When LOSER Liberals attack!

Bob the Builder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
307
It's not bad enough that a raving RACIST like Sotomayor thinks that white firefighters shouldn't get their promotions because they're.....white, but now since the Supreme Court ruled that her head was shoved ALL the way up her a$$ when she made that ruling, the looney loser libtard Demoncraps have decided to pull the same crap that they did to Palin, ATTACK THE VICTIM!! :mad:

Sotomayor Supporters Take Aim at New Haven Firefighter
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's backers are reportedly urging reporters to probe what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci.

New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci, whose reverse discrimination claim is at the center of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's most controversial ruling, now finds himself in the cross hairs of the judge's supporters.

Sotomayor's backers are urging reporters to probe what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of Ricci, according to McClatchy Newspapers.

Ricci will be among the 14 witnesses for Republicans in Sotomayor's weeklong Judiciary Committee hearings that open Monday. If confirmed -- as is widely expected -- the appellate judge, 55, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court.

Sotomayor rejected Ricci's reverse discrimination claim in an appeals court decision but the Supreme Court reversed that ruling last week.

Republicans point to Sotomayor's decision as evidence she might let her personal and political views -- particularly a belief in racial preferences for minorities -- influence her decisions.

But supporters of Sotomayor are apparently trying to shift the focus on Ricci.

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, and other advocates urged the newspaper to dig into Ricci's background, specifically an earlier 1995 lawsuit the firefighter filed contending the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. They also cite Hartford Courant stories from the same period detailing how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn. -- allegedly, Ricci said then, because of safety concerns he raised.

The Middletown-area fire department was later fined for safety violations, but the Connecticut Department of Labor dismissed Ricci's retaliation complaint.

Still, Republicans believe Ricci will be a powerful witness.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told the newspaper that Americans can identify with Ricci.

"He took on a second job and worked hard, but was denied due to the same legal concepts" that were designed to protect people's rights, Graham said, referring to affirmative action.

SAVE AMERICA, OUTLAW LIBERALS!!!
 
Werbung:
It's not bad enough that a raving RACIST like Sotomayor thinks that white firefighters shouldn't get their promotions because they're.....white, but now since the Supreme Court ruled that her head was shoved ALL the way up her a$$ when she made that ruling, the looney loser libtard Demoncraps have decided to pull the same crap that they did to Palin, ATTACK THE VICTIM!! :mad:

SAVE AMERICA, OUTLAW LIBERALS!!!

Yet, the only resounding "raving RACIST" that I read around here is YOU...LMAO

How you manage to connect those 'magic marker dots' right back to Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayer is just truly amazing...your entire article is about 'supporters'...nowhere/anywhere does it mention her involvement!!!

And despite your 'hysterical ranting'...she ruled according the the letter of the law {as any judge would have}...don't like her ruling then go to that state, city, county and make them change the law. You know, kind of like...PUT UP OR SHUT UP. :D:D:D

BTW...'LOONY' doesn't have an 'E' in it...wizard of the illiterate words...LMAO
 
Yet, the only resounding "raving RACIST" that I read around here is YOU...LMAO

How you manage to connect those 'magic marker dots' right back to Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayer is just truly amazing...your entire article is about 'supporters'...nowhere/anywhere does it mention her involvement!!!

And despite your 'hysterical ranting'...she ruled according the the letter of the law {as any judge would have}...don't like her ruling then go to that state, city, county and make them change the law. You know, kind of like...PUT UP OR SHUT UP. :D:D:D

BTW...'LOONY' doesn't have an 'E' in it...wizard of the illiterate words...LMAO

ASPCA are you out of your mind?;) Do you not understand?

Here I speak Republicant... let me try and explain...

Bob is merely trying to address the illegal immigration problem. He's trying to protect America from the Beaner invasion. Now after all his hard work we have a judge that's Puerto Rican or Cuban or something.... one of those unAmerican tribes, and it upsets him that she ruled on the firefighter case according to the standing precedent at the time.

It's glaringly obvious that because she's been caught, CAUGHT I SAY, speaking highly of her Latina roots that she was trying to infiltrate and bring into the Hispanic fold the Black race (the other firefighters) in an attempt to overthrow White America and all we stand for!

Now it may be true that 4 White Justices out of the 9 Justices sitting currently on the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in the EXACT SAME WAY...

but look over here...


no way over here...





Did I mention she was Puerto Rican and there were Blacks involved?


You now owe Bob an apology.
 
ASPCA are you out of your mind?;) Do you not understand?

Yes she is, and no she doesn't (but then again, neither do YOU!)


Now it may be true that 4 White Justices out of the 9 Justices sitting currently on the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in the EXACT SAME WAY...

What's the matter tg, don't you watch the news? Didn't you read the ruling? It as 9-0 in favor of the Firefighters. The 4 "dissenting" votes were over the reasons the other 5 gave for supporting the Firefighters and AGAINST that racist Sotomayor!

Did I mention she was Puerto Rican and there were Blacks involved?

So what if she's Puerto Rican, and which Blacks were involved? Are you talking about Justice Thomas, or are you talking about the Black Firefighters who didn't study as hard, didn't apply themselves as hard, and therefore didn't do as well on the test as the Firefighters who DID study and apply themselves? Oh, and don't forget that at least one of the Firefighters that she ruled against was also Latino!

Sotomayor is a JOKE. She's a RACIST, she's a bigot, and she's a LOUSY JUDGE, having been overturned on appeal more times than ANY other Supreme Court nominee.

You now owe Bob an apology. [/COLOR]

Yes she does, and so do you.
 
What's the matter tg, don't you watch the news? Didn't you read the ruling? It as 9-0 in favor of the Firefighters. The 4 "dissenting" votes were over the reasons the other 5 gave for supporting the Firefighters and AGAINST that racist Sotomayor!

Let's see...

Four Justices Oppose Reversal In New Haven Case: Sotomayor's Just Fine.Jun 30, 2009

Anyone who though yesterday was a bad day for Sotomayor was simply not paying attention. Four out of nine justices strongly opposed the reversal and wanted to affirm Sotomayor's decision, including the judge she is replacing. It was NOT 7 to 2 against Sototmayor or even 6 to 3.

As far as the decision itself is concerned, it was not a sweeping change in law but largely simply a statutory decision. And since practically no communities use these tests anymore, the impact will be next to nothing.

Sotomayor stands tall.


Nina Totenberg Analyzes the decision live.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106038551


So what if she's Puerto Rican, and which Blacks were involved? Are you talking about Justice Thomas, or are you talking about the Black Firefighters who didn't study as hard, didn't apply themselves as hard, and therefore didn't do as well on the test as the Firefighters who DID study and apply themselves? Oh, and don't forget that at least one of the Firefighters that she ruled against was also Latino!

I must be talking about those lazy nonstudying "BLACK" firefigthers, huh?;) But at least you noted that Latino... so she's obviously not leaning to them... thanks!

Sotomayor is a JOKE. She's a RACIST, she's a bigot, and she's a LOUSY JUDGE, having been overturned on appeal more times than ANY other Supreme Court nominee.

That's because she's been around a very long time (hence her great experiance) and made a whole lot of rulings.

You don't really understand the court system. As cases come up through the process judges rule a lot based on standing precedent. Until the SCOTUS changes that precedent these lower court judges are simply following the law.

She's actually been called a very qualified candidate by both sides of the isle.

As far as ASPCA owing you anything... laughing at you as we speak is all you're getting... and well deserved I might add. Bravo.:D


 
top Gun Said: As far as ASPCA owing you anything... laughing at you as we speak is all you're getting... and well deserved I might add. Bravo.:D

Never fear TopGun...I understood the 'JOKE'...some of the over the top self inflated ego's just don't get the 'tongue in cheek' sense of humor that we share...it goes right over that 'pointed head' or 'though the echo chamber of the empty brain cavity'...LMAO ;)
 
That's because she's been around a very long time (hence her great experiance) and made a whole lot of rulings.
General Custer had "great experience" too, simply making a "whole lot of rulings" doesn't mean she is qualified to hold the bench.

Sotomayor Unqualified for Supreme Court


Washington, D.C., May 27, 2009--“Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Sotomayor was nominated yesterday for the seat being vacated by the retiring Justice David Souter.

“What disqualifies Judge Sotomayor,” said Bowden in his new commentary at the Voices for Reason blog, “is a judicial philosophy that explicitly rejects objectivity and impartiality. She has declared that ‘the aspiration to impartiality is just that--it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact’ that ‘our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.’

“Elsewhere in her 2001 speech titled ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice,’ she noted that judges are typically unable to ‘transcend . . . personal sympathies and prejudices’ and that ‘gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She also stated that ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.’

“Referring repeatedly to her ‘Latina soul’ and ‘Latina identity,’ Sotomayor rejected the view often expressed by the Court’s first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, that ‘a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.’

“On the contrary, Sotomayor said, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

“This is a blatant endorsement of subjective emotional decision-making, which has no place on the Court and will swiftly corrupt what’s left of its integrity,” said Bowden.

“The Supreme Court has a solemn duty to interpret and apply the Constitution. That is an intellectual task requiring ruthless objectivity--which, contrary to Judge Sotomayor, is not an illusory ‘aspiration’ but a requirement of justice.

“A conscientious judge strives to banish all emotional influences from the decision-making process. But here is Judge Sotomayor declaring herself helpless to resist--indeed, even welcoming--the influence of personal intuitions that cannot be grasped or shared by persons of another gender or ethnicity.

“Although Judge Sotomayor has many of the tools necessary for service on the Supreme Court--judicial experience, intelligence, legal knowledge--she has adopted a philosophy of judging that makes all of those qualities irrelevant.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee should expose Judge Sotomayor’s dangerous judicial philosophy, and the Senate should vote to reject her nomination.”
 
Nina Totenberg?? If you're getting your information from that ditz, it's no wonder you don't know anything!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!

As long as you're able to grasp the fact that 4 out of 9 Justices agreed with the Sotomayor decision...

and also interestingly had she been on the court at the time ruling on a similar case the High Courts ruling would have been 5 to 4 the other way...

then my point is made.
 
As long as you're able to grasp the fact that 4 out of 9 Justices agreed with the Sotomayor decision...

and also interestingly had she been on the court at the time ruling on a similar case the High Courts ruling would have been 5 to 4 the other way...

then my point is made.

Its no surprise that someone who supports policies that discriminate based on race would also support a judge that discriminates based on race. At least in your support of discrimination based on race, you are consistent.
 
General Custer had "great experience" too, simply making a "whole lot of rulings" doesn't mean she is qualified to hold the bench.

Well I've even heard Republicants on the Sunday talk shows that think she's too Liberal say strictly from a qualifications standard she's extremely qualified and has exactly the legal and judicial background one would look for in a Supreme Court nominee...:D

She will be our next Justice.



 
Well I've even heard Republicants on the Sunday talk shows that think she's too Liberal say strictly from a qualifications standard she's extremely qualified and has exactly the legal and judicial background one would look for in a Supreme Court nominee...


Which is why they deserve to lose every election until they begin standing up for Individual Rights.
 
Werbung:
As long as you're able to grasp the fact that 4 out of 9 Justices agreed with the Sotomayor decision...

and also interestingly had she been on the court at the time ruling on a similar case the High Courts ruling would have been 5 to 4 the other way...

then my point is made.

No, they did NOT agree with her decision, they simply disagreed with the reason the other 5 Justices used for over-ruling her decision. HUGE difference.
 
Back
Top