[Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

[lfalen]

Saundra
I readily admit that I have posted material that turned out to be false. I have never intentionally done so. I check Snopes on material that I receive that I think is suspect. There are some that I did not check that I should have.
My computer is slow, If  something does not come up in a couple of minutes I move on. I have other things to do than camp on the internet.
You continue to beat up on Joe the Plummer, but you still do not say anything about the tax cheats that Oboma has appointed. Is is ok by you that that rich lefts in a position of power cheat on their taxes How abut equal treatment.
I think it a little sanctimonious to claim that you never inadvertently posted erroneous information.
Here is a partial list of false information that is out there on Palin. This list is no means exhaustive.
Africa was a country not a continent.
A long list of books that she wanted banned which included Harry Potter and books by Mark Twain. She did ask how a request to ban books would be handled, because a patron had asked the library to remove a book and she wanted to know how should disputes were handled. The Librarian was fired, but was hired back the next day.There was no list of books submitted by her.
Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. She did go to one meeting and Todd was a member from1995 to 2000
Palin charged victims of rape for rape kits.
Palin faked a pregnency and Trig was actually Bristol's
Palin had a affair with Todd's bussiness partner.
I do not have  the time to check out your posts on the archives, but I would venture that some of these show up there.
Why not just admit that we all make mistakes?
Roger

-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:19:15 -0700
To: "'lfalen'" lfalen at turbonet.com, "'Saundra Lund'" sslund_2007 at verizon.net, "'keely emerinemix'" kjajmix1 at msn.com, "'Tom Hansen'" thansen at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

> Roger wrote:
> "While I did not quote her full statements I do not think it skewed the
> meaning."
> 
> Then I can only assume you didn't bother to read the links or else you'd
> readily admit that your talking heads have excelled at nothing so much as
> taking the snips out of context.
> 
> You also wrote:
> "For someone who posted every rumor about Sarah Palin yo do not have much
> room to talk."
> 
> Wrong again:  I posted facts and corrected rumors.
> 
> You also wrote:
> "Also If i remember correctly you landed all over Joe The Plummer for being
> a tax cheat."
> 
> Yes, he was a tax cheat & a liar, and it was idiotic for the GOP to try to
> dress him us as anything different.  Don't blame me for his very own
> transgressions -- blame your compatriots for not having the sense God gave a
> billy goat.  Sheesh -- anyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows better
> than to trot out a new poster boy without doing even simple Google search.
> 
> Please do tell us why you're going ape over Sotomayor while not giving a rip
> that what she said isn't much different than Scalia's opinion in REPUBLICAN
> PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE
> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZO.html):
> "This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of
> "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where
> judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the
> legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do
> state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the
> immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker
> v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the
> election of state judges became popular."
> 
> AND
> "Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice
> [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated
> from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good
> judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point
> of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not
> hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If
> he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to
> follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion
> polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were
> limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce
> clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of
> a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at
> 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign
> for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would
> not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates
> alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law,"
> since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and
> not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the
> view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court.
> See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring
> opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987)
> (dissenting opinion)."
> 
> 
> Get your shovel & start digging, Roger, because the more you keep saying,
> the deeper you keep digging your hole.
> 
> 
> 
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> 
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
> 
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
> 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> author.*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>