Faux News - "Why Do Democrats Hate This Woman?"

[Pirate Smile]

From Crooks and Liars as posted on DailyKos.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/19.html#a3006
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/10309/7109

[Zenlitened]

1. Because she's a loon unfit for a federal judgeship. Next question.

[Pirate Smile]

4. I don't hate her. I just don't want her to become a Federal Judge.

Faux News is pathetic but then, I didn't tell you anything you didn't already know, did I?

[Zenlitened]

8. I'm quite comfortable saying I hate these people. I hate Osama bin Laden,

... too.

Anyone who's devoted themselves to tearing my country to shreds -- yep, I hate 'em.

[bryant69]

2. Well the way I heard it

We are all a bunch of racist hypocrites. It turns out we can see past her skin color to the person inside (which we find wanting) and that makes us racist. The truely unracist person looks at a black person, only sees their skin, and blindly supports them.

You know know that i think about it, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catholic Sensation]

5. Because she sided with a rapist who used the

"she didn't make it clear she didn't want sex" defense.

How the hell do people like that get on any kind of judiciary.

[Zorra]

6. Dear Faux News: Here is why:

Janice Rogers:

Following a successful Senate filibuster of her original nomination in 2004, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been re nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Brown is the quintessential activist jurist, incapable of separating her hard-right, out-of-the-mainstream personal philosophy from her judicial decision-making. In articles and public speeches, she espouses a radically restrictive view of the government's ability to regulate economic and business interests and a radically expansive view of the judiciary's role in striking down laws intended to serve the common good. Her judicial record is the embodiment of these views. In voting - almost always as a lone dissenter - to strike down property regulations, invalidate worker and consumer protections and severely restrict the application of civil rights statutes, she has repeatedly misconstrued or ignored precedent, brazenly condemned U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and paid almost no deference to the considered policy judgments of the people's representatives in the legislature. Indeed, Justice Brown's colleagues on the California Supreme Court, including her conservative colleagues, have openly criticized her for misrepresenting state and federal court holdings, flouting the legislature's will, and trying to remake the law in order to impose her own views - in one case chiding her for seeking to "impos personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state."1 The Alliance for Justice opposes Justice Brown's nomination. The Senate should not confirm her.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=30971

[Sparkle]

7. A Clarence Thomas is a Clarence Thomas is a Clarence Thomas.

[satya]

9. Orrin Hatch is a woman???

:silly: