[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.

[/quote]

Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You have misread what I wrote.

And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court’s decision that created new precedent. I haven’t seen a single one of her appellate court’s findings in opposition to stare decisis.

(I didn’t see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]

Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]

Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]

Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]

Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women…[/quote]

Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it’s about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what’s important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I’ll presume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is “dumbed down public school turkeys”? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.

This morning, Sessions said:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.

“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it’s about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what’s important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I’ll presume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is “dumbed down public school turkeys”? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.

This morning, Sessions said:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.

“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it’s about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what’s important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I’ll presume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is “dumbed down public school turkeys”? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.

This morning, Sessions said:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.

“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it’s about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what’s important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I’ll presume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is “dumbed down public school turkeys”? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.

This morning, Sessions said:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.

“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it’s about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what’s important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I’ll presume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is “dumbed down public school turkeys”? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.

This morning, Sessions said:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry , had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case.

“himself of Puerto Rican acestry”. That should make a difference? I’m a bit surprised he didn’t mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.

[SK in CV]

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has so far been schooled by Sotomayor. He is an ignorant and seemingly unashamed racist. Ironically, rejected as a federal judge, he is the GOP’s ranking member on the same committee that shot him down.

For him, white maleness is the only objective standard against what all others must be measured. The man is a disgrace.

[Author]

Posts