What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
83 Comments
- drunkCatholic, on 07/15/2009, -8/+36I love how she says that she's cool with the Second Amendment because 'she knows quite a few hunters'.
Isn't that what qualifier people use when saying they're not racist? 'I'm not racist because I have quite a few black friends'. - inactive, on 07/15/2009, -5/+28It's amazing how these confirmation hearings in general are no more than "dodge-the-question" charades. It's pointless. Just look at her record - that alone confirms her racist, sexist biases.
- rizzo2008, on 07/15/2009, -8/+28What do you mean they wouldn't care? The white guy would be immediately disqualified for uttering such comments. Racism is ok it seems as long as it isn't coming from white people now days.
- Y0tsuya, on 07/15/2009, -1/+17Sotomayor is probably no better or worse than others currently on the bench. However she does not deserve the praises showered upon her by Feinstein. From all her fawning you'd think they spent the last night in bed or something.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 07/15/2009, -3/+13That "rate" is highly misleading. Of course, you the rightwing punditry don't explain that it only applies to 3 cases that were actually accepted for review and only for those cases where she wrote the majority opinion - not where she voted in the majority.
In other words, it's meaningless. - RyanBlueThunder, on 07/15/2009, -7/+17For legal analysis, Volokh is one of the few blogs that I look to for real content. And this morning there was a post that was highly unflattering of Sotomayor:
"To this point, it is impossible to tell from her responses whether she knows anything about constitutional law OR whether she simply does not want to offer any opinions that could possibly be criticized. I do not recall a confirmation hearings in which so little of substance is revealed by a nominee."
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_12-2009 ...
I especially found Sotomayor's statement humorous when she said: "No, I was just suggesting that I do recognize that the court's more recent jurisprudence in incorporation with respect to other amendments has taken -- has been more recent."
She's a lightweight when it comes to legal analysis (at least that's what I've read from several on the far-left), and I wouldn't be terribly afraid of her persuading other Justices (i.e., Obama's Harriet Miers). - Wiini, on 07/15/2009, -6/+13Well that, and the 60% overturn appellant court rate. But let's not mix facts with stupidity.
- Verchiel77, on 07/15/2009, -17/+24Too bad her record doesn't support the ***** racist smears against her.
There's a reason they're not criticizing her judicial record.
They can't. - diggduggDOOM, on 07/15/2009, -1/+8What's the average?
How many decisions reversed (or even contended) out of all decisions made? - Zuljin, on 07/15/2009, -5/+12Or, you know, people who don't want racists with a 60% reversal rate on the supreme court.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/15/2009, -6/+12A Georgetown University professor of constitutional law wrote yesterday that he was "completely disgusted" with Sotomayor's performance, despite his own liberal beliefs. "If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified."
http://digg.com/politics/Liberal_Law_Professor_Sot ... - rizzo2008, on 07/15/2009, -3/+9Im not sure about the second example but she is beating around the bush when it comes to second amendment rights and not answering the questions presented to her. If she could just tell us what her interpretation of the Constitution is and not just say she knows people who owns guns (I doubt she really does know any avid gun enthusiasts) that would clear up a lot for everyone.
- pintomp3, on 07/15/2009, -5/+11It's all posturing for the base.
- IgorUnchained, on 07/15/2009, -2/+8Yep....this is a big expensive game where we already know the outcome and a potential Supreme Court Justice refuses to give away anything that would let you know what kind of job she would do, while the people who are asking her questions never ask the right things.
You should have to acknowledge the Constitution AT LEAST.....or give your reasons as to why the founding document is flawed.....before you become a Supreme Court Justice. - RyanBlueThunder, on 07/15/2009, -3/+8Harriet Miers was managing partner at one of the largest and most storied firms in Texas. I find your accusation that she was "Bush's secretary" equally insulting, sexist and misogynist.
I'm basing my opinion on her flawed statements from the hearings that have been unclear and riddled with mistakes. I know that many people had attacked the Jeffrey Rosen article from The New Republic for his use of anonymous sources, but her statements during the confirmation hearings have not made me particularly inclined to doubt the truth in that article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f ... - chewbacca77, on 07/15/2009, -4/+9..Really? You think that if a white trying to get into the Supreme Court said that he could make better decisions because he was white, no one would care?
- Verchiel77, on 07/15/2009, -2/+7Another idiot who can't count.
She's had a sum total of three apellate cases where the opinion she sided with was overturned.
That consists of approximately 1.5% of her total.
Are you a moron or just a liar? - Learn2Think, on 07/15/2009, -4/+9INACTIVE:
She might be an "obvious" racist to you but not to many of us.
Also, for God sake get off the "verdict overturned" bandwagon. As she pointed out (and I have yet to see anyone contradict her on this), she decided the case based on the precedent set by the SCOTUS. In this case, SCOTUS basically issued a new precedent setting ruling.
The fact that all the right-wing, foaming at the mouth nut-jobs can do is point out her out-of-court statements and are not scrutinizing her judicial record shows that she is probably qualified for the job. - inactive, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7too bad shes a reverse racist
the whites and latinos that took that firemans exam had no problem passing
but no blacks passed.... so the test must be biased and lets rule againt the whites!!!
but with that said she'll still be confirmed easily - inactive, on 07/15/2009, -6/+11Yes, you're right, that is the media's biggest complaint - that Republicans are grilling her on the "wise Latina" thing. Of course they're also questioning her about her record, but you wouldn't know it.
Her record is as disastrous as her out-of-court statements. - ironhide, on 07/15/2009, -2/+6"Are you a moron or just a liar?"
Those two aren't mutually exclusive. - Hetman, on 07/15/2009, -2/+6My problem with her is that she is not pro choice. Oh well though. The entire supreme court should be scrapped every 10 years to allow new idea's to flow anyways.
- Barackalypse, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5Apparently when Obama was talking about transparency and openness in Government, it didn't apply to the beliefs, opinions, and actions of those who hold positions in it.
"Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday repeatedly deflected questions on controversial issues from senators vetting her Supreme Court nomination." - pinkfish411, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5If you think the document is flawed, you probably shouldn't be on a council whose reason for being is to interpret and apply that document. You should be in the legislature, trying to amend the document.
- nedzeve, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Well, since the SCOTUS usually only reviews cases it considers reversing, then yes, that's completely normal.
Just try to ignore the 230 of her decisions the SCOTUS didn't review if you want to convince us of your intellectual dishonesty. - alais, on 07/15/2009, -3/+7Or people that still believe in the constitution.
- Cputerace, on 07/15/2009, -2/+6/s ?
- Hetman, on 07/15/2009, -4/+8I do not trust anyone who believes that abortion = murder. People who believe that abortion is murder and still allow it are kind of screwed in the head if you ask me.
- alais, on 07/15/2009, -11/+15Yes her record does speak for itself but unfortunately she'll get confirmed anyway.
- nedzeve, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3I've watched the entire proceedings. All I hear from the republicans are "a speech you once gave" or "wise Latina". If she has ANY judicial record at all, you wouldn't know it from listening to Republicans on the judiciary committee.
- NegativeDigg, on 07/15/2009, -7/+10You obviously don't know the latin community. As a hispanic person, I don't care what race she is. I guess her record and experience doesn't count. I mean, can you point out other faults she has other than making the comment she made. Who do you suggest would be better qualified at this time? You know, black people are proud to have a black president but that doesn't mean he got elected just because he was black.
- Verchiel77, on 07/15/2009, -2/+5INACTIVE apparently describes your intellectual process as well.
You clearly know nothing about which you're whining.
Sotomayor has more experience on the bench than any recent counterpart. It stands to reason she's been appealed more times. She's had a sum total of three apellate decisions overturned. That's about 1.5% of her total.
Her judicial record, time and again, defies any attempt to label it as racist. - IgorUnchained, on 07/15/2009, -1/+4Im a lefty......I still cant see putting a person on the Supreme Court who doesnt understand the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
I think the "racism" attacks are fairly invalid and the "reversal" attacks are ignorant (learn2law), but I dont need to know anything more about her than she doesnt understand/believe in the Constitution to know that she isnt fit to sit on that court. - takua108, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4If the Republicans don't want her in office, and (apparently most of) the usually leftist Digg doesn't want her in office... who DOES?
(Serious question, someone please explain to me what's going on, I haven't paid much attention to this woman.) - mlrigsby, on 07/15/2009, -4/+6She's a lock for confirmation. After watching those hearings yesterday, I would try to say as little as possible too. There nothing the Jeff Sessions in the world can do to stop the confirmation, so there's no sense pandering to the Senate freakshow.
- nedzeve, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2If you believe that, you're about as "lefty" as Michael Savage.
- mc88, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2You do realize the hearing process has been the same way for Democrat and Republican nominees alike for quite some time right?
There have been much uglier hearings, most often conducted by Democrats against Republican nominees.
I'm not taking sides, but for hells' sake stop being such a partisan hack. - omgwtflawl, on 07/15/2009, -1/+3Sotomayer says that the second amendment does not need to be incorporated by the states because of a SC ruling which said that the first and second amendment did not need to be incorporated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Crui ...
http://reason.com/blog/show/134772.html - jmiller29, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2She has a stupid last name.
- fishunlarge, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2I don't understand why they ask her a question then she lies or beats around the bush and then they go to the next question.
Pound her dumbass on the pertinent questions..hammer her until she blows or gives the answer they are looking for. In other words don't let her go to the next question until the first question is answered truthfully!
I think she is a liar and a racist. - drmangrum, on 07/15/2009, -3/+5Her saying that just goes to show that she has little knowledge of constitutional law or thinks we're idiots. The second amendment isn't about hunters, it's about a militia.
- nedzeve, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Facts with stupidity, you say? More like stupidity with stupidity. Lets check actual facts and understand them in meaningful context:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955
"Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.
But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.
"In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term." - HotSaucePanCake, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2This is a giant circle jerk, i watched the first two days and it's complete garbage. Congress is a waste of time. ASK Direct real questions like she is on the damn bench.
She will continue to lie and say whatever she has to in order to get ahead. True american. - workaround4u, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1wafla, I think barry's fans are doing more than kissing his feet, if you know what I mean.
- workaround4u, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1And you, wafla, are one of the feckless.
- mc88, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1It's my understanding that she DOES NOT believe that the right to self defense is a natural right, not derived from God or the constitution, but inherent.
FTA - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ ...
The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."
Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." - mc88, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1Everyone knows she will be confirmed, but they are still going through the process of trying to shed light on what philosophy she brings to the Supreme Court. She is replacing another liberal justice, so it's more an exercise in showing the American people why she was picked by the administration.
Same goes for when the parties are reversed, but this time seems pretty civil for Washington's usual dirty politics. - volcompimp, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1This is news? Isn't this the golden rule for all these ***** judges?
Just keep your ***** mouth shut and stonewall?
Seems to have worked in the past. - Ferretman, on 07/16/2009, -2/+3Of COURSE they don't want her to talk--she's a lying racist! The less she says the less she can get caught up in.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is