Is There a Chance to Stop Sotomayor?
Tags: Polls, Supreme Court.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Latest poll on it from Rasmussen:
A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.
Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.
A GOP campaign highlighting the fact that Sotomayor voted to discriminate based on race, and was overturned by the SC she wants to be on, would probably crush her chances – there are enough red State Democrats to do so. The questions remain – will the GOP do it? and would doing it cause damage to GOP hopes for hispanic votes?
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
9 Responses to “Is There a Chance to Stop Sotomayor?”
Caucus of Corruption
No.
Ditto.
Unless you know, then keep your darned mouth shut…you’re gossiping.
Well, Mark, why aren’t you taking your own advice? Did Sotomayor tell you that’s why shy voted against Ricci? What is your evidence that she voted based on race? Sotomayor voted to follow the current law. The Supreme Court, in overturning the appelate court’s decision, legislated from the bench and made new law. Should she sue you for libel?
“The Supreme Court, in overturning the appelate court’s decision, legislated from the bench and made new law. ”
And THIS, boys and girls, is why rabid radical Leftists should never be allowed to expound on the Constitution.
Maybe kmg should take a break and actually read up on the intended role of the Supreme Court. Hint: It is to determine whether or not any law passed by any legislature is within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States of America. That is, to determine if the law is CONSTITUTIONAL. When the Court finds a law to be contrary to the Constitution, they so rule.
Let me paraphrase: Sotomayor voted to follow a law which was in violation of the Constitution.
If you want to make racism legal, then round up enough people to amend the Constitution. Until then, any local ‘law’ that tries to do so will be overturned, at least until we get enough Libs on to REALLY “legislate from the bench” and merely toss out the Constitutional requirements that they don’t find appealing.
And Sotomayor’s JOB as a judge on that appellate court was to KNOW the Constitution and be willing to apply it even to laws she might, due to her amazing empathy and other racist leanings, find desirable.
Therefore, she is not qualified, either because of her ignorance of the Constitution or her determination to let her ‘empathy’ override her legal responsibilities.
That is, to determine if the law is CONSTITUTIONAL. When the Court finds a law to be contrary to the Constitution, they so rule.
And when a judge you perceive to be “liberal” does so, you screech about “judicial activism.” But nobody has ever accused you of being rational on these matters, so why should we expect any sort of consistency from you?
orlando says: July 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
wingnuts foam “judical activism” when they dont like the decision.
but new haven doesnt bother them despite overturning decades of precedent.
Maybe amazona should take a break from stuffing her rotund face with bonbons, get off her ample posterior, and figure out which court Sotomayor was on when she was involved in the Ricci case. (Hint: It wasn’t the Supreme Court.)
Let me enlighten you. Sotomayor, along with a majority of the Second Circuit (Oh drat! I just gave away the answer, thereby enabling you to remain on your well-cushioned tuckus.), affirmed the appellate court’s majority decision that the city acted appropriately in accordance with settled law. When Ricci appealed to the Second Circuit, a majority of the court found that they were bound by precedent set by their own court (see Bushey (1984) and Hayden (1999)).
It is truly a wonder to watch you loll around trying to sound intelligent, yet failing every time. Ricci did not overturn any law, much less a “local” law. Ricci established a new test for a city to determine if it was in compliance with Title VII (hence creating new law). Title VII is U.S. Federal law.
And Sotomayor’s JOB as a judge on that appellate court was to KNOW the Constitution and be willing to apply it even to laws she might, due to her amazing empathy and other racist leanings, find desirable.
And if you were able to use your Twinkie cream-stained fingers to do a little searching and reading, you would know that the Second Circuit in its opinion empathized with the plaintiffs. However, they made their decision based on the current law and precedent rather than how sympathetic the plaintiffs were. You, of course, would have preferred that she and the rest of the majority had followed empathy rather than law.
And “racist leanings?” By the standards established here, Sotomayor should sue you for libel. Fortunately, you are just too insignificant to bother with.
You should come back when you have some of those little things called facts at your disposal or when you can at least fake it with credibility.
This should have been blockquoted:
amazona says:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Thank you for upholding Roe v Wade so well.