documented trail of lies and deceit in less than 5 short months.

He is, what they call in Texas, all hat, no cattle.

That's the problem, isn't it. We've become an "on-demand" society.

"... less than 5 short months," your words.

He is trying to fix things for the future, not just for the moment. In 20 years, we'll see how history views the actions he has taken in these "5 short months."

yes as our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren attempt to repay a debt they can never repay. Spend and print more money. BTW the democratically controlled senate and congress got us into the economic collapse. Just throw money at it. But this is about his choice for supreme court justice, she has some troublesome views on the role of the supreme court as well as constitutional law.

Do you mean Alberto, the AG? Yeah, he worked out well...

Yo' NJ, what cave have you been hiding in? For your info, our children's and future generation's fate has already BEEN sealed WAY back to Regan's time. The deficit WAS already climbing way up, CONTROLLED by Clinton, BUT SKYROCKETED under DUH-BYA!!

Your argument is as baseless and MORONIC as Mike 3322794. Uneducated masses voting for Obama my ARZE!! NOT only did the Right Wing loony fanatics voted DUH-BYA for 2 terms, but voted for a total IDIOT ran by his mega oil/wealthy henchmen to rob the ordinary people like you, and practically left our country a total mess.

I wish you people stop being lemmings to the questionable characters in the GOP that bows down to the likes of Limburger and Cheney!

All of this anti-Bush retoric is getting damn old...and sounds awfully familiar too. After president Clinton was impeached the general tone of america was 'Thank god we have that pervert horibble president out of office'. At some point in the following presidents terms we flip-flopped our standing on the issue and america's oppinion longed for the 'glory days' of the late 90's. Find some new material so I don't have to bash you people in another 8 years for sanctifying bush.

hey jm- over 3 million people showed up for obamas inaugeration and only 4 missed work!! all jokes aside, are you freaking serious that the obama campaign and democrats in general, dont prey on the uninformed? seriously? most of these young obama voters voted for him because he would be the first black president and he was the cool guy. they couldnt tell you thing one about his policies and still cant. othere bought the "hes for the little guy" schtick that democrats like to tell you then after they are elected do things like raise tobacco taxes (targets the poor) cap and trade (avg. electric bill set to increast 1800 after this is passed, again hitting the poor) and hyperinflation throught massive borrowing and money printing. This raises prices of everything, again hitting the poor and middle classes. But dont worry both parties will spend billions in corporate welfare. if the individual is not too big to fail, then neither is and faceless corporation. stop giving these @!$%#s more and more of your freedom. say no to socialism, not just when the repubs are spreading it.

sinister - The 1st obective of running for PREZ, GET ELECTED!

McLame and Palin, didn't have a CLUE! The GOP is LOST, THEY have no idea, WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT! We're in the drivers seat at the moment. Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON.......

Gripe complain all you want, BUT OBAMA WAS ELECTED, something the GOP, couldn't do!

Don't you have a Tea Party to go to ?

at what exactly was the difference between mccain and obama? many of the ideas mccain put out obama is now implementing. You know what I want? nothing from our government, im fine on my own. i dont need a union i can speak for myself. you may want a hand out but ill be damned if you get it off my back. you want to "redistribute" my property and what i have worked for come take it from me yourself, dont elect shady politicians to come do it for you. Its people like you that are so blinded by your label that you have no clue that both parties are doing the exact same thing and screwing you the individual. whichever group you are mad at this week and demad your taste of blood, keep in mind that one day the crowd will be after you.

Mr. Rogers . . .

Get your facts correct before you post and make a fool of yourself . . .

Go to zfacts.com click on National debt graph and read what it says .

I am speaking of the TRUE DEBT. This means all expenses we have COMMITTED TOO but not yet funded. ZFACT does NOT ACCOUNT for this. This number is now over $50 TRILLION. We have NEVER BEEN CLOSE to balancing the budget in the last 50 years. It was a lie to say it was under Clinton because we TOOK MONEY FROM SS/MEDICARE to PRETEND it was.

JJ-1234, So why don'y you get some education on the subject matter next time before going off about something you clearly do NOT even understand.

The republicans did try it. She was Bush's selection and the demoncrats said no. Now it is OK because they selected her even though they knew she was an activist who beleives she has a right to change the constitution, and she is a racist. Welcome to the demoncrat way of life. If I lie, it is ok, but you can't...

Black Knight are you talking about Harriet Meyers? I didn't know she was an hispanic and I don't think she is. But it was the right that laughed her off the stage. Not mean enough for them, I mean conservative, sorry same difference as far as I'm concerned.

Elena, do not let all the president Bush basher bother you. It is just that they have been delt a bad hand. A man that may not even meet the U.S. qualifications to be president, a man that wants to bring Fasism into America, or very close to Communisum. A man that has in his first 100 days of office, spent more money than all of the previous 43 Presidents added together, a man that wants to put our America workers out of a job and bring in foregin imports to take away even more jobs, A man that wants a woman i the Supreme Court, for only Four reasons: 1) she is a woman, 2) she does not administer justice as outlined by our constitution, but by how she grew up. 3) She willl be almost as liberal as Mr. Obama (the most liberal person to ever sit in the White House) 4) She is a latino. Just a side note, Mr Obama, will govern like the Kenyan he is, and now he has a South America to help him. What an idiot we elected or did we?

whow just look at her appeal court record where five out of six cases that were heard by the supreme court were overturned.,, this tells me that she isn't too good of a JUDGE. just think if she gets on the supreme court and then makes decisions like these there is no court higher to reverse the rulings, she needs a little more schooling in real life she might be super educated but lets get real in the usa and follow the constitution not try to update the constitution to fit our life style and personal beliefs..

I'm sick and tired of hearing all the b--- s--- about President Bush.  What's wrong with you people?  Do you have to find an excape goat for what Wall Street and big business has brought on this country.  Wait four years and see what a mess we're in then.  We've elected a dictator that has swept away 200 plus years of good men that have served their term in the White House for this country.  Now he's sweeping out the constitution by which this country was founded.  Wake up America.....stop listening to all the pretty promises and empty words.  See what's going on!

Rita,

First off, it's "scapegoat"--- and the reason many still bring up Bush and his numerous follies and rather erroneous presidency, is because it is what brought us to where we are today.

I'll grant you, we need to remember that Obama is president now. However, he's been in office 4 months. It took 8 years to destroy our economy, it will take time to fix it, and frankly, it's safe to say he has worked very hard, and put forth tremendous efforts towards cleaning up Bush/Cheney's mess. Yes, they made this mess. When Clinton left office, the economy was good and we had a $150 billion surplus. How did we go from that surplus to an enormous deficit, 8 years later? I'll let you chew on that for a while.

I would like you to also elaborate on what makes Obama a dictator. How is he not upholding the Constitution? Please cite some specific examples. I'm not expecting you to, since chances are, you're merely regurgitating statements, spoon fed to you by Rush Limbaugh or Faux News, or your church. But, I thought I'd try.

Rita- God Bless you. These forums, except for folks like you, are contributed to by people that gauge the government by

1. What they can get from it; money basically.
2. Shadow, like the vapid rhetoric of Schumer. Not substance.
3. David Letterman, Susan Sarandon and their ilk; wonderful talents but idiot savants.
4. College kids and MSNBC staffers paid to refute such as you by slandering and by ridiculing your people. Note such terms as shrub, repug, etc.

Many cases the grammar and sentence structure hints at several aliases belonging to one writer. And when, as has happened lately, results of an MSNBC poll has embarrassed it, they either pull it or belittle their own stuff. Sotomayor is actually the best of a bad lot.

tom,

So, you don't want any money from the government? You don't want that tax refund check? How about getting tax writeoffs amassed for 4/15 so that you can get the lowest amount owed? Is that not getting money out of the government? Republicans looooove to the point the finger at Democrats, thinking we just want hand outs. They don't want any government money, yet the throw teabag party protests (it was amusing and gave me a laugh), to protest paying taxes. Sounds like you want the Government's money! Guess what, tommy? I'm a moderate Democrat, who isn't taking a dime from the government in handouts-- except my tax refund. I have a good job and don't need it. I also work very hard, between my job, school, and my contracts at a professional opera company.

I've also never used derogatory names like 'Shrub'. I feel that it takes away from an astute argument. And you know what? The worst offenders are also rabid Reps, with Monikers like "Odumbo", "Nazi Pelosi", "Magic N--", etc. So, don't get all sanctimonious on me, and quit with the sweeping generalizations. Thanks.

As for the rest of the post, well, I won't comment. Your profound ignorance and inability to explain your stance is explained to any that will read it. I needn't go on.

I have to agree with you Roger. I have a son who is type 1 and even a small swing in his blood sugar has a profound affect on his judgement. I don't want to see discrimination occur as a result of this terrible disease, however, she will be issuing judgements that will affect all Americans for generations to come. A small lapse in judgement can have a profound effect.

I know you two, Roger and Ace must be kidding!!! Is that what happens to you two? Swing of blood sugar??? My wife is a diabetic type 1 for more than 25 years..never noticed that type of effect. And, are you sure that your own "lack of judgement" is due to your condition??

I think you guys are way off base here. It's not like a case comes before the court and they hear it and vote 30 seconds later. These decisions/opinions take hours, days and sometimes weeks. So I wouldn't be worried that just because she skipped her morning OJ, that Roe V. Wade gets overturned.

I too am a diabetic and I DO have mood swings BUT the SC does not make decisions quickly or perhaps you people didn't think of that. Over the long haul of the decisions process all this moodiness will smooth out if it affects her at all.

And we don't think any of the other justices, past or present, have "mood swings", flares of temper or impatience, and just plain bad days?

Also, as I recall, there are nine justices, not just this new one, voting, and it takes a majority to issue a deciding opinion.

Another thing to keep in mind is how this process actually works. During deliberations and voting, none of the many staff members of each justice are allowed in the deliberation chambers. So the newest judge has to answer the door, take messages, make copies, and essentially get things done for the other justices. This continues until there is another "new" justice. I think the record was over a thousand days for one poor soul.

To Ace and Roger: Judgements on the supreme court are made over a long period of time with much consideration. Mood swings are temporary. They may affect someone who makes sudden decisions like a pilot, but not this type of work. I have worked with diabetic individuals who must make really hard decisions, and they do very well. The person I worked with was smart and checked her blood sugar often and watched her diet. Unlike a supreme court justice, she had to make quick decisions.

To Bigdog and Tony: You expressed the same idea I have expressed. I just didn't see your responses before I did mind. Supreme Court Decisions take time. And, does anyone know how many people have Type II diabetis in this country? It's a lot of people.

pinch: bingo!

Roger....as a diabetic myself, that was stupid, stupid, stupid......

Even the NY Times--bastion of Liberal thought--came out saying her racist rhetoric (even whole papers written with that bias) and her long history of creating "policy" as she admitted from the bench is going to get her in trouble with some Democrats as well as Republicans. I don't think this nomination is a show in folks.

I have blood sugar issues too and Roger is just being honest. Diabetes does affect all aspects of one's life. This is a job that should be given to someone in excellent mental and physical health and one who is not known to fly off into fits of screaming and demeaning both attorneys and petitioners in her court. She is the servant. The American's who come to her for justice--even if they are (we must whisper now) w-h-i-t-e deserve a fair hearing as if she had no idea about their color or background.

When I taught highschool I was honest enough with myself to notice that I really did like some students more than others. I also caught myself reading essays and pulling for some student I really liked so I immediately put in a system where I had no idea whose tests I was reading--didn't know their race, background or personality! Blind justice. Just did the best I could to evaluate each when I had a clear mind and wasn't too tired.

Fatigue is the enemy of diabetics. Stress worsens symptoms and the court will have plenty of that. Yelling and demeaning have no place among our public officials and a disease is not an excuse either. If you fly off the handle when the blood sugar comes unglued then you shouldn't be on the bench where that can cause you to mistreat those who have to trust you.

I for one DO believe the disease makes her unacceptable for a SCJ. I speak as one who wishes it wasn't so, but health issues DO impinge on our capabilities, wisdom and though the decisions may take a long time, that final vote only takes seconds. If she is in her "mad at the world" mode which lawyers who plead before here says is pretty much de rigor, then she should not be on the bench even in the appelate court.

6 of 8 Supreme court appeals of her decisions were overturned. A seventh (the firefighter case) will be before the court soon and will likely be overturned. Blood sugar impinging on judgement--it is just too risky to wait to find out.

It's a shame that the choice for SCJ is based on what will get Obama the most votes in the next election. Obama has been making too many decisions based on what's best for himself politically instead of what is best for the country.

If he was thinking about the country, he'd close the borders and deal with issues instead of concentrating on politically motivated appointments and politically motivated decisions regarding spending. For once, we need a leader to think of the country FIRST!

And the race card comes out already!  Judge Sotomayor is the racist...you only have to look as far as her own comments to see that.

Sonia is another affirmative action star. No more, no less. And now, Obama follows in Bushs's steps yet again. Can he not make a decision for himself? What a joke and wat a tragedy at the same time. She was chosen because she is Hispanic. She laughs at the Constition saying it can be abrogated when a minority is involved, has had 3 of 4 major decisions overruled by the Surpeme Court when she was writing the majority opinion and says that appelate courts make policy!

NO! to her.

Who is the moron that called the GOP racist? Ever hear of Lincoln? McClellan and the copperheads? Who Nationalized the Alabama Guard down South and broke segregation when the Southern governors fought it? Ike? Who was the big shot KKK guy? Wasn't it WWW Gore's pop?

Pick up a book and read it! Also, what about how well W did with having Hispanics and Blacks in high level high profile jobs? Lying Lib!

Kasius--

Bush 1 only appointed her under pressure in order to get some others he wanted. A compromise not an endorsement. She is a racist-sexist person. If I said half of the things she has said I'd probably be arrested by the PC police for a hate crime.

I am NOT a racist. I have a beautiful hispanic daughter-in-law whom I love dearly. She agrees with me that Sotomayor is an anti-white especially white male racist. Look at her decision that caused a fine white male from a disadvantaged background not to be promoted because no blacks scored as high as he did so the tests were thrown out.

Frankly, I'd be very ashamed if I were one of the black guys who failed. There is a black president. Stop playing the I can't get ahead because of my color. That has been an enabling whine that has enabled lazy folk of all colors to sit, smoke their bong and wait for their g'vment check. That check filled with my money and yours will be getting bigger now Obama has set out to "redistribute" what we have worked hard to earn.

I don't think it makes the court more balanced. After the conservative idealogues most recently appointed to the court, it has tacked decidedly right, altering the balance. The replacement of a liberal leaning judge with right leaning centrist only contributes to the conservative-heavy imbalance. I prefer a centrist court, and think Sotomayor is an excellent choice for it, but I don't think Souter's replacement with her does anything to alter the court's current rightward tilt and may even contribute to it.

if by tacked to the right you mean adhering to the principles of the founders of this country and abiding by the constitution and recognizing the limits of their judicial power then it needs to keep going that way. there is no room for emotion in justice.

Right/Left. You people don't seem to understand that Right/conservative means to make your decisions based on the constitution where left/socialist means to base your decisions on how you "feel"!!

Wow, what has the president judged so far in which Bush had not already shown him what to do? What a joke.

if by party of no you mean party of no socialism and no nationalizing of busisnesses and no raping of personal freedoms and no social engineering throug taxation then i hope they keep saying no no no no no no no no no no no!!

"I trustthe President's judgement; therefore, his choice is fine by me... "

= "as long as I don't have to think for myself, then who cares if the president appoints a SJC who practices reverse descrimination and openly intends to judge according to her heritage and experience; even though the SJC oath demands complete objectivity and the role is restricted solely to the interpretation of the Constitution.  I'm sure the government knows what's best for me...and for YOU, too!"

It sounds like you have some evidence to counter Judge Sotomayor's pretty well documented center-right record. That, or you're just assuming that anyone President Obama nominates will be a hard-left liberal. Which is it and, if the former, where is your evidence?

She has a racist record and her speeches and writings back that up.

She isn't center right. She has made a few rulings that look that way but only when she is bound by circuit rulings that keep her in bounds on her circuit.

Let her loose on the Supreme court and wait to see. Whites need not apply for any justice with her on the bench. White men--forget any constitutional rights. She will rule in favor of minorities like in the firefighter case even to harm a hard working male with a disability. She is a member of two radical hispanic rights groups--she should recuse herself any time a Hispanic (or Latina as she prefers) is anywhere near the court, but she stayed on a decision previously where one of the groups she espouses was envolved--did not recuse herself.

We were the victim in Seattle of a racist female judge. If you heard the story of our case you would laugh but she was pitting herself against not just us and our white male attorney but against the entire US Justice Department on a matter of national security. That is why I am so adamant that I know her type and it frightens me.

but you still have some knuckle-dragging, far right, rednecks & racists that would like to reinstate slavery, scare women back into the kitchen (barefoot), and run roughshod over anyone that gets in the way of their $$$$ goals.

we've come a long way with the election of Obama, and I'm glad to see him doing what's right for this country.

Dawg,

Republicans freed the slaves. Obama is now just doing what Cheney tells him to do. Let us know when Obama makes a decision, right or wrong, that is HIS! What nonsense.

Amen! Obama is a slave to Cheney! Leftisit Dems are sooooooo naive as to who REALLY runs the show. Who is getting rich off of this rallying stock market?!?!??! Republicans, you dummies!!!!!!!!!!!!

NC. Actually Lincon was a Wig who ran as a Republican, only way he could get the nomination was to run in a third party. Regardless, the Republicans was a much different party a hundred years ago then it has become these days. For more prespective, the next Republican president after Lincoln was Andrew Johnson and he is right up there with Bush as one of the worst in history.

"Justice for all"? Funny, i didn't think having someone that openly states they are superior to another race when making judgements should be classified as JUSTICE FOR ALL! If i'm not mistaken didn't hitler believe something similar. So Sad that there are shallow and ignorant people that open their mouth about things they themselves do not understand. And as for the left-wing, right-wing, woman or man, white, black or hispanic, etc. all this doesn't matter, because the Judicial Systems was not meant or created to make policy. A judge ruling by empathy instead of what the law states...? Wow, some "JUSTICE FOR ALL!" As far as i'm concerned trying to re-write the Constitution is TREASON in my eyes! Betraying your COUNTRY by apologizing for being an AMERICAN is TREASON in my eyes!

I think most Spanish would disagree with you. Hispanic has more commonly (appropriately or inappropriately is debatable) been used to refer to people of Latin American ancestry or heritage. Most Spanish and Portuguese would simply refer to themselves as European, not Hispanic. I'm sure Benjamin Cardozo himself wouldn't regard himself as Spanish or Portuguese, much less Hispanic.

Actually, from what I have heard, people of Latin American heritage use the term "Latino," while "Hispanic" is used to describe their European counterparts, but not by the Europeans themselves. I would assume they (Portugese, Spanish, etc) use their country of origin, or just "European." Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Indeed, there is no question that Cardozo was a Portuguese American. The real question is whether that counts as Hispanic.

The United States Census Bureau does not consider Portuguese Americans to be "Hispanic," nor does the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Small Business Administration, in addition to other federal, state, and municipal agencies, do recognize Portuguese under the umbrella term of Hispanic.

So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Sotomayor would be the first non-white Hispanic on the Supreme Court.

It seems that both sides of this "controversy" have a point!

Yes, there are two schools of thought on this. I have a Mexican friend who does not like the term Hispanic because it implies Spanish roots. To him, it's a little like an American of Anglo-Saxon descent being called Brittish. Most Mexican's, having attained independence from Spain, prefer to be called Latino.

Dictionary.com defines the term Hispanic as "an American citizen or resident of Spanish or Latin-American descent." So, Latino peoples from Central and South America would be referred to as Hispanic. However, I don't think the Portuguese consider themselves of Spanish descent, though they are related. So, therefore, you could make the argument that an American of Portuguese descent is not Hispanic. Therefore, making Sotomayer the first American of Latin-American descent, or Hispanic, to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

So, is it mostly symantics? Yes. Is it really all that important? No. The only important thing is that she is a good choice and will do right by the Constitution... and I think she is/will.

As far as I'm aware, Hispanic refers to Spanish and Spanish-speaking people. Cardozo would have been Portuguese-speaking.

Hispanic means having a surname of Spanish origin, nothing more. (and strictly speaking, it makes Carmen Diaz Hispanic!) I think Latino is a better term and it covers Portuguese speakers as well!

Yes...lets appont someone because they've 'lived life' and happen to be raised on the 'streets'. Her views on Judicial policy are disturbing and her interpritation of the constitution is questionable. In regards to the 'Good ol'boys club', the term is aplicable to anyone given privleges based on a pre-existing social connection. If your telling me that her time at princeton was spent in a social closet, then your ignorant.

Well, as a woman, I don't need to feel represented on the bench by another woman. I don't want to be represented as a woman, I want to be represented as an American! If justice truly is blind, why is everyone slobbering all over themselves over her race and gender?

Careful Patti. Sotomayor considers herself "Latina" NOT "Hispanic." I believe that is a slight on her own race and shows her arrogance!

That's a ruling that really bothers me.

I'm interested in reading more about the facts and circumstances of that case.

She has ruled in many cases that were against minorities. Viewing her track record, there is no pattern of rulings that suggests she is racist. I'm sure no matter who Obama would have picked, there would be some issues with a ruling somewhere.

Just thinking--One example please of a case where she ruled against minorities (unless other minorities she favors more were part of the case). I'm not seeing them in her record.

Oingo,

You might want to know that Alito had more ruling overturned. In fact, the SC overturned ALL of his ruling that they reviewed.

Yeah, but Redhead, you know their going to try!

They'll try, is right! It would be a very foolish choice on the part of Congressional GOPers, because it would most likely alienate them from to very large and growing voting bases: Hispanics and women. The former is growing at a particularly quick rate. I don't think the GOP is its death throes-- as many Libs seem to believe-- as these things tend to cycle. But I definitely believe they may approach their death throes soon, if they attack Sotomayer too virulently.

Democrats--especially some from Southern States aren't persuaded that she isn't a racist--as much as the KKK of the past. It isn't good either way.

I know discrimination hurts. I hit the glass ceiling in college in the late 60's early 70's. Heading the deans list in my college I looked into an internship with a Congressman in DC. I was asked (and none of my fellow student's of the male variety were) if I could type and how fast.

Then I have watched as my four sons are treated the same way--adissions discrimination for grad school/scholarships/grants/jobs as Black or Hispanic kids who have sluffed along doing poorly get shoved to the head of the line.

Enough affirmative action already. We have a president who didn't have the grades to get into Harvard (deduced from his graduation program from under grad--everyone with a 3.5 or above was given some designation of honors--Obama apparently didn't make the cut--no name). He got into Harvard anyway. He was President of law review but unlike my son who had to submit many peer review quality papers to the law review, Obama never submitted anything then on to his "prestigious" law firm where Obama never tried a case or his "professor" duties which were really just visiting instructor.

REALLY! I'm sick of people being pushed to the front of the line because of the color of their skin or their sex.

I am really happy when all of us just mellow out and look for the best qualified person.

That wouldn't be a diabetic Hispanic Woman with an attitude and a persecution complex.

Neurofuzzy,

I think you underestimate Hispanic voters. If the GOP or anyone attacks Sotermayor because of her race they will not be happy. If they attack her for her poor decisions in the past and frank statements that she intends to set "policy" hence legislate from the bench I think many and hopefully most Hispanics will see that she is not being attacked for her sex or race, but for her poor decisions

My Hispanic daugther-in-law is very bright and she can instantly see the difference between attacking her race (which noone--even Gingrich--is doing). She sees that discrimination is ugly going either way and that this woman is a racist as much as any white person who might discriminate against her.

I'm going to check in with some of my other Hispanic friends to see what they think this week. I'll report here if there is a topic that warrants that report.

Give the Hispanic community some credit for brains and a sense of fairness. The Hispanic community is on the move--creating more new businesses than any other group per capita. It is only a matter of time until the realize that Obama is their enemy as he is enacting policies that destroy small businesses and actually create ethnic and class divisions which will hurt the Hispanics who, unlike Muslims, actually are assimilating well into our communities in places like here in the Northwest. (I'm talking about legal upstanding people--not the dregs of society in our jails and sucking our welfare--send illegals home).

Because women bring a different perspective no matter what you think!!! Being a different gender means you come from a different point of view period. A man could never understand nor care what it is like to be a woman and quite frankly since women are at least 50% of the population, they should be represented in some manner on the Supreme Court. I just love to listen to men....they really are convinced of their own importance.

Women are more than a majority in this country. Also, they are neurologically different than men in their thought processes. They can use both hemispheres of their brains simultaneously (most men have to switch back and forth), and therefore or more likely to detect subtleties, among other things. A woman will ask different questions, bring different perspectives to debates, and add a variation to summaries, just as we have seen in the past.

The more information available to these nine people, the more likely we are to have a well-thought-out decision, where everything possible will be considered in light of the Constitution. And isn't that the goal?

Hey Tayo, you shouldn't be too upset with Johnny. The only role models for women he's seen in his party are women like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. And who'd want someone like that on the Supreme Court?

They are still better than Nazi Pelosi!!

You obviously are a couple of centuries behind in my opinion. As long as a person is qualified for a position, it is a good call. what difference does the sex of the person make???? . Why do we like generalizing looking at race ,color or religion

Yet you chose to ignore her ruling against the firefighters?

ERS

If you check her personal comments on this case, she did not agree with the whole mess. However, the decision was not hers to make. It was another of those technicalities of our way too complex legal system that make lawyers rich and happy in their commercials.

This was a majority opinion, and the writing is rotated among the judges. She was up. I suspect none of the judges agreed with the opinion privately, but they are required to go on what is presented to them by the lawyers, not what they personally know of the case.

I am confident that she and the others knew this was going to be appealed and hoped the losing attorneys would get their act together and actually present a case that was strongly indicative of the actual facts of the matter, instead of trying to play the law. If they don't, the plaintiff needs to get new lawyers, which he should have already done after his first loss, since this is their last shot. If they present the same case and the same evidence in the same way, they will lose again, and not because they are not in the right.

The Supreme Court has a little more leeway, since they can ask a broader range of questions, but still, the decision has to be made on the facts as presented. This was a slam-dunk case, and the lawyers blew it, not the judges.

Most businesses will hire a younger person anyway, sir, even if you happen to be more qualified, (outside America this VERY common) for various reasons including health, teachability, etc. This is to say nothing of the years of service you've given to your country, which we are all thankful for. I don't like affirmitive action either, I think it is a racist way to deal with a racial problem. As a whole, however, minorities (including women) still have less rights.

What a disingenuous comment made by beerisgood4u. What does "Rights" and "Policies have to do with the selection of the new SCJ? What does being black, a woman and a high school graduate have to do with Affirmative Action? Did you feel that because you are a retiree, you were entitiled to the position? This country will always need the Policies of Affirmative Action in place, when you have narrow minded people using buzz words and dishonest senarios to express their hate for fairness and equality for all people.

Well stated. I find more age discrimination these days than racial discrimination. It used to be very different, so things have improved.

There is - however - a great discrepancy still remaining in the salary levels paid. White males will make 5 to 25% more than women or minorities starting at the initial job offer. The data is everywhere to support this comment. I am a professional female who has been out there for many years, and this does remain a reality. Somehow - those who hire still think a white male needs to support a family while the rest of us are still just "dependents". Wages are better for women now too - but still not equal.

I do wish "Beeris..." luck in finding a job. Everyone will be challenged regarding finding work for the next three years, so many will not be satisfied. Please try to remember that no special experience or skill entitles a person to a job, no matter how honorable that may have been. Having what the market needs, and being flexible enough to relocate to where the jobs are really can make a difference.

Please also do not automatically assume that women or minorities getting the position is due to them getting a special deal. Perhaps they are more qualified than you, require less salary, or just had some luck regarding timing. Now is not a time to blame others for the job you don't have. It's a time to be creative, positive, and practical. Hiring managers are not looking for folks with a chip on their shoulder. I'm sure you have much to offer, so let others see that instead of your frustration.

There is - however - a great discrepancy still remaining in the salary levels paid.

There are other factors at play. Please read Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies for more elucidation.

They probably just didn't like you, but didn't want to say so. They hired the one they thought would do the best job, and then told you that it was affirmative action. This happens all the time - I wouldn't let that "reason" be given in my days in management - just tell them there were lots of qualified applicants and be done with it.

I've seen your posts before and I have to wonder if it's your attitude and nothing else that kept you from being offered this job.

beerisgood4u,

So, just because it was a young black woman, you automatically assume that is why they hired her? If you are one of those types that despise the entitlement attitude, you are the worst offender. You seem to think you were entitled to this job, just because you were a retiree, or a veteran.

Now, you described this job as making ID cards. Considering you spent 23 years on the military, chances are they thought you were overqualified. People, who are overqualified for a position, normally aren't offered the job, as the employer worried about:

1. The employee becoming board, and thus leaving after a brief period, requiring the hiring manager to scout out, hire, and train another candidate.
2. An experienced person often requires a higher pay rate. If a company needs to stick to a budget, they may have a cap for the employees pay, thus can't afford to pay the asking wage/salary of the prospective employee.
3. Your age also contributes. Older folks are perceived as less healthy than younger counterparts. With this, that means the company would be shelling out more to provide you with your health benefits. It would be assumed that you would be going to the doctor more, taking more medication, and more likely you'd be out with a problem for an extended period of time, which means more money shelled out by the company for your sick leave. So, by merely looking at bookkeeping perspectives, it was probably seen as more cost effective to hire the younger candidate.

While I don't completely agree with affirmative action, it was overly sanctimonious of you to assume they hired the girl on race and gender alone.

so her ethnicity and the fact that Bush Sr. makes her the most qualified person for the job?

dinq

How silly. Forget race, gender and who has picked her or voted for her before. She is immensely qualified, first and foremost. She has more judicial experience then the Chief Justice, and more than most of the others had before they were appointed.

The other things came after the short list of most qualified people was made, and they just made her pick more likely to be agreeable to the most people.

Any of us with a lot of hiring experience know this is how it works. You narrow the possibles down to those who are most qualified. Then if you can find something from one of the candidates to up your bottom line, you take it, and count your blessings.

"Any of us with a lot of hiring experience know this is how it works. You narrow the possibles down to those who are most qualified. "

She just dismissed a case on reverse discrimination on the most qualified and highest scoring firefighters....therefore what you are saying about her is quite contradictory and very stupid. So based on your arguement.....she is a moronic choice

Mary

You are mistaken. She wrote the MAJORITY opinion of the panel of judges upholding the decision of a lower court. This responsibility usually revolves among the judges. No real decision was issued, so there is a pretty good possibility of two things which happen all the time in the judicial system: (1) they knew it would be appealed to the Supreme Court, where an overthrow really counts, and (2) the legal team for the plaintiffs in this case did not present anything different than what they had presented in the lower courts where they had also been denied a victory. So the lower court decision has to stand.

People need to realize that a court can only look at what is presented to them, not what they know from the outside. At an appellate level, it's all about the lawyers, not the judges. This is no longer Judge Judy. This should have been a slam-dunk case, and here it goes on its upteenth appeal. The plaintiffs should have prevailed on their first round, or probably before this ever made it to court, period. But instead of making the court issue about whether the firefighters were disenfranchised, they chose to challenge a city's right to cancel promotions. Bad move. These guys need better lawyers, because if they bring the same game to the Supreme Court, they may get the same result. The only thing that will be different is that the SC Justices can take a little more latitude with their questioning and may be able to turn the issue a little to what it should have been.

Read the case the way it was actually filed. From a strict contructionist sense, the city can decide to cancel ALL promotions at any time, before, during or after a test. The burden was on the Ricci legal team. The lawyers argued a completely different point than we are all seeing out here, and the judges' hands are tied by the case the lawyers bring.

He "reached out" to Republicans--that is a joke. He called them in, listened to them dutifully then absolutely ignored every good suggestion made by them

I remember Obama on the campaign trail--his idea of being conciliatory is as follows--"We'll bring the country together. We will bring them all over to our side!" and that is a direct quote. His idea of middle ground is his far left Marxist agenda.

Let's all get to gether and form a committee to discuss this then do it my way!

Isn't working well domestically. Is a disaster internationally. Seems those boys in NK and Iran just don't want to all come over to his side!

Neither do our allies (or should I say "former allies" as Obama has alienated them both) like UK and Israel.

Soon the only friends the US (ie Obama) will have will be his Muslim buddies.