Obamacare issue reveals the real obama: a real disgrace
Obama said last week in his weekly address, on the White House YouTube channel,
“I want to be very clear. I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade, and by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long term. Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan you won’t get to choose your doctor, that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That’s also not true. Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family doctor should be, and no one should decide that for you, either. Under our proposal if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period. End of story.
Opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That’s not true, either. I don’t believe that government can or should run health care, but I also don’t think insurance companies should have free rein to do as they please. That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest and choose what’s best for your family.”
Every bit of that is a lie. I’ll point them all out to you:
Lie #1
“I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade, and by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.“
Truth: deficits will be added onto. The CBO has come out and said the deficit is going to rise by $213 billion, and that’s minimal. The plan will not save money.
Lie #2
“Under our proposal if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance.”
You may get to keep them for a year, until you either change jobs or your employer shelves your health care coverage, then you’ll have to sign up for the public option plan. If you read the house plan, then you know what’s in it: you are going to lose your insurance package under most scenarios, and it is going to be the federal government choosing your doctor based on the plan that they assign you to. If you don’t have health insurance, you are subject to huge increases in penalties and that the IRS will levy every year when you file your taxes.
You do not get to keep your insurance, and you do not get to keep your doctor. Period. End of story.
Lie #3
“Opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That’s not true, either.”
Yes that is true. Obama lied by saying “that’s not true.” There are already 1,700 options available for you in choosing health insurance, and adding the government amongst the mix isn’t gonna do much as far as competition goes. What it will do though, is run the private health insurance companies out of business, because you can’t compete with an organization that doesn’t have to make profits to thrive.
It is government-run health care, it is socialized medicine; it will have long lines and rationed care.
Here’s Nancy Pelosi last week on Friday, lying about how the Obamacare will provide you with a choice:
“It’s really important for everyone to know that when this bill passes shortly thereafter, preexisting medical conditions will no longer bar people from having health care. If you lose your job, if you change jobs, if you start a new business and if you become self-employed you will continue to have health care. It will lower costs, it will improve quality, it will expand choice and it will give people peace of mind. This is legislation that will not increase the deficit. Half of the funds for the bill will come from savings, others from the revenue stream. I hope that we can change that percentage, that we have much more coming from savings. That I believe that all the costs of the health care reform bill can come from squeezing more savings out of the system.”
Who’s gonna get squeezed, madam speaker? The doctors? The private health insurance companies? The hospitals?
Again, a pack of lies coming from yet another top democrat who’s in a rush to get this thing passed. This is a legislation that will increase the deficit. The CBO has come out and said the deficit is going to rise by $213 billion, and that’s minimal.
These democrats are lying through their teeth just in order to get the bill passed. These are the people who have no standards, no values, and for whom truth is relative. These are the bunch who has given us over $12 trillion in deficits over 10 years, and now they’re talking about efficiencies and savings.
To Obama, representing all the democrats who back this plan, I say, “You sir, are a liar: liar, liar, your pants are on fire!”
Is Sotomayor indeed a racist, or just in words?
Sotomayor has said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience, would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than your average white man.” This comment, or a similar one, appeared in Sotomayor’s speeches delivered in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002, and in 2004. The 2001 speech is when she added, “than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
Now folks, here are some defense that comes from the left, and look at how such invalid defenses they are.
1. The comment was taken out of context.
UNTRUE. The comment was not taken out of context; you can’t take that comment out of context. Besides, let’s hear from Sotomayor herself what the context is; she said, in the hearing, that she was just trying to inspire Latina. Well, ok, let me ask this question: inspire them to do what? Inspire them to believe that they’ll reach better conclusions just because they’re Latina? That’s even worse.
Huh, “taken out of context.” You mean like Macaca?
2. You can’t say she’s a racist based on just one comment.
She said this not just once, she said the “wise latina” comment many times in different speeches spanning a period of many years. You can’t take it out of context.
3. There is nothing else in her record that shows she’s a racist.
O really? What about the recent Ricci firefighters case? She ignored facts, even ignored the Constitution, because she’s so content that the results would favor the minority.
5 years in different speeches she made the comment and stood by it, and on July 14, 2009, she tried to say it’s a rhetorical flourish or was taken out of context or just outright deny it.
Folks, if she really didn’t mean it, she could have ended all accusations by saying, in the hearing, “I misspoke.” And that’s it. And then what’s anybody gonna do? If anybody tries to go after her then, then he/she would be called mean and so forth.
But she didn’t say she misspoke to end this debacle, and why not? Because she believes so strongly in what she said.
Imagine for a moment that it were a Bush nominee, a white male, saying, “I would hope that a wise white man would come to a better conclusion than a hispanic woman, because she just hasn’t lived the live a white man has.” Now, what would you make of that? What do you think they’d be talking about all over the media? The white man would be forced to withdraw.
Well folks, if words still mean things, then Sotomayor is a racist, and a bigot, too.
Is Sotomayor stupid, or just in articulate?
We were told, “”This woman, she worked hard. This woman is brilliant! This woman is fabulous.”
Well, borrowing the phrase Joe Scarborough used to ask the public about George Bush, I now ask you, “Is she stupid, or just inarticulate?”
From oral arguments on December 10th, 2007, the Ricci case
SOTOMAYOR: “This first seven who are gonna be hired, only because of the (pause) uh, vagrancies (sic) of the vacancies at that moment.”
Vagaries, not vagrancies; she meant vagaries.
Next example:
SOTOMAYOR: “Under New York law, if you are being threatened with eminent (sic) death or very serious injury –“
It’s imminent, not eminent.
Next one:
SOTOMAYOR: “ — is educate themselves. They build up a story (sic) of knowledge about legal thinking.”
You build up a “store” of knowledge, not a “story.”
Another one:
SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence (sic) of Congress first.
She meant “province,” right of congress, not providence. Providence means record, let’s say you are selling an antiques, you gotta be able to prove where they’re real antiques; show where they’ve been, where you got them, how they’ve been stored; that’s providence.
And here’s the last one:
“And it becomes clear to me after looking at that case that that process led to affirming the decision of the National Labor Relationships Board, “
There’s no such thing, but there is a National Labor Relations Board.
Folks, we don’t find that many learned people making the following butchers on the English language she made. Imagine if a bush nominee were under the spotlight… this would’ve been laughed at all over the media, saying he isn’t bright enough, the guy’s stupid, etc; if it were George W. Bush, you know what.
Any Republican nominee butchering English like this would be disqualified, and it would be all over the headlines.
Let me ask you: do you know Judge Sotomayor?
John King asked the same question to Collin Powell on July 5th, on the State of the Union; he asked, ”Let me ask you first if you know Judge Sotomayor.”
POWELL: No, I do not. She seems like a very gifted and accomplished woman. She certainly has an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law and so I hope we do have a spirited set of hearings. What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor, who is announced and based on one simple tricky, but nonetheless case that the Supreme Court has now decided, have her called a racist or reverse racist and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we are mad at her.
Open mind? Heck no, she is content on so-called “fairness” and couldn’t care less what someone else says about it.
“Balanced” judicial record? The Supreme Court overturned her almost all the time.
The case he’s referring to is the Ricci case, and “tricky?” there is nothing tricky about the case.
In addition, the case is NOT what suggests to us that she’s a racist; that suggests to us she is an affirmative action judge. We say she’s racist and bigoted because she hopes a wise latina would make better judge than the average while male.
Here’s Leahy’s opening remarks on the hearing.
Unfortunately some have sought to twist her words and her record and to engage in partisan political attacks. Ideological pressure groups began attacking her even before the president made his selection. They then stepped up their attacks by threatening Republican senators who do not oppose her. That’s not the American way, and that should not be the Senate way. I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticism we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts, and that nomination not be subjected to distortions of their records.
Absurd. Just absurd. This is a guy that seeks to destroy every Republican nominee that comes up there. “It’s not the American way. It’s not the Senate way.” The woman comes out and says a wise Latina would rule better than an average white guy, Her words were not twisted. No one threatens republican senators who don’t oppose her. False labeling and accusations by Leahy. Her records are clear, show that she disregards the Constitution, reveals that she’s a racist and bigoted.
Let’s open with the opening remarks by Senator Feingold
FEINGOLD: I’m glad, however, that Judge So-to-may-or will finally have an opportunity to answer some of the unsubstantiated charges that have been made against her. One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record, because there’s absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it. That long record which is obviously the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her, demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. Instead, a few lines from a 2001 speech taken out of context, have prompted some to charge she’s a racist.
Ms Feingold, the suggestion isn’t that she’ll be “biased against some litigants” because of her racial and ethnic heritage, but rather, she’ll be “biased against some litigants” because of what she believes, her philosophy, and the values that in the end define who she really is.
A few lines, taken out of context!? You mean like “Macaca”?
Sotomayor’s ‘wise latina’ comments were NOT taken out of context; she said that wise latina comment repeatedly and meant what she said in all instances; do words still mean things in this country?
I don’t know how you can interpret it in another way. All things put asides, concerning her 2001 speech, that phrase was the least offensive things she said in the speech.
Taken out of context? Sotomayor’s comments are much worse than “macaca,” and they are frequent and long-held.
What prompts some to suggest that she’s a racist is more than those comments, Ms. Feingold.
“there’s absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it.”!!?? What about her unconstitutional rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court all these times, ? What about the recent Ricci case? There is more evidence in her judicial record that “prompted some to charge she’s a racist.” Well she is a racist, and a bigot, too.
Here’s Jeff Sessions laying out what the hearing is all about:
SESSIONS: Our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is a traditional American system so admired around the world where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system because it’s the fair system. In the American legal system courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law will strike at the heart of our democracy. Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political or social agenda. I reject that view and Americans reject that view.
The republican leader of the senate judiciary committee was very good, and all the republicans that followed were pretty much unified with this.
Sessions was tremendous in the entire hearing, and his interrogation and cross-examination was excellent; good job by Sessions; they exposed who she really was.
Everything she said wasn’t true; she denied what she had said previously in her speeches. While in actuality, she was actually hiding in the closet; everything she said wasn’t true. She denied what she has previously said in her speeches, and she was hiding who she really is and what she really believes. She sounded much like an originalist, almost conservative, which she’s clearly not. The whole hearing, she was trying to bury who she really is and what she believes
She says, “Well, the Ricci case was decided on precedent.” It wasn’t decided on precedent There was no precedent! There was no precedent in the Ricci case that she could cite, yet that’s her excuse. this was a case with three judges, she was one of three, they decided it on summary judgment. It wasn’t a trial. And then buried the case. There was no published opinion. She was doing everything she could to make sure that her reasoning on this and her participation in this case would never, ever be made public. she tried to bury the case in an unpublished opionion that would makesure affirmative action wins.
She couldn’t even write an opinion based on what she really thinks.
She decided the case on what her heart and mind told her, but couldn’t and doesn’t want to expose it to the public. She knows her views are extremes. She believes in affirmative action enough she can’t even
She could’ve shut this down [how]
But she didn’t. Why didn’t she shut it down? Because she believes so strongly in what
She doesn’t have the courage of her leftist convictions. She has to stay in the closet and cannot expose what she really believes and who she really is.
The liberals know if they are honest about who they are and what they believe, the public will reject them right away.
She believes what she did in Ricci is right; she believes what she said in the speech so strongly that she wouldn’t even say “I misspoke” to bury her comments forever and end the controversy.
She doesn’t dare to defend her beliefs publicly, because her views are nowhere near the mainstream.
We’re getting to judicial philosophy The left’s views are nowhere near the mainstream, because if they are, then the left would have no problem being honest to the public what they really believes and speak like the radical elites do.
The left cooks in the Senate all helped her to bury who she really is and what she believes.
Obama said we need people with empathy. Sotomayor used empathy in the firefighters case; so why not just say that she was being empathetic!? It’s a huge qualification, is it not? According to Obama, it’s a huge qualification.
She’s hiding who she really is.
In her opinion and testimony, ricci, didn’t even dare to say what she really believes. All the liberals are like that; they can’t be openly honest about their plans
Leahy asked a question to Sotomayor on the controversy over the “wise Latina” comment.
LEAHY: During the course of this, umm, nomination there have been some unfortunate comments — including outrageous charges of racism — made about you on radio and television. One person, um, referred to you as being the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan, and another leader in the other party referred to you as being a “bigot.” You’ve heard all these charges and countercharges, the “wise Latina” and on and on. Here’s your chance. You tell us what’s going on here, Judge.
Well it’s only fair that we give the accused her share to give what she has to say, right? Well, this is what she has to say about this
SOTOMAYOR: My speech to a variety of different groups — most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups most particularly of young Latino lawyers and students — I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.
The context of the words have created a misunderstanding and to give everyone assurances; I want to state up front unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.
There was no way to take the “wise latina” out of context. That comment was clearly racist, and the only people who’d defend that that wasn’t a racist comment are those who would like to see Sotomayor on the bench.
And I believe she really means it when she says she doesn’t believe any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. She’s not talking about sound judging in all her comments; she’s talking about empathy. She doesn’t care about sound judging.
Jeff Sessions was precise and on-the-mark
SESSIONS: “You previously said that the court of appeals ‘is where policy is made,’ and you said on another occasion, ‘The law that lawyers practice examine judges declare is not a definitive, capital-L law that many would like to think exists.’ So I guess I’m asking today: What do you really believe on those subjects?”
SOTOMAYOR: In that conversation with the students, I was focusing on what district court judges do and what circuit court judges do — and I noted that district court judges find the facts, and they apply the facts to the individual case. And when they do that, their holding, their finding doesn’t bind anybody else. Appellate judges, however, establish precedent. I think if my speech is heard outside of the minute-and-a-half that YouTube presents and its full context examined, that it’s very clear that I was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent and never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that Congress makes.
More example of fludge answers Sotomayor give to prevent the public from knowing what she really believes. Sotomayor was fludging was she really meant in order to get confirmed.
She meant it and really believes that court of appeal is a place for judges like her to make policies.
Here’s the comment they were all referring to:
SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is — where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know.
STUDENTS: (laughing)
SOTOMAYOR: Okay, I know. I know. I’m not… I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…
STUDENTS: (laughing)
SOTOMAYOR: You know.
She meant what she said when she said court of appeal is where policy is made. This is what she believes. She has no problem laying it out in front of students of like minds, but in front of mainstream America, she has to hide her real beliefs and philosophies.
Sessions: “Do you stand by your statement that ‘my experiences affect the facts I choose to see’? Do you stand by that statement? She said, “My experience as a wise Latina affects the facts I choose to see.’ Do you stand by that statement?”
SOTOMAYOR: No, sir, I don’t stand by the understanding of that statement, that I will ignore other facts or other experiences because I haven’t had them. I do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. They help you to understand and listen, but that the law requires a result, and it will command you to the facts that are relevant to the disposition of the case.
SESSIONS: Well, I will just note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years’ span, and it’s a concern to me.
She said it seven times over a number of years, but she didn’t mean it. She doesn’t stand by the understanding of that statement that I will ignore facts and so forth. But she said, “My experiences affect the facts I choose to see.”
In all her speeches you can see who she really is and all that she believes, but you won’t see her laying those out under the national spotlight. She knows she’s so far out on the left that if the people find out, they would reject her.
Sessions: “How can you reconcile your speeches — which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a mere aspiration, which may not be possible in all or even most cases? How do you reconcile that with your oath that you’ve taken twice, which requires impartiality?”
SOTOMAYOR: I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn’t wise. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was… Fell flat. It was bad. Because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge.
More example of Sotomayor misleading people into believing that she didn’t mean all these things she has said .
This is a false argument, a straw man. She sets up a straw man, namely Justice O’Conner, and then present to people that “Sandra Day O’Connor was wise, and she couldn’t have meant what she said. I’m just as wise as she is, probably even more so because I’m latina, and as such, therefore, I didn’t mean what I said either.” !!?? This is absurd! Total, absolute absurdity! Anybody who would use half his/her brain and reason a bit could see that this was simply an attempt to mislead people.
Sandra O’Connor didn’t mean what she said, therefore I didn’t mean what I said either” Just absurd. There is no connection there. It’s a false argument,
Sotomayor believes in those things she said that she’s trying to cover up. She’s using Justice O’Connor to mislead people to mislead people into believing that she doesn’t believe those things that she said, such as the “wise latina,” court of appeals is where policy is made, and impartiality is mere aspiration, and on and on.
If she really doesn’t believe those things she has said, why couldn’t she has said “I misspoke.” And with that she would have effectively shut down all charges. But she didn’t say she misspoke. Why did she not? Because she believes so strongly in those views, and those things are who she is.
Sessions: “You’ve stated that your background ‘affects the facts you choose to see.’ Was the fact that the New Haven firefighters had been subject to discrimination one of the facts you chose not to see in that case?”
SOTOMAYOR: A variety of different judges on the appellate court were looking at the case in light of established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent and determined that the city, facing potential liability under Title VII, could choose not to certify the test if it believes an equally good test could be made with a different impact on affected groups. The Supreme Court, as it is — is prerogative, looking at a challenge, established a new consideration, or a different standard for the city to apply, and that is: Was there substantial evidence that they would be held liable under the law? That was a new consideration. Our panel didn’t look at that issue that way because it wasn’t argued to us in the case before us.
She was finding for the minority because they were the minority, pure and simple. She ignored the Constitution, and was called on that fact.
Sessions: “Do you think that Frank Ricci, the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from your court?”
SOTOMAYOR: We were very sympathetic and expressed our sympathy to Mr. Ricci and the others. We understood the efforts that they had made in taking the tests. We said as much. They did have before them a 78-page thorough opinion by the district court. They obviously disagreed with the law as it stood under Second Circuit precedent. That’s why they were pursuing their claims and did pursue them further. The panel was dealing with precedent and arguments that relied on our precedent.
Precedence doesn’t mean you can never vary, If precedent meant that, we’d still have slavery. She was sympathetic, too, however, I don’t think the firefighters were looking for sympathy in the court, which doesn’t get them anything; they were looking for justice.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience, would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than your average white man.” This comment, or a similar one, appeared in Sotomayor’s speeches delivered in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002, and in 2004. The 2001 speech is when she added, “than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
5 years in different speeches she made the comment and stood by it, and on July 14, 2009, she tried to say it’s a rhetorical flourish or was taken out of context or just outright deny it.
5 years in different speeches, and now she’s trying to say it was taken out of context!!??
SOTOMAYOR: I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn’t wise. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was — fell flat.
OK, so Justice O’Connor was wise, and she couldn’t have meant what she said; therefore, I didn’t mean what I said.
Very nice trick O’Connor used, like many elite liberals do, to [mis]lead people into believing what they want the people to believe.
More important point is, if she was willing and easily said that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant what she said, how easy and simple it is for her to say, “The FOUNDERS couldn’t have possibly meant [whatever it is they said in the Constitution.]
If Sotomayor could with ease said Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant what she said, she can look at the Constitution and say they couldn’t have meant what they wrote. The Constitution is not safe with this woman interpreting it, which is why she should not make it to the bench.
Remember, Sotomayors the one who has used this term “wise Latina” in speeches over five years, richness of her experience in one of the speeches she said she’s be a better judge than a white man. Here’s more on the media bias, Chris Matthews is talking to this guy Richard Wolffe on MSNBC, says, “She didn’t make these mea culpas on her own before the process began. She didn’t choose to qualify her statements ’til she had to here in this hearing.”
WOLFFE: Sessions, of course, is well within his rights to push her on these comments, but the majority of these questions were focused on race. He’s playing racial politics, too, and that’s a very sensitive area for Republicans in general.
MATTHEWS: Because he’s from Alabama?
WOLFFE: Well, hey, look, Alabama politics on one side, this is also Republicans on a national stage.
MATTHEWS: You said yesterday, this was a surrogate fight over the direction of the country politically. And the sympathy of the Democratic Party generally espouses towards minorities generally, right?
WOLFFE: Hm-hm.
MATTHEWS: Is at issue here.
WOLFFE: That’s what’s being –
MATTHEWS: That’s an issue here.
WOLFFE: — litigated before us.
MATTHEWS: And that’s what’s being litigated before us.
Sotomayor is the racist, and these media libs turned it and said Sessions is the racist.
On July 15, 2009, Senator Coburn asked
“Do you think people have the right to self-defense?”
Sotomayor replied
If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law because you would have alternative ways to defend –
Self-defense is not going home and getting a gun. Self defense is when you’re attacked and you defend yourself at that moment.
You wanna hear some more racism? Dick Durbin told the media
DURBIN: When we asked questions of the white, male nominees of a Republican president we were basically trying to find out whether, uhhh… to make sure, eh, that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities. ‘Cause clearly that was not in…their…DNA.
This is the guy who compared American interrogators to Pol Pot’s brigades, Nazis, and Stalinists and so forth in the way they treated prisoners.
Now he says that white male Republican judicial nominees are genetically racist.
It must be remembered that Miguel Estrada, nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush, did not even get a vote on the Senate floor. Miguel Estrada, a brilliant jurist, did not even get a vote. He’s Hispanic. So I guess it was not in Durbin’s DNA to allow a vote on the Senate floor for a Hispanic. It just wasn’t in Durbin’s DNA.
We know in the Ricci case, there was no precedent; it was a summary judgment case. Sotomayor, though, in the hearing, made it a point that she relied on precedent for the Ricci case.
John Kyl then said to her “What precedent? What’s the precedent? Why not vote for an en banc review?”
In the Ricci case, while the lawyers for the firefighters are making a brilliant case as to why only qualified people should be hired, Sotomayor interrupted them and maked it very clear that she’s not concerned with any of that. She’s only concerned about race being accounted for by coming up with a test where minorities have a better chance to pass it. I don’t know how a test, that’s the same for everybody, can be racist. How can a test by itself provides better opportunity for a particular race group? There is no logic with those on the left, only deep ideological convictions.
Also, it seemed that she knew the answers for the democrats questions.
When the republicans ask the questions, she murmured. You can watch the whole hearing and observe that for yourself, but here’s one exchange that I think really shows that she knew the questions coming from the democrats in advance:
FRANKEN: We’re going to have round two so I’ll ask you some more questions there. What was the one case in Perry Mason, that, uhh –
SOTOMAYOR: There, I — I wish –
FRANKEN: — Burger won.
SOTOMAYOR: — I remembered the name of the episode, but I don’t. I just was always struck that there was only one case where his client was actually guilty.
FRANKEN: And you don’t remember that case?
SOTOMAYOR: I know that I should remember the name of it but I haven’t looked at the episode.
FRANKEN: Didn’t the White House prepare you for…
AUDIENCE: (laughter)
FRANKEN: For that?
She JUMPED to answer the question before the question was even finished! She knew that was coming! She had the answer definitely ready. If I were a Supreme Court nominee, the last thing I’d do to prepare for my haring for confirmation to the Supreme Court is to be prepared for a question about Perry Mason, a TV series from the 50’s.
Apparently, Sotomayor has told somebody that Perry Mason TV show was part of the mix that inspired her to aspire to go into law. Well, Perry Mason was a defense lawyer, and she went into law as a prosecutor, and later became a judge. Now, the prosecutor in the Perry Mason series was Ham Burger, a klutz who never won a case. Why in the world would you emulate a klutz who never won a case!?
She sounded like she was boned up on Perry Mason, and knew that the question was exactly going to be what case did Burger win. She knew. She knew the questions that were coming from the Democrats, even from a joke senator Al Franken.
This whole hearing was a joke. It was a cover up op.
Here are more evidence from the left themselves:
[kyl –sotomayor exchanges]
Jon Kyle: “There was no Supreme Court precedent that required your result in Ricci. And I’m not sure what the Second Circuit precedent is. The Supreme Court said few, if any, and I don’t know what the precedent would be, I mean I’m not necessarily gonna ask you to cite the case, but was there a case, and, if so, what is it?”
SOTOMAYOR: It was the ones that we discussed yesterday, the bushy line of cases that talked about the prima facie case and the obligations of the city in terms of defending lawsuits claiming disparate impact. And so, the question then became how do you view the city’s action. Was it a — and that’s what the district court had done in its 78-page opinion to say you’ve got a city facing liability.
KYL: So you contend that there was Second Circuit precedent. Now, on the en banc review, of course, the question there is different because you’re not bound by any three-judge panel decision in your circuit. So what precedent would have bound — and yet, you took the same position in the en banc review. And in that case, of course, they’re not bound by a three-judge decision because it’s the entire circuit sitting of 10 or 12 or 20 judges. So what precedent then would have bound the court in the en banc review?
SOTOMAYOR: The panel acted in accordance with its views by setting forth and incorporating the district court’s analysis of the case. Those who disagreed with the opinion made their arguments. Those who agreed that en banc certification wasn’t necessary voted their way and the majority of the court decided not to hear the case en banc.
WHAT’S THE PRECEDENT MS. SOTOMAYOR!!??
This whole hearing was a cover-up, she lied throughout the whole hearing to conceal who she really is and what she really believes. It was an attempt by Sotomayor, joined by the democrats, to bury her real beliefs. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Hear what the liberals themselves have to say about the Sotomayor hearing:
Mike Siedman, Georgetown Law Professor:
“I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? … Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth.”
Dahlia Lithwick, on PMSNBC July 15, ‘08. she was asked this question: “You’ve raised the issue of the Democrats’ lost opportunity here. You said at Slate.com today that you learned more about liberal theories on jurisprudence from Democrats’ opposition to Roberts and Alito than you could glean from the way they’re supporting Sotomayor. What do you mean by that?”
LITHWICK: All they needed to do for three days was just wind up and explain what’s wrong with the John Roberts court, why does the Roberts court have this determination to keep Americans, average Americans, out of the courthouse doors? Why are they so set on doing away with the racial progress we’ve made? Nobody makes that point. Instead we have at least half the Democrats on the committee racing into the embrace of John Roberts, you know, promising us that Sotomayor is going to be tough on crime, loves guns, is a strict constructionist, is a minimalist. It’s just bizarre the extent to which John Roberts’ shadow hovers over these hearings. And Democrats, it’s like Patti Hearst syndrome. They completely bought into the notion that, you know, justices call balls and strikes; anything over and above that is horrible.
On the same night, on CNN, Campbell Brown asked a contributing editor Cathy Areu from the Washington Post this question: “If she weren’t sitting before this committee right now with so much at stake would she really be backing off that statement?”
AREU: Nooo. As a wise Latina I can tell you, no, she’s not backing down and she probably would want to say, “Not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a white man could.”
OK, so there you have it. In the hearing, Sotomayor souded like an originalist, almost conservative. However, her track record and what she has previously said consistently in the past do not paint that pictures. Sotomayor lied about who she really is and what she really believes in that hearing. You can see it in her judicial record, you can see it in her speeches, but she tried to bury it in a hearing in order to get confirmed to the Supreme Court.
