You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #201: It is because it is NOT a constitutional protection! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #172
201. It is because it is NOT a constitutional protection!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 04:40 PM by cascadiance
amongst other things... "Corporate Personhood" was a right "given" to corporations by a court clerk falsely drawing such conclusions from a case where justices didn't make this conclusion (even in a "judicial activist" way that affects other decisions). This person had conflicts of interest since he was a board member of a railroad company before working as a court clerk too.

If corporations *should* have "free speech" laws that is a job for congress to work out in newer legislation authorizing such and qualifying where such protections apply and where they don't, because they ARE NOT human beings, and don't have the same limitations/strengths that human beings have, and therefore they shouldn't derive from the rights humans INHERENTLY HAVE ALREADY that we deem they have because they are physically human beings.

Now whether they need these rights is a completely separate issue. There are many of us here who say that "corporate personhood" "rights" that are given improperly are at the root of so many of the other problems you mention as well as many others that really are critical and arguably is at the root of our pay to play corruption that has screwed up our economy, had us in so many wars, etc.

Look at the issues you mention:
1) freedom of speech - this is curtailed by a corporate press which stands in the way for us to have *equal* speech to what the corporations have if corporations own the communication paths we have with one another and with our government in society.

2) rights to habeus corpus, due process, and right to freedom from torture arguably is also affected by "corporate personhood" rights, that allow those mega companies that control the press control our perceptions of the wars we get in, that keep us in these perpetual wars, justify them on false means, that lends itself to torturing people to yield false confessions to justify these wars that feed the corporate troughs...

3) A lot of these separation of church and state issues are those where a corrupt government owned by governments continues to use stupid right wing Christians to vote for their corrupt agenda by rewarding them with passing religious changes to our laws to appease them and to continue to use them to put in place their agenda that works against all of our interests.

4) meaningful public campaign financing will never get passed unless we get rid of "corporate free speech". Until we get rid of that we'll always have a system of campaign institutionalized bribery that we call "legal" campaign financing.

5) we will never get single payer health care unless we get rid of this campaign institutionalized bribery from health insurance and pharma companies.

6) we won't get domestic spying to end (or get justified in newer laws that now make it legal) if we don't get rid of the campaign institutionalized bribery that is getting congress to immunize our telecomm companies.

7) we'll continue to have lax enforcement of illegal employment of illegal immigrants that steals away the middle class's jobs with the continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place.

8) we'll continue to have unfettered free trade agreements that build institutions like the WTO that allow corporations to supersede nation's laws to get their race to the bottom in terms of profits/costs and messing up our environment as long as we have continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place. This along with corporate welfare of agriculture subsidies (also created by continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place) puts many farmers in South America to sell of their farms to their nations' elites, and instead working in outsourcing company locations there until the companies decide to move someplace else where its cheaper, forcing them to... move up here to work!

In short, you can see (and I've just touched the surface on the many issues) that our corporatocracy is the ROOT of most of our problems today. If we get a decent SCOTUS nominee that will help take away some of these ARTIFICIALLY given "rights" they have (which should be doable in a legal fashion), they hopefully will be less controlled by the continued campaign institutionalized bribery system that the executive and justice branches are plagued by, and when we get enough justices working this way, we can at least have the courts start to fix our system and pave the way for the executive and legislative branches to follow.

I'm not disagreeing with your other priorities being important. I am saying though that this is a fundamental key to all of these issues that needs to get fixed, for us to really do more than just apply "bandaids" to our problems today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court rawstory  May-26-09 07:13 AM   #0 
  - I Am So Not Excited  Demeter   May-26-09 07:19 AM   #1 
  - Since when does he not know how to "play for keeps?"  ecstatic   May-26-09 07:34 AM   #3 
  - Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sotomayor will be disastrous?  HamdenRice   May-26-09 07:38 AM   #5 
  - Well at least we can predict that baseball will be well adjudicated. nt  ooglymoogly   May-26-09 10:03 AM   #72 
  - in your opinion. hardly some undying truth.  cali   May-26-09 07:40 AM   #6 
  - No one's opinion, including Obama's (or yours), is "some undying truth."  No Elephants   May-26-09 07:53 AM   #12 
  - What !??!?!?!  TomClash   May-26-09 08:22 AM   #28 
  - That post was written long before any appointment, or even vacancy, was announced  alcibiades_mystery   May-26-09 10:36 AM   #90 
  - wow... do you know how foolish your post is? I am so unimpressed  kid a   May-26-09 10:09 AM   #76 
  - Name the really bad appointments.  stanwyck   May-26-09 11:10 AM   #98 
  - OK...  Iowa   May-26-09 02:27 PM   #163 
     - Pretend you're Obama and replace his appointments  stanwyck   May-26-09 04:31 PM   #197 
  - Your "concern" is duly noted.  kestrel91316   May-26-09 11:35 AM   #112 
  - what an embarrassing post  LSK   May-26-09 03:22 PM   #180 
  - Another DOOM AND GLOOM post  Cha   May-26-09 05:58 PM   #215 
  - AP says it's Sotomayor. SCOTUS overdue for a Hispanic and another woman, IMO, but is she the  No Elephants   May-26-09 07:31 AM   #2 
  - Older then I would have like yes, Hopfully we will get 20 years of left leaning opinions out of her  Fluffdaddy   May-26-09 08:18 AM   #26 
  - Centrist opinions may be more likely, if descriptions of her are correct.  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:29 AM   #34 
     - I think the biggest litmus test for whether she's centrist is her position on corporate personhood!  cascadiance   May-26-09 09:11 AM   #56 
     - NOW, THIS IS WORTH DISCUSSING  livefreest   May-26-09 10:31 AM   #88 
     - The Problem with Using Corporate Personhood as a Litmus Test  On the Road   May-26-09 10:39 AM   #91 
     - It never "became law" in the constitution. Only a court clerk felt it should be law!  cascadiance   May-26-09 10:48 AM   #92 
        - It May Have Been True at the Time  On the Road   May-26-09 11:05 AM   #96 
           - If it is brought up as an issue protecting stare decisis without legislation to take it down...  cascadiance   May-26-09 11:12 AM   #100 
     - corporate personhood...100%?  AlbertCat   May-26-09 12:37 PM   #135 
     - Yeah, this ruling is a bit confusing to me...  cascadiance   May-26-09 12:45 PM   #137 
     - I disagree that that is an important litmus test. Things like separation of church and  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:00 PM   #172 
     - It is because it is NOT a constitutional protection!  cascadiance   May-26-09 04:40 PM   #201 
     - The US Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT RIGHTS, not PERSONAL RIGHTS  Doctor_J   May-26-09 07:37 PM   #222 
     - I agree, this goes along with our president's move towards center.  wisteria   May-26-09 12:57 PM   #143 
        - I don't think Obama has to move to get to the center. And I don't think it has to do only with  No Elephants   May-26-09 02:36 PM   #166 
  - Clinton appointed her to the Court of Appeals  TomClash   May-26-09 08:25 AM   #31 
  - Who said she was a Republican? However, if Bush appointed her, she certainly cannot be  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:31 AM   #35 
  - Daniel Patrick Moynihan "appointed" her, not Bush Sr.  HamdenRice   May-26-09 08:54 AM   #48 
  - Please, I don't believe for a second that it was that clear cut and Bush 41 had no say at  No Elephants   May-26-09 02:47 PM   #168 
  - I don't think you get it  TomClash   May-26-09 09:22 AM   #57 
  - Sorry, what you are saying is simply not Constitutionally possible. A single Senator cannot  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:06 PM   #174 
     - HamdenRice is correct  TomClash   May-26-09 03:26 PM   #182 
        - The poster is knee jerking and  Cha   May-26-09 06:03 PM   #217 
  - Didn't Bush appoint Souter?  deaniac21   May-26-09 02:32 PM   #165 
  - Yes, and Bush's position is that Souter betrayed him, as I had posted in Reply #35.  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:14 PM   #176 
     - You don't mention that Clinton promoted Sotomayor  AlexanderProgressive   May-26-09 07:41 PM   #223 
  - Bush appointed Souter, a very liberal judge  AlexanderProgressive   May-26-09 07:03 PM   #220 
     - Didn't Ike appoint Warren?  deaniac21   May-27-09 10:52 AM   #235 
  - Moynihan wasn't much of a Democrat, either . . .!!  defendandprotect   May-26-09 09:51 AM   #65 
  - 54 is too old??? OMFG.  kestrel91316   May-26-09 11:37 AM   #114 
  - She has type 1 diabetes and so is at much higher risk  kegler14   May-26-09 01:31 PM   #156 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-26-09 04:34 PM   #199 
  - Given how young Bush 43's appointees were, yes, I would have preferred a younger judge.  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:19 PM   #177 
  - Bush also appointed Souter ...  waiting for hope   May-26-09 12:03 PM   #126 
     - Please see Reply # 35.  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:21 PM   #179 
        - Got it - and Sandra Day O'Connor  waiting for hope   May-26-09 07:29 PM   #221 
  - At the same time as the CA  WyLoochka   May-26-09 07:37 AM   #4 
  - seems like a good choice ..  InfiniteThoughts   May-26-09 07:41 AM   #7 
  - Killer Joe is calling her "The Most Liberal Pick"  Joe Bacon   May-26-09 07:43 AM   #9 
  - that's finalizes it for me ...  InfiniteThoughts   May-26-09 08:08 AM   #18 
  - He has not yet voted; and I would not base anything on Lieberman, one way or the other.  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:33 AM   #36 
  - Um...  PassingFair   May-26-09 09:10 AM   #55 
     - Um....  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:23 PM   #181 
  - Yes Yes for her ~ If Boring Joe says No ,I say Yes!  goclark   May-26-09 08:56 AM   #50 
     - You do realize that Joe would say that about ANY pick Obama made.  dbonds   May-26-09 09:46 AM   #61 
        - I do realize ~ he is trying for the #1 Thug slot  goclark   May-26-09 01:07 PM   #150 
        - That goes for almost any pick The President picks.  sellitman   May-26-09 01:14 PM   #152 
  - that ass would say that anyone Obama chooses is  dana_b   May-26-09 10:10 AM   #78 
  - OMG, The party in power gets to have its say?  RedCloud   May-26-09 11:28 AM   #105 
  - The New Haven firefighters' case will be front and center of their attack  customerserviceguy   May-26-09 08:12 AM   #23 
     - I hope the SCOTUS finds a way to avoid reversing her, maybe by remanding for more findings.  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:35 AM   #38 
     - Have they ever given any evidence of "reverse discrimination" . .. ???  defendandprotect   May-26-09 09:54 AM   #68 
        - Expect them to trot out arguments  customerserviceguy   May-26-09 04:43 PM   #202 
  - This will be the chance for the  Are_grits_groceries   May-26-09 07:41 AM   #8 
  - I thought the same thing.  Odin2005   May-26-09 07:53 AM   #11 
  - It was the nicest thing that  Are_grits_groceries   May-26-09 07:58 AM   #14 
  - Latina... they fight hard against her, they lose the vote forever.  CBR   May-26-09 08:06 AM   #17 
  - And we have a winner!! lock thread.  mystieus   May-26-09 11:09 AM   #97 
  - That asshole belongs in a trunk  saigon68   May-26-09 08:13 AM   #24 
  - I think even the Republicans are too savvy to make a cheap remark about her ethnicity. They have  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:23 AM   #30 
  - At this point,  Are_grits_groceries   May-26-09 08:34 AM   #37 
  - I hope you're more correct than I am, but people on the edge of a cliff tend to watch  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:43 AM   #42 
  - The smart ones won't make cheap ones. But how  stanwyck   May-26-09 11:56 AM   #120 
  - Oh, I meant elected Republicans or Steele. Limbaugh and his kind--I make no comment on  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:26 PM   #183 
     - But isn't LImbaugh the leader of the Republican Party?  stanwyck   May-26-09 04:29 PM   #196 
     - foxx and bachman are elected  noiretextatique   May-26-09 06:42 PM   #219 
  - they were already dog whistling.. she's an affirmative action pick- not that bright...  bettyellen   May-26-09 01:30 PM   #155 
  - lol--but too true  emsimon33   May-26-09 09:03 AM   #52 
  - Ben Nelson comment ... real funny  InfiniteThoughts   May-26-09 11:25 AM   #103 
  - I can just imagine Rahm  fujiyama   May-26-09 12:11 PM   #129 
  - WTF! How does she represent me? The last guy inserted two white males.  onehandle   May-26-09 07:49 AM   #10 
  - I love your humor!  JayMusgrove   May-26-09 07:58 AM   #13 
  - Yep. And about damn time, too! (j/k) Fortunately, the SCOTUS is supposed to  No Elephants   May-26-09 08:39 AM   #39 
  - This is a great opportunity for progressive views to really come forward.  Xenotime   May-26-09 11:26 AM   #104 
  - A centrist. What a surprise.  Lasher   May-26-09 07:59 AM   #15 
  - And the republicans  Jakes Progress   May-26-09 08:09 AM   #20 
  - +1  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:09 PM   #190 
  - Prove she's a centrist? please post links of her "centrist" opinions  Fluffdaddy   May-26-09 08:11 AM   #22 
  - She is considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal & the New York Time  Lasher   May-26-09 02:08 PM   #161 
  - Really? The head of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center has high praise for Sotomayor.  ClarkUSA   May-26-09 09:03 AM   #51 
  - "she is strongly opposed by conservative groups"  GreenArrow   May-26-09 09:31 AM   #59 
  - Sotomayor ruled in favor of minimum wage for homeless workers in class action suit  ClarkUSA   May-26-09 12:08 PM   #128 
  - so your opinion of her is based only on the Prez's other appointments, LOL?  bettyellen   May-26-09 01:23 PM   #153 
     - "my opinion of her"  GreenArrow   May-27-09 09:57 AM   #232 
  - Quoting conservative groups to try to prove she is liberal does not do it. They consider anyone  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:31 PM   #184 
  - A woman is good . . .  defendandprotect   May-26-09 09:56 AM   #70 
  - I don't like far lefties either. a centralist is fine with me.  okieinpain   May-26-09 10:22 AM   #84 
  - You are entitled to prefer a centrist. However, the choices are not only centrist or "far leftie."  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:44 PM   #185 
  - Why are you defining her as a centrist?  stanwyck   May-26-09 11:58 AM   #121 
     - Here is why:  Lasher   May-26-09 02:28 PM   #164 
        - Thanks for the link. Her decisions don't  stanwyck   May-26-09 03:00 PM   #171 
           - Keep in mind, the Republican noise machine is in high gear right now.  Lasher   May-26-09 03:14 PM   #175 
           - Thanks for all the links. Very informative  stanwyck   May-26-09 04:28 PM   #195 
           - Bar Associations would review all her decisions before coming up with a description, not just one or  No Elephants   May-26-09 03:52 PM   #186 
  - Get ready for Republican nut jobs  spiritual_gunfighter   May-26-09 08:01 AM   #16 
  - Faux News: She's "too liberal"!!! RNC gears up for fundraising and a fight. Alert the teabaggers!  ClarkUSA   May-26-09 08:10 AM   #21 
     - Teabaggers are lining up. This will be their big issue for the year  JayMusgrove   May-26-09 08:54 AM   #49 
     - McCain was born in Panama too...  cascadiance   May-26-09 09:05 AM   # 
     - Supposedly (and probably). McCain was born on a U.S. base in Panama to two U.S.  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:03 PM   #188 
        - Yeah, I wonder what the right wing would do with someone like me...  cascadiance   May-26-09 05:01 PM   #208 
        - Except Puerto Rico is US soil. No customs forms needed to mail stuff there,  iris27   May-26-09 10:16 PM   #231 
     - Sonia Sotomayor was born in The Bronx NY  Adelante   May-27-09 10:31 AM   #233 
     - If Faux News hates it, then you know it's good!  Crowman1979   May-26-09 09:53 AM   #67 
     - Not really. Faux News hates anyone left of O'Reilly.There is a lot of territory between that  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:08 PM   #189 
     - Typical fund raising tactic. They have to say this. Did you expect them to be overjoyed?  wisteria   May-26-09 01:00 PM   #145 
  - Thank God we still have legal/intellectual GIANTS like Thomas and Scalia!  FailureToCommunicate   May-26-09 08:08 AM   #19 
  - Excellent, from Raw:  elleng   May-26-09 08:16 AM   #25 
  - I think she's a great choice too.  Dappleganger   May-26-09 08:18 AM   #27 
  - Too old...but whatev. nt  Phoonzang   May-26-09 08:22 AM   #29 
  - She's 55. That's on the outer edge, imo, but not too old.  cali   May-26-09 08:27 AM   #33 
  - "Don't trust anyone over thirty" Or is it twenty? Wait, what did I come in here for?  FailureToCommunicate   May-26-09 08:39 AM   #41 
  - It is old in comparison to Dummya's picks. I was hoping for someone who is  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:14 PM   #191 
  - Why is she too old? She has at least 15 to 20 more years. n/t  RebelOne   May-26-09 08:39 AM   #40 
  - She's also a type 1 diabetic  wickerwoman   May-26-09 12:35 PM   #134 
  - It is not so much that she is too old in the abstract. It is that Dummya's appointees were so  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:22 PM   #192 
  - Much younger and she wouldn't have enough experience. n/t  pnwmom   May-26-09 10:15 AM   #79 
  - How much is enough? At 45, a lawyer could have 20 or more  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:43 PM   #203 
     - Clarence Thomas was woefully underqualified.  pnwmom   May-26-09 06:03 PM   #216 
  - I'm 55 -- there's a LOT to be said for it...  northernlights   May-26-09 10:54 AM   #93 
     - My nose has stopped running with snot years ago. Well maybe like 3 years ago, but that's beside  Phoonzang   May-26-09 11:18 AM   #102 
     - Realistically, your vote on the SCOTUS is going to be with the right or the left. It  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:57 PM   #206 
  - K&R  Wednesdays   May-26-09 08:26 AM   #32 
  - There's one huge problem with Sotomayor  MajorChode   May-26-09 08:46 AM   #43 
  - HUGH DRAWBACK!!11 Impeach Obama - I wanted a METS fan!!1!  HamdenRice   May-26-09 08:51 AM   #46 
  - Settle only for a Red Sox fan! Yankees!!! Oh no!  emsimon33   May-26-09 09:05 AM   #53 
  - Hey, the radical right takes shit like that seriously!  DFW   May-26-09 12:16 PM   #131 
  - She's a Yankees fan?  gmudem   May-26-09 02:42 PM   #167 
  - Oh man. I wish I didn't know that!  JerseygirlCT   May-26-09 11:29 AM   #106 
     - I can't help but think it calls her judgement into question  MajorChode   May-26-09 11:45 AM   #118 
  - a question  ronatchig   May-26-09 08:48 AM   #44 
  - No. I don't think it had been founded yet when she was at Yale, plus she's a Democrat. nt  HamdenRice   May-26-09 08:52 AM   #47 
     - Her time at Yale has nothing to do with it. The Federalist Society is not only for students. It is  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:25 PM   #193 
  - Nice, very nice. He had a lot of qualified people to choose from.  snowdays   May-26-09 08:48 AM   #45 
  - Okay folks..  riona   May-26-09 09:05 AM   #54 
  - Very happy with this nomination.  closeupready   May-26-09 09:29 AM   #58 
  - Another Catholic on the Supreme Court. This makes SIX out of NINE.  onehandle   May-26-09 09:33 AM   #60 
  - Not all Catholics are FREAKS. There's such an entity as a "liberal Catholic."  ShortnFiery   May-26-09 09:47 AM   #63 
  - Yes, I know. I'm one of them. nt  onehandle   May-26-09 09:53 AM   #66 
  - Cool, same here. But under DEEP COVER in my right-wing Parish.  ShortnFiery   May-26-09 09:54 AM   #69 
  - It would be better to have a Judge who believes in her own right to  defendandprotect   May-26-09 10:02 AM   #71 
  - You can be a Catholic and personally "pro-life" without IMPOSING those beliefs on others.  ShortnFiery   May-26-09 11:15 AM   #101 
  - Yes, absolutely  JerseygirlCT   May-26-09 11:32 AM   #110 
  - You could be . . .  defendandprotect   May-26-09 01:25 PM   #154 
  - The issue is, will the Pope say you are an obedient Catholic if you are pro-choice? That  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:33 PM   #198 
  - Many, many, many Catholics are  JerseygirlCT   May-26-09 11:32 AM   #109 
     - How people self-describe is one thing. What your parish priest and/or the Pope say may  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:37 PM   #200 
        - Well, I'm pretty sure I can guess  JerseygirlCT   May-26-09 06:28 PM   #218 
  - Otherwise known as "Catholics destined for Hell."  sofa king   May-26-09 12:52 PM   #141 
  - That is a concern...  Baby Snooks   May-26-09 09:50 AM   #64 
     - I could easily say that Catholics are overrepresented on the Court . . .  defendandprotect   May-26-09 10:07 AM   #74 
     - He's not perverted...  Baby Snooks   May-26-09 11:37 AM   #115 
     - Well, since Catholics as a whole voted for Obama by 53%, we're not all RW antichoicers  WildEyedLiberal   May-26-09 02:57 PM   #170 
  - I like it! I like her. :-) NT  ShortnFiery   May-26-09 09:46 AM   #62 
  - Let the republic slimeballs try to politically invalidate her  NBachers   May-26-09 10:06 AM   #73 
  - so we let them have TWO RIGHT WING NUTS  iamthebandfanman   May-26-09 10:09 AM   #75 
  - Anyone taking bets on a successful Republican blockage of this appointment?  Ezlivin   May-26-09 10:09 AM   #77 
  - I disagre  dana_b   May-26-09 10:18 AM   #82 
  - Nope, even the party of no can't try to block a centrist hispanic woman and  digidigido   May-26-09 10:18 AM   #83 
  - Damn. I hope so!  Ezlivin   May-26-09 10:22 AM   #85 
  - Couldn't we take THEIR idea and go "nuclear" on them?  cascadiance   May-26-09 10:56 AM   #95 
     - Democrats did not fillibuster judicial appointments. I am not sure  No Elephants   May-26-09 05:00 PM   #207 
        - Actually the Rethugs did do so for one of LBJ's appointments (Abe Fortas)...  cascadiance   May-26-09 07:55 PM   #224 
  - Not pleased with this pick, not pleased with Obama.  ooglymoogly   May-26-09 10:17 AM   #80 
  - I understand your rant, agree with much, but respectfully disagree  digidigido   May-26-09 10:26 AM   #87 
  - I think most of the country is center and left of center, not right. (And thanks again, Bush Cheney  No Elephants   May-26-09 04:50 PM   #205 
  - Who is your choice? And,  stanwyck   May-26-09 11:51 AM   #119 
  - DU posters do not have the staff and outside  No Elephants   May-26-09 05:10 PM   #210 
  - I am not in the loop for choosing a Justice.  ooglymoogly   May-26-09 09:25 PM   #227 
  - She is very pro-gay.  closeupready   May-26-09 12:00 PM   #123 
     - That is good news.  No Elephants   May-26-09 05:13 PM   #211 
     - link please, proof please. nt  ooglymoogly   May-26-09 09:27 PM   #228 
        - I don't have a link.  closeupready   May-26-09 09:43 PM   #229 
        - A link I saw yesterday  Adelante   May-27-09 10:42 AM   #234 
  - C-Span is running a "Moot Court" where Sotomayer participated . . .  defendandprotect   May-26-09 10:17 AM   #81 
  - congratulations to SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Sonia Sotomayor  livefreest   May-26-09 10:23 AM   #86 
  - Being that she is from Puertorican background...  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 10:36 AM   #89 
  - she is not from PR. she's from NY  cali   May-26-09 10:54 AM   #94 
  - I am familiar with...  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 11:10 AM   #99 
     - It's not that your comment is critical of Obama  stanwyck   May-26-09 12:00 PM   #124 
     - If I worked in Fox News  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 12:16 PM   #132 
        - What is your dissenting argument?  stanwyck   May-26-09 01:32 PM   #157 
           - I asked for info on her rulings while you used the monotonous meme of...  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 03:20 PM   #178 
           - Start with reading all of Lasher's posts on this thread  stanwyck   May-26-09 04:27 PM   #194 
           - What is an argument is that she is a catholic  ooglymoogly   May-26-09 09:51 PM   #230 
     - Are you "familiar with" the fact that NYC Puerto Ricans are overwhelmingly Democrats?  HamdenRice   May-26-09 12:43 PM   #136 
        - Overwhelmingly Democrat is also a generalization  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 01:03 PM   #148 
           - No, it's a statistic  HamdenRice   May-26-09 01:32 PM   #158 
              - Well...  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 03:04 PM   #173 
                 - And you happen to be in Florida  HamdenRice   May-26-09 03:56 PM   #187 
  - What an amazingly useless observation.  Codeine   May-26-09 11:30 AM   #108 
  - Racist?  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 11:33 AM   #111 
     - Seems so. Your "analysis" presumes that Bronx Puerto Rican political beliefs are genetic  HamdenRice   May-26-09 12:51 PM   #139 
        - That's an extensive "analysis" of a very "meaningless" short statement.  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 01:01 PM   #146 
        - Neither her schools, her genes or her honors tell us whether she is neocon, centrist or  No Elephants   May-26-09 05:21 PM   #212 
  - Here is one ruling - on minimum wage for homeless workers  Adelante   May-26-09 12:02 PM   #125 
  - Thank you.  Lost-in-FL   May-26-09 12:04 PM   #127 
  - Good post!  superconnected   May-26-09 05:04 PM   #209 
  - Racial profiling rocks!  WildEyedLiberal   May-26-09 08:32 PM   #226 
  - So if the naysayers are correct, Senate will not go along.  RedCloud   May-26-09 11:30 AM   #107 
  - The nomination is his call and the likelihood is that a Democratic Senate will  No Elephants   May-26-09 05:25 PM   #213 
  - Too moderate?  Wabbajack_   May-26-09 11:36 AM   #113 
  - So far so good  hangman86   May-26-09 11:39 AM   #116 
  - A Great Day for Latinos  Mosaic   May-26-09 11:40 AM   #117 
  - nice. good pick.  La Lioness Priyanka   May-26-09 11:59 AM   #122 
  - Obama has the repubs by the balls with this pick.  craigmatic   May-26-09 12:16 PM   #130 
  - How much of the Latino votes do they now hold?  Lone_Star_Dem   May-26-09 01:07 PM   #151 
  - I'm so glad we voted for a President that would nominate  Creideiki   May-26-09 12:32 PM   #133 
  - Let the Obstruction Begin!!!  kevsters   May-26-09 12:46 PM   #138 
  - All part of the game. In the end we will have a moderate female member to the SC. n/t  wisteria   May-26-09 01:03 PM   #149 
  - I love it that she came up from poverty and is a self made woman!  earcandle   May-26-09 12:51 PM   #140 
  - How long before  The Wizard   May-26-09 12:53 PM   #142 
  - I like this pick. It will give the Republicans a chance to hurt themselves VERY BADLY,  Jim Sagle   May-26-09 12:59 PM   #144 
  - Ron Kuby said he's never won an appeal in her court. He says she's tough  alfredo   May-26-09 01:01 PM   #147 
  - Looks like a pretty safe choice..........  Joe the Liberal   May-26-09 01:40 PM   #159 
  - This pick is probably as less-harmful to progressive values as could be expected from this  T Wolf   May-26-09 01:46 PM   #160 
  - Solid choice  Prophet 451   May-26-09 02:12 PM   #162 
  - good pick, Obama  katty   May-26-09 02:51 PM   #169 
  - K&R  HOLOS   May-26-09 04:43 PM   #204 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-26-09 05:29 PM   #214 
  - "Too Dumb Sotomayor" the Neocons accuse? From the Party of Dumb GWB  troubledamerican   May-26-09 08:19 PM   #225 
  - I'm not stoked for this either  downeyr   May-27-09 08:35 PM   #236 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC