Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:24 AM
Original message
Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 10:28 AM by kpete
Source: Raw Story

Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’

By Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

Published: June 5, 2009
Updated 1 hour ago


How corporations are buying the judiciary: Part I

Corporate interests posing as a grassroots conservative group are behind attacks on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee pick, a RAW STORY investigation has found.

The Committee for Justice (CFJ), an astroturf group established by big business in July 2002 to create an appearance of popular support for President Bush’s judicial nominees, is now leading the effort to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.

CFJ’s Executive Director Curt Levey has been sending out press releases and making media appearances to promote the theme that Sotomayor is racist and biased in her rulings, drawing his talking points largely from a speech in which she suggested that when it came to race and sex discrimination cases, it was possible 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.”

“It’s pretty disturbing,” Levey told The Hill. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial … allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality. But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/05/corporations-beh... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. my radar perked right up when i saw this.
committee for justice my shiny metal ass. snakes they are. poisonous snakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Corporations are scared of her because they can't be sure how she'd rule
since she seems to be unbiased and not enough cases have been ruled on and once she even reversed her decision to favor the corporation! This is what I heard on NPR yesterday on the drive home. I laughed hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Wow, this perhaps is ENCOURAGING that she might be a vote against corporate personhood!
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 01:03 PM by cascadiance
I was a little concerned earlier with her history as a corporate lawyer, and by comments from folks like Marjorie Cohn, etc. and our being distracted in to talking about many other issues, that the effort might have been to cover up that she was another choice that would cover the corporations' backsides... With Obama's other moves lately that look to have been working more with the DLC faction of the Dems rather than the mainstream part of it, that had me more concerned this might be the case.

But if this lobbying is happening, that coupled with some of the risks Obama took in his speech yesterday in Egypt, give me new hope that he's working more behind the scenes for us, and not necessarily for corporate America. I still want to see things be that way more concretely, but hopefully this corporate lobbying is a good sign that they are afraid of her rulings, and not trying to make us feel that "she's ok" because they are doing so, and that in fact she's another that would help keep the corporate personhood naysayers like myself from fixing the current effects of that earlier "court clerk activist" decision that gave them these so-called "corporate personhood" rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sotomayor will be middle-of-the-road. She will not shake things up.
The corporations are just trying to embarrass Obama. There is nothing more behind the anti-Sotomayor drive. She has a hispanic name and an interesting background. She is a lawyer. She will be faithful to the law in her interpretations. She is as good a choice as any. This is not a drive against Sotomayor but against Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Ultimately if she is faithful to the law, she will shake things up against "corporate personhood"...
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 02:56 PM by cascadiance
... which is not supported by the constitutional law, other legislated law, or even a set of judges in a "judicial activist" decision, but in fact by a single court clerk writing a head note who was a former railroad company board member as the ultimate "court clerk activist" decision, that if justices are following the law and not just "corporate toadies", they will overturn this at some point. Now perhaps they'll try to enter in some balanced decision to give them some sort of rights (even if not prescribed by law), given that so much of our past court cases have been based on this single erroneous case, but we need some court to at least recognize this was a misplaced decision and try to roll back these "rights" that corporations are using at every turn to screw up our government, and our country in the process.

I'm hoping that she IS faithful to the law in her interpretations. That's what I think the corporations are afraid of!

Now, you could be right that through these actions they might be trying to throw curve balls to us if they want to keep many people like me assuaged that she will be a hope for the future so that we don't turn on the heat on our senators to grill her over these issues and expose it to America and how she might rule on it (if in fact they behind the scenes do want her in).

I'm not convinced yet, but this is an encouraging sign to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Her middle of road doesn't suit corporations call for a toady
That being said i wouldn't too surprised if this just an effort by a bunch a time card punchers trying to justify their existence, title and employment. Half hearted and knowing they really have nothing to run up a flag pole other than weak innuendo. Given the latitude they are working with ultimately doing themselves in by means of their own inertia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Roe vs Wade in some part prevents total exploitation of women . . .
and we've been very worried about that --

however, corporatism is the overall control --

corporations don't breathe --

we have to overturn these mythical rights and put corporations back in the box!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. I think if decided intelligently, "corporate personhood" could be rolled back...
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 02:55 PM by cascadiance
... and not affect Roe v. Wade.

An intelligent decision by a SCOTUS that isn't a set of corporate toadies could intelligently preserve the concept of stare decisis (established law), which would protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned, by saying that in the case of Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific, it WAS NOT the judges decision in that case to award "corporate personhood" rights to corporations, but in fact a manipulation of court documents (the head note by the court clerk who should have NO judicial power by him/herself) that put in place this concept. Perhaps by rolling back corporate personhood, using this argument, we can avoid creating havoc with stare decisis with other "established law" decisions, not only can we fix the biggest wrong that has created so much of the mess we face now, but it would also set precedent to avoid having another head note "create law" in the future by having this one rolled back.

If we can get Obama and others to put justices on the court that might follow this model, this would be a way to be able to rule not too radically to create other messes, but help fix the biggest mess facing us now, whether Korporate Amerika likes it or not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Corporatism is about exploitation . . .
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 03:29 PM by defendandprotect
there's no direct direct connection between "Roe vs Wade and corporatism" other
than exploitation -- patriarchal exploitation.

Overturning "corporate personhood" should OF COURSE leave "Roe vs Wade" standing--!!!

Agree that if directly challenged the original case which the headline implied
granted "personhood" would be overturned. And should be --

I wasn't thinking about "stare decisis" when I wrote my post . . .

I was simply making these connections . . . i.e., that organized patriarchal religion/Bible
is the invention of patriarchy in order to cement patriarchy.

That capitalism is another patriarchal tool to exploit --

When I said we were worried about Roe vs Wade, I meant in the sense of "pro-life" judges
overturning -- but that while we were looking at that the real exploiters::corporate elites
stole the rest of government.

A little confusing here -- in a rush -- but hope you get what I'm saying.

Meanwhile, you have made a different kind of connection which is yet something more to
think about!


And remember that the SC that decided Bush vs Gore made precedent which wasn't to be
considered precedent!!!

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Oh yeah, I agree with your sentiments...
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 03:55 PM by cascadiance
I think we all agree that corporatism is at the root of most evils in this country, and we both agree we should try to find some means of overturning it as soon as possible, and we need to preserve women's rights over her own body, even if they aren't explicitly protected by law other than one's "right to privacy".

Of course the righties will say that you are selectively picking which cases to overturn and which not to, if you have a court that overturns corporate personhood, but leaves Roe v. Wade with the rationale of Stare Decisis to not change it. They will try to argue that this is the reason that stare decisis has no merit in protecting earlier decisions if one can selectively choose which to support and which to overturn, and would also fuel their opinion that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and not corporate personhood (though most idiots on their sides, unless their some rich m'fers wouldn't understand that corporate personhood is screwing them just as much as it is us).

I'm just saying that there's a way to preserve stare decisis and at the same time throw out "corporate personhood" and show that your decision is based on the fact that only judges should be allowed to have decisions to establish law when a case is before them without definitive law defining how they should rule, NOT court clerks! The corporate types would have to find judges that would not try to use the Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific case to justify any decisions supporting corporate personhood, and what *laws* they derived their decision from. If they can't, then they're out of luck trying to use "rule of law" to defend their fascist notions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Thank you -- and hope some of this happens in the way we envision -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. I seem to recall her having been given
a "clean bill of health" by the WSJ some weeks ago... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. There is probably some kind of gap between those who buy the WSJ and those who read it
Either i am a closet conservative or there is a decent address of some news in that paper. Really though i would say we are in some agreement here, the people laying out the attacks are doing it just so they can punch in on the time-clock. Their careers are based on attacking anyone who doesn't cow-tow to the right and it's establishment. It's a continuing five or six decade old story that is starting to peter out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PNutt Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wow....Someone
Not bought, paid for, and in the tank for the greedy bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. Racist -- are Corporations a "race" now?
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 12:11 PM by Downwinder
I thought they were still trying to become "persons."

Edit to add.

Maybe I'm a racist after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Corps hiding behind dummy companies (groups) should be illegal...
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 12:31 PM by Confusious
People can't give a false name ( they can, but you'll be charged ) to a cop, why can corps do it? double standard for justice in this country.

I see it as lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. "She's racist" = "She's not a corporate stooge." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. Anyone not part of the white male establishment is racist
Reverse racism is clearly the most important form of racism in America today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Dear Mr. President....
...Don't you fucking dare cave in on this!!! Not that you will. My gut feeling is to assume you'll cave because Democrats always do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Corporatism is about exploitation, that's the soul of capitalism . . .
and elitism --

from "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are the licenses
for the elite to exploit nature, natural resources, animal life -- and even other
human beings according to various myths of inferiority --

to those breakdowns of "inferiority" . . .

gender, race, sexual orientation --

It begins with a war on nature which has now pretty much reached the point of
total destruction of the planet --

Demonized natives and stole their land -- for "Christianity"

Demonized Jews and stole their property -- for "Christianity"

Demonized Africans enslaved in slavery here -- and their lands plundered.


In other words, organized patriarchy religion is simply a tool of patriarchy --

after all, you can't pronounce yourself superior, you need a "god" to do it!

It is all based on exploitation and violence -- and it is suicidal.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Testify, brother or sister defendandprotect!
Can I get an a-men?

:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. You get . . .
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judesedit Donating Member (450 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thank you for exposing this important fact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hmmm... I suddenly became a big Sotomayor supporter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. Corporations (repubs) own our country & set policy-No single payer health care-No workers unions
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 02:45 PM by GreenTea
allowed!

"The corporations" - (who are the republican party) will not allow single payer Universal Health Care for all _ Insurance corporations want our tax dollars for their huge salaries & bonuses.

"The Corporations" -(republican owned) their lobbyist, will spend hundreds of millions to defeat the works only voice, Unions as well as the Workers Free Choice Act...Corporations to keep workers in slave wages and no benefits, more profits for the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. K&R n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. The vast right-wing conspiracy
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 02:58 PM by madmusic
National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters (2005)


C. Boyden Gray, Committee for Justice
David A. Keene, American Conservative Union
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Gary L. Bauer, American Values
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
Kay R. Daly, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family
Page 3
3
3
Harvey Tettlebaum, Republican National Lawyers Association
James D. Daly, Focus on the Family
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James J. Fotis, Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Connie Mackey, Family Research Council
Lisa DePasquale, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute
L. Brent Bozell III, Conservative Victory Committee
Dr. William A. Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Jim Backlin, Christian Coalition of America
Dr. Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Ray Ruddy, Gerard Health Foundation
Kurt Entsminger, Care Net
Dr. Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forum's Court Watch
Duane Parde, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works
Peter A. Samuelson, Americans United for Life
Clarke D. Forsythe, Esq. AUL's Project on Law and Bioethics
Richard Land, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Dr. Barrett Duke, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Dr. John C. Eastman, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice
James Bopp, Jr., James Madison Center for Free Speech
Samuel B. Casey, Christian Legal Society
Kelly Shackelford. Liberty Legal Institute
Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel
Alan E. Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Roy Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Lanier Swann, Concerned Women for America
Dr. Keith Wiebe, American Association of Christian Schools
Brian McCabe, Progress for America
Phyllis Berry Myers, New Black Leadership Coalition
Nancie Marzulla, Defenders of Property Rights
Kevin W. Blier, Center for American Cultural Renewal
Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute
Ken Connor, Center for a Just Society
Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Michael Valerio, Vision America
Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network
Ron Robinson, Young America's Foundation
Michael Howden, Stronger Families
Manuel Lujan, Jr., Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute
James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association
Page 4
4
4
Penny Nance, Kids First Coalition
Charles W. Jarvis, USA Next (United Seniors Association)
Dr. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries
Dr. Gary Cass, Center for Reclaiming America
Mark Sutherland, Joyce Meyer Ministries
Dr. S. Dale Burroughs, Biblical Heritage Institute
Mike Snyder, The Wilberforce Forum
Bishop Keith Butler
Pastor Rod Parsley, Center for Moral Clarity
Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Jeff Ballabon, Center for Jewish Values
Bill May, Catholics for the Common Good
Oliver N.E. Kellman, Jr., National Faith Based Coalition
Rev. Rusty Thomas, Eijah Ministries
Dr. Paige Patterson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Steve Lemke, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Craig Blaising, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation
Thomas Glessner, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Leslee Unruh, Abstinence Clearinghouse
Thomas A. Shields, Coalition for Marriage and Family
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Warren Kelley, National Center for Freedom & Renewal
Robert B. Carlson, American Civil Rights Union
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
Jennifer Bingham, Susan B. Anthony List
Paul Caprio, Family-PAC Federal
Larry Cirignano, CatholicVote.org
William Greene, RightMarch.com
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Phil Burress, Citizens for Community Values
Alvin Williams, Black America’s PAC (BAMPAC)
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
Stephen M. Crampton, AFA Center for Law & Policy
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Rev. Keith Tucci, Life Coalition International
Richard Ford, Heritage Alliance
Karen Testerman, Cornerstone Policy Research
Gregory K. Blankenship, Illinois Policy Institute
Mary Anne Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
Irwin Essenfeld, Renew Illinois Foundation
Mary T Erickson, Illinois Citizens for Life
Peter LaBarbera, Illinois Family Institute
Thomas Smith, America 21 (Tennessee)
Page 5
5
5
Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society, Pro-life Law Center (Chicago)
Denise Mackura, Ohio Right to Life
Russell Johnson, American Restoration Project (Pastor, Fairfield Christian Church, OH)
James E. Barrett, Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Len Deo, New Jersey Family Policy Council
Dr. Steven J. Kidder, New York State Family Policy Council, Inc.
Michael S. Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
Kenneth Endean, Maine Association of Christian Schools
Lisa E. Roche, Esq, Maine Right to Life Committee
Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum
Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Dr. Ed Johnson, Minnesota Association of Christian Schools
Tom Prichard, Minnesota Family Council
Michael N. Duff, United Families Idaho
Julie Lynde, Cornerstone Institute of Idaho
Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center
Kelly M. Rosati, JD, Hawaii Family Forum
Dr. James Efaw, Colorado Association of Christian Schools
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Sadie Fields, Christian Coalition of Georgia
Rev. Reece Yandle, South Carolina Association of Christian Schools
Brad Fleming, Maryland Association of Christian Educators
Douglas P. Stiegler, Family Protection Lobby - Maryland
Dr. Ronald Konopaski, United For Life- San Francisco
Dr. Joe Haas, North Carolina Christian School Association
Bill Brooks, North Carolina Family Policy Council
Robert E. Regier, South Dakota Family Policy Council
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation of Kentucky
David Bydalek, Family First (Nebraska)
Len Munsil, The Center for Arizona Policy
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
John Stemberger, Florida Family Action, Inc
Forest Thigpen, Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Michael L. Jestes, Oklahoma Family Policy Council
Julaine K. Appling, The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin
Joe Bob Mizzell, Alabama Baptist Christian Life Commission
Tim Parish, Rocky Mountain Association of Christian Schools.
Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church, Redmond, WA
William F. Large, Alaska Republican Party
Hiram Lewis, Esq., West Virginia GOP
Dorcas K. Harbert, GOP County Chair, Monongalia County, Morgantown, WV
Charles Bolen, Past Chairman, West Virginia Young Republicans
Former Congressman Mick Staton (R-WV)
West Virginia Senator Larry Kimble (R-WV)
Page 6
6
6
Mark Coyle, former Communications Director, WV Republican Party
Grant M. Lally, Irish American Republicans
Brian McCarthy, Irish-American Republicans
Don A. Daughtery, Wisconsin Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Maclin Davis, Tennessee Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Mark E. Foster, Oregon Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Craig Hymowitz, Philadelphia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Jefferson Knight, Florida Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Paul D. Seyferth, Kansas Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Frank B. Strickland, Georgia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
William M. Todd, Ohio Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Corey R. Weber, California Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Thomas E. Wheeler, Indiana Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
William B. Sellers, Alabama Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Brian T. Egan, New York Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Ann Browning, California Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Cameron Quinn, Virginia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Lee Goodman, Virginia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
David Blackwood, Maryland Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Mark Chadwick, Southern Arizona Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Keith Carlson, Orange County (CA) Republican Lawyers Association
Rhet Miles, Chairman of the Benton County, Arkansas, Republican Committee
Ron Shuping, The Inspiration Television Networks
Janet Parshall, nationally syndicated Radio and TV host
Martha Zoller, Radio Talk Show Host and Political Analyst (Georgia)
Kevin P. Doran, Radio Talk Show host (New York)
Mike Siegel, Radio host and author of Power Talk: The Influence of Talk Radio
Chris Dickson. "The Dickson/Chappell Report", (Midwest)
Dom Giordano 1210 AM Radio (Philadelphia)
Adam McManus, Radio Host of "Take A Stand" (Texas)
Dave “Doc” Kirby, Radio Host (Alabama)
Inga Barks, Radio Host (Southern CA)
Marta Montelongo, Radio Host (Central CA)
Vicki McKenna, Radio Host, News/Talk 1310 WIBA (Wisconsin)
Brian Farrar, Syndicated talk show host, Michigan Talk Radio Network
Mark R. Levin, author of Men in Black
Craig Shirley, author, "Reagan's Revolution; The Untold Story of the Campaign that
Started it All."
Carol A. Taber, FamilySecurityMatters.com (former publisher, Working Woman and
Working Mother magazines).
Victor K. Williams, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America School of Law
Clint Bolick, Esq. (Arizona)

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_o...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
create.peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. from the reprehensible site with this petition now
http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=13426006

TAKE ACTION: No Rubber Stamp for Judge Sotomayor's Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court
Contact your Senators today!
After weeks of anticipation, President Barack Obama nominated Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court.

The nomination now heads to the Senate, which has a constitutional responsibility to thoroughly examine Judge Sotomayer's record and temperament and not simply serve as a rubber stamp for the President's nominee.

Will Judge Sotomayer impartially uphold the rule of law or will she allow her personal political views, life experiences, gender and ethnicity influence her decision-making? Will she have more "empathy" for certain classes of litigants over others?

Indeed, the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the lifetime seat already raises issues of grave concern about her ability to impartially serve.

For example, during a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University Law School, Judge Sotomayor stated that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made," then proceeded to laugh away the constitutional dictate that judges are not supposed to make law.

On a separate occasion, Judge Sotomayor explicitly stated that she "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 has not lived that life."

In a society that aspires to colorblindness and the rule of law rather than the rule of men, those are breathtaking contentions.

Please use the form below to contact your two Senators today. Tell them that the American people want justices who will impartially apply the law, not make law from the bench. Urge them to thoroughly examine Judge Sotomayor's record and fitness to serve a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Urge them to protect the freedoms and rights of all Americans embodied in the U.S. Constitution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. this really pisses me off
if obama caves on her nomination, that will piss me off even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. And anyone still watching MSM . . . you deserve what you get---!!!!
PLEASE give it up!!

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
27. This is actually good news. Maybe she's not a corporate hack afterall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
28. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, kpete. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mullard12ax7 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
33. America needs to hold propaganda firms liable for illegal propaganda
Lying to and conspiring to mislead Americans is against the law, that is, in a country that cares about law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kievan Rus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
35. She interferes with their bottom line. End of story.
Anything that interferes with rule by corporate types and white males is suspect to the Republicans and their allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmboxer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
36. America, a "Damned" Plutocracy!
America is not a democracy, it's a plutocracy, bought and paid for by the extremely rich corporations. We must never forget that!

"We have the best Congress money can buy." - Will Rogers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. Wasn't that the group with the misleading ads against the Employee Free Choice Act? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
38. This is about RWers trying to discredit any important Democrat. You cannot make
any judgments about Sotomayor from it, other than she has been nominated by a Democrat; she will probably get the vote of many Democratic Senators; and she is probably herself a Democrat.

Rwers discrediting Democrats don't cut it any finer than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
40. Corporations are behind 90% of th evil & 98% of the corruption in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC