It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High marks for Sotomayor after tough questioning

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

High marks for Sotomayor after tough questioning


www.cnn.com

Sonia Sotomayor faced tough questioning Tuesday on political issues and controversial statements from her past, with both Democrats and Republicans saying she responded well and appeared certain to win confirmation as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Well, there ya have it folks! There doesn't seem to be much disagreement in the congress between Republicans and Democrats as to if she is suitable.

So how do y'all read this? Did she actually do a good job given what we knew going into this?

Is this really a bipartisan Judge being appointed?

Thoughts?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Typical weak Repubicans that don't want to upset Democrats, and do anything it takes to be liked by them. This is exactly why the Republican Party is losing members.

Only Democrats and Obama can get away with saying....the nominee is fully qualified but I'm voting against them anyway. Like Obama did when he voted against Alito and Roberts.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
No, she is not bi-partisan, she is just another court appointee placed to further a political agenda. As it was with Alito and Roberts, Thomas, Ginsberg, etc.

The court system has been politicized. The only thing stopping her from getting confirmed is if she has a complete melt down, that was known from when she was first appointed.

Many many people think she is an activist. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but she has the right political connections to where when she was appointed to the the appellate court they told her you will eventually be promoted to SC Justice.

Either way the judges on the Supreme Court are not in anybody's favor except special interest.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
She sure did seem to skirt around questions a lot from the parts I was able to watch. I can't remember what the questions were but for a good five minutes it seemed that the only thing she said was basically "I can't discuss that." Trying to cover her tail and say she doesn't really believe her repeated comments about wise Latina women coming to better decisions and policy being made in the appeals courts was a load of bull as well. If she'd said it once, then I could buy her changing her opinion. But multiple times? I'm not buying it. I did however enjoy her reaction to being told lawyers think she's a terror and a bully. That seemed to make her angry judging on her facial expressions.

And no she is not bi-partisan by any definition. She did do well as far as maintaining her calm during the questions and not seeming too agitated or excited. Other than that, most of her answers just came off as trying to appease Congress so they'll confirm her.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

why would the repubs rock the boat if it is impossible to tip over? I see no point here other than repubs did the only thing they could ...............nothing



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 

I disagree the repubs are catering to an ever increasing immigrant (legal and illegal) to try to save their buts the dems just beat them to the punch but make no mistake about it the hispanic vote is all they are worried about and incidentally that's how cal. got into trouble
edit" punctuation

[edit on 14-7-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I watched this farce today, and the only one who asked the big questions and pressed her was the ranking Repub from AL (can't remember his name right now). He called her out on her being a racist and she skirted the issue. She was swerving around the issues more than a drunk on New Years Eve. I had really hoped that the majority of the crap that was said about her was just that...crap...

But I am convinced more than ever that this woman IS a racist, and will be confirmed as a justice. However, Clarence Thomas is a racist as well, and he hasn't made a huge impact from what I can tell...other than infidelity.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
I watched this farce today, and the only one who asked the big questions and pressed her was the ranking Repub from AL (can't remember his name right now). He called her out on her being a racist and she skirted the issue. She was swerving around the issues more than a drunk on New Years Eve.

I have to agree with you. I watched this train wreck and it was not pretty.

Soto basically pulled a line from a song and said, "It wasn't me" to every question asked by the AL Republican. On every issue including her own words from the YouTube videos, she basically denied she did not say those words even when proven she did.

This loser named Soto is lying directly to almost every question and she is giving PC answers and the answers she believes the people and Congressman want to hear. She is NOT stating her true feeling and thoughts.

Besides, this entire circus is only for show. The Dems have the votes and will give her the thumbs up no matter what. However, I will give the double thumbs DOWN!!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I guess that's what he meant by "Unless you have a meltdown you will be confirmed"

Welcome to the new Supreme Court :-)



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Well it's Thursday and I think if Sessions or any more Republicans bring up the "wise Latina" remark or any more references to her "Hispanic heritage" I'm going to scream. They, and apparently many other people in this country (or on this thread anyway) are really hung up on the possibility that she might not like white men. It's okay to bring this up once or twice, but they're going back to it over and over and over again.

She has already said she wouldn't put it that way if she had the opportunity to do it again.
What do they want her to do? Get down on her knees and crawl, begging for forgiveness?

And so what if she once made a comment critical of white men? I've made many unflattering comments about white men in my life (I'm white) and it doesn't mean I hate them or would be unfair toward them.

I think the Republican party is really hung up on race and gender.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
She has already said she wouldn't put it that way if she had the opportunity to do it again.


That would mean a bit more had she only said it once, but she didn't she said it repeatedly. People generally don't repeat themselves if they don't mean what they are saying. And now she'll say just about anything to make sure she's confirmed. Or, as has been more often the case, she'll dance around the question and avoid giving straight answers whenever possible. I find her "I can't answer that" song and dance more annoying than her being asked about her previous statements.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


haha, what we want, you know us white men, is that she not be in the seat. This is because she does not like white men. This means she will be biased against us. Due to her example of screwing over white firefighters on getting promotions because minorities ( I think it was mostly blacks) who could not pass this exam. We think it was very racist, and due to her ACTIONS, not just though about not liking white males, we would not like to see her in a seeat of power capable of changing the course of history.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Any Republican who supported her and thinks she did well was either asleep or a complete moron. And all the rest - well, they got an ultra lib on the seat now. Yeah them!

She sucked. She sucked badly. She could barely answer any question straight forward. Especially on the gun rights issue. Pathetic.




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

That would mean a bit more had she only said it once, but she didn't she said it repeatedly. People generally don't repeat themselves if they don't mean what they are saying.


She only ever said it once. It's just been repeated ad infinitum by those who oppose her. It appears to be the only objection a lot of people have to her.

I personally think I could make a better decision than a lot of people but I guess I better not say it on ATS.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
"The court system has been politicized."

When has it not been politicized? Only an idiot would believe the purpose of the judicial system is for fairness and justice. However, the story does make for good slop for the brainless.




top topics



 
0

log in

join