Dear NUKE

I did respond to you maybe not the manner you would like but at the same time where was your response to my questions to you , here's a replay and some additional arguments:

Here is what you said:

“In regard to the fact Sotomayor has been in agreement with her conservative counterpart on the 2nd Circuit on 95% of the cases that have come before them, I have something to say.”

1. “One could turn that question around, you know, and ask, "How conservative is that?" in regard to her conservative counterpart on the court agreeing with Sotomayor 95% of the time.”

My reply:
First if conservative judges voted with a liberal judge 95% of the time those judges could not be described as conservatives.

As you stated " conservatives would then have a beef with their "supposedly" conservative justice (who voted with her)"

Is it not telling that there is no outrage from the right that their judges voted with her doesn't that support my argument that she may be more conservative then advertised?

Reliable progressives have also questioned her progressiveness, Rachel and Tom Hartman for example.

At the same time where is the Republican rebutted that judges she voted with were not conservatives?

More important (as reported in Politico )

The fact that Sotomayor has voted 95% of the time with conservatives is an Obama administration talking point.

Are you now going to argue that the Obama administration does not know what they are talking about or lying when they issued this talking point?

As I see it
If the Obama administration can use the fact that she votes with Republican conservative appointees (s) 95% of the time to sell her as a moderate, it would be foolish for progressive to ignore that talking point and not ask, is Sotomayor Progressive enough for us?

YOU ASKED
“How would their rulings be looked upon by both the conservative and liberal bases, those are the more pertinent questions?

Again: The fact that there has been no outrage by right wingers is telling is it not.

My reply was
“Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote”

As I see it Nancy Keenan elected to the leadership of NARA is a representative of pro choice
Americans whose members side with of the liberal base was a response to your question.

Here is a quote from Sotomayor that I find disconcerting

”The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,”
(if she argued that she was bound by prior Supreme Court findings I would not be concerned)

(I see it if aboration is legal how does the goverment have the right to favor anti aboration positions?)

“Here is what the Los Angeles Times reported :
“She Sotomayor )often rules in favor of corporations and against civil rights plaintiffs, proving the woman is no left-wing radical or racist either.................... “She has not ruled squarely on controversial issues such as gay rights or abortion.” She has even agreed with George W. Bush on such matters

Again does this sound like a progressive we should blindly support like you have?

You state:

"Going by your standards, Sotomayor is a concern to you if she doesn't ignore the law anytime it doesn't suit your "liberal" agenda. Sorry, buddy, but that's not the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court. I want someone who will UPHOLD the law, fairly. If that means she renders a decision occasionally that doesn't jibe with every Liberal viewpoint, so be it. I'm not someone who wants a judge who ignores the law and thinks she can simply rule any old way she pleases."

My standards? really, what standards are you talking about?
You have no idea what my standards are anymore then you seem to know Sotomayor are and that's why your arguments are filled with childish personal attacks and not facts . (what are you 19 now, first year of college)

I ask you to talk me down (that means give me examples of her supporting progressives)

If your going to demand I respond to your arguments how about playing by your own rules?

Give me reason to believe she holds progressive values?

Progressive need to know what her views are, how she interprets the constitution in areas that concern progressives.

You seem to want to give her a pass.

(with 400 cases behind her it should be easy for bright person like you)

Back to work