Sotomayor is apparently a wrecking ball aimed at the U.S. Constitution.
See new tag line, just for Sonya, the Quota Queen...
“Sotomayor’s bias against private property.”
What? A Liberal having a bias against private property?
Impossible!!!
/S/
Makes sense. Obama destroys the ‘rule of law’ during the Chrysler bailout. (sanctity of contracts) and now this.
“You ain’t seen nothing yet!” said Barack Obama.
ping
Just fired off a version of this to Isakson and Chambliss. Suggest you let YOUR guys hear from YOU ASAP!!!!
db
Senator,
A vote AGAINST Sonia Sotomayor will be a vote FOR principle.
Regardless of her testimony and responses, she is a dangerous leftist. And the argument by the increasingly silly and irrelevant Lindsey Graham that she is no worse than Souter is akin to a doctor telling you that your lung cancer is cured – but you have leukemia. I heard Graham remark that “The President has a right to get the people he wants.” That “logic” says that if Obama WANTS to abolish an elected legislature for a politbureau of his fellow Chicago thugs – which he is in the process of doing with his “czars,” — you should simply roll over, move on and let him have it. Good grief!!
Should you be tempted to vote FOR her to curry favor with Georgia’s large Hispanic population, you will be making a HUGE error in judgment. Thousands of them are non-citizens, here in violation of immigration laws and, in light of the recent idiotic Justice Department ruling that Georgia may NOT require voters to show ID, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves today) will drag them to the polls on election day anyway. And if you think they will vote for you because you supported Sotomayor, you had better think again: ACORN WILL INSTRUCT THEM VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR THEY WON’T GET THE PROMISED 20 BUCKS, PACK OF SMOKES OR WHATEVER.
VOTE “NO” ON SOTOMAYOR!
Dick & Sharon Bachert
From the article:
In essence, wrote Mr. Epstein and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, the taking of private property amounted to “out-and-out extortion” with government support. Yet Judge Sotomayor’s panel not only ruled against Mr. Didden’s property rights, but did so with a bare, six-paragraph order - as Mr. Somin described it, “without serious examination of the legal issues to any significant degree.”
She allowed some a-hole developer to take property that was a CVS pharmacy and instead build a Walgreens.
How in the name of all that is holy does anyone have this authority in the United States?
It might be time for the enactment of an amendment on property rights.
It should make the taking of property (1)absolutely necessary (2) for BROAD public use (3) not for mere tax or aesthetic advantage (4) not if ANY other land remotely usable for the same purpose is available (5) not if the purpose is remotely connected to desiring a choice location (6) never for transfer from one owner to any other owner.
Anyone who hasn’t looked into this case, be forewarned. Don’t look at it before you take your blood pressure meds or you’re going to look like a lawn sprinkler.