Sotomayor nominated for Supreme Court seat.

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E06C80&show_article=1

"My heart today is bursting with gratitude"



NyTime's story resume (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=2).

[Justin_stacy]

I'm not overly impressed with some of the things she's said, but compared to who his majesty could have nominated this one doesn't seem to bad. I've always been of the boat that the president should be free to nominate who they want, and so long as the nominee is qualified and has a respectable history, they should be confirmed. That said I hope she doesn't recieve any different treatement than Bush's two qualified nominees did.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not overly impressed with some of the things she's said, but compared to who his majesty could have nominated this one doesn't seem to bad. I've always been of the boat that the president should be free to nominate who they want, and so long as the nominee is qualified and has a respectable history, they should be confirmed. That said I hope she doesn't recieve any different treatement than Bush's two qualified nominees did.
:lol:

[Adeniz19]

What McConnell had to say:

Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.

Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a ‘rubber stamp.’ Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications.

AKA we'll find anything we can not to appoint her.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not overly impressed with some of the things she's said, but compared to who his majesty could have nominated this one doesn't seem to bad. I've always been of the boat that the president should be free to nominate who they want, and so long as the nominee is qualified and has a respectable history, they should be confirmed. That said I hope she doesn't recieve any different treatement than Bush's two qualified nominees did.
Firstly, "His Majesty" is ironic coming from the right--plagued with nepotism. I understand not liking him but don't try to caricature him in such a way. I've never heard of there ever being an Obama president before, but I remember distinctly there have been two presidents named Bush. Not say the democrats have a flawless record, but still.

Secondly, Roberts nor Alito were as highly qualified as Sotomayor. Regardless of your opinions of the ACLU, they are relatively restrained concerning judicial nominations. They vehemenetly opposed Alito. Roberts only had 2 years of judicial experience. And he is another fine example of nepotism. Bush 41 nominated him but he was never confirmed. He advised Jeb Bush during the recount. Bush nominated him once, then nominated him again, finally getting him confirmed. Not to say that Roberts doesn't have an extensive prosecution record, but to say he was qualified? Not even remotely.

With the revisionist history being properly adjusted, I agree with you that judicial confirmation hearings are merely a formality. Sotomayor has been called the most qualified judicial appointment to the Court in years by several in legal community. She has a reputation of being a bit of a hardass and a bully, but I think she will sit well.

The thing that bothers me is this judicial activism/restraint argument. There is no difference at all. A judge is an activist, it's just what they actively support is the difference between the left and the right. It's a weak argument and the Republicans should find another.

[Justin_stacy]

Firstly, "His Majesty" is ironic coming from the right--plagued with nepotism..

Oh calm yourself I was just poking fun, you left wingers need to dig the stick out of your ass and a grow a sense of humor. That's what made Knifeparty's liberals actually tolerable. Hell, if MSNBC can treat him as the second coming of Christ, I make a royality joke.

[J.C.]

Good pick from a number of standpoints. Politically the Republicans will either let this go by relatively quietly or they'll throw a stink, likely alienating hispanics and women even more in the process.


I'm not overly impressed with some of the things she's said, but compared to who his majesty could have nominated this one doesn't seem to bad. I've always been of the boat that the president should be free to nominate who they want, and so long as the nominee is qualified and has a respectable history, they should be confirmed. That said I hope she doesn't recieve any different treatement than Bush's two qualified nominees did.

Or Harriet Miers amirite.

[Adeniz19]

Lets not forget Sotomayer was appointed to the SDNY by a President George HW Bush, and was also considered for the seat that Alito ended up getting by W. She isn't some extreme liberal judge, so if the senate republicans try to stall her appointment for some BS reason, they'll just show hypocritical they really are.

[Justin_stacy]

Or Harriet Miers amirite.

There's two ways to look it at it, either it stays in the presidents hands, and he's given the leniency to pick his nominee, or a Congressional committee is needed to pick the group of nominees the president can choose from or the actual pick.

If its left to the president the basis for confirmation can't fall to ideological reasons like we saw with the Bush's, but to career qualifications and personal history (i.e. criminal background, memberships etc.). Sort of like what happened with Ginsburg and her 96-3 approval vote. There's not a conservative in the world who would put her up as a 'good ideological' judge, but she was more then qualified for the job, and Clinton was elected with the knowledge he was to pick incoming Judges. I think that's the process we need to have, even with its faults, or take the duty out of the hands of the president.....But that's just how I see it.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh calm yourself I was just poking fun, you left wingers need to dig the stick out of your ass and a grow a sense of humor. That's what made Knifeparty's liberals actually tolerable. Hell, if MSNBC can treat him as the second coming of Christ, I make a royality joke.
Kind of like Boehner did with that person of color joke? I think we should stick with the politics.
There's two ways to look it at it, either it stays in the presidents hands, and he's given the leniency to pick his nominee, or a Congressional committee is needed o pick the nominees for the president to choose from or to select the actual pick.

If its left to the president the basis for confirmation can't fall to ideological reasons like we saw with the Bush's, but to career qualification and personal history (i.e. criminal background, memberships etc.). Sort of like what happened with Ginsburg and her 96-3 approval vote. There's not a conservative in the world who would put her up as a 'good ideological' judge, but she was more then qualified for the job, and Clinton was elected with the knowledge he was to pick incoming Judges. I think that's the process we need to have or take the duty out of the hands of the president.....But that's just how I see it.
Hence my argument as to why the vast majority of Bush judicial nominees were hugely unqualified, but they agreed with him. The right has no reasons to halt this confirmation, and it would be detrimental to them in 2010 to do so.


Irony incoming: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Romney_Nomination_troubling.html

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22969.html
And were not Bush 43's nominees blinded by ideology? Sotomayor is left, no denying that, but she is a pretty moderate choice in comparison to what could have Diane Wood.

[Adeniz19]

Sen Olympia Snowe has something positive to say: "Indisputably, this is an historic selection, as Sonia Sotomayor is just the third woman to be nominated to The Court and the first Hispanic American. I commend President Obama for nominating a well-qualified woman, as I urged him to do during a one-on-one meeting on a variety of issues in the Oval Office earlier this month.


"I also appreciate that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called me personally this morning to inform me of the President's selection. As the process moves forward, I will apply the same standards of review that I have in the past — that any Supreme Court nominee should bring a balanced approach to cases, possess a strong intellect and suitable judicial temperament, and follow a disciplined judicial methodology in reaching decisions. Justices on the High Court sit for life, so the Senate must exercise this constitutional duty thoughtfully, and give careful and thorough consideration to Judge Sotomayor, as it should to every nominee. I share the view that the proper role of the judiciary is one of interpreting the Constitution and acts of Congress, not legislating from the bench. As such, I will carefully evaluate Sonia Sotomayor’s record and temperament in making my determination."

At least this might be 1 repulican we can count on to avoid a filibuster.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/huckabee-maria-sotomayor_n_207620.html
Huckabee calling the kettle "Maria"

[Adeniz19]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/huckabee-maria-sotomayor_n_207620.html
Huckabee calling the kettle "Maria"The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.

Seems like we are going to be hearing a lot about this, but I really don't get it. A lot of things I have been reading say that she is a centrist and has gathered a lot of partisan support in the past.

[J.C.]

I can only take so much whining about judicial activism from the party that advocates overturning Roe V. Wade by way of the courts.

[Justin_stacy]

Kind of like Boehner did with that person of color joke? I think we should stick with the politics.]

...this is a for fun forum. I'm not of the opinion that you can't have fun and talk politics, it just has to be appropriate. There's a reason its not as much fun here as it used to be.


Hence my argument as to why the vast majority of Bush judicial nominees were hugely unqualified, but they agreed with him. The right has no reasons to halt this confirmation, and it would be detrimental to them in 2010 to do so.


More likely than not someone gonna come away with the same opinions of Obama's future judical nominations.....But with Bush's final two SC nominees there was no valid reason for Democrat voting as they did. And recent Republican precident didn't support them.

That second part I don't agree with at all, but I've seen that NBC's spreading it around too. Even if it were true, race should't be her sole qualification characteristic. Race politics disguest me.

[J.C.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/huckabee-maria-sotomayor_n_207620.html
Huckabee calling the kettle "Maria"

i <3 generic press releases.

[saysmydoctor]

...this is a for fun forum. I'm not of the opinion that you can't have fun and talk politics, it just has to be appropriate. There's a reason its not as much fun here as it used to be.




More likely than not someone gonna come away with the same opinions of Obama's future judical nominations.....But with Bush's final two SC nominees there was no valid reason for Democrat voting as they did. And recent Republican precident didn't support them. Race politics disguest me.

That second part I don't agree with at all, but I've seen that NBC's spreading it around too. Even if it were true, race should't be her sole qualification characteristic.
Here I was thinking it was a serious discussion forum.

There was plenty of reason--they weren't qualified being one of them--especially Roberts. Bush was trying to pack the courts being another. No one can say that about Obama--yet, at least, because his initial choice is a centrist.

Race isn't her sole qualification--she is the most qualified nominee in a long while and it's the legal experts saying that--not NBC.

[Justin_stacy]

Here I was thinking it was a serious discussion forum..

Here I thought it was a place to have fun discussing political-centered matters.

Eventually we're bound to find something we agree on.

[Adeniz19]

Here I thought it was a place to have fun discussing political-centered matters.

Eventually we're bound to find something we agree on.
What makes you think she isn't qualified for the position?

[Justin_stacy]

What makes you think she isn't qualified for the position?

She is qualified, I think she should be confirmed and every Republican should affirm her, as I would have expect Democratics to have done the same.

[Adeniz19]

Ah, I guess I misread your "race shouldn't be her sole qualification" comment. (that's not sarcasm by the way, just in case it gets misinterpreted haha)

[saysmydoctor]

But the democrats had reason to withhold their approval of Bush nominees. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan--three people who I can't stand made sure they thoroughly vetted their candidates. Bush waited until 2002 to ensure Roberts was confirmed, when he had the majority in the house so that his nominees would have lax scrutiny.

[Love As Arson]

I like activist judges. If it weren't for them, I might still be waiting on Alabama to approve interracial marriage.

[J.C.]

I like activist judges. If it weren't for them, I might still be waiting on Alabama to approve interracial marriage.

Yup.

I shutter to think where we'd be without Brown vs. Board of Ed., Loving vs. Virginia, etc.

[saysmydoctor]

:nod:

[saysmydoctor]

KP3s80-z1VA&feature=player_embedded

[J.C.]

I hope to Jesus the Republicans keep playing this 'reverse racist' card.

[saysmydoctor]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/27/gingrich-sotomayor-racist-should-withdraw-nomination/
Like this gem from Gingrich? I love being taught values by the man who cheated on his wife with a staffer. I just love it.

[zion the lion]

I love how theyre calling her a "reversed" racist...because it would just be a regular racist. Maybe I'm just a grammar snob. But it isnt like Rush Limbaugh hasnt said some pretty racist sounding things ever.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/gingrich.jpg


lol wut?

[Adeniz19]

fucking twitter... republicans already don't make any sense without the need to post their thoughts in 140 words or less

[J.C.]

The Republicans have absolutely no coherent political strategy right now. Trying to garner sympathy by portraying the white man as racially opressed has no upside, yet they continue to walk down this road time and time again.

[saysmydoctor]

Not to mention what she said is 100% true.

[Adeniz19]

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.


Thomas 65.63%
Kennedy 64.06%
Scalia 56.25%
Rehnquist 46.88%
O’Connor 46.77%
Souter 42.19%
Stevens 39.34%
Ginsburg 39.06%
Breyer 28.13%

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.



Looks like conservatives legislate more from the bench than liberals....

[saysmydoctor]

http://blog.american.com/?p=1187
Yoo've got to be kidding me

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/grandmother-of-worlds-23rd-best.html
Really? Are we really going to attack how the nominee is saving money?

[StillTrying1288]

What she said was right on. All these idiotic attacks are doing is hurting the GOP. It's truly sad to see since there really needs to be a 2 party system to have some kind of intellectual debate. What can you do though.

[neo506]

Beck on Sotomayor nomination: "Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You're empathetic ... you're in!"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260041

[Machu505]

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) says she will be (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/republican-senator-sotoma_n_208242.html) confirmed.

[loveisdead]

Beck on Sotomayor nomination: "Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You're empathetic ... you're in!"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260041
That infuriates me.

[saysmydoctor]

Karl Rove saying anyone is unqualified is ironic. Harriet Miers?

[Mitch]

I'm liking this whole "she's a reverse racist" thing.

[Adeniz19]

i like how obama was a sexist for not making hilary his VP, but now he's playing gender politics by picking sotomayor

[registered]

Oh calm yourself I was just poking fun, you left wingers need to dig the stick out of your ass and a grow a sense of humor. That's what made Knifeparty's liberals actually tolerable. Hell, if MSNBC can treat him as the second coming of Christ, I make a royality joke.
/cosigned.

John Stewart ran a show for 8 years off Bush, I think a single Majesty joke is fair game.

[jusscali]

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.


Thomas 65.63%
Kennedy 64.06%
Scalia 56.25%
Rehnquist 46.88%
O’Connor 46.77%
Souter 42.19%
Stevens 39.34%
Ginsburg 39.06%
Breyer 28.13%

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.



Looks like conservatives legislate more from the bench than liberals....




Where is this taken from? Source please :)

[saysmydoctor]

/cosigned.

John Stewart ran a show for 8 years off Bush, I think a single Majesty joke is fair game.
That's his job. He is on Comedy Central, not CNN.

[registered]

That's his job. He is on Comedy Central, not CNN.
Pardon me if Im bursting with ignorance but didnt you rant about justin stacy calliing Obama his majesty? Im unaware of any thing he could be referencing so Im a bit confused.

[loveisdead]

i like how obama was a sexist for not making hilary his VP, but now he's playing gender politics by picking sotomayor
Such a good point. They're going to bitch for the sake of bitching.

[Justin_stacy]

That's his job. He is on Comedy Central, not CNN.

...so I'm employeed by CNN?

[saysmydoctor]

...so I'm employeed by CNN?
I said that, good catch.

[Justin_stacy]

I said that, good catch.

;-) .....I'm just play'n with. If you want to keep it straight here that's cool too.

[Adeniz19]

Where is this taken from? Source please :)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[jusscali]

Thanks

[Adeniz19]

Here's what Alito said at his confirmation hearings:

"And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."


How is that much different from saying, “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”?

[saysmydoctor]

Because she's a racist and he's not, duh.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/tancredo-claims-sotomayor_n_208831.html
Tancredo, well known for lacking credibility, misrepresents latino organization as a latino KKK, calls her a racist (read: calls the kettle black). Thank God there is video.

[Adeniz19]

hhaha i hope they continue down the "she's a racist" path, because I think it's doing more damage to the people making these claims, than sotomayor.

[Duexy]

i want to fuck sotomayor

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race/
Goldstein talking about the attacks on Sotomayor based around race

[Adeniz19]

most important part from that article:

It seems to me that there is an infinitely simpler and more accurate way of figuring out whether Judge Sotomayor decides cases involving race fairly and dispassionately - read her decisions. So I did: I am in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she sat on the Second Circuit.

There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive. Here is what I found.

In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)

good read. republicans can't attack her qualifications so this is the only way they can go.

[saysmydoctor]

SCOTUSblog is pretty fucking awesome, especially because the folks there break law down into laymen's terms.

[Adeniz19]

The new Quinnipiac poll has Americans approving of the Sotomayor pick by 54% to 24%.
Dems almost unanimously support, while Republicans oppose. But critically, independents support the nomination 48% to 31%.



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/tough_sailing_for_gop.php

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23102.html
Ugh, why concede that? There is nothing wrong with what she said.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/29/ingraham_sotomayor_uses_her_racial_ identity.html
Laura Ingraham channels Tancredo's argument

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gingrich-digs-in-on-sotomayor-bashing.php?ref=fpa
Sotomayor is unamerican according to Gingrich

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/
G. Gordon Liddy says she speaks illegal alien and hopes she doesn't menstruate on the bench

WHAT THE FUCK?

[Praetor]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/
G. Gordon Liddy says she speaks illegal alien and hopes she doesn't menstruate on the bench

WHAT THE FUCK?
Dear Mr. Liddy,

Hey, I tried this really cool thing the other day: it's called thinking before you speak. You should try it sometime.

Sincerely,
Someone who wishes you would shut the fuck up

[starshine1763]

It's impressive, in a way. You think that these guys are capable of hitting rock bottom in their accusations at some point, but every time they get close they just dig a deeper hole.

[Praetor]

It's impressive, in a way. You think that these guys are capable of hitting rock bottom in their accusations at some point, but every time they get close they just dig a deeper hole.
It just amazes me that there is not a point where the Republican base will stop and say "Hey, even if I really feel this way, this is not a politically wise thing to say."

[Jason Tate]

It just amazes me that there is not a point where the Republican base will stop and say "Hey, even if I really feel this way, this is not a politically wise thing to say."
I love that they haven't figured it out yet. They have the mindset that "of course everyone feels this way, let's say it louder."

[saysmydoctor]

It's really more frightening to me. The need for an opposition in a democracy is vital but it has to be a rational and thoughtful one. Not this obnoxious...thing.

[J.C.]

It just amazes me that there is not a point where the Republican base will stop and say "Hey, even if I really feel this way, this is not a politically wise thing to say."

The problem is that the base has whittled down so much that those are the only ones who really remain at this point. There isn't a big enough moderate wing of the Republican party to significantly counterbalance the retarded shit you hear coming from them nowadays. It's pretty much all extreme points of view.

[fightinirish217]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/29/ingraham_sotomayor_uses_her_racial_ identity.html
Laura Ingraham channels Tancredo's argument

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gingrich-digs-in-on-sotomayor-bashing.php?ref=fpa
Sotomayor is unamerican according to Gingrich

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/
G. Gordon Liddy says she speaks illegal alien and hopes she doesn't menstruate on the bench

WHAT THE FUCK?

Umm, G. Gordon Liddy...WTF?! I'm conservative, and this guy is pathetic.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
Tom Goldstein's followup on SCOTUSblog concerning Sotomayor's rulings on race discrimination cases

[Love As Arson]

Excellent speech by Thurgood Marshall:

http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/constitutional_speech.htm

"I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document's preamble: 'We the People." When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens. "We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons." United States Constitution, Art. 1, 52 (Sept. 17, 1787). On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at threefifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years.....The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the People" no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality," and who strived to better them."

[saysmydoctor]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/02/ccc-sotomayor/

Amazing.

[saysmydoctor]

Patrick Leahy is pissed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/reid-praises-sotomayor-as_n_210353.html

[Praetor]

So what's the latest on this? From my little window of the political world, it looks like nobody really gives a shit about this anymore.

[Machu505]

People are complaining that she's in an all-woman club. Basically a bunch of masculinist fucks making sure no uppity wimmin get on their precious Supreme Court.

[Praetor]

BUT HOW WILL WE PASS SEXIST LAWS?!?!?!

x

[yves.]

for fucks' sake, if she shit twice in one day they'd probably make it out to be a problem as well.

[derekmoyer4]

People are complaining that she's in an all-woman club. Basically a bunch of masculinist fucks making sure no uppity wimmin get on their precious Supreme Court.
it is sad how people are being fucks about her nomination.

[Machu505]

for fucks' sake, if she shit twice in one day they'd probably make it out to be a problem as well.
"Obviously, since she's a wise latina woman, all the beans she eats would cause the mutiple shits she takes."

Future quote from Rush Limbaugh.

[derekmoyer4]

"Obviously, since she's a wise latina woman, all the beans she eats would cause the mutiple shits she takes."

Future quote from Rush Limbaugh.
lol. i would not be surprised in the least bit.

[bigeazy]

Sotomayor is a good pick. She's gonna be looked at incredibly hard because Obama nominated her but she's qualified. All these people making a big deal about what she's said or what clubs she's in are just trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill