→ Civil Liberties, Courts, Crime and Justice, Politics, Top Stories

The Progressive Case Against Sotomayor

— Photo by flickr user funky64 used under a Creative Commons license.

The nominee has a troubling record on criminal justice and immigration cases. So why are liberals cheering?

Newsletter
Share
Close this Share Box

Thu Jul. 16, 2009 6:26 AM PDT

Sonia Sotomayor's all-but-certain confirmation will be a notable victory for Democrats, and for the cause of diversity on the nation's highest court. Whether it will be a victory for criminal justice is another question—one that seems to matter little to most of her liberal supporters.

Long before her Senate confirmation hearings began, progressive politicians, lawyers, scholars, activists, and bloggers had joined together, almost in one voice, to sing Sotomayor’s praises. Beyond predictable paeans to her qualifications and her inspiring personal story, the accolades didn't focus on Sotomayor's passion for justice, her moral rectitude, or even her much-discussed “empathy.” Instead, congressional Democrats and their allies have banded together to celebrate how thoroughly indistinguishable Sonia Sotomayor is from a Republican judge.

In their zeal to show that she is a “moderate,” Sotomayor’s liberal supporters are downplaying all her most compelling qualities, while lauding her most conservative decisions. She has rejected the majority of racial discrimination claims, they crow, and sent most immigrants packing. On criminal justice matters, she is somewhere to the right of the man she will replace, Daddy Bush appointee David Souter. The very facts that ought to make progressives cringe are instead being extolled as Sotomayor's greatest virtues, since they are the things that render her eminently "confirmable."

Advertisement

The most blatant example of this rhetoric came on the eve of the hearings from New York Senator Charles Schumer, considered one of the Judiciary Committee’s most liberal members. Declaring Sotomayor a “slam dunk,” Schumer bragged:

She has agreed with Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, against the immigration plaintiff. She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases. She has denied race claims in 83 percent of the cases and has split evenly on employment cases between employer and employee.

Last month Schumer’s office released its own study of Sotomayor’s 848 decisions in federal asylum cases, which included people seeking refuge from alleged violations of the Convention on Torture. Sotomayor ruled in favor of asylum-seekers just 17 percent of the time. “These findings should put to rest any doubts about Judge Sotomayor’s fidelity to the rule of law,” Schumer said in a statement. “Even in immigration cases, which would most test the so-called ‘empathy factor,’ Judge Sotomayor’s record is well within the judicial mainstream.” In other words, being a Latina doesn't make Sotomayor any more compassionate toward immigrants who face torture and death when we ship them back home.

On questions of criminal justice and criminal procedure, Sotomayor has a particularly substantial record—more than any other current justice, as her supporters have rightly pointed out—thanks to her career as a prosecutor, criminal court judge, and appellate judge. Based on her experience in these roles, Sotomayor’s backers are promoting her as a tough-on-crime pragmatist with no soft spot for criminal defendants—even if they happen to be innocent.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal looked approvingly at Sotomayor’s record on criminal cases, in an article titled “Nominees Criminal Rulings Tilt to the Right of Souter.” The retiring Republican-appointee Souter has sometimes joined Court liberals in defending the rights of the accused and convicted—most recently in a January case concerning police searches and seizures. In a similar appellate case, Sotomayor had ruled in favor of the police. The Journal reported:

New York criminal-defense lawyers say she is surprisingly tough on crime for a Democratic-backed appointee—a byproduct, they believe, of her tenure as a prosecutor … Following recent Supreme Court precedent, Judge Sotomayor tends to see relatively few grounds to overturn criminal convictions, says John Siffert, a New York attorney who taught an appellate advocacy class with the judge at New York University School of Law from 1996 to 2006. On the trial bench, he says, "she was not viewed as a pro-defense judge."

Sotomayor had the opportunity to review many petitions for writs of habeas corpus—the basic Constitutional right to seek judicial relief from unlawful detention, which offers recourse to those who believe they have been unfairly or improperly tried or wrongly convicted. Progressives have for years attacked the Bush administration for denying habeas corpus rights to prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Yet for those incarcerated in U.S. prisons, the main obstacle to accessing these rights is not anything concocted during the Bush years. It is the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), introduced in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in an election year. The AEDPA severely restricts the ability of federal judges to grant writs of habeas corpus and offer judicial relief to the convicted, even when there is substantial new evidence of their innocence.

Sonia Sotomayor rendered her appellate decisions under the restrictions imposed by AEDPA, and was subject to its tenets. But as a handful of defense lawyers have pointed out, she seemed more than content to abide by those restrictions. One defense lawyer, writing on a personal blog, calls her a “dead bang loser for the defense.” The conservative, law-and-order Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, agreed, and on its blog praised Sotomayor on these very grounds:

[AEDPA] is bitterly resented by many federal judges....Many, many federal judges have attempted to evade it, and a few have gone so far as to declare it unconstitutional. All of the latter have been reversed [by the Supreme Court]….Throughout [Sotomayor’s] opinions, I do not see the hostility to AEDPA that I have seen in so many opinions in the lower federal courts. The statute is largely applied as written and as intended.

James Ridgeway is a senior correspondent at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

This discussion

Submitted by Jay Taber on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 8:34 AM PDT.

This discussion http://www.publicgood.org/reports/pdf/americanpsyche.pdf on the American Psyche, with particular attention to liberal culture during the recent formation of the liberal fascist alliance, might interest you.

The Key Point:

Submitted by Tom Servo (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 10:49 AM PDT.

She has agreed with Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, against the immigration plaintiff. She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases.

Rather than to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America which places the Rights of the Individual paramount, while strictly limiting and defining the powers of government, like nearly all SC (in)Justices in recent memory, she seems to have the interests of our ruling class at heart.

Isn't that comforting?

look at the cases

Submitted by ericf on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 12:15 PM PDT.

I suggest the numbers tell us nothing. Look at the individual cases. Maybe the plaintiffs she ruled against didn't have a case. Just going off a statistic like that is no more valid than the right's phony talking point about her being reversed 60% of the time.
http://www.ravensblog.net

ya. referring to statistics

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 8:27 AM PDT.

ya. referring to statistics is like keeping a quota which has little to do with justice.

This is why...

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 1:06 PM PDT.

I don't agree that she is moderate but...

This is why I tell my conservative friends to "hold our noses" and urge her confirmation. Because, if by some miracle she was not confirmed Ogabe would only nominate someone even further outside the mainstream of American culture and thought - that is someone even further to the left.

The name of the current

Submitted by Dieter Heymann (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 1:10 PM PDT.

The name of the current President of the United States is Obama. The fact that you have called him Ogabe suggests that you might be a closet racist.

"Closet racist" ?

Submitted by 4GenPatF on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 2:32 PM PDT.

Not very much in the closet

First recourse

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 5:49 AM PDT.

Ah, thanks for being so predictable- the first recourse of leftists is always, as in always, to cry "racist" when confronted. As a very wise man once said: "To be called racist by a leftist only means you have hit them where they can't defend their silliness".

Ogabe is a cross between Obama and Mugabe - and he certainly is of the same intellectual, and ideological mold.

Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar

Submitted by Osha Gray Davidson on Fri Jul. 24, 2009 9:02 PM PDT.

That's a very poor argument, logically speaking. To be called a racist by anyone can mean they have nothing of substance to back up their argument. There is a second possibility: that the person is right and you are a racist. The person you accused of unfairly labeling you as a racist wasn't making any separate argument. You had simply morphed the President's name with that of an African despot. Now you're scrambling to convince us that the choice of an African despot, instead of, say, a Venezuelan one, was pure coincidence, without any thought of race. That's not very credible. I don't know if you are a racist, but you certainly do a convincing imitation of one.

In an adequate world, all

Submitted by Trollstein on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 3:29 PM PDT.

In an adequate world, all judges would rule the same on all cases. Thus, only one Supreme Court justice would be required and for good measure, three.
But in our sucky existence, its not about numbers and not even about liberal versus conservative versus moderate. Its about the "golden rule". those who haves the gold, makes the rules.
We the public are being played as grand chumps. As I said in a much earlier post, we are watching a pro-wrestling match and expected to believe its not fixed. We have the conservative black guy and the new liberal Puerto Rican. We have a couple of Italians, some old guys, a Jewess, an Irish dude and a head-Methodist-in-charge. We all take our sides based on ethnic, religious, political and/or gender preferences. Its like a arcade game where one picks their driver.
Guess what?
At the core, they are all alike. They are all part of the same "judicial monastery/convent". The bishops and cardinals are such persons as Bill Gates and Kenneth Lewis. The pope is whomever runs the justice dept. (President Doobboblow or whomever). But one thing remains a constant, you and I are powerless peasants.

Look at MoJo's Stephanie

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 1:30 AM PDT.

Look at MoJo's Stephanie Mencimer and the answer is clear. Nothing matters except for the fact that Sotomayor has a vagina. Mencimer makes it plain that the discrimination women face is greater than the discrimination of African Americans and certainly more than the discrimination faced by the dyslexic.

Sadly, Mencimer shows all so much liberal politics comes down to victimhood and identity politics.

I am waiting for the day that a defense attorney can be confirmed on the court. Who are Democrats that we cannot imagine such a thing as being possible?

I was referring to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 1:36 AM PDT.

I was referring to Mencimer's latest embarrassment in which she explicitly compares the discrimination of various groups and states her own opinion that women have suffered more than African Americans and more than the disabled.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/07/ricci-speaks-finally

Most of us are grown up enough to know that Mencimer's comparisons are not just a losing proposition, but a morally disgusting one at that, and bigoted to boot.

On the bright side, she would have made it just fine as a privileged 2nd wave feminist wondering why African American feminists think she's a joke.

I have not followed Ms.

Submitted by Trollstein on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 5:45 AM PDT.

I have not followed Ms. Mencimer's prior articles and thus I do not have enough information to acknowledge if she fits the exact description being proffered by the above post. However, on the general subject.
Yes, in the aggregate, over the past 40,000 years of human evolution, women have taken the brunt of discrimination in the world. But I (as a male troll) have no intention of taking responsibility for, or making reparations against the former 39,950 years. Sadly, certain women's have the expectation that such reparations are indeed justified and required.
Another problem faced today is that a segment of the population over plays the discrimination card. Yes, in 2009 some discrimination against women still exists. Not very much. Some of what might be perceived as "discrimination" is organic. For example, since women outlive men, it is only natural that the workforce has more eligible women in older age groups and this helps explains certain disparities in pay as simple "supply and demand". Women more often start their careers later then men, which has the same net effect. Women also are often known choose their male companions based on income levels, whereas men are generally not so motivated. Thus, it is partly the women's own internal programming which causes the male population to compete harder and be more aggressive in seeking higher paying jobs.
As to things like rape and domestic violence: Society could do more to counter these problems. But the women being hurt are not being hurt because they are women. They are being hurt because they are physically weaker. Had nature made women physically stronger, an abundance of men would be the victims of physical violence. This same principle holds true regarding inter-ethnic battery. When's the last time you head of a little nerdy Jewish guy assaulting a big muscular African-American?

Fourth Amendment

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 4:21 AM PDT.

Back when the nom. first came up, there was a great post highlighting about 10 rulings that showed that no matter how "liberal" she might be tarred by the media, she will most certainly continue to shift the court to the right.

The most troubling of these was a case in which she upheld the legality of a police tactic to stand outside the apartment of a suspected drug dealer, hiding in the shadows while a pizza was delivered. Open the opening of the door the police said "Aha! Reasonable Cause!" and burst in to arrest the occupants. The doorway of your dwelling is a sacred portal, to be crossed only by judicial fiat. To allow this to be breached is to give up yet another sphere of privacy. Soon the only place where we will have any reasonable expectation of privacy will be in our bathing suit zones.

(ok, they didn't say "Aha! Reasonable Cause!" but I have to get to work and don't have time to research the exact dialogue)

Donor

Article should appear in a GOP rag

Submitted by Folkwolf101 on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 12:40 PM PDT.

tagged as:

result

Good article, and very well written. Her tough-on-crime stance almost makes me forgive her poor writing skills. Do not be surprised if a link to this article appears in a GOP blog.

Yeah, well....

Submitted by JimRinX on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 1:19 PM PDT.

....as long as we do away with the Drug War, or, at least, make Medical Marijuana Federally Legal (those specific Laws have totally screwed up my life), then I'd probably be about as Conservative in regards to my views on Law Enforcement are concerned, as any 'Right Wing' Supreme Court Judge!
JimRinX

Statistics Anyone?

Submitted by Old Grady on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 2:17 PM PDT.

It seems to me that if we're to pass judgement on this woman we should be aware of the specifics of those cases on which she has ruled. I am a great believer in statistical information, but it seems that many of her rulings in question merely upheld those of a lower court. Not only that, her decisions were made, hopefully, on the merits of the individual cases. It will be a sad day when judges rule in a particular way in order to satisfy concerns for statistical trends.

Exactitude an old drag

Submitted by 4GenPatF on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 2:58 PM PDT.

Reality:When a writing, action or cause appears contrary to the established authority, there comes a call to dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t"'s. That is true in universities as well as in courts. If one is taking up a case and it is the underdog, the
defendant at least deserves extra effort to see that a document gets in on time, not relying on some secretary. However benighted the bosses appear the last thing is to imply by some action that the advocate believes he or she is better than that authority, or is so blessed that he or she doesn't have to look after details, even if the honchos screw up like idiots.

sotomauor

Submitted by me (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 3:53 PM PDT.

I'm a progressive but I don't fit into every catagory of what that is supose to be. But there's something to consider when you think about a woman her age and race who has been up against the "old boys club". "They" don't let you succeed if you don't "get along to go along"; she would never have gotten so far in her career if she was a rebel-she didn't have the backing for it. When you're the first in your type meaning a trail blazer you can only stand out so much. So my point is this. We may NOT be seeing the real Sotomayor. Now that she'll have a lifetime appointment and she doesn't appear to be much of a wilting rose, she just might suprise us all. Or not. But one thing for sure the real Sotomayor will stand up when she takes her seat on the Supreme Court.

PC Thought Police

Submitted by Jay Taber on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 4:11 PM PDT.

An interesting phenomenon among progressive blogs is a refusal to reexamine the effectiveness of running a PC thought police. As an example, even on a post highly critical of President Obama over immigration, my comment which linked to your article on Sotomayor was removed because the human rights organization that owns the blog had taken a strong stance against her right-wing critics. My question, of course, is how can progressives ever learn anything if they are so rigidly doctrinaire that they won't even entertain respectful discussion of issues they themselves raise?

Typically, right winger's

Submitted by Trollstein on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 5:58 PM PDT.

Typically, right winger's like to debate, argue and even fight. Left wingers prefer peace, serenity and even the often delusional belief that everyone agrees with them.
The stiffling of free speech and ideas is the crack-cocaine of the hard left.

Its a Sun Tsu Kind of Thing

Submitted by Anambrose (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 11:04 PM PDT.

If there ever was a time for a white man to be ashamed it was watching the various mouthpieces playing to the folks back home on Sotomayor. I've read her decisions on cases listed above and yes there is cause for concern. Not hysteria. I will play a hunch that within the balance of the rest of Obama's term he will have an opportunity to replace a SC Justice from the right. If in the end she has demonstrated competence we could see a Larry Tribe or someone who is Not a Judge or Lawyer get the nomination. When and If you look back on the earth shattering decisions made in the '50's you'll see that justices were not reliably right or left as many in the political class had expected. So if it is possible to be pleasantly surprised by a justice nominated by Ike in Brown v Board then it should come as no shock to have a justice not follow dogmatic ideology from a justice nominated by Clinton or Obama. I think she will bring a lot of chops and wisdom to the job and that is something we are in very short supply of around here.

"It is decisions similar to

Submitted by handworn (not verified) on Sat Jul. 18, 2009 10:41 AM PDT.

"It is decisions similar to this one that are offered up as proof that Sotomayor is a moderate, not an “activist,” judge—the disparaging term for jurists who render decisions based upon whether they actually serve the cause of justice."

I'm struggling not to call that insane right off the bat. How about dismissive, simplistic, and unintelligent?

It bankrupts laws to manipulate them by redefining the words they use to suit one's purpose, because everyone will do it, and then no one can find common ground any more. If egalitarianism and pity have a proper place in government, it has to be in the legislature. Never the judiciary. Is the legislature slow and inefficient by comparison? Sometimes, sure. But the sweaty, uphill, compromising work of uniting with those who are least like you is the price of democracy.

Why is no one discussing

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Jul. 18, 2009 1:22 PM PDT.

Why is no one discussing here take on business law? Well, we know why, but at least progressives should be discussing it. I fear she is no better than Roberts and Alito when it comes to favoring the "rights" of corporations.

Context and Perspective

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Jul. 19, 2009 8:52 AM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

I am far from convinced that anything in the record of Sotomayor's decisions on specific lower court cases can be predictive of how she will rule as a Supreme Court Justice. As with so many nominees in recent years, we really have no way of knowing and may indeed be surprised by her taking a completely different position than expected in the liberal/conservative balance of the bench. I suspect the reason for this is in the unique function of the Supreme Court and the roles that the nine top Justices play in our justice system. Just the fact that each Justice is one of only nine at the peak of our hierarchical system necessarily changes the context of any decision and must likewise change the perspective of the decision maker. As a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals, Sotomayor comes from one of 13 Courts that are comprised of a varying number of seats. The 2nd Circuit is made up of 10 active seats and hears cases brought within a limited geographic area. The rules and roles, terms and implications are so different between the two top tiers of our court system that if any Justice's thinking does not change in some way when they move up, then they are most likely NOT doing their jobs! For this reason we need to look more at a nominee's intellectual capacity, adaptability and temperament than at specific outcomes of prior cases. To do otherwise is to promote politics over justice which is completely inappropriate.

The fact that Ms Sotamayor

Submitted by zeevico (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 5:01 AM PDT.

The fact that Ms Sotamayor has agreed with her Republican-appointed colleagues' opinions a large number of times according to a statistical study is hardly a criterion by which to judge her immigration-law jurisprudence. The statistics tell us nothing about the merits of each case before her and are a useless measure of her actual opinions, if any, and her sympathies, if any, towards or against migrants.

What we expect from Ms Sotamayor is impartiality and an attempt to uphold the law. That Ms Sotamayor applies a controversial law strictly and without comment on its merits is hardly objectionable. This article tip toes around the issue of whether she has done so, without providing an adequate analysis of the facts of the controversial cases in question or any legal analysis of the relevant legislation. It mentions a deplorable outcome of the legislation--the dismissal of a case of an ultimately innocent man--as if it were Ms Sotamayor's fault that the law was written in that manner.

If the writer's contention is that Ms Sotamayor misinterpreted the law and this in turn led to an oppressive outcome, then at least his argument would have some relation to Ms Sotamayor's competence. If the writer's contention is that the law is unconstitutional, then he would do well to at least suggest that this is so, and outline his reasoning to the lay reader. In fact this is precisely the kind of public debate that should be had on Ms Sotamayor's competence on the bench. It is unfortunate that Mr Ridgeway's article adds nothing to the public debate on this issue.

Balance of Power

Submitted by Wednesday's Pickle (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 8:43 AM PDT.

It seems to me that the basic principle is that the Supreme Court is intended as a balance of power against the Legislature and Executive Branch...if this is the case, Sotomayor is not a good candidate because she hasn't exhibited anything but a lock-step stance toward governmental power(s) with a concomitant reduction of individual rights. It's a natural tendency of aging nations; don't feel bad. The weight of the accumulation of 200+ years of laws creates a quagmire wherein anything goes...The solution? Push for state rights over federal rights; push for community rights over state rights; push for individual rights over community rights. Miranda be damned.

Wrong

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 4:39 PM PDT.

Wrong- the purpose oif the SC is not to "balance" the Executive and the Legislative branches. The only purpose of the SC is to determine if the actions of the Legislature and the Executive are Constitutional - period.

Sotomayor and religion THAT is the BIG one

Submitted by evil is evil (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 10:04 AM PDT.

Sotomayor will be the sixth catholic on the supreme court.
Newt Gingrich is a slimy little weasel but he just turned catholic and although I despise him his is always ahead of the political curve.

Now when Roe vs Wade is negated by the Pope's orders there will be singing and dancing and cheering by all of the clueless.

But when the major religions and the clueless finally catch on that the laws are decided by the Pope and a Supreme Court that has already proved they regard the constitution as a piece of paper to be ignored at will,
it isn't going to be just the snake handlers and holy rollers who go ballistic.

You are going to see Mormons and Baptists and Seventh Day Adventist make a recap of the
reformation look like a joke.

If I were catholic, I would move to Paraguay and change my name to Bush or Cheney.

5 catholics on the supreme court is obscene. 6 is just plain evil.

I hate to say this because

Submitted by Trollstein on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 12:21 PM PDT.

I hate to say this because it will sound biased and to some extent, perhaps it is...but equally there is an essence of truth which can not be dismissed:
Catholics make proficient judges because they are well skilled at covering up official indulgences.

Sotomayor

Submitted by William Bednarz on Sun Aug. 2, 2009 9:45 AM PDT.

.
..A product of our modern day society - GOD HELP US ALL.....
.
..In the United States it has always been better to let ten guilty people go free rather than to ocnvict on innocent person -.- that is what JUSTICE STOOD FOR..
..
...This is more of a prime example of how justice works in Great Britian, you are guilty until such time as you are able to prove otherwise...
..We the People - - are now against the people - the government sells out workers. CASH FOR CLUNKERS - 20,000 Auto Workers LAID-OFF and their jobs going to CANADA - MEXICO - CHINA
Against the People - Against Society.....Taxation without representation.... "LET THEM EAT CAKE"

SCANDALS!

Submitted by DM (not verified) on Fri Aug. 7, 2009 10:03 PM PDT.

SOTOMAYOR SHALL BE AN ASSET TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

SOTOMAYOR IS BRILLIANT.

SOTOMAYOR HAS MUCH TO OFFER.
_____________________
SCANDALS! SCANDALS! SCANDALS!

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER AND SERIAL KILLER!

“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (go to Google, type “blog of drizzten Margie Schoedinger,” and hit “Enter”).

“George [Bush is personally complicit] in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).

McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.

Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.

During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape. However, the vast majority of such scandalous cases will never come out (the grisly details are typically hard to substantiate). A prosecutor really can lawfully charge a former president with murdering one or more people in the disgusting way Bush murdered Schoedinger. The American people unfortunately live in a world where evil presidents can murder any number of people—figuratively—with a wave of a magic wand and get away with it.

(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER AND SERIAL KILLER” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death” or “George W. Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape,” hit “Enter,” and readily find hundreds of copies.)

(Please feel free to go to Google, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY blog of Andrew Wang,” and hit “Enter.”)
_____________________
Andrew Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

cheap nike dunks

Submitted by cheap nike dunks (not verified) on Sat Aug. 15, 2009 1:23 AM PDT.

I think it's a good topic: cheap nike dunks,cheap jordan shoes,nike sb

wholesale watch replica watches rolex watch

Submitted by dropshippngwatch (not verified) on Fri Aug. 28, 2009 8:24 AM PDT.

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Wholesale Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watches Collection
Replica Franck Muller Watches

NCsoft has just announced an

Submitted by buy guild wars gold (not verified) on Fri Oct. 23, 2009 12:33 AM PDT.

NCsoft has just announced an intriguing new deal for those who want to enter the world of Atreia and guild wars players.If you preorder Aion, you can get a code for Guild Wars that will unlock a new emote that shows off a flash of wings on your character guild wars gold."While the Aion wings emote will stay activin a players account forever, the promotion has a limited run. In order to guarantee a guild wars wiki Aion wings emote code, players are encouraged to pre-order Aion at several participating retailers, including GameStop, Amazon, Best Buy, Fry’s Electronics and EB Games."You can find more info over at the official guild wars 2 site.

didi

Submitted by didi (not verified) on Sat Oct. 24, 2009 12:56 AM PDT.

Sonia Sotomayor's all-but-certain confirmation will be a notable victory for Democrats, and for the cause of diversity on the nation's highest court. estetik Whether it will be a victory for criminal justice is another question—one that seems to matter little to most of her liberal supporters. estetik burun ameliyatları Long before her Senate confirmation hearings began, progressive göğüs büyütme ameliyatları politicians, lawyers, scholars, activists, and bloggers had joined together, almost in one voice, to sing Sotomayor’s praises. Beyond predictable paeans to her qualifications and her inspiring personal story, the accolades didn't focus on estetik göğüs ameliyatları Sotomayor's passion for justice, her moral rectitude, or even her much-discussed “empathy. göğüs küçültme ameliyatları” Instead, congressional Democrats and their allies have banded together to celebrate how thoroughly indistinguishable Sonia Sotomayor is from a Republican judge. karın germe estetiği In their zeal to show that she is a “moderate,” Sotomayor’s liberal supporters are downplaying all her most compelling qualities, vajina estetiği while lauding her most conservative decisions. She has rejected the majority of racial discrimination claims, they crow, and sent most immigrants packing. lazer epilasyon fiyatları On criminal justice matters, she is somewhere to the right of the man she will replace, Daddy Bush appointee David Souter. karın germe estetiği The very facts that ought to make progressives cringe are instead being extolled as Sotomayor's greatest virtues, since they are the things that render her eminently "confirmable. plastik cerrahi" Long before her Senate confirmation hearings began, progressive politicians, lawyers, scholars, activists, and bloggers had joined together, almost in one voice , to sing Sotomayor’s praises. saç ekimi Beyond predictable paeans to her qualifications and her inspiring personal story, the accolades didn't focus on Sotomayor's passion for justice göğüs büyütme estetiği, her moral rectitude, or even her much-discussed “empathy. göğüs dikleştirme estetiği” Instead, congressional Democrats and their allies have banded together to celebrate how thoroughly indistinguishable Sonia Sotomayor is from a Republican judge göğüs küçültme estetiği. In their zeal to show that she is a “moderate, vajina daraltma ameliyatı” Sotomayor’s liberal supporters are downplaying all her most compelling qualities, while lauding her most conservative decisions nazmi bayçın. She has rejected the majority of racial discrimination claims, they crow, and sent most immigrants packing. nazmi bayçın On criminal justice matters, she is somewhere to the right of the man she will replace, Daddy Bush appointee David Souter. nazmi bayçın The very facts that ought to make progressives cringe are instead being extolled as Sotomayor's greatest virtues, since they are the things that render her eminently "confirmable." nazmi bayçın During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way nazmi bayçın. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight nazmi bayçın”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger nazmi bayçın. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide nazmi bayçın”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the nazmi bayçın point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape.

Donor

tiffany jewelry

Submitted by qmly on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 7:40 PM PDT.

tagged as:

result

That little blue box - everyone woman dreams of seeing it come their way. tiffany jewelry jewelry is world renowned for its stunning quality and top of the line artisanship; however, it also has a reputation for having a price tag that is way out of most people's leagues.
discount tiffany jewelry That doesn't mean you can't get that Tiffany look you want at a price you can afford, however. Thanks to replica Tiffany jewelry, you can look like you are draped in Tiffany jewelry, and yet still have the money left in your pocket to go out and show off your looks.