« Comrade Obama Creates Zillions of Jobs | Main | Why the Bride of Blago Ate a Tarantula »

Barack Obama only slects the most feindish diablical memebers of the LEGION OF DOOM to appoint to his cabnet of scoundrels

"shadowy no-men club" ooooooh

You guys are freakin hilarious.

Are you suggesting, Anon, that women can't possibly be as diabolical, calculating, sinister and conniving in secret as men? oooooooh you don't know much, do you?

But let a man ever have attended (much less belong to) an all-male club (not of the SF variety). The rafters of heaven would shake with the outcry. There wouldn't be apologies in the universe to rehabilitate him.

So when is NOW going to sue Belizean Grove to admit MEN into their little club, just like they did to MEN'S CLUBS? And while you "diversity"-happy moonbats (I'm looking at YOU, Ghost of Wellstone!) are at it, you can sue the ALL FEMALE Ninty-Niners to force them into admiting men who are NOT pilots.

Sotomayor's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“The Belizean Grove is a private organization of female professionals from the profit, non-profit and social sectors, but I do not consider the Belizean Grove to invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/Sotomayor/SoniaSotomayor-Questionnaire.cfm

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 :

C. A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin. http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mcjc/canon_2.html

Interesting how she interprets "invidiously discriminate," vs. the comments to Canon 2. As defined by ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (C) Comment "Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership."

Apparently she believes the membership of the Belizean Grove is just like another private country club who discriminates, albeit their unikely feminine (and Latina) perspectives make them superior to the white-male good old boy variety.

HAIL,HAIL FIRE AND SNOW CALL OBAMA WE WILL GO,FAR AWAY FOR TO SEE FREINDLY OBAMASES COME TO ME

The more one delves into her public comments, the more you find that is personally offensive to women and minorities. Here she explains her philosophy of why a woman or person of color can’t be an impartial jurist:

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color [hmm., like Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen], in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstances but enough people of color [read: those who share my world view] in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sotomayor, A Latina Judge’s Voice, 2002.

So if we just stock the benches with women and minorities, we should get different judicial outcomes? This is race- and sex -based judicial activism by definition. How insulting to women and minority judges who would interpret the law as written as impartial jurists.

RE: Posted by: KHarn at June 5, 2009 2:24 PM

"And while you "diversity"-happy moonbats....are at it, you can sue the ALL FEMALE Ninty-Nines to force them into admiting men who are NOT pilots."

The two big reasons that the Loopy, Loony, Lying Lemming-Like Liberal Leftie Losers have not had much impact on aviation (at least the actual flying part of it) yet are:

1) Aviation is (generally speaking)a meritocracy. You can either do it or you can't, and you are held to, and judged on a uniform standard.

2) Aviators tend to be highly independent, motivated, intellegent, and inquisitive types with maturity, judgement, and a strong sense of personal responsibility. These traits are generally not conducive to the development or spread of the debilitating social illness known as "Moonbattery".

I have never heard a disparaging word about the Ninety Nines - they do a lot of good, and rather than feel offended, most of us in the aviation community like the fact that the ladies want to get together and have fun.

So, shush up about them!!! Don't give the libs any ideas - after all, I LIKE our Ninety Nines the way they are........

Our past several presidents belonged to fraternities and no one cared about that except for conspiracy theorists.

the extreme exaggeration going on here is hilarious.

That lefty moonbat Antonin Scalia is member of the all-male sexist organisation Bohemian Grove. When will the moonbats realize that Supreme Court Justices have no place in these sexist clubs

Oh and there is a big difference between the National Council of La Raza and the La Raza Unida Party. Although they have similar names, that's like confusing the Knights of Columbus and the Knights of the White Camelia

No extreme exaggeration Brandon, just facts and taking people by the words they use and the company they keep ... which liberals understandibly have a hard time accepting or confronting. By the way, welcome back from your trip to the mountains.

I'm fine with membership in fraternities and private clubs ... no quarrel that people have a right to freely associate with whom the wish. However, she needs to fess up that she belongs to an elitist club that clearly discriminates based on sex, as is apparent. This, coupled with her comments and associations are relevant to the scrutiny of her judicial temperment as a nominee to SCOTUS. In fact, it makes a compelling case, given her comments that reveal she believes her race and gender experience makes her judgment superior to that of white men, who sneeringly states that the courts are where policy is made, and whose judicial record demonstrates she punted, to the disdain of her colleagues, in addressing one of the most clearcut cases of reverse discrimination against white men to ever be in front of a court.

But not to worry, your viewpoint will likely prevail. From now until her hearings we will see the MSM enact a massive coverup of all of this ... likely using some of the same arguments you front.

Quidam's feeble attempt to contrast the connectedness of the La Raza orgainizaitons as like comparing JFK's and Sam Alito's Knights of Columbus to Robert Byrd's Knights of the White Camelia is completely inane, and, of course, lacks objective proof.

The Race, by an other name, are the racists: Even CNN's Lou Dobbs exposed this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kmTLk2Fgas;

NCLR offers race-based support for illegal activity, receives government funds, along with ACORN, and plows back some of those to extremists with publicly pronounced anti-American views, supports illegal immigration, amnesty, giving drivers licenses to illegals and the Dream Act http://24ahead.com/s/national-council-la-raza

No, no racism there ...

In fact, it makes a compelling case, given her comments that reveal she believes her race and gender experience makes her judgment superior to that of white men

That's the extreme exaggeration I'm talking about. If you read the speech, it is clear that she is discussing the role of one's life experience has in influencing how one makes judgments. She is not saying that one race is superior to another, she is not saying that one race should be treated differently than another.

To put it another way, although the symbol of lady justice may be blind, it is a hard fact that life experience causes bias.

Apparently Sotomayor also believes the death penalty should be abolished because it is racist. She states that more minorities are on death row than their per centage of the population warrants.

Wow, what a mooonbat. Last time I looked the NBA was full of blacks, so are they racist because there aren't an appropriate number of Orientals and Jews? This is supposed to be the best America can offer.

The Left has no use for the law, it has used them to destroy America and make a mockery of its legal system.

Sotomayor is a fine example of the best the Left can offer, racist, sexist, and a braying loon.

To put it another way, although the symbol of lady justice may be blind, it is a hard fact that life experience causes bias.

Which is why we demand objectivity and impartiality from our judges, especially those on the Supreme Court. Thus, her comments regarding race and life experience leading to greater wisdom in a judge are not only disgustingly racist, but just plain wrong.

And Brandon, give up your "exaggeration" theme. No one here gives a crap about your opinion of how posts are presented. It's called Moonbattery for a reason. I don't think anyone is expecting Lincoln-Douglas debate and topic presentation here except you.

Brandon - The only "extreme" viewpoint being discussed is Sotomayor's, which, in light of SCOTUS's own precedent, articulates unconsitutional racial discrimination, pure and simple:

“Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.” E. g., Loving v. Virginia, supra, at 11; McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 196; Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (Powell, J.)