Supreme Court to decide final 3 cases Monday (also considering conservatives' movie of Hillary)

Sonia Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who ruled that New Haven, Conn. officials acted properly in throwing out firefighters' exams because of racially skewed results. The city decided not to use test scores to determine promotions b/c it might have been vulnerable to claims the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sotomayor's opinion has been criticized as a cursory look at a tough issue. Among critics are Soto's fellow judges on NY's 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.... outcome could alter how public and private sector employers make job-related decisions.

The court is also considering whether a movie critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be regulated as a campaign ad......a conservative group wanted to air TV ads in Dem primary states and made the movie available to cable subscribers on demand, without complying with campaign finance law. The FEC and a lower court said the n/p Citizens United must abide by campaign finance restrictions. The USSC's conservative justices appeared especially skeptical of that view when the case was argued in March.

If the Senate confirms Sotomayor, it will be only a matter of time until such convuluted, inane sentiments (below) begin to make their way into the legal opinions handed down from the High Court. The fact that Sotomayor----and her crowd----do not understand a democracy is based on three co-equal branches of government is grounds for showing her the road. She has the same disdain for America and it’s citizenry as evidenced by Obama.........read on

During her now-famous address at the University of California School of Law, Sotomayor concluded in her rambling, nearly incoherent prose: "There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making." ...........

HER INCOHERENT WORDS SOUND LIKE THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE THIRD WORLD---TO POPULATE THE US SO AS TO GET THEIR HANDS ON US TREASURE........and I quote "to have people of color in statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making."

Does Sotomayor intend to assimilate into the US culture---or will she consider herself an eternal hyphenate? Americans are wary of these hyphenates. They setup an "us against you" Third World armed camp-----the end game is to sabotage our culture. Being Hispanic is not a criteria for seating a Supreme Court Justice. More is being made about her race than her actual judicial record.

Clearly, Sotomayor's the "Latino Grievances" nominee......every ruling from the bench will be ironclad to redress every latino grievance since time immemorial. Americans will be paying with our freedoms for those Frito Bandito commercials. There is nothing in the US Constitution that compels US citizens to eviscerate our culture to subsidize the Third World's lack of self-esteem.

MEMO TO REPUBLICANS: Just let her talk at her hearings. Americans will be appalled. REFERENCE Sen John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Sotomayor should explain whether she intends to be a justice "for all of us, or just for some of us," at July 13 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings......and whether she believes in colorblind justice. In 2001, she said a "wise Latina" would reach better decisions than a white man...... Cornyn said it suggests a judicial philosophy that suggests a judge is better qualified or more likely to reach better legal decisions because of sex, race or ethnicity....."I simply do not understand that contention, and I would like to ask her about it," Cornyn said. Cornyn has also questioned Sotomayor's stance on gun rights, property rights, and discrimination. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions criticized Obama, and argued that liberals are destroying the rule of law by picking judges who will bring their own feelings and politics to the bench.

MEMO TO REPUBLICANS: Just let her talk at her hearings.

I need to disagree. This is a great opportunity to expose Barry and his anti-Constitutional bent and exercise of his extra-Constitutional powers (firing executives, transferring wealth from stock holders to unions, back warranties of companies, etc).

* Do you agree with President Obama when he claims the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties"?
* Where, in the Constitution, does it allow the President to terminate the executives of private companies or regulate their salaries?
* Do you believe that the appointment of the unprecedented 25+ "czars" should be subject to Congressional oversight, subject to Congressional hearings, or subject to "sunshine" laws so the American people can understand their activities and be aware of their decisions?
* Where, in the Constitution, does it allow the President to negotiate the bankruptcy and reorganization of two auto companies and transfer wealth (bonds) from investors to unions, force a merger with a foreign car company, and single-handedly void state laws for franchises of auto retailers.

I'm sure there are more questions, but instead of "just let her talk" try to expose Barry's anti-American views.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.