Lawyers Tag Nominee
As 'Terror On The Bench'
by Tom LoBianco - May 29th, 2009 - Washington Times
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.This Judge believes that felons should vote, that you do not have a right to protect yourself with a gun, that 'the poor' should not be bound by laws and that white men are not fit to be Judges. Barack Obama, our 'Dear Reader', has certainly indicated the type of person he thinks should rule our courts with this nomination.
Both Obama and Sotomayor are taking racial grievance-mongering to new levels of absurdity. Both support reparations for blacks, including paying blacks who have voluntarily immigrated here recently. This nominee is a racist appointed by a racist. However as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly and the other populists in the MSM, it is improper to take note of this. Only whites can be racists.
Sotomayor ‘La Raza Member’
Posted on blog - May 28th, 2009 - Stop The ACLU
Barack Obama has picked a radical for his nominee to the Supreme Court. If her own statements are not enough to convince you of her racist attitude, perhaps the fact she belongs to an anti-white extremist group known as La Raza will.How can anyone who loves America and is proud of our tradition of freedom accept such an extremist hate monger as Sotomayor? She is not a reasonable appointee to a court that is supposed to be our defense against subversion of the Republic. If she is even an ambivalent endorser of the lunatic goals of La Raza, she is an insult to our nation and our courts.
Obama Picks Sotomayor For High Court
by Ben Feller - May 26th, 2009 - Breitbart.com
President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic [or should that be Latina - see update at bottom] in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.Considering that Sotomayor is like many Hispanics and most blacks, a vitriolic hater of America (to such an extent that she rejects the term American and calls herself a Newyorican) it is unlikely that respect for "the rule of law" will be high on her agenda. But she does have an agenda. Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male..." How can anyone talk about themselves in the third person and not be ridiculed, especially when spewing racist gibberish like this statement.
Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy—the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.
The very fact that she and Obama claim she is the first Hispanic Judge, despite the highly admired Justice Benjamin Cardozo, indicates just how narrow their view of Hispanic is. To them Hispanic really means America hating new world descended immigrant. Coming from a European country like Portugal simply does not count. With this bias dripping from their claim, who expects Sotamayor to be anything but a racist anti-white, redistribution of wealth socialist, who subverts the Constitution at will.
This is consistent with Obama's consistent opposition to our Bill of Rights. I am flabbergasted at how few people know that while Obama was an Illinois State Senator he complained in a radio interview about the 'negative liberties' in the Constitution that prohibit our federal and state governments from doing things to make people live as they 'should'. Sotomayor is right out of that same mold, holding our Constitution in contempt.
That may explain why she has been reversed 60% of the time and is about to be reversed again on her imposition of a racist solution in a case about reverse discrimination.
As Jeffrey Rosen noted in his article here, even many of her friends in the Democrat Party are said to feel she is, "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
A talker who thinks highly of herself. Now why would anybody be surprised that this would impress the narcissistic reader of teleprompters. The question her supporters should have to answer is simple, "Given her repeated public contempt for whites and males, how can she be expected to to rule impartially for ALL Americans?"
UPDATE: In response to a vitriolic and profanity laced email about this posting, I have learned at least one thing. Sotomayor is conceded to not be the first Hispanic Justice, but is the first Latina Justice! This is based on the rationale that Hispanic is no longer an appropriate name for people of the new world. I am informed the Spanish and Portuguese "imperialists from Europe" should not be allowed to give their name to the Latinas and Latinos that they oppressed. Therefore Cardoza can retain the claim to be the first Hispanic Justice but Sotomayo is the first Latina Justice. ROTFL. Do these liberals never tire of changing definitions to make sure they can denigrate anyone white or American?UPDATE 2: Bloggers are saying that John McCain has congratulated Obama on a "great pick". Now I know she is not qualified.
Rule Of Law Be Damned
by Bradley R. Gitz - May 10, 2009 - Arkansas Democrat Gazette
What the president's bizarre understanding of the judiciary entails is nothing more than a frontal assault on the concept of the rule of law itself. In his glib, arrogant fashion, he wishes to see the idea of "a nation of laws" replaced by "a nation of men" without perhaps even understanding what that shift implies for the integrity of the democratic process and the status of our most cherished liberties.Few who have read Alinky's Rules for Radicals and who know how dedicated to its premise Obama has always been would be surprised at the final sentence in this article. Of course there are many who see little difference between Obama's more open defense of this "rule of judges" mentality and the reality of our totally corrupt court system. Between the slavish adoration for this concept by the vast majority of our legal professors in law schools and the majority of judges who embrace the concept, the court system has already been corrupted. The question is what chance exists that "the rule of law" will ever again be supported by our courts?
The impression grows that we have elected a remarkably superficial and ignorant man to the presidency.
Bush Attorneys Who Wrote
Terror Memo Face Backlash
by Terence Chea - May 7th, 2009 - Associated Press
Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.The left wing extremists have decided, just as they did in the Soviet Union, that they will criminalize political opposition. "War crimes" is simply code words for "I want you dead for daring to disagree with me!"
Conservatives have not yet awoken to the vitriolic hate directed at them by Obama and his hate mongering followers. The courts are now being asked to embrace this hate and allow vigilante justice to prevail. As corrupt as the American court system has become, I would not trust that such an evil practice will not be permitted to go forward.
Look at what happened to Libby.
Obama's Prosecutions By Proxy
by John R. Bolton -May 6th, 2009 - Washington Post
President Obama's passivity before the threatened foreign prosecution of Bush administration officials achieves by inaction what he fears doing directly. This may be smart politics within the Democratic Party, but it risks grave long-term damage to the United States. Ironically, it could also come back to bite future Obama administration alumni, including the president, for their current policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.What kind of nonsense is this? Does John Bolton seriously believe that Obama "fears doing directly" what he is clearly orchestrating? If he really believes this, then John Bolton is an idiot. I highly recommend that Bolton read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", the bible from which Obama takes all of his guidance. Perhaps he would start to see the deceit being SUCCESSFULLY utilized by Obama to destroy his political opponents.
The person who really should be blamed for this is the inarticulate retard, George W. Bush. By letting the persecution of Scooter Libby proceed, he encouraged the liberals in their belief that conservatives would be too late in ever protecting the foot soldiers in Bush's administration. Bush was too stupid to see how corrupt our courts have become. He was an idiot then and an idiot now. It appears that Scooter Libby will not be the only person who will pay the price for Bush's naive ignorance about the viciousness of his opposition. Even now, his daddy is parading around with Bill Clinton and giving cover for the idea that Democrats are decent people.
If they are successful in persecuting these lawyers, I plan to switch sides and support the prosecution of George W. Bush. He destroyed our party and destroyed our nation. He could not have done more damage than if he planned it. Who knows. Maybe he did. In any event, I can honestly say, I wish him to be destroyed too.
The real problem is that our courts have not yet figured out that they are about to be co-opted into the socialist regime of Barack Obama. They are allowing Obama to rewrite bankruptcy law, even as they allowed for Scooter Libby to be persecuted for a political vendetta. They have extended Habeas Corpus to enemy troops on the battlefield. Their arrogant disregard for the rule of law under the "living Constitution" idiocy will ultimately be repaid by all patriots hating their guts. I have no more respect for the so-called conservative justices who are quietly allowing this corruption of our system to get worse than I do for the liberal practitioners who are leading the charge.
America is the loser, whether it ends in civil war or a socialist dictatorship.
He Fought The Tort Bar
... And Won
by Kimberley A. Strassel - May 2nd - Wall Street Journal
There were losses, some of which made Mr. Ulizio despair. "The first time we ever lost a case in trial, it was 2001. We tried it in Beaumont, Texas, and lost $7.5 million. . . . The judge sat there through the trial reading a newspaper. At one point an objection was made, the bailiff taps him on the shoulder and says 'judge, objection is being made.' He looks at our lawyer and says 'overruled.' The plaintiffs' lawyer raises his hand and says 'no, judge, it was me.' He says 'sustained' and goes back to reading the paper."This article once again proves the point that there is no justice in America ... most of the time. The frightening lesson is that none of the lawyers who committed fraud have been punished. Nor any of the Judges who participated in the ongoing fraud. For that you can thank the Supreme Tyrants, 9 arrogant and unconcerned power hungry thugs who run the most corrupt court system on earth. They murder nearly 20,000 innocent people each year. Tens of thousands more have their right to justice sabotaged by the "criminal" rights which guarantee the guilty walk free on technicalities.
This year these Supreme Tyrants are way too busy making sure that they get to extend "criminal" rights to terrorists who are determined to destroy America and behead our citizens. Our soldiers are being put into the position of our police, hand cuffed by ignorant rules designed for the express purpose of freeing the guilty.
Does anyone think these judges are embarrassed about running the most corrupt court system on earth?