ArchivesArizona’s U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain's refusal to support Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a major slap in the face of every hard-working and loyal Latino who has struggled to further educate their children in this biased Republican society of Arizona.Â
|
|
Most fair-minded Americans were convinced Sotomayor has the education and the experience to sit on the bench. What more did our Arizona senators want? Next election these senators will again court the Hispanic vote in Arizona, let's retire these two hypocrites.
Victor M. Fontes
Rio Rico
Popular Searches
Comments
Hugo wrote on Aug 24, 2009 3:49 PM:
George Wilgers wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:19 PM:
If you win Maricopa County by 51% you only need about 40% of the vote in Pima County, and the rest of the state can vote against you, and you will still win. Get a large enough vicotry in Maricopa County, and the rest of the state does not matter.
Plus, many of us who consider ourselves moderate to conservative Democrats will not vote for the far left, so called Democrats. "
George Wilgers wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:15 PM:
George Wilgers wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:12 PM:
You are entitled to your opinion, but I am, and have always been a registered Democrat, though I tend to vote more independant.
Show me a Democrat that is strong on national defense, strong on the border, strong on fiscal responsibility, and I will show you a Democrat I will vote for.
Unfortunately, most so called Democrats today are more Democratic Socialist, not true Democrats.
I think you are falling into a classic over simplification of our political system. Liberal means Democrat and Conservative means Republican. That is not true. "
Chester Mosley wrote on Aug 19, 2009 11:02 AM:
1. "Mic" response to me was " Hey Chester, now that you've decided that Sotomayor does not have the "mental fortitidude" to serve on the Supreme Court, I guess I'll change my mind and forget her record, experience, and education and now side with you that she doesn't belong on the bench."
I at no time did not say she does not belong on the bench. I did say, "but does she have the mental fortitude as an ethnic American, to take racial differences out of her decisions."
That is a question, not a statement. Please realize the difference.
2. "Mic" response "Am I also suppose to go with your word that she has a history of not being fair? Hey Chester, that would mean being fair to whom? "
Please not that I even listed an example of her unfairness that had to be overturned by the very court in which she now sits.
3. "Mic" response (and this is a very big twist of words) Finally, since you mentioned one must not create law, where in the constitution or any other federal or state law do protections arise for "Avereage White Americans"? Aren't we all Americans....Chester?
I encourage all readers to explore my previous post. At no time did I state a single word about laws for "Average White Americans".
Please let me state this, I encourage all Americans to read Alinsky's rules for Radicals. It is a guide for liberals that can not dispute the facts.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I applaude all Arizonians opinions and also the right to have them But changing and personalizing an issue, is not a productive way of debating. "
carola wrote on Aug 18, 2009 4:25 PM:
has it ever occured to you that they did not vote for her because A) she belonged or was associated with La Raza which literally should have disqualified her for the nomination and B) because of her pro-abortion stands? You really have to stop victimizing yourselfs just cuz you are a minority and claim everything is racial. Get over it or leave the country cuz according to people who think like you, people who don't agree with you or vote for a minority are biased republicans. Do i need to remind you that it was the democrats during the Bush Administration that did not vote for a Hispanic to the supreme court? "
Jack M wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:53 AM:
That's a classic understatement! McCain lost big-time in 2008 to Obama, if I recall.
As for Kyl, I'm uncomfortable with his support of the senior drug plan, one which has cost billions and one that prohibits the government from shopping for lower drug prices. (An obvious favor to the drug industry which contributed heavily to his campaign, an industry that is seeing record profits.) Also, my impression is that this reactionary, nearly right-wing politician marches to the tune of his wealthy Paradise Valley pals and the lobbyists for corporate America.
Kindly name me one thing, Mr. Wilgers, that Kyl has accomplished for our more humble, less affluent folk here in Santa Cruz County.
Finally, as for AZ being a Republican state, well, it's beginning to shift. An important Congressional district outside Phoenix elected a Democrat in 2008. Many observers expect that shift to continue.
Even Kyl's margin of victory dropped drastically.
Not enough in my opinion. "
Weedly wrote on Aug 17, 2009 2:01 AM:
'
Talk About being a hypocrit, You are a regestered Democrat? From the way you appear to see things, You are just another Republican calling yourself a Democrat. Is there something that you do not understand? "
Jack M. wrote on Aug 15, 2009 12:47 PM:
As for keeping "racial differences" out of the Supreme Court, would that also include "Brown vs. Board of Education," which made "separate but legal" the disgusting sham it was?
America thrives on diversity, and the Supreme Court, thankfully, over the past few decades, has finally begun to reflect that.
God bless America!
God bless la Senora Justice Sotomayor! "
mic wrote on Aug 14, 2009 1:55 AM:
The article called them hypocrits because they court the Latino vote and then turn around and vote no to a very well qualified Latino woman nominated for the Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with the right to vote no.
Am I also suppose to go with your word that she has a history of not being fair? Hey Chester, that would mean being fair to whom? And who decreed that McCain is a champion? You did, which you're entitled to do, but not everyone agrees with. This is the very reason we need diversity on and Bench, especially the Supreme Court. The fact that AZ is a Republican state should be irrelevant to Sotomayor's nomination.
Finally, since you mentioned one must not create law, where in the constitution or any other federal or state law do protections arise for "Avereage White Americans"? Aren't we all Americans....Chester? Sotomayor's in, so I guess the time for you to be very nervous is here. "
George Wilgers wrote on Aug 13, 2009 10:11 AM:
I am a registered Democrat, and have been all my voting live. You, sir, are wrong. I plan to keep voting for the current senators as they are doing the right things, for me, this state, and this country.
Please get off the Poor Pitiful Me Cry Baby Soap Box of Race. There is only one race any person should care about, the HUMAN RACE. Minor differences in skin color does not create a different race in the eyes of the mature. Neither does minor matters of cultural heritage, religious preference, or any other of the immature ways people find to try to separate themselves from another group of people. "
Hector Arevalo Jr. wrote on Aug 11, 2009 3:29 PM:
chester mosley wrote on Aug 11, 2009 12:09 PM:
Sotomayer has a history of not being fair. Her ruling against the fire fighters was a typical portrayal of that unfairness. To be on the supreme court, one must interpret the law and not create law. Granted that Sotomayer has the education and experience to be on the supreme court, but does she have the mental fortitude as an ethnic American, to take racial differences out of her decisions.
In a time like this when most Americans are worried about issues like immigration and illegal immigration, to gain Sotomayer and lose champions like McCain, seems like a loss of the Average White Americans freedoms......that makes people very nervous. "