Words

[Lemon law]

No, lets face the facts, we demand only the best from our surpremes, the perfect man or woman, and since no one qualifies, lets just cut to the chase and disband all government and any pretense of the rule of law. So we can empower the biggest baddest thug to rule us all on the basis of brute force.

Trust me, if we could reincarnate Jesus Christ himself, the Christian religious right would find him totally unacceptable.

As it is, Obama nominated someone who is hardly a card carrying Liberal, because Obama could find someone far more unacceptable to the GOP, and still ram it through now that the GOP can't mount a filibuster.

 

[theeedude]

Plus she has diabetes. She's really a gift to Republicans.

 

[manowar821]

I'd actually submit that everyone is being shafted by the special interests, these days... It takes a special kind of moron to think that they're special.

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

win. say all you want, but she's a qualified judge

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.

Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

Maybe impressionable college kids wont be so liberal when they dont have to listen thier worthless leftist "teacher" spew bullshit for 2 hours?


Also, any Republican jokes will now be hate-jokes, and subject to federal punishment.

You in particular should have at least a special bus.

Separate but equal?

No, but I gave him a handicap.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.

Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

Maybe impressionable college kids wont be so liberal when they dont have to listen thier worthless leftist "teacher" spew bullshit for 2 hours?


Also, any Republican jokes will now be hate-jokes, and subject to federal punishment.

You in particular should have at least a special bus.

yeah, you know a bus just like they use for the patients of the insane asylum!!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

They haven't voted on her yet, have they? Still plenty of time for Republicans to do some thorough grandstanding, I mean interviewing.

 

[sutahz]

I didn't say she is an unqualified judge. I haven't personally reviewed her judicial record I get my information from what I've heard during the hearing. My point is the double standard and it is what it is simply. I actually wanted to post this in off topic, but I was sure it would be moved here anyways w/ all you political junkies. I am no political junkie.

 

[squirrel dog]

Did you see this on the WET network ? Oh wait , we only have the BET network .

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

They haven't voted on her yet, have they? Still plenty of time for Republicans to do some thorough grandstanding, I mean interviewing.

Forget the republicans, we know what there job is, to bash her apparently

I want the Dems to be tough and thoroughly question her.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: sutahz
So if an older white man was giving a speech to a group of male law students and said "as a white man I can come to a much more wise conclusion then any woman" and then later tried to explain he was just trying to inspire the students, do you think he would get voted into the supreme court?

No. The white Caucasian male born after 1980 is going to be the single most discriminated against ethnic group in society.

Want some cheese with that whine?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

Uh .... they have met/talked with her before the hearings .... you do realize the hearings aren't required and are largely a product of modern times???

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

Uh .... they have met/talked with her before the hearings .... you do realize the hearings aren't required and are largely a product of modern times???

Allowing the American People and the Candidate to be interviewed publicly is a waste of time?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

Uh .... they have met/talked with her before the hearings .... you do realize the hearings aren't required and are largely a product of modern times???

Allowing the American People and the Candidate to be interviewed publicly is a waste of time?

Where the hell did I say that? If you'd actually read my post, I was merely pointing out the errors in yours.

 

[sapiens74]

New Sen. Al Franken got his first laugh in the Senate this afternoon. The former comedian sat quietly through nearly three full days before finally getting to ask questions at the Sotomayor hearing. At the end, he asked her if she remembered the name of the one case that TV lawyer Perry Mason lost. Sotomayor said the show inspired her to become a prosecutor, but "I wish I remembered the name of the episode." "Didn't the White House prepare you?" Franken asked, to laughter from the committee, nominee and crowd. "Yes, but I had a lot of cases to review," Sotomayor said. Chairman Leahy then asked Franken what the name of the episode was. "I don't know. If I knew I wouldn't have asked her." We checked. It's "The Case of the Deadly Verdict."

Good stuff

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

Uh .... they have met/talked with her before the hearings .... you do realize the hearings aren't required and are largely a product of modern times???

Allowing the American People and the Candidate to be interviewed publicly is a waste of time?

Where the hell did I say that? If you'd actually read my post, I was merely pointing out the errors in yours.

When I took my last job, on paper I was more than qualified, but my boss drilled me in the interview to make sure I was capable anyhow.

That's all I'm expecting from the Dems. Due process, be thorough, don't railroad her through cause you agree on her abortion stance

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?

Without hearing this Woman speak they want to appoint her. If I am interviewing for one of the most important positions in the world, shouldn't it be thorough?

Uh .... they have met/talked with her before the hearings .... you do realize the hearings aren't required and are largely a product of modern times???

Allowing the American People and the Candidate to be interviewed publicly is a waste of time?

Where the hell did I say that? If you'd actually read my post, I was merely pointing out the errors in yours.

When I took my last job, on paper I was more than qualified, but my boss drilled me in the interview to make sure I was capable anyhow.

That's all I'm expecting from the Dems. Due process, be thorough, don't railroad her through cause you agree on her abortion stance

And your story has nothing to do with my earlier posts or your original reply to me.

1) The hearing does not confirm or deny her, the vote of full senate does.
2) This isn't the first time these people have met her/heard her speak. Every nominee spends a good deal of time meeting individually with most senate members (not just those on committee) between nomination and hearing/confirmation.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Did you see this on the WET network ? Oh wait , we only have the BET network .

WET = ABC