Majority of Americans favor Sotomayor confirmation

[Redress]

I don't think it's fair to group the entire GOP with a very loud minority of far-right has-beens and pundits.

Why not? It's done to us liberals and democrats all the time, and usually with people even further from the mainstream than Rush.

 

[Triad]

We have 9 for a reason..she will find the job not as glamorous as the invitation to do it. 'We' will mostly forget about her after the politics fade unless she turns into a Cynthia Mckinney.

(IMO so far she shouldn't be for the seeming race based decisions opinions and her views that suggest she believes the legal field plays a legislative role in society. I also have suspicions her long winded rather double talk commentary style is just wordage for an activist minded judge.

This position should be chosen by vote from a group of some amount by those in the Supreme Courts of each state. So 450 judges vote for who they think is the best judge after some evaluation period.
But what we have has worked adequately longer then any of us have been alive and in more trying times then ours.)

 

[obvious Child]

You don't think those who will vote on her nomination will be looking at these polls?

No. I doubt most will even acknowledge the poll.

 

[obvious Child]

Government by polls, yeah. What's wrong with your brain?

Except that the principle logic of this is government doing what the people of the country want. Last time I checked, the government served the people. Not the people served the government as in a Fascist regime. While polling may not be the best form of determining what the people of the country, and thus the employers of those who work in the government want, your argument is essentially screw what the voters and people say which suggests that democracy isn't something that is high on your priority list.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Except that the principle logic of this is government doing what the people of the country want. Last time I checked, the government served the people. Not the people served the government as in a Fascist regime. While polling may not be the best form of determining what the people of the country, and thus the employers of those who work in the government want, your argument is essentially screw what the voters and people say which suggests that democracy isn't something that is high on your priority list.

I think its important to listen to informed, educated people and not the majority.

Democracy is a horrible way to do most things, including govern a country.

 

[obvious Child]

I think its important to listen to informed, educated people and not the majority.

Democracy is a horrible way to do most things, including govern a country.

So we should just ignore the majority? And who gets to decide who is the informed and educated?

 

[hazlnut]

I think its important to listen to informed, educated people and not the majority.

Democracy is a horrible way to do most things, including govern a country.

Harry,

Good thing we live in a Republic...

However, California now seems to be the great direct democracy experiment gone awry...

Haz

 

[celticlord]

So we should just ignore the majority? And who gets to decide who is the informed and educated?

Easy. I should decide.

Next question?

 

[Redress]

Easy. I should decide.

Next question?

No.

Let me repeat that: no.

Not in my lifetime.

Let's have aps decide everything, she is smart and rational and she agrees with me on almost every issue.

 

[celticlord]

No.

Let me repeat that: no.

Not in my lifetime.

Let's have aps decide everything, she is smart and rational and she agrees with me on almost every issue.

Sexist! :2razz:

 

[RightinNYC]

No.

Let me repeat that: no.

Not in my lifetime.

Let's have aps decide everything, she is smart and rational and she agrees with me on almost every issue.

You just picked aps because she's a black lesbian in a wheelchair.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GONE WILD!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So we should just ignore the majority?

You betcha.

Well, I'll let them vote for their member of the House of Representatives.

And who gets to decide who is the informed and educated?

No one.

Requirements to vote should be that:

1. you must be a tax payer

2. you must not receive any benefit, payment, or any other sort of favor from the federal and/or state government.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Easy. I should decide.

Next question?

I could live with that.

When do you want to start?

 

[zimmer]

Majority of Americans Favor Sotomayor Confirmation

and if there is any need for proof that the right-wings attempts to slander this nominee failed miserably...take a look at this:

Sotomayor counters GOP critics over bias claims - Yahoo! News


A new Associated Press-GfK poll suggested that Americans have a more positive view of her than they did of any of former President George W. Bush's nominees to the high court. Half backed her confirmation.

While I am not a huge fan of this nomination, I am loving the fact that the GOP and the right-wing specifically continue to screw themselves and show how out of touch with the country they truly are.

That we don't back an activist and someone who has made racist comments?

I wouldn't put any stock in the "public's opinion".
They have read even less of Sotomayor than Harry Reid.

.

 

[hazlnut]

That we don't back an activist and someone who has made racist comments?

Well, good thing Sotomayor is not that person.

It would unlike Americans to back a person like that.

Why is all the evidence to the contrary being ignored? 2 speeches taken of context vs. 3000 centrist, fair-minded legal opinions.

 

[disneydude]

That we don't back an activist and someone who has made racist comments?

I wouldn't put any stock in the "public's opinion".
They have read even less of Sotomayor than Harry Reid.

.

What you are missing is that fact that the right-wing efforts to derail the nomination not only failed, but have failed miserably.

 

[obvious Child]

No one.

Requirements to vote should be that:

1. you must be a tax payer

2. you must not receive any benefit, payment, or any other sort of favor from the federal and/or state government.

That would eliminate most people, especially the rich from your category, not to mention every single person who claimed a minor on their taxes, as well as everyone taking advantage of various federal tax credits. Everyone receiving Social Security would be invalidated. As would anyone on medicare/aid. And all students receiving federal Grants and aid would be eliminated. Really, there's essentially no one on your list.

I also suspect you would be crossed off the list as well. What state do you live in? I bet I can find a state benefit you're taking advantage of. Every Californian who owns taxable land is off the list due to Prop 13.

 

[Triad]

What you are missing is that fact that the right-wing efforts to derail the nomination not only failed, but have failed miserably.

:roll:

Since she was virtually assured confirmation from the start that is a ridiculously ignorant statement.

I think you enjoy making mountains out of dog poo.


(Oh and the nomination process has not begun. If her statements about courts being legislators are substantiated much more..Moderate Democrats will oppose her.
IF its shown some of her race based statements or decisions are based on race first and law second then she will also lose alot of Moderate Democrats)

 

[Redress]

:roll:

Since she was virtually assured confirmation from the start that is a ridiculously ignorant statement.

I think you enjoy making mountains out of dog poo.


(Oh and the nomination process has not begun. If her statements about courts being legislators are substantiated much more..Moderate Democrats will oppose her.
IF its shown some of her race based statements or decisions are based on race first and law second then she will also lose alot of Moderate Democrats)

Actually it has started. She has been meeting with Senators for 3 days now.

 

[Triad]

Actually it has started. She has been meeting with Senators for 3 days now.

Oh please.....What she is doing right now is the tea sipping office meet butt slap for the cameras routine.

I mean the actual process in which they have her files and are dragging her over the coals to see if she's qualified.
AFAIK they don't even have her records yet. Al they have is pretty much what we have various comments some rulings and such that the media in some manner dug up.


--Just saw a breaking news story which said an initial portfolio of her files had been released by the WH to Senators.
So now the question arises... is this 10 pages of a 100 page document like they pulled with the "torture" thing or is this unedited/unaltered clean files?

Expect to see some questions about her in the coming days based on her own actions.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That would eliminate most people, especially the rich from your category, not to mention every single person who claimed a minor on their taxes, as well as everyone taking advantage of various federal tax credits. Everyone receiving Social Security would be invalidated. As would anyone on medicare/aid. And all students receiving federal Grants and aid would be eliminated. Really, there's essentially no one on your list.

There are plenty on the list.

You can choose not to take tax breaks and payments.
Its an equally discriminatory way to judge who should and should not vote.

I like it that it is narrowed down so much.
Don't you find it the least bit unethical that someone can vote themselves more money from the government?

I also suspect you would be crossed off the list as well. What state do you live in? I bet I can find a state benefit you're taking advantage of. Every Californian who owns taxable land is off the list due to Prop 13.

I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to vote. I'm still happy about it.

I'm willing to do something that is against my short term interests in favor of something that would benefit the nation as whole.

 

[obvious Child]

There are plenty on the list.

I don't know about that.

You can choose not to take tax breaks and payments.

You can also choose to starve.

I like it that it is narrowed down so much.
Don't you find it the least bit unethical that someone can vote themselves more money from the government?

Such is the problem with voting. And voting to elect candidates who lower taxes is voting themselves money from the government. Instead of having to fork over $500, you only have to fork over $400, the benefit to you from their legislation is $100. The same deal if you had voted to elect a candidate who would have given everyone a $100 tax credit. Aside from semantics, there is no difference in outcome.

I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to vote. I'm still happy about it.

As long as you realize that. I suspect many people who would make similar claims as you did don't realize they are invalidated on their own criteria.

I'm willing to do something that is against my short term interests in favor of something that would benefit the nation as whole.

I don't see how that achieves your goal. The interests of those who receive no direct benefits and pay taxes may not be the interests that are good for the country.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You can also choose to starve.

No one has to starve, they just can't vote.

Such is the problem with voting. And voting to elect candidates who lower taxes is voting themselves money from the government. Instead of having to fork over $500, you only have to fork over $400, the benefit to you from their legislation is $100. The same deal if you had voted to elect a candidate who would have given everyone a $100 tax credit. Aside from semantics, there is no difference in outcome.

There is a difference between getting a $100 check from government that you didn't earn and keeping $100 you did earn.

As long as you realize that. I suspect many people who would make similar claims as you did don't realize they are invalidated on their own criteria.

Thats the crux of the problem, people aren't willing to give anything up for the sake of making everyone more free.

They are content to live outside of their means and draw money they didn't earn.

In this scenario I would eventually be able to vote but in the mean time I can trust the system to protect me from democratic predators.

I don't see how that achieves your goal. The interests of those who receive no direct benefits and pay taxes may not be the interests that are good for the country.

It is for the good of the country.

Our governments primary role is to make sure no one kills each other and no one steals from each other. That is both internally and externally.

Instead what we have now is government acting as the thief and growing out of control.

 

[Oftencold]

Except that the principle logic of this is government doing what the people of the country want. . . .

A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his
judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

 

[obvious Child]

No one has to starve, they just can't vote.

Then it's not a democracy.

There is a difference between getting a $100 check from government that you didn't earn and keeping $100 you did earn.

But one is still voting themselves money. One could vote for a candidate that would enact credits for things one is going to do. That would be voting themselves money.

They are content to live outside of their means and draw money they didn't earn.

How is someone utilizing the child credit living outside their means? A lot of benefits are quite small in comparison to one's means.

It is for the good of the country.

I don't know about that. The interests of that group may not be for the good of the country.

Our governments primary role is to make sure no one kills each other and no one steals from each other. That is both internally and externally.

Among a few others things as stated by Keynes (which include the two you gave).

Instead what we have now is government acting as the thief and growing out of control.

Perhaps, but wouldn't getting money out of the election system fix this problem rather then your radical change?