A Free ForumFor A Free People
Frequently asked questions about Daily Poll.
IMPORTANT: WND requires e-mail registration only to ensure that our poll provides an accurate representation of individual, non-duplicative votes. WND earns no income from the poll, does not provide e-mail addresses to any third party and makes no other use of information obtained from cookies.
If you have any problems using the poll please e-mail: poll@wnd.com
If you would like to suggest a poll idea to WND editors, please go to our YOUR BEST POLL IDEAS forum.
PLEASE NOTICE: Posted by Mikaia (mbmonitor) on Aug 25, 2009 11:08 We have 10 visible forums to post to on the WND Polls Home page. We also have 10 or more forums on the WND Forums Home page. There is no reason to post on the forums that are not active on WND. I will no longer approve of the posts for discussion that are not visible on WND Poll page. Please take advantage of the forums that are active. Mikaia mbmonitor@wnd.com http://wnd.com
NO SOTOMAYOR Posted by CHW on Jul 24, 2009 12:54 Sotomayor, in her ruling against Ricci and the firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut, upheld a policy of reverse discrimination against all non black firefighters. However, last month, her decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. Her conduct as a judge has not been exemplary at all. Over the years, she has made racists and sexist remarks in her speeches, and I quote, " I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She can't deny saying this because her speech was published in the Spring 2002 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. Sotomayor made the exact same point again to the Women's Bar Association in 1999, and again at the Seton Hall School of Law in October of 2003. How could any of her decisions be unbiased with a view like that? She certainly showed bias against white men in the Ricci ruling. On top of that, Sotomayor is a member of the sexist group called the Belizean Grove. The Belizean Grove is a private organization made up of women only - no men at all. That's a direct violation of the judicial code of conduct. When asked about the her membership in this sexist organization, Sotomayor replied, "The Belizean Grove is a private organization of female professionals from the profit, non-profit and social sectors, but I do not consider the Belizean Grove to invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex." Say what? I think Sotomayor may have missed her calling. She sounds more like a car salesman or a politician than a judge. Anyway, she should not be a judge at all!
Here comes the judge Posted by whatevernow on Jul 24, 2009 09:02 I also don't want a KKK member in the post of Supreme Court Judge! Or a Gang Banger! Or a member of "La Familar" like she has been reported to be! Extreamly violent,racist,hate group! We all have worked too hard over the past 50+ years to correct and get rid of people like this. A vote for anyone like this is a vote backwards! There is still a lot of work to do to loose the hate. She is already breached the Constitutional Rights of Millions with her racial and sexist comments. Not a good start for a judge! With all the truely amazing Hispanic's in this Country qualified for the post...Why choose her?
More to the point Posted by bob on Jul 23, 2009 17:28 The more I learn about this woman the more I think that there should be judges deciding how much jail time she gets not senators deciding weather to seat her on the Supreme Court. Bob
Radicals Destroying the U.S.A! Posted by Patriot 5 on Jul 23, 2009 14:53 That's the Supreme Reason for the Second Ammendment and all Patriot Citizens, most of whom are gun owners are aware of this!! NO One can destroy what 'WE THE PATRIOTIC CITIZENS OF THE U.S.A.' don't allow them to destroy or take away RIGHTS WE don't allow them to and 'We, The Patriotic Citizens Have Been Far Too Complacement', for too long and need to turn the tide NOW!! Individuals, as of late, have been Aring Up like you wouldn't believe and these Patriots - about 75,000,000 of u - if push comes to Shove will literally CLEAN HOUSE from Coast to Coast!!!!!!!!! We will not allow anybody to Tyanize Us or change our Society as we have known it or Our U.S. Constitution!!!! All Terrorists, Usurpers, would be Terrdorists & Radical intent on destroying or overthrowing the U.S.A. had better walk on egg shells as their existance will be just as short lived and Rightly SO!!!! Love the U.S.A. and the American way of life or get the Hell Out as if you start anything to destroy our way of Life or Freedoms you'll be diminished just like the egg shells your walking ON! Make No Mistake about it, The Patriot Citizens of these United States Will put up with No More ***, especially from Radicals intent on destroying our way of life. If any of you think I talk very sternly your are correct! Watch the video, 'The Third Jihad' produced & nariated by a true American Muslim Md who clearly explains that Radical Islam is the biggest threat the U.S.A. faces TODAY! It's scary but many of you need to Wake-Up to what is happening in our Nation Right Now!!
RE: RE: She said it, I didn Posted by Oldrailfan on Jul 23, 2009 08:00 I stand here with egg on my face - every time I fail to double-check facts I get snaffled. Point is, though, she HAS made statements that are nearly as inflammatory, and her membership in organizations that advocate the overthrow of the Constitution (La Raza specifically) should disqualify her from public office.
Reply to: gh123Come on, people! What you've reproduced here is from a piece of SATIRE! If you google this you will see the original article clearly labeled as such as well as articles and blog entries where conservative "pundits" who tried to pass this off as fact have recanted, acknowledging it as satire. You guys owe it to yourselves to do a better job fact checking. Sotomayor is a decent choice for the Court. If you disagree with her rulings, great. But don't be so eager to believe the ridiculous about her. [If you can back up your statements with some facts please do. I'd appreciate it. -Mikaia]
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE SOtomayor Posted by Hammond Hank on Jul 20, 2009 23:22 Clinton was a Rhodes' scholar, and Reagan was supposedly just a dumb, senile, old man (according to liberals, who always define themselves as 'brilliant', and conservatives as 'stupid', unless they're RINO 'conservatives' that cave and vote for liberal things, in which case the best they get labeled is 'moderate'). I'd take Reagan any day of the week! Sotomayor should show her alleged 'brilliance' by understanding, interpreting, and enforcing the Constitution as it currently reads, not reinterpreting it according to whim, precedent, or some goofy 'wise Latina' New Age experience. BUT, I think that if liberals can remake and interpret the rules according to their whims, so should we. We should set the precedent of not paying Federal taxes. We should set our own individual speed limits. We should use our 2nd Amendment rights to enforce the borders of our own private property. 400 words won't be NEARLY a fraction of what I need once I go down this track...
Reply to: ga312106Sotomayor is a perfect choice, for Obama that is. Obama and her, hand in hand, will try to do their best to destroy our Consitution, Heritage and Way of Life. She is too radical, member of La Raza and rules from who lifes experiences rather than the law. We do not need Sotomayor today, tomorrow or any other day.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE SOtomayor Posted by ga312106 on Jul 20, 2009 22:49 Sotomayor is a perfect choice, for Obama that is. Obama and her, hand in hand, will try to do their best to destroy our Consitution, Heritage and Way of Life. She is too radical, member of La Raza and rules from who lifes experiences rather than the law. We do not need Sotomayor today, tomorrow or any other day.
Reply to: gh123, how "smart" an individual happens to be (or appear)is not important. It's how the "smartness" is USED that's extremely important. We learn that about individuals from their background, records, experience, statements, actions, etc. There have been "smart" people in the past and present who made MAJOR mistakes, some even repeatedly, because they channeled their "smartness" in the WRONG directions - wrong for themselves and wrong for society. For example, Bonnie and Clyde were "smart". Hitler was "smart". Alinsky was "smart". Even Satan is "smart". If we don't learn and heed lessons from history, then we allow history to repeat itself! Character (including honesty, selflessness, charity, humility, morality, etc.) being pro-God, pro-America and informed, and possessing (and using) God-given common sense ARE important. There are many "smart" people who are working very hard to destroy our nation. Many "smart" people cluelessly and blindly go to the polls on Election Day, because, even though they are considered "smart", they only listened to empty rhetoric and lies, on which they based their decisions re: voting. That has been proven to be about the LEAST "smart" move anyone can make. "Smartness" aside, the only logical way to "size up" Sonia Sotomayor (or anyone else) is to look at records from the past - that which she has ALREADY done - because that tells us what she will do in the future. In that regard, and IMO, Sotomayor does not qualify to be confirmed for OUR SCOTUS! Where's her allegiance to us American citizens? I see no evidence of that. Why on earth would any thinking American citizen want anyone with no allegiance to our nation to be given the power that members of our SCOTUS have??
RE: RE: RE: RE: excellent so far Posted by Hammond Hank on Jul 20, 2009 21:28 Ralnan, libs can't think well for themselves, so they need things like spell check to do their thinking for them. Not that I'm against it, and obviously could benefit from it at times, but at least you and I are real. We don't need talking points memos, teleprompters, media handlers and coaches, and all the other accoutrements liberals surround themselves with to prop their weak intellects. We have principles based in Judeo-Christian morality. We can think logically because we believe there is a rationly God, and that everything isn't just mindless subjective relativity. We actually ask questions and analyze what we hear, unlike the Leftists who just swallow any grape flavored sugar water their socialist mentors feed them. Whether or not Sotomayor couldn't or just wouldn't give a straight answer to the many relevant Constitutional questions asked of her, it makes no difference. She's unfit for the job, but that won't stop her, as it hasn't others, from getting confirmed, sadly. Folks like Squid love to hide behind the order and liberty that the Constitution and our Judeo-Christian based (until recently) society gives them, while at the same time sniping at and undermining the very beliefs, practices, people, and institutions that afford them that freedom. They'll be the first ones whining and crying for mercy when they become the victims of their own folly. Always happens that way. They look for some secular or pagan utopia, having never directly experienced what they clamor for. They should be careful what they ask for, as they're going to get it, and get it in spades.
Reply to: Squidbiscuit, you need to "expand YOUR knowledge" if you didn't recognize "Venequela" as a "typo"! It's Venezuela, of couse! Such nitpicking on your part is juvenile, to say the least. Sorry you can't do better than that! But then what else would be expected from someone who would actually defend such an anti-America individual as Sotomayor as a nominee for confirmation to be appointed to the SCOTUS? Her record speaks for her! Try reading up on it, for some facts - as opposed to the socialist propaganda you're spouting. BTW, much of the "BS" I've seen on this forum has come from you and only a couple of others. I suggest you get off the Kool-Aid, or join others (who "think" as you do) at MoveOn.org, and other websites where the posters are liberal socialist "robots". Trying to sling mud on George Bush in defense of the actions of the anti-God, anti-America "administration" that's "in place" now doesn't work. After Bush, you still have the FREEDOM of speech to make such statements. Try making such statements against the current "administratin" in the near future...AFTER you learn the truth...when it's too late to admit it. We didn't have THAT problem during the Bush administration, either. Neither did Bush take over any automobile companies - or run around the globe bashing and "apologizing" for America (the country you "love") - or bowing to the leaders of any other nations. Sotomayor would only add to such anti-America actions, and all informed American citizens knows that.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Superb choice Posted by on Jul 20, 2009 00:05 namfrank, GOOD POINTS! Thanks for your post. All informed Amricans know Sotomayor would be anythng BUT good for America. Those who defend her do so for only two reasons: she was nominated by their "anointed one", and she's anti-America, according to all the FACTS you provided in your post. But then to some, her being a proponent of murdering innocent unborn little babies is nothing to be concerned about. You're right - "heaven help us".
Reply to: Na, I don't know of any CASES that she's personally ruled on either, but she's been a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund for over 10 years. Their mission and public statements say they oppose "any efforts" to "in any way restrict" abortion. (source: CNSNews) Add that her other public statements claim that her past experiences will effect her judicial decisions, her stance on abortion would seem quite evident. She's pro-choice and would rule from the bench as such. She'll be no threat to the Roe decision. Heaven help us! Maybe this is a bit more to point: Judge Sotomayor, as a board member of the aforementioned PRLD&EF, signed 6 amicus briefs that that group submitted to the SCOTUS. The briefs have been chareterized thusly "expressed a consistant position that abortion was a fundamental right and that any regulation is subject to strict scutiny". It was also chareterized as more radical that Justice Souter's legal position.
