Originally posted by whaaa
But does this disagreement on the attacks on Sotomayor signify a rift in the GOP? Can the Republicans be an effective force is they are constantly
bickering about the right tactics to win support of the electorate?
You aren't serious, are you? I mean, you aren't just now noticing a rift in the republican party, are you? That party was subjected to a hostile
takeover by the NeoCronies... er, umm, I mean 'NeoCons' some time ago, and I won't say they've been steering the party to the left, but they ARE
steering it toward a huge, centralized government based on buying votes with bailouts and handouts, and taking the cash to do it from the rest of us
at an exorbitant rate. Sounds mighty democratic to me. That's why I left the party, and continually scream that I don't see enough difference
between the two parties to spit at.
Ms Sotomayor's difficulties with firearms are worrisome. Not because she thinks we shouldn't have them, for I never asked her permission in the
first place, and don't plan on asking in the future. No, it's worrisome because of her stand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to states or
localities, as if they weren't part of the union. That seems problematic. The document itself is pretty clear on what applies where. For instance, it
says CONGRESS shall not do this or shall do that. THOSE powers are clearly restricted to, or limitations on, the federal government. Other areas are
not specific, and so apply more broadly. For instance the second and fourth amendments are both applicable everywhere, as they aren't restricted by
the language to the federal level. So when they allow a locality to violate the second amendment, a precedent is set. What then when your local police
chief or governor decides it's ok to kick in your door, and ransack your house without a warrant, or even probable cause, maybe haul you off to jail
without due process? Remember, the precedent has already been set. I view that as problematic, but I don't know if you do. Perhaps not.
Further, the SCOTUS is tasked with examining issues of constitutionality. That would imply that those justices should have a working knowledge of the
Constitution. So far, her rulings have amply demonstrated that she does not possess such a knowledge. If she did, 60% of those rulings would not have
been overturned at higher levels. That, too, seems problematic.
Her gender and race have no bearing whatsoever on her ability, and shouldn't even be considered, but for some reason they are. I hear Obambies
constantly trumpeting gender and race, as if those were the determining factors. She has done it herself. I would think Constitutional knowledge
should trump whether one goes to the men's room or the ladies' room to relieve oneself, or whether one was born poor, or the shade of one's skin. I
hear not a peep out of the Obambies concerning her Constitutional knowledge, but they positively gush concerning the irrelevant factors. Perhaps they
are aware of her lack of qualification, and are trying to smother it over with irrelevancies?
I have NO respect for ANYONE who would support a candidate because he 'looks like me' and not bother to check the candidate's qualifications for
the job. I have even less respect for politicians who pander to such shallow cretins.