Comments on: Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"

Supreme Court Nominee Shares Her Personal Life Experiences but Promises Decisions Based on Impartial Justice

[Illuminated1]

What's funny about all this is the fact the Republican party originally was against slavery turn out to be the real racists...and the democrats were the slavers now represent the mainstream minority....

How ironic...

[hungry1968-16]

reveal5: She never had any to begin with.

[erb0087]

She's not a racist at all.

[hungry1968-16]

by credibility2 July 13, 2009 5:41 PM EDT

Sotomayor is a racist and bigot and her recent co-decision punishing whites and Hispanics who passed a firefighter exam just because blacks failed to measure up as their equals was rightfully over-turned by the Supreme Court. Her co-decision was based on her intolerance for non-blacks.





So you're saying that Sotomayor is prejudiced against whites AND hispanics, that's why she ruled against them, and in favor of the black firefighters?

[credibility2]

stuart2020 - what's the matter moron, anyone who disagrees with your having formed a subjective opinion suckelled from the teats of the twisted liberal media is hardly in a position to dare challenge me. First moron, I don't have cable and can't possibly watch Fox News. Besides, what are you afraid anyway? Fox News may be right-leaning, but what's one station compared to all of the left-leaning ones like CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC. Second, I'm an Independent. I neither voted for Bush 43 either time and I proudly and intelligently didn't vote for Obama. You think you're so smug you moron that you can't handle anyone who knows how to formulate an opinion based on fact. My reference was based on fact and you can't refute it. Sotomayor is a racist and bigot and her recent co-decision punishing whites and Hispanics who passed a firefighter exam just because blacks failed to measure up as their equals was rightfully over-turned by the Supreme Court. Her co-decision was based on her intolerance for non-blacks. Both she and those of your ilk are a menace to society and the rule of Constitutional law. Go back to your corner and finish your timeout, while you try and amuse yourself.

[hungry1968-16]

reveal5: She never had any to begin with.

[stuart2020]

And out of all those words you post there is not one single fact. Not one regarding anything you said about Sotomayer.

Not my problem you don't have cable.

Everyone suddenly wants to be an independent and claim that they have been. Right.

I could care less who you vote for.

No opinions based on fact in your post for me to respond to.

Sotomayber is no more a bigoted racist and in fact, if she indeed is one, could never possibly measure up to the neo-con, fascist, racist, extremists and ignorant people that call themselves the far far far out republicans these days. You are obviously one of them.

She is not a menace to society and neoither are the democrats.

You are clearly no expert on constitutional law. Your just a mouthpiece for Faux News Fantastically Forgettable Fables. You're a Rushbot like many who post idiodicy on this board.

Now you are excused and may go finish amusing yourself with all your many delusions about how racist and manacing Sottomayer is.

[GovernmentControl]

Sotomayor is an unrepentant racist, just like obamas "spiritual advisor" and "crazy uncle" rev wright, and just like obama himself.

[erb0087]

She's not a racist at all.

[beaumuff]

I have a old family recepie but do you really want to look like that? Ive seen better faces on iodine bottles.

[beaumuff]

I say put in judge Judy.

[TheMasses0009]

Sonya was raised on a steady diet of possum and chiggers.

[beaumuff]

I have a old family recepie but do you really want to look like that? Ive seen better faces on iodine bottles.

[eclecticman1]

THERE ARE A LOT OF LIES OUT THERE ABOUT SOTMAYER. ONE IS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES (60%) THAT SHE WAS REVERSED. HERE IS THE TRUTH: Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two ? not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years and a typical percentage of reversals.