You say fidelity to the Constitution and deference to law makers, she says empathy and policy creation. Tomato, tomatoh.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Problem with first link, should be,http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/05/?y%/video-supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-judges-make-policy/
But that doesn’t work right either so maybe just the home page and scroll down
If she’s as much of an abrasive uncouth dirty socialist hoochie as everybody says I think she’ll serve as an enduring reminder of Barack Obama’s legacy.
By all accounts of what this woman has said over the years as well as her judicial record, she is the antithesis of what a SCOTUS Justice should be…
Time to oppose her heartily, and be prepared to call the liars, race baiters, and misogynists when they try to project these traits onto you for opposing her nomination…
Well, this is going to be fun.
Hey, guess what? Mr. Geoffrey Falk has already written and self-published a book on this nomination.
Let’s call the whole thing off?
These idiots need an example for reference. Perhaps if there were an incident where the justice system was totally in the bag for an accuser because – let’s call her ‘she’ – she was from a disadvantaged identity group. Can’t think of one offhand.
What would be cool would be if a poor Hispanic girl down on her luck were to accuse Patrick Leahy of groping her maracas without consent. Facts be damned. The girl needs money Pat! Look at her. She’s poor and Hispanic. Where’s your empathy Pat? Arlen?
That’s not quite what I meant but that’s cause I didn’t get the right words in the right places exactly but you know what I mean.
No empathy for you!!
“Time to oppose her heartily”
By all means, let’s alienate the few remaining Hispanics that vote Republicans in a pointless display of, what?
Stupidity?
Impotence?
Is this the lady that opined that the appellate courts are where policy is made?
In your case, poon, stupidity. Read the fucking links, asshole.
Empathy is only for those victim groups that deserve it. The rest of you can go to hell.
“‘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,‘ said Judge Sotomayor”
“This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a ‘court of appeals is where policy is made.’ She then immediately adds: ‘And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.'”
(from same link)
And Cap’n Ed noted that she was opposed the when initially appointed by Billy Jeff in the late 90’s lest the Dems decide to fast track her to the SCOTUS…
Mix in a n approximately 80% overturn rate on her decisions and you have the makings of a very poor candidate indeed…
Although better the Granholm, admittedly; Judge Sotomayor hasn’t necessarily demonstrated her stupidity, just apparent disdain for the role of the judiciary as defined by the US Constitution…
Of course, she does score several identity politics card deck points at one!
Simply.Amazing.And.Mind-Boggling…
Poon Johnson is right! Not only were Hispanics alienated when Alberto Gonzales was not hung by the neck until dead for the politically charged firings of white attorneys, they will be even more alienated when questions about Senora Sotomayor’s radical beliefs about justice are dared to be asked.
Hispanics. They are a fickle bunch.
This is pretty funny too
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/mccaskill-fumbles-the-incredible-life-story-meme/
It will at least be enjoyable to hear whatever stupidity inevitably eminates from Vice President Joe “Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black” Biden.
And sorry Sonia, but the whole damn point of the American Constitutional experiment is that it is designed so that YES, under the law a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach THE SAME conclusion that a white male who hasn’t lived that life would. That’s the whole point of equality under the law.
That statment should be enough to sink her, but you know it won’t.
Cause we’re all racists or something.
Poon is still trying to play itself off as a conservative?
Bob – Imagine if you were to replace Latino woman with white male in that quote.
She is going to be terrible, but what did you expect from Obama. The GOP can expose her for what she is in the confirmation process but they cannot stop her.
Is she worse than Diane Wood, who is Robert-like smart and wrong? What about Janet Napolitano, who is incompetent at Homeland Security so let’s give her a life time appointment to the Supreme Court?
“#
Comment by poon on 5/26 @ 2:28 pm #
“Time to oppose her heartilyâ€
By all means, let’s alienate the few remaining Hispanics that vote Republicans in a pointless display of, what?
Stupidity?
Impotence?”
No, asshole, principals.
Poon,
I was more thinking it a good opportunity to call out the Race baiters, liars, misogynists, and constitutional corruptors…
Because each time a false accusation was slund I’d take the opportunity to rebut it furiously…
And, whenever asked about it my first line would be something like; “The most important qualification for any supreme court justice is the knowlege of the judiciary’s role in our society and a track record demonstrating that in practice, as well as judicial temperment and performance record…
Remember, the statue of Justice, the attractive lady holding the scalse..?
As I recall, she’s blindfolded…In other words, I don’t believe she cares a wit about race, station, nation of origin, or ethnic extraction…
And I’d call them liars when necessary, and reminisce about the lefts Latino witch hunts when necessary…
JD,
I fear that were one to do what you suggest, it could possibly bring about the end of civilization as we know it…
Ooops…Too Late…
It already began on Jan 21, 2009…
I hate it when I miss the start of a good apocalypse!
Imagine if Justice Roberts had said that instead of this lady. Just imagine …
Principals N.O.?
Do you mean principles?
Or maybe just a death wish?
No matter what the Republicans in the Senate do, she’s going to get the job for life.
Awww, screw it…let’s see if we can go for zero percent of the Hispanic vote next election…just 17 months away!
Goooooooooooooo Team Impotence!
And in case you’re wondering, it’s “so-to-mai-YOR”. Accent on the last syllable.
Poon has the political sophistication of a twelve-year-old.
This feels very affirmative actiony I think but I doubt Hispanics will give a shit anymore than they do about any other hispanic nominee. It’s just not a big deal.
Is willfull blindness a life-long profession for you, poon, or is it just a hobby?
Where did this new “concern troll” come from, anyone know?
Don’t you just love getting election advice from the far left using a tattered moldy old moderate/pragmatic disguise? I do.
let’s see if we can go for zero percent of the Hispanic vote
Because all Hispanics vote based on racial identity politics. All of them. Not on the fact that in their home countries, the “conservatives” consist of the hereditary landowners and Church interests that are left over from the feudal state the Spanish imported to their colonies.
And on the fact that some of them are here for the freebies. Though many Hispanics are disgusted by the freeloaders among them, which you would know if you actually talked to them in their native language.
I think the Repubs should pretend that she is white, male and educated in an Alaskan state university. If they fall into the identity trap, as in, “she’s a scary, identity group warrior,” and treat her like they would anyone else.
After all, if you sample naturalized hispanic voters these days, they aren’t as fond of abortion on demand, naggy professional codes and penalties, nor of defunding the military, as Obama’s wonder-land’ers in academe think they are.
Racist, urban “Hate” politics may not work on hardworking Hispanic Christian immigrants as well as the Left hopes. Republican Senators should not assist Obama’s cohorts in their delusions by adopting same.
Poon thinks that people should vote based on skin color as opposed to principle. And, it is a pussy.
Could it be thor, by another name…
He’s smart enough to mask his style…And the name is one of his favorite subjects…And you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time…
I dunno though, doesn’t feel right…
Just a recent assignee, post-graduation, by the
GoebblesAxelrod Astroturf Association…poon served with GWB in the Texas Air National Guard and was Dan Rather’s main source. poon of the…
A question for poon –
How many hispanics refused to vote Democratic after what they did to Miguel Estrada?
It’s not always about identity politics, fartknocker.
To whom is she referring? Herself??
Silly me. Here I was under the impression that wisdom may be gained by life experience, education, hard work and even harder knocks. But wise can only be conferred by others.
Oh, and good thing Il Douche‘s election ushered in this grand post-racial utopia he promised.
She’s unmarried, hates guns, and probably the church, too. Hispanics will love her like unseasoned potatoes.
Oops! I mean…
They should avoid falling into the “identity trap,” […] and treat her like they would anyone else.
Don’t be cowed by her “authenticity-ness.” Hic!
I doubt it. Walthor would not be able to keep up the ruse this long. He’d have resorted to childish insults and schoolyard taunts by now.
It’s seems as though Republicans have many and varied reasons for opposing Judge Sotomayor, perhaps better ones than Harry Reid’s reason for opposing Justice Roberts because he referred to certain Hispanics as “his amigos.”
How certain am I in Republican’s ability to oppose? Not very. The memory of Ginsberg’s 96-3 confirmation vote still raises blisters.
No matter what the Republicans in the Senate do, she’s going to get the job for life.
This assumes she gets out of committee. I suspect she will, but only because Lindsey would rather get the positive press coverage his aye vote will get him then to hold the line for someone more moderate.
Awww, screw it…let’s see if we can go for zero percent of the Hispanic vote next election…just 17 months away!
Because to oppose one hispanic woman on her merits is to oppose them all based on their race.
Steveaz,
If they oppose her on the merits, the results will still be the same…
In any case they must be prepared to call out those that would turn it into some type of racial/ethnic/gender witch hunt as LIARS! and immediately challenge them on the past actions of the Bolshevik bunch vis-a-vis hispanic appointee’s under Booooooosh! asw well as the O!ne’s own bad behavior, as well as his cadre, to both Hillz and Palin during the 2008 election cycle…
Wouldn’t be hard to do…
Oh and by the way, really witty there with the white woman from Alaska though experiment…
How do you feel about JD’s puzzle? That is, what if Roberts or Alito had said the same thing that Sotomayor said, but simple reversed the positions of white male and latina woman..?
Wouldn’t it be a cause for OUTRAGE!1!11!eleventy!!111!
Sorry Steve,
I misquoted you…Alaskan state university…
I’m just kind of knee-jerk about the “Palin is a stupid bint” meme, while all liberal ladies are skirt wearing Solomons and Einsteins…
No offense meant, but wouldn’t some of things she’s said and done be ever-so-wrong if she were a white male..?
dicentra,
“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
Hispanics of every political stripe are saying “About f*ing time” today.
It would be smart to take a pass on fighting this nomination and focus on whomever Obama’s replacement for Scalia is.
You wouldn’t have even heard of her if she were a white male. Ditto the current White House occupant.
Bob – That is just a variation of the “what would they say if Bush had done this” metric that I like to use. If nothing else, it nicely illustrates the mendacity and perfidy of the Left.
Poon is a pig-ignorant pussy. And I mean that in the worst way possible. ;-)
“It would be smart to take a pass on fighting this nomination and focus on whomever Obama’s replacement for Scalia is.”
Uh…do you have any idea who the oldest Justice is? Second oldest? Y’know, like who would be most likely to retire/die?
Kelly,
You’re right on target Darlin…
JD,
Nice tactic…But the hypocrites and intellectually dishonets simply adopt the thousand yard stare and ask you what you mean; or simply mendouciously deny it would ever happen that way…
Best Wishes to all
It would be smart to take a pass on fighting this nomination and focus on whomever Obama’s replacement for Scalia is.
Bullshit. It would be smart to fight for every nomination in the same way that the Democrats do. She isn’t who the GOP wants, she isn’t even close. So they should fight.
Sorry, I’ve been away from PW for a bit. Is poon as stupid/obtuse as actus?
I was reading the blog of that douchebag troll that dropped by to shit on Catholics yesterday, and this perpetually outraged Leftist used the slur spic. I guess that is alright when you are a Leftist.
The current White House occupant is the black John Edwards…Only he speaks better…And hasn’t fathered a love child (as far as we know)…
Who or what is this “poon” person?
She’s extremely pro-abortion. I don’t know if the average Hispanic is down with that.
Kelly,
What do you expect from someone who’s nom-de-clavier is poon..?
Kelly – Yes
Group identities trump all, ushie.
Aside of course, from the pusillanimous anonymity that allows for maximum invective with minimal accountability…
Probably all because of the way the vengeful wingnutz will call your employer and have you fired if you, you know, man up and use your real name…
Go ahead…Call my boss…But I don’t think the cat easily let me go!
Bah. Much as I hate to agree with the likes of poon, I’m forced to.
That’s not because the merits of the candidate, or even about whether or not Hispanics might agree about the merits of Ms. Sotomayor. The vast majority of Hispanics will never learn anything whatever about the merits, because the Leftoid “Press” will never allow any such matters to surface outside the blogosphere; and the blogosphere doesn’t reach Juan Martinez Suarez of 231 East Blossom, Los Angeles. The only things they will allow to surface will be the blatherings of the bigots who do, in fact exist — and will be used to tar everyone objecting with the same brush, just as they did with immigration, where they wouldn’t allow the word “illegal” to appear in the same section of the paper, and just as they did with Obama.
Regards,
Ric
Kelly,
That’s just me trying to be witty and invent an internet version of nom-de-plume; nom-de-keyboard…
Tried to be witty, and ended up bein’ nit-witty instead…
Ric,
You’re harshin’ my mello, Bro!
I hope that all is well with you and yours in your neck of the woods these days…
I am sad to disagree with Senor Locke for the first time.
I still don’t know which group to join…decisions are so difficult…
Oh. I caught it, Bob. I just liked the easy alliteration of “poon’s a pianist?”
Ric,
So that’s it then. The Democrats win everything they want now and forever, because they and their allies in the press are willing to use immoral tactics.
Then there is no need for an opposition party, or really even an opposition position.
I can’t disagree with Sir Locke even if that puts me in poon’s position. Except to point out that Kennedy is, like, 15 years older that Scalia. So is Stevens, I think. (Too lazy to look it up.)
that –> than
Shorter Locke: If your principled (and correct) objections to your opponent’s position will be used to by those opponents to lie and distort your position, abandon those principles (or at least keep them to yourself), and simply assume the position.
This “strategy” has been tried. Repeatedly. (C.F. the most recent Republican primary.) It never works. If the goal of Republicans is to influence voters that their ideas are superior to the Democratic alternatives, how does a refusal to defend those ideas out of fear of being lied about and demagogue-ed help achieve that goal?
Ric’s got this handled, so —
This will be the one time and place I lodge a complaint.
I kludged that nom d’asshole together for Giuliani, not this fascist douche.
Fuckin’ internets.
I’m going to have to second Ric Locke and actually agree with Poon on this one. Why? Well, on one hand, I think conservatives generally believe in the notion that “elections have consequences” and that voters need to see/realize them in order to make better judgments. This is one of them.
Additionally, I’m not sure she’s as radical as some of the conservative judicial groups make her out to be. She’s no strict constructionalist, that’s for sure, but she’s been reversed by liberal jurists before. I think the conservatives would be wise to expose liberal jurisprudence as a complete fallacy during the proceedings, but ultimately vote her in.
Elections have consequences. Voters need to see that.
angler doesn’t get Ric.
Angler – it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Ric, isn’t your position very similar to that taken by the critics of Limbaugh and Cheney, that we can’t say what needs to be said lest it be distorted by those for whom the greatest crime imaginable is disagreement with their opinions?
Where does the surrendering stop?
Elections have consequences. Voters need to see that.
SCOTUS isn’t an election. It’s a selection. For maybe 30 years.
No, angler, you misunderstand me quite.
I do think it worth articulating the objections as forcefully as necessary, and I do think that at least some Hispanics would respond quite positively.
I simply don’t think it can be done. First, you have the leftoid “Press” which will not allow any discussion of the merits of the appointment if they can possibly avoid it; second, you have the spineless “leadership” of the Republican Party, which is more concerned with getting good reports from the leftoid “Press” and invited to the Kool Kidz’s parties than with any sort of “principles”, and will not press the matter. We all know that bigots and demagogues exist — and, based on recent events, we ought to realize that no one will be heard from except the bigots and demagogues on the “Right”, which will offend Hispanics farther.
There were and are substantial numbers of Hispanics who agreed with us on the immigration question. They never heard from us, because the Gatekeepers™ did not allow them to hear us, and the efforts at suppression were aided by the NRCC. The same thing will happen here.
Once upon a time I had a subordinate (where are you, Marty?) whose favorite challenge in analogous situations was Hide and watch, m*f*r. Over to you.
Regards,
Ric
Or maybe I don’t get angler. Frankly, I’m spent already on this issue, and it just started.
This is true, but you’re assuming Teleprompter Jesus wouldn’t replace her with someone more radical. I think she’s without a doubt a Leftist jurist but not a radical.
The time to expose Leftist bullshit on judicial philosophy is during the confirmation hearings. Expose, criticize, openly mock, do it all. But I think ultimately she should be voted for.
This lady states her Latina heritage makes her a better jurist than a white male, and states that the appellate courts are where policy is made, and we should not oppose that?
Nice one Kelly,
That is a delicious turn of the phrase…
I’m just a bit slow on the uptake sometimes…
I have to be careful, as I’m sure you’re probably as fetching as you are clever…
And if I became too fond of you, well then, that’s be bigamy…
And my wife is a D.A. here in Queens…
Ginsbergs selection was congenial, which means that Democrats pick moderate justices furthering the proof that they themselves are moderates. The Roberts and Alito picks were contentious, because the picks were outside of the mainstream, extremists, furthering the proof that Republicans themselves are at the very least not moderate.
It’s not that we shouldn’t oppose her, it’s that at this time it will not do any good. I will oppose her to all who will listen.
I’m sorry, but Ric and Poon and the rest of the “it ain’t worth it” arguments are fucking ridiculous.
Since we already know that her nomination is about as sure a thing as the sun rising tomorrow, and that the media will paint any opposition to her as racist fear mongering, Poon and (sadly) Ric are arguing that it isn’t worth it.
But that’s what the left wants us to do. And every time we “wait for a better moment” they pick up more ground in the fight. The media and the left are never going to give up the “conservatives are white racists” trump card, so who cares if they play it constantly? Let’s start fighting back RIGHT FUCKING NOW and tell the Latino voting bloc that identity politics are bullshit and the color of your skin is not a prerequisite to become a conservative. This is the stuff that drives me crazy about moderate Republicans. the ModRepubs were losing ground when they were in charge, and it was because they were moderate, and not principled. Powell brags about all the presidents he voted for in the R column, but when a black guy comes along who goes against every prinicple he’s stood for for decades he rolls in a heart beat for him.
With moderates like these, who needs the left?
I think Kelly is a boy, Bob. I could be wrong, though.
I was hoping I’d simply misunderstood, and it appears I had. You’re not saying we can’t say what needs to be said, we just can’t expect it to be successful on this particular matter.
That, sadly, is true. But from a more long-term perspective the battle needs to be fought nevertheless.
Again, this is something that should be front and center during the confirmation hearings. Perhaps the opening swing from the Right on the notion of identity politics. Make the justice answer the question: “If a white male had said his opinions would likely be better than yours based on life experiences, would YOU find that to be racist Miss Sontomeyor???”
If she falls on her face (which she won’t because she’ll have some pre-vetted answer fed to her) then vote against. But I think the public needs to see bullshit for bullshit and that’s what you do during the confirmation process. Expose empathy based jurisprudence as a fraud, expose reverse racism as racism, etc. The public is totally behind conservatives on judicial matters. Let’s CEMENT that. But you can still vote to approve her based on the notion that elections have consequences. “Hey America, you agree with us but since you voted for these hopey-changey clowns, you’re getting this.”
I think it’s critically important for voters to realize that elections do have consequences.
JD,
Thiose are the positions of merit we should oppose her on. But, as Ric posits, it will be an unfair fur fight…
Maybe I’m vindictive, but I’m ready to call on this hand…
But Ric is wise, and most likely correct; the MSM will never allow an honest dialogue on this appointment. And without any real head of the party to talk above the media, it will be as herculean a task a sweepin da funk outta da Aegean stables…
Like I noted, its a situation that really harshes my mello…
I have no illusions that opposing this will be successful. But I am cool with the whole tilting at windmills thing.
Expose, criticize, openly mock, do it all. But I think ultimately she should be voted for.
I’m not for the mocking. Just pull her judicial philosophy apart — anti-gun, racist, and anti-American. And HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS HOW OBAMA HIMSELF THINKS. These little cuts are going to matter some day. The Emperor clothes are getting more and more worn.
From what I’ve seen and heard, I don’t think this woman will come off well to the public in hearings. She’s unappealing.
Nice description of the Kabuki dance of the Senatorial Democrats, Makewi…
And as long as we allow such theater to continue, they’ll continue to put for that mistaken image…
That’s why this must be a bit contentious, and proof that the Democrats are anything but moderate…
Tman, etc,
I don’t think Ric and I are necessarily saying we should cease fire. Quite the contrary. I think our arguments should be loud and forceful during the confirmation hearings. We also have to recognize that this will ultimately be a losing battle (don’t have the votes) but we still win the war by exposing liberal jurisprudence as a fraud but being the bigger party by still voting for her (since she’ll have the votes anyway).
Every time the Left and the media pull the race or gender cards, we should borrow a phrase from Pablo, and say,”That is a fucking lie and you are a fucking liar”.
I agree. I would agree very strongly if there were a hope in Hell that such arguments would be heard; I simply don’t think they will be.
Don’t expect any help getting such arguments supported by the RNC, or by the likes of Orrin Judd and Allahpundit. Oh, I suppose there’s some chance, and as stated it’s probably a good thing to express the reservations, perhaps forcefully — I just don’t think it’ll do any good, because the people who need to hear the objections won’t. Hide and watch. Or don’t hide, but watch anyway.
Regards,
Ric
“Comment by cranky-d on 5/26 @ 3:52 pm #
I think Kelly is a boy, Bob. I could be wrong, though.”
Okay…
If so, then the yokes definately on me…
And if so, no offense Kelly…I’m not a switch hitter, and only play on the co-ed team…
I still admire your wit though…
Best Wishes
Scalia and Kennedy were both born in 1936, S. in March, K. in July, Stevens in ’20, Ginsburg ’33, Breyer ’38, Thomas ’48.
On the plus side, there’s an 80% chance she hasn’t paid her taxes. So, we have that going for us.
By voting for her, don’t you give Barcky the ammo to say that this was some kind of bullshit bipartisan moderate selection? Remember when the Dems went apeshit because they were not consulted in advance of an appointment?
I’m actually a dog, cranky. A male dog.
Not necessarily, you can vote for her based on the Senate’s role as an advice and consent committee. As in, I don’t think this is the best pick and have outlined my reasons here (judicial activist, empathy based jurisprudence, racist remarks, etc) but I don’t she is ultimately unqualified for the position and will thus vote for her. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but still a yes vote. If Baracky wants to interpret that as something more, he only beclowns himself.
So Stevens is the octogenarian of the bunch. I though Kennedy was older but it still makes poon’s point about who will replace Scalia sound like wishful thinking.
I would agree very strongly if there were a hope in Hell that such arguments would be heard; I simply don’t think they will be.
Well, these arguments will be made (and some already have) by Rush and others. Just because we aren’t sure who will get to hear them is no excuse for not making them.
There aren’t any excuses for surrendering your principles “strategically”. Conservatives and libertarians don’t need to “reach out” to the Latino community, or the Black community, or the gay community, or (insert gender/race/sex/age affiliation) community. And this is because the principles that make one a conservative or libertarian have nothing to do with gender/race/sex/age.
Whether it be a SCOTUS nomination or a county dog catcher election, this is ALWAYS a fight worth having.
I don’t get the sense that she’s a very introspective person.
Well, these arguments will be made (and some already have) by Rush and others. Just because we aren’t sure who will get to hear them is no excuse for not making them.
There aren’t any excuses for surrendering your principles “strategicallyâ€. Conservatives and libertarians don’t need to “reach out†to the Latino community, or the Black community, or the gay community, or (insert gender/race/sex/age affiliation) community. And this is because the principles that make one a conservative or libertarian have nothing to do with gender/race/sex/age.
Whether it be a SCOTUS nomination or a county dog catcher election, this is ALWAYS a fight worth having.
And I don’t think Ric and I disagree with you on that (at least I don’t). My only disagreement is a unanimous no vote against the first Hispanic nominee for Supreme Court looks bad politically. We shouldn’t hold our fire during the confirmation hearings, but I think ultimately voting Yes (since she doesn’t appear to be disqualified from serving on the SC) is the way to go.
She’ll be approved whether you or I like it or not. But the time to make forceful conservative arguments is during the confirmation process and WE SHOULD make those arguments. Our disagreements are more over tactics rather than principles methinks.
I bet she has a Yahoo! messenger avatar what makes her look way thinner and younger than she really is.
Mr. Locke,
I apologize – I mistook your cynicism that conservative objections will ultimately reach the intended audience for a belief that those objections, therefore, should not be made.
That being said, I wonder how a “hide and watch” strategy is preferable to a full-throated, principled articulation of why this nominee should not be approved.
Poon and (sadly) Ric are arguing that it isn’t worth it.
Allow me to point out that if John McCain had won, Sotomayor wouldn’t be the nominee.
Maybe sacrificing a few principles to win elections isn’t such a bad idea?
Interesting site, but much advertisments on him. Shall read as subscription, rss.
Happyfeet – That was just soooo wrong ;-)
FALSE. That’s where I disagree with you completely poon. Principles matter. My disagreement is tactics here, not principles.
McCain was the “sacrifice our principles for pragmatism” candidate. And he lost.
Things like poon have no principles, therefore it can type drivel like that with a straight face.
Maybe sacrificing a few principles to lose elections is a bad idea.
Hey, what was the name of that amnesty bill? McCain/Kennedy, wasn’t it? And how did that work out for McCain vis a vis Hispanics?
#101
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Scenario 1: Repugs vote unanimously against the wise Latina empath. MSM portrays GOP as racist.
Scenario 2: Repugs split votes for and against the wise Latina empath. MSM portrays GOP as racist, especially the cynical votes to support Latina.
Scenario 3: Repugs vote unanimously for the wise Latina empath. MSM portrays GOP as racist and without leadership, cynically voting for Latina despite their so-called principles which they abandon for a transparent fig leaf of tolerance.
If Jeff hasn’t convinced anyone by now, he never will. Let the enemy define your rules and you will lose with relentless consistency.
For the record, I agree that the spineless GOP should start putting up a fight…just not here and now. I’m as pissed as anyone at the R’s in both houses but this is a made-for-TV battle that leaves no good options for the minority party. C’mon, Hispanic woman being grilled by white men? (Is there even a women on the Judiciary comm?) The press will vivisect any white dude who turns up the heat. I do hope someone will have the guts for this, though:
Hopefully, the interogator will pronounce her name correctly. ;-)
Phil,
If she explains away her comments about an old white guy being less capable than a old latino lady in terms of proper judicial process, which would be neat trick, then by all means, ask her some more questions. If she does the same with her comments that Judges should dictate policy, which would be an even bigger and neater trick, then sure, maybe she’s not so bad after all.
But let’s remember the way that Democrats turn every fucking nomination process in to their own personal gettysburg address, and the way that they have attempted to destroy nominees on non-judicial issues. The least we can do is question the judicial merits forcefully and accurately.
Let’s see her explain these two comments. Any less would be complete surrender.
Phil,
The reason McCain lost had nothing to do with not surrendering enough principles. It had to do with the fact that McCain was a horrible candidate, and a big enough majority of the nation wanted a black guy as president. Identity politics won that election. And the idea of giving up more principles to fight this battle is suicidal.
Color me honored to be the object of this premiere event, psycho. On this thread anyway…
Someone should read her quote to her, and exchange Latina female and white male, and ask her if it is racist. They should ask her which branch of government is in charge of policy. But, they won’t.
read where she was raised “within the shadows” of yankee stadium (the implication being that she was from the truly appalling slums surrounding the stadium.
actually, as a lifelong yankee fan, i can say with some authority that Yankee stadium would have had to have been a mile tall for that to occur, since she was raised about 6.5 miles from the stadium, in a better neighborhood, according to the reports of where she actually was born and raised.
a piddling point, ill grant one and all, but just the first of many, many inconvineient truths to be trotted out in this process.
What if she started out her confirm process, “I was born a poor black child…”
Too Steve Martin?
“My only disagreement is a unanimous no vote against the first Hispanic nominee for Supreme Court looks bad politically.”
So what?
That’s the same argument that Bush made America “look bad” to the world. Who cares?
Mcgruder – You don’t mean to tell us that they will exaggerate the hard-scrabble life she grew up in, in order to paint a more compelling picture of her, do you?
By voting for her, don’t you give Barcky the ammo to say that this was some kind of bullshit bipartisan moderate selection?
Absolutely. This is just like the Porkulus bill. Sign on to it and you’re invisible whether it succeeds or fails. Oppose it and you not only raise the issue, but benefit if it fails. Not to mention your huevos don’t shrink to the size of peas.
John Edward’s was a lowly millworker’s son…had to work in the coal mine every day after school, dragging the coal carts up by himself…
Dammit, EDWARDS. He belongs to no one, save his mistress.
Don’t vote down the first latina SCOTUS nominee.
Vote down the first latina SCOTUS nominee who believes it is the role of the judiciary to make policy, and that some identity groups are more equal than others — and the law will be made to say so, should she be appointed to the bench.
Sell that message. Problem solved.
Except that Sotomayor will NOT be the “first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice”.
Benjamin Cardozo. I guess in today’s Indentity Politics game, being descended from Portuguese Jews disqualifies him.
Exactly. And don’t let the disingenuous Left (and the “concerned” GOP moderates) change the subject, try as they might.
Jeff G.,
You forgot the part about firing up all thise who try to twist your opposition into one based simply on raceial/ethnic/gender lines; calling them out as the liears that they are…
I thought this is part of how we regained ownership of the message…
I agree wholeheartedly…
Yep. In fact, I think the technical term for surrendering on the strategic level is “losing”.
Kelly,
I hope you’re not sore about me mistaking your gender…
I just haven’t known that many fellas named Kelly…
The media certainly never stopped itself on pubic hairs and Coke cans so I tend to agree. And that is the only way this whole thing shall go down this time: with extreme bias on the outside and Democrat complicity on the inside.
Isn’t it just possible that a tipping point occurs when the only way to keep what little is left of sanity is to simply refuse sacrificing a scrap of the remainder? I can’t see any good coming from ceding a syllable of debate on what will be an absolute predictable shame if appointed — O!bambi proved himself incompetent on rights, property, money, and foreign affairs within months, and that was with the media tailwind. Have we learned nothing?
How this land can see the Sotomayor policy video and not be shocked and appalled kinda says it all, no? What amazed me was how average a mind must be first in making such a blatant slip and then in doing such a shabby job plastering it up. Huh? Really? This is Supreme material? You mean kinda like Granholm?
Is she incapable of taking the heat?
Should she be treated with kid gloves because she’s a woman, or because of her purported race?
Unless we dig someone up to falsely claim she put a pubic hair on a Coke can, I say “grill like a piece of cheese between two slices of bread”.
I’m sure this has been mentioned somewhere but not all progressives are super psyched about this pick. There might be a play for us in there somewhere.
Jeff, the problem is that we can win on the merits and still lose on the votes. I say we strike hard during the confirmation process about what we believe, but ultimately vote in favor of her confirmation. She doesn’t appear (at least not at first glance) to be disqualified from being a SC nominee. She only needs a majority for confirmation and a majority of these current Dems would vote for Joseph Stalin as a SC nominee if given the chance.
Let’s poke enormous holes in notions of liberal jurisprudence during the confirmation proceedings. But ultimately I think voting for her confirmation is the way to go. Elections having consequences is a conservative belief after all.
Our ultimate goal is the election of more classical liberal minded thinkers. We start electing those and we don’t have to worry about SC nominees who think certain races decide cases better because of their life experiences. Until then, we should be loud and proud about our beliefs in the judicial confirmation hearings, but it doesn’t do us much good to vote 40-60 on the first Hispanic woman selected to the bench.
All’s I’m sayin….
Pope Benedict should excommunicate her.
That message would make it to the Spanish-speaking populace, you can bet.
Gonna lose this one anyway; there’s simply no way to stop anything the Dems want. So you can lose while standing for your principles, or you can lose with no apparent principles.
Which option leaves you in a better place for the next fight?
Does Portuegese count as Hispanic? If so, Benjamin Cardozo was already the first Hispanic justice, like, 80 years ago.
I think Phil is mostly a lot right taht it’s more about message than being swipers what be swiping I think.
D’oh! Darn you, Spiny Norman! You beat me to the Cardozo thing.
oh. *that* I meant. Also I think it’s a nice surprise that he picked someone that’s not particularly formidable.
Phil,
You realize that Obama voted AGAINST Roberts, right? This wasn’t exactly a decision he ended up regretting, dont’yathink?
If republicans can’t vote by their principles then we don’t need them voting on our behalf and we should kick the bums out.
Not saying we shouldn’t fight for our principles during the confirmation proceedings, in fact I’ve said repeatedly we should do just that. But given that the role of the Senate is that of “advise and consent” for SC nominees, I’m not sure this is really the battle to pick to vote unanimously against.
On the other hand, R’s voted unanimously against Obama’s trillion dollar budget deficits (even the ladies from Maine). I’m glad they did, and it will pay off in the end.
I agree, elections have consequences. And because we can’t hope to defeat the nomination, voting against it on principle makes symbolic sense.
After all, if you can’t vote against someone who believes that INEQUALITY before the law is the hallmark of enlightened jurisprudence, and that the role of the judiciary is to usurp the role of the legislature, who CAN you vote against?
SCOTUS nominees were the only reason I voted for McCain. But had he won, my guess is he’d have nominated a liberal, anyway.
He’s MAVERICKY that way, you see.
It’ll be interesting to see who votes for her, but I’m not sure I’ll know what it will mean even if they tell me.
He also voted about Alito. And again, this is something that should be stated REPEATEDLY during the confirmation hearings. The One will appear small and petty, which is what he always has been. A majority of the public just doesn’t realize that yet.
But they will.
I have to admit, what I hear in ALL of this identity politics crap is that X is stupid, racist, bigoted, narrowminded, unintelligent, and unimaginative in the extreme by being unable to see beyond a very limited “life experience.” That means Sotomayer with her belief that being “Latina” somehow makes her wiser than, like, anyone ever around her, ever! Or whether it’s Hispanics being unhappy if someone “like them” is on the court, when “like them” means strictly “Latino|a.” Screw them.
Some people may sincerely believe that all “people of color” are, in fact, so limited intellectually by their race or ethnicity that they simply cannot grasp higher concepts like blind justice, freedom, or rule of law. Those people may even be right. But why should I care about getting the votes and approval of those kinds of people by pandering to the worst impulses of a subset of humanity?
That’s not how I roll.
or vice versa
It’s important to remember who first appointed Sotomayor to the federal bench: George H.W. Bush.
I will never vote for a moderate Republican again. Period. Bush the Younger was the last time.
I should clarify: it’s the sympathy pimps like poon and Lindsay Graham who are saying that X group is “stupid, racist, bigoted, narrowminded, unintelligent, and unimaginative…” I mean, that’s the only interpretation to their “we’ll lose the Hispanics forever!!!111!!!1!!” hysteria, isn’t it?
Ponce de Leon latina imperialist crank, when do the Mikosukee get theirs, ya off-white beyotch?
happyfeet – The Dora reference rocks !
We’re going to lose this one because, over time, we got behind enough crummy politicians whom we did not hold to any standards of intellectual or philosophical coherence and tradition. The US voting public might be wary of what Obama’s shuck and jive might bring, but it was digusted with the GOP.
So, perhaps its best to frame a vocal, coherent, substantial argument against this slam-dunk pick because we have to start somewhere again. If we can avoid being the gaping douches that populate HuffPo and KOS, so much the better.
Americans respect someone who clearly and reasonably argues their core beliefs. Case in point: Cheney’s speech last week. A guy who had been happily written off for dead suddenly cast the debate in a light that no one else could or would for 5 years. Also: Reagan, Ronald, 1964-1980.
If we can get people to start thinking of their self-interest again by actually listening to the side trying to stand for something, well, that’s a start. The politicians will fall into line soon enough.
hah. Ella … did you see this earlier today?
That notion has been highly lucrative for certain race-baiting urban “activists”.
Sweet merciful crap, happyfeet. I hadn’t seen that article. I’m glad we have elections and things so that the people have such a great voice in what goes on. Not all patronage and backroom deals and bribes and stuff.
Sigh.
On second thought, to be intellectually consistent with my prior views, I have no problem voting for her … provided that an all-out-assault is made on her distorted view of the role of the judiciary and the importance of skin color and empathy is undertaken. At the very minimum, she is qualified, and that is the standard that should have been afforded Alito and Roberts. The Dems will show their perfidy again, and the MSM will let them.
Bob,
No worries about my chromosomal makeup.
Rob,
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see her grilled like a sandwich. I just don’t see it happening.
hf,
Byron York:
Ah, “going along to get along” bites the GOP “moderates” in the ass yet again.
I can’t agree with the proposition that it makes sense to, on the one hand, state your principled objections as to why a person would not make an acceptable justice, but on the other hand vote in favor of confirming that person as a justice.
This, it seems to me, is the very type of “I voted for it before (or after, I can’t remember), I voted against it. The GOP’s use of Kerry’s equivocation was extraordinarily effective.
I agree with mcgruder. Consistency and persistence mean a lot. Question to conservatives who take counsel from Phil: If you believed in the merits of your objection to the nominee, why did you vote to confirm? The answer implied by Phil: Because it was politically advantagous for me to do so at the time. That’s a losing position.
Whoops. I didn’t mean to quote that much of the article, just a couple of excerpts.
The fact she openly stated racist thoughts and laughed as she talked about how her role as an appellete judge was to make policy should be enough to sink her. Then again I been vacationing in the Twilight Zone since last November.
angler – It depends on what your view of the “qualifications” are. Previously, it was my position that if a person met the Constitutional qualifications, that was sufficient, like with Roberts and Alito. Should you wish to adopt the Chuck Schumer school of qualifications in that ideology is a trump card, feel free. In retrospect, I prefer that the qualifications be those laid out. That, in no way, suggests that she should not be vigorously questioned, though I doubt the Republicans will.
“The vast majority of Hispanics will never learn anything whatever about the merits, because the Leftoid “Press†will never allow any such matters to surface outside the blogosphere; and the blogosphere doesn’t reach Juan Martinez Suarez of 231 East Blossom, Los Angeles.”
I think the vast majority will learn some or most of the following facts: kid from the projects; daughter of basically a single mom; went to princeton, yale; became a prosecutor; and then rose in rank as a judge. Also she’s snarky and mean to some lawyers.
Then they’ll hear from some quarters that she’s the ‘affirmative action’ candidate. Even if divorced from the context of being hispanic or a newyoriquena, they’ll get what that’s a reference to.
“One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: “The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored.” Now, I say this again: “The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. “In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation,” meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001. So there you have it.”
Rush Limbaugh
today
Precisely, Sontomeyor is qualified to be a Justice. And for that, she should be voted for. But that doesn’t mean you don’t let her have it with intellectual firepower during the confirmation process.
Bring the intellectual firepower. Let her have it. But then vote for her as long as she doesn’t fall flat on her face.
“She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation.”
That’s how you know she’ll shift the court. It’s what we expect when a democrat picks someone to go into a republican court. And vice versa.
JD,
If ideology is a non-factor, then why have confirmation hearings at all? Simply receive the nomination from the President, confirm that the nominee has the requisite age and citizenship, perform a perfunctory FBI background check, and “poof” – you’re confirmed.
I don’t agree that any nominee, regardless of judicial philosophy, should be rubber-stamped simply because he or she meets the minimum qualifications to serve as a judge. Millions of people could overcome the hurdle placed by the constitutional requirements to serve as a judge. That does not mean that they should be confirmed.
Roberts and Alito were able to overcome the “trump card” because they were highly competent, forceful and eloquent advocates of their views of judicial philosophy. Not because they met the minimum Constitutional standards of eligibility.
Which is why I added my qualifier, “as long as she doesn’t fall flat on her face”. If she comes across as an intellectual lightweight, merely mouthing liberal talking points, vote against her. But if she has some semblance of intelligent thought regarding her judicial philosophy (and one would hope so if you’ve been a jurist for as long as she has) then vote for. The Senate’s role is again, to “advise and consent”. To vote for her even if you disagree with what she stands for is not an abandonment of classical liberal principles.
Phil,
Voting to confirm a nominee against whom you have previously aimed your “intellectual firepower” for the purpose of demonstrating why she should not be confirmed makes absolutely no sense to me. If you believe a nominee should not be confirmed, you should state your reasons why, and vote accordingly. If you intend to vote to confirm the nominee regardless of your objections, then it makes little sense to object at all.
Saying “Here are the reasons why I oppose this nomination” and then saying “She has my vote anyway” is disingenuous, weak, and a losing position.
What happened to little Miss Stare Decisis meya that used to troll here?
I think the Republicans should run an audio of Obama explaining what a long, thoughtful process it was determining the best qualified person for the post over a bunch of screen shots of all the blogs predicting Sotomayor last December because she was a minority chick.
“To vote for her even if you disagree with what she stands for is not an abandonment of classical liberal principles.”
On this we will never agree.
This is all so very depressing.
doesn’t anyone have any good news? Anything?
173
Sorry I really dont.
Well then you disagree with the Founders too (not necessarily a bad thing, they were not right about everything). The Founders envisioned the Senate’s role of “advise and consent”, not “tear down and destroy personally” which is unfortunately what these proceedings have turned into post-Bork and Thomas.
I think a reasonable case can certainly be made that we should destroy her intellectually and then vote to confirm her nonetheless, provided she is qualified. My two cents.
176
Her comments about the role of judges was to make policy disqualify her from the role as a judge. Under the Constitution. Also telling a group of people that a white male would be less qualified and able to come to the “correct” decision than her racial and gender group is disgusting and speaks to a bias she would bring to her rulings. Those two things are enough to vote against her without flying in the face of our founding fathers intent. My two cents.
I agree with all of what you said except for the point that this makes her disqualified. If politics were a disqualifier, then these nominations will always turn into the politics of personal destruction. I contend that they should be about principles. I may not agree with hers, but she IS qualified (academically and judicially) to be a SC justice. But like I have said, we should expose liberal bullshit during the confirmation hearings for all the world to see.
Then the public will start electing classical liberal politicians of the stripe we’d both like to see. The Sotomayor will become nothing but a laughingstock intellectual lightweight on a otherwise strong classical liberal bench.
I think you misunderstood me. The fact that she views the role of the judiciary as a policy making institution has nothing to do with politics.
My point about her racist comments was an aside that would speak to a bias. Would anyone vote for a white male who said those things? They would give you the idea that he would vote “for” a white male that came before his court, and against a latino woman that did the same.
I played my first show with a fun new band the other day.
What happened to little Miss Stare Decisis meya that used to troll here?
SFAG has no honor, no intellectual honesty, and no morals.
But you knew that.
I notice that its comeback is a classic tu quoque fallacy.
I’m going to have to watch it tomorrow morning- internet is going to slow to let me watch it. Is that you playing lead guitar?
Too cool. So, what do you guys plays?
Yeah, I’m the old fat dude on the far right. We play stuff the singer writes. I have only practiced with them a couple times, haven’t done any covers at all yet.
Two of my sons were attempting to do an Audioslave song earlier today. The 13 y/o is getting pretty good at guitar. The 7 y/o plays the drums.
The first song sort of lost me cause it was distortiony and dark and I didn’t understand but the one after I liked. I think this HQ button is a myth. I saw B Moe there in the YouTube. But not very well.
“I notice that its comeback is a classic tu quoque fallacy.”
Fallacy? What now you’re gonna tell me appointments don’t matter?
I am a lo-fi kind of dude, ‘feets. Technology can only do so much.
Sometimes it can’t even do that. But I have no musical skills not any at all. I feel cheated.
Dead Wings !
Merriam-Webster allows as how there are two definitions:
I’m going to say that in the US, definition #2 is what most folks mean (just by sheer numbers) especially when the word “Sephardi[c|m]” can be used to sub-classify Cardozo, deftly promoting his Joooness above any putative Iberian qualities.
[…] protein wisdom-SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the role of judges […]
Carin @ 173
Some foreigners got together, formed a little club, raised some money, created a park in their neighbourhood and put up a plaque with the names of 188 American war dead from the War of 1812 so Americans could come to the park on your Memorial Day and honour your fallen.
So some did.
Here http://thechronicleherald.ca/Search/1124018.html
Sometimes its just the little things, no?
Fallacy? What now you’re gonna tell me appointments don’t matter?
No. I’m going to tell you that you are a liar.
A bad one.
Isn’t it wonderful that we’re appointing a justice based on who her parents were? Next up, Justice Caroline Kennedy.
Brilliant strategy by the O-man. I’m beginning to thing he really is Teh One!
If the Republicans really try to defeat her, they will lose Hispanic votes.
If they don’t try to defeat her, the rabid base will go ape-shit crazy.
It’s a perfect lose-lose.
To top it all off, she’s been picked by a president who’s actually read the Federalist Papers, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and, you know, taught constitutional law, so she might even make a good justice.
Either that or perhaps she could become the Maxine Waters of the Supreme Court, an embarrassment to everyone every time she opens her mouth.
Personally I don’t care one way or the other. After the circus leaves town we’ll be back at the status quo. For the President’s sake, I hope his people used “potential source of future embarrassment” as one of their selection criteria.
To top it all off, she’s been picked by a president who’s actually read the Federalist Papers, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and, you know, taught constitutional law, so she might even make a good justice.
And you have proof of that … how ? President of the Harvard Law Review means what? That he was the most popular person at the time. It says nothing of the quality of his scholarship, since scholarship was removed from the equation prior to his election. Nice try. This whole “constitutional law” BS is just that. He taught an aspect of Con Law. Nothing more, no matter how many times you repeat your lie.
He nominated someone that claims she is a better jurist than a white male because she is a wise Latina woman. He nominated someone that claims that policy is created at the appellate court level. Maybe this strikes you as appropriate. That is sad.
Sammy is sure to explain to us how any of the metrics it described above makes he an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court.
If the Republicans really try to defeat her, they will lose Hispanic votes.
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?
Well, Wales isn’t home to too many Hispanic voters so far as I know, but you get the point.
I’d have to look for the exact wording, but I believe the metrics are:
1. nomination by the President
2. confirmation by the Senate.
The metrics make the assumption that at least one of those bodies does its job.
I think a reasonable case can certainly be made that we should destroy her intellectually and then vote to confirm her nonetheless, provided she is qualified.
Absolutely fascinating, Phil. Because “destroying her intellectually” would by necessity include showing she does not support the Constitution of the United States — neither its Equal Protection Clause, its Second Amendment, nor its careful delineation of separate administrative, legislative, and judicial branches of government. And like The One’s statements that he’d use the courts to “redistribute weatlth,” Sotomayor’s attitude seems to be the Constitution is a living document that only a Latina woman — a wise Latina woman — can breathe into life.
You can’t vote to confirm someone like this and then tell the public its just something you had to do because she’s “qualified.” That sounds like a non-serious game to the general public. It’s like hiring an intelligent person to be a cop even though he was in the SDS or Klan. It encourages public contempt of anything you say. And rightly so.
Our Constitutional rights are being warped before our eyes. Our republic is turning into an authoritarian, corrupt state. Either take a stand now or just forget about it.
“I think the vast majority will learn some or most of the following facts: kid from the projects; daughter of basically a single mom; went to princeton, yale; became a prosecutor; and then rose in rank as a judge. Also she’s snarky and mean to some lawyers.”
You forgot the reactionary leftist moonbat part, meya.
“To top it all off, she’s been picked by a president who’s actually read the Federalist Papers…”
Unfortunately, he didn’t understand them
Using Sammy’s logic up there. O! could have picked just about anyone with a good narrative behind their name.
Constitution be damned! We got us a hispanic supreme court judge! Let the decrimination begin!!!
I’ve read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.
As far as poon being Thor, well, the local colloquealism for pussy around here is poonER. So you know, that’s what I think.
“Unfortunately, he didn’t understand them”
It’s really fun quoting them around here.
“He nominated someone that claims that policy is created at the appellate court level.”
We’d really know she was an embarrassment if she tried to deny this.
It’s interesting to me, this yen for a Latina justice. Why doesn’t Obama nominate a “smart” Taiwanese, or Pacific Islander to the post.
One guess is, Obama’s neo-racist scheme intends to pose America’s undocumented Hispanic population as proxy-victims of “Whitey’s oppression. Sharpton and Jackson know it: the ability of “African” Americans to continue their shake-down is nearing its limits: their victimhood rating is hovering near the floor.
Rainbow/Push needs a hudna to rest up for the next “post-racial” assault on Whitey, and so-called Hispanics are supposed to fill in for “Black-Power” in the meantime.
I think that Brown is the Democrat’s new black. “White” people (ie. documented citizens of any color who pay their bills) need not apply.
I rather think #44 shows a gaping ignorance of “Hispanics”. Come to Humboldt Park and proclaim that there is no difference between a Mexican and Puerto Rican… and walk out afterward. If you can.
“…she’s been picked by a president who’s actually read the Federalist Papers, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and, you know, taught constitutional law…”
the O!ne hasn’t shown any real understanding of the points fleshed out in the “The Federalist”, I believe one demonstration of that has been the recent strong-arming of the Crysler debt holders in favor of a political payoff to the UAW (who incidentally are among thise directly responsible for the demise of America’s auto industry-but that’s another topic). Or, the arbitrary and capricious new CAFE standards FEDERALLY imposed on an already struggling sector during a recession; great judgement there, no? Look for round two, with GM, coming soon…
And, for someone who taught constitutional law, he doesn’t seem to know much about nor respect the provisions of the US Constitution. He’s part of the “living document” crowd, that believes policy should be made from the bench, that the court should have the right to redress societal “injustices” and impose equality of outcome; a twisted perversion of the true nature of the principle of equality of opportunity that this nation was founded on. Instead of protecting the rights of citizens under the written laws, he believes the courts should be the ultimate arbiters, and set policy as they see fit. This is an appallingly elitist point of view that would circumvent the legislature in view of the oh-so-qualified lawyers and jurists; I wonder how our academic “betters” would feel if they actually recognized that, just as in the “Animal Farm”, there are some among them that are more superlative than all the other betters. No offense meant to any attorneys here at PW, nor my lovely DA wife, but I consider few attorneys my better…
And as far as the ceremonial post at Harvard law review? Sammy please…
Those liberals were falling all over themselved to appoint a black man as president of the review. Obama could have sounded as “down home” as Cornell Wilde, and have done as pitifully little as he actually did, and would be heralded as such an Impressive!, Intelligent!, nay Brillliant!, Scholarly! wise man with the judgement of Solomon…
The points you have cited, as the popular song used to refrain, “Don’t impress me much”…
Obama’s appointment of Sotomayor was purely political in nature, and the only judiciousness involved was determining the timing of the event so as to bury any other inconvenient and embarrassing stories most efficiently…
It’s really fun
quotinglying about them around here.Fixed it for ya, SFAG.
Just tag me as an “amen” to Bob’s comment right above mine.
And, can we please let go of the Bush didn’t read books meme? It just makes you (Sammy) look stupid.
Or was it Meya who said it? Whatever.
To be fair, that is how O! got his job.
There’s a clip out there of O! describing how the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it doesn’t spell out what “government” must provide for you.
It just makes you (Sammy and meya) look stupid.
They do a pretty good job of that all on their own.
I’m just loving watching the right twist itself in knots over this nomination. Lose-lose fellas. You just get to pick your poison.
I’m just loving watching Sammy make a complete ass of himself, every day. It is like some strange psychological compulsion, where it has the need to drop by, moon everyone, and then act surprised that people think he is an idiot.
I nominate Sotomayor as the Scotus with the best nickname: So So
Seems that the White House press corp is unhappy with their treatment in the SCOTUS nomination.
Look, Sammy thinks Obama should have been elected because by barest minimal constitutional requirements he qualified: old enough and a citizen.
This supreme court justice is an even better choice because she’s been picked by Obama and meets the absolute minimum requirement.
Notice he has nothing good to say – or to say at all – about her virtues or anything about her that makes her worthy for consideration. He’s just gleeful that this will help his guys and hurt his enemies. He’s a classic Kool Aid chugging team player: what helps my team is always good, what hurts the other team is always good, no matter what happens or who is affected.
This pathetic sort of wretch is present in all parties, which is why the founding fathers continually warned about factions and political parties.
I’m just loving watching the right twist itself in knots over this nomination. Lose-lose fellas. You just get to pick your poison.
It’s only lose-lose because you and the people you support are immoral lying pricks. If you weren’t, it wouldn’t be a problem.
271 electoral votes is also a qualification.
Well, she’s been on the bench for 30 years. Appointed by a Republican, promoted by a Democrat. She’s written 380 majority opinions. If she’s incompetent, I would imaging that would be highly apparent in her actual rulings, which are described as “…almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes.”
271 electoral votes is also a qualification.
I’m sure if you think about it long enough, you’ll work out why that’s an idiotic fallacy.
And by the way: having a job for a long time does not qualify you for promotion. Especially to the top of your profession.
Which site did you copy and paste that from, Sammy? I am pretty sure they would like credit for that bit, as they are obviously angling for Head Fluffer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27judge.html
The cases I’ve seen listed she was brief, not particularly inspired, and definitely off the legal point, a clear effort to push a specific agenda rather than obey and uphold the law. Guess those are “incremental and considering all relevant precedents,” which I’m amused a reporter would say in the first place, given their lack of actually examining her cases.
271 electoral votes is also a qualification.
It’s not my fault you and 52% of the rest of the country are stupid.
Rusty, didn’t we all post “we’re sorry” pictures about that?
Does anybody else remember this?
You should let the ABA know for their review.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/05/aba-review-of-judge-sotomayor-is-underway.html
Google results for “Wise Old Woman”…10,400,000.
I suspect the quoted statement is meant to resonate with those of the Latin culture only insofar as they self-identify with middle-aged hard core fanatic pseudo-intellectual marxist feminists who, once aware of the message, are convinced it is of course specifically directed at them as they know in their hearts that it is they who are the one and truly authentic “wise old woman” central to the sham mytholigical fantasy world created and maintained in lo so many womens’studies faculties.
Subtextually, it forewarns that if she doesn’t get the position, there’ll be endless days of “whadya mean you’re taking Wentworth to the zoo!!! for Mr. Obama and indeed the rest of his fellow Americans.
I envy you not…indeed, my sympathy is boundless as either way it goes…the end result is less than optimal.
But you knew that.
Rats
Not… taking Wentworth etceteraetcetera blah blah yada
Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. – George Bernard Shaw
Yeah. Socialism doesn’t work very well. Europe doesn’t even use it.
Yeah. Socialism doesn’t work very well. Europe doesn’t even use it.
But it is a good idea now, because Teh One knows how to do it right.
Given that Europe is economically collapsing and moving away from socialism after five straight decades of weak to awful economic performance, I’d say no, they don’t.
Oh, and you know why winning the electoral college isn’t a qualification for someone to run for president? Because you don’t have to win to run.