Comments (36) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

   You can’t deny its progress… And you can’t deny she tends to judicial activism by her own statements. All in all, I’m very happy with this pick (as happy as I can be with the opposition making the choice). I don’t have much evidence to base this on( I have better things to do) …but, she might even be a closet conservative…

2. 

   Dale Hopson said, 5 months ago

   It’ll be fun seeing the GOP spinning their wheels with the Sotomayor nomination. Let’s see how many more voters they’ll lose…

3. 

   NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

   Katie Couric’s been on it full time for the last two days, Dale. I’m sure the rest of theLib media will follow suit… Someone once figured out how much of a percentage point a candidate can win if the media is in the tank for him or her…I don’t know. So, this made-up farce could win the Dems another election, but the Dems have lots of people working on other made-up farce issues.. It’s too early to tell.

4. 

   Gary Kleppe said, 5 months ago

   The media are “lib”s like Bush is a war hero.

5. 

   Dale Hopson said, 5 months ago

   DameIcyStare is right that this is a made-up farce and the American public KNOWS who made it up!

6. 

   dtroutma said, 5 months ago

   The xenophobes are out, from Lush, er, Rush blatantly blathering, to all the smirky asides across the spectrum of, yeah, right, “liberal” media. She seems extremely qualified, and able to speak, two stark contrasts with Thomas, so we shall see.

7. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

   I’ll bet Puppy (er, DameIcyStare), hates anything that has come from “judicial activism”.

   Like “innocent until proven guilty”.

8. 

   Gary Kleppe said, 5 months ago

   The most blatant instance of judicial activism ever was the one that put George W. Bush in the white house. I don’t suppose Poopy hates that one.

9. 

   deadheadzan said, 5 months ago

   Gary, right on, supposedly Scalia said they had to stop the recount because it was evident that Gore was pulling ahead in the votes.

10. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Damelcy Stare says: “And you can’t deny she tends to judicial activism by her own statements.”

    Get past her statements and look at her record. If she truly had a liberal axe to grind, she would have ruled against abortion protesters. But she didn’t. She ruled in their favor. Similarly, she would have ruled that citizens had the right to sue the Bush administration to make it resume sending money to overseas family planning organizations that offer abortions. But she ruled that they didn’t.

    These are not the actions of a “judicial activist”. These are the rulings of a judge almost universally respected within the legal community for being a fair arbiter of the rule of law.

11. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    Libs, get your arguments straight; in last years election when the subject of Supreme Court nominees came up, you Libs stated that Every judge nowadays was “activist” and the conservative call for “constructionist” judges only deals with their bias against liberal activism and not constructionist activism. I’m just pointing out the obvious and asking whether it really matters. If youlibs would start being more honest, you just might pick up a few more followers…

12. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Heh…a Republican giving advice on how to “pick up…followers”.

    Heh.

13. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Hi there, Damelcy Stare. I appreciate your concern for the internal consistency of my argument, but I believe if you were honest and dealt solely with my argument (as opposed to those of your rather snidely referred to “libs”) you would find that it is entirely consistent.

    Now, care to try again on a coherent critique of my argument?

14. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    And, incidentally, just how does one use bold or italic font in these comments? I’ve been trying to figure that out for a while now.

15. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    If you put an asterisk on either side of a word, it’ll come out in italics.

    Dunno about /bold/.
    .

16. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Thanks, Anthony. Anybody who knows how to do bold, please let me know. Damelcy Stare, care to give a friendly critic a little help?

17. 

    believecommonsense said, 5 months ago

    put two asterisks before and after the word you want in boldface

18. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Awesome, BCS! Thanks!

19. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    Italics is one understroke before and after word or phrase.
    Bold is also two understrokes before and after word or phrase.
    And Bold italicized is three understrokes before and after phrase.
    
    I’ve heard some say it doesn’t always work; but , I think the go-comics people straightened that out.
    
    And “eye for an eye” says Obama’s candidates should be stone-walled.

20. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    That would be “underscores” ; SHIFT KEY+hyphen - ( _ )
    And Supreme court justices are an issue because it it libs that block conservative justices; you guys have a problem with the duly elected commander-in-chief making political decisions?

21. 

    fennec said, 5 months ago

    hey, Pup, looking at the advice on how to italicize or bold, it looks like there’s more than one way. Ever think that that might apply to other aspects of life?

22. 

    cdward said, 5 months ago

    Pup, eye-for-an-eye is NOT New Testament. But also, look at the numbers. 7 of 9 have been nominated by Republicans. You would think, with that number out there, there would be some fuss. Roberts got very little heat, by the way.

23. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Thanks for the bold lesson, Puppy.

    Lemme see if it works.

    The opposite of libs is cons.

    The opposite of cons is pros.

    Therefore, libs are pros, and cons are not.

    Works!

24. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    All Republican nominees were subjected to withering cross-examinations; Libs, not so much. I only support “an eye for an eye” in those cases where it is necessary to enforce Constituted Authority…I’m suggesting if the world were “fair”, Sotomayor would be history. Think it over, hypocrites. I don’t know what’s worse - that you wannabe biblical-scholars are so confused in Bible-knowledge; or the fact that you have no concept of what goes on in your own “secular” sphere of life. I suggest you pick one or the other and try to become reasonably proficient in understanding the one you choose. (I prefer the Bible, because it gives insight into heavenly truths from which all lesser truths must flow and wanting to believe in God opened the door for wisdom and Peace the likes of which I could only hope for before I was a Believer, ( :^D).

25. 

    dtroutma said, 5 months ago

    “God opened the door for wisdom and Peace”???

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.” - Jesus -Mathew 10:34

    No bible religion preaches real peace, and never has. Mohammed comes much closer in the Qu’ran (when he says that in the end time ALL who believe in the God of Abraham; Muslim, Jew, Christian et al have nothing to fear) than either old or new testaments- but as we see, his followers also screwed everything up, just like Christians and Jews.

    The bible is NOT the source of all faith, wisdom, or most certainly, truth.

26. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    You never sound like you have peace, Puppy.

27. 

    cdward said, 5 months ago

    “I only support “an eye for an eye” in those cases where it is necessary to enforce Constituted Authority…”

    Q-tip, as a preacher of the Gospel, I like to think I have some knowledge of the scriptures. I take my lead from the scriptures as well, but I don’t try to pick and choose. As a Christian, Christ is the ultimate authority, and therefore “an-eye-for-an-eye” does not apply. If you decide to throw out the Gospel for whatever expediency you desire, what makes you any more believable than someone else.

    As to Sotomayor, she has already received withering coverage by Republicans. In fact, there were preemptive strikes against her before she was even nominated. If you think there was ever a “fair” process in Washington, then you are either being dishonest or naive. She has proven to be as qualified as anyone out there – which is why many Republican judges consider her perfect for the high court and are supporting her nomination.

    If you truly think Republicans have somehow behaved more nobly than Democrats, then you have deluded yourself. In Washington, ALL elected officials act with a combination of self-preservation, vindictiveness and a certain degree of integrity.

28. 

    LLeRay said, 5 months ago

    For a more complete list

    of bold and ,

    font sizes

    available using this editor, there are several

    style guides

    available, like the one in the boilerplate at the Pibgorn comic on this site.

29. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Got a direct link to that, LeRay?

30. 

    Corosive Frog said, 5 months ago

    Sooky Rottweiler says;

    Isn’t that good ol’ Hercules jr. in the jury’s box?

31. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    No, that’s me in the jury box ; and I say, “guilty as charged.”
    cdward: Romans13:1-4; I don’t see anywhere in the Gospel that Jesus has revoked punishment for criminal offenses…Although “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” could be one that supports the revocation of an eye for an eye in national jurisdictions…
    I think Jesus is talking about the duty of the christian in light of scriptures…Or are you mixing politics and religion? Either way, I don’t think your conclusion is 100% confirmed
    Anthony…Maybe it’s your expectations coloring my “tone”?
    dtroutma- Wow! I am no scholar but I don’t accept your out of context statement. Peace is everywhere in the New Testament. We are admonished to find true “Peace” in Christ…Galatians 5:22; Romans 13: 4; Ephesians 2:14 etc. Look in the openings to almost any Pauline epistle; He says, “Peace to you, and grace from God our Father…etc.”
    I
    Thank you.

32. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Bet Puppy is expecting us to accept her out-of-context statements, though.

    I have no expectations regarding your sense of peace, Puppy. I hadn’t even thought about it until you mentioned it…and then I realized that you rarely come across as one at peace.

33. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    Oh, imagine the irony of Sen. Sessions having to promise the DEMS that Sotomayor is going to get a FAIR hearing!

34. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Okay, I’m imagining it.

    Not doing much for me, though.

    I think I’ll imagine something more interesting.

35. 

    NoFearPup said, 5 months ago

    Anthony, there is only one context, One Saviour, One Lord, One Way , One God. And you have a bad attitude.

36. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    Puppy, just because you can’t face life without a belief in an ancient mythology doesn’t mean I need it.

    Stop think everyone else is like you. It’s a bad attitude to have.

    I won’t try to take away your crutch, and you don’t try to force it on me.