 |
The SCOTUS oath of office :
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."(Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code)
Name one I will name 10Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson
Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a li and quor store and practice robberies.
They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?
. Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.
But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Read her full statement , a white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.But you are two busy listening too rush
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into accouNT.
NOW WHO SAID THAT HMMM
Justice sam alito
Try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
You're a spunky one are you? I love it when people who don't know a thing about me accuse me of being a racist. Stick around and open your mind and perhaps you'll learn something.Quote:
But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.
As I said you will defend rush all day long.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As I recall ;the Dems. Especially the despicable Ted Kennedy opposed Alito for some papers from Alito's Princeton days in the 1970s... papers from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton "that had no mention of Alito at all. Yet Kennedy tried to link them to Alito. They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice) Nowhere do you hear them mention that Sotomayor's address was published in a La Raza(the race ) paper.
Fat Teddy asked Alito the following question :
“The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are symbolized in the four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: 'Equal Justice Under Law,' "
“Will the nominee be fair and open-minded, or will his judgment be tainted by rigid ideology? Is he genuinely committed to the principle of equal justice under law?”
You would think with all that empathy Alito displayed in the quote you provide the answer would be self evident... right ? No need to question him further... right ?
But of course the big difference between Alito's and Sotomayor's comments is that never does Alito claim that he would make "BETTER " decisions than someone from a different race or ethnic group because of these experiences. This of course begs the question ;what is so unique about her life experiences besides her race ? She appears to have the same or better American tale as countless others(more on that below) .
In Alito's answer (if you bother to listen to the complete line of questioning during this part of his hearings) Alito said it is not his place to bend the law. So empathy or not, the law is the law and a justice is supposed to apply it as written.
I don't know if you have ever ,or can ,serve as a juror .If you have ,you may recall that when you are sworn in you were instructed to throw out all preconceived ideas, beliefs, experiences and prejudices and deliberate solely on the evidence presented and the law.
But I guess jurors are held to higher standards than a judge.
I just have to wonder where is her empathy for Frank Ricci ;a white New Haven firefighter .....or does her empathy only apply to minorities ? He has an American tale also .He is someone who struggled his whole life with learning disabilities and dyslexia(that were not helped with his public school education ....at least Sotomayor had the advantage of going to private schools).Yet though hard work he made it into a community school(not Princeton) where he studied fire science so he could follow his dream of being a fire fighter.
He started at the bottom of the New Haven fire dept.,and spent his spare cash buying text books so he could study and be ready for the liutenants exam . He quit a 2nd job so he could study for the test.
When the tests were finally administered he placed 6th which should've easily qualified him for promotion. But the tests were tossed out because no blacks passed it. Ricci and others sued.
Sotomayor wrote a terse dismissal of the suit that lacked any substance and certainly no "empathy" . A fellow Clintoon hispanic appointee to the court ,Judge Jose Cabranes,wrote to SCOTUS that the dismissal ignored the serious constitutional issues at stake.
SCOTUS will reverse another Sotomayor decision at the same time that she will be confirmed to be an associate justice to SCOTUS. How fitting .The case will be dismissed not because of empathy to Ricci ;but because the New Haven law is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.
Actually ;I take it back... Ricci has had a harder time of it. Sotomayor led a charmed life spending her childhood in private school environments, early adulthood amongst the Ivy League elites, and most of her adulthood as a wealthy corporate attorney .
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor's comment :"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."
Obama yesterday on Sotomayor's comment : "I'm sure she would have restated it,"
Why if there is nothing wrong in her statement ?
BTW ,your constant referring to Rush Limbaugh is getting boring. I do not have the radio on when his program airs. I think linking us to Rush ads as much to the discussion as if I were to make reference to Keith Olberman every time I addressed your replies.
I am not here to entertain you, if you think my replies and constant referring to rush is getting boring then quit reading my replies.As for kieth I think he is in the same boat as rush.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The answer to your half a page reply is this read her statement in context and don't forget this last part
A white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You need to put your listening ears on.
excon
Hello again:
I cannot stress enough that your Supreme Court, in the name of Antonin Scalia, weakened YOUR RIGHT to counsel just the other day. He did it because he doesn't like what the founders wrote. He doesn't believe in original intent. HE decided HIS decision was better. He did it because he has EMPATHY for the COPS!!
This is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON STEROIDS!!
To wit:
The case.. . at Mr. Montejo's preliminary hearing, the judge ordered a public defender appointed, but the police continued to question him before the lawyer arrived. He agreed to show them where the murder weapon was thrown.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia argued essentially that since Mr. Montejo had been read his Miranda rights, his continued answers were a valid waiver of counsel. Justice Scalia explicitly revoked the court's 1986 ruling in Michigan v. Jackson that a prisoner could waive his rights to counsel only in the presence of the lawyer, or by initiating contact with the police.
That ruling recognized that many prisoners cannot knowingly relinquish their right to counsel unless a lawyer helps them understand the protections they are giving up and the jeopardy they face.
Without any real evidence, Justice Scalia dismissed this approach as unworkable and wrote that “its marginal benefits are dwarfed” by the possibility that the guilty might go free.
I don't care HOW you try to spin it, it's about the COSTS and BENEFITS to society of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Don't you get it Righty's?? If costs and benefits are the measure, society would benefit a WHOLE lot if we got rid of every single one of those pesky freedoms...
No, you don't get it, do you?? But, they better not try that cost/benefit crap when they talk about guns, huh?? You guys are pathetic.
excon
And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Ex, I simply don't understand your position at all.
You constantly say that you fully support the US Constitution, but you support a candidate for SCOTUS that has shown by her own words and past decisions that she is NOT an original intent judge.
Let's not derail the discussion by bringing up those already on the Court. They are already there, for good or bad.
I should think that for you, and others, to be consistent, would INSIST that any candidate be "original intent".
But I guess not.
Hello Gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
What you righty's don't understand is EVERYBODY has a bias, and EVERYBODY reads the Constitution differently.
To wit: The Fourth Amendment says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated...
I KNOW what it means and what it says. You folks, on the right, however, don't agree. In fact, you support every single dilution of those rights that ACTIVIST judges have put in place over decades... And, there have been dozens and dozens...
For ME, I'm happy to have a justice who's empathy's lie with MY kind of people.
excon
OK, so you DON'T want a judge who adheres to original intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And your argument for this is that judges in the past have NOT been original intent.
So you are not really interested in whether the Constitution is upheld, but rather that a judge that might favor YOU be appointed.
You have clarified your position.
Thanks.
You want to look at rush's statement in context but not at sotomayor's.Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ex he agreed to continue to answer police questions after he was appointed council... that is his right also .He was clearly instructed on his Miranda rights .All Scalia did was write a majority opinion that reversed a bad call by a previous court.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That is what I'd expect from somebody, who along with Antonin Scalia, is only too happy to weaken the rights of a CRIMINAL... It's judicial activism exemplified. But, like I said earlier, the tune changes when speaking about the Second Amendment...
YOU say it's bad law... but, an array of former state and federal law enforcement officials and judges, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, have reached the opposite conclusion. In an amicus brief, they said that the Jackson ruling “has done far more to promote effective law enforcement than to undermine it” and warned that abandoning its bright-line standard would make it harder to ensure that a defendant's constitutional rights are respected.
In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the 1986 opinion, which he wrote, was designed to ensure the right to counsel at every critical stage of prosecution. The court has now put the fairness, integrity and credibility of the justice system at unnecessary risk. doesn't mind if his Constitutional rights are violated
You say it's bad law because YOUR empathy lies with the COPS! MINE lies with the Constitution. I stand by my statements!
excon
PS> Yes, I used quotes from the NY Times.
A person still has the right to request a lawyer, and as soon as he does, the police have to stop interrogating him. But if the person decides to confess he doesn't have to wait for his lawyer .
Michigan v Jackson was the example of the judicial activism.Nothing in the Constitution says the a suspect must have his lawyer present in order to waive his right to talk with the police. Montejo v Louisiana corrects Steven's misread of the 6th amendment .
I see you're still making assumptions and avoiding the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Dare, the Dems can't seem to agree on how to interpret her "wise Latina" remark, why should we?
They know it's a problem, so why should we let it go?Quote:
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with a large Puerto Rican constituency, refused to concede that Sotomayor chose her words poorly, predicting on ABC's “This Week” that “she'll stand by the entire speech. I think that she will show that the speech, when you read it, says rule of law comes above experience,” said Schumer, who as a member of the Judiciary Committee will participate in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Pressed by host George Stephanopoulos, Schumer added “the specific sentence there is simply saying that people's experiences matter and we ought to have some diversity of experience on the court. And I think that's accurate.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a fellow Judiciary Democrat, suggested the debate over Sotomayor's statement may be taking it more seriously than she intended it, though Feinstein herself seemed torn between defending it or apologizing for it.
“I'd say that one statement, probably made with a sense of a smile, you know, that 'here I am, I can do better' – I don't have a problem with it. It's not – it's not the right thing to say. It's not the right thing, but I don't think she meant it that way either,” Feinstein said on CBS's “Face the Nation” on Sunday. She also called Sotomayor's word choice “inartful,” though, telling host Bob Schieffer “there's one word, Bob, in the statement. It's the word 'better.' That a Latina woman who has gone through these experiences – that her views would be better. And without that one word, it's a perfectly fine statement. And I understand what she meant by it.”
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, whose recent party switch makes him the junior-most Democrat on Judiciary, played down the comment. He told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace it “didn't stand out all that much in context” of the speech. And his interpretation of its meaning echoed Sotomayor's controversial phrasing. “I think she meant that somebody with her experience has something to add,” he said. “The diversity and the point of view of Latina woman is significant. It adds to the mix.”
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont tried to turn the tables on Republicans using the remark to question Sotomayor's fitness for the bench, pointing to former President George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court. During his 2006 confirmation hearings, now-Justice Alito said “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account.”
... Leahy asserted “it would be ridiculous to think somebody's life experience doesn't affect them.”
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'd certainly ASK her about it... But, don't get carried away. It ISN'T going to derail her nomination.
excon
And President Obama conceeded Saturday that if she could she would retract her (what Robert Gibbs called )poorly chosen words .
Obama sure Sotomayor would restate 2001 comment - Yahoo! News
Yup... I'm actually more interested in her explanation of her flippant comment about making policy from the bench.Quote:
I'd certainly ASK her about it... But, don't get carried away. It ISN'T going to derail her nomination.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
Me too... But, neither of the TWO events are going to derail her. The important thing, is that since she was nominated, these are the only TWO items the right could dig up.. So, she's going to sail...
The other important thing, is the Senate Republicans apparently are signaling a break from the limp one. It's about time.
excon
Well there are other things too that need further scrutiny ; like her stand on and decisions about corporate law ;gun control and dare I say it... a little more clarity on he views of the social issues.
On the positive side I have been hearing some good things about her time in NY as a prosecutor.
But none of that would derail.
Even if the questioning gets to her she can always use the "Ginsburg Precedent" to avoid answering tough questions.
One thing that Obama did right was getting Biden off the Judiciary Committee. Before him Scalia got confirmed almost by affirmation . But as soon as Joe became chair of the committee the Borking began.
Ex, apparently Bob Herbert (among many others) agrees with you about those dangerous conservatives...
Sounds like he and everyone like him needs a lesson.Quote:
The Howls of a Fading Species
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 1, 2009
One can only hope that the hysterical howling of right-wingers against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is something approaching a death rattle for this profoundly destructive force in American life.
Skip to next paragraph
It’s hard to fathom the heights of hypocrisy currently being scaled by the foaming-in-the-mouth crazies who are leading the charge against the nomination. Newt Gingrich, who never needed a factual basis for his ravings, rants on Twitter that Judge Sotomayor is a “Latina woman racist,” apparently unaware of his incoherence in the “Latina-woman” redundancy in this defamatory characterization.
Karl Rove sneered that Ms. Sotomayor was “not necessarily” smart, thus managing to get the toxic issue of intelligence into play in the case of a woman who graduated summa laude from Princeton, went on to get a law degree from Yale and has more experience as a judge than any of the current justices had at the time of their nominations to the court.
It turns the stomach. There is no level of achievement sufficient to escape the stultifying bonds of bigotry. It is impossible to be smart enough or accomplished enough.
Excon,
I've been away a while, so I haven't had time to comment until now.
Sotomayor WILL be confirmed. I have no doubt about that. After all, what use to Obama is a majority in Congress if not to get your appointees approved.
BUT... is she qualified for the job? Is she the right person for the job?
Based on what I have been hearing out of her own mouth, the answer is no.
She has said that she sees the job of the appelate courts as making policy. If she can say such a thing, it means that she has no understanding of the Constitution... the separation of powers clause. The power of setting policy is with the Executive Branch. The power of making laws is with the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is supposed to do one thing and one thing only... INTERPRET the law and Constitution. They do not set policy. That she can say that it is the court's job to set policy shows a clear lack of understanding of the Constitution. Do we want a person who has such a lack of understanding of this fundamental Constitutional concept to be sitting on the court who's job it is to interpret that Constitution?
Then there's the fact that she has stated publicly that she believes her race and gender make her a more qualified judge than anyone else. I find it interesting that such a statement could be supported by the very people who claim to believe that race and gender should not be a factor in judging the qualifications of a SCOTUS Justice. And I question any nominee who would say such a thing.
I agree that Sotomayor's story is one that inspires. But I don't recall anyone being inspired by the story of Clarence Thomas, a story that has the same level of hardship and tragedy, if not more, as Sotomayor's. Thomas was born in one of the most impoverished African American communities in the South... Pin Point, Georgia. After his father left the family, his mother worked as a "domestic worker" (read "cleaning lady" or "maid"). A fire in their home left the family homeless and they were forced to live in Savanah with Thomas' grandfather and step-grandmother. Thomas' grandparents and mother were uneducated, though they owned a small business. Thomas was the only Black person in his Savanah, Georgia high school, and eventually went to College of the Holy Cross in Massachusets, where he created the Black Students Union, and eventually graduated laude. He then went to Yale Law School and received his JD in 1974. Thomas has said that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by many law firms to which he applied, because they though that he was a product of affirmative action policies that "dumbed down" the degree for him.
That's a pretty compelling story too, but his personal story was largely ignored by the media, whereas Sotomayor's story is being hailed as one of inspiration to the masses. Instead, in the case of Clarence Thomas, we were stuck wondering about the color of Thomas' pubic hairs. THAT became the main issue of his appointment.
Also, there has been the implication that Sotomayor's race and gender should not be brought into the discussion of her qualifications. And I agree that they should not be, unless there is some reason to believe that being Latina and a woman will act as a barrier of some sort to her ability to interpret the law correctly and fairly.
But I find it interesting that the very people who make this implication (and made similar implications about Obama's race and religious background) are the same people who have no problem doing so when others are under the guns. Yet they also claim that "white men" are never subjected to such questions about their backgrounds.
Baloney.
When Rudy Giulliani ran for Mayor of NY and then for the GOP nomination for the Presidency, his marital status became a major question regarding his qualifications for the job.
When Mitt Romney ran for the GOP nomination, his religious background as a Mormon became a central issue of the race.
When Robert Bork was nominated, his religious beliefs (read: "anti-abortion stance") were questioned as a reason for him not to be approved.
Samuel Alito's appointment was opposed by the ACLU. John Kerry tried to filibuster the nomination. His "religion" (even though he has not publicly stated what his religion is) was questioned, especially on Roe V Wade issues.
John F. Kennedy's religion became a central issue in his campaign for the Presidency.
Alfonse D'Amato's Italian heritage was an issue for his opponents who tried to imply that he would be too soft on organized crime because of his Italian affiliations. (Interestingly, nobody made any similar implication regarding Mario Cuomo.)
My point is that we have a long history of ALL candidates having their backgrounds questioned, including race, religion, marital status, etc. If it was appropriate to question these candidates and appointees, shouldn't we be prepared to do the same for ALL candidates? Even Latinas?
Elliot
And seeing as how 60 percent of her decisions that have gone to SCOTUS have been overturned - with one possible pending - how does that make her qualified?
This is easily one of the most entertaining threads I have read anywhere for a long while. Please allow me to interject my 2 cents worth of opinion (and that is all it is worth in this economy).
Liberal and Conservative ideology is the basis of the argument. Liberal people believe in a liberal interpretation of the US Constitution believing it to be a living and breathing document allowing for an incredible amount of interpretation which also allows for such concepts as "common law" to enter into the mix. The common law practiced in the US is based upon English common law which is dictated law initially springing from a totalitarian system and is then proscribed by the Magna Carta and other "rulings" and the English parliament giving an individual its rights. When a question about law arises, a judge is free to apply more than just the US Constitution but also past precedents and even foreign law to the decision before them. At the time the US Constitution was written, this practice of using common law was already in place and was never scrapped and it has a rich tradition continued even today. It is a remaining vestige of English colonialism.
Conservatives on the other hand hold an almost religious view of the US Constitution as being something almost pure and inspired by God and that the original intent of the framers is more important than the body of work that judges in England and the colonies have given us. Anything contrary to the written Constitution as interpreted through the eyes of the original framers is incorrect. The question is which one is correct? The US Constitution itself says it is the ultimate decider of law and not the practice of common law as stated in Article III section 2.
For some reason, law schools and the judiciary have never accepted this and continue to teach and practice common law with precedents dating back to pre-colonial England.
In the practice of common law, Sotomayor is a good choice and eminently qualified. As a constitutionalist, she is not. The American got what they voted for even if they didn't understand what they were getting and now there is a backlash. Don't blame Sotomayor or Alito for the mess; blame Thomas Jefferson for not slapping John Marshall down hard enough during the Marbury vs Madison decision (which coincidentally was a problem of Marhall's own making and should have recused himself as he was the one who originally was supposed to deliver the very commission in question while he was acting as Secretary of State under President John Adams) and more recent politicians for not fixing the mess. Theirs is a struggle for personal power proven by their actions and not one enlightened governance for the good of all.
Thank you .I have been calling Marbury a judicial power grab for a long time.Quote:
Don't blame Sotomayor or Alito for the mess; blame Thomas Jefferson for not slapping John Marshall down hard enough during the Marbury vs Madison decision
Tom, many SCOTUS decisions have been power grabs. Some examples:
Marbury v. Madison - an attempt to steal judicial authority, judicial review.
Dredd Scott - an attempt by the court to steal rights from Blacks, and an attempt to control the policies of the entire nation... judicial fiat regarding civil rights.
Wickard v. Fillburn - Attempt (successful) by the courts to control of private ownership and private production methods via the interstate commerce clause, even when the private items are for private consumption, not for commerce of any type.
Roe V. Wade - an attempt (so far successful) to control the abortion issue from the bench via judicial fiat.
Hylton V USA - Establishment of federal excise taxes via judicial fiat.
Miranda v. Arizona - judicial review of police actions, establishment of judicial control over criminal rights.
Kelo v. New London - established the government's "right" to take land from one private individual and give it to another private individual via "emminent domain"... establishment of government control over private property rights.
In short, there are a lot of cases that establish the government's or the court's power over private citizens.
True but Marbury is the mother of all activism .
Marshall was both Sec State for Adams and the cousin of Jefferson;who he despised . So by all degree of ethics he should've recused himself from the decision.
There are all other types of dishonesties and intrigues associated with the case including the declaring of a law by Congress unconstitutional that was unrelated to the facts of the case (Judiciary Act of 1789) before he took one of the biggest power grabs in US history . The truth is that there is zippo in the Constitution that makes SCOTUS the final arbiter . But since no one has challenged this premise it may as well at this point be written into the Constitution.
It would take too much time to go into greater detail but it is worth a semester in College just dealing with the issue of SCOTUS supremacy . The cases you cite are the fall out and legacy of Marbury.
I don't disagree, but I think that Wikard v. Fillburn is actually a more radical and far-reaching decision. It opened the entire concept of government control of private property via the interstate commerce clause... it is what set the precedent for all government regulation and control of private industry and private property. Wikard is the reason that auto companies, energy companies, hospitals, banks, securities firms and your private garden can be regulated by the government... regardless of whether they are actually involved in interstate commerce or not. Wikard reaches into the entire structure of capitalism and reframes it in a way that gives the government unprecedented powers over our property and how we use it. Yes, Marbury is far-reaching, but it's affect is limited to judicial review of actions within the government. Wickard affects you and me and everything we own or can buy or sell. The effect of the decision is much farther reaching than just judicial review of government actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Elliot
I'll go along with that ;especially since it came after the Schechter Poultrycase which invalidated over expansive interpretation of the commerce clause(and killed the NIRA in the process) .
Poor Filburn... how dare he try to grow his own wheat !
Turns out Sotomayor's "isolated "wise Latina woman" slip was more like a mantra. Does that make it an indicator of her thinking or does she just like to 'misspeak' repeatedly?
[/QUOTE]Quote:
"The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit."
Huh?
Yeah, huh??
Thank you voice of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Why don't you frame it for us in a way that makes Rush not sound like a racist. Dare explained Sotomayor's statement about the Latino woman/white man thing for her non-supporters. Are you saying that ALL of the statements from Rush were just "taken out of context" or just his attempt at humor?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
My daughter's dad was killed in a motorcycle accident. I have been trying to get most sentimental things- but the family he lived with at the time ended up taking his thins- including a car, Harley Davidson, and other video things. I want to gothere and demand it all back- butam not a very : Intimidadting woman>"
What? Are you sure this is where you want to post this?Quote:
Originally Posted by trinitykiefer
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM. |