Lalo Alcaraz for May 27, 2009

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…

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

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.

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

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.

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

Like “innocent until proven guilty”.

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

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.

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…

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

Heh.

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?

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.

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

Dunno about /bold/. .

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

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

Awesome, BCS! Thanks!

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.

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?

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.

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!

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).

“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.

You never sound like you have peace, Puppy.

“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.

Got a direct link to that, LeRay?

Sooky Rottweiler says;

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

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.

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.

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

Okay, I’m imagining it.

Not doing much for me, though.

I think I’ll imagine something more interesting.

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

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.