[Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

[lfalen]

Saundra
While I did not quote her full statements I do not think it skewed the meaning. For someone who posted every rumor about Sarah Palin yo do not have much room to talk. A few of them may have been true, most were not. Also If i remember correctly you landed all over Joe The Plummer for being a tax cheat. I have not heard you or anyone else on the vision castigate Holder and the other tax cheats that Obama has appointed. Joe the Plummer was a nobody. These people are in important positions.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" sslund_2007 at verizon.net
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:15:09 -0700
To: "'lfalen'" lfalen at turbonet.com, 	"'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

> Hi Roger,
> 
> You wrote:
> "She has said that the Appellate Court ilis where policy is made. I know I am not supposed to say that, we are not supposed to make laws. She has also said that a wise latino woman would normally make a better decision than a white male."
> 
> Wow -- I really expect better from you than to swallow half-truths & disregard the always important context.
> 
> So, I'll make it easy for you  :-)  You need to check out the following, and then check just how much you'll allowed yourself to be swayed by the biased reporting you've been suckered by:
> http://tinyurl.com/politifact-RNC-halftruth
> http://tinyurl.com/politifact-JCN-halftruth
> 
> Oh -- and how about reading Sotomayor's speech -- appropriately entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice" -- for yourself:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
> 
> You also wrote:
> "If this is not racist it is close to it."
> 
> Excuse me?!  Are you nuts?!  Frankly, what is racist -- and sexist -- is using Sotomayor's ethnicity & gender against her.  It's shameful and it's disgusting, particularly coming from white men with a sadly misplaced sense of entitlement.  I'd hate to lump you into that category, Roger, but when you keep swallowing sound bites without making the slightest attempt to inform yourself, you make it difficult.
> 
> While Sotomayor wouldn't have been my choice, she is absolutely imminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of lfalen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:43 PM
> To: keely emerinemix; Tom Hansen; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick
> 
> This is a very bad pick. Any nominee should strictly follow the constitution. She has said that the Appellate Court ilis where policy is made. I know I am not supposed to say that, we are not supposed to make laws. She has also said that a wise latino woman would normally make a better decision than a white male. If this is not racist it is close to it. One would never hear the end of it if a white male had said the reverse.The constitution should only be applied strictly. There is supposed to be a balance of the three branches of government. It the court makes laws the balance is out of whack. There is a proscribed way to amend the Constitution. It has been done twenty seven times. It is deliberately hard to do so. That is why we have had a stable prosperous republic since 1789. If 5 out of 9 justices can say the law is what ever they say it is then the constitution becomes a fragile meaningless document and our republic is in danger. Five out of nine judges could then sa!
 y !
>  elections
> are suspended and who they designate can rule. It would be equally as bad if a conservatives put their own spin on it. For example if they wanted to have a state proscribed prayer mandated that would also violate the constitution. The justices take an outh to uphold the constitution. If they site any other authority it is grounds for impeachment.The democrats fiibustered to stop the nomination of Miguel Estrada a strict constructionist hispanic. The republicans should return the favor.
> Roger
> 
>