|ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT TO DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY WON THE 2008 ELECTIONS?
Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thinks so. He voted today to support Obama’s leftist nominee Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court because “President Obama won [the 2008 elections].”
Graham joined 12 Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee and voted to move up Kagan’s nomination for full Senate vote. The rest of the Republicans voted against: Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma).
Graham on his vote for Kagan:
“I’m going to vote for her and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I’m very pro-life. I’m going to vote for her because I believe the last election had consequences…”  (Video minute 14:53)
Graham used the same excuse when he voted for leftist then-Justice-nominee Sonia Sotomayor:
“I voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court…Judge Sotomayor is definitely a more liberal judge than a Republican president would have nominated, but elections have consequences.” 
Thus, following Senator Graham’s stupid logic, all Americans must blindly submit to Democrats for the next 2.5 years since they won the 2008 elections. Did Democrats submit to Bush and the Republicans? No!
RINOs are blind: They cannot see that Obama and the Democrats are destroying America!! These are not normal times.
|WHY VOTE AGAINST ELENA KAGAN
- Why No On Kagan
- The Case Against Kagan
- KAGAN VS. BABIES: Kagan pushed medical groups to support partial-birth abortion
- KAGAN VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: Kagan’s Gun Problem
- KAGAN VS. THE MILITARY: Her intellectually dishonest opposition to our armed forces during a time of war shows bad judgment
–> Iraq Vet Slams Kagan’s Treatment of Military at Harvard (video)
–> As dean, Elena Kagan aggressively tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
1. ^ Roll call vote (7/20/2010):
2. ^ Transcript – Graham on Kagan (7/20/2010):
3. ^ Transcript- Graham on Sotomayor (07/28/2009):
Posts Tagged ‘Justice’
Posted by FactReal on July 20, 2010
Posted by FactReal on July 14, 2009
Updated by FactReal on July 16, 2009
|WHO IS SONIA SOTOMAYOR?
OBAMA REVEALS HIS TRUE COLORS BY NOMINATING SOTOMAYOR
Here are the facts why people say she is a RACIST with LOW GRADES and a SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT that has been REVERSED IN THE MAJORITY OF HER CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was born in New York from Puerto Rican parents. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth, so Sotomayor is not the typical Hispanic immigrant but that hasn’t stopped her from exploiting her “Latinismo” & Americans’ white guilt to advance her career.
She is a Judge at the Court of Appeals, but there are many instances were she has chosen to ignore the law.
|1) ACTIVIST JUDGE: (making law from the bench instead of interpreting it)|
|“Court of Appeals is where policy is made”
said Sotomayor at Duke University Law School in 2005
NOTES TO PONDER:
Here is a judge who chooses to ignore the Separation of Powers: *U.S. Courts is where law is interpreted. *All legislative Powers belong to Congress
-Judicial Activism (judges making law) is damaging to USA: It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.
-Unconstitutionality: Sotomayor’s assertion is against the 200 years of American legal tradition that states that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law and not make policy/law.
-An honest moment: For a moment she allows us to see what she really thinks. But when she remembers that she is being videotaped, she tries to fix it, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.” Then she patronizes, “I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m—you know.” Why leftist love to hide that they are leftist? Because they know that Americans reject marxism.
|2) RACIST: (Yes, a Latina can be a racist too)|
She was published by the
marxist Berkeley La Raza Law Journal
‘El pueblo unido jamás será vencido’
(The people united will never be defeated) reads La Raza’s website heading. It is the title of a marxist song
which became a repeated marxist slogan.
|“I would 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”
said Sotomayor in her 2001 speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice” at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law for the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture (see below)
|NOTES TO PONDER:
*Could a white American say that white men make better decisions than black women?
*Americans must free themselves from the white guilt which is still being exploited by people like Sonia Sotomayor to advance their career & destroy USA.
*Americans must stopped the leftists’ racial imputation with facts: The racism came from the Democrat Party
*Leftists love identity politics. Democrat Sen. Durbin accused white male judges of being racists
|3) MEMBER OF RADICAL GROUPS
A) Member of radical organization La Raza (“the Race”):
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the National Council Of La Raza (NCLR)
-La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
-A radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”
-La Raza supports the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
-10 things about ‘La Raza’ (The Race)
|B) Served on the board of LatinoJustice PRLDEF
One of the racial grievance groups that helped to sink the judicial nomination of Honduran-born Miguel Estrada in 2003. Why did they oppose Estrada? He was not a lefty.
-This group receives funding from marxist George Soros’s Open Society Institute and from Carnegie Corporation of New York ($1,025,000 since 2000), Ford Foundation ($2,280,000 since 2001), Rockefeller Foundation ($1,275,000 since 2000), and JPMorganChase Foundation ($70,000 since 2001).
-It’s agenda is identity politics: it pushes for enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants’ rights, and illegal immigrants’ rights.
-LatinoJustice PRLDEF was known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
|C) Member of the discriminatory women’s club, Belizean Grove
-The openly expressed purpose of this organization is to create a female elite
-Sotomayor chose to make the preposterous argument that the Belizean Grove isn’t a women’s club. It’s just that no men have ever applied for membership, you see. White clubs used to explain the absence of black members the same way.
-It’s discrimination against ordinary women who aren’t successful, or powerful or connected, who haven’t risen through the meritocracy.
-How could a Judge (who throughout her career & college days wanted equality) belong to a club that discriminates men and non-elite women?
-Ok to discriminate white Americans? “A corporation’s minority recruitment program or a university’s minority scholarships are considered admirable, while similar programs reserved for white people would be regarded as horrific.”
|4) FAVORS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: (No “empathy” for whites)
In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano: Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters & one hispanic who passed an exam for promotions in the fire department but were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough.
-No empathy to non-blacks: Although Obama wanted a judge with “empathy,” Judge Sotomayor did not show empathy to the white & hispanic firefighters. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion – but then was denied, simply because he is white.
-No reference to constitutional claim: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.”
-She was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes: Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes (on Page 9).
-Court’s shenanigans: People were dismayed by the court’s “apparent shenanigans,” which were motivated by a desire to avoid Supreme Court review of the case. Whatever the motive, the actions of the original panel, the failure to handle an issue of this significance in a published opinion in particular, are highly questionable.
-The Supreme Court reversed her decision on the Ricci case in a 5-4 decision
|5) BENEFITED FROM PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT:|
“I am the perfect affirmative action baby” gleefully said Sotomayor
“My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues
at Princeton or Yale” She was accepted to Princeton and Yale despite her lackluster test performance compared to other applicants.
Sotomayor benefited herself from preferential treatment & exploited her “latinism”
|6) OVERRULED BY HIGHER COURTS:
-A high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts.
-Sotomayor’s record shows “she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court,” said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network
-She has been reversed/scolded in the majority of her cases before SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US):
* Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) – SCOTUS reversed the ruling Sotomayor’s panel on a 5-4 vote.
* Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) – SCOTUS reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision. * * Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) – reversed 8-0 (unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling)
* Correctional Services Corp.v. Malesko, 299 F.3d 374 (2001) – reversed 5-4.
* Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) – reversed 7-2.
* Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) – upheld but unanimously rejected her reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
* Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) affirmed on a 5-4 vote.
Before the SCOTUS reversal in the Ricci v. DeStephano, Sotomayor had been reversed 60% by high court
No Empathy for business
|7) HER BIASES DISQUALIFY HER FOR JURY DUTY:
She would not qualify as a Juror.
The standard instruction to juror states:
|8) She will be lying if she takes the oath:
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: