Comments on: Obama High Court Choice a Far-Left Globalist at Heart

By: William Wallace

William Wallace — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:01:07 +0000

let us see;
1.) she is a racist- La Raza mamber/reconquistador movement American southwest
2.) She is a judicial activist
3.) many of her rulings were overturned by Supreme court; most recent New Haven FD case
4.) she is anti-2nd Amendment; appointed by worst 2nd Amenment president , ever
5.) she is on record stating her empathy will guide her decisions; not the law or precedents.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:21:29 +0000

Do you mean The New American Civil War in ‘White Fang’ style?

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:33:07 +0000

Whatever dirty names you are inventing ,still you can’t convince me that she said anything about foreign govts influence on american courts Can i guess you were afraid by the word ‘discussing’ in the next frase – ‘unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases . . . we are going to lose influence in the world’ If so where is the influence of foreign govts – can you tell me,if you can see the difference between the ‘discussing
the ideas’ and influence of imaginary ‘forein govts’

By: Truthteller

Truthteller — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:41:18 +0000

You can thank the obomabots for this hope and change coming now to the U.S. For all you deranged Bush haters, he made excellent choices for the Supreme court in comparison to now what Obama has done and will do. elections have consequences, and now you will suffer them.

By: Bastet777@hotmail.com

Bastet777@hotmail.com — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:11:57 +0000

This woman is a La Raza racist filth. She will be a detrimental to our country.

By: Evelia

Evelia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:10:46 +0000

She has the face of an old decreped mans ass.

By: LovecraftEthos

LovecraftEthos — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:45:48 +0000

Gimme, I think you are right on with that comment. My favorite quote was the one about checking to make sure that our “constitutional rights” agree with the “mainstream of human thinking.” This proves that she is a dirty little piece of shit like so many others in our government. Our “constitutional rights” were forged with indivudual freedom in mind, to GO AWAY FROM the “mainstream of human thinking” – because the mainstream of human thinking can hardly be called that at all. It’s more like superstitious genuflecting at whatever idol happens to be on top, and grovelling in terror because what little one has for oneself will be taken away by those with more power. And I think our “constitutional rights” were actually derived from, er NATURAL RIGHTS, which only death can take away … if it gets so lucky. She doesn’t understand this because she is a part of a group, not an independent mind. She cannot think without looking to others for cues or approval. So put away your Ayn Rand and pick up your Jack London! It looks like the law in the near future will be “The Law of Meat”: EAT OR BE EATEN. To all true men and women, dine away …

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:00:50 +0000

Did you find ‘foreign govts’ in the next (4th) paragraph -
‘On April 28, she delivered a speech claiming that “unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases . . . we are going to lose influence in the world.” ‘ You probably have political X-ray spectacles or something similar device
to find non-visible words in the text!

By: gimmeabreak

gimmeabreak — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:13:51 +0000

The 4th paragraph in this particular article. You should read it.

By: gimmeabreak

gimmeabreak — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:13:05 +0000

How many amendments in the bill of rights does a Supreme Court candidate have to refuse to support before they are disqualified? It appears our “living” document is DOA.