Sotomayor on Whether Citizens Have a Right to Self Defense

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

last time i saw the light i almost went blind.

see what happens when you try to xerox your face?

Edited July 16, 2009 by charles!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Republicans should be happy with Sotomayor - if her responses in the confirmation hearings bear out anything, it's that she's not one of those feared activist judges. She has made abundantly clear - and her record leaves no doubt on that end either - that she forms and bases her decisions on the specifics of the case before her and the applicable law and precedent relative to it.

Puhleaze she is just giving the typical politician answers. What she does on later on is a whole different story.

That would be true for any nominee, no?

Yes very true, we can expect to hear this kind of nonsense from any nominee.

There's no reason then to get all worked up about what she does or doesn't say at these hearings.

oh right, we should stick our head in the sand and not pay any attention to anything until it's too late.

So then you're saying what she says at the hearings does matter. If that's the case, look at my initial statement. Nothing she said in the hearings - and nothing in her record - suggests that she's an "activist" judge looking to make law from the bench. Isn't this the very criteria you Republicans always had front and center? She meets it.

need i remind you of that in bold?

Yes, that's the response to the point that it matters not what she says in the hearings. If it doesn't matter, then there's no need to get worked up about it.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that it matters what she says there. In that case, what she says should be reassuring to all those that want a judge that decides each case on it's merits and based on the law and precedent. Which is what Sotomayor has expressed in the hearings is her approach and her philosophy - and her record backs that up.

In short, Chuck, whether you feel the hearings matter or don't matter, there's no reason to rally against this nominee.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Republicans should be happy with Sotomayor - if her responses in the confirmation hearings bear out anything, it's that she's not one of those feared activist judges. She has made abundantly clear - and her record leaves no doubt on that end either - that she forms and bases her decisions on the specifics of the case before her and the applicable law and precedent relative to it.

Puhleaze she is just giving the typical politician answers. What she does on later on is a whole different story.

That would be true for any nominee, no?

Yes very true, we can expect to hear this kind of nonsense from any nominee.

There's no reason then to get all worked up about what she does or doesn't say at these hearings.

oh right, we should stick our head in the sand and not pay any attention to anything until it's too late.

So then you're saying what she says at the hearings does matter. If that's the case, look at my initial statement. Nothing she said in the hearings - and nothing in her record - suggests that she's an "activist" judge looking to make law from the bench. Isn't this the very criteria you Republicans always had front and center? She meets it.

need i remind you of that in bold?

Yes, that's the response to the point that it matters not what she says in the hearings. If it doesn't matter, then there's no need to get worked up about it.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that it matters what she says there. In that case, what she says should be reassuring to all those that want a judge that decides each case on it's merits and based on the law and precedent. Which is what Sotomayor has expressed in the hearings is her approach and her philosophy - and her record backs that up.

In short, Chuck, whether you feel the hearings matter or don't matter, there's no reason to rally against this nominee.

mkay, let's just rubberstamp her and move along, since that is what so many want.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Republicans should be happy with Sotomayor - if her responses in the confirmation hearings bear out anything, it's that she's not one of those feared activist judges. She has made abundantly clear - and her record leaves no doubt on that end either - that she forms and bases her decisions on the specifics of the case before her and the applicable law and precedent relative to it.

Puhleaze she is just giving the typical politician answers. What she does on later on is a whole different story.

That would be true for any nominee, no?

Yes very true, we can expect to hear this kind of nonsense from any nominee.

There's no reason then to get all worked up about what she does or doesn't say at these hearings.

oh right, we should stick our head in the sand and not pay any attention to anything until it's too late.

So then you're saying what she says at the hearings does matter. If that's the case, look at my initial statement. Nothing she said in the hearings - and nothing in her record - suggests that she's an "activist" judge looking to make law from the bench. Isn't this the very criteria you Republicans always had front and center? She meets it.

need i remind you of that in bold?

Yes, that's the response to the point that it matters not what she says in the hearings. If it doesn't matter, then there's no need to get worked up about it.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that it matters what she says there. In that case, what she says should be reassuring to all those that want a judge that decides each case on it's merits and based on the law and precedent. Which is what Sotomayor has expressed in the hearings is her approach and her philosophy - and her record backs that up.

In short, Chuck, whether you feel the hearings matter or don't matter, there's no reason to rally against this nominee.

mkay, let's just rubberstamp her and move along, since that is what so many want.

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

like i said.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

like i said.

Well, apparently, your understanding of rubber-stamping differs from mine.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

like i said.

Well, apparently, your understanding of rubber-stamping differs from mine.

obviously. just keep stamping out any criticism, it's the democratic way.

[Niels Bohr 72]

come on charles, everyone cannot read other people's mind...that is why everybody ask questions

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

like i said.

Well, apparently, your understanding of rubber-stamping differs from mine.

obviously. just keep stamping out any criticism, it's the democratic way.

What criticism has been stamped out?

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Anything I said you don't agree with? Do you think she's an activist judge?

it don't matter what i think, ya'll wanna rubberstamp her.

Actually, I read up on her and followed her hearings. I had some concerns based on some of the news that was out there and I, for one, am satisfied at this point - as much as I can be seeing that I'm not a law scholar - that she'll be a good judge on the court making decisions based on the merits of a case and based on the law and precedent. Wouldn't call that "rubber stamping" her. She'll be confirmed with more votes than the Democrats can muster themselves. As she should be.

like i said.

Well, apparently, your understanding of rubber-stamping differs from mine.

obviously. just keep stamping out any criticism, it's the democratic way.

What criticism has been stamped out?

any of sotomayor! haven't you been paying attention?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What criticism has been stamped out?

Never mind that - I didn't realise that VJ members had influence over the confirmation hearings. I guess you learn something everyday!

Perhaps I can slip someone a $20 and they can have Bush and Cheney tried and jailed.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Private Pike

[natty bumppo 297]

What criticism has been stamped out?

Never mind that - I didn't realise that VJ members had influence over the confirmation hearings. I guess you learn something everyday!

Perhaps I can slip someone a $20 and they can have Bush and Cheney tried and jailed.

attempting to bribe people now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is that a serious question?