You are confused, but that is okay. Just remember that whenever you are ready to take a vacation from la la land there will be a conservative here to remind you of what made this country great. Make no mistake Copyleft, it is Liberalism that destroys great nations. Not directly, but indirectly. If this country was of the same patriotic mindset that was around just after World War II we would not allow any of what is going on right now to happen. For you to sit there and blindly support Obama (or ANY President) while they help the central bankers liquidate this country that says alot about you. Why are you letting Obama get away with this? If McCain were doing I would be ripping him a new one constantly. Party affiliation don't mean a thing when your very sovereignty is at stake. I am sorry to say this, but our politicians are dividing us and pitting us against each other. Do you not see this? They have no reason to do so right now. This is not the time. We are playing politics with the fate of the nation. It is irresponsible on a whole new level. You have to wonder what their intentions are.

It would be futile to try and explain the details of why he is so very obviously wrong (to anyone with an IQ north of 79), the fact is that when you start using big words and critical thinking, his eyes simply glaze over and he launches into fantasy about the taste of Barak Obama's d***

Once again, the twit loses. The problem with you is, you can't cite one example of where a court system should have ANY policy whatsoever, other than the rule of law. You lose.

That's your argument? Please. There is no specific law in my community that says I can't hack up, cook, and eat my next door neighbor if he was already dead when I found him, either (macabre, I know, but it illustrates my point). Common sense dictates the wrongdoing there. Seems to me like the US Constitution is pretty clear on the separation of powers, and the duties of each, regardless of implied or actual written words therein. It's a sorry world in which we live, where "Progressives" think they can twist the Constitution to mean anything they want it to mean (or simply disregard it altogether). Those among us who have taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the united States should be seriously on alert right now.

The puddle-deep logic of liberals is mind-boggling. Apparently, her nomination brings the term "brown nose" to a new level. Comparatively speaking, that is.

BTW, how are hispanic catholics viewing her pro-abortion infant genocide stance? Funny how the lamestream media tends to conveniently ignore such things when it suits them.

Obama appoints an overwhelmingly qualified moderate and the Republicans prepare for whining. Not really a surprise.

Replacing Souter, he should have chosen a real Warren-esque liberal. Especially with how right wing our Supreme Court is now (and how young most of the right wing justices are), and how extreme the right is in working to curtail our rights.

I see the liberal blowhards are out in force today trying to justify how their riduculous SCOTUS candidate deserves to be confirmed. What they ignore is that the founding fathers did not intend for the 3 branches of government to have overlapping responsibilities. If I recall, we fought a war of independence(and won) to free ourselves from exactly the sort of political oppression idiots like CopyLeft and his ilk so rabidly endorse.

Imagine what we'd hear from Copyleft and his ilk if a conservative nominee was quoted as saying "I believe the richness of my experiences as a white male qualify me to reach better decisions than a hispanic female who has not lived these experiences". Oh, the outcry we would hear from those hypocrites.

In essence, what the libtards are forcing down are throats is the following:
1) Sotomayor is the essence of quotas as she meets the liberal, PC criteria set forth (female, hispanic, legislates from the bench, pro-abortion)
2) Despite the fact that 60% of her opinions are thrown out by higher courts, meaning that she is correct only 40% of the time in her decision-making, this doesn't matter because she is a liberal and liberals reward incompetence.
3) Equality under the law no longer applies if you are a person of color--you now get preferential treatment to the detriment to those of us who happen to be white.

As she is a chain-smoking, 58-year old diabetic, my guess is we won't have to endure this despicable human being for very long.

Did you even have a rational point? I reread your post several times and it still made no sense. The Supreme Court has long overstepped it's bounds ever since Marbury vs. Madison (look it up) and isn't even supposed to be the final arbiter on the Constitution,,, it has one role "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." read it till you get it

"The courts are not where policy is made. Show me in the Constitution where it says that. You won't find it."

GOTCHA! Show me any mention of the word "policy" ANYWHERE in the Constitution... you won't find it.

Policy is simply what the government does on a given topic. It can be made in ANY branch of government, at ANY level. There's nothing unconstitutional about noting that some policies originate in the courts, because the word policy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution!

Another easy win for the perspective of sanity and intelligence, i.e., liberalism.

to say anything he wants. So Sotomayor has empathy for black people, according to the savior. Synonyms for empathy: commiseration, compassion, condolence, pity, sympathy. Could anyone else have gotten away with this condescending statement? I wonder if Bill Cosby agrees with this virtue. NAACP - where are you?
Sorry, but I find it hard to concentrate on abortion, gay marriage, policy making in our courts, butter vs. margarine, etc etc etc ad nauseum while obama and his MSM are dangling a giant anvil over our heads, and the sheeple are grazing at his feet.

Sadly Ivan, I am thinking more long your lines. The worst part of it is that we have a better chance at recovering from an attack than from B.O.'s economic plan.

People need to wake up from their American Idol stuper. There is no way that we can run our home or business finance the way this arrogant suit is experimeting with our livelyhood.

But hey, he's got a great smile and loves his wife, oh did I mention his daughters are so precious!

Boortz "isn't too fond of this idea that the courts are a place where policy is made."

Like the policy on abortion?

What Sotomayor said about where policy is made is pretty uncontroversial. That's what appeals courts do, as opposed to trial courts. Or perhaps you didn't like it when the Court made policy by striking down gun control provisions in the Heller case? Or didn't want them to make policy my striking down imminent domain?

She's arrogant, bigoted and bitter. No news there, typical liberal.

Unless they find something really bad in her background, she'll pass.

Next subject please.

It's no surprise that republicans don't have their act together over opposing this dangerous liberal judicial activist.
They are too busy with their French impersonation.
You know,hands up,eyes on ground,flinching every time somebody burps.

I continue to marvel at people that have nothing better to do in life than to attempt to remove every cross in the country.

My question continues to be; What religion is this 'establishing' in violation of the first amendment?

If you get past the idea that a religion is actually being established (which I can't), then you have to articulate what religion that is. "Jesus is the son of God" is not a religion. The cross is used by Catholics, Christians, Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, and others.

Which one is this establishing as a state religion again?

Remember the time, a long time ago now, when freedom of expression superseded freedom from being offended? When it was a good thing to have differing viewpoints? When diversity of thought was celebrated? I miss that America.

As a country if we cannot get beyond this notion that all things must be unoffensive to all people then I shudder to think what we will become.

When an artist uses many many colors to create art, it is the harmony (and sometimes disharmony) of the colors chosen that can really set the piece apart.

If all those colors are mixed together, do you know what you get? A grey brown color that has no life in and of itself. I fear that is where organizations like the ACLU are driving us.