Just confirm her already! End the torture, please.

Are we absolutly certian she was BORN a woman!
Birth Certificate!Where is it!

Um, what kind of evidence would anyone expect? She will say the right things now, and her past won't matter. Much like with Obama himself.

No, she thinks some races have better judgment than others. No problem, huh?

re: #5 harrylook

No, she thinks some races have better judgment than others. No problem, huh?

She never said anything like that.

I guess they have to do this as a formality, but like an Iranian election, the outcome is never in doubt...

re: #1 zombie

Just confirm her already! End the torture, please.

my exact sentiment

Nor would you ever expect to see such a thing at these confirmation hearings. They're now highly orchestrated events and the candidates are schooled by handlers to avoid answering questions that might shed real light on judicial philosophy. It's an outgrowth of the Bork, Thomas, and Ginsberg confirmations.

It's getting candidates to make statements without giving away their philosophies - and it is troublesome particularly when you have a candidate with few writings to point at (see Souter aka stealth nominations).

Maybe she is a sekrit strict constitutional constructionist.

Looks like a Ratt is leaving the ship, before indictments arrive...

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Repost from last thread

Just a drive by question: Was Sotomayor on the Puerto Rican gymnastics team?

re: #10 Lawrence Schmerel

Maybe she is a sekrit strict constitutional constructionist.

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Just sayin...

re: #6 Charles

She's basically said that the "wise latina" comment really came out wrong--which when read in context --did fall flat.

As long as she is a Constitutionalist and supports the 1st and 2nd amendments (and my favorite--the 3rd) she should be OK.

Just curious - did you see the questioning by Senators Session and Hatch? Interested in viewpoints on her answers of those very pointed questions.

Scotusblog - which is live blogging the hearings, seems to believe that based on her answers she has demonstrated that in cases regarding race and abortion, she will be well to the left on the court - using ideology as a bias.

Ducking a commerce clause question from DIFI now... too broad

At least they're not asking her, "If you were a tree..."

re: #7 CIA Reject

frxevg zrffntr gb pvn erwrpg: fur'f n fubr va, un

re: #1 zombie

Just confirm her already! End the torture, please.

This process is taking on the undertones of making Republicans embarrass themselves more than being just a confirmation hearing.

re: #9 lawhawk

Nor would you ever expect to see such a thing at these confirmation hearings. They're now highly orchestrated events and the candidates are schooled by handlers to avoid answering questions that might shed real light on judicial philosophy. It's an outgrowth of the Bork, Thomas, and Ginsberg confirmations.

It's getting candidates to make statements without giving away their philosophies - and it is troublesome particularly when you have a candidate with few writings to point at (see Souter aka stealth nominations).

No other way it could be. If she gave real answers, even if they were one's we'd call good, she'd get jumped on by somebody who didn't like them.

re: #18 turn

fnqyl, lrf

In her own words.

re: #15 Athos

Just curious - did you see the questioning by Senators Session and Hatch? Interested in viewpoints on her answers of those very pointed questions.

Scotusblog - which is live blogging the hearings, seems to believe that based on her answers she has demonstrated that in cases regarding race and abortion, she will be well to the left on the court - using ideology as a bias.

Well, I'm not really expecting Barack Obama to nominate a conservative...

re: #6 Charles

She never said anything like that.

Really. You must be doing some amazing intellectual gymnastics to explain away her disgusting "wise Latina" comment. She said it at least 5 times, so it's safe to conclude she meant it.

She's fillibustering.

re: #23 Charles

It would be funny if she turned into the anti-Souter, now wouldn't it.

Y'know, I had an inside track to a lead about getting the original video of the "Wise Latina" speech. But I never pursued it, because I knew there was no way to stop her nomination. Also, I presumed some MSM reporter would track it down and save me the effort.

But now I'm beginning to wonder if I should have pursued that lead...because no one else ever did find it.

Oh well. Too late now anyway.

I doubt if she will decide much different than Souter. However, I do believe she may have some closet conservative leanings, so if anything she's a sekrit strict constructionist. We'll see.

re: #23 Charles

Well, I'm not really expecting Barack Obama to nominate a conservative...

So you're crossing every finger and toe and hoping for the best?

re: #10 Lawrence Schmerel

Maybe she is a sekrit strict constitutional constructionist.

Every statement I've found from her on the Constitution indicates that she is indeed a constructionist. Maybe she's been hiding her judicial activism for her whole career, waiting for this moment.

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

She's fillibustering.

Heh- she's ahead in the fourth quarter and she knows that all she has to do is run out the clock...

interesting : challenge to cap and trade under commerce clause?

re: #27 zombie

I think HUffPo posted video of her wise Latina thing.

re: #32 Thanos

interesting : challenge to cap and trade under commerce clause?

How about under "common sense"?

re: #24 harrylook

Word to the Unwise, harry:

Don't bait or insult Charles. It'll get you tossed out on your ass.

of course she will be confirmed. the republicans know that and while some will vote against her, she will be confirmed by a more substantial margin than any of Dubya's nominees.

but I don't want the process to "just end already." there is some very good political theatre going on here. the repubs have a chance to look like mature grownups, asking tough but fair questions and treating Judge Sotomayor with respect. and it is also a chance for us to observe the obsequious democrats doing the bidding of their leader. and while he looked more or less respectable yesterday, i want to see what al franken asks her.

I thought seekrit was spelled using two e's?

re: #30 Charles

Again--she's the anti-Souter. Maybe Poppy Bush was way smarter than anyone though when he put her on the Appellate bench.

re: #9 lawhawk

Jeffrey Toobin on CNN referred to it as the "Ginsburg rule" (that's to give a non-answer to a question). From CNN Transcript:

TOOBIN: You know, I think it's been very successful for justice nominees of both parties not to answer a lot of questions. The line that you always hear from them is that's an issue that may come before us on the court, so I don't want to prejudge the issue. It's sometimes known as the Ginsburg rule, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bill Clinton's first nominee, used that answer a lot, or some version of it, so yes, the non-answer is often pretty successful.

re: #28 KingKenrod

I doubt if she will decide much different than Souter. However, I do believe she may have some closet conservative leanings, so if anything she's a sekrit strict constructionist. We'll see.

More and more Sotomayor is not going to be a major shift in the tenor of the SCOTUS decisions, likely just a prolongation of Souter than anything else.

re: #33 Killgore Trout

I think HUffPo posted video of her wise Latina thing.

Really? Why wasn't it reposted anywhere? You'd think the blogs would jump on that. Link?

(Or were you thinking of her "The laws are made from the bench" speech?)

re: #24 harrylook

Really. You must be doing some amazing intellectual gymnastics ...

It's called "reading."

re: #11 Wasta

Looks like a Ratt is leaving the ship, before indictments arrive...

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Obama sure can pick 'em, can't he. It's astounding the slime he associates with. it's stunning the corruptness of his closes advisors. It's jaw-dropping that known tax cheats are appointed to high office.

And I'm supposed to feel hunky-dory about any SC pick? Pffft.

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Let's break for lunch! We're having Oscar Sotomayor weiners!

I want mine with extra Original Intent, and hold the Judicial Activism. I also need an order of Cheddar fries, and a large Diet Pepsi.

//

re: #41 zombie

(Or were you thinking of her "The laws are made from the bench" speech?)

Ah, that's what I was think of. My mistake.

re: #23 Charles

Fair enough - neither do I.

However, I do have an issue with a jurist who will use ideology, bias, foreign precedent, etc beyond a legitimate interpretation of the US Constitution and previous precedent / case law for the basis of their judgments. That would work for me if the nominee is a liberal or a conservative. For example, I believe that her decision in Ricci was not based on the law, but rather the precedent in her mind that given the results of the New Haven FD tests, they had to be biased against minorities as opposed to the test results being legitimate and the decision by the New Haven FD to vacate the results because it did not fit a racial model being the wrong one.

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Let's break for lunch! We're having Oscar Sotomayor weiners!

Somehow I don't relish that idea...

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Let's break for lunch! We're having Oscar Sotomayor weiners!

My only hope is the buns get toasted, but I'm afraid they're going to be served up fresh.

Here's her discussion of that "wise Latina" remark:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), offered the Supreme Court nominee an open forum to explain the most controversial remarks in her resume: That a wise Latina judge would come to a different -- perhaps better -- judgments than their white male counterparts.

Sotomayor, obviously ready for the query, stated "up front, unequivocally and without a doubt" that she did "not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender has an advantage in sound judging."

"I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge," she added, "regardless of their background or life experience."

From there, she made a strategic political move by referencing similar remarks from retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who likewise noted how gender affected her approach from the bench.

"The words I used, I used them agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was trying to convey... that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges," said Sotomayor. "That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time. I shouldn't say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Judges on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can't mean that one of them is unwise despite the fact that people think that."

For the record, Senate Republicans weren't convinced.

re: #49 turn

Come on guys, I just got here and am trying to Ketchup...

"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."

-Sonia Sotomayor

If I said that white males would more often than not reach a better conclusion than black women who haven't lived the white life, wouldn't that be patently racist? It's not like she simply said that one's personal experiences can help them develop good judgment. Race and gender are critical to her statement. I'm just reading what the woman has to say and taking the words at face value.

Hear the words of a wise Latina.

(I'm so tired of this)

re: #44 Russkilitlover

No, you shouldn't feel great about this pick. Elections have consequences, and that means Obama's the one picking the nominees.

That doesn't mean that she isn't unqualified for the Court. She just isn't going to rule the way you would like, even though I think the question about Ricci still must be asked.

As for Rattner, he got a position of power without needing confirmation since Obama has taken to creating czars for key policy positions without exposing them to confirmation and vetting by Congress. Rattner was a head-turner because of his involvement in the pay to play pension scandals in NY, NM and other states via his company Quadrangle. His response that he wanted to spend more time with his family reeks of pending indictment since that's a typical way of getting out of the line of fire when it's heading your way in top political circles.

re: #50 Charles

For the record, Senate Republicans several Lizards weren't convinced.

FTFY

re: #45 Dark_Falcon

I want mine with extra Original Intent, and hold the Judicial Activism. I also need an order of Cheddar fries, and a large Diet Pepsi.

//

And none of the bug parts, rodent hairs and roach droppings you normally find in those things.// (I really do not like processed meat unless I see my butcher grind it before my eyes)

re: #41 zombie

CNN has an article which maintains that this was part and parcel of her speeches...(it wasn't a rarity)..Article here:

re: #52 harrylook

I cannot read that quote without greatly suppressing an urge to curse out loud.

As a white man I do not believe I would get justice from her.

"AP - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor stoutly denied racial bias Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing and said an oft-criticized remark about her Hispanic heritage affecting judicial decisions was a rhetorical device gone awry."

I know what stoutly means in this context, but it struck me odd to use that word.

re: #50 Charles

Here's her discussion of that "wise Latina" remark:

For the record, Senate Republicans weren't convinced.

Neither am I but, dang, give that woman a top-hat and cane, she sure can tap!

re: #52 harrylook

What was the overall context in which she said it? What was the preceding sentence and the following one? Text without context is pretext, remember.

re: #52 harrylook

I'm just reading what the woman has to say and taking the words at face value.

As should also the words of the US Constitution be taken at face value.

re: #56 calcajun

And none of the bug parts, rodent hairs and roach droppings you normally find in those things.// (I really do not like processed meat unless I see my butcher grind it before my eyes)

Yep, that way you get to choose exactly how much and what type of bug parts, rodent hairs and roach droppings go into the stuff! :-)

I'm out. Have to get to work. Later, lizards.

And harrylook, please do be careful. You're not some troll, I can see that, but you need to be careful in your words. And don't go after Charles. It won't end well for you.

The RNC just called me asking for a 'donation'.

LOL

re: #63 CIA Reject

Yep, that way you get to choose exactly how much and what type of bug parts, rodent hairs and roach droppings go into the stuff! :-)

Screw that--I add my own. ///

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

The RNC just called me asking for a 'donation'.

LOL

They should call it a "bailout"--they might get more that way.

re: #66 calcajun

Screw that--I add my own. ///

And with that... It's LUNCHTIME!

re: #64 Dark_Falcon

I'm out. Have to get to work. Later, lizards.

And harrylook, please do be careful. You're not some troll, I can see that, but you need to be careful in your words. And don't go after Charles. It won't end well for you.

I'm sure Charles can handle a little debate and disagreement, as long as I'm respectful.

OT:
President Obama is now declining to project where unemployment will go. His experts have been decidedly wrong to date, and he's not going to estimate where the rate is ultimately going to level out.

Let's just say that it's an understatement. They thought it would level out at 8.5%. It's now approaching 10% with no end in sight. Every one of those projections has a direct effect on the deficit and government revenues since it means more people will be drawing benefits, and there are fewer people paying in. Every one of his estimates going forward is off as a result; and the numbers look even worse given that the economic growth he was planning for isn't going to come to pass. That means all his rosy budget projections are going to be wrong. The cost? You don't want to know - and the Administration isn't going to go out of its way to say either.

Come to think of it, isn't "Latina Woman" a tad redundant? After all, "Latina" implies the feminine gender.
Some other redundancies include "dishonest politician," "narrow-minded bigot," "government bungling" and so on ...

re: #9 lawhawk

Nor would you ever expect to see such a thing at these confirmation hearings. They're now highly orchestrated events and the candidates are schooled by handlers to avoid answering questions that might shed real light on judicial philosophy. It's an outgrowth of the Bork, Thomas, and Ginsberg confirmations.

It's getting candidates to make statements without giving away their philosophies - and it is troublesome particularly when you have a candidate with few writings to point at (see Souter aka stealth nominations).

Yes. But remember its the (D) that started this trend. In fact, Joe Biden was instrumental in turning SC nominations into a partisan battleground.

re: #64 Dark_Falcon

I'm out. Have to get to work. Later, lizards.

And harrylook, please do be careful. You're not some troll, I can see that, but you need to be careful in your words. And don't go after Charles. It won't end well for you.

To paraphrase..." Don't Shit where you sleep"!!
...Or something like that...

re: #67 MandyManners

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

I hope so. The 'group rights' thang has really gone badly.

I still haven’t seen the evidence that she’s a sekrit radical judicial activist...

Who said she is? What's with the strawman? Try some sober analysis:

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

Sotomayor's characterization of the context of her "wise Latina" remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn't "agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O'Connor was attempting to convey," as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O'Connor's. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O'Connor's view, as Sotomayor put it, "that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges."

I've been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.

re: #69 CIA Reject

And with that... It's LUNCHTIME!

In the words of Burt Reynolds, "Bone ape tit."

re: #27 zombie

Y'know, I had an inside track to a lead about getting the original video of the "Wise Latina" speech. But I never pursued it, because I knew there was no way to stop her nomination. Also, I presumed some MSM reporter would track it down and save me the effort.

But now I'm beginning to wonder if I should have pursued that lead...because no one else ever did find it.

Oh well. Too late now anyway.

Uh, also because your 'original video' wouldn't magically turn her into a judical activist or a radical sekrit liberal.

re: #68 calcajun

They should call it a "bailout"--they might get more that way.

I told him I wasn't happy with the Republican party right now. I said they have been letting the Democrats run roughshod over them and I wasn't going to give them any money until they grew a pair and stood up to the Dems.

re: #67 MandyManners

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

I don't know but I have a sinking feeling we are going to find out in the next three years or so.

re: #52 harrylook

I'm just reading what the woman has to say and taking the words at face value.

You're taking one sentence way out of context. I get very tired of discussing this over and over. The very next paragraph contains statements that clarify and qualify that remark -- but if all you're interested in is parroting the soundbite talking point, knock yourself out.

We are foolish Anglos I suppose.

Poor in our experience of life.

That must be it.

re: #67 MandyManners

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

I'm not watching the hearings, tho they are on in the background.
Megan Kelly, FoxNews, just said that Orrin Hatch was trying to explore this topic with her, and she basically said, "I'm bound by precedent".
Whatever the heck that means.

re: #19 FurryOldGuyJeans

This process is taking on the undertones of making Republicans embarrass themselves more than being just a confirmation hearing.

The problem is, the Republicans are supposed to give her the kind of leeway that a nominee by a Republican president would never get. Hypocrisy in the extreme. I just don't have a lot of hope for this country anymore.

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

Hey, NJD, what happened with your neighbours? Is everyone ok?

re: #67 MandyManners

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

Seems as though she does, but also doesn't believe the 2nd amendment applies to states, thus giving states the right to restrict gun ownership.
The link is a blog, but gives a good explanation.

[Link: reason.com...]

re: #81 Charles

A judge who really understands what it means to be a judge, IMHO, would never have made the "wise Latina" comment in the first place, never mind what words come after, because a judge must avoid even the appearance of partiality.

For this, I think she is a poor pick to be on the Court.

re: #84 reine.de.tout

I'm not watching the hearings, tho they are on in the background.
Megan Kelly, FoxNews, just said that Orrin Hatch was trying to explore this topic with her, and she basically said, "I'm bound by precedent".
Whatever the heck that means.

Perhaps the precedent of being asked and answering the same.

re: #83 buzzsawmonkey

The hearings also go to highlight temperament and the ability to be grilled. I don't see her as having the same leadership and legal acumen as Roberts, but few of us do. She's competent, but not exactly a trailblazer on some aspect of legal theory and practice.

In other words, she's a suitable replacement for Breyer.

re: #84 reine.de.tout

I'm not watching the hearings, tho they are on in the background.
Megan Kelly, FoxNews, just said that Orrin Hatch was trying to explore this topic with her, and she basically said, "I'm bound by precedent".
Whatever the heck that means.

It means she is voting present.

re: #11 Wasta

Looks like a Ratt is leaving the ship, before indictments arrive...

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

And the administration goes Round and Round.

re: #90 lawhawk

Ooops. Meant a replacement to Souter, not Breyer.

re: #86 iceweasel

Hey, NJD, what happened with your neighbours? Is everyone ok?

Strange thing happened last weekend. He had a moving truck at the house and now his car is gone. The dogs are still there though. I'm keeping an eye out though. Maybe I'll run into him soon.

re: #83 buzzsawmonkey

Basically, unless Sotomayor has major ethics problems--and there have been no allegations of any such thing--there is no reason she will not be confirmed. The Democrats have the votes, period.

She may be more or less "liberal," her decisions may tend far more towards judicial interventionism or PC pieties, but if she is basically competent (and she appears to be, no matter how much anyone here disagrees with her rulings), she's in, especially since there is little to no chance that any truly outrageous statements by her will be dealt with in the hearings.

Everything else is political fighting over the border area of more or less PC, but since there are no votes for such a fight, they should just rubber-stamp her already.

Without finishing the hearing?

I don't know. I think this process is an important one, even if it seems to be watered down from previous events, and I think they should finish it, if for no other reason than to have an historical record. Perhaps I am naive to believe that's important . . .

re: #71 lawhawk

The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think

The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.

Here are 10 reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5% unemployment rate indicates:

- June's total assumed 185,000 people at work who probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation, e.g., finance. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, June will look worse.

Read the whole frightening thing. We haven't seen the worst of it yet.

re: #61 calcajun

What was the overall context in which she said it? What was the preceding sentence and the following one? Text without context is pretext, remember.

In one instance she said it, here's the whole paragraph it appeared in, along with the follwing paragraph:

"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."

Read the whole speech: [Link: www.law.berkeley.edu...]

I'm sure both sides will take what they want from this particular speech.

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

"Bound by precedent" means that she will follow Heller even if she disagrees with it.

thank you.

re: #88 Ojoe

A judge who really understands what it means to be a judge, IMHO, would never have made the "wise Latina" comment in the first place, never mind what words come after, because a judge must avoid even the appearance of partiality.

For this, I think she is a poor pick to be on the Court.

Calling yourself wise is so arrogant sounding no matter what your meaning is. The truly wise don't need to point it out. It was unwise of her to make the statement(s) at all since she now has to explain herself.

re: #85 Ward Cleaver

The problem is, the Republicans are supposed to give her the kind of leeway that a nominee by a Republican president would never get. Hypocrisy in the extreme. I just don't have a lot of hope for this country anymore.

I think the questioning by Senators Sessions and Hatch were on point, respectfully done and presented, and generated a welcome reprieve from the boredom of the questions from the other Senators (in particularly Sen. Feinstein).

We should see more of this level of questioning. It is not like the stuff that Bork, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts went through or the fillibustering of Estrada - and that is where the R's differ from the D's.

re: #93 lawhawk

Isn't that another way of saying we're replacing mediocre and reliably left with mediocre, reliably left, and scoring points for gender and race?

behold the musings of a "Wise Latina."

OT Awaiting news conference on arrests in murders of Florida couple.

re: #100 Silvergirl

Calling yourself wise is so arrogant sounding no matter what your meaning is. The truly wise don't need to point it out. It was unwise of her to make the statement(s) at all since she now has to explain herself.

She did not call herself wise. Read the speech again. She was positing a hypothetical "wise Latina" -- not herself.

re: #52 harrylook

Charles is right at his @81. This is boring and has been covered and reading the context should tell people what was going on.

Also, let's talk about Alito's statement at his confrmation hearing, where he talked about how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Video here,

Transcript here

District of Columbia vs. Heller, written in a way we non-lawyers can understand.

Im my opnion she is not a horrible nominee, but I do not see her as top quality either.
We all bring our life expreiences & biases with us, & judges are no different.
My problem is that prior to these hearings she seemed to celebrate that she was influenced greatly by her ethnicity. Justice ideally is blind & that should be striven for. No matter, she's in.

re: #97 Kenneth

The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think

Read the whole frightening thing. We haven't seen the worst of it yet.

The government cannot create growth - it can create the conditions for growth. Dems always get this bass-ackward.

re: #98 harrylook

Thanks. Remember-- it's intellectually dishonest to take one line from an entire speech and run with it saying that it defines the whole speech and personality of the speaker.

re: #98 harrylook

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.

Gee -- that sounds a little bit less extreme than:

...she thinks some races have better judgment than others...

Wouldn't you say?

I'm willing to grant that perhaps the "wise latina" comment was merely a bon mot, thrown out to play to an audience of the moment.

I'm also willing to grant that, if it wasn't, she might be savvy enough to watch her mouth in the future.

/I also want to point out, there are some conditionals in those sentences

Sen. Obama's Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.

In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens

.

Equality and Justice, Alinsky themes, "rule of law" does not appear in the statement.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama Confirmation of Judge John Roberts

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

Again "rule of law" is not mentioned.

By the Obama standard qualifications for the bench are secondary to ideology, "justice" and "equality" trump rule of law.

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
Thomas Jefferson

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

re: #100 Silvergirl

There are 300 million people in this country, & the constitution says nothing about any specific prerequisites for being a supreme court judge. One needn't even have been any type of judge before. So there is this immense field from which to chose & I do not understand why we cannot do better.

The man at the top is not very good IMHO.

BBL

re: #111 Russkilitlover

The government cannot create growth - it can create the conditions for growth. Dems always get this bass-ackward.

Ah, but the government sure can kill growth: Exhibit O.

re: #107 Charles

But I think she was implying herself.

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

In fact, Jews are not a race at all but, rather, a nation. There are black, brown, and white Jews. There were even Chinese Jews until they completely assimilated around a hundred years ago. But yeah, the PC folks need a bi-lingual Latino representative so now, when you call the Supreme Court, they will tell you to press 2 if you want to talk to a Spanish speaking judge.

re: #107 Charles

She did not call herself wise. Read the speech again. She was positing a hypothetical "wise Latina" -- not herself.

I believe that to be hair-splitting. In the CNN article it's obvious that she's painting herself as the wise soul. She regrets the words, therefore it was not wise in the first place to have said them. If they are so easily misunderstood and people have to ponder whether she could possibly mean herself or some hypothetical wise Latina far removed from herself, what is the point?

I admit I'd rather have a justice who is honest and thoughtful about what role her life experiences have in her decisions, rather than someone who blusters that it has no influence at all. Of course life experiences have an influence. Recognizing that fact and taking it into account is smart -- not evil.

re: #115 jcm

"Plan? I'm making this up as I go."

-- Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr.

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

BuzzSaw, thank you very much for that write-up on the Sephardim and the Ladino language. Quite recently I found out that my ancestry is Sephardic, and that my grandfather and possibly my father were born Jewish.

An interesting note is that after they were booted out of Spain the only place they were allowed to practice their religion, maintain their traditions, and communicate in Ladino was in the Muslim Caliphate. My understanding was that they did pay a dhimmi tax, but that they were of such benefit to the expanding Ottoman Empire that the tax was a token. They formed flourishing local Jewish communities, especially in Izmir, Thessaloniki and Sarajevo, and some of the older synagogues in the Mediterranean are in Greece and Turkey.

re: #115 jcm

Sen. Obama's floor statements

And thereby, the Anointed Son of the Cognoscenti didst speak. The cognoscenti know that Equality and Justice cannot be grasped by the unwashed rabble.

re: #50 Charles

"The words I used, I used them agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was trying to convey... that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges," said Sotomayor.

Notice the phrase "equally capable," when what she really said in the original 2001 speech was:

"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."

Looks to me like she just flat-out lied in the confirmation hearing.

Today, she said that she AGREED with O'Conner and that men and women had EQUAL judgement.

In the original speech, she said she DISAGREED with O'Connor and said that women had BETTER judgment.

That's just stone cold revisionism. Prevarication. Mendacity. Whatever you want to call it.

re: #118 Ojoe

But I think she was implying herself.

I dunno. I just read that passage, and it doesn't sound like she's actually referring to herself.

But the phrasing is very odd. I wonder why she brought up a "wise Latina" in the first place?

re: #122 Charles

I admit I'd rather have a justice who is honest and thoughtful about what role her life experiences have in her decisions, rather than someone who blusters that it has no influence at all. Of course life experiences have an influence. Recognizing that fact and taking it into account is smart -- not evil.

She was being honest about it until this morning when she suddenly changed her tune and misrepresented what she said in 2001.

John Hinderaker at Power Line takes Judge Sonia Sotomayor to task over her comments vis a vis 'a wise Latina':

Sotomayor employs a rhetorical dodge by focusing on how she interpreted Justice O'Connor's famous statement that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." She says that O'Connor couldn't have meant that the the wise man and the wise woman will reach the same decision in every case, since judges often disagree. Rather, she interpreted O'Connor's statement to mean that men and women have an equal capacity to reach wise judgments.

Of course that's correct: O'Connor was saying that men and women shouldn't reach different decisions because of their genders. But here is where Sotomayor hides the ball. Having created a diversion by talking about what O'Connor meant, she slipped in this key statement: "the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was attempting to convey."

That statement is a falsehood. Sotomayor's whole point in quoting Justice O'Connor was to disagree with, or at least express reservations about, O'Connor's view that the judge's gender shouldn't affect the outcome of a case. Here is the passage from Sotomayor's speech:

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.
Thus, Sotomayor's characterization of the context of her "wise Latina" remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn't "agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O'Connor was attempting to convey," as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O'Connor's. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O'Connor's view, as Sotomayor put it, "that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges."

I've been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.

Bold added.

re: #122 Charles

The funny thing about Sotomayor is how she defined her "experiences" as being a member of a gender/ethnic group. Contrast that with Alito who made similar comments, but described his experiences as having taught him something. The difference is subtle, but significant.

Hollywood couldn't write a more banal script for both parties.
The Republicans are pushing only the "wise latina' and Ricci themes. If thats all she's biffed in her career then there is not much to attack her on,
It is a foregone conclusion anyway. Send her up and see what Roberts can do with her.
What bugs me most is the bad soap opera that congress is. This isn't about Sotomayor, it's about posturing and TV face time for failed actors.
Jerry Springer couldn't make it worse.

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Old saying:

"First-rate people hire first-rate people. Second-rate people hire third-rate people."

It's an old saying because it is absolutely true.

First-rate people don't fear having people around who are as good as they are.

Second-rate people live in fear that somebody smarter will replace them.

re: #130 Athos

John Hinderaker at Power Line takes Judge Sonia Sotomayor to task over her comments vis a vis 'a wise Latina':

Bold added.

BINGO!

Hinderaker was making the EXACT same point I just made in comment #126.

I hope this gets pointed out far and wide.

re: #133 poteen

Hollywood couldn't write a more banal script for both parties.
The Republicans are pushing only the "wise latina' and Ricci themes. If thats all she's biffed in her career then there is not much to attack her on,
It is a foregone conclusion anyway. Send her up and see what Roberts can do with her.
What bugs me most is the bad soap opera that congress is. This isn't about Sotomayor, it's about posturing and TV face time for failed actors.
Jerry Springer couldn't make it worse.

Agree. Except that some chair-throwing might liven things up a little.

FOX news TV just reported, and get this, that the NEW CAR CZAR is the former head of the UAW? What the fuck? Yeah like the Obama Admin is not in the Union Bag.

re: #108 iceweasel

Folks, Sotomayor is a moderate and she's also the best justice that any conservative could hope to get.

BTW, my point in posting Alito's confirmation statement is that Sotomayor didn't say anything awful or strange in that 'wise Latina' comment, that people are posting out of context.

Anyone who wants to claim that Sotomayor's statements are 'untoward' are going to have to explain why this is ok:

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

I didn't have a problem with these statements when Alito made them, and neither did Republicans.

Again -- I disagree with Hinderaker that she was being dishonest. Her first statement in the speech is highly qualified -- she's "not sure she agrees with O'Connor," she says "more often than not," etc. And in the very next paragraph of the speech she says very clearly that she is not talking in absolutes, that "many are so capable" of reaching wise decisions despite differing backgrounds.

re: #134 reine.de.tout

It's an old saying because it is absolutely true.

First-rate people don't fear having people around who are as good as they are.

Second-rate people live in fear that somebody smarter will replace them.

First rate people don't fear even people who are better than they are, they recognize talent and capability when it resides in others are more than perfectly happy using it.

re: #131 buzzsawmonkey

I'm just the messenger, but thanks--glad you found it interesting.

There are a number of books on Sephardic Jews, and on the expulsion from Spain--alas, since they are all at home, and I am not, I can't give you titles.

Momentary OT -- have you ever heard of the movie "Every Time We Say Goodbye" ? If not, look it up!

/back to the serious topic

re: #133 poteen

Jerry Springer couldn't make it worse.

Actually he could probably make it better with a chair throwing brawl...

/

re: #129 zombie

She was being honest about it until this morning when she suddenly changed her tune and misrepresented what she said in 2001.

It is not like this was a surprise question. She had literally weeks to figure out what she was going to say about this statement. The fact that she chose what I think was a less than honest way to deflect the question tells me one heck of a whole lot about her character.

Quick drive by post:
On the radio this morning I heard a recording of Senator Obama during the Roberts and Alito hearings state that 'some believe that a President, because he won, is entitled to his judicial nominations as long as they pass basic tests for legal acumen and be of good character. I disagree...' He went on to say that idealogical tests must also be passed.
This is a paraphrase but captures the essence of Senator Obama's philosophy.
I think that President Obama deserves precisely the same courtesy for his nominees. Nothing less and nothing more.
Sure she'll pass muster but a meesage needs to be sent regardless. You can't win a fight unless you land some punches.

re: #127 buzzsawmonkey

Well, yes, you have a point. What unites Latinos is language whereas Jews are united by faith and history.

I personally don't care what Judge Sotomayor says, said, or will say, I care about her actions on the bench, her rulings. Two of which give me great concern regarding her elevation to the SCOTUS: Kelo and Ricci. However given that "elections have consequences" and the current POTUS damn near left of Teddy Kennedy (b/o his Senatorial voting record) I am surprised how weak of a candidate was chosen in terms of influencing the court over the next several decades (Sotomayor's use of "summery judgements" is excessive to say the least).

re: #140 FurryOldGuyJeans

First rate people don't fear even people who are better than they are, they recognize talent and capability when it resides in others are more than perfectly happy using it.

absolutely true.

re: #137 Nevergiveup

FOX news TV just reported, and get this, that the NEW CAR CZAR is the former head of the UAW? What the fuck? Yeah like the Obama Admin is not in the Union Bag.

I heard that yesterday. I think it was the plan all along. Probably hastened into effect because of the clouds forming around the current czar.

The Wizengamot this is not.

In more ways than one, these confirmation hearings (all of them, not just the Supreme Court) are mirrors onto the political leanings of the members of the respective Senate Committees, and not a true guide to the intentions of the nominees.

It goes to the questions asked, the manner in which they're asked, etc.

re: #145 garden18

Well, yes, you have a point. What unites Latinos is language whereas Jews are united by faith and history.

... and having Jewish mothers.

re: #136 SixDegrees

Agree. Except that some chair-throwing might liven things up a little.

Geraldo Rivera for U.S.Senate. !! Minnesota would do it.

re: #139 Charles

Again -- I disagree with Hinderaker that she was being dishonest. Her first statement in the speech is highly qualified -- she's "not sure she agrees with O'Connor," she says "more often than not," etc. And in the very next paragraph of the speech she says very clearly that she is not talking in absolutes, that "many are so capable" of reaching wise decisions despite differing backgrounds.

Well, I agree that it's a moot point. She will be confirmed, whatever her answers today. But I personally agree with Hinderaker's take (in fact, I made my comment before even knowing he had written an article on the same topic!).

Like I said at the top of the thread -- Let's just get it over with already! The hearings aren't going to change anyone's mind, one way or the other. She'll be a Supreme Court justice probably for the next 25 years. It's a bitter pill I've already accepted.

Eight people involved with FL couples' murder. Seven in custody. 16 year old juvenile also involved, but not pictured.

Cameras caught these murderous thugs in the act. 17 children orphaned.

Burt and Melanie Billings - RIP.

re: #151 buzzsawmonkey

Speaking of which, I woke up last night from an unsettling dream in which Inflated Scrotum Man had painted his distinguishing characteristic gold in some bizarre protest statement about Gold man-sacks.

Sorry for the OT. We return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

Ya gotta stop eating spicy foods before you go to bed...

re: #139 Charles

Again -- I disagree with Hinderaker that she was being dishonest. Her first statement in the speech is highly qualified -- she's "not sure she agrees with O'Connor," she says "more often than not," etc. And in the very next paragraph of the speech she says very clearly that she is not talking in absolutes, that "many are so capable" of reaching wise decisions despite differing backgrounds.

Many people are invested in reading what she has said in a certain way.

People on the left did this too post-2000 about Bush and Cheney, and I didn't like it any better then.

re: #151 buzzsawmonkey

Speaking of which, I woke up last night from an unsettling dream in which Inflated Scrotum Man had painted his distinguishing characteristic gold in some bizarre protest statement about Gold man-sacks.

That guy has no idea he's an undying internet meme.

re: #14 calcajun

She's basically said that the "wise latina" comment really came out wrongre: #122 Charles

I admit I'd rather have a justice who is honest and thoughtful about what role her life experiences have in her decisions, rather than someone who blusters that it has no influence at all. Of course life experiences have an influence. Recognizing that fact and taking it into account is smart -- not evil.

It would be smart of us to reject anyone who thought their life experiences made them more capable of reaching a "better conclusion" than their fellow justices.

re: #152 poteen

Geraldo Rivera for U.S.Senate. !! Minnesota would do it.

Maybe instead of confirmation hearings we could switch to the much more popular Confirmation Cage Match. Let both parties nominate their candidate, then lock 'em in. Two enter, one leaves.

I wonder how Sotomayor would fare against Harriet Miers?

re: #154 midwestgak

What could have been the motive --and what were these morons thinking when the house had more cameras than a TV studio to monitor the kids.

re: #67 MandyManners

Does she or does she not believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens?

also, does she think a background check and safety test to buy a gun are not "infringements" ?

I don't see either of those to spew bias from the media or to vote or any other constitutional right for that matter

re: #156 iceweasel

Many people are invested in reading what she has said in a certain way.

People on the left did this too post-2000 about Bush and Cheney, and I didn't like it any better then.

It is like the calcification of vessels... once it starts, it is going to be a difficult thing to undo.

re: #160 buzzsawmonkey

Let's hope that, if he finds out, it doesn't puff him up.

Is this the only thing he has the balls to do in life?

re: #158 Wendya

It would be smart of us to reject anyone who thought their life experiences made them more capable of reaching a "better conclusion" than their fellow justices.

Ding! Nicely succinct. It's not just the "wise Latina" part, it's more so what follows, the "better conclusion" part.

re: #146 Rexatosis

I personally don't care what Judge Sotomayor says, said, or will say, I care about her actions on the bench, her rulings.

In that case you should look at her judicial opinions and rulings, all of which indicate that she a moderate/centrist, and all of which indicate that she is the exact opposite of an 'activist judge'.

re: #133 poteen

Hollywood couldn't write a more banal script for both parties.
The Republicans are pushing only the "wise latina' and Ricci themes. If thats all she's biffed in her career then there is not much to attack her on,
It is a foregone conclusion anyway. Send her up and see what Roberts can do with her.
What bugs me most is the bad soap opera that congress is. This isn't about Sotomayor, it's about posturing and TV face time for failed actors.
Jerry Springer couldn't make it worse.

true, Robert Byrd has dodged the KKK membership his whole carreer and Teddy Kennedy has dodged Mary Jo Kopechne's death too

if you're a D, nothing sticks

Just from watching so far I predict that we are not going to see a meltdown, therefor she will be confirmed. The more the R's choose to dwell on the race comment, the more we lose purchase and sway with average Amercans, so I don't know why folks are doing it, you are really just serving the left when you do that. It's unfair, it's not right, but it's the reality we are in: it's not something we can win on. Dwelling on it is just flat stupid.

re: #153 zombie

Well, I agree that it's a moot point. She will be confirmed, whatever her answers today. But I personally agree with Hinderaker's take (in fact, I made my comment before even knowing he had written an article on the same topic!).

It is a moot point, she's going to be confirmed.

But it's simply the very definition of "taking words out of context" to ignore the many qualifying statements in that speech, and focus like a laser beam on one sentence -- because that's the sentence that can be used to hurt her.

That's the kind of stuff Media Matters does.

re: #158 Wendya

It would be smart of us to reject anyone who thought their life experiences made them more capable of reaching a "better conclusion" than their fellow justices.

She didn't say that.

re: #149 lawhawk

The Wizengamot this is not.

In more ways than one, these confirmation hearings (all of them, not just the Supreme Court) are mirrors onto the political leanings of the members of the respective Senate Committees, and not a true guide to the intentions of the nominees.

It goes to the questions asked, the manner in which they're asked, etc.

And those questions, the manner in which they are asked, etc., are more a show for their constituents and party elders, than to elicit information, imo.

bbl

/and wishing I could up-ding zombie's #1 again

re: #122 Charles

I admit I'd rather have a justice who is honest and thoughtful about what role her life experiences have in her decisions, rather than someone who blusters that it has no influence at all. Of course life experiences have an influence. Recognizing that fact and taking it into account is smart -- not evil.

I agree that life experiences inform anybody's judgement. But I think that that is so elemental a fact that it needs not even be mentioned. It is a given. By her comments calling attention to her particular experiences she puts a special emphasis on them and in my mind adds a weight to them that should give pause.

re: #138 iceweasel

Folks, Sotomayor is a moderate and she's also the best justice that any conservative could hope to get...

...from an Obama administration, you mean.

re: #171 reine.de.tout

And those questions, the manner in which they are asked, etc., are more a show for their constituents and party elders, than to elicit information, imo.

This is free election/re-election publicity for most of the politicians asking the questions, on both sides of the aisle.

re: #156 iceweasel

Many people are invested in reading what she has said in a certain way.

People on the left did this too post-2000 about Bush and Cheney, and I didn't like it any better then.

And others are just trying to think it through.

It's an issue because it was reported and talked about in various media. Some have already figured out their "take" on it, but I'm slow, and I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful in any way

re: #161 calcajun

What could have been the motive --and what were these morons thinking when the house had more cameras than a TV studio to monitor the kids.

"Seemingly" robbery. Not much detail given. A safe was taken. Other than that, contents stolen have not been disclosed.

re: #118 Ojoe

But I think she was implying herself.

Hence the "wise Latina" comment made in two different speeches.

re: #164 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Is this the only thing he has the balls to do in life?

Gold man-sacks has blown away the estimates this quarter.

/Please...for the love of beauty...stop this...

re: #5 harrylook

No, she thinks some races have better judgment than others. No problem, huh?

What she does think is that if a test is used for promotion, and if blacks and Hispanics don't do as well as whites and Asians, then the promotions must be revoked.

The intervening words don't matter. The song and dance one goes through to justify this are formulaic. The test had "disparate impact". Well, granted, from one narrow perspective. The test did indeed report disparate readiness for promotion. The test results were not all the same. Let's take what her policy would amount to, if applied to pro basketball.

The connotations here are deliberately deceptive. The test itself had no impact whatsoever. Her reference to "disparate impact" is like saying the tape measure used at basketball tryouts had disparate impact, when according to that tape measure, Asians came up short. The tape measure didn't have any real impact; it was just the instrument reporting a reality: the Asians trying out were in fact shorter.

But the way Judge Sotomayor sees it, unless there happened to be a goodly supply of Yao Mings in the tryout flock, the tape measure will be termed defective (even though everyone knows there's nothing wrong with it, and even if a three-man panel consisting of white, Asian, and Hispanic crafted the tape measure, with meticulous concern to the sensibilities of Asians.)

Anathematizing the tape measure is just verbal cover for policy: no basketball team may use size, or shooting percentage, or any other factor that goes into winning games, as part of its decision about who to sign, if those factors are not present as often in Asians as in others.

Nobody kvetches about allowing merit to decide pro basketball decisions, because the winners in this contest of merit aren't white. But when it comes to firefighters, where lives are on the line, merit doesn't matter. Something more important than life is on the line.

Quotas are on the line, as is the judicial Orwellian smokescreen in which a fog of words is applied to obscure the reality of quotas.

re: #56 calcajun

And none of the bug parts, rodent hairs and roach droppings you normally find in those things.// (I really do not like processed meat unless I see my butcher grind it before my eyes)

Oh, thanks for that!
/pushes aside lunch

re: #101 Athos

I think the questioning by Senators Sessions and Hatch were on point, respectfully done and presented, and generated a welcome reprieve from the boredom of the questions from the other Senators (in particularly Sen. Feinstein).

We should see more of this level of questioning. It is not like the stuff that Bork, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts went through or the fillibustering of Estrada - and that is where the R's differ from the D's.

It is difficult if not impossible to compare the questioning of Republican and Democrat SC nominees and arrive at sound conclusions as to which side is more fair. Since Nixon, there have been only two justices nominated by a Democratic president (three including Sotomayor) compared with ten justices nominated by Republican presidents. The Reagan, Bush and Bush justices were on average much younger than the Democratic justices, and arguably, much further to the right than the Democratic justices were in regard to the left. That Clinton did not nominate young justices, likely to be on the court for decades, seems to be evidence that there was a sort of compromise there, in light of expected difficulties getting a Democratic justice confirmed due to political realities at that time.

re: #177 midwestgak

You do not kill the parents of a platoon of kids and think that no one will notice. These are some dumb criminals.

re: #181 JohnAdams

Like you needed another 6 White Castle burgers anyway./

re: #173 LGoPs

I agree that life experiences inform anybody's judgement. But I think that that is so elemental a fact that it needs not even be mentioned. It is a given. By her comments calling attention to her particular experiences she puts a special emphasis on them and in my mind adds a weight to them that should give pause.

That was the whole point of her speech - examining how background and life experiences influence legal decisions. It keyed off a famous remark by Sandra Day O'Connor: “A wise old woman and a wise old man, at the end of the day, can reach the same conclusion.”

OT: More fun in the sun with libs. More news from
Londonistan. With the new radical leftist "movie star" president New York City will be next. New Yorkistan.

But, my lord, learning the CIA had planes of assassinating Osama Bin Laden under Bush and Cheney is horrifying!
[Link: townhall.com...]

re: #179 experiencedtraveller

Gold man-sacks has blown away the estimates this quarter.

/Please...for the love of beauty...stop this...

They're only doing it to get a rise out of you. For the rest of us, we're left with throbbing head-aches.

OT, but WTH?

Minority Broadcasters Seek Federal Aid

The broadcasters appeal follows a proposal sent in May to Mr. Geithner by a group of influential House members asking for a minority broadcaster support program, bridge funding, or government-backed loans.

And who are these influential House members?

The House letter was signed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) and a group of key committee chairmen, including Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and Oversight Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, (D., N.Y.).

It may be just me, but I'm starting to think that this administration and Congress suck.

Death of US Jihadist in Somalia Shocks Family

The body of Jamal Ahmed Bana, 20, was displayed semi-naked with a bullet hole in his head in Mogadishu at the weekend after battles between al Shabaab insurgents and government forces backed by African Union (AU) troops.

Relatives in Minneapolis identified him from photos on the internet taken by Somali media.

The Somali government says foreign fighters are leading the Islamist insurgency, and there is increasing international concern at the influx of hundreds of jihadists into Somalia -- from Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Gulf region and western nations including the United States and Britain.

Some, like Bana, are immigrants of Somali origin.

Bana was fighting for al Shabaab when he was killed along with roughly 40 other rebels on Saturday, said his uncle, Omar Ahmed Sheikh.

OT:

Ed McMahon died. He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel. He was discharged in 1946 and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the CA Air National Guard.

Farrah Fawcett died after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering.

Michael Jackson died. He was perhaps one of the greatest pop singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also paid out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of young boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation. At one point he converted to islam, and moved in with a middle eastern prince.

QUESTION - Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for today?
(Hint - It wasn't the first two.)

QUESTION - Which of the above's family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama?
(Hint - It wasn't the first two.)

What's wrong with this picture?

re: #174 Kenneth

...from an Obama administration, you mean.

No. She's replacing Souter. Who appointed him? That wacky radical lib GHWB.

Sotomayor is a moderate. Given her actual judicial record, it's quite possible that she'll be as big a shock to Obama as Souter was to GHWB.

re: #170 Charles

She didn't say that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

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.

It doesn't matter if "she’s a sekrit radical judicial activist...". The fact that she said, on multiple occasions, that a persons race and sex gives them the ability to make better decisions than those of other genders or races should disqualify her from ever being any type of judge ever again.

re: #188 subsailor68

OT, but WTH?

Minority Broadcasters Seek Federal Aid

The broadcasters appeal follows a proposal sent in May to Mr. Geithner by a group of influential House members asking for a minority broadcaster support program, bridge funding, or government-backed loans.

And who are these influential House members?

The House letter was signed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) and a group of key committee chairmen, including Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and Oversight Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, (D., N.Y.).

It may be just me, but I'm starting to think that this administration and Congress suck.

It's not just you.

re: #190 Buck

I got that beat. A real hero died last month:

[Link: www.swvatoday.com...]

Sgt. Darrel Powers-- Shifty-- one of the "Band of Brothers" is gone and nary a word spoken in the press.

In other news...

Alex Jones' "Prison Planet" site has now run FIVE articles about the Holdren/Ecoscience story, each time claiming more vociferously that they are the source of the story -- while simultaneously cutting and pasting my exact words from my report and utterly plagiarizing me (and intermingling it with their disturbing brand of lunacy), while also using my scanned images of the book pages without even bothering to change the file names.

The end result is they're seizing control over the story, and it's now being mocked at left-wing sites as an Alex Jones-originated story -- which is inherently discredited because he started it.

Now I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I certainly don't want to claim credit for a story that's printed on Prison Planet, but on the other hand, I don't want them to be identified as the source, since it undermines the story's credibility.

I simply wish Alex Jones had never seen it at all! But it's too late for that. Now I'm screwed.

There's even a running battle between Jones and some lefty site over who scanned the pages -- was it Prison Planet or Fox News?

I might as well just throw in the towel. I give up!

re: #191 iceweasel

See mine up-thread; she is the anti-Souter.

I think its usefully to look at her use of the phrase "better decisions". While there are some cases where the law is truly silent, in the vast majority of questions, there is no "Better" decisions, only right and wrong ones. Right ones, being those affirm the Constitution and Laws of the land as intended, and wrong ones that don't.

The idea that one can make "Better" decisions implies that the law is something to be shaped by the judges. This combined with her other comment about making law/policy (I forget the exact quote) trouble me.

re: #183 calcajun

You do not kill the parents of a platoon of kids and think that no one will notice. These are some dumb criminals.

They are murders who will be prosecuted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty.

Cameras have already proven them guilty. Good.

Rotten bastards.

re: #193 Tricky Dick

It doesn't matter if "she’s a sekrit radical judicial activist...". The fact that she said, on multiple occasions, that a persons race and sex gives them the ability to make better decisions than those of other genders or races should disqualify her from ever being any type of judge ever again.

I took the statement to mean that given equal amounts of "wiseness", someone with a more diverse background in terms of experience would be able to make a better decision "more often than not".

I don't like the way she phrased it. But I'm not sure she's wrong.

re: #192 Wendya

Wow, do you think we might have already heard that quote? Do you think you discovered it.

What if I say that "I would hope that a person with the richness of life experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a another person who hasn't received the benefit of those life experiences."

Would that be OK?

re: #196 zombie

Sit back and watch the train wreck unfold. Take pride in the mayhem you have unleashed, Agent 571.//

re: #196 zombie

That doth sucketh...

Have they asked her anything about Michael Jackson yet?

*ducks*

re: #199 midwestgak

Again--"cameras". Hello? Didn't they notice that the damn things were everywhere when they cased the house, let alone when they raided it?

re: #191 iceweasel

relax a bit... she not a leftist, & I'll admit her record is pretty close to the centre, but if a Republican president was choosing an SC justice, we would get somebody a lot more preferable, and that means conservative, than Sotomayor. Not that this congress would accept such a thing.

re: #196 zombie

Don't despair! (Do you have Photoshop? you can put watermarks into picture files...maybe in the future have all pictures with an embedded watermark?)

re: #196 zombie

You can file a DMCA notice with their web host, and they'll have to take it down.

re: #182 Flyers1974

Clarification - there were more than ten who were nominated by Republican presidents, but only ten who eventually became justices, i.e., Bork.

re: #197 calcajun

See mine up-thread; she is the anti-Souter.

Not really.She is not.

See Charles' posts and comments on this topic, and links.

I plan to avoid LGF until this week is over because I can't handle the misinformation some commenters are spreading. Charles is a welcome source of sanity and reason. The comment threads are not.

Are you going to whine about it when you're a witness this week? "She framed her opinion in a way I didn't like!"

No, but I will point out that she wrote a poor opinion that did not give the issue anything resembling the consideration it deserves.

re: #196 zombie

In other news...

Alex Jones' "Prison Planet" site has now run FIVE articles about the Holdren/Ecoscience story, each time claiming more vociferously that they are the source of the story -- while simultaneously cutting and pasting my exact words from my report and utterly plagiarizing me (and intermingling it with their disturbing brand of lunacy), while also using my scanned images of the book pages without even bothering to change the file names.

The end result is they're seizing control over the story, and it's now being mocked at left-wing sites as an Alex Jones-originated story -- which is inherently discredited because he started it.

Now I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I certainly don't want to claim credit for a story that's printed on Prison Planet, but on the other hand, I don't want them to be identified as the source, since it undermines the story's credibility.

I simply wish Alex Jones had never seen it at all! But it's too late for that. Now I'm screwed.

There's even a running battle between Jones and some lefty site over who scanned the pages -- was it Prison Planet or Fox News?

I might as well just throw in the towel. I give up!

Zombie - don't give up!

Is your article - what is the word - copyrighted? If so, is there some recourse?

Is the name of your blog trademarked? You need to "own" that name.

re: #196 zombie

I might as well just throw in the towel. I give up!

Truth is sadly one of the victims of the Information Revolution.

re: #196 zombie

Ignore Jones. He's insane. It's not worth your frustration.

re: #196 zombie

It's your work, and they have no right to appropriate it.

Raise a fuss. Raise a very large fuss.

This story is - at the very least - in interesting insight. Allowing it to be discredited because of
Alex Jones and his band of lunatics is a bad idea.

re: #210 iceweasel

Not really.She is not.

See Charles' posts and comments on this topic, and links.

I plan to avoid LGF until this week is over because I can't handle the misinformation some commenters are spreading. Charles is a welcome source of sanity and reason. The comment threads are not.

Precisely why you should NOT avoid LGF, if you think that. Be prepared, though . . . and try to stay calm.

The 'wise Latina' comment never bothered me. However her quote that she believes court of appeals justices should make policy; bothers me a lot. That I think is the problem with judicial activism.

re: #142 BlueCanuck

Actually he could probably make it better with a chair throwing brawl...

/

Buzzsaw already wrote a better script than a Springer chair throwing episode. Remember he had her leaping onto the table, hiking up her skirts, shouting 'Whoopee!' and kicking over the water pitcher? Now there we have a happening SCOTUS hearing.

re: #208 Charles

You can file a DMCA notice with their web host, and they'll have to take it down.

/Proving zombie is in on The Conspiracy to steal or vital bodily fluids. Du-uh!

re: #168 Thanos

The more the R's choose to dwell on the race comment, the more we lose purchase and sway with average Amercans, so I don't know why folks are doing it, you are really just serving the left when you do that.

Not only is it a losing issue, it's based on a selective misreading of her statements and ignores the many times that she's qualified and even renounced those particular out of context words. This is what she said today:

Sotomayor said she does agree with O’Connor and that, although personal history helped shape a person and their view of the world, that experience cannot trump the law. The confusion, she said, was caused by a poorly worded speech. In her speech, she said, she attempted a “rhetorical flourish” on O’Connor’s words, but that play on words didn’t work.

“My play fell flat,” she said. “It was bad.”

As she said earlier, Sotomayor said she was just trying to inspire young Latinos and to let them know that their personal backgrounds had real value. Sessions said he remained unconvinced.

"Can you explain why you believe the Second Amendment does not apply to States, given the long standing and seemingly irrevocable precedent of the Court that the all of the fundamental rights enunciated in the first eight amendments are binding upon the States themselves?"

re: #180 lostlakehiker

Your analogy with a tape measure isn't particularly apt. Test scoring, in the case of essays, can certainly be a subjective exercise; and test taking, in the interpretation of what question is being asked, has been shown countless times to be affected by race, economic background and other discernible differences.

More importantly, though, Sotomayor wasn't alone in her judgment in this case; two other judges on the panel agreed with her, making the decision unanimous. And her decision was based on upholding city law, which required exactly the ruling the appeals court handed down - exactly the sort of constructionist judge who follows the law rather than making new law from the bench that Conservatives have demanded for years. Even the Supreme's was close - a 5-4 margin.

Would you be happier if the appeals court, including Sotomayor, had voted to overturn New Haven's law that was put in place by it's duly elected officials?

I'm just not seeing how the New Haven case is even slightly pertinent; it's exactly the kind of decision Conservatives would be loudly praising had it been made by one of their nominees, and it would have been cited as a primary reason for them to make such a nomination in the first place.

re: #159 SixDegrees

Maybe instead of confirmation hearings we could switch to the much more popular Confirmation Cage Match. Let both parties nominate their candidate, then lock 'em in. Two enter, one leaves.

I wonder how Sotomayor would fare against Harriet Miers?

In the mud , in a bikini, Helen Thomas her tag team partner.

Kidding aside, thats what it's become. Witness Charles ongoing comments in this thread. She made a statement in a speech. What she said gets twisted to fit a narrative. She, today, defined or redefined what she meant.
Considering others made the statement an issue that is her prerogative.
And it starts again.
Reps. and Dems. both do it and call it spin.
I call it lying.
I don't like many of her opinions, but I have a violent dislike of liars.

re: #214 Kenneth

Ignore Jones. He's insane. It's not worth your frustration.

Forget the ignore. Go the DMCA route. It might force him to take down all those postings and related information over copyright infringement under Title 2 of the DMCA.

Wow, have you see the "O' get snubbed in Russian big time?

re: #219 NoWhereAlaska

The 'wise Latina' comment never bothered me. However her quote that she believes court of appeals justices should make policy; bothers me a lot.

She never said that either.

She was discussing the fact that court decisions influence policy. And she's right -- that's just an obvious fact. She was not saying that court decisions should make the policy.

re: #196 zombie

irritating in the extreme

re: #185 Charles

That was the whole point of her speech - examining how background and life experiences influence legal decisions. It keyed off a famous remark by Sandra Day O'Connor: “A wise old woman and a wise old man, at the end of the day, can reach the same conclusion.”

To which Sotomayor added, "I am also not so sure that I agree with [O'Connor's] statement. ... 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."

She keyed off the remark in order to disagree with it and contradict it.

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey

Then again, if zombie has an agent, they might be able to do it on zombie's behalf.

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey

DMCA notices are only temporary, and may also require disclosure of the complainant's identity.

Oh, that's right. Never mind.

re: #191 iceweasel

Given her actual judicial record, it's quite possible that she'll be as big a shock to Obama as Souter was to GHWB.

It will be interesting to see her views on various issues when she is dealing with the constitution vs prior precedent. Her job isn't going to be supporting prior precedent from the SCOTUS.

re: #218 reine.de.tout

Precisely why you should NOT avoid LGF, if you think that. Be prepared, though . . . and try to stay calm.

There is too much misinformation about this issue that is too widely accepted. Just look at the comments.

I've no doubt that Charles and others can (and will) refute it superbly well, as evidenced by 222 above.

re: #92 CyanSnowHawk

And the administration goes Round and Round.

I have questions which the MSM and others should be asking:

What is the yearly wage of these new czars?
What is Rattner's severance pay?
What benefits and compensation do they get when they quit?
Are they eligible for unemployment after six months?

What are the czars going to cost us in the next four years?

re: #210 iceweasel

I said she might be. The issue about what an Associate Justice will and won't do is more a function of political theater than actually plumbing the depths of the soul of the nominee. Of course the lady is qualified to be a jurist--she would have never made it to the Appellate bench otherwise. She is equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. How she will rule in given circumstances is not good and really immaterial. In many cases, there have been nominees who have "gone the other way" from the administration which nominated them. Chief Justice Warren, Hugo Black, David Souter, all spring to mind. It is possible that Sotomayor might do the same. Only time will tell.

re: #217 buzzsawmonkey

Unfortunately, your own necessary anonymity requirements forestall your having obtained copyright registration protection, since even works published anonymously or pseudonymously require disclosure of the actual copyright holder's name in the registration process. This prevents you from taking legal action against Jones for his blatant theft, and the best you can do is publicize the theft.

I attended a copyright workshop last weekend, and the leader said that a work is copyrighted once it's in fixed and tangible form (i.e., written down). The registration requirement was done away with quite some time ago (IIRC, Jan. 1, 1978).

How about that Florida home invasion murder case? Wow

re: #229 Charles

She never said that either.

She was discussing the fact that court decisions influence policy. And she's right -- that's just an obvious fact. She was not saying that court decisions should make the policy.

Do you have the quote from the Duke University forum. I heard in on CNN, and it sure sounded like Judicial Activism to me.

re: #236 iceweasel

There is too much misinformation about this issue that is too widely accepted. Just look at the comments.

I've no doubt that Charles and others can (and will) refute it superbly well, as evidenced by 222 above.

I see some idiotic comments.

I see many others where people are trying to work through the issue, and all I'm saying is that additional information and points of view might be helpful.

re: #225 SixDegrees

No, the Ricci case is pertinent because of how the Second Circuit and Sotomayor reached their decision. The decision and that it was reversed is unremarkable. That kind of thing happens all the time. What is unusual is that Sotomayor didn't expound at length on Ricci, when the district court and Supreme Court found quite a bit to discuss (the S.Ct. opinion is 100 pages). Sotomayor's ruling was 1 page.

re: #176 reine.de.tout

And others are just trying to think it through.

It's an issue because it was reported and talked about in various media. Some have already figured out their "take" on it, but I'm slow, and I'm still trying to figure out if it's meaningful in any way

I will let her actions speak louder than her words.

re: #222 Charles

The "racism" charge is a political strategy that the GOP establishment thinks is a winner, but it's really a tone-deaf misreading of public opinion.

(Who's better on race issues: a black president & a Latina judge, or a party of Old White Dudes? Hmmm...tough call.)

The GOP should stick to judicial & philosophical issues. The "wise Latina" comment can be used in support of an attack on that front, but it should not be made the centerpiece. It's a game looser.

re: #190 Buck

That's just wrong, doesn't surprise me though.

re: #241 NoWhereAlaska

Do you have the quote from the Duke University forum. I heard in on CNN, and it sure sounded like Judicial Activism to me.

Perhaps you should go find that quote, since it's one you want to discuss.

re: #234 Iron Fist

I hope you are right, but I think you are wrong. I think the people who will be surprised by her are the people who think she is a moderate. What she says in her confirmation hearing is meaningless. It will be pap tailored to not piss anyone off. No one is going to ask her any hard questions (let alone make up a "sexual harassment" (what a fucking joke. After Clinton, there should be no "sexual harassment" charges ever again) accusation out of whole cloth and try to lynch her on the Senate floor). It is over and done. I don't know why anyone is even bothering with it.

I'd agree with everything you're saying, and the reason I think she's a moderate is all because of her prior legal opinions.

Her speeches are meaningless. Her comments at the confirmation are meaningless.

her legal history indicates she isn't a flaming lib, and she's nothing for the right to be worried about.

re: #202 calcajun

Take pride in the mayhem you have unleashed, Agent 571.//

Or, was that, Agent 99 ?

re: #238 calcajun

In many cases, there have been nominees who have "gone the other way" from the administration which nominated them. Chief Justice Warren, Hugo Black, David Souter, all spring to mind. It is possible that Sotomayor might do the same. Only time will tell.

However they all go left. That is because of the "approval" they receive from Law journals, academia, the MSM, and speaking fees. The issue of why judges drift leftward has been written about rather extensively.

re: #249 freetoken

Or, was that, Agent 99 ?

who was originally going to be agent 69

re: #196 zombie

In other news...

Alex Jones' "Prison Planet" site has now run FIVE articles about the Holdren/Ecoscience story, each time claiming more vociferously that they are the source of the story -- while simultaneously cutting and pasting my exact words from my report and utterly plagiarizing me (and intermingling it with their disturbing brand of lunacy), while also using my scanned images of the book pages without even bothering to change the file names.

The end result is they're seizing control over the story, and it's now being mocked at left-wing sites as an Alex Jones-originated story -- which is inherently discredited because he started it.

Now I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I certainly don't want to claim credit for a story that's printed on Prison Planet, but on the other hand, I don't want them to be identified as the source, since it undermines the story's credibility.

I simply wish Alex Jones had never seen it at all! But it's too late for that. Now I'm screwed.

There's even a running battle between Jones and some lefty site over who scanned the pages -- was it Prison Planet or Fox News?

I might as well just throw in the towel. I give up!

Contact an attorney. An initial consultation usually won't cost you anything. Ask, first, if they have expertise in intellectual property disputes, which can be tricky to prosecute if it comes to that.

Normally, however, a strongly worded letter from an attorney usually has the desired effect, if all you want is for them to stop and give you credit. And it won't cost much. If you want to collect damages - and it sounds as though you may have a case for such an action - then it may cost you more, since most people are willing to desist or take actions that don't cost them anything, but are more reluctant to comply when it involves writing a check.

But it would be worth your time to explore the matter.

re: #249 freetoken

TV trivia-- The character's name was originally Agent 69 (thanks, Mel Brooks and Buck Henry) but the NBC censors nixed that idea.

re: #244 Eowyn2

I will let her actions speak louder than her words.

Yes, I think that's what we need to wait for.
Sotomayer is going to be confirmed, there is no doubt about it.
She has a record which we've seen; she's made statements, some of them clumsy, which we've heard; she's very calm and cool in these hearings, and will choose her words very carefully.

I'm wary because obviously I'm a conservative and she is not; but I'm not going to like or dislike her until I see what she actually does.

re: #227 lawhawk

I just can't see that anybody who is serious takes Alex Jones seriously. He's about as credible as the guy I pass on the corner muttering into his boot about spiders in his brain.

But what do I know?

re: #250 pat

Hugo Black did not go "left" as you put it.

I am sick and tired of only hearing about race, ethnic background, etc.

Those things do NOT address the character of the person. The decision to confirm her was a done deal from the moment she was nominated.

Our representative government is not representative of the people.

re: #245 Kenneth

Jeffrey Toobin (iirc) remarked that there were two ways (the opponents) could go -- they could either address her public remarks made during speeches OR they could address substantive issues (ie, her decisions made on the bench). I believe the latter is far more appropriate than the former.

re: #201 Buck

Wow, do you think we might have already heard that quote? Do you think you discovered it.

What if I say that "I would hope that a person with the richness of life experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a another person who hasn't received the benefit of those life experiences."

Would that be OK?

I think some of you haven't actually read the quote.

Do I have to be black to understand the law says it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race? Do I have to be a white male to see the problems in a law that invalidates my promotion because I'm not the right color? Should cases involving women only be decided by women because men haven't had the life experiences of a woman?

Substituting emotions for law is a dangerous road.

well, gee, if you knew it wouldn't be sekrit, would it?

/