Originated From
AOL Search

In 19448 the u.s. supreme court rule that a woman in mn. cout not work in a certain job. What was this job

In 19448 the u.s. supreme court rule that a woman in mn. cout not work in a certain job.  What was this job

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

Answers

Dems to GOP Nominee: Will the Defendant Please Rise?

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.
   
Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."
   
Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic -- as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.



   
No, they had to go back to Roger Taney -- confirmed in 1836 -- who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis -- confirmed in 1916 -- allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.
   
Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."
   
The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.
   
Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" -- as The New York Times put it.sotomayortoken.jpg Sotomayor image by DonaldDouglas
   
Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially dangerous" -- as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer -- because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
   
Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.
   
Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada's house.
   
In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.
   
At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community."
   
Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada -- James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.
   
Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!
   
So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a lovely speech.
   
It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.
   
But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war -- while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.
   
Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech -- everything short of driving a woman into a lake! -- within an hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.
   
To defend "the right to privacy," liberals investigated Bork's video rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers' movies and Ruthless People -- the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the Democrats.)
   
Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment -- charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.
   
But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3 vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer be known as "the hot one in the robe.")
   
The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly -- no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against him -- and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.
   
As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to Bush's Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in tears by the Democrats' vicious attacks on her husband's character. The great "uniter" Barack Obama voted against both nominees.
   
Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to The New York Times that her and Justice Breyer's hearings were "unusual" in how "civil" they were.
   
Hmmm, why might that be?
   
To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil, it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci case.

I don't wish to be argumentative ,but I disagree with the Islamic belief that I should be killed! " If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Supreme court law

how many votes to over turn an existing law such as roe vs. wade in the U.S.Supreme Court?

Asked: How to use Garcinia Cambogia Supreme ?

How to use Garcinia Cambogia Supreme ?

Asked: The Supreme Court Ruling means that we will all ...

The Supreme Court Ruling means that we will all be beholding to people with the money! What a shame! What is the reasoning behind your ruling? Are you the Kings of the land now? Did anyone think ...

More Questions

What is the logic of the Supreme Court's decision?

In my opinion, the logic in that decision is that makers of generic drugs will not be held responsible for the warnings they put on their drugs. This opens the door for them to conveniently leave off warnings that should be included. The decision is clearly to protect the drug makers.

Supreme Court Justices

Actually, conserve may mean save or it may mean preserve - as in keep the same - for some people, no matter what. Synonyms are also jam - as in to jam up any progress. Or go easy on - as in go easy on the rich and forget everyone else. Liberal means open-minded, moderate, tolerant, generous ...

Bojangle rules for worker

You have to dance?

Legislating from the Supreme court

All tax related decisions