Judge Sonia Sotomayor has a choice: she can either tell the truth about her “wise Latina”, “we don’t make law…” judicial philosophy, or tell the Senate (and the nation) that we’ve read her wrong and she doesn’t really feel that way.
Will you watch the O'Reilly-Obama interview?
- No (89%, 197 Votes)
- Yes (11%, 25 Votes)
Total Voters: 222
Loading ...
Of course she wont. This is a job interview. A job interview for a PERMANENT and cushy job. And what do you do in an interview? You BS the interviewer.
“Seven Series of Questions for Judge Sotomayor”
jimbyrd.com/seven-series-of-questions-for-judge-sotomayor
With regard to “Series Six” and in support of the Second Amendment:
“Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment”
youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
and two more reasons:
“Three More Arrests Made in Murders of Florida Couple With 17 Children”
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532423,00.html
The criminals, public and private, always have access, and so should we!
- – - -
This is out of context; but, is relevant to their agenda:
“Group Seeks to Block ‘In God We Trust’ Engraving”
foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/14/group-seeks-block-god-trust-engraving/
“The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block an architect from engraving “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.”
There is no way that an agnostic, who by definition remains open-minded to the possibilities, would support such an action. There are pretenders everywhere. Do not judge people by labels. These actions are perpetrated and perpetuated by the intolerant regressives, in their quest to consolidate power through the marginalization, and eventual elimination of competing interests. This is not to the benefit of anyone who believes in individual dignity.
The regressives, more than any other group of people, require the guidance that only a greater power can provide. This is probably why they remain beholden to their “elite” masters.
“Freedom From Religion Foundation… is challenging the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer in federal court.”
That would explain BS’s absence on that day. He was, and is, enslaved by the special interests that elevated him to power.
From the “Declaration of Independence”:
“to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”
“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”
It seems clear the threat to America’s people, and who the enemy of our nation’s founders was. The founders were required to compromise, to yield in part their ideals, so that this nation could be formed. That time has long past, and it should not be necessary to make the same sacrifice.
We are individuals who live in tolerance of each other, and aspire to the higher goal of respecting each other. The regressives’ intolerance in retrospect, is contrary to that ideal. This is a fundamental flaw that sabotages their philosophy. For they are neither liberal nor progressive. They are narrow-minded, and, in fact, continue to demonstate their closed-mindedness. They live in the past, to deny us our future, and ensure their hegemony.
However, there is a silver lining in all of this, and that is to consolidate their power, it has been necessary for them to reveal their strategies and tactics, which has revealed their true, unadulterated natures to more people whom can now judge them on what they are, and not what they pretend to be. There is hope we will escape the abyss, yet. It would seem that short memories must necessarily be periodically refreshed every few generations.
I voted “Tell the truth…”, because she has already revealed her true nature, and no divination of intention, nor explanation, is necessary. Her rant was heard in its full context, and is indefensible. She obviously believes that she, and those like her, are innocent of all wrongdoings, and that white men are the source of all evil in the world. I as an evil… I mean, wise white man, would disagree with that assessment. It’s rather unfortunate that neither history, nor the present, supports their assertion. That alone should cause people to pause, and call her “wise” judgement into question.
“we don’t make law…” judicial philosophy
Although I am biased, I am well aware of when those biases come into play. I do have a choice to act or retreat. If she cannot be objective, then we must conclude that her personal judgement is underdeveloped and sorely lacking. This is a fundamental character flaw, typically associated with immature humans. As adults, we are held to account and must take responsibility for our words and actions.
Oh, and she is pursuing a seat in the Supreme Court of the United States of America (for life)!
“out of context”. far be it from Libs to take something called “responsibility” for their own actions
The liberal ALWAYS hides behind the “taken out of context” — or — the “it was a joke” defense.
Just like when they get called on the telling of the racial jokes or using the n-word…