…to the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a Puerto Rican nationalist per se — I find it a perfectly respectable political position albeit a minority one on the island, and the US would probably be better off without the commonwealth, since it is a net sink for taxpayer dollars. But do we really want someone who couldn’t bring herself to call the US Congress and US Supreme Court the US Congress and US Supreme Court to be an associate justice on the latter? At the very least, this deserves some serious questions at the confirmation hearings.
25 thoughts on “Obama Has Nominated A Puerto Rican Nationalist”
Comments are closed.
I knew a young woman in NYC years ago that was afraid to say her beliefs out loud, literally whispering them when discussed. This American citizen was a Marxist and believed that America was an evil country deserving destruction. She was horrified when I asked the cab driver one time what he thought of her ideas.
Obama and Sotomayor are of this same crowd. Although it makes no logical sense, they want to destroy this evil America.
They aren’t trying to fix America. They intend to destroy it because they don’t see it as good but evil. Don’t expect them to reveal this on camera or in writing too often… but enough for those paying attention and aware that some people believe… G.D. America.
It’s not logical which makes it so hard to believe… but it’s happening so blatantly right now that it’s time to get over the shock and realize the truth of it. They will destroy America if not effectively resisted. They’ve made a huge start of it so far.
A lot of people believed stupid things in college, myself included. If she says her opinions on this have changed there should be some benefit of the doubt on that. It’s not like opinions and beliefs are set in stone.
http://scotusscores.com/
Didn’t the GOP nominate an Alaskan nationalist to be Second Gentleman?
Many of the Founders believed in the right for states to secede. Here’s a thought experiment. Pick the state you like the least. Let’s say 100% of it’s voters vote to secede. They must really want to secede. Would you let it go? How about 90%? 75%? 66%? 60%?
Yours,
Tom
Didn’t the GOP nominate an Alaskan nationalist to be Second Gentleman?
Even if it did, “Second Gentleman,” unlike an Associate Justice on the SCOTUS, has no role in the government, and it’s not a lifetime appointment. So I’m not sure what your point is.
Pick the state you like the least.
Why not turn that around? Why should the rest of the country have to put up with the foolishness and stupidity and greed that keeps emanating from Massachusetts (and all the rest of Little Canada?) Why shouldn’t we southwest of the Hudson have the right to kick ’em all out and make this a better country?
As for the percentages, you might want to look up the debate Canada had the last time Quebec had a referendum. The separatists insisted that 50%+1 was sufficient. Too bad they only got 50%-1, and were unable to test that proposition, because seeing how a major Western country breaks up (handling issues like assets, debts, resource management, military obligations, citizens on the wrong side of the new border, geographic discontinuity, indigenous ethnic groups like the Cree who don’t want to separate, etc.) would be instructive.
I was curious whether and why you considered nationalist beliefs expressed in college (and not, as far as we know, since) to be a bigger deal in a justice than those expressed in present day by a VP candidate’s spouse.
Put it another way: would you have objected to Sarah Palin if she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party? If she had been in college?
Why shouldn’t we southwest of the Hudson have the right to kick ‘em all out and make this a better country?
Don’t get our hopes up!
I was curious whether and why you considered nationalist beliefs expressed in college (and not, as far as we know, since) to be a bigger deal in a justice than those expressed in present day by a VP candidate’s spouse.
Of course I do. I explained why. A candidate’s spouse doesn’t make policy, and even if they did, they would be subject to facing the voters at some point. An Associate Justice is accountable to no one, once put on the bench. Though I’m not aware that Todd Palin’s beliefs are “present day.”
would you have objected to Sarah Palin if she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party?
Yes, some, but not enough to not vote for her. If I were in Alaska, it’s possible that I’d be a member myself, particularly under the current regime in Washington. But I wouldn’t expect a presidential candidate to be.
If she had been in college?
I’d ask her if she still subscribed to them, just as I suggested we do for Judge Sotomayor.
A candidate’s spouse doesn’t make policy
So you wouldn’t have considered it noteworthy if Michelle Obama had been a member of a black nationalist party?
So you wouldn’t have considered it noteworthy if Michelle Obama had been a member of a black nationalist party?
Of course I would. But you seem to be continually moving the goal posts. I (and others reading this) are still waiting for you to actually make a point.
I’ve been watching politics for a long, long time and I wasn’t aware either party actually held nominations for the spouse of a candidate. If they did, I’m sure both parties would have liked to replace various candidates’ spouses down through the years, perhaps starting with Mrs. Andrew Jackson. And while we’re at it, how about nominating a different First Brother for Jimmy Carter?
Jim, I have no doubt you would like to raise important points to be given serious discussion — but you need to work on your presentation.
“Why shouldn’t we southwest of the Hudson have the right to kick ‘em all out and make this a better country?”
Sure, Rand. And what are the vote totals you (not a Quebec separatist) would consider sufficient to do that?
Me, I would go for a process where all houses of all the state legislatures southwest of the Hudson passed had majority vote to put it on the ballot, or a citizen generated referendum equivalent to a state law passed to put it on the ballot and once on the ballot 60% of the total voters in those states voted yes.
Yours,
Tom
Sure, Rand. And what are the vote totals you (not a Quebec separatist) would consider sufficient to do that?
Why are you asking me? I made no such proposal.
Short answer: I am asking you because I want to know your opinion.
Long wordy answer: I proposed a thought experiment and you responded. I responded to your response in a manner designed to get another response. Why? Because I want to know what people think, including you.
Yours,
Tom
I am asking you because I want to know your opinion.
I have no opinion. It was not my suggestion, and I’ve given it no thought. I can’t be expected to respond to, or have an opinion on subjects just because someone brings them up in my blog comments.
Okay Rand, I’ll try to make a point. Your post is titled “Obama Has Nominated A Puerto Rican Nationalist”. There is no evidence that Sotomayor currently is a Puerto Rican Nationalist. So why the misleading title?
I can’t be expected to respond to, or have an opinion on subjects just because someone brings them up in my blog comments.
Sure. Just because I desire your opinion does not obligate you to produce one.
Yours,
Tom
Tom, it looks to me like you thought Raoul’s answer above was written by Rand.
Bob,
Dang, my brain returned the wrong name again! It indexes on initial sounds. Thanks for the catch.
Raoul,
“Why shouldn’t we southwest of the Hudson have the right to kick ‘em all out and make this a better country?”
Sure. And what are the vote totals you (not a Quebec separatist) would consider sufficient to do that?
Me, I would go for a process where all houses of all the state legislatures southwest of the Hudson passed had majority vote to put it on the ballot, or a citizen generated referendum equivalent to a state law passed to put it on the ballot and once on the ballot 60% of the total voters in those states voted yes.
Yours,
Tom
Tom,
My wife’s brain does the same thing – she was just talking to me about an August deadline, and she was getting mad at me for not understanding the significance. I kept saying “we’ve got two months!” and she kept saying “we had two months”, and we went around a few more times until I realized she was saying August but meant “April”.
Without going into the details, while I think no state should have the right to secede, and I suspect no state could ever afford it regardless of how the bill was calculated, I’d be interested in seeing what happens if an entirely interior swath of states (S. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma) successfully seceded. “If you don’t lower the tolls on I-70 & I-80, we’ll seal you in!”
Bob,
So I’m not the only one.
The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovkia quite peacefully and successfully. But the Czechs agreed to let them go. The Serbs kept fighting everyone who tried to secede from Yugoslavia. I guess for me, if more than 60% of the voters in my favorite state voted to secede, I’d figure they meant it and let them go.
Yours,
Tom
IANAL, but I believe there was a SCOTUS decision around 1870 that essentially held that secession was not legal. When the Texan whose case was the one in question complained, SCOTUS replied “We won.” I may have made that last part up.
While I make no brief for would-be Justice Sotomayor’s candidacy, I will observe that I’d hate to be held to account for the left-wing political views of my now long past college-age youth.
On the particular subject of Puerto Rican nationalism, I guess I have to count my present-day self among their number, as I also wish the U.S. would divest itself of the Commonwealth. As noted elsewhere, it’s a long-running drain on U.S. taxpayers and populated by non-English speakers with a non-American culture and a long-cultivated entitlements mentality. I say cut it loose.
> I will observe that I’d hate to be held to account for the left-wing political views of my now long past college-age youth.
I trust that you’d admit to having changed said views.
“There is no evidence that Sotomayor currently is a Puerto Rican Nationalist.”
There’s significant evidence that she was. If she’s not now, then she changed. Why is it unfair to ask her about that?