All about lortab. Buy lortab. How long does lortab effects last. Lortab addiction. Lortab safety during pregnancy….

/sarc

These are unserious people, holding power in a serious age.

But that has deadly serious implications for America.

NOBODY listening to this woman can be impressed by her judicial thinking.

NOBODY listening to this woman can see her…or her sponsors…as remotely truthful.

It is not telling that THE ONE and his pick for the Supremes HAVE to lie to the American people?

In Sotomayor’s case, she is not even an artful liar. Just a liar.

These are unserious people, holding power in a serious age.

Dr. Zero, that sums it up rather nicely, good job.

I do not agree with his point of view much of the time, but I cannot fault his expertise and his body of work.

He is certainly of the Left…but he has the cred.

Question is, why not Tribe? Why Sotomayor?

Is she truly the best legal professional in all the Nation to be elevated to the Supreme Court?

Not even close.

Wethal on July 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM
—–
I don’t see this.

She’s either lying or she’s changed her position, and if she’s changed her position, it’s too recent a change to show up in her judicial record. So.

Why should a Repub support putting this person on the court?

Why *shouldn’t* the Repubs, en masse, walk out and let the Dems ponder putting this person on the court *on their own*?

That may manage to sink her… and while she’s a wise latina and likely enjoying the good kind of fed health care, she’s young enough we’ll be paying the price for her dubious decisions for decades to come.

How long have we had Souter, after all? I remember when the “stealth justice” was first nominated…

Mew

Doctor Zero please write an article about the global warming / climate change hoax for us. They are shoving a theory done our throats. There is no law of climate change on the books. Their arguments are pure semantics. Saying that they have consensus does not make it law. Mathematics & much of the accepted Sciences of today have coherent and provable theory[s] (laws). Climate change hypothesis has not been proven. An example of a law is Newton’s law of gravity accounts for the detailed information we have about the planets in our solar system.

Can you help us out here at HA & the world for that matter so that this hoax? / hypothesis? / theory? can be laid to rest once and for all.

This is like someone listing their World of Warcraft skills on their resume for a top executive position.

Um, I have to change my resume….

If Sotomayor is also into “Star Wars,” she may be an even wiser Latina than we thought!

This is not the SCOTUS nominee you’re looking for, move along.

Since she can’t be defeated (60 vote majority) is there a point in *not* using this as a show of Repub dissatisfaction?

Mew

(and would it matter since the 40 Republican senators seem more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing ‘em)

acat on July 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Yes, there is. An NRO Corner poster pointed out that Sotomayor is backing off her traditional liberal viewpoints and trying to paint herself as mainstream. This sets a marker for future nominees who have to backtrack, too. Anyone who’s made wilder statements than the “wise Latino” is going to have more explaining to do.

Sotomayor, rather than proudly expousing the liberal view of the constitution that Obama and other lefties have (e.g., the empathy standard), is almost ashamed of being liberal. That may annoy Obama’s left wing (not that they’ll abandon him, though).

Yes, she’ll vote liberal on SCOTUS. But it makes it harder for Obama to nominate anyone with a more liberal paper trail. Unless that person can finesse perjury better than she could.

Every blow they can strike against her might lose a GOP vote. Obama wants here confirmed by a big bipartisan margin, maybe even by as much as Roberts was (75, I think). A closer vote (Alito, Thomas) shows up how partisan Obama’s nominations are.

And given her show so far, she isn’t that smart, or she’s trying to explain away her left-wing statements in the past and doing a clumsy job of it.

Obama doesn’t really take foreign relations or the economy seriously, either. Why should he do so with the Supreme Court. He lives in a fantasy in which his hopium and personal narrative are supposed to wow everyone. And that somehow there will be money to pay for all his grand plans.

The key point is that the Libs are moving onto another phase.

Since she can’t be defeated (60 vote majority) is there a point in *not* using this as a show of Repub dissatisfaction?

Mew

(and would it matter since the 40 Republican senators seem more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing ‘em)