Posted by
rycK on Friday, May 29, 2009 9:51:12 AM
Is Sotomayor a
Lesbian or a Tax Cheat or More? We need
to know.
Abstract: The political game of
vetting and investigating a SCOTUS nominee is now in progress. From the left we
learned how to subject nominees to all sorts of questions and bring out ‘testimonials’
and other information in the Clarence Thomas trials. We may need another ‘Anita
Hill’ to testify in Congress against her. This is the way the process works
now, so let’s get busy and dig and dig and find out who this Sotomayor person
is and if she has any warts. Then the
information needs to be put up in lights with documentation and testimonials.
We can play the character assignation game too as this is now apparently essential
in Washington politics. She has made alarming
statements that seem to cast her as some kind of rebellious radical belligerent
who would corrupt and poison our judicial system and these need to be inspected
closely. Ella es racista? Necesitamos saber
más sobre ella.
President
Obama has finally made his first selection for a nominee for
the United States Supreme Court. We now must struggle with the potential politics
of diversity, leftist power and activist judges
as this process proceeds. This nomination is a welcome prerogative of the Obama
administration as they are minority-based and will put person of color in as
many places in government as possible. This is the privilege of the winner of a
political contest. This will bring ‘change’ in our society and the voters
certainly sanctioned this last November. She may be just fine. But, we need to avoid putting some misfit on the
High Bench so let us dig for information and find out what we can:
We already know this about our new
appointee for SCOTUS from her own mouth:
“I would
hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that
life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President
Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.”-- A Judge’s View of
Judging Is on the Record by Charlie Savage Published: May 14, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
Here is how she views her
ethnicity from the bench:
“…. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart
Taylor reported, “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be
impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our
experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested
that ‘inherent
physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and
national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’”
The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law
Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male
Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”--
The Supreme Court high
hurdles contest By Michelle Malkin May 27, 2009 09:33 AM
We also know she is a member of La
Raza.
We do know that gay activists are wildly supporting Sotomayor:
“In a statement issued by the National LGBT
Bar Association, the group said Sotomayor “not only meets, but exceeds” the
organization's criteria for a nominee.”-- Gay Activists Applaud Sotomayor
Nomination. By Carlos Santoscoy MAY 27, 2009
La Raza is an Hispanic Supremacist group and
she may be therefore connected to the allied La Mecha bunch. They are another group that wants
to reconquer much of the US and return it to its Mexican roots and expel Anglos in the
process. No wonder she gets so much praise from the radical and criminal ranks
of the Hispanics. Many think she would vote for amnesty for illegal aliens in a
flash. Thus, she would be a force for
supporting criminal activity mixed with bias and racism. We need to look at
this closely.
We should object not to gays living their own
lifestyles, but we can object to some surreptitious creature that might sneak
into the Supreme Court and brings along a hidden agenda for social and judicial
activism. This portends that she is possibly just a simple stooge for the
radical left and, as such, defiles and soils the mission and history of the
High Court. She also appears to be a hot head or hot dog [she is reported to be nasty and abrasive at the
bench] and her legal competence has been questioned. We need to know all about her since we now put our candidates
under some kind of political microscope as we found out with the Bork and
Thomas cases. Maybe we
need another “Anita Hill” to emerge and ‘testify’ about her sexual activities
or other unseemly conduct. That is the way politics works now.
Nobody seems to know a thing about her tax
history. She has an apartment in the West Village of NYC and that is
expensive. She probably pays $5000 a month on her rent alone. Her federal
salary is not so very high so we need to know how she balances her house budget
living in Manhattan:
“ The Washington Post reports that the
54-year-old Sotomayer[sic] has a $179,500 yearly salary but
On her financial
disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a
Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined.
During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was
listed as low as $30,000.”[10]
We need to investigate this person and expose
any and all activities in her life as is the contemporary custom in vetting
SCOTUS nominees. We learned this process from Ted Kennedy and the mentally
unstable Joe Biden—a.k.a. Plugs the Buffoon. This is a route inherited from the liberal Democrats. If she has
any warts we need to see them from all angles. We really should avoid
having perverts, parasites, racists, bigots and stooges on the courts. They
just poison our society. She may be just
some mediocre liberal, but we need to know more.
And on it goes. Her
judgeship may be a mere ‘aspiration as she seems to be the center of some blueprint to corrupt
the legal system using identity politics, sleaze and other nefarious tactics.
Let us look into this mess with diligence.
rycK [a 5th generation Californian
in exile]
Comments
to: ryckki@gmail.com
A MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil
Chicano de Aztlan) slogan translates as "For
the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."
El Plan de Aztlan, a founding document carried now on many MEChA Internet
sites, talks about the "call of our blood" and the need to reclaim
the Southwest (Aztlan) from "the
occupying forces of the oppressor." As if the Nazi-like call to the power
of blood isn't scary enough, Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA
raised the issue of ethnic cleansing. Once Aztlan has been taken over, he said,
non-Chicanos "would have to be expelled"
and opposition groups quashed "because you have to keep the power."
Mankiw's
critique is a bizarre on several levels. For one thing, while a
$179,000-per-year income is quite a lot wherever one lives, it doesn't go as
far in New York City as in almost any other place. State taxes in New York are pretty high for
the upper income brackets, and New York City also charges a city
tax of 3.648%. As a single filer, Sotomayor's income tax burden, counting her
federal nut, is probably something like $65,000.
In
addition, New York City is an expensive place
to live: particularly on the Island of Manhattan, and even more
particularly in the West Village neighborhood where
Sotomayor has her apartment. The average price of a two-bedroom rental
apartment in a doorman building in Greenwich Villiage[sic] is $5,396 per month,
or about $65,000 per year. (Sotomayor, from what I can gather, in fact still
rents her space). So considering her tax bill and the cost of her apartment,
Sotomayor is down to "only" about $50,000 in disposable income per
year. A single person can certainly live very well on that sort of income —
even in Manhattan — but would probably not live what we'd ordinarily consider
an extravagant lifestyle. It would be quite easy to spend a good chunk of that
$50,000 on utilities, transport, groceries, and extra medical care (Sotomayor
is diabetic); throw in a couple of nice meals out every month, tickets to a
dozen Yankees games each year, and maybe a week's worth of vacation, and you're
not going to have a whole heck of a lot left over. And of course, if one is
generous with one's friends, or gives money to one's extended family or to
charity, the money will go even faster. Sure, it's a pretty full life. But it's
not likely that Sotomayor is downing bottles of Cristal and snorting coke in
the bathroom every Friday at Hotel Gansevoort, or having four-martini lunches
with the Sex and the City girls at Bryant Park. http://gawker.com/5271031/what-is-the-punditry-saying-about-sonia-sotomayor