Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is under pressure to attack Judge Sonia Sotomayor while trying not to offend Latinos all over the country, continues to walk the tightrope. Sadly, however, in trying to rough up Sotomayor, during her U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, he played into an old stereotype that dogs women, but is hardly thought of when it comes to men: temperament. It would be different if Graham had some kind of hard evidence from multiple people to back him up, but by simply throwing such an allegation out there he comes across as embracing a negative stereotype of Sotomayor that seems to have no evidence to back it up and does not seem out of line based on what happens with other male judges.

From POLITICO:

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sonia Sotomayor’s temperament  “sticks out like a sore thumb” compared to other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Sotomayor said she asks “tough questions in oral argument” and there are a lot of lawyers “who are unfamiliar with the process in the Second Circuit” that they find “difficult and challenging.”

“If I may interject here, is that they find you difficult and challenging,” Graham said. “Do you think you have a temperament problem?”

“No, sir,” Sotomayor said. “I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit.”

While she is talking about her record and her relationships with judges and lawyers, people like Lindsey Graham are trying to smear her with rumors and stereotypes.

Now, if you follow the nuts over at Fox Nation you’d think Graham did something worth something. But, in the end, he fell flat like the rest of the Republicans are going to do if they follow the lead of Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham and continue with this stupidity.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from a Huffington Post online column written by Sam Stein. Correctly, Stein points out that Sen. Jeff Sessions, a hardcore Republican from Alabama, is doing more damage than good in grilling Judge Sonia Sotomayor (in an effort to appease his far-right base). The longer Sessions and others spend attacking Sotomayor the more it makes Republicans look bad and grossly out of touch with voters they someday will need (minorities … particularly Latinos).

Wrote Stein for Huffington Post:

Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who took over the post from Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter, is under intense pressure to land blows on Sotomayor without offending Hispanic voters. It’s a tough task, made all the more difficult by Sessions’ history of racially insensitive positions and statements.

So far the results have been mixed. Over at Fox News, host Chris Wallace and his co-panelist applauded the Alabaman for his questioning of Sotomayor, in which he honed in on her past statements about race and her role in Ricci v. DeStefano(the New Haven firefighter case). While other GOPers (notably Utah Sen. Orin Hatch) got stuck in the legal weeds, Sessions tried to draw blood, the Fox panel argued.

But Democrats both in and out of government say that is exactly the type of posture they want.

“Sessions spent 30 minutes talking about lines in speeches taken out of context, instead of her 17 years on the bench,”said one Democratic operative working on the Sotomayor confirmation. “When Judge Sotomayor tried to reference her work as a judge and her fidelity to the law in her more than 3000 judicial opinions, Sen. Sessions ignored her answers. In fact, in his 30 minutes of questioning, after spending weeks supposedly reviewing her judicial record, Sen. Sessions could only manage to mention one of her actual decisions as a judge.”

Certainly, the image of a white southern senator pressing a Hispanic judge on topics of affirmative action carries racial implications that progressives don’t mind addressing.Ian Millhiser, a Legal Research Analyst with the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, told the Huffington Post that he was “flabbergasted that conservatives picked someone with a long history of race-based attacks as their point person on the Sotomayor hearing.”

Sen. Sessions, who probably had no intention of voting for Sotomayor prior to the start of these pointless (in terms of substance) hearings, has turned himself and the Republicans into the real story here as they have underestimated the toughness, intelligence and fairness of Judge Sotomayor.

Appeasing a small base (that already will vote for pretty much any Republican in any race) may cost Sessions and the GOP a larger base it is becoming increasingly out of touch with.

Here is an advertisement that calls out de facto Republican leader Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is being nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many Latinos, and people of all races, are becoming fed up with the attacks on Sotomayor, who is highly qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The more I think about it, it’s sad to think that someone who has done so little for civil rights (Clarence Thomas) replaced someone so great (Thurgood Marshall) who did so much for civil rights. It’s almost unforgivable that George H.W. Bush, in 1991, nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court to replace one of the important figures in black history, Thurgood Marshall.

Here is a lengthy excerpt from Wikipedia:

Marshall won his very first U.S. Supreme Court case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940), at the age of 32. That same year, he was appointed Chief Counsel for the NAACP. He argued many other cases before the Supreme Court, most of them successfully, including Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). His most famous case as a lawyer was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” public education was unconstitutional because it could never be truly equal. In total, Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.

During the 1950s, Thurgood Marshall developed a friendly relationship with J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1956, for example, he privately praised Hoover’s campaign to discredit T.R.M. Howard, a maverick civil rights leader from Mississippi. During a national speaking tour, Howard had criticized the FBI’s failure to seriously investigate cases such as the 1955 killers of George W. Lee and Emmett Till. An FBI informant reported that Marshall had “no use for Howard and nothing would please him more than to see Howard completely crushed.” Ironically, two years earlier Howard had arranged for Marshall to deliver a well-received speech at a rally of his Regional Council of Negro Leadership in Mound Bayou, Mississippi only days before the Brown decision. [4]

President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. A group of Democratic Party Senators led by Mississippi’s James Eastland held up his confirmation, so he served for the first several months under a recess appointment. Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him Solicitor General.

On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark, saying that this was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.” Marshall was confirmed as an Associate Justice by a Senate vote of 69-11 on August 31, 1967.[5] He was the 96th person to hold the position, and the first African-American.

Meanwhile, Thomas fought against civil rights and continues to fight against civil rights.

From The Daily Voice:

In an 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas cast the lone vote against a key provision of the Voting Rights Act on Monday (June 22).

The Court, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (PDF link) declined to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has often been challenged by conservative critics as unnecessary. Instead it avoided the “difficult” question about the constitutionality of the law. But the Court did allow a tiny Texas municipality to be exempted from a requirement to provide advance notice before making changes to its election procedures.

In his dissent, Thomas seemed to argue that the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary because the explicit racial segregation of the Jim Crow era is gone.

”The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains,” Thomas wrote. He admitted that in 1965, “Congress had every reason to conclude that States with a history of disenfranchising voters based on race would continue to do all they could to evade the constitutional ban on voting discrimination.” But, Thomas added, “The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold Section 5 . . . no longer exists…And the days of ‘grandfather clauses, property qualifications, ‘good character’ tests, and the requirement that registrants ‘understand’ or ‘interpret’ certain matter,’ are gone.”

Some things change, but other things remain the same.

It hurts to think this man replaced the great Thurgood Marshall.

I would encourage readers to check out one of my favorite blogs on the Web, Field Negro. In one blog I just took an opportunity to read, Field takes on Clarence Thomas for yet another inexplicable slap in the face to black people.

Here is an excerpt:

Some sister must have really done Clarence wrong back in the day, because that Negro seriously hates his people. I bet he vowed to get the entire Negro race back for those black folks who dissed him in his early life.

Honestly, how could Uncle Clarence be the only one of the Supremes to vote against not scrapping a certain provision of the Voting Rights Act? (He even went against his closet lover, Antonin Scalia, on this one) A provision which pretty much insured that certain states would not be messing with the civil rights of minority voters? Has this Negro taken leave of his senses? Does he just do this kind of shit to get attention? Folks, believe me, in spite of what some folks in certain states would have you believe, that provision is still needed today. Those pesky little literacy tests could come back faster than you can say Jig Clarence, Jig.

Field Negro:

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2009/06/most-dangerous-negro-in-merry-ca.html

Robert Bork is still bitter after all of these years and he was at his player-hater best (or worst) in an interview with Newsweek (where he trashed U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor with the same tired Republican talking points). The article is interesting as Bork takes some of her comments out of context and spins them in the worst way possible to demonize her. It’s kind of sad that Bork still seems to be carrying all that anger inside of him after all of these years.

Here is an excerpt from the Bork interview that struck me (even though it does not have much to do with Sotomayor):

My general impression of them is quite good. The justice up there who I most admire is Clarence Thomas. I notice that when he and Scalia differ—it’s not that often, but when they do—I tend to agree with Thomas.

There goes Judge Bork’s credibility. Time to flush the toilet.

Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202874

Notorious right-wing hater Sean Hannity and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, those two noted intellectual giants, had a meeting of the minds and left much to be desired.

HANNITY: You know but it goes back – It does go back a little to the campaign. I mean, ‘spread the wealth, patriotic duty…’

PALIN: Kind of a ‘we told ya so’.

HANNITY: Well, is that how you feel?

PALIN: That’s how I feel! … And this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead Sean it is the complete opposite. It’s expanding at such a large degree that if Americans aren’t paying attention, unfortunately our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize.

HANNITY: Socialism?

PALIN: Well, that is where we are headed. That is where we have to be blunt enough and candid enough and honest enough with Americans to let them know that if we keep going down these roads… nationalizing many of our services, our projects, our businesses, yes that is where we would head.

Truly, it’s a shame Hannity and Palin have so little faith in the strength of the American people and so little trust of the foundation on which the United States of America is built. This country was around long before them and will be around long after all of us are gone.

I wonder if that lack of faith in the United States qualifies as anti-American.

Why do people like Hannity and Palin continue to attack America?

I think the American people are pleased that Gov. Sarah Palin is not vice president – a heartbeat away from running this country. How might Gov. Palin be qualified to pick a U.S. Supreme Court justice when she had difficulty even naming U.S. Supreme Court cases?

Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/08/palin-on-obama-administration-we-told-ya-so/

Oliver Willis:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/06/08/the-moron-sarah-palin-rears-her-head-again/

Far-right commentator Pat Buchanan is continuing his Sonia Sotomayor Attack Tour. Here is the latest attack by Buchanan against Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court if she is confirmed after being nominated by President Barack Obama. Instead of saluting the historic nature of this appointment, Buchanan continues to attack the way she allegedly learned to speak English.

What a classy guy.

BUCHANAN: Well I, again in that Saturday piece, she went to Princeton. She graduated first in her class it said. But she herself said she read, basically classic children’s books to read and learn the language and she read basic English grammars and she got help from tutors. I think that, I mean if you’re, frankly if you’re in college and you’re working on Pinocchio or on the troll under the bridge, I don’t think that’s college work.

Buchanan, of course, is not above unprovoked attacks against minorities or women. In this case, he gets the best of both of his worlds by attacking a woman minority. Buchanan is a left-over man who is troubled by seeing an increase in minority populations. He seems to see something slipping away from him and he is choosing to fade angrily and loudly into the night.

Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/buchanan-sotomayor-english/

Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, takes out of context a comment from Sonia Sotomayor and tries to hold the race hammer over her head. Kelly, like others, is working what few angles they have to try and trip up Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring justice David Souter. Take the time to read the Media Matters for Americastory to get the full story to better understand these out-of-context attacks from the far right on Sonia Sotomayor.

First, thanks to Media Matters for America, here is what Kelly said:

KELLY: Your thoughts on this controversial quote that she offered up on Latina judges? This was Judge Sotomayor speaking back at the University of Berkeley Law School in 2001, and I’ll read you what she said and ask if you are able to put this in perspective for us.

She says, quote, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male, who has not lived that life.” You know, that sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she’s saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that’s her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court.

REP. JOSE SERRANO [D-NY]: Right. And like I said, we’re gonna hang on everything she’s ever said — if she has said them. I think the key there is, “I would hope,” just like I have said at times throughout my life that when you come with this background that I came, that I would hope I would be always true to believing when I legislate in Congress — and I’ve been in Congress 20 years, and in the state Assembly 16 years before that — that I would keep in mind that while I’m legislating for the whole country, I also have to keep in mind what it is that I bring to that legislation. My personal experience and how it is to fight yourself out of poverty. All she was saying is –

KELLY: But is there a role for that on the bench? It’s different, some would argue, for you, because you’re an elected lawmaker.

SERRANO: Well, there is a role in that you never forget who you are. I mean, she has made decisions based on what the law is and what the Constitution says. That’s what she’ll be doing.

[...]

KELLY: What I want to ask you about, Tim [O'Brien], is these prior statements, because as much of a moment as we may be having now watching this and just rooting for her as a human being, there are some problematic statements that she’s made in the past that are gonna come up at these confirmation hearings. And the one we’ve been talking about is this one where she says — and I want to get it right: “I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”

And I – now I’ve looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you, Tim, it wasn’t. In fact, she goes on — she says, “Justice O’Connor has often been cited” — that was our first female justice — “has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”

She says, “I’m not so sure I agree with that statement.” And then she goes on to say that “people from different backgrounds will come to different decisions” and she said that “one must accept the proposition that a difference will be created by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and their personal experiences.” Now, is that just a statement of fact, Tim, or is that in fact controversial?

Sorry, Megyn, but you are taking what Sonia Sotomayor said out of its original context. Here is what Sotomayor said, in full context:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other(s) simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Of course, the Megyn Kellys of the world interpret her comments in the worst possible light (that she is a reverse racist who thinks Latinas can make better decisions than white men). Read Sotomayor’s comments a little more closely and understand the context in which she made these statements (talking about diversity and how that can impact the court) that many on the right find so offensive. She was talking about race and discrimination cases and how diversity can be beneficial during the decision-making process for such cases. People like the conservative Megyn Kelly act as if Sotomayor walked out of a fast-food restaurant and, with little context, declared Latinas are better judges than white men. That is a mischaracterization. You have to put her comments into the proper context to be fair. I mean, if you’re a fair and balanced news outlet, that’s what you would do.

Media Matters for America:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050

Are you ready for some more attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court? Next up on the attack (as documented by Think Progress) is right-winger Curt Levey.

Here is what Think Progress has:

This morning on WTOP, Curt Levey, executive director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, compared Sotomayor to Harriet Miers:

I would point you to the Harriet Miers nomination under the second President Bush. She was also many people felt and intellectual lightweight, picked because she was a woman, people felt. And even though Republicans controlled the senate, she ultimately had to withdraw. And that could happen here. This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified. I could certainly see red and purple state Democrats gawking at it and she may very well have to withdraw her nomination.

So, Sotomayor (implicitly) is being attacked as an intellectual lightweight. Levey is asserting that she essentially has no qualification for the high court beyond the fact that she is a woman and is Hispanic. Wow, you would not want to prejudge someone, huh?

This is typical of the kind of attacks we can expect from the right wing. Sonia Sotomayor seems to be a lot tougher than these right-wingers think.

By the way, did anyone think Clarence Thomas was the most qualified or best pick for the U.S. Supreme Court? I doubt very many people considered Thomas the most qualified.

Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-lightweight/

Rush Limbaugh, head of the Republicans and conservatives, is once again calling on someone (a person who could become an important figure in the United States of America) to fail.

LIMBAUGH: Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes! She’d be a disaster on the court.Do I still want Obama to fail as President? Yeah. AP you getting this? He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better.

Limbaugh again proves himself to be a reprehensible individual whose patriotism is apparently tied to whether or not his party is in power. With rhetoric like that, his party might not be back in power any time in the near future.

Check out the video of that great “patriot” Limbaugh hoping for more leaders of our country to fail.

Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/limbaugh-sotomayor-fail/

Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260033

Media Matters for America is on the case to put into context one of the weapons conservatives will attempt to use against Sonia Sotomayor, the woman who is being nominated by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is a portion of the Media Matters story:

SUMMARY: Fox News host Jane Skinner asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor “is coming under some fire for making some comments that were recorded on tape a while back, saying that it’s her job, really, to make policy from the bench.” In fact, Sotomayor did not say “it’s her job” as a federal circuit court judge to “make policy from the bench.”

Check out the entire article to see the comments put into their full context.

Media Matters for America:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070035

It appears that President Barack Obama is going to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the retiring David Souter. The reports have been circulating around all of the major media news outlets this morning. If confirmed, the 54-year-old Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman (currently, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg serves) ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor’s reported nomination is hardly a big surprise as she has been on what many have speculated to be President Obama’s short list for quite some time.

Now, however, comes the hard part. Sotomayor’stoughness will be tested as the far-right nuts will begin attacking any high-court nominee that does not fit their ideological vision of what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be. That should not matter. Nothing I have read about Sonia Sotomayor puts her outside reasonable mainstream beliefs. What should matter, about Sonia Sotomayor, are her qualifications. As much as I was not (and am not) a fan of Clarence Thomas, I supported President George H.W. Bush’s right to nominate him to the high court.

Besides, Sotomayor’s selection will do nothing to tilt the liberal-conservative balance of the U.S. Supreme Court since she is replacing Souter.

Still, I doubt that will matter to many people as the attacks on Sonia Sotomayor begin. Check that, the attacks have already begun (they started when she was first rumored to be on President Obama’s list).

Leave it to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to never let an opportunity to spread fear and division pass without exploitation. Steele, in another effort to appeal to those conservative Republicans, is playing the fear card by trying to convince people that Democrats want to take your guns away and move terrorists into your backyards. These days, in the wake of the thrashing the Republicans suffered in the November election, conservatives are pretty much overplaying the fear card (socialism, too much taxing, losing gun rights, fascism, communism, big government, the U.S. being less safe and on and on it goes).

From Steele:

“Whenever they can, wherever they can, the Democrats want to take away the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase a gun – a right that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. …

“It is ironic, to say the least, that at the same time Democrats in Congress are threatening to deny Americans their second amendment right to own a firearm and defend their families and homes, they are considering bringing terrorists like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda detainees to our communities once the President follows through on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. …

“In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano – approved the release of a report warning that ‘right-wing extremists’ concerned about government restrictions on the right to own firearms are prime candidates for conducting violent acts of domestic terrorism. Not only is this silly, it is sad. …

“Now let’s pause for a moment…Everything I’ve just discussed is what the liberal Democrats are able to do with control of two branches of government. Before the end of President Obama’s first term it is entirely possible that liberal Democrats could control every lever of every branch of government. …

“Supreme Court justices hold lifetime appointments. That is why it is imperative that President Obama take his time and search for a nominee with the wisdom and grounding to interpret the laws of our great nation – not one who will have a knee jerk desire to ‘empathize’ with the concerns of Americans. Sounds like instead of another Judge Roberts, the President is looking to put Doctor Phil on the Court. …

“There is no doubt that the President is under extreme pressure with this decision. Liberal groups who escorted him down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day are looking for a bit of payback. … They want a young, activist, left-wing justice who will leave a liberal legacy long after the Obama administration is over. Obama is considering including politicians, not judges, among his short-list of Supreme Court nominees. We don’t need a justice on the Court with an ideological agenda.”

The last sentence is funny when you think of the fact that many of the Supreme Court justices come in with an ideological agenda. You don’t think Clarence Thomas, as one example, was picked for very specific reasons (being a black hardcore conservative). With that line, Steele acts as if we’re all too stupid to realize the obvious. Republicans look for conservative justices and Democrats look for liberal judges. Michael, we know the game. You had your guy in office for eight years and now the Democrats have their person in office.

Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/steele-dems-want-to-take-away-our-guns-move-terrorists-into-our-communities.php?ref=fp2