Would you confirm Sotomayor for the Supreme Court?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Looking at this from an outside perspective, it looks like you are the one who is attacking. Marokai is just defending himself from your attacks on him.
We can debate on here, and still be friendly about it. Being nasty, calling people children, and telling them they need help is unnecessary.

Ok, then you aren't familiar with our past battles and you're obviously ignoring his past and current signature material.

He still doesn't deserve to be treated so rudely.
And I actually find his current signature funny and witty, and the picture also makes an excellent point.

Thanks! I always do like to think of myself as rather witty

[TeePee4Prez]

Yes, but with some uncertainty.  I'll need to see what happens in the hearings.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The thing that bothers me most about Sotomayor is that she seems to be personally involved in all of her cases. You learn that if you can't keep emotions out of a case, then you shouldn't be on it. She has openly admitted that she is likely to rule in favor of the minority in a case before her. This is not good. However, nothing in her record warrants any major disapproval from me. This is Obama's pick and he certainly chose a leftist. That being said, I'd vote to confirm her simply because the reasons against it aren't strong enough. I strongly disagree with her and I think she's a radical in the mold of Obama, but that's what America voted for. He isn't going to nominate a constructionist. I just hope this is the only nominee Obama has the chance to appoint.

Yes (R).

[© tweed]

I just hope this is the only nominee Obama has the chance to appoint.

very unlikely.  better chance of two more than zero.

of course, he probably won't change the 'structure of the court' drastically.

[MK]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

Keller, Einzige, Coburn, are trolls. They're trolls because they're idiots who have little to no interest in serious discussion, don't debate anyone seriously, insult people constantly, and fly in and out of discussions randomly. You can't call someone a troll while simultaneously saying they have serious debates.

If you actually mean the "get over it, stop talking to me, enough already" remarks, then shut up and suddenly these things stop! Amazing how it works that way!

See once again no foul here huh??

[Franzl]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

Keller, Einzige, Coburn, are trolls. They're trolls because they're idiots who have little to no interest in serious discussion, don't debate anyone seriously, insult people constantly, and fly in and out of discussions randomly. You can't call someone a troll while simultaneously saying they have serious debates.

If you actually mean the "get over it, stop talking to me, enough already" remarks, then shut up and suddenly these things stop! Amazing how it works that way!

See once again no foul here huh??

He's only speaking the truth.

[Senator Robert A. Taft]

She's qualified, ethical, and not too much of an extremist.  Yes (R).

[pogo stick]

Hell No.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The thing that bothers me most about Sotomayor is that she seems to be personally involved in all of her cases. You learn that if you can't keep emotions out of a case, then you shouldn't be on it. She has openly admitted that she is likely to rule in favor of the minority in a case before her. This is not good. However, nothing in her record warrants any major disapproval from me. This is Obama's pick and he certainly chose a leftist. That being said, I'd vote to confirm her simply because the reasons against it aren't strong enough. I strongly disagree with her and I think she's a radical in the mold of Obama, but that's what America voted for. He isn't going to nominate a constructionist. I just hope this is the only nominee Obama has the chance to appoint.

Yes (R).

Duke,

First, of course Obama was going to nominate a leftist.  If that were all that was involved, the nomination would easily sail through.

Second, the problem with Sotomayor is no merely that she is a leftist, but that she is patently dishonest, and a bigot.  She tried to hide the Ricci case, and tried to hide her opposition to capital punishment.  She has repeatedly, over a number of years expressed her bigotry.  It was not a one time case of poorly phrased statement, as the Obama spokesperson tried to portray it.

Third, the American people didn't vote for a leftist (per se), but rather they were denied a choice.  Both Obama and McCain were steadfash advocates of big government (both voted for TARP).   We had two very bad candidates, and there was an understandable vote against Bush (and the Republicans).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We could end up with much worse, and we very well might if Obama hangs around for 8 years, so let's just get it over with, cause it's a done deal anyway, and move on.

[Vepres]

Undecided (other).

Her statements on race and gender in the past are troubling, but we must wait to see if those were what she really meant, or a poor choice of words to make a different and perfectly reasonable point.

Her ruling on the Ricci case is troubling as well.