Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Sotomayer

Yes, conservatives in the Senate CAN stop the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contrary to what you may be hearing from the liberal media, stopping this nomination does not have to be a "long shot." It would only take a handful of Republicans who have the courage and the backbone to do the right thing.

But first, let's make one thing clear. Obama could have chosen any number of liberals to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the High Court. He could have chosen someone who, like Justice Souter, was simply left-of-center... a garden variety liberal... but he didn't.

Obama selected Judge Sotomayor because she's an extreme leftist... because he knows she will likely allow her liberal political biases to affect her decision making on the Court... because he knows she's already disposed to "legislate" a leftist agenda from the bench.

But more than that, Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to send a message to conservatives in the Senate, and the subtext of the message could not be clearer: I dare you to do anything to oppose or stop this nomination.
Get started pushing the conservative senators to fillibuster this nomination. Swampy:eek:

And how conservatives react to Obama's nomination, will set the tone for everything to come over the next four years. If Obama can place Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment without too much resistance, he'll know that he can do anything.

If conservatives don't draw a line in the sand and take the fight to Obama over this nomination, Obama will know that he will be able to steamroll his extreme agenda of government-backed corporate takeovers, socialized health care, wealth redistribution and the advancement of so-called "social justice" down the throats of the American people virtually unopposed.

Conservatives in the Senate must be made to understand what is really at stake here. They must be made to understand exactly WHY they must fight.
 
This woman is a piece of work. Her Princeton yearbook, she quoted Socialist Norman Thomas (the guy who said "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.")

More often than not her decisions are reversed by the Supreme Court and she was the ONLY judge to get "decidedly negative comments" from her peers in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary out of 21 judges evaluated. She was the only one to "receive a universally negative review of her temperament." She was labeled as "out of control", "lacks judicial temperment" "makes inappropriate outbursts."

She made her racist comment about a Latina woman being better at judging than a white man multiple times, not just once. The Obama Admin said it was a "poor choice of words" but she said similar things multiple times, in 1994 in Puerto Rico , April '99 at the Women's Bar Assoc dinner, UC Berkley speech in 2001, October 2003 at Seton Hall Univ, on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.(PM me for quote proof.)

So if Scalia or Thomas had said "White men are better at judging that Latina women" ???

A prominent attorney who argues before the Supreme Court and who has argued in front of her said that she is confusing the role of the judge with the role of a policy maker. She has said that the court of appeals is a place to set social policy, but it really is a place to uphold the rule of law.

She was a member of the racist organization La Raza (The Race) that supports illegal immigration and believes Calif and other border states should be taken back by the Mexicans. Notice most of the links to the claims are from La Raza's own website and SF Chronicle, etc. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/09/15-things-you-should-know-about-the-race/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/lawyers-tag-sotomayor-as-terror-on-the-bench/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
 
Last edited:
Lets hope our Republicans can do the right thing....if they don't I am completely done with them.
 
They either get a backbone and get it fast, or we need to find another party that will.
 
Typical Obama crap, split the country every way he can. That's change I guess. I do think he can be beaten though, because he has split his own party,he has alienated the Jewish vote, he has certainly lost those who voted against George Bush and I'll bet all those black ladies whom he promise to pay mortgages, gasoline, big screen tvs and all are really pissed. Some are probably still standing on those mail boxes looking for their stimulus checks. All the small business owners and all the people they had to lay off ought to be pissed and the rest of us who don't want to live in socialist gulags are for sure pissed. and beside that he has used the Constitution for toilet paper. I can't wait for 2010.
 
Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for the Supreme Court
-- Time to start contacting your Senators right away

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


Friday, May 29, 2009


Unless you've taken a very long Memorial Day vacation, you've no doubt
heard the big news.

President Obama has picked an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David
Souter on the Supreme Court.

Obama's pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an
anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of
law under the Constitution.

The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the
Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power
(as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into
counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled
in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet
incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she
believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.

This is pure judicial arrogance -- something Sotomayor relishes (as long
as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right
to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and
terrorized in their neighborhoods.

But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated
by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar,
she stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental
right."

Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s.
Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton
University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns
and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

Sotomayor's Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically
correct views on the law and the role of judges.

In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly
clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this
did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis),
Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: "I know this is on
tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don't
make law -- I know. Um, okay. I know, I'm not promoting it, I'm not
advocating it." The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.

But Sotomayor's joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets
confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start
contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against
this dangerous nomination.

ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can
go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

If you cherish the Second Amendment and agree that it protects an
individual right to keep and bear arms -- as stated by the recent Heller
decision -- then you must vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

This choice for the Supreme Court is totally unacceptable! Consider a
partial rendering of her anti-gun record:

* Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which
ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to
the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which
stated in April that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.

* Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s.
Fox Cable News reported on May 28 that in her senior thesis at Princeton
University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns
and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

I will consider a vote in favor of Sotomayor as the most anti-gun vote a
Senator could cast. To send an anti-gun liberal judge to the Supreme
Court for the rest of her life is to establish "legislation without
representation." After all, she says that the courts are where policy
is made, and once she's there, we'll never be able to vote her out.

Again, please vote against this dangerous nomination.

Sincerely,


****************************

"Live Fire" radio with Larry Pratt is broadcast by the Information
Radio Network on Saturdays at 12:00 Noon Eastern. "Live Fire" is
simulcast on the web at http://inforadionet.com and previous episodes
are archived at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/live-fire with a
number of listening formats, including podcasts, supported.

Recent guests, among many others, have included:

* Charl van Wyk -- Gun Control in Africa
* GOA's Mike Hammond -- Socialized Medicine and Gun Control
* Dave Hardy -- Ranchers, Illegal Immigrants, and Guns

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.
 
Update. Selected paragraphs from article:

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor...

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled...

The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion." ...[WHAT???!!!!]

The 20 firefighters — 19 white and one Hispanic — who were denied promotions claimed city officials discriminated against them because they were more concerned about potential complaints of Civil Rights Act violations than their performance on advancement exams. The white firefighters argued discrimination is discrimination no matter what color it takes, and therefore, the city did violate the Civil Rights Act in not promoting them.

Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly..." [that promoting people who fail the test because of the color of their skin is appropriate and promoting white people who scored high on their tests is INappropriate]


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html
 
Last edited:
Recieved this today................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate GOP Caving In On Obama's Radical Court Nominee -- Call Their Home Offices TODAY To Say 'Get A Backbone!':
http://www.rightmarch.com/sotomayor-home.htm

ALERT: This week, we're launching an all-out blitz to ensure that Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee is NOT crammed down our throats without a fight. Senate Democrats are trying to rush through this radical leftist nominee in the U.S. Senate...

And Senate Republicans are LETTING them do it -- unless WE force them to STOP it!

As you know, President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has the Constitutional right to nominate whomever he wants to -- but the woman he has nominated is the most radical leftist he could have picked.

There MUST be a long, robust debate over her nomination... But Senate Republicans are ready to let her pass through quickly, unless we're able to change their minds THIS WEEK.

We MUST remind them of exactly who this woman is, and what she believes:
She is a far-left judicial activist;
She believes in racial and gender bias from the courts;
She is a member of the pro-illegal immigration group LA RAZA;
She does NOT believe in the individual Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms";
She is hostile to private property rights;
She is a pro-abortion judicial activist;
She supports giving Statehood to Puerto Rico -- under biased conditions;
She supports giving voting rights to convicted murderers who are still serving time in prison.
THAT is who Senate Republicans are allowing to be crammed down our throats -- unless we can FORCE them to STAND UP to the Democrats NOW!

TAKE ACTION: This week, all of the Senators have returned to their home states for the Independence Day holiday break. THIS is when they are forced to actually LISTEN to their constituents for a change -- they aren't safely tucked inside the Washington, D.C. "bubble," but have to face YOU AND ME, the ones who VOTE to decide whether they get to keep their jobs.

THIS is our opportunity. You see, the Democrats have proven in recent years that judicial nominations can't move forward unless there is at least a 60-vote majority willing to cut off all debate on the nomination. Right now, the Republicans only have 40 votes... BUT, the Democrats don't actually HAVE the remaining 60 votes on their side, thanks to the absence of 3 Democrat Senators!

This means that Democrats really have just a 57-40 majority -- meaning that, on any issue INCLUDING A VOTE ON SOTOMAYOR, the GOP can actually lose two Republican votes and still deny the Democrats the votes needed to stop a filibuster!

We have a chance THIS WEEK ONLY to DEMAND that every single GOP Senator stand strong against the Democrat bullying, and REFUSE to allow them to cut off debate and discussion over Judge Sotomayor's nomination. It's simply insane for the Senate Democrats to rush a vote on this. She's been on one court or another for 17 years; she has an extensive record, so it takes a while to go through 3,600 cases. Her questionnaire is still incomplete -- among other deficiencies, she has not provided materials from seventeen cases she handled as a prosecutor. Nor has she provided materials from any appellate cases she handled. And she has not provided materials from over 100 speeches she has given.

The Democrats want to push through a vote before the Senate's August recess. WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. That means we need every single GOP Senator to know exactly how the American people feel about this.

Can YOU take just a few minutes today, to call some -- or even all! -- of the 40 Republican Senators' home state offices, and tell them one simple thing:
"Do NOT let the Democrats rush through a vote on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor! The confirmation debate and the final vote should occur in September, to allow the American people to engage in this debate!"
It's that simple. PLEASE, call as many of these 40 Republicans as you can TODAY:

Lamar Alexander TN (615) 736-5129
John Barrasso WY (307) 261-6413
Robert Bennett UT (801) 524-5933
Christopher Bond MO (573) 634-2488
Sam Brownback KS (785) 233-2503
Jim Bunning KY (859) 341-2602
Richard Burr NC (336) 631-5125
Saxby Chambliss GA (770) 763-9090
Tom Coburn OK (918) 581-7651
Thad Cochran MS (601) 965-4459
Susan Collins ME (207) 945-0417
Bob Corker TN (423) 756-2757
John Cornyn TX (512) 469-6034
Mike Crapo ID (208) 334-1776
Jim DeMint SC (864) 233-5366
John Ensign NV (702) 388-6605
Michael Enzi WY (307) 682-6268
Lindsey Graham SC (864) 250-1417
Charles Grassley IA (515) 288-1145
Judd Gregg NH (603) 225-7115
Orrin Hatch UT (801) 524-4380
Kay Bailey Hutchison TX (214) 361-3500
James Inhofe OK (918) 748-5111
Johnny Isakson GA (770) 661-0999
Mike Johanns NE (308) 632-6032
Jon Kyl AZ (602) 840-1891
Richard Lugar IN (317) 226-5555
Mel Martinez FL (904) 398-8586
John McCain AZ (602) 952-2410
Mitch McConnell KY (502) 582-6304
Lisa Murkowski AK (907) 456-0233
Jim Risch ID (208) 342-7985
Pat Roberts KS (913) 451-9343
Jeff Sessions AL (334) 244-7017
Richard Shelby AL (205) 759-5047
Olympia Snowe ME (207) 874-0883
John Thune SD (605) 334-9596
David Vitter LA (337) 262-6898
George Voinovich OH (614) 469-6697
Roger Wicker MS (601) 965-4644


We need to FORCE these Republicans to STAND UP to the Democrat bullies!



Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

P.S. If you just can't make those calls, you can also select here to send a FREE message right now to each one of these GOP Senators, urging them to FORCE the nomination debate not start until September.

This is the kind of impact we need to make on a regular basis -- EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, EVERY YEAR. RightMarch.com is committed to empowering patriotic Americans across the country to make their voices heard. That's why we provide regular information and Alerts, to let YOU know what's going on in the halls of government, so that we can STOP bad legislation dead in its track... or PUSH good legislation all the way through!
 
Not one of em!

She was a member of the racist organization La Raza (The Race) that supports illegal immigration and believes Calif and other border states should be taken back by the Mexicans. Notice most of the links to the claims are from La Raza's own website and SF Chronicle, etc. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/09...bout-the-race/

Gee whiz, is whats left of republicans ascared to ask her about her being a board member of La raza? Remember folks, if they take it back they will expell all non-Chicano peoples from "their lands". F*cking brilliant.
 
You wanna see some major racist crap going on in this Ricci case that Sotomayor screwed up on? This is as bad as the OJ Simpson jury! No wonder these firefighters were livid. This is Justice Alito's opinion on the despicable mess. And Sotomayor voted FOR the racists!

Here are some choice statements to get your blood boiling. I removed the citations because this was too long a post, but they're in the link.

From Alito: " I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately only because the dissent, while claiming that “[t]he Court’s recitation of the facts leaves out important parts of the story,” post, at 2 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), provides an incomplete description of the events that led to New Haven’s decision to reject the results of its exam. The dissent’s omissions are important because, when all of the evidence in the record is taken into account, it is clear that, even if the legal analysis in Parts II and III–A of the dissent were accepted, affirmance of the decision below is untenable.

As initially described by the dissent, see post, at 2–12, the process by which the City reached the decision not to accept the test results was open, honest, serious, and deliberative. But even the District Court admitted that “a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”

This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “ ‘kingmaker.’ ” On one occasion, “n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.”

Reverend Kimber’s personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber—then the manager of a funeral home—was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath.

“Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter.” According to the Mayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.”

In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), “despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management.” In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told firefighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “ ‘they just have too many vowels in their name.’ ” Thanawala, New Haven Fire Panel Chairman Steps Down Over Racial Slur, Hartford Courant, June 13, 2002, p. B2. After protests about this comment, Rev. Kimber stepped down as chairman of the BFC, but he remained on the BFC and retained “a direct line to the mayor,”

Almost immediately after the test results were revealed in “early January” 2004, Rev. Kimber called the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Dubois-Walton, who “acts ‘on behalf of the Mayor.’ ” Dubois-Walton and Rev. Kimber met privately in her office because he wanted “to express his opinion” about the test results and “to have some influence” over the City’s response. As discussed in further detail below, Rev. Kimber adamantly opposed certification of the test results—a fact that he or someone in the Mayor’s office eventually conveyed to the Mayor.



On January 12, 2004, Tina Burgett (the director of the City’s Department of Human Resources) sent an e-mail to Dubois-Walton to coordinate the City’s response to the test results. Burgett wanted to clarify that the City’s executive officials would meet “sans the Chief, and that once we had a better fix on the next steps we would meet with the Mayor (possibly) and then the two Chiefs.” The “two Chiefs” are Fire Chief William Grant (who is white) and Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Dumas (who is African-American). Both chiefs believed that the test results should be certified.

Petitioners allege, and the record suggests, that the Mayor and his staff colluded “sans the Chief” because “the defendants did not want Grant’s or Dumas’ views to be publicly known; accordingly both men were prevented by the Mayor and his staff from making any statements regarding the matter.

The next day, on January 13, 2004, Chad Legel, who had designed the tests, flew from Chicago to New Haven to meet with Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Thomas Ude, the City’s corporate counsel. “Legel outlined the merits of the examination and why city officials should be confident in the validity of the results.” But according to Legel, Dubois-Walton was “argumentative” and apparently had already made up her mind that the tests were “ ‘discriminatory.’ ” Again according to Legel, “[a] theme” of the meeting was “the political and racial overtones of what was going on in the City.” “Legel came away from the January 13, 2004 meeting with the impression that defendants were already leaning toward discarding the examination results.”

On January 22, 2004, the Civil Service Board (CSB or Board) convened its first public meeting. Almost immediately, Rev. Kimber began to exert political pressure on the CSB. He began a loud, minutes-long outburst that required the CSB Chairman to shout him down and hold him out of order three times. Reverend Kimber protested the public meeting, arguing that he and the other fire commissioners should first be allowed to meet with the CSB in private.

Four days after the CSB’s first meeting, Mayor DeStefano’s executive aide sent an e-mail to Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Ude. The message clearly indicated that the Mayor had made up his mind to oppose certification of the test results (but nevertheless wanted to conceal that fact from the public):...


On February 5, 2004, the CSB convened its second public meeting. Reverend Kimber again testified and threatened the CSB with political recriminations if they voted to certify the test results:

“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites and one Hispanic and no blacks… . I would hope that you would not put yourself in this type of position, a political ramification that may come back upon you as you sit on this [Board] and decide the future of a department and the future of those who are being promoted.


“(APPLAUSE).”...

One of the CSB members “t[ook] great offense” because he believed that Rev. Kimber “consider[ed] [him] a bigot because [his] face is white.” The offended CSB member eventually voted not to certify the test results...

One of Rev. Kimber’s “friends and allies,” Lieutenant Gary Tinney, also exacerbated racial tensions before the CSB. After some firefighters applauded in support of certifying the test results, “Lt. Tinney exclaimed, ‘Listen to the Klansmen behind us.’ ”

Tinney also has strong ties to the Mayor’s office. After learning that he had not scored well enough on the captain’s exam to earn a promotion, Tinney called Dubois-Walton and arranged a meeting in her office. Tinney alleged that the white firefighters had cheated on their exams
—an accusation that Dubois-Walton conveyed to the Board without first conducting an investigation into its veracity. The allegation turned out to be baseless.


Petitioners are firefighters who seek only a fair chance to move up the ranks in their chosen profession. In order to qualify for promotion, they made personal sacrifices. Petitioner Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, found it necessary to “hir[e] someone, at considerable expense, to read onto audiotape the content of the books and study materials.” He “studied an average of eight to thirteen hours a day … , even listening to audio tapes while driving his car.” Ibid. Petitioner Benjamin Vargas, who is Hispanic, had to “give up a part-time job,” and his wife had to “take leave from her own job in order to take care of their three young children while Vargas studied.” “Vargas devoted countless hours to study … , missed two of his children’s birthdays and over two weeks of vacation time,” and “incurred significant financial expense” during the three-month study period. Id.

Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City’s exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City’s asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.


The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZC1.html
 
She's as good as in.
The dems want her for her radical judicial activism, the republicans won't put up a fight because her being there just leaves the high court with the same split as before and they don't want the media to crusifie them.

ya gotta love it.
Only in the government can you be wrong 60% of the time and still get promoted.
 
Yeah, she's in. I keep telling myself that it could have been worse. Don't know if that really helps at all though.

Who let that numb nut from Minnesota even say one word during the confirmation hearing? :confused:
 
Yeah, she's in. I keep telling myself that it could have been worse. Don't know if that really helps at all though.

Who let that numb nut from Minnesota even say one word during the confirmation hearing? :confused:

No chit! Franken is such a freaking idiot! "What was your favorite Perry Mason episode?" What kind of question is that? Man, I am embarrassed that I live in MN!
 
Premium Features



Back
Top