Rachel eviscerated the talking points. "Strike three, your out!"
The repukes will obstruct as always... they have no real arguments... she will still be appointed.
Wonder how many white males Obama appointed as Ambassadors will have trouble passing the Senate vote?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 29, 2009 09:12 AMSenator Cornyn is for her. So are many others, some 27 Republican senators have made positive comments about her. Seems you're just trying to divide us. Let's get her sworn in as soon as possible. Come on Democrats, get those hearings organized. Justice Souter wants to go home.
***
Researchers at Harvard and Advanced Cell Technology are reporting that they have been able to turn ordinary skin cells into stem cells by dousing them with the proteins made by four specific genes. The researchers were then able to turn the stem cells into mature cells of various tissues. This work is building off the discovery last year that adult cells could be reverted to embryonic stem cell-like state by integrating four specific genes that previous research had found were active in embryonic stem cells. Because the genes were added using viruses to produce these induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells researchers worried that they might have a high potential for turning cancerous. The new breakthrough would seem to be an end run around the cancer problem.
Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell sees almost immediate commercial applications.
"After a few more flight tests -- in order to assure everything is working properly -- it should be ready for commercial use," Lanza said by e-mail. ...
"This method eliminates the risks associated with genetic and chemical manipulation, and provides for the first time a potentially safe source of iPS cells for translation into the clinic," Lanza said.
"This is the ultimate stem cell solution -- you just add some proteins to a few skin cells and voila! Patient-specific stem cells!" from Reuters
Hopefully our president's new rules on stem cell research won't shut this down.
Posted by peter at May 29, 2009 02:32 PMBwahaha! Nope, peter, Cornyn just sees the Republican future going down the toilet because your party leaders (Rush, Newt, Cheney) are a bunch of racist assholes. And now add G. Gordon Libby to the fun:
"Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."Posted by Twinky P* at May 29, 2009 03:28 PM
If I hear one more Republican scream about activist judges, legislating from the bench or interpreting the Constitution as written, my head will explode. (I suppose I should prepare, since they're going to keep saying this.)
Interpreting the Constitution as written is the last thing they want! Refraining from making policy from the bench is the second to last.
Seriously, these are the same people who argue that:
1. We are a Christian Nation, despite the fact that the Constitution as written forbids the federal government from making even one single, teeny-tiny law even respecting an establishment of any religion, as well as making one single, teeny-tiny law restricting the free exercise of religion. "No law" means NO LAW, unless you get figurative, or yammer about the "original intent" of the framers. (Gotta just love how those who scream about interpreting the Constitution as written, rather than based on personal opinions care far more about their opinions of what the framers meant to write than what they did write.)
2. The Fourth Amendment need not be followed as written in an age of terrorism, since the founders could not foresee the dangers we face today. Or in the alternative, they argue that it imposes no warrant or probable cause requirements on wiretapping.
3. Rights do not exist unless they are enumerated, a construction of the Constitution expressly forbidden by some of the plainest text in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment. (Which, they say, either means nothing and can be ignored, or really just means the same thing as the Tenth Amendment rather than what it actually says.) And to be fair, the Democrats aren't any better on this issue.
4. States have plenary power (they call it "States' Rights," perhaps the most perverse political term I've ever heard) to do whatever they want unless a power has been expressly delegated to the federal government. Yeah, they just love invoking the Tenth Amendment as long as you omit the last three words. States do not have plenary powers, as some powers are reserved to "the people," not just the states, and no state has the power to alienate inalienable rights!
5. The Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities and Citizenship clauses are basically meaningless. If anything, they certainly don't mean what they say --- that states have to respect all the rights of U.S. citizens --- since that would interfere with their precious "States' Rights" garbage as well.
I could go on and on and on about this. They care nothing for the text of the Constitution. They barely know the text of the Constitution.
And neither do the damned Democrats. So the media gets away with questioning (and allowing Republicans) to question whether a Democratic President's nominee will refrain from legislating from the bench, and we all sit around trying to explain how alternative interpretations do, in fact, have a basis in the law as it stands.
Instead, we ought to be shouting it from the rooftops: CONSERVATIVES ARE THE BIGGEST JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS OF ALL!
Of course, for Republicans and the media, "activist" just means "not conservative."
Posted by Liveliest Crib at May 29, 2009 05:33 PMI have an explanation for the brain dead idiotic comments emanating from the troll identifying themselves as "peter"
this troll was water boarded by shooter dick head dick personally and rendered brain dead...
anyway this makes as much sense as anything the troll spews....
Posted by headxray at May 29, 2009 05:59 PMLet's not forget the latest absurd example of Repub judicial activism---their ruling that an amendment which specifically references state-organized militias somehow "really" confers a private right to harbor handguns in one's home (how many and what else is unclear).
Oh, they also had to overrule the only existing 2nd amendment Supreme Court precedent to create this phony right, as well as ignore the entire opening clause of the 2nd amendment.
One could go one and on, Bush v Gore, the Gitmo detention cases, etc., but suffice it to say that for Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas (the RATS) the law (amazingly!) ALWAYS seems to end up being exactly how a conservative activist would want the case to come out. Strange how that seems to work out, eh, Scalitoes? But they're not "activists", oh no!!
Instead, Sotomayor is the one who has to defend herself from charges that she lets her personal preferences influence her rulings. More projection from Repubs, as always.
Posted by euzoius at May 29, 2009 06:11 PMTwinky, All I can say is, Liddy is nuts... before that he said:
I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.
In "illegal alien"? I guess the right wing should run that instead of Spanish.
The neo-cons are dust!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 29, 2009 06:37 PMeuzoius @ 06:11 PM:
Let's not forget the latest absurd example of Repub judicial activism---their ruling that an amendment which specifically references state-organized militias somehow "really" confers a private right
I respectfully disagree.
The amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I do not believe that the amendment can properly be paraphrased to mean that one may only keep or bear arms when participating in or acting in the capacity of a well-regulated militia.
Rather, the need for a well regulated militia is the reason the people must be allowed to keep and bear arms. As in, the federal government is going to arm itself for the national security of the United States. But the people of each state will be vulnerable to tyranny from the federal government if the federal law prevents them from owning guns. Free people have the right to form militias to protect themselves and their own sovereign states, and to that end, their right to own arms shall not be alienated.
In more modern prose, the amendment could have read, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Such an understanding would not prevent states from enacting sensible regulations (i.e. keeping handguns away from schools; preventing criminals convicted of violent crimes from owning guns in the future), and the Court's ruling
Moreover, I think such a paraphrasing is true to the text. How would you paraphrase it?
Posted by Liveliest Crib at May 29, 2009 06:39 PMDid you see this Republican say any of that stuff LC? Nope, I said get her confirmed and sworn in. Lets send Souter home, the sooner the better. I just can't wait for her confirmation. I wish it would begin next week...send emails to your Congressman or woman to move heaven and earth to start the hearings.
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
Get her sworn in...
Posted by peter at May 29, 2009 07:16 PMWhile taking NBC reporters out for hamburgers, our president met up with this guy named Walter...
Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me…
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial…uh…
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] …support systems, so…
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.
I guess he's still finding his way in DC. There is a youtube video available
Posted by peter at May 29, 2009 08:22 PMIn August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
Get her sworn in...
What a putz you are peter. Free speech does not mean you are immune to reprocussions from your free speech. Doninger called school officials douche bags and she was banned from running for school government. The rights inability to understand the concept of "free speech" never ceases to amaze me.
peter @ 07:16 PM:
Did you see this Republican say any of that stuff LC? Nope, . . .
Actually, I didn't see you do or say anything. Not only are you just text on a screen, but, believe it or not, I wasn't responding to you. ;)
{cue the Carly Simon music}
Lets send Souter home, the sooner the better.
I'll miss him for certain lines of reasoning.
I just can't wait for her confirmation. I wish it would begin next week...send emails to your Congressman or woman to move heaven and earth to start the hearings.
I don't think you have much to fear. It'll happen regardless of your e-mail campaign.
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
I have very mixed feelings about Sotomayor.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at May 29, 2009 10:18 PM*chuckle* thats our shit head pete...it's always about YOU, eh shit head?
I hear Sotomayor made that court decision just for you too, shit brain pete....