Chuck Todd: Republicans Won't Boycott Sotomayor Hearing

[CynicalSavior]

TedinLasVegas = worthless troll.

Come on Ted. Tell us how much trolling YouTube pays. Did you sign up under McCain's plan back during the campaign and you've decided to keep it up?

Is this your only job? You troll these vids day and night every god damn day.

[hossboss96]

a boycott? o please get over yourself and participate in the political process you clowns. the reason you are up a river without a paddle is because of those pesky 'elections' that recently took place. its so unfortunate that you no longer wield as much power, gop, just because of that damn 'representative' government we set up.

[RealCaptainAmerica]

Republicans are playing political games. They were going to attack ANYONE Obama nominated. How does that help the country?

[TedinLasVegas]

True, but how is that different than the demonrants mudslinging at Thomas at his confirmation hearings?

Republicans won't use racial slurs, lies or deceit! They'll review her record and challenge her on it - THAT'S the difference.

[Darko888]

"Republicans won't use racial slurs, lies or deceit!"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

[TedinLasVegas]

Well, time will tell if Sotomayor is subjected to the same type of treatment that Justice Thomas was subjected to by the demonrants back in the early 90s.

[ipbalkenende]

@Ted

Yeah I agree Sotomayor should accuse republicans of being racist to shut up the debate.

[TedinLasVegas]

So, you're proposing that she lie and mudsling?

Why not! It's the typical liberal response to a reasoned question; just more liberal shut-uperry. (Look up: Andrew Klavan)

[ipbalkenende]

"So, you're proposing that she lie and mudsling?"

I'm not proposing that, you wanted her to act like Thomas didn't you? Forget the 'high tech lynching' (such a stupid metaphor should have tipped people off the guy was inept)?

[TedinLasVegas]

You must be the one who is inept.

I never said that I wanted her to act like Justice Thomas - that would be great if she grew a brain like his though.

No, I just said that the Republicans won't mistreat her the way those Demonrants treated Thomas.

[ipbalkenende]

"No, I just said that the Republicans won't mistreat her the way those Demonrants treated Thomas."

Actually you said they should, but you're right Democrats never called Thomas a racist. And the hearings haven't even started yet and all this crap is already out. You should be happy though with all their sway the Limbaugh's and the Gingriches of the world have convinced an impressive 8% of Americans that Sotomayor is a racist. Sadly she has about the approval of both these men combined.

[sabboth42]

Yes, because pulling the racist card is doing anything but acting like a bunch of high schoolers.

Grow up. Sotomayor is a moderate leaning conservative. You know, what the GOP used to be.

[TedinLasVegas]

"moderate leaning conservative" ??????????

Just how fart too the left are you?

[sabboth42]

I don't draw from any party lines. Politicians are all dirty. I look over the facts and then make a decision on what would be more practical.

Sotomayor was a nominee of Bush's. How left do YOU think she is?

[TedinLasVegas]

Yeah, bush also picked a liberal for the Supreme Court.

You really want to hide behind THAT argument? Bush, Sr. had problems picking good judges and justices.

[TedinLasVegas]

BTW - How does it help the country?

Hopefully, it'll keep a Critical-Theory judge off the highest bench in the land! That way, the Constitution, liberty and freedom will be protected!

[mrbadguysan]

Fuck the Constitution.

[sabboth42]

Maybe you don't get it. There is no way for the republicons to stop her nomination. They don't have the numbers.

[TedinLasVegas]

While true, that's not the point.

The point is that the American people ought to know what kind of Supreme Court Justice they're getting. Will we get someone who believes that every litigant (ie. person) is equal before the law, regardless of gender or race, etc. Or will we get someone who believes that All people are equal, but some are more equal than others (from Animal Farm).

Will we get someone who believes that stability in law is good or will we get a liberal?

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas:

"Will we get someone who believes that every litigant (ie. person) is equal before the law, regardless of gender or race, etc"

Is there anything in Sotomayor ACTUALLY RECORD that suggests otherwise?

I've heard that statement over % over again. But, I haven't seen anyone point to something specific in her 17 year judicial career to backup that accusation.

Before you even go there, New Haven is not one.

This is all political posturing & mudslinging.

It will backfire.

[TedinLasVegas]

YES, New Haven IS proof that not everyone will get a fair shake before her bench.

[greyflcn]

re: TedinLasVegas

==YES, New Haven IS proof that not everyone will get a fair shake before her bench==

Well considering all of the judges on that panel came to the same position, AND it was basically just a repeat of already established common-law.

I guess that really depends what your interpretation of "fair" is?

If you can accuse her of anything, it's that she's a too frequently sides with the status quo. That she's not "activist" enough.

[TedinLasVegas]

What, praytell, Common Law precedent is that?

It seems to me that this concept of striking down test results as racially biased is a new concept, not one well steeped in precedent and judicial tradition.

In fact, similar cases have been struck down by SCOTUS previously; that means her decision is actually AGAINST precedent, albeit recently created precedent.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas, New Haven was an example of judicial restraint. She followed the law. The case shows she's not an "activist" judge as she's been painted as being.

The issue before Sotomayor's court wasn't whether the city of New Haven had acted fairly in canceling the exam, but whether it had acted legally.

Am I wrong about New Haven? Tell me how.

If you don't see that in the New Haven case, then it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Don't just repeat other's talking points.

[TedinLasVegas]

Ridiculuous! SCOTUS has already thrown out the idea that a test can be thrown out based on arbitrary standards of race. Unless the Plaintiff can prove that the test is racially biased -- as in the questions themselves are racist -- the outcome of the test cannot be tossed based on a racial standard.

In the New Haven test, there was no evidence proffered that showed the questions were biased, only that the outcome was that only white males (one disabled) passed. They don't meet the test.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas, READ my comment before you go to your prepared remarks.

Once again:

The issue before Sotomayor's court wasn't whether the city of New Haven had acted fairly in canceling the exam, but whether it had acted legally.

There's no law to prevent New Haven from doing what it did. It WAS NOT FAIR, but it wasn't illegal.

The job of Sotomayor's 3 judge court was not to decide fairness.

That would've been legislating from the bench.

Do you want judges to legislate from the bench?

[TedinLasVegas]

OK, I've read and re-read your comments. YOU'RE STILL WRONG!

I agree, it's not a matter of whether it was wrong. The difference is, SCOTUS already set the precedent that such a decision was A VIOLATION OF LAW -- case law, specifically.

The legal precedent, something liberal judges seem to hate, is how law is supposed to be decided. The precedent was that the city acted illegally and therefore the petition for enforcement of the results was legal proper.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas:

"SCOTUS already set the precedent that such a decision was A VIOLATION OF LAW""

What SCOTUS decision are your referring to?

Forgive me if I don't take your word. I like to verify things for myself.

MY point is, & the FACTS are, that a U.S. District Court judge had already ruled that the city government had acted within the law, and a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals including Sotomayor agreed.

Because of the, "legal precedent" the judges rightly followed the law

[WKaliberr]

Sotomayor is the best.

[masticina]

What the political choice of "no" gives in? Geeh

[AudioGraphics]

An error occurred, please try again later.

[BobCassidy]

Try "refresh"

[AudioGraphics]

F5 F5 F5 F5, no dice

[BobCassidy]

Well, I sometimes get that problem when Im using Mozilla. Just keep refreshing. After about a minute it always comes up.