Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

You know the term Redneck came about when American's with Indian blood were told their necks were too red to vote. Now people run around like it has something to do with working class WASPs and it's some kind of badge of honor.



not that i am some kind of class label expert but i was told the term "redneck" came from west virginia coal miner (union) workers who fought (and lost real bad) to coal miner company hired guns/army? coal mine workers tied red bandannas around their neck so they could tell who was who.

im gonna google it now and see whats up.

go skins!!

"The popular etymology says that the term derives from such individuals having a red neck caused by working outdoors in the sunlight over the course of their lifetime. The effect of decades of direct sunlight on the exposed skin of the back of the neck not only reddens fair skin, but renders it leathery and tough, and typically very wrinkled by late middle age. Another popular theory stems from the use of red bandanas tied around the neck to signify union affiliation during the violent clashes between United Mine Workers and owners between 1910 and 1920."

yeah i believe the origin i was told.

to further my story as it was told to me about the term "redneck" (i was born west virginia, got family out there, i am a redneck).

the union workers/rednecks would expectedly come over the same ridge/hill, the army/hired guns would wait for them to come over then light them up with canon fire they had arranged right across the ridge. more of a massacre repeated every day until the rednecks figured things out.

go skins!!!

A little research (http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038) goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.

A little research (http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038) goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

I don't even care what cases like this she got right or wrong her thinking she can rule like a king is what I don't like.

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

No because she has a richness of heritage and diversity that provides her magical wisdom unencumbered by silly legal reasoning.

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

I have stated just as much (http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/29927-obama-nominates-sotomayor-to-scotus-3.html#post559960). The irony is, of course, that those who advocate for state rights have forgone such sentiments with respect to Sotomyors ruling in Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch because it does not suite their current desire to justify her deficiency as a Supreme Court candidate.

In times of war one must be willing to use the ammunition of the enemy and fire at will!

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?