The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

July 15, 2009 capecodgabby writes:

LMAO- I thought the same thing when I heard her utter said non-sense!

July 15, 2009 Petersburg, NJ writes:

Guess she just made a *very* strong argument for the fact that English *should* be the one and only National and Official Language of the United States of America.

http://www.proenglish.org

July 15, 2009 Pauli B, Greenbrier, Arkansas writes:

I heard that one too. So, we the COMMON people don’t know the meaning of USE!!!

USE is the application of or to consume

July 15, 2009 Michael, Tampa Bay area writes:

Oh, but it simply reflects her capacity for higher-level thought, which of course the common masses are incapable of and must therefore grovel at the feet of the immensely “wise.”

Prepare for further lambasting of America’s Constitution and the continued elevation of other sovereign nations’ and international laws at the behest of the present leadership and their appointees. They apparently intend to see America be legally subject to everyone but herself.

July 15, 2009 DH, Atlanta writes:

there is a right wing misunderstanding of the phrase “activist judge”.

July 15, 2009 Debbie A, Texas writes:

Wise - adjective 1. HAVING THE POWER of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion….it’s all about the power.

July 15, 2009 Andrew, New York writes:

That’s why, us who are slower of mind, believe that intellects are nothing but slick salesmen or persons (sorry). Some things are difficult to laugh at when there is so much at stake.
Ha! Ha! So I tried.

July 15, 2009 Charlie, New Jersey writes:

It is quite disheartening that the last three days have been an excercise in futility. This activist judge, with very little concern for the constitution WILL BE CONFIRMED. Again the “conservative republicans” failed to ask and demand solid answers on the most liberal of her statements. We were close to pinning her down on numerous occasions, yet they have no “killer” instinct and allowed her to slip through. SOMEONE needs to rattle her and expose the nasty bitter liberal activist that she truly is. Get on the phone to your representatives.

July 15, 2009 James, NC writes:

Okay, just so the rest of us peons can understand the word “use,” since obviously “There’s a public misunderstanding of the word ‘use.’”

use
??/v. yuz or, for past tense form of 9, yust; n. yus/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. yooz or, for past tense form of 9, yoost; n. yoos] Show IPA verb, used, us?ing, noun
Use use in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of: to use a knife.
2. to avail oneself of; apply to one’s own purposes: to use the facilities.
3. to expend or consume in use: We have used the money provided.
4. to treat or behave toward: He did not use his employees with much consideration.
5. to take unfair advantage of; exploit: to use people to gain one’s own ends.
6. to drink, smoke, or ingest habitually: to use drugs.
7. to habituate or accustom.
8. Archaic. to practice habitually or customarily; make a practice of.
–verb (used without object)
9. to be accustomed, wont, or customarily found (used with an infinitive expressed or understood, and, except in archaic use, now only in the past): He used to go every day.
10. Archaic. to resort, stay, or dwell customarily.
–noun
11. the act of employing, using, or putting into service: the use of tools.
12. the state of being employed or used.
13. an instance or way of employing or using something: proper use of the tool; the painter’s use of color.
14. a way of being employed or used; a purpose for which something is used: He was of temporary use. The instrument has different uses.
15. the power, right, or privilege of employing or using something: to lose the use of the right eye; to be denied the use of a library card.
16. service or advantage in or for being employed or used; utility or usefulness: of no practical use.
17. help; profit; resulting good: What’s the use of pursuing the matter?
18. occasion or need, as for something to be employed or used: Would you have any use for another calendar?
19. continued, habitual, or customary employment or practice; custom: to follow the prevailing use of such occasions.
20. Law.
a. the enjoyment of property, as by the employment, occupation, or exercise of it.
b. the benefit or profit of lands and tenements in the possession of another who simply holds them for the beneficiary.
c. the equitable ownership of land to which the legal title is in another’s name.
21. Liturgy. the distinctive form of ritual or of any liturgical observance used in a particular church, diocese, community, etc.
22. usual or customary experience.
—Verb phrase
23. use up,
a. to consume entirely.
b. to exhaust of vigor or usefulness; finish: By the end of the war he felt used up and sick of life.
—Idioms
24. have no use for,
a. to have no occasion or need for: She appears to have no use for the city.
b. to refuse to tolerate; discount: He had no use for his brother.
c. to have a distaste for; dislike: He has no use for dictators.
25. make use of, to use for one’s own purposes; employ: Charitable organizations will make use of your old furniture and clothing.
26. of no use, of no advantage or help: It’s of no use to look for that missing earring. It’s no use asking her to go. Also, no use.
27. put to use, to apply; employ to advantage: What a shame that no one has put that old deserted mansion to use!
Origin:
1175–1225; (v.) ME usen < OF user < L ?sus, ptp. of ?t? to use; (n.) ME < OF s

Synonyms:
1. Use, utilize mean to make something serve one’s purpose. Use is the general word: to use a telephone; to use a saw and other tools; to use one’s eyes; to use eggs in cooking. (What is used often has depreciated or been diminished, sometimes completely consumed: a used automobile; All the butter has been used.) As applied to persons, use implies some selfish or sinister purpose: to use another to advance oneself. Utilize implies practical or profitable use: to utilize the means at hand, a modern system of lighting. 3. exhaust, waste. 7. familiarize, inure. 12. employment, utilization, application, exercise. 13. handling.

You got all that? Good. Now, I hope we won’t have to repeat this little learning experience, okay?

Now, as for this little gem: “That’s an abstract question with no particular meaning to me.”

What?! Is she serious?! Why, yes, yes she is. Sad days ahead…

God help us.

July 15, 2009 J.C. Hughes, Texas writes:

I have to assume Sotomayor is intelligent because of her academic and employment background. But honestly, she doesn’t come across as being very smart or wise. Then again, she’s being questioned by congress. And she definitely connects with the liberal aisle. That doesn’t say much for leftists.

July 15, 2009 Sotomayor Quote of the Day « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity writes:

[...] Sotomayor Quote of the Day Posted in Heritage.com by nhiemstra on July 15, 2009 via: Heritage [...]

July 15, 2009 Roger S., MA. writes:

Jimmy fom NC: love ya. Haven’t laughed this much in at least a week. She truly IS a twit.

Here’s what was my first reaction:

‘To use or not to use, that is the question. Whether ’tis better … or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them’ Shakespeare; now there was a guy who had it all in one sock.

Which part of “self” or “defense” doesn’t she understand? How about the meaning of “right”?

I can picture the defendant taking the stand in his murder trial on an “insanity” plea: “the difference between right and wrong, your honor? That’s an abstract question with no particular meaning to me. Your honor, am I free to go now?”

You bet! Put HER in jail, before she does any more damage!

July 15, 2009 Thomas, Anchorage, AK writes:

Senator Coburn also questioned her on the right to bear arms being a “fundamental” right.

“SOTOMAYOR: In the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, it recognized an individual rights to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, an important right and one that limited the actions a federal — the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms. In that case we’re talking about handguns.
The Maloney case presented a different question. And that was whether that individual right would limit the activities that states could do to regulate the possession of firearms. That question is addressed by a legal doctrine. That legal doctrine uses the word fundamental, but it doesn’t have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean. To most people, the word by its dictionary term is critically important, central, fundamental. It’s sort of rock basis.
Those meanings are not how the law uses that term when it comes to what the states can do or not do. The term has a very specific legal meaning, which means is that amendment of the Constitution incorporated against the states.”

So why use the word fundamental if clearly no definition exists that suits the use?

“COBURN:…Does what the Constitution — how they take the Constitution, not how our bright legal minds but what they think is important, is it OK to defend yourself in your home if you’re under attack?

SOTOMAYOR: The question that would come up, and does come up before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat. If the threat was in this room, “I’m going to come get you,” and you go home and get — or I go home… If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law because you would have alternative ways to defend…”

That does not answer the question. Her hypothetical situation is completely different and therefore worthless. Her statement, cleaned up, says, “If I threaten you, and I leave and get a gun then come back and shoot you, that may not be legal in New York.” No crap, it’s called murder.

What the senator asked was if someone is trying to hurt you in your home, can you use a firearm to defend yourself. Is that complicated, ma’am?

Her intellectual dishonesty is shocking.

July 21, 2009 Jason Stratford, CT writes:

I believe the Oath of Office for Congress, as well as president, vice- president and Supreme court justices, carries a line requiring them to “preserve and protect” the Constitution of the United States, not change it to suit their personal agenda. I say put a law suit on that person for not fulfilling their duty to the PEOPLE. That’s right telling them they work for us and may need a new job soon.

“A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it.”