Sotomayor Admits "Liberal Instincts" If It Means Equal Opp.

Trying to pin the "liberal" label on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) asks if she agrees with an article that says she has "liberal instincts".

Sotomayor replies that if "liberal instincts" means equal opportunity, then that is true. Cornyn says equal opportunity is a "bedrock doctrine that undergirds all of our law."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Liberal
• sotomayor
• Cornyn
• Johcornyn
• Republican
• texas

[centerfield34]

Nothing! Other than the fact that it makes a person look like a whiny, spoiled, self-centered, and un-grateful little puss......

Remember, it's because of people just like sotomayor, that America is NOT reaching her potential. Her kind ("libs") are America's biggest enemy. I TRULY have more respect for terrorists than losers like sotomayor, pelosi, Obama, Barney Frank and the rest of the 'Domestic terrorists' that comprise the Democratic party.

[grantasas]

she's so full of bull-shit

[centerfield34]

@Sonicisbadazz Thank You, brother. And just to be more clear, I am NOT a republican. I'm officially registered as an "independant". I hate the idea of people going around calling each other by slanderous names and using the "n"-word as you pointed out earlier. But what I hate even more than that, is the idea that the federal government tells us what we can and can't say. I don't want to belittle people, but I just want to have the right to. Does that make sense?

[Sonicisbadazz]

@centerfield34 ...thing, but it's certainly not always a good thing either. (Please don't think I'm dissing the older generation. For all I know, I'll start believing what you do when I get older.)

If P-C were some kind of written in stone law, I'd probably agree with you, but from what I understand, it's not. It's just a way of talking that actively avoids offending people. Personally, I don't think that's so bad, though again, it's not always good. I respect your view.

[Sonicisbadazz]

@centerfield34 By and large, if the government can stay out of things, it should. What we all disagree on is what it CAN stay out of without causing more harm than good.

Republicans can be called "well-meaning people with good intentions" too. That doesn't really prove anything IMO.

And personally--no offense--I don't think age is really relevant here. Or at least not AS relevant. Yes, older people have more experience, but IMO they also tend to be more closed-minded. Not always a bad...(TBC)

[centerfield34]

@centerfield34 The bottom line is this: smaller gov't = more freedom and essentially living as the constitution intends for us (i.e. of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the politicians, by the politicians, and for the politicians). Peace.......

[centerfield34]

Ironically though, things never change with the "dem's". On paper all of their ideas look great. The problem is their ideas don't ever work the way they were designed to. P-C is just another form a "big" government that ultimately suppresses truth. It may sound like a "nice" law to pass. But try not to be blinded their lies. It will ultimately limit yours and my freedoms.

[centerfield34]

@Sonicisbadazz I disagree. I believe that by fighting P.C. (one of the worst cancers ever to be issued by congress) we at least give ourselves a chance to live in peace, by minimizing the role of gov't.

I know that you are too young to understand all of this, but the communist party (I mean the democratic party) has been using that line (i.e. we are just well-meaning people with good intentions) or over a half century.

[Sonicisbadazz]

...what keeps us from calling blacks n$%!gers, Asians Japs, and people with legitimately recognized mental illnesses crazy psychopaths. Yes, it has moments when it goes overboard. (I think we can safely call Hitler crazy and a psychopath.) But without P-C, people get labeled a whole lot easier and--potentially--discriminate­d against a lot easier.

I'm not interested in getting labeled by the likes of Mark Levin, Hannity, Coulter, and--yes--Micheal Moore. I'll take the P-C, thank you much.

[Sonicisbadazz]

@centerfield34 Progressive are not dedicated to destroying this country. If you want to argue they are dedicated to causes that will ultimately destroy what our country is built on, then fine. But there's a difference between that and believing in ideas that will LEAD to that. Many of them are well-meaning people, though I agree they shouldn't be blind about their ideals. (Kind of like the Tea Party, no? :) )

And all this whining about "political correctness" (IMO) is ridiculous. P-C is...(TBC)

[centerfield34]

And yes MAlatinboy, I know exactly what communism is. That's the direction your "party" wants to take this country. And just to be clear, I used the word communism in a "social" sense, referring to the fact that sotomayor was appointed in order to have a balance (among races [i.e. white, black, latino, etc.]) on the supreme court. You know that's why she was appointed and so do I. But I guess I'm not being politically correct by publicly expressing that. Oh dear................

[centerfield34]

@centerfield34

The reason I said I have more respect for terrorists is, because they dont' hide behind discriminatory laws like "political-correctness", which are designed to destroy the foundations of what the country was built on: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.