I'll also add that this has the looks of a first term SCOTUS pick. The more I read, the more I think she's a center left pick which is what everyone should expect from a Democratic President. He could have gone much more liberal.
This seems like a pick from a guy who is planning to be President for eight years and not four. He obviously doesn't want to rock the Supreme Court boat too much, and then if/when he gets his picks during a second term, I'll bet we get much more liberal nominees.
Once again, this was a very well calculated, thought out pick given it's his first.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
learn to live with it.
what some call reverse discrimination
others call affirmative action
That's what is wrong with this country - we are being told to live with it. Affirmative action is nothing other than redistribution of people. We don't seek out the qualified anymore and haven't for a long time.
I'm sorry for making an assumption about your financial status.
In the state of Oklahoma, unemployment rates steadily dropped during Bush's last term, and spiked almost as soon as Obama took office in Jan. 2009.
Nationwide, unemployment rates (as of April 2009) are 8.6%, with no similar statistic since 1992, and that being the highest unemployment rate since 1983.
In all fairness, unemployment was much lower during Clinton's administration than during the Bush administration. However, that could be attributed to 9/11, rather than the actual administration, and the dates do coincide with 9/11 rather than when Bush took office.
Unemployment isn't the only factor, but it's the only one I have time to address right now.
Buffet didn't offer an overly positive assessment.
Here's one quote:
"The current efforts to help revive the economy are likely to produce inflation that could be worse than what the country suffered in the late 1970s, Buffett said."
He's optimistic long-term, but he is not stating that our economy is presently positive, or even presently recovering. In fact, he stated that it will get worse before it gets better.
So he then turns around and spends even more?
I hate to disappoint your stereotype, but I don't get my political views from Rush Limbaugh. I agree with him often, and sometimes I don't. About the same amount of the time I agree with Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. (With MS and Ann being my favorites!)
By rewarding people who don't work with income and benefits as if they do. I'm fine with contributing support to the elderly, and those who aren't able bodied. I am not fine with rewarding lazy people with free income.
The work ethic is simple--we teach it to our children--if you don't work, you don't eat. And when you work hard for something, you appreciate what you have earned. The work ethic is a character builder. It breeds strong, independent people.
I don't know that, actually. And I base my concerns on policies and legislation that the President has espoused for the future, or that which he has supported in the past. Whether there are enough dissidents to thwart such a move remains to be seen. I'm not so sure, with the current balance in Congress.
It was? That didn't stop a single liberal from beating Bush into the ground, did it?
I'm not sure there is much difference between the principles a man lives by and the principles by which he governs. I would imagine there would at least be some similarities, reflective of his character.
The list is too long for this thread's scope, and I need to make lunch for Hannah and me.
Michael Savage and Ann Colter?? You are a wild woman!!!
__________________ For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. (Romans 14:11- NASB)
On Sotomayor, Obama Can’t Hide Behind the Bushes
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision (D.C vs. Heller), only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment.
Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
What about the case regarding Frank Ricci? He scored the highest on the exam for promotion as a firefighter after paying someone to read textbooks onto audiotape because he is dyslexic, making flashcards and putting together a study group.
The results of that? The city canceled the results of the exam because there were no African Americans, in the group, who got top scores. He sued and when the case came to Sotomayor's court - she dismissed the case w/o argument.
That is racial discrimination. She is a believer in identity politics to the extreme!!!
This was not an isolated matter for Judge Sotomayor. Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, "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."
No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. But the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped, it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.
GWB started this whole govt take over stuff when the economy started to crumble under his Presidency.
On this very board I decried his actions as SOCIALIST leaning.
However, it was brought to my attention that the governments INACTION is what prolonged The Great Depression in the first place!!!!
And I was one of the few Republicans I know criticizing GWB's actions as Socialist leaning.
So the richest people and the smartest economic advisors are stating that the economy is stabilizing, that the actions of the government is what is slowing things down from further destabilization, but Democratic President Obama gets no accolades for his actions and the wisdom of his advisors!!!
Nope, he's called names instead.
I get it! There isn't anything this Democrat can do right simply because he is a Democrat!
And Heaven forbid we acknowledge his efforts to include Republicans in his Administration and his efforts to reach out across the aisle to Republicans around the country-- his efforts to unite us, somehow, on some common ground.
NO!
President Obama is a tax-raising, fag-loving, baby-killing, economy-destroying, work-ethic depleting idiot who was only elected because he is Black and anything good that he does is either not really him or simply suspect just because he is Democrat and his middle name is Hussein!
There are folks on here that still think our President is not American!!!
Get real, get honest with yourselves!
President Obama is not the demon that Limbaugh and others and are trying to make him out to be!!!
IF he is then he would be proving it instead of folks having to go to court to try and get the proof.
__________________
Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
Every moment, THANK GOD.
And on the video where she says that policy is made in the courts... her little scramble after making that statement lets you know that this is a concept spoken of freely in the circles she runs in and is truly the way she feels. She just let it slip in front of camera.
A judge that thinks this way is a high priority place to use resources by special interest groups.
And on the video where she says that policy is made in the courts... her little scramble after making that statement lets you know that this is a concept spoken of freely in the circles she runs in and is truly the way she feels. She just let it slip in front of camera.
A judge that thinks this way is a high priority place to use resources by special interest groups.
That's what it is looking like and what Obama is wanting.
This is interesting:
Quote:
You want context? It's even worse than that sound bite. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, "Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere 'aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.' And she suggested that 'inherent physiological or cultural differences' may help explain why 'our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.'" The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. "La Raza" is Spanish for "The Race." Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called "The Race."
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision (D.C vs. Heller), only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment.
Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
I get the sense the lady is somewhat left of center, but there is plenty of reason for her to rule this way. 1. the Second Amendment has never been applied to the states before, nor had any of the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment. 2. This is why they went with the DC gun law and not NY or Chicago so they wouldn't have to answer this question.
The SC didn't answer the question because it wasn't asked. A strict constructionist would have answered the same way. That isn't to say that she didn't want it to come out that way I just think that is the fair answer until the SC says otherwise.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
I agree with him often, and sometimes I don't. About the same amount of the time I agree with Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. (With MS and Ann being my favorites!) 
Linear Mode
