What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
63 Comments
- Dervish108, on 07/14/2009, -6/+28 The Seinfeld hearings? "Excuse me, do you have any salsa?" "We need more salsa." "Where is the salsa? No salsa?"
- alamedaman, on 07/14/2009, -16/+34I'm a bisexual eskimo midget with two gay parents, can I be on the court?
I must be even wiser than a wise latina woman. - KDX200rider, on 07/14/2009, -9/+25She isn't going to answer one question honestly, she is only going to say the things that people want to hear. The only way to really judge someone like this is his/her prior actions. What people do is far more telling than what they say.
- Blinker1315, on 07/13/2009, -10/+19This nomination will, for the most part, sail through the Senate. As Johnny Cash sang about a lifetime ago, "I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way."
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -4/+11Cases in point: Roberts and Alito.
- somberlaine, on 07/14/2009, -1/+8people just like to say salsa
- Lamadave222, on 07/14/2009, -4/+11After confirmation, will Sotomayor have a coffeemaker and alarm clock installed under her desk?
- rizzo2008, on 07/13/2009, -8/+15"Supreme Court confirmation hearings do not have to be about either results or nothing. They could be about clauses, not cases. Instead of asking nominees how they would decide particular cases, ask them to explain what they think the various clauses of the Constitution mean"
I bet if they actually asked these questions the answers would probably just beat around the bush and not directly answer the question. If you asked Sotomayor does the 2nd amendment protect the individuals right to keep and bear arms she probably would not answer yes or no but give some convoluted response that doesn't tell us anything. - twinklyJesus, on 07/14/2009, -3/+10If you reverse the statements she has made, and put a white man in them instead of Latina woman, there would be a 10 megaton nuclear blast at Digg HQ from the outrage and cries of racism from the Digg users. Liberals are so conditioned to reverse-discrimination and guilt from being told they are personally responsible for all racism that has ever occurred, they can't see what is really happening.
- rblancarte, on 07/13/2009, -5/+9However, your example of the 2nd amendment isn't as cut and dried as yes/no.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Because of the militia part, it becomes very complicated and is open to interpretation. - brainboy7777, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5Is she getting tried for breaking a Good Samaritan law?
- cmt5061, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5You have the seltzer AFTER the salsa!
- alais, on 07/14/2009, -3/+7Its not a big deal to not understand the very document you're supposed to reference in your rulings?
- bernynhel, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5You see that poker face? Squirm my eye! Don't bet on it! She's hadda scrap with some real baaaad dudes to get from where she started to be where she's at.
- Westendorf, on 07/14/2009, -2/+5Not after Heller. The Court ruled that the right is an individual one and not a collective one.
- bernynhel, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Hey! What a coincidence! I'm a mentally retarded, syphilitic dwarf! Do you know Dwayne?
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -5/+7I'm afraid I don't quite get the Seinfeld reference. Because as I recall, Jerry Seinfeld is neither a racist / racial supremacist nor a judge who finds it acceptable to legislate from the bench.
- Diggnabbit, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Yeah, even asking about specific clauses would still elicit the same "that case might come before me" response, and just as rightly.
- alternet09, on 07/14/2009, -7/+9Ah ha, but are you a tax cheat?
- southwestnut, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2sotomayor=racist
- Diggnabbit, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5They'll ask her, I'm sure.
And, I don't think she's going to squirm and cry. - twinklyJesus, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2It doesn't matter whether racism exists or not. It has no place on the Bench. Because there is racism, it doesn't permit a judge to be less impartial. Racism is racism no matter which way it goes.
Dude, she's already admitted she mis-spoke. - ww3ace, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5I don't understand, are the racist comments sarcasm or are there just a lot of douches reading this article?
- palehorse864, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5Yikes, talk about reaching on the Seinfeld reference.
Hey guys, who wants to watch Seinfeld?!
OH I love that show.
*Tunes the television to Cspan just before they arrive* Muhahahahahaha - protogenxl, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Curse you Firefox Spell-Check
- anarcurt, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5In every other amendment and clause, the people refers to individuals. The well regulated militia part is just an example for why the people should be armed not a restrictive line. What TJ was saying was that the most fair fighting force, the one best equipped to protect the people of a state, should be the people of the state. And to allow the people of the state to exercise their own control their right to own weapons should not be touched.
People also forget the setting of such amendments. We just fought a revolution. Jefferson wanted to make sure the people were equipped to fight against tyranny if it popped up again, either foreign or domestic. It is just another check and balance. If the people are armed and can fight then a central power cannot take over against their will. - edrodgers731, on 07/14/2009, -3/+4She doesn't have a diverse background. She just has one.
I think people can be diverse, but a person in the singular cannot possibly be.
Maybe you are referring to how she is diverse compared to some of the other justices? Not Clarence Thomas, but the others of course.
It's all sickening anyway. Reading opinion after opinion, the court is obviously biased politically. There are conservatives and liberals on the court, and they pretty consistently rule based on ideology and not the actual intent of the constitutional clauses.
She can sit up there all day saying that she's blind as a bat and that she's only about applying the constitution as it was intended, but I have never really seen an example of that in practice. She's a political appointee, just like the rest. - somberlaine, on 07/14/2009, -2/+3Honorable judge van delay
- kefkaantakrist, on 07/14/2009, -4/+5Maybe it's just my own ignorance but I find that whole sentence to be unintelligible. The commas are the problem.
I could see if it was, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That is clear cut. That says that people have a right to bear arms because a militia is necessary for the state's security.
But the way it is actually worded, I have no idea. In any case, I think it is self evident that the government needs *some* ability to restrict arms, but where do you draw the line? We can all agree that a private citizen should not have access to nuclear weapons, but what about a handgun? - loopbiz, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1While Sotomayor smiles, the examination begins.
Actually, the examination is a bar-room brawl, where the participants (senators) don't know and don't care what the nominee says.
http://newsblaze.com/cartoon/newsblaze/gv20090714c ... - twinklyJesus, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2It WAS normal up to 42 years ago. But, hasn't been the case since Thurgood Marshall was appointed by Lyndon Johnson. No one think that anyone is being thown a bone, but people who say nonsense like that to justify reverse discrimination.
No one would tolerate a NAACP if the C stood for Caucasian. They would be outraged, yet we accept it now without thinking twice. The same applies for any hyphenated American designation or organization. They are inappropriate and succeed only in foisting a biased agenda against others. Again, racism is racism, no matter which way it cuts, it doesn't belong. - Bartboy919, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2NO SALSA FOR YOU!
- stevelectric, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Hank- Yes, we were waiting for more revelations of "radical activisim" on the part of Judge Sotomayor beyond "The Peurto Rican Legal Defense Fund" but she disappointed US, she is strictly looking out for herself and increasing her income.
But she still creates problems for the Republicans:
http://www.communati.com/node/5323 - RuffRidr, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1I'm so relieved now. When asked about the Heller decision, she says that she clearly understands the decision and it's ramifications because she has a friend that hunts! *facepalm*
And you want to be my latex salesm... er, Supreme Court Judge? - BigVi, on 07/14/2009, -2/+2I have to agree. You used a horrible example.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -2/+2Brilliant!
- Latigoliath, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1Jerry's pretty racist.
- MatlasK, on 07/14/2009, -4/+3Because if you pick on her for racial issues, you can always say the mean ol' repbublicans are just being racists towards powerful latino women.
Never mind she's a radical anti-constitutionalist. - jordanlgta, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1(Courtroom)
Kramer: "I was very upset that day because I could never become a banker." - diadelsuerte, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1empty calories and male curiosity, eh geor-gie?
- somberlaine, on 07/14/2009, -2/+2you forgot the dirty magazines
- protogenxl, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1Cue the slap base.
- Bartboy919, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1Hey, you should have a lot of 1780's style muskets if you were to really believe that the constitution isn't a living document. Whats the problem with that?
- anarcurt, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1only on TV
- bernynhel, on 07/14/2009, -2/+2And don't forget the punch and pie!
- Bartboy919, on 07/14/2009, -3/+3Its the WSJ, so I would guess the latter.
- normalizer, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1isn't it illegal to say midget?
- protogenxl, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1So she is going to be Kramer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrhfoUPj-I -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is