Does Sonia Sotomayor Want to give the Southwest Back to Mexico?

[MioMyo]

There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but only
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern part
of the United States back to Mexico? I believe this group already considers
this portion of the country as Atzaland or something like that.

Yes I know the usual dead beat libtard in these groups will avoid the
question in favor of attacking me, calling me the racist, but they never do
answer such questions which are really serious underpinnings of this
potential Supremes beliefs. So be it, but if she agrees with this radical
view, then how can anyone think that she really believes in the US
Constitution?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know.........

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for
allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of
the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses
for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by
local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR,
which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and
advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the
separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her
racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the
richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of
California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following
year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says
the invasion is already happening!

The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.

"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann
Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me
better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old
racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman
racist should also withdraw."

Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities
cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their
racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have
the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of
a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."

But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact
on her confirmation to the bench.

"She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political
analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not
understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."

The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.

"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves
represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's
president and CEO.

La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto
Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.

As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S.
Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying
organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the
western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil
Chicano de Aztlan - which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that
one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In
Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico
and parts of Colorado and Texas.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

Make us laugh at you more.

[kujebak]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

The New Haven, CT civil service exam case, for one.

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Make us laugh at you more.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the
Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

The New Haven, CT civil service exam case, for one.

You haven't even read the decision. It was the exact
opposite of judicial activism.

It was a unanimous decision that applied Second Circuit law
very faithfully and exhibited a high degree of judicial
restraint. It followed the statutes, regulations, Supreme
Court precedents, and Second Circuit precedents quite
carefully. It was a A ruling based on precedents is the
exact opposite of judicial activism. Sotomayor did not
write the opinion.

http://tinyurl.com/n58mh9

The District Court judge found that the essential facts were
largely undisputed, and granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff firefighters
were not entitled to any relief as a matter of law.

It was undisputed that the test results showed a "racially
adverse impact" under standards established by the
regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which means that, if the city had certified the results, the
minorities adversely affected by the test would have had a
valid "prima facie" case against the city for racial
discrimination. The plaintiffs conceded that the test
results showed a racially disparate impact, but argued that
the city could have successfully defended the test results
through a "validation study" performed in accordance with
EEOC regulations. But the court held (and here's where some
of the judicial restraint appears up) that the statutes and
regulations did not require the city to perform a validation
study.

In the usual race discrimination case, the
plaintiff-employee shows that an employment test has an
adverse effect on racial minorities and then the
defendant-employer tries to justify the test. The trial
judge recognized that this case reversed those roles because
the defendant-employer was showing that the employment test
had a racial impact and the plaintiffs-employees were
arguing that the test should be used anyway. The trial judge
therefore had to apply the statutes and regulations to a
dispute that the authors of the statutes and regulations had
not expected.

The trial court cited (and quoted) several Second Circuit
opinions for the proposition that the city had the right to
try to improve racial diversity in race-neutral ways. For
example, in a 1999 decision involving different exams in a
different city and state, the Second Circuit had declared
that "nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of
race-neutral means to improve racial and gender
representation."

So the ultimate issue in the case was whether an employer
should be required to use a test that has a racial impact
even though it is not known why the test has a racial impact
and the test might accurately measure employment
qualifications in a race-neutral way. The trial judge could
not find any statute, regulation, or previous court opinion
that required that result, and was unwilling to create such
a new requirement, and so ruled against the plaintiffs.
(More of that judicial restraint.)

[kujebak]

On May 29, 10:28 am, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by kujebak

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the
Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

The New Haven, CT civil service exam case, for one.

You haven't even read the decision.  It was the exact
opposite of judicial activism.
It was a unanimous decision that applied Second Circuit law
very faithfully and exhibited a high degree of judicial
restraint.  It followed the statutes, regulations, Supreme
Court precedents, and Second Circuit precedents quite
carefully.  It was a A ruling based on precedents is the
exact opposite of judicial activism.  Sotomayor did not
write the opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/n58mh9
The District Court judge found that the essential facts were
largely undisputed, and granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff firefighters
were not entitled to any relief as a matter of law.
It was undisputed that the test results showed a "racially
adverse impact" under standards established by the
regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which means that, if the city had certified the results, the
minorities adversely affected by the test would have had a
valid "prima facie" case against the city for racial
discrimination.  The plaintiffs conceded that the test
results showed a racially disparate impact, but argued that
the city could have successfully defended the test results
through a "validation study" performed in accordance with
EEOC regulations. But the court held (and here's where some
of the judicial restraint appears up) that the statutes and
regulations did not require the city to perform a validation
study.
In the usual race discrimination case, the
plaintiff-employee shows that an employment test has an
adverse effect on racial minorities and then the
defendant-employer tries to justify the test. The trial
judge recognized that this case reversed those roles because
the defendant-employer was showing that the employment test
had a racial impact and the plaintiffs-employees were
arguing that the test should be used anyway. The trial judge
therefore had to apply the statutes and regulations to a
dispute that the authors of the statutes and regulations had
not expected.
The trial court cited (and quoted) several Second Circuit
opinions for the proposition that the city had the right to
try to improve racial diversity in race-neutral ways. For
example, in a 1999 decision involving different exams in a
different city and state, the Second Circuit had declared
that "nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of
race-neutral means to improve racial and gender
representation."
So the ultimate issue in the case was whether an employer
should be required to use a test that has a racial impact
even though it is not known why the test has a racial impact
and the test might accurately measure employment
qualifications in a race-neutral way. The trial judge could
not find any statute, regulation, or previous court opinion
that required that result, and was unwilling to create such
a new requirement, and so ruled against the plaintiffs.
(More of that judicial restraint.)

The purpose of that court’s restraint was not to upset
the precedents (meaning the affirmative action establish-
ment), and not to follow the law (meaning the U.S. con-
stitution), because there is really no such thing as a
“race-neutral means” to improve racial and gender re-
presentation. The court decision was a clear miscar-
riage of justice, in which this judge played her dutiful
little role.

[Lamont Cranston]

On May 29, 10:28 am, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by kujebak

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the
Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

The New Haven, CT civil service exam case, for one.

You haven't even read the decision. It was the exact
opposite of judicial activism.
It was a unanimous decision that applied Second Circuit
law
very faithfully and exhibited a high degree of judicial
restraint. It followed the statutes, regulations,
Supreme
Court precedents, and Second Circuit precedents quite
carefully. It was a A ruling based on precedents is the
exact opposite of judicial activism. Sotomayor did not
write the opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/n58mh9
The District Court judge found that the essential facts
were
largely undisputed, and granted the defendants' motion
for
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff
firefighters
were not entitled to any relief as a matter of law.
It was undisputed that the test results showed a
"racially
adverse impact" under standards established by the
regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission,
which means that, if the city had certified the results,
the
minorities adversely affected by the test would have had
a
valid "prima facie" case against the city for racial
discrimination. The plaintiffs conceded that the test
results showed a racially disparate impact, but argued
that
the city could have successfully defended the test
results
through a "validation study" performed in accordance
with
EEOC regulations. But the court held (and here's where
some
of the judicial restraint appears up) that the statutes
and
regulations did not require the city to perform a
validation
study.
In the usual race discrimination case, the
plaintiff-employee shows that an employment test has an
adverse effect on racial minorities and then the
defendant-employer tries to justify the test. The trial
judge recognized that this case reversed those roles
because
the defendant-employer was showing that the employment
test
had a racial impact and the plaintiffs-employees were
arguing that the test should be used anyway. The trial
judge
therefore had to apply the statutes and regulations to a
dispute that the authors of the statutes and regulations
had
not expected.
The trial court cited (and quoted) several Second
Circuit
opinions for the proposition that the city had the right
to
try to improve racial diversity in race-neutral ways.
For
example, in a 1999 decision involving different exams in
a
different city and state, the Second Circuit had
declared
that "nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of
race-neutral means to improve racial and gender
representation."
So the ultimate issue in the case was whether an
employer
should be required to use a test that has a racial
impact
even though it is not known why the test has a racial
impact
and the test might accurately measure employment
qualifications in a race-neutral way. The trial judge
could
not find any statute, regulation, or previous court
opinion
that required that result, and was unwilling to create
such
a new requirement, and so ruled against the plaintiffs.
(More of that judicial restraint.)

The purpose of that court’s restraint was not to upset
the precedents (meaning the affirmative action establish-
ment), and not to follow the law (meaning the U.S. con-
stitution), because there is really no such thing as a
“race-neutral means” to improve racial and gender re-
presentation. The court decision was a clear miscar-
riage of justice, in which this judge played her dutiful
little role.

You didn't even read the summary that I provided for you,
huh?

The purpose of the court's restraint was to follow its own
precedents and those of the Supreme Court.

"It was undisputed that the test results showed a 'racially
adverse impact' under standards established by the
regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission..."

"The plaintiffs conceded that the test results showed a
racially disparate impact..."

[Tim Crowley]

Post by kujebak
On May 29, 10:28 am, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by kujebak

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:03:02 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the
Supreme Court

Name a court case that you believe exemplifies an
"activist judge" court case, Whineo.

The New Haven, CT civil service exam case, for one.

You haven't even read the decision.  It was the exact
opposite of judicial activism.
It was a unanimous decision that applied Second Circuit law
very faithfully and exhibited a high degree of judicial
restraint.  It followed the statutes, regulations, Supreme
Court precedents, and Second Circuit precedents quite
carefully.  It was a A ruling based on precedents is the
exact opposite of judicial activism.  Sotomayor did not
write the opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/n58mh9
The District Court judge found that the essential facts were
largely undisputed, and granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff firefighters
were not entitled to any relief as a matter of law.
It was undisputed that the test results showed a "racially
adverse impact" under standards established by the
regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which means that, if the city had certified the results, the
minorities adversely affected by the test would have had a
valid "prima facie" case against the city for racial
discrimination.  The plaintiffs conceded that the test
results showed a racially disparate impact, but argued that
the city could have successfully defended the test results
through a "validation study" performed in accordance with
EEOC regulations. But the court held (and here's where some
of the judicial restraint appears up) that the statutes and
regulations did not require the city to perform a validation
study.
In the usual race discrimination case, the
plaintiff-employee shows that an employment test has an
adverse effect on racial minorities and then the
defendant-employer tries to justify the test. The trial
judge recognized that this case reversed those roles because
the defendant-employer was showing that the employment test
had a racial impact and the plaintiffs-employees were
arguing that the test should be used anyway. The trial judge
therefore had to apply the statutes and regulations to a
dispute that the authors of the statutes and regulations had
not expected.
The trial court cited (and quoted) several Second Circuit
opinions for the proposition that the city had the right to
try to improve racial diversity in race-neutral ways. For
example, in a 1999 decision involving different exams in a
different city and state, the Second Circuit had declared
that "nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of
race-neutral means to improve racial and gender
representation."
So the ultimate issue in the case was whether an employer
should be required to use a test that has a racial impact
even though it is not known why the test has a racial impact
and the test might accurately measure employment
qualifications in a race-neutral way. The trial judge could
not find any statute, regulation, or previous court opinion
that required that result, and was unwilling to create such
a new requirement, and so ruled against the plaintiffs.
(More of that judicial restraint.)

The purpose of that court’s restraint was not to upset
the precedents (meaning the affirmative action establish-
ment), and not to follow the law (meaning the U.S. con-
stitution),  because there is really no such thing as a
“race-neutral means” to improve racial and gender re-
presentation. The court decision was a clear miscar-
riage of justice, in which this judge played her dutiful
little role.

snicker. you don't even understand the basics.

[Bob Eld]

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but only
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern part
of the United States back to Mexico? I believe this group already considers
this portion of the country as Atzaland or something like that.
Yes I know the usual dead beat libtard in these groups will avoid the
question in favor of attacking me, calling me the racist, but they never do
answer such questions which are really serious underpinnings of this
potential Supremes beliefs. So be it, but if she agrees with this radical
view, then how can anyone think that she really believes in the US
Constitution?
Inquiring Minds Want To Know.........
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

Post by MioMyo
LAW OF THE LAND
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

Post by MioMyo
Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for
allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of
the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses
for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by
local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR,
which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and
advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the
separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her
racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the
richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of
California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following
year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says
the invasion is already happening!
The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.
"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann
Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me
better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old
racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman
racist should also withdraw."
Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities
cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their
racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have
the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of
a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."
But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact
on her confirmation to the bench.
"She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political
analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."
Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not
understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."
The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.
"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves
represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's
president and CEO.
La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto
Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.
As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S.
Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying
organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the
western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil
Chicano de Aztlan - which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that
one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In
Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico
and parts of Colorado and Texas.

Could Mexico retake parts of the southwest US? Hmmmm? Well, if Governor
Perry has his way, Texas could be up for grabs. He wants to secede and if he
does Mexico may well head back to the Alamo for round two. Wouldn't that be
a hoot. Of course why anybody even the most racists La Razan would want to
be a part of the failed Mexican state is anyone's guess.

So now we see Meow-Mao joining the chorus of CONs doing their damnest to
drive republican acceptance and popularity down yet another notch. Weird!
Most politicos would be trying to build their party and widen its reach and
acceptance, but not CONservatives. They are on a mission of self destruction
trying ever more to narrow their party's reach and drive it out of
existence. Keep it up CONs.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but

only

Post by MioMyo
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern

part

Post by MioMyo
of the United States back to Mexico? I believe this group already

considers

Post by MioMyo
this portion of the country as Atzaland or something like that.
Yes I know the usual dead beat libtard in these groups will avoid the
question in favor of attacking me, calling me the racist, but they never

do

Post by MioMyo
answer such questions which are really serious underpinnings of this
potential Supremes beliefs. So be it, but if she agrees with this radical
view, then how can anyone think that she really believes in the US
Constitution?
Inquiring Minds Want To Know.........
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

Post by MioMyo
LAW OF THE LAND
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

Post by MioMyo
Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for
allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of
the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses
for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement

by

Post by MioMyo
local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR,
which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and
advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate

the

Post by MioMyo
separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her
racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with

the

Post by MioMyo
richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of
California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the

following

Post by MioMyo
year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says
the invasion is already happening!
The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.
"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann
Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me
better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old
racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina

woman

Post by MioMyo
racist should also withdraw."
Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities
cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their
racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do

have

Post by MioMyo
the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example

of

Post by MioMyo
a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."
But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact
on her confirmation to the bench.
"She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political
analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."
Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not
understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."
The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.
"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves
represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's
president and CEO.
La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating

Alberto

Post by MioMyo
Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.
As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S.
Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration

lobbying

Post by MioMyo
organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the
western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento

Estudiantil

Post by MioMyo
Chicano de Aztlan - which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that
one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In
Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico
and parts of Colorado and Texas.

Could Mexico retake parts of the southwest US? Hmmmm? Well, if Governor
Perry has his way, Texas could be up for grabs.

You mean in the same way Sonia wants to legislate from the bench. Or would
you argue while she was speaking in jest, Perry was serious. Than again
maybe you want to leave no doubt that indeed you are a hypocrite....

Post by MioMyo
He wants to secede and if he
does Mexico may well head back to the Alamo for round two. Wouldn't that be
a hoot. Of course why anybody even the most racists La Razan would want to
be a part of the failed Mexican state is anyone's guess.
So now we see Meow-Mao joining the chorus of CONs doing their damnest to
drive republican acceptance and popularity down yet another notch. Weird!
Most politicos would be trying to build their party and widen its reach and
acceptance, but not CONservatives. They are on a mission of self destruction
trying ever more to narrow their party's reach and drive it out of
existence. Keep it up CONs.

[Spartakus]

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but
only question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La
Raza, notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot,

Hmmm... would an "objective and fair-minded patriot" make up
accusations against the National Council of La Raza without bothering
to do any research? (Computer says yes!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_La_Raza

Post by MioMyo
does Sotomayer support the racist groups charter

Have you stopped molesting small, defenseless animals?

Post by MioMyo
to return the southwestern part of the United States back to Mexico?

That's not in the NCLR's charter, liar.

Post by MioMyo
I believe this group already considers this portion of the country
as Atzaland or something like that.

Of course, because besides being racist yourself, you're lazy and
incurious.

Good job on alienating the demographic you need to have any prayer of
being players in national politics! You rightards' attacks on
Sotomayor remind me of Roadrunner cartoons where Wile E. Coyote goes
off a cliff and plummets to earth with a little puff of dust at the
bottom of the canyon. Visual poetry!

[Bill Z.]

Post by Spartakus

<snip>

Good job on alienating the demographic you need to have any prayer of
being players in national politics! You rightards' attacks on
Sotomayor remind me of Roadrunner cartoons where Wile E. Coyote goes
off a cliff and plummets to earth with a little puff of dust at the
bottom of the canyon. Visual poetry!

Actually, it reminds me more of the dialog in "A Miracle on 34th
Street", where a political operative named Charley is trying to guide
Judge Harper in a sanity trial for an old man who thinks he is Santa
Claus. It provides an object lesson in what happens when you alienate
demographics, or at least what you should be thinking about if you are
running for office.
<http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/miracle-on-34th-street-script.html>:

CHARLEY (the political operative): Ahem!
The court will take a recess to consider the matter.

I don't care what you do with old whisker puss...
but if you rule that there's no Santa Claus...
you better start looking for that chicken farm.
We won't even be able to put you in the primaries.

HARPER (the judge):
But, Charley, listen to reason.
I'm a responsible judge.
I've taken an oath.
How can I seriously rule there is a Santa Claus?

CHARLEY: Why don't you...

All right.

Tell them the New York State Supreme Court rules...
there's no Santa Claus.

It's all over the papers.

The kids don't hang up their stockings.

Now, what happens to all the toys...
that are supposed to be in those stockings?

Nobody buys them.

The toy manufacturers are going to like that.

So they have to lay off a lot of their employees...
union employees.

Now you got the C.I.O. And the A.F.L. Against you.
And they're gonna adore you for it.

And they're gonna say it with votes.

And the department stores will love you, too...
and the Christmas card makers...
and the candy companies.

Oh, Henry, you're going to be an awful popular fellow.

And what about the Salvation Army?
Why, they got a Santa Claus on every corner...
and they take in a fortune.

But you go ahead, Henry.
You do it your way.
You go on back in there and tell them...
that you rule there's no Santa Claus.

But if you do, remember this:

You can count on getting just two votes...
your own and that district attorney's out there.

HARPER (who is a Democrat):

The district attorney's a Republican.

[Pounds]

BAILIFF: All rise!

HARPER:
Before making a ruling...
this court has consulted the highest authority available.
The question of Santa Claus...
seems to be largely a matter of opinion.

Many people firmly believe in him.

Others do not.

The tradition of American justice demands...
a broad, unprejudiced view of such a controversial matter.

This court, therefore, intends to keep an open mind.

I'll hear all the evidence.

MARRAH (the district attorney): He's crazy, too.

The burden of proof for this ridiculous contention...
clearly rests with my opponent.

Can he produce evidence to support his views?

GAILEY (the defense attorney):
If Your Honor pleases, I can.

Will Thomas Marrah please take the stand?

MARRAH: Who, me?

GAILEY: Thomas Marrah, Jr.

TOMMY:

Hello, Daddy.

... and it does on and on. Finally, in the post office,

WORKER: Hey, Lou, come here!

LOU: Yeah?

WORKER: Here's a new one.

I seen them write to Santa Claus...
North Pole, South Pole, and every other place.
This kid writes...
"Kris Kringle, New York County Courthouse."

LOU: The kid's right. They got him on trial there.
He claims he's Santa Claus, and the D.A. claims he's nuts.
Read it for yourself. Right on the front page.

WORKER: Hey, Lou, how many Santa Claus letters...
we got at the dead-letter office?

LOU: I don't know.
There must be about ???? of them.
Bags and bags all over the joint.
And there's more coming in every day.

WORKER: Yeah. Hey, Lou.
It'd be nice to get rid of them, huh?

LOU: Yeah, but...
Hey, that's a wonderful idea!

WORKER: Why should we be bothered with all that stuff?
Why not get some trucks?
Big ones right away.
Load them with Santa Claus mail
and deliver it...
to Mr. Kringle at the courthouse.

Let somebody else worry about it, huh?

[Singing]
Hey! Jingle bells, jingle bells

Then the letters arrive and the judge rules that if it is good enough
for the post office, it is good enough for his court.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but only
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern part
of the United States back to Mexico?

<>I wasn't aware that was within the power of a Supreme Court Justice.


Just use the same illiberal logic used when berating a republican for being
pro-life when they will never have the power to reverse Roe Vs. Wade, and
let me know how that works out for ya.

[Behead the GOP Snakes]

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but only
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern part
of the United States back to Mexico?

<>I wasn't aware that was within the power of a Supreme Court Justice.
Just use the same illiberal logic used when berating a republican for
being pro-life when they will never have the power to reverse Roe Vs.
Wade, and let me know how that works out for ya.

Pope Hannity owns you.

[MioMyo]

Post by Behead the GOP Snakes

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
There's no doubt the activist judge will get on the Supreme Court, but only
question I have- as a member of the radical leftist politicos, La Raza,
notably a racist group by any objective and fair-minded patriot, does
Sotomayer support the racist groups charter to return the southwestern part
of the United States back to Mexico?

<>I wasn't aware that was within the power of a Supreme Court Justice.
Just use the same illiberal logic used when berating a republican for
being pro-life when they will never have the power to reverse Roe Vs.
Wade, and let me know how that works out for ya.

Pope Hannity owns you.

You're not very good at this huh?

[Behead the GOP Snakes]

"MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:E9QTl.30787$***@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

And how will a little lady accomplish what the powerful Goldwater klan
couldn't do?

You are so askeered of change, FOX has you changing your drawers 12 times an
hour. Hannity owns you.

[MioMyo]

Post by Behead the GOP Snakes
And how will a little lady accomplish what the powerful Goldwater klan
couldn't do?

Agreeing with La Raza policy reclaiming the SW United States is the
question. Maybe that's a wee bit too complicated for you tard........

Post by Behead the GOP Snakes
You are so askeered of change, FOX has you changing your drawers 12 times
an hour. Hannity owns you.

Did he ask my question?