Coburn to Sotomayor: "You have lots of 'splaining to do"

"You have lots of 'splaining to do"... it's reminiscent of what Ricky Ricardo would say to his wife Lucy on the old "I love Lucy" shows. So the phrase carries some ethnic baggage. Senator Tom Corburn (R-Oklahoma) used the phrase when responding to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's explanation about gun laws. She was talking about how different state's laws on guns vary.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• guns
• secondamendment
• statesrights
• states
• rights
• second
• amendment
• sotomayor
• judge
• supreme
• court
• Senator

[SecretAgent009]

very true. I hate democrats and i am a conservative republican, but it's sad to say that republicans are stupid too.

I'm scared for the nation.

[Goklayeh]

Screw the Democrats and Screw the Republicans, they don't give a shit about you

[SirTimbo]

TAPIOOOOOOOOCA!

[mattxr2i]

@wrangomonger A very good analogy!

[ChaosMaster7]

@SecretAgent009 im curious, don't consider this offensive or anything, because i for one don't give two damns about neather party, but why do you hate democrats? i already know why democrats hate republicans

[godscuttingyoudown]

a white women claiming non white heritage that's a laugh especially when the meso americans depicted themselves in art as a black and dark brown people

the spanish colonialist called the children of women their raped "Mexicans" or half breed mutt bastards.

"there was 2 kinds of slaves the Field Negro vs House Negro, the house negro lived in the masters house and ate his food, the house negro would love the master more than himself, he would die for his master" Malcom X

[samten10a]

What needs to be, I am sorry to say is need to impeach the 4 members of the supreme court that stepped on the intent of the bill of rights. It seem they have gone senile and forgot the meaning of the words -- bear, keep, shall, not, infringed. Not only that those 4 can’t - won’t look up the words in a dictionary to find the definitions to those words.

[tncdel]

@bunkhouse, the only way I can see that would ensure impartial neutral adjudications would be for us to harness the resources we now have in the computer age. By creating "cyber judges," programmed so that all a court clerk has to do is to feed the facts presented on the case, then the computer spits out a verdict. The computer would be "blind" to who the parties are. So there could be no discrimination for race, etc. But of course you know lawyers would never let themselves be replaced by that.

[tncdel]

Here's my take on judges: Most judges were lawyers before they became judges. And most lawyers are unethical and can't be trusted.

And there is no logical reason to believe that someone like a lawyer will suddenly become ethical just because he or she is called a judge. A leopard's spots don't change.

I think judges should NOT be former lawyers. They should be chosen from court clerks with law degrees or private citizens who studied law.

Lawyers like Sotomayor are ruining our country.

[bunkhouse]

@tncdel I looked up both of these organizations and do not claim to know all that much about either. But they both have their agendas from what I've read. They are certainly partisan. That in itself (whether to the right or left) makes me question their credibility, particularly AUL Once I see a "news person" from MSNBC or FOX praising and/or throwing softballs at someone I can't help but not take that person serious. . Unfortunately in today's climate it is hard to find a neutral source.

[tncdel]

@bunkhouse, activist judges are politicians, not impartial dispensers of justice, as judges should be. Sotomayor's a politician with agendas. She should not be a judge. Same goes for any other poltician on the bench, left or right.

[bunkhouse]

@tncdel Your doing an awful lot of complaining about activist judges. Just wondering what your opinion is on the recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC? There seems to be an amazing amount of bitching from the right about Sotomayor and not a peep about this ruling which completely undermines the average individual in the election process. Could it be because this ruling (which is the very definition of judicial activism) came from the right side of the bench? I will also Google that.