Getting "past the bombast" Schieffer imagines he'd "be in a heap of trouble" for equivalent of Sotomayor's remarks
May 31, 2009 11:59 am ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
Ben Stein on Fox: Obama admin. about "social control," hoaxes, and making country a "socialist paradise"
1 hour and 56 minutes ago -
Krugman hits back on Will's global warming claims: "Not a single smoking gun" in scientists' emails
3 hours and 1 minute ago -
-
-
Barnes: "Obama ought to recognize that the science" of climate change "is in dispute"
November 25, 2009 6:47 pm ET
-
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
by Jamison Foser - November 25, 2009 -
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
by Eric Boehlert - November 23, 2009 -
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
I just don't buy this whole premise that she's somehow skating away scot-free from this ordeal. Sotomayor and every member of her family have to try and tune out a daily onslaught of attention and criticism that has, at times, become downright nasty and vicious. Regardless of her appointment, Sotomayor, like appointees before her, will be branded for life by the "liberal media."
Starts about 4 min in.
Yeah, those facts are inconvenient things for neocons, (e.g. "fair"=biased, "liberal"=neocon like Clear Air Act for increasing pollution)
It would seem that facts are inconvenient for dimocrats like you.
If not, then you have no point. The KKK has been decimated in the past 50 years. If La Raza, as an active organization, is equivalent to what the KKK used to be, given where our nation is now, then La Raza would be worse than the KKK. Our nation has moved beyond much of the racism that infected it so badly between our founding and the mid 1900's, when things really started to change.
If you can't acknowledge the differences between now and then, then you're our old, stupid FairLiberal - don't ever change for us. Keep on making yourself look as crappy as possible.
I saw Tancredo make those hateful comments. You can parse them anyway you want, the meaning was clear. Why even mention the KKK? Tancredo is proud of his intollerant record where Hispancs are concerened. He's never met one that isn't "secretly" illegal.
La Raza teaches racism in AZ schools
As a memeber of NCLR, Sotomayor supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. Not to mention NCLR supports other chicano groups that advocate secession of southwestern states.
This is par for the course for Barry and company. Anything that weakens the US. Mexico is such a glowing example of tolerance.
http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/
So you listened to his rant with Sanchez on CNN, did you?
And you took away from that Trancedo NOT calling Sotomayor a racist and like the KKK?? You are unable to draw the connection between what he called La Raza and her association with the group??
Well then I guess there is nothing to debate. In your world, you are always right.
You, just like everyone else or lots of other people, has failed to actually read the context of her comments.
By simplying it down to Limbaugh's level of "I'm a better judge because I am hispanic" is A LIE and JUST AS BAD AS LIMBAUGH!
Now here is the budget from 2007--page 34...http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/Enacted/SB_53_bill.pdf
So Palin increased funding by $25000 not decreased it as olbermann said, he was lying. So refute that.
Did you perform the same level of homework comparing Sean Hannity's nonsense to actual news "facts" as well?
An Olberman? Who cares about him? Not too many around here.
I don't believe that judges "give jobs" to anyone, nor take them away.
I like her and her record (she's like Obama, more centrist than some would prefer) but I would like to hear her explanation. It's a legitimate question but the framing by the right is not.
It is amazing how sensitive you libs get when you get a taste of your own medicine.
As I stated, it is amazing how sensitive the libs are to any question at all about Sotomayor. The dems have a history of obstructing Supreme Court nominees but now, how dare anyone question one of theirs.
In the end she will be confirmed with most Reps voting for her I would think, but for now they will examine her statements and history, is that wrong?
My guess is that more reps will vote for her confirmation than dems that voted for Roberts for instance. Unlike the dems the reps understand that a president can nominate anyone he wants and unless the nominee is obviously unqualified the nominee should be confirmed.
Nobody has a problem with legitimate questions. Going on and on about something which is quite clear in its full context does not qualify.
Were Clinton's nominees to lower courts given up-or-down votes, or were dozens of those nominations killed in committee?
Now if you meant to say Alito, then you might have a point, as most democrats didn't vote for him, and yet, he still passed confirmation.
So you're complaining about the President NOT getting his choice is just flat out wrong, again, mostly because Bush did get his choice, well, not so much with Miers, and that was due mostly to republicans complaining about that choice. Did you defend the Miers choice? Because, as you say, the President gets to choose. But remember, he nomination was taken down by fellow conservatives, and not democrats. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a nominee for the court has to be qualified for anything. They just have to be the choice of the President.
Nobody here is saying that there is anything wrong with evaluation her record, and asking her questions, tough, or otherwise. The disingenousness that you portray about this issue is laughable though, because you, like conservative pundits are saying she's a racist, and that she needs to be asked these questions, whereas, if you again, look at her speech, it's evidently quite clear what she was saying, and what she was addressing. Nobody is saying don't question her, but don't be stupid and ignorant and ignore the context of what she was saying about the alleged controversial "Latina" comment.
And I did not defend the Miers choice , she was deemed unqualified by most .
Why noy just compare the way the reps treated the Clinton nominees vs the way the dems treated the Bush nominees. It was the reps that gave almost unanimous support to Clinton's, a far cry from the dems votes on Bush's choices.
In the entire 20th century I don't believe that even one dem choice was rejected, one was kept from advancing to Chief Justice however. About 6 or so was rejected by dems.
The way that the republicans treated the Clinton nominees was thusly. There were a lot of Clinton's nominees who were never allowed OUT of committee, in other words, they were never given the benefit of being voted on, they were not allowed on the floor to be confirmed, let alone be voted on. While, during George W. Bush's court appointees were alomst all voted on, and confirmed, as in, he had the biggest percentage of court appointees seated than any other President in history. There was a big difference there. The republicans might have voted for Clinton's appointees, but only the ones that were scrubbed thoroughly during committee. Never mind that his SCOTUS appointees were also vetted by the republicans before they were brought to the Senate.
You are incorrect that dem choices were not rejected, they were. And many of them were not allowed to even be voted on. Only about 8 of Bush's most controversial nominations were not let through. Remember all of the BS about nuclear options? That was it.
We're not being "sensitive" to questions. The problem is she's being called a racist, a bigot, a Marxist, etc. in lieu of actually being asked questions.
Being accurate takes time. You apparently are in a constant hurry.
I mean, we harp all the time about guilt by association when someone has compared Obama with say, William Ayers. Isn't saying Bob's brother is a republican the same thing? The fact that his bro is a high ranking official means nothing towards Bob himself.
People would be shocked that you actually said this in the context you present it. They would not be shocked that you, an old elite establishment white guy, believed it to be true. So, please stop repeating this silly right wing talking point. Your sense of entitlement is showing.