Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Thursday, July 16, 2009

SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARINGS--In another place, in another time


Zekester said...

As someone said in your previous blog, "she's lying" And they were correct. She IS lying!!!
Did you ever see anything good come from a deceitful person, let alone a deceitful judge? She comes to her hearing and brazenly lies to the whole country. She is so bold in doing it. But lies have a way of catching up with you. You would hope at her age being a wise Latino woman, and everything, she would already know that. But apparently, NOT.

Those who watched all or major parts of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, got to see a lot of this woman. The Republicans handled it the best way they could--respectfully, courteously and inquiringly. They spotlighted enough, smoking out many of her attitudes. Even though Sotomayor handled things with calm and deliberation, it was in what she didn’t say that was so revealing. She danced around in rhetorical flourish, and boy could she dance. Nevertheless, discerning individuals were convinced that Sonia Sotomayor is a legal chameleon, changing her words on a whim—strikingly similar to the chameleon that nominated her. They are two peas from the same pod.

Please remember the way the dems vote on her confirmation; these are socialists and communists. they can't tell the truth only try to cover their own asses..

And by the way, does anyone else think she looks like Manuel Noriega in drag? The sorry state of this country with this administration and its kingdom of czars with the Obama's and Emanuels is going to go down as the most anti-American group to ever hold office; I can only hope that the pendulum swings way back and fast from this Frankenstein Congress and Administration. Having a clown like Al Frankin the raving idiot, was the icing on the cake.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Back up your accusation that Judge Sotomayor is a liar.

With evidence and facts.

Otherwise what you posted is nothing but conservative trash talking-points--especially your attack on Judge Sotomayor's looks.

I've had a few commenters come here and claim that she is a liar; but when I ask them to give me a link to support that accusation:


If you want to be taken seriously, don't come here and act like a clown.

Thank you.

Right Is Right said...

I agree with you that "She's Lying" is a bit too harsh.
But, although she hasn't actually lied, she spined and doctored her answers to jump through the Her answers are all wrapped in pretense.
She isn't going to reveal anything that might jeopardize the appointment,
including her opinion on the polarizing issue of abortion.
Everybody know her opinion on abortion...

And btw Shaw, you told the poster above known as "Zekester"

"Otherwise what you posted is nothing but conservative trash talking-points"

Well, my reply to that is lying is what democrats do. It`s in their DNA. They can`t help themselves.

James' Muse said...

Zekester and Right is Right:

Saying things like lying is what democrats do. It`s in their DNA. They can`t help themselves.
is pretty partisan and close-minded. I think its both sides that are guilty of this. While Clinton lied about sex, Nixon lied about assassination plots and wiretapping people like MLK Jr.

It goes both ways. Lying is in the DNA of HUMANS. It comes out more in politicians.

Ken'Sha said...

Do your research please! IT'S CALLED GREED AND EXTORTION.

Since Clinton, politics trumps law. Perjury is no big deal. Theft and destruction of national archive documents regarding security (Sandy Burglar) oh I forgot, he was just a messy guy. Leaking of secrets to the NYSlimes, well the public (and our enemies) need to know.

Sotomayor is racist and a liar. I totally disagree that we have to swallow her appointment and keep our powder dry for the next appointment in the hopes that conservatives will garner favor with the hispanic community b/c we need them. Bush nominated Gonzalez and the Democrats borked him. What did the hispanics do? Overwhelmingly voted for the big BO. Bush was soft on illegals. What did the hispanics do? Voted overwhelmingly for the big BO. Republicans are delusional for believing if they go soft on this lying racist latina, somehow hispanics will vote Repuglican in 2010. Delusional. Our Supreme Court should not have to abide a racist liar sitting there. Use our powder on her AND the next nominee. I am sick of having to hold my nose and accept this or that in the hopes that some group will then like us.

Arthurstone said...

Based on what I read on the blogosphere I don't believe your everyday, run of the mill politician lies any more than anyone else. Certainly less than Zekester.

It's the consequences which vary.

jose cuervo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lynne said...

What is happening here? What are all these trolls talking about? I'm so confused.

Arthurstone said...

Milkshakes apparently.

That and spiders.

I just wish the guy with the pierced tongue had spoken more clearly. That really seems to have set Jose off.

dmarks said...

A talking bottle of tequila does liven things up though. Perhaps Juan Valdez himself is not far behind.

TRUTH 101 said...

I respectfully remind Zekester that right wing nominees Alito and Roberst exhibited great skill at not answering questions way before Judge Sotomayor was nominated. And why would any judge of conscience, intelligence and just freaking common sense issue a ruling on a hypothetical question anyway? That would be stupid on any level.

And I was wondering if you and Ken'Sha forgot the sleaziness of the Nixon Administration. Or the sleaz from the Reagan Administration. Did you forget Ollie North's admission to Congress that he was shredding documents while investigators were in his office looking for documents? Or did you forget because when Republicans do slimy things it's okay because the love America.

In the name of finding common ground with you two, I do admire the way you both channeled Karl Rove and Joe McCarthy into Shaw's comment section. Your comments were both intellectually bankrupt. Factually devoid. And appealing to only bigots and idiots. Rove and McCarthy would be proud of you two.

Right Is Right said...

TRUTH 101 said...

" I was wondering if you and Ken'Sha forgot the sleaziness of the Nixon Administration. Or the sleaz from the Reagan Administration. Did you forget Ollie North's admission to Congress that he was shredding documents while investigators were in his office looking for documents? Or did you forget because when Republicans do slimy things it's okay because the love America"

Well I thought that Pres Reagan along with Ollie North did what was the right thing to do for America. And there were no one that loved America more then those two.

And may I respectfully remind you of the SLEAZE in the CLINTON White House.
If you wish to talk about sleaze, it was invented there. From the Chief of Sleaze himself to his sleazy wife down to his sleazy Security Adviser, Sandy Berger..

And he (Bill Clinton) a former president of the United States of America Called a Vanity Fair Writer 'Sleazy' 'Slimy' 'Scumbag'
How nice of a former president of the United States of America to use words like that..
Talk about classless.

Arthurstone said...

Chris Farley would have made a great senator for the state of Alabama.

What a shame...

Of course Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions II isn't pretending.

TRUTH 101 said...

What was Nixon doing then if that wasn't sleaze RiR? And you confuse Ollie's love of blind loyalty with love of country.

And what in God's name is so wonderful about selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund terrorists in South America RiR?

You prove what I've said about the republican capacity to forgive any republican for anything.

dmarks said...

Point of correction: Oliver North had nothing at all to do with funding "terrorists in South America".

Arthurstone said...

Contra = Terrorist.

Murderers and drug runners to boot.

TRUTH 101 said...

Arthurstone is wise. You should pay more attention to what he writes.

Arthurstone said...

One of the glaring weaknesses of US foreign policy post-WWII, particularly in Latin America, is the idea that 'anti-communists' are by definition, the good guys in any struggle with the Left.

That ain't so.

The Contras were far worse than the Sandinistas. As were the military in Chile far worse than Allende. The Colonels in Argentina. Etc. Etc.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Right is Right wrote:

Well, my reply to that is lying is what democrats do. It`s in their DNA. They can`t help themselves.

Please. We all know that politicians from both parties lie--the GOP has a rich tradition in that area.

Ken'Sha wrote:

"Sotomayor is racist and a liar."

Really? Then where are your facts to back that slur? Nowhere?

I thought so. Please. When you come here with accusations, at least have the ability to back them up. Otherwise, your claims are nothing but rightwing idiocy, IMHO.


This post is not about abortion. If you have a burning need to discuss it, then start your own blog.


And Right is Right, the conservatives have contributed to sleaze in American politics in ways that we'll never be able to match. Spare us the lectures on which political party is more noble.

dmarks said...

I actually wasn't correcting the "terrorist" word, even though there is plenty to argue about on that. (just as the statement about Allende is very debatable)

Nicaragua is in North America, not South America. That is what I was correcting.

It is a common error.

TRUTH 101 said...

Please forgive my geographical carelessness.

Arthurstone said...

Now I really do have a headache.

I'm sure the dead Nicaraguan & San Salvadoran peasants would have been pleased by the correction.

dmarks said...

Arthurstone: Actually, the nation you are referring to is El Salvador. San Salvador is the capitol city of that nation.

Yes, it is good to know the names of nations and the continents they are located in :)

As for the Contras being worse the the Sandinistas, look at what the Contras were fighting for: a decent multiparty democracy in Nicaragua. This finally happened when the collapse of the USSR pulled the rug out from Sandinista power in 1989. As a result of the loss of the USSR to fund the Sandinistas, the violent Sandinista reign of terror ended, political prisoners were released from Sandinista jails, the war ended and people were able to vote their conscious without fear in Nicaragua's first true democratic election (in the previous Sandinista-run elections, people went to the ballot box with Sandinista solders aiming guns at them, and the Sandinistas basically outlawed opposition candidates from running). The Contras disbanded, mission accomplished.

I studied them extensively at the time of the Sandinista war. The rank and file of the Contras were in fact peasants who were forced off their land by Sandinista "land reform".

The Contras also had in their number "Commander Zero", a major leader in the anti-Somoza revolution who quit the Sandinista junta and joined the Contras after he realized that the USSR was running the Sandinistas.

After 1989, Nicaragua became peaceful, as the main reason for the war and terror (the USSR was gone). The Sandinista party was then forced to look for the Nicaraguan people for support and power. They were transformed from a Soviet colonial terrorist group to an actual political party in Nicaragua's democratic environment.

Arthurstone said...

The Contras were overwhelmingly former members of the National Guard which kept the odious Somoza in power.

Their interest in 'decent multi-party democracy' was minimal. Reinstating the oligarchy was more to their liking. They had a well-deserved reputation for waging war on the peasants.

I have no great love for the Sandinistas and Ortega is clearly a crook. Still, the Contras were far, far worse. But they weren't 'Communists'.

And in the paranoid world of US foreign policy (and domestic politics for that matter) that trumps all. Rape, murder, kidnap, torture, and engage in massive drug running. Call it 'anti-Communism' and you're set.

We'll even pay for it.

dmarks said...

The book "With the Contras" by Christopher Dickey is illuminating. Too many of the leaders of the Contras were former Somoza National Guards, but the rank and file were peasants. Rather than having a reputation for "waging war on the peasants", the Contras enjoyed support from the countryside. In fact, during the 1980s, the Contras were as popular as the Sandinistas. The Sandinista power base was urban, and the Contra power base was rural.

"Their interest in 'decent multi-party democracy' was minimal."

Their goal was multi-party democracy. The movement disbanded once this was achieved. If the Contras had been out to bring back a Somoza-style dictatorship, they would have kept fighting for it.

The Sandinista movement was proudly "Leninist", holding to his ideals and using his image as an icon (and was completely controlled by the USSR, which at the time claimed it owned Nicaragua). Typically, proudly Leninist counts as "communist" just as Maoist counts as "communist". And their "land reform" was typical of communists: the Sandinistas stole land from rich and poor landowners alike, and forced peasants to labor on slave plantations.

Ortega was a crook, yes. The last act of the Sandinistas before they lost the election was to ram through laws in their legislature that consolidated and protected
their personal wealth.

"Paranoia" had nothing to do with opposition to the Sandinistas. Jimmy Carter actually pulled the rug out from Somoza, and funded the Sandinistas in the beginning. But he changed his mind and started to help the Contras when he realized that the Sandinistas were not democratic reformers, intended to attack other countries (which happened with Honduras and Costa Rica), and said they wanted to destroy the US.

Whatever Ortega is and was, he is now for the first time a legitimate elected leader. Democracy took root in Nicaragua thanks to those who resisted the single-party dictatorship.

Gordon said...

Dammit, DMarks, it's about ideology, not facts! Remember, if a dictator opposes the US, he's a hero, no matter how much he oppresses his own people, or murders the opposition.

Handy rule of thumb: Would a Hollywood lefty snuggle up to him? You know how much movie stars care!

Arthurstone said...


'Communist dictator' = Bad.

US within our 'rights' to do everything to destabilize such governments, elected or otherwise.

'Right-wing dictator' = Good.

Encouraged to murder, kidnap, torture, perpetuate oppression, oppose reform and otherwise maintain authoritarian rule if he remembers to mention he's doing it all to defend his homeland against 'Communism'. This 'Communist' thing was a god-send for US foreign policy. Prior to that we had to finesse our actions, which were always based on naked self-interest, without the fig leaf of 'anti-Communism'.


I know the Dickey book. Great. Now go back and have a look see at the intervention on behalf of US business interests and the tin pot dictators the US has historically backed and indeed, installed in places such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic. Panama. etc. etc.

From the Monroe Doctrine forward, it ain't a pretty sight.

dmarks said...

Gordon: Some fascist dictators have learned that if they quote Marx and say "I am doing it to help the poor" while ordering the worst atrocities, there will be a lot of people who will take the "help the poor" claim at face value and defend the dictator any chance they get.

Arthur: Yes, that was really bad, before WW2. But none of that makes the Sandinista reign of terror in Nicaragua come out smelling like a rose.

The "right wing dictator good" paragraph wasn't the best, since it did not resemble what happened.

Arthurstone said...

Given the sorry history of US relations with so many nations in our 'sphere of influence' when we may actually have a valid case to make for assisting the recipients often are just a wee bit skeptical. The cure has often been far worse than the disease. And given how so many reform movements in the region have been inaccurately characterized Marxist/Communist/Totalatarian we've cried 'wolf' a little too often.

dmarks said...

Which reform movements have been mischaractarized as socialist/etc?

I hope you are not refering to Allende, who was actually bringing in Soviet enforcers to help clamp down on dissent.

Arthurstone said...

I didn't mention Socialist dmarks.

It's you who, as our government, lumps any progressive or Socialist movement into one of the three I did mention. One way to think of this is to remember that Sweden is not the gulag. Our government's insistence on painting any leftist opposition to reactionary regimes anywhere and, in fact, working actively against such opposition in countless episodes ensures that the hard-core leftists, such as the Sandinistas prevail over their more enlightened competitors. We never seem to figure that out.

And Allende did not import Soviet troops into Chile. More backfilling to explain away our role in the coup against a Democratically elected government.

dmarks said...

Socialist regimes are a problem.

Allende was creating a reactionary fascist regime. He was not "opposition" to them. He was indeed one of those "hard core leftists" you mentioned. Are you aware that he had created his own paramilitary army of thugs to harass the opposition, and had already shut down much of the opposition media?

Sweden is not the gulag, because it is only a little more socialist than the US. Most of the economy in Sweden is in the hands of the people, not the State. It's not that socialist compared to the much more socialist states like North Korea, Cuba, etc. Or the state that Allende was trying to build and Chavez is in the process of building.

Back to Chile. The coup was against a fascist regime. It was not democratic by that point, since Allende had taken measures to nullify the opposition. There's no "backfilling", as Allende did have Soviets there to help him crush the populace. As the KGB said, Allende and the USSR were in complete "cooperation".

Allende's regime had the hallmarks of the "hard core left", not a place like Sweden.

"Our government's insistence on painting any leftist opposition to reactionary regimes anywhere"

That has not happened in Latin America, as movements from Allende to the FMLN to Castro to the Sandinistas were hardcore totalitarians.

I think you have a good case for this have happened in Iran in the 1950s, though.