Posted on 05/26/2009 6:49:31 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Don’t take a conservative’s word for it. No less a left-wing authority than Kim Gandy of NOW has let Sonia Sotomayor’s liberal cat out of the bag . . .
Gandy today described PBO’s pick for the Supreme Court as “very progressive.” The NOW honcho was a guest on this evening’s Ed Show. She was preceded by senior PBO adviser Valerie Jarrett, who danced furiously away from the liberal label. But then came Gandy, who gave the game away.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblog.com ...
NOW prez admits Sotomayor “very progressive” ping to Today show list.
Where was NOW when Sarah Palin was being taken apart like a plucked chicken? Where were they when Carrie Prejean was being roasted and lambasted? NOW is comprised of the biggest bunch of liberal hypocrites this side of ACORN.
Progressive = enemies of America
Translation: As Liberal as they come and then some. We’re happy because she’ll help ruin the American family for us.
Her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” when each is acting as a judge “in deciding cases.”
Sure wish they’d hurry up and pass that hate law bill. That really hurt my feelings and she belongs in jail for that.
very progressive = took up field hockey in the 1980s
“very progressive”...code word for closet commie.
Progressive - Marxist speak for one of their own.
Seriously, is that a man in drag? Yowsa!
Very progressive = check for female hair in her teeth.
The picture looks like an ugly guy in drag. NOW is made up mostly of very ugly women who the only way they could get a guy is pay through the nose for one. Bet most of em are dykers and lesbos and they probably play a lot of golf and for relaxation engage in synchronized swimming.
In other words, a commie!
LOL!!!!
Tootsie.
Looks like a member of Monty Python in drag...lol
Whoa! I thought it was Keith Olbermann in drag...
It is! it is!!
hahaha...brilliant
I’m really confused here. Could someone please explain how “living the life of a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences” makes someone better able to apply the provisions of the U.S. Constitution to reviews of lower-court decisions that have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? Brandeis? Cardozo? Hand? Holmes? Anyone?
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.