TwitterFacebook

Jump to bottom

432 comments

1 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:18:53am

Just confirm her already! End the torture, please.

2 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:18:54am

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

3 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:19:32am
4 redshirt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:20:13am

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.

5 harrylook  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:20:52am

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

6 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:21:12am

re: #5 harrylook

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

She never said anything like that.

7 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:21:44am

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

8 albusteve  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:22:07am

re: #1 zombie

Just confirm her already! End the torture, please.

my exact sentiment

9 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:22:08am

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).

10 S'latch  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:22:52am

Maybe she is a sekrit strict constitutional constructionist.

11 Wasta  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:23:24am

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

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

12 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:23:25am

Repost from last thread

Just a drive by question: Was Sotomayor on the Puerto Rican gymnastics team?
13 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:23:48am

re: #10 Lawrence Schmerel

Maybe she is a sekrit strict constitutional constructionist.

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Just sayin...

14 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:23:55am

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.

15 Athos  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:24:23am

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.

16 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:24:32am

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

17 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:24:51am

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

18 turn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:24:52am

re: #7 CIA Reject

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

19 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:25:31am

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.

20 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:25:40am

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.

21 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:26:30am

re: #18 turn

fnqyl, lrf

22 MandyManners  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:27:10am
23 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:27:29am

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...

24 harrylook  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:27:36am

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.

25 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:27:44am

She's fillibustering.

26 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:08am

re: #23 Charles

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

27 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:23am

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.

28 KingKenrod  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:31am

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.

29 Dianna  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:37am

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?

30 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:38am

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.

31 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:28:44am

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...

32 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:29:02am

interesting : challenge to cap and trade under commerce clause?

33 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:29:28am

re: #27 zombie

I think HUffPo posted video of her wise Latina thing.

34 Dianna  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:29:48am

re: #32 Thanos

interesting : challenge to cap and trade under commerce clause?

How about under "common sense"?

35 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:29:53am

re: #24 harrylook

Word to the Unwise, harry:

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

36 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:29:54am

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.

37 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:10am

I thought seekrit was spelled using two e's?

38 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:20am

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.

39 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:49am

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.

40 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:50am

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.

41 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:55am

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?)

42 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:30:59am

re: #24 harrylook

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

It's called "reading."

43 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:31:14am
44 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:32:58am

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.

45 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:33:21am

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.

//

46 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:33:48am

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.

47 Athos  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:34:22am

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.

48 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:34:23am

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

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

Somehow I don't relish that idea...

49 turn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:34:55am

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.

50 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:35:59am

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.

51 saylorfam  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:36:10am

re: #49 turn

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

52 harrylook  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:36:31am

"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.

53 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:37:00am

Hear the words of a wise Latina.

(I'm so tired of this)

54 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:37:01am

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.

55 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:37:21am

re: #50 Charles

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

FTFY

56 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:37:57am

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)

57 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:37:59am

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:

58 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:38:35am

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.

59 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:39:02am

"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.

60 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:39:05am

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!

61 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:39:43am

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.

62 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:39:48am

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.

63 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:39:53am

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! :-)

64 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:40:07am

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.

65 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:01am

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

LOL

66 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:01am

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. ///

67 MandyManners  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:18am

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

68 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:28am

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.

69 CIA Reject  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:38am

re: #66 calcajun

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

And with that... It's LUNCHTIME!

70 harrylook  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:38am

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.

71 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:46am

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.

72 StillAMarine  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:48am

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 ...

73 experiencedtraveller  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:41:54am

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.

74 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:42:04am

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...

75 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:42:24am

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.

76 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:42:44am
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.

77 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:43:06am

re: #69 CIA Reject

And with that... It's LUNCHTIME!

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

78 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:43:39am

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.

79 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:43:47am

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.

80 turn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:44:11am

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.

81 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:44:16am

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.

82 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:44:18am

We are foolish Anglos I suppose.

Poor in our experience of life.

That must be it.

83 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:44:45am
84 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:45:11am

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.

85 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:45:33am

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.

86 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:45:53am

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

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

87 soxfan4life  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:46:20am

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...]

88 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:47:18am

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.

89 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:47:26am

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.

90 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:47:32am

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.

91 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:47:40am

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.

92 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:48:11am

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.

93 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:48:15am

re: #90 lawhawk

Ooops. Meant a replacement to Souter, not Breyer.

94 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:48:25am

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.

95 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:48:50am

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 . . .

96 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:49:00am
97 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:49:16am

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.

98 harrylook  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:49:21am

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.

99 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:49:41am

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

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

thank you.

100 Silvergirl  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:50:49am

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.

101 Athos  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:50:52am

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.

102 Athos  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:07am

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?

103 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:19am
104 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:35am

behold the musings of a "Wise Latina."

105 midwestgak  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:38am

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

106 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:38am
107 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:52:55am

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.

108 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:53:10am

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

109 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:53:31am

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

110 opnion  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:53:46am

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.

111 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:53:51am

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.

112 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:53:55am

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.

113 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:54:09am

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?

114 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:54:13am

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

115 jcm  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:54:26am

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

116 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:55:03am

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

117 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:55:11am

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.

118 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:56:06am

re: #107 Charles

But I think she was implying herself.

119 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:56:53am
120 garden18  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:57:42am

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.

121 Silvergirl  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:58:23am

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?

122 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:58:45am

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.

123 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:58:53am

re: #115 jcm

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

-- Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr.

124 StillAMarine  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 9:59:25am

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.

125 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:00:34am

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.

126 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:00:42am

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.

127 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:01:05am
128 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:01:18am

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?

129 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:02:00am

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.

130 Athos  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:02:24am

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.

131 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:03:22am
132 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:03:29am

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.

133 poteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:03:41am

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.

134 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:03:53am

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.

135 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:04:59am

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.

136 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:05:11am

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.

137 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:05:36am

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.

138 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:05:37am

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.

139 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:06:02am

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.

140 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:06:20am

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.

141 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:06:22am

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

142 BlueCanuck  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:06:41am

re: #133 poteen

Jerry Springer couldn't make it worse.

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

/

143 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:06:43am

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.

144 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:07:02am

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.

145 garden18  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:07:04am

re: #127 buzzsawmonkey

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

146 Rexatosis  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:07:09am

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).

147 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:07:23am

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.

148 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:07:25am

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.

149 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:08:40am

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.

150 garden18  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:09:19am

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.

151 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:09:40am
152 poteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:09:46am

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.

153 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:10:13am

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.

154 midwestgak  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:11:06am

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.

155 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:11:27am

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...

156 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:11:43am

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.

157 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:12:19am

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.

158 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:12:40am

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.

159 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:13:14am

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?

160 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:13:29am
161 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:13:38am

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.

162 Adrenalyn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:13:59am

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

163 freetoken  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:14:24am

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.

164 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:14:35am

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?

165 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:14:38am

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.

166 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:14:43am

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'.

167 Adrenalyn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:15:06am

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

168 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:15:11am

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.

169 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:15:15am

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.

170 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:15:45am

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.

171 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:16:23am

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.

172 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:17:52am

bbl

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

173 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:18:00am

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.

174 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:18:11am

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.

175 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:18:33am

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.

176 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:18:44am

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

177 midwestgak  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:19:03am

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.

178 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:19:08am

re: #118 Ojoe

But I think she was implying herself.

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

179 experiencedtraveller  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:19:32am

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...

180 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:19:50am

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.

181 JohnAdams  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:20:21am

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

182 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:21:09am

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.

183 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:22:19am

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.

184 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:22:58am

re: #181 JohnAdams

Like you needed another 6 White Castle burgers anyway./

185 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:23:44am

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.”

186 hous bin pharteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:23:45am

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...]

187 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:23:58am

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.

188 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:24:00am

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.

189 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:24:06am

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.

190 Buck  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:24:13am

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?

191 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:24:36am

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.

192 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:24:48am

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.
193 Tricky Dick  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:25:58am

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.

194 JohnAdams  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:26:24am

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.

195 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:26:40am

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.

196 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:26:57am

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!

197 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:27:21am

re: #191 iceweasel

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

198 JustABill  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:27:49am

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.

199 midwestgak  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:28:03am

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.

200 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:28:28am

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.

201 Buck  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:28:33am

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?

202 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:28:35am

re: #196 zombie

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

203 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:28:54am

re: #196 zombie

That doth sucketh...

204 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:29:13am

Have they asked her anything about Michael Jackson yet?

*ducks*

205 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:29:58am

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?

206 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:30:21am

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.

207 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:30:24am

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?)

208 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:30:47am

re: #196 zombie

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

209 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:30:51am

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.

210 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:04am

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.

211 LC LaWedgie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:07am
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.

212 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:10am

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.

213 JohnAdams  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:13am

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.

214 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:33am

re: #196 zombie

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

215 Dianna  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:35am

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.

216 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:37am
217 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:31:57am
218 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:32:51am

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.

219 NoWhereAlaska  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:33:14am

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.

220 Silvergirl  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:33:24am

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.

221 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:33:50am

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!

222 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:34:03am

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.

223 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:34:48am
224 pat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:35:15am

"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?"

225 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:35:27am

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.

226 poteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:35:29am

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.

227 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:35:49am

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.

228 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:36:29am

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

229 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:36:31am

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.

230 pat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:36:33am

re: #196 zombie

irritating in the extreme

231 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:36:53am

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.

232 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:36:57am

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey

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

233 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:37:01am

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey

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

Oh, that's right. Never mind.

234 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:37:18am
235 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:37:39am

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.

236 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:37:43am

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.

237 Eowyn2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:38:03am

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?

238 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:38:21am

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.

239 aggieann  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:38:31am

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).

240 pat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:38:54am

How about that Florida home invasion murder case? Wow

241 NoWhereAlaska  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:39:04am

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.

242 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:39:52am

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.

243 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:39:54am

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.

244 Eowyn2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:40:10am

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.

245 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:40:32am

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.

246 sngnsgt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:40:37am

re: #190 Buck

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

247 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:40:42am

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.

248 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:41:04am

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.

249 freetoken  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:41:14am

re: #202 calcajun

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

Or, was that, Agent 99 ?

250 pat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:42:16am

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.

251 Eowyn2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:42:16am

re: #249 freetoken

Or, was that, Agent 99 ?

who was originally going to be agent 69

252 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:43:00am

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.

253 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:43:11am

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.

254 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:43:15am

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.

255 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:43:22am

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?

256 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:43:51am

re: #250 pat

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

257 HippieforLife  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:44:05am

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.

258 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:45:07am

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.

259 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:45:27am
260 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:45:32am

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.

261 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:45:50am

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

/

262 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:45:51am

re: #252 SixDegrees

Is it possible a legal response might force zombie out of the closet? It likes it's anonymity. If Jones uses a lawsuit to unveil zombie, it could have undesirable consequences. That of course, must be foremost on zombie's mind.

263 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:46:03am

Another interesting example of government fiscal responsibility:

Rural air travel subsidies gain big budget boost

A much-criticized subsidy for rural air travel would get a budget increase of more than 40 percent under a spending bill unveiled in the House on Monday.

Gee, are there any examples of these kind of routes?

In many cases the flights are nearly empty. In other instances, such as flights between Buffalo Niagara International Airport and Jamestown, N.Y., just 76 miles away, it's quicker to drive than fly.

Oh. Thanks.

264 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:46:15am

re: #208 Charles

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

Yeah, but that would create a paper trail back to the real me. (Can't file a DMCA notice under a pseudonym.) Then Jones would focus on me as one of the pilots of the Black Helicopters trying to suppress teh TRUTH!

I'm just going to let it slide and take my lumps.

Also, I think Hannity may mention it later this week (there's a hint on his Web site), and I'm sure he'll claim credit too.

It's not that I personally want "credit" -- after all, I point out in my essay that FrontPage broke the story, not me -- it's that I don't want known exaggerators to claim credit either, since they're poisoning the well.

The Internet is a big ugly Wild-West kinda place. I should be used to it by now.

Must assume lotus position. Meditate on the falling leaves...

265 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:46:33am

re: #258 J.S.

Well said. But the GOP chose the worse strategy. What a surprise.

266 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:09am

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey

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

re: #233 Charles

Oh, that's right. Never mind.

Yes. Sorry I took so long to type my comment #264. Got beat to the punch

267 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:17am

re: #190 Buck

What's wrong with this picture?

The Congress didn't stage a wardrobe malfunction during the press conference? /

LaToya didn't get stimulus money for reporting Mr. Mustard did it in the parlor with Demerol? /

Bubbles is not Pricilla Presley's biological child? /

268 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:32am
269 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:35am

re: #208 Charles

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

DCMA's take real names at least with Google I found out.

270 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:41am

re: #255 Kenneth

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?

Hey! How do you know I don't have spiders in my brain...?
/ :)

271 3 wood  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:47:55am

re: #71 lawhawk

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.


They are trying to change the level of expectations cause they now know their policy is a failure.

For anyone who was holding out hope that somehow Obama knew what he was doing and that it would somehow turn out OK, Obama himself is now telling you that you were wrong to hold that hope.

That is also why they are trying to get their health care debacle through as fat as possible, before the public wakes up and they lose their political cover.

Also, I expect Bush to get blamed even more now.

272 Gavriel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:48:02am

re: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/171/7394478 NoWhereAlaska

talked with a friend in Juneau. He will be getting the inside story next week. I will let you know what I find out. Sorry though it will take a few days. Stay tuned folks.

Hello Did you ever get that inside story?

273 NoWhereAlaska  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:48:08am

re: #247 reine.de.tout

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

okay:
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

274 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:48:14am

re: #212 reine.de.tout

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.

No, no, and no. No trademark, no copyright, no recourse.

It's not a big deal. Just a bit annoying.

275 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:48:24am

re: #196 zombie


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

Really?

Where?

Links?

Sorry. In my experience it's being mocked at 'left wing' sites because of what it says-- not because of Alex Jones. Although it does add a little bit of joy that alex jones is pushing it!

276 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:48:47am

re: #214 Kenneth

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

Totally agree. Best comment yet.

277 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:50:05am

Charles

That was a pretty embarressing snub I link in my ealier posting if you haven't seen it.

278 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:50:07am

re: #233 Charles

Oh, that's right. Never mind.

It might be worth a try, to see if they'll honor the request without revealing your identity. I had a similar experience not long ago - a photo from my web site was plastered all over someone else's page. I emailed the hosting service, told them my story and asked them to take it down. They emailed me back a short form to fill out to firm up the claim, then sent the offender an email that basically said, "We have been informed that such-and-such a picture on such-and-such a page of your site belongs to someone else, who has contacted us and requested that it be removed. We have determined that this person is the rightful owner, and have removed the work from our servers. If you wish to dispute this decision, contact us at...". All without ever disclosing who I was, although I had to include that information on the form.

I still think a short consultation with an attorney is in order.

279 NoWhereAlaska  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:50:15am

re: #273 NoWhereAlaska
Based on that, it sounds like she believes the court should make policy, (*wink, wink* but I didn't really say that.)

280 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:50:55am

re: #273 NoWhereAlaska

okay:
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

It's the part after the part you bolded that's important. Her first choice of words was very clumsy, and she knew it, and came back and clarified somewhat.

281 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:50:57am

re: #274 zombie

No, no, and no. No trademark, no copyright, no recourse.

It's not a big deal. Just a bit annoying.

[Link: creativecommons.org...]

Creative Commons. Won't keep people from stealing, but it's your best bet for future action.

282 albusteve  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:52:08am

re: #277 filetandrelease

Charles

That was a pretty embarressing snub I link in my ealier posting if you haven't seen it.

I did...wow!... that few seconds says alot imo

283 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:52:13am
284 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:52:31am

re: #215 Dianna

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.

Well, the truth is, there is a MUCH larger meme in the blogosphere that it is indeed my story. I've gotten over 6,000 (and probably many more) direct blog links to the post at zombietime, and I think there's only around 400 links to the Jones story -- so he's losing the information race. But of course the people who want to discredit the story are focusing on the Jones versions, and ignoring mine.

It's not worth pursuing, I think. Let the chips fall where they may.

I threw an incendiary essay out there, I should expect this kind of reaction.

285 turn  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:52:45am

re: #274 zombie

No, no, and no. No trademark, no copyright, no recourse.

It's not a big deal. Just a bit annoying.

I don't know much about Alex Jones zomb but maybe you can disguise your voice, call into his radio show, and bitch him out for ripping you off.

286 NoWhereAlaska  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:52:54am

re: #280 reine.de.tout

It's the part after the part you bolded that's important. Her first choice of words was very clumsy, and she knew it, and came back and clarified somewhat.

I disagree, it sounded to me as if, knowing it was on tape she had to deny that she had said it, and the folks there understood by their laughter, what she was doing.

287 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:53:04am

re: #276 zombie

but what about WaterMarks? (with Photoshop you can batch process a number of files...you could have it stamped "ZombieTimes" or whatever...and, apparently, it's a real pain to remove the Watermark..)

288 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:53:36am

re: #257 HippieforLife

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.

According to polling, the people, in this case, are solidly behind Sotomayor's confirmation.

The current government isn't particularly to my individual liking, but that's how people voted. Not the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last. If I want someone who represents my views more closely, someone else needs to win the next election. At which time a whole 'nother fraction of the country will feel left out.

289 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:53:47am

re: #217 buzzsawmonkey

Zombie, the thing to remember is that you constructed the story with references to Holdren's actual work. Thus, the story stands on its own as fact despite the Jones piracy--and therefore (hopefully) will continue to have an effect despite Jones trying to misappropriate it.

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.

Yup. You hit all the nails on the head.

This is the price I must pay for not using my real named on zombietime. I've come to accept it.

290 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:53:48am

re: #282 albusteve

I did...wow!... that few seconds says alot imo

Especially with the hush hush over here.

291 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:53:53am

re: #274 zombie

No, no, and no. No trademark, no copyright, no recourse.

It's not a big deal. Just a bit annoying.

One thing you could do - A. Jones invariably mail spams his kookspiracies under various guises, get one of those and forward to Snopes.com with your story and links.

292 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:54:45am

re: #221 Kenneth

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

Exactly. If I try to suppress my own story, I'm obviously part of the conspiracy!

293 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:54:58am

re: #260 Wendya

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.

It'd be a bit like trying to row a boat after someone took a saw-to-my-oar.
/

294 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:55:08am

How did I suddenly fall so far behind on this thread?

295 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:55:11am

re: #283 buzzsawmonkey

Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to destroying copyright protection, and to conning fools into giving away their rights.

Sure.

296 Lee Coller  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:55:35am

The fact that we're arguing over exactly what kind of Justice she will be bodes well. I want her to be confirmed, simply because I cannot believe anyone else Obama would nominate would be any better.

So who are we waiting for? Erwin Chemerinsky to be nominated. We wouldn't be having debates about the kind of justice he would be.

297 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:55:43am

I'm sure I'll be charged with "defending" Sotomayor after some of the comments I've posted, but please note: I'm simply calling this as I see it, and I don't see a radical leftist in Sotomayor. She leans left on some issues, but she leans right on others.

If I thought she was a judicial activist in reality, I'd be right there calling for her confirmation to be denied. I just don't like seeing some of the misinformation that's going around about her. I don't like this kind of stuff when the left does it, and I'm not any fonder of it coming from the right.

298 JustABill  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:55:52am

I am not an expert in such things, but I know that corporations can be parties in legal matters. Would it be possible for Zombie to incorporate anonymously? That way "Undead, inc" could take whatever legal action was called for.

299 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:56:40am

re: #277 filetandrelease

Charles

That was a pretty embarressing snub I link in my ealier posting if you haven't seen it.

At least they didn't give him the finger like he did to Hillary. Shows they have more class than he does.

300 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:57:30am

re: #283 buzzsawmonkey

Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to destroying copyright protection, and to conning fools into giving away their rights.

"About" Creative Commons:

Creative Commons needs your support to help build a participatory culture, in which everyone can actively engage in the creativity that surrounds us.

Sounds like you're spot on.

301 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:58:34am

re: #262 Kenneth

Is it possible a legal response might force zombie out of the closet? It likes it's anonymity. If Jones uses a lawsuit to unveil zombie, it could have undesirable consequences. That of course, must be foremost on zombie's mind.

There's no need for it to do so. If anonymity is threatened, or is an impediment to a suit going forward, zombie can simply drop the case, at worst.

As noted, if damages aren't being sought, the nasty letter is usually enough to gain compliance with a request to remove the materials and/or give credit. Everything gets handled in a nice informal way, and nobody gets their hair mussed. Moving beyond that point, things may get ugly.

302 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:58:43am

re: #299 LGoPs

At least they didn't give him the finger like he did to Hillary. Shows they have more class than he does.

Not to mention they did it to his face with no abiguity.

303 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:59:08am

re: #232 lawhawk

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

I had an agency, but they went belly up. (Actually, the company was bought by Getty Images, making me an official Getty Images contributing photographer for a while. But then Getty had financial problems [really], and shut down the company.) Ugh.

304 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 10:59:29am

LOL, I can't type today.

305 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:00:08am

re: #280 reine.de.tout

It's the part after the part you bolded that's important. Her first choice of words was very clumsy, and she knew it, and came back and clarified somewhat.

Doesn't that come across to you from the video as a little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge"? As in ... We're not supposed to admit to anyone that we "make law" because it's not PC, but just between us, that's what really happens.

306 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:00:40am
307 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:00:45am

rejoining

308 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:00:55am

re: #228 filetandrelease

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

Sorry, but you misunderstand what was happening...

Obama was introducing his staff to Medvedev. He wasn't being snubbed, he was pointing then out to Medvedev. Sheesh.

309 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:00:57am

re: #305 eschew_obfuscation

Doesn't that come across to you from the video as a little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge"? As in ... We're not supposed to admit to anyone that we "make law" because it's not PC, but just between us, that's what really happens.

That's my impression ... a "just between us kids (wink wink)" moment.

Not that it makes any difference.

310 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:07am

blegh leahy...

311 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:33am

Grasle up now

312 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:35am

re: #236 iceweasel

I could be wrong, but I interpreted think the gentleman's "anti-souter" remark as supporting the position that she is not as liberal as many would believe.

313 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:40am

re: #252 SixDegrees

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.

As I pointed out in earlier comments -- sorry. I don't want to create a paper trail back to the real me. And also, I don't want credit -- I simply want them to stop claiming original authorship.

314 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:43am

re: #283 buzzsawmonkey

Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to destroying copyright protection, and to conning fools into giving away their rights.

Indeed they are. Stay as far away from them as possible. They're part of the same fruitcake as open-source nutcase Dick Stallman.

315 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:01:52am

Hello, Lizardpeople!

316 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:02:07am

I hope Medvedev and the TOTUS had time to toss back a couple of vodkas and get some bidness done.

/

317 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:02:18am

Private property question, this is good.

318 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:02:27am

re: #305 eschew_obfuscation

Doesn't that come across to you from the video as a little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge"? As in ... We're not supposed to admit to anyone that we "make law" because it's not PC, but just between us, that's what really happens.

No, it didn't come across to me that way. Perhaps because I have done similar things so often in my own life, said something in a clumsy way that was not truly indicative of what I meant to say, then laughing about it and clarifying it. I would be surprised if there were anybody here who had never done that.

319 Dianna  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:03:08am

re: #284 zombie

It is your business, of course. But nothing makes me as angry as the appropriation of someone else's work.

320 jwb7605  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:03:12am

Much is being made of one of Sotomayer's overturned decisions (the firefighter case), and I've heard there are five or six others.

I wanted to know in general what she got overturned for, so after a bit of digging I found this article:
sotomayers_rulings_dont_fare_well_on_appeal

As far as the 'emotional' arguments go, I observe that we're all racists to some degree or another, and life experiences do affect all people's decisions. If they don't, you're not paying attention to your life.

Having said that, I'm unimpressed with her logic overall on the cases.
This is a situation where there's a 5-to-4 chance that her decisions will, in fact, set policy and precedent for future cases.

321 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:03:17am

re: #308 Kenneth

Sorry, but you misunderstand what was happening...

Obama was introducing his staff to Medvedev. He wasn't being snubbed, he was pointing then out to Medvedev. Sheesh.

So Gateway Pundit is just playing a little joke? Got me.

322 SFGoth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:04:14am

She'll be confirmed. The Republican Party, bringing this country to greatness once egotistical fuck-up after another.

323 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:04:32am

Kelo! Kelo! Kelo!

324 albusteve  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:04:32am

re: #308 Kenneth

Sorry, but you misunderstand what was happening...

Obama was introducing his staff to Medvedev. He wasn't being snubbed, he was pointing then out to Medvedev. Sheesh.

well there you are...thanks

325 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:04:48am

re: #297 Charles

CNN's Lou Dobbs last night had on a legal person who stated the following:

ABRAMS: Wendy, I'm glad you're not on the court to decide what the constitution means. I mean, in the cases she's had, she's had, what, 83 percent of the cases she's had in which people claimed a race violation, she's voted against them. 94 percent of the cases in which criminal defendants appealed, she voted for the government. I mean, this is not some wild liberal record.

326 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:04:58am

Property rights is one lever the R's can use to win back the west of the country.

327 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:05:30am

re: #297 Charles

I'm sure I'll be charged with "defending" Sotomayor after some of the comments I've posted, but please note: I'm simply calling this as I see it, and I don't see a radical leftist in Sotomayor. She leans left on some issues, but she leans right on others.

If I thought she was a judicial activist in reality, I'd be right there calling for her confirmation to be denied. I just don't like seeing some of the misinformation that's going around about her. I don't like this kind of stuff when the left does it, and I'm not any fonder of it coming from the right.

Truth is, we won't know for years and years how she'll turn out.

Race-related issues only come up before the Supreme Court very rarely. It may be five, seven, who knows how many years before the court makes another major race-related ruling.

Meanwhile, she'll rule on dozens of other cases that are not so overtly political, and on which she may very likely, as you point out, just rule the "obvious" way along with the rest of the court, since the constitutional issue involved is obvious for all to see.

But yes, if in 2017 she doesn't prove to be a radical, you have the perfect right to say, "I told you so!"

328 bloodnok  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:06:17am

re: #326 Thanos

Property rights is one lever the R's can use to win back the west of the country.

Only after we welease Wodewick.

329 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:06:51am

re: #328 bloodnok

Only after we welease Wodewick.

we have no wudolph the wed-nosed waindeah

330 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:07:17am

Goes back to his corner.

331 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:07:22am

re: #315 mrbaracuda

Hello, Lizardpeople!

Hello, fishyperson!

332 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:07:30am

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.

The czars will be unionized!

333 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:07:41am

re: #320 jwb7605

Much is being made of one of Sotomayer's overturned decisions (the firefighter case), and I've heard there are five or six others.

I wanted to know in general what she got overturned for, so after a bit of digging I found this article:
sotomayers_rulings_dont_fare_well_on_appeal

As far as the 'emotional' arguments go, I observe that we're all racists to some degree or another, and life experiences do affect all people's decisions. If they don't, you're not paying attention to your life.

Having said that, I'm unimpressed with her logic overall on the cases.
This is a situation where there's a 5-to-4 chance that her decisions will, in fact, set policy and precedent for future cases.

Her rate of reversal on appeal is lower than that of the Federal Circuit Court system as a whole. Reversal goes with the territory; any case that the Supreme Court accepts gets accepted because there's a better-than-even chance it's in a murky state to begin with. Some of the Circuit Courts, in fact, have recent reversal rates of 100%.

This argument is a non-starter. The only meaningful comparison would be how her reversal rate compares with similar courts as a whole, or with that of other judges in similar positions.

334 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:07:52am

re: #321 filetandrelease

So Gateway Pundit is just playing a little joke? Got me.

No, but Gateway Pundit does get carried away sometimes. That was a meeting at the US Embassy in Moscow. Did you notice the US Marine in dress uniform saluting President Obama at the beginning of the clip? Obama was introducing the US diplomatic staff to Medvedev.

335 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:08:01am

Any Republican who thinks a racism charge will get mileage obviously hasn't heard some say "He/She can't be racist he's a (fill in minority group) ___ ."

Besides Sotomayor's comments reflect more pride in accomplishment for hispanics and a desire to be represented than a belief in the superiority of any given race.

Go for questions about judicial activism and federal vs. states rights (as long as we have to live with pontificating over this foregone conclusion).

336 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:08:50am

re: #275 iceweasel

Really?

Where?

Links?

Sorry. In my experience it's being mocked at 'left wing' sites because of what it says-- not because of Alex Jones. Although it does add a little bit of joy that alex jones is pushing it!

I don't want to link to those sites here. Sorry. Also -- real life is summoning me from the computer! Must log off soon. Drat.

337 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:09:32am

re: #325 J.S.

CNN's Lou Dobbs last night had on a legal person who stated the following:

Those statistics mean nothing on their own without comparing them to other judges stats.

338 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:09:47am

re: #321 filetandrelease

re: #334 Kenneth

No, but Gateway Pundit does get carried away sometimes. That was a meeting at the US Embassy in Moscow. Did you notice the US Marine in dress uniform saluting President Obama at the beginning of the clip? Obama was introducing the US diplomatic staff to Medvedev.

If you look closely, the first person that "snubbed" Obama wasn't even looking at hom, rather looking at Medvedev in anticipation of shaking HIS hand

339 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:10:20am

re: #337 Spare O'Lake

ABRAMS: She voted with her conservative brethren 95 percent of the time.

340 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:10:38am

Grasle could be doing this better.

341 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:10:43am

So, what are the odds Sotomayor is a "living constitution" person?

342 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:10:49am

re: #339 J.S.

ABRAMS: She voted with her conservative brethren 95 percent of the time.

Maybe they're sekrit libruls.

/

343 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:11:10am

re: #338 sattv4u2 At least he wasn't ogling someones butt. //

344 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:11:28am

re: #334 Kenneth

After your comment I reviewed it again and it is apparent you are correct. It was so juicy too. Funny thing, non of the comments in gateway got it either.

345 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:11:35am

re: #338 sattv4u2

re: #334 Kenneth

If you look closely, the first person that "snubbed" Obama wasn't even looking at hom, rather looking at Medvedev in anticipation of shaking HIS hand

OMG!1! Obama is being snubbed by his own staff!1!!!1 That's even worse!

///

346 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:11:35am

re: #341 mrbaracuda

So, what are the odds Sotomayor is a "living constitution" person?

Yup, just like her president.

347 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:12:12am
348 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:12:40am

Now we are going to some real red meat

349 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:03am

Is that Randall Terry?

350 poteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:08am

re: #340 Thanos

Grasle could be doing this better.

So can Sotomayor. She has no teleprompter

351 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:20am

A nut just started yelling at the hearing... sounded like an anti-abortion moonbat.

352 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:24am

Some advice from the next thread up:

Invest in camel piss.

353 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:42am

re: #344 filetandrelease

I think sometimes we see what we want to see. Of course, why should the Russians snub Obama? He gave them everything they wanted and apologized for being American while doing it.

354 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:13:44am

re: #338 sattv4u2

Which based on how Gateway Pundit was telling it made it even more embarressing.

The Lizard army once again see's truth where others see what they want.

355 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:14:10am

re: #349 Thanos

Is that Randall Terry?

Could be. Sounded rabid enough.

356 jwb7605  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:14:20am

re: #333 SixDegrees

Her rate of reversal on appeal is lower than that of the Federal Circuit Court system as a whole. Reversal goes with the territory; any case that the Supreme Court accepts gets accepted because there's a better-than-even chance it's in a murky state to begin with. Some of the Circuit Courts, in fact, have recent reversal rates of 100%.

This argument is a non-starter. The only meaningful comparison would be how her reversal rate compares with similar courts as a whole, or with that of other judges in similar positions.

What argument?
I wanted to know how she views things in practice. I found (in particular) the EPA decision troubling, as well as the Intellectual Property ruling.
I remain disappointed.
How many times she's been upheld or overturned is not the point. The SCOTUS routinely issues decisions I don't like ("takings", for example), in which case upholding a ruling would also be bad.

357 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:14:32am

re: #345 wrenchwench
LOL

358 punchy100  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:14:34am

Charles,

Sotomayor is not a "secret" leftist. She is an easily identifiable leftist, simply due to her own words. She has admitted that it is nearly impossible for her to be impartial. In her own words she questioned whether impartiality "is possible in all, or even, in most, cases." She says this is due to race, culture, upbringing, etc.

So to her, objectivity is out the window. This puts her firmly on the left.

This means that when she takes the oath, she has to lie, as part of the oath requires her to be impartial and objective.

359 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:15:09am
360 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:15:27am

re: #358 punchy100

She has admitted that it is nearly impossible for her to be impartial.

That's a completely ridiculous distortion of what she said.

361 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:15:55am

re: #351 Charles

A nut just started yelling at the hearing... sounded like an anti-abortion moonbat.

looked like he threw a couple of Nazi salutes there

362 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:15:59am

re: #351 Charles

A nut just started yelling at the hearing... sounded like an anti-abortion moonbat.

People like that hurt the cause they claim to support. The right to choose is not going away.

363 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:16:03am

The demonstrator actually gave her time to regroup and come up with a better answer.

364 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:16:24am

re: #352 OldLineTexan

Some advice from the next thread up:

Invest in camel piss.

Are you referring to that Saudi scientist's discovery that sounds like madness?
[Link: www.saudigazette.com.sa...]

365 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:16:54am

re: #359 Iron Fist

The moonbat hurt our side, whichever side he was for (I couldn't understand him).

It was an anti-abortion protester yelling, The GOP will lose the pro-life vote!

Like we haven't heard that a million times before.

366 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:15am

re: #14 calcajun

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.

I'm a third amendment fan myself. We should have t-shirts. "You can have my couch...when you pull it out from under my cold, dead backside."

367 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:22am

re: #347 Iron Fist

Listening now. Like I said, she isn't going to answer any substantive questions.

I think you are right. SC nominees are often shy about answering substantive law questions before the senate. I recall one justice telling the senate that he hadn't previously thought about Roe v. Wade so has no preconceived opinions.

368 3 wood  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:38am

re: #210 iceweasel

I plan to avoid LGF until this week is over because I can't handle the misinformation some commenters are spreading.

So when are we going that have to start trying to bear up under the strain of your absence?

369 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:41am

re: #353 Kenneth

I heard that the Russians were really Pissed Off with Obama -- it was due to an interview back in the States (don't know which one) in which Obama (in replying to some question about Putin), Obama replied stating that Putin had "one foot in the past" (not quoting verbatim here), and one foot in the present...That really ticked off some Russians who support/love/admire Putin, etc. (they believed their Prime Minister was being viciously insulted..)

370 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:46am

re: #294 zombie

That's what happens when nature calls./

371 poteen  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:17:48am

re: #348 Thanos

Good . He's asking about prior decision logic, not about future cases.

372 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:19:13am

re: #351 Charles

A nut just started yelling at the hearing... sounded like an anti-abortion moonbat.

He DID start yelling

"the GOP (inaudible) ,,, the republicans (inaudible) ,,, defend the babie"

(I have it on DVR here at work and have replayed it several times)

Whatever he said at the end , Leahy agreed with him becasue he said 'and they did,, and they did ,,"

373 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:20:17am

re: #287 J.S.

but what about WaterMarks? (with Photoshop you can batch process a number of files...you could have it stamped "ZombieTimes" or whatever...and, apparently, it's a real pain to remove the Watermark..)

I have the high-res versions of the files, and no one else does. That's proof enough.

But as mentioned before, I'm just going to let it slide.

374 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:21:21am

re: #373 zombie

Are you the person behind zombietime.com?

375 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:21:35am

re: #312 Flyers1974

No--you are not wrong. Thanks. The posit (made semi-seriously) was that she may end up being BHO's "Souter" where he thinks he's getting one thing and ends up with a entirely different dish.

376 freetoken  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:21:48am

re: #363 Thanos

The demonstrator actually gave her time to regroup and come up with a better answer.

Aha... the sekrit plant... what will those lefties think of next?

377 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:21:54am
378 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:22:12am

re: #369 J.S.

The White House is trying to spin Obama's "New Russian policy" as a clever strategy that pits Putin against Medvedev. Obama can go to Russia, shake hands and make deals with Medvedev and pretend he's snubbing Putin as yesterday's man. Putin is happy to play along with this farce, as it is intended to give Obama political cover in Washington. Nobody in Moscow gives a shit about it.

379 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:22:18am

re: #317 Thanos

The "Souter" test?

380 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:22:19am

re: #376 freetoken

Aha... the sekrit plant... what will those lefties think of next?

It was rather deucedly clever.

/twirls long, black mustachio

381 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:22:25am

re: #72 StillAMarine

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 ...

No, it's not. You can use "Latina" as a noun, but it also works as an adjective, and in Spanish adjectives are gendered.

382 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:22:29am

re: #298 JustABill

I am not an expert in such things, but I know that corporations can be parties in legal matters. Would it be possible for Zombie to incorporate anonymously? That way "Undead, inc" could take whatever legal action was called for.

Nope. One way or another, my real name must be used.

I've created corporations and LLCs in California and Delaware. A real name is ALWAYS required.

383 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:24:14am

re: #378 Kenneth

I heard that immediately after meeting with Medvedev, Obama had an interview with Putin.

384 avanti  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:24:48am

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. That I think is the problem with judicial activism.

She did screw up my stating openly what is essentially a fact. By interpreting the law, it often makes or chances policy.

385 jwb7605  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:25:28am

re: #383 J.S.

I heard that immediately after meeting with Medvedev, Obama had an interview with Putin.

I believe that's true. And Obama accepted the job offer.
// (<-- ?)

386 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:25:41am
387 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:26:01am

I have yet to hear the words, "Coke can or pubic hair."

You know, legal issues.

388 calcajun  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:26:10am

re: #366 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm a third amendment fan myself. We should have t-shirts. "You can have my couch...when you pull it out from under my cold, dead backside."

Yes-- the real question is who get control of the remote! I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some snot-nosed PFC keep me from watching my ESPN, Sci-Fi, History or ... wait a second...

389 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:26:15am
390 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:26:50am

Grasle is warmed up now, this is getting better

391 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:27:09am

re: #384 avanti

She did screw up my stating openly what is essentially a fact. By interpreting the law, it often makes or chances policy.

change ,, yes

make ,, never

make indicates starting from nothing, making a "policy" where non exists. That is NOT their roll
Interpreting a law in a way that it changes it's application is okay, as the law itself is already there

392 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:27:32am

re: #372 sattv4u2

He DID start yelling

"the GOP (inaudible) ,,, the republicans (inaudible) ,,, defend the babie"

(I have it on DVR here at work and have replayed it several times)

Whatever he said at the end , Leahy agreed with him becasue he said 'and they did,, and they did ,,"

they let you watch TV at work? You are so lucky. If we combine your info with Wendya's info in #365, you can make the case that leahy was gloating about politics. If the heckler said "the GOP will lose the pro life vote," and leahy said "they did, they did," it really looks like Leahy used the heckler to bash the republicans. What a class act (not).

393 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:28:44am

re: #351 Charles

A nut just started yelling at the hearing... sounded like an anti-abortion moonbat.

Yes -- three anti-abortion activists tried to start yelling. Just saw an article about it.

it's a waste of time. Obama is very strongly pro-choice, never made any bones about it. No way will he ever nominate a pro-life judge.

394 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:08am

re: #392 _RememberTonyC

they let you watch TV at work? You are so lucky. If we combine your info with Wendya's info in #365, you can make the case that leahy was gloating about politics. If the heckler said "the GOP will lose the pro life vote," and leahy said "they did, they did," it really looks like Leahy used the heckler to bash the republicans. What a class act (not).

He was ABSOLUTLY doing that. Whatever the protester yelled at the end, Leahy snarkly stated "they did,," as in " yeah pal ,, they REALLY screwed up,,"

395 avanti  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:13am

re: #372 sattv4u2

He DID start yelling

"the GOP (inaudible) ,,, the republicans (inaudible) ,,, defend the babie"

(I have it on DVR here at work and have replayed it several times)

Whatever he said at the end , Leahy agreed with him becasue he said 'and they did,, and they did ,,"

I think he was saying that security removed the protester quickly as he asked. He was not talking back to the screamer.

396 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:23am
397 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:36am

Have you seen this?

Do you want to know more?

398 punchy100  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:44am

re: #360 Charles

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

399 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:29:47am

re: #372 sattv4u2

He DID start yelling

"the GOP (inaudible) ,,, the republicans (inaudible) ,,, defend the babie"

(I have it on DVR here at work and have replayed it several times)

Whatever he said at the end , Leahy agreed with him becasue he said 'and they did,, and they did ,,"

I thought Leahy was talking about the security personnel - he said "they will remove him", and then "and they did, they did".

400 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:30:32am

re: #374 mrbaracuda

Are you the person behind zombietime.com?

Yes. Click my user name, which is blue.

401 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:31:06am

re: #358 punchy100

Even if she did mean that being impartial was impossible, which I don't think she did, would she be that far off? For example, if you are asked to interpret "unreasonable search and seizure," with respect to a modern case, how do you do this by relying solely on the words of the fourth amendment and without any of your own thoughts tainting your interpretation? You could try and find examples of what "unreasonable" meant at the time the constitution was drafted, but what if there are no examples that apply? You would have to rule based upon your own opinion of what is unreasonable. Which by definition, would be biased.

402 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:32:46am

Randall Terry has really been whipping up his flock about Sotomayor. That was undoubtedly his doing.

403 filetandrelease  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:33:12am

re: #397 Ben Hur
Best to leave that one alone, or you too will be sent to your corner.

404 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:33:45am

re: #402 Charles

Randall Terry has really been whipping up his flock about Sotomayor. That was undoubtedly his doing.

The flip side of the Code Pink interruptions.

405 SFGoth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:33:48am

re: #365 Wendya

It was an anti-abortion protester yelling, The GOP will lose the pro-life vote!

Like we haven't heard that a million times before.

Well, gee, since the GOP can't filibuster, big deal.

406 avanti  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:33:50am

re: #391 sattv4u2

change ,, yes

make ,, never

make indicates starting from nothing, making a "policy" where non exists. That is NOT their roll
Interpreting a law in a way that it changes it's application is okay, as the law itself is already there


" But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.

"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."

407 Buck  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:34:09am

re: #260 Wendya

We have all read the quote. Only difference is that some people are reading it very narrow.

Everyone agrees that people with different backgrounds bring different things to the table. No one race or gender is perfectly equipped to every task.

You ask "Do I have to be black to understand the law says it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race?"

Well, you might want to look up "Prigg v. Pennsylvania". An all white US Supreme court didn't understand exactly that.

Now 1842 might seem like a looong time ago, for you. However to others it was just 3 generations...

408 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:34:21am

re: #402 Charles

Randall Terry has really been whipping up his flock about Sotomayor. That was undoubtedly his doing.

He hit every Brownback office demanding a filibuster last week, I was going to cut loose from work for some photos but couldn't get away.

409 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:35:14am

9/11 question

410 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:35:22am

re: #400 zombie

Then let me tell you I'm a fan! :D
We here in Germany enjoy the craziness of Berkeley.

411 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:35:46am

re: #399 reine.de.tout

I thought Leahy was talking about the security personnel - he said "they will remove him", and then "and they did, they did".

Could be, but in that they were already removing him when Leahy started talking ,, and in that he interupted himself to say ",, and they did , and they did",, prior to that the last thing that was heard was the last rant of the protester saying something about the republicans

412 Wendya  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:36:16am

re: #407 Buck

We have all read the quote. Only difference is that some people are reading it very narrow.

Or with Clintonian parsing.

413 SFGoth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:38:33am

re: #410 mrbaracuda

Then let me tell you I'm a fan! :D
We here in Germany enjoy the craziness of Berkeley.

Are you German or American?

414 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:38:36am
415 wintercat  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:40:05am

Well, here's my take. If I, as a potential juror, demonstrate in any way that I am biased, or if any of the attorneys in a case believe that I have a bias based on my life experiences, I can be -- should be -- excluded from the jury pool.

So how is it that a judge who Obama has touted as a judge with empathy -- this woman who says that judges set policy from the bench -- how is it that she can be called qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court because of her life experiences and her personal perspective when I would be thrown out of the jury for that exact reason?

416 sattv4u2  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:40:18am

re: #406 avanti

Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

That just verifies what I said ,, thanks

417 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:41:11am

New thread for the hearing just posted...

418 J.S.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:42:15am

re: #397 Ben Hur

some Russians were angry at Obama, and the remarks Obama had made prior to his visit to Russia.

YouTube...here.

419 Kenneth  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:45:22am

re: #397 Ben Hur

Obama was introducing US officials to Medvedev. He was not snubbed.

420 elandadem  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:47:02am

Sotomayer's confirmation is a foregone conclusion and by today's standards she is qualified and acceptable. The issue should be, in my opinion, today's standards.

Utilizing the bench to promote party politics is inherently dangerous to the proper execution of republican (little R) governance. Social justice must be decided at the polls, not on the bench. It is not too great a stretch of the imagination to see the Supreme Court eventually assume the legislative responsibilities of Congress. It would take an executive with the intestinal fortitude of Lincoln to inform the Chief Justice to enforce his own rulings.

The powers of the Federal government were divided for good reason. More and more, those powers are being acquired by the one arm not responsible to the American electorate. No matter your ideology, I suspect you would not want to see America ruled by an enrobed oligarchy.

421 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 11:55:53am

re: #420 elandadem

Sotomayer's confirmation is a foregone conclusion and by today's standards she is qualified and acceptable. The issue should be, in my opinion, today's standards.

Utilizing the bench to promote party politics is inherently dangerous to the proper execution of republican (little R) governance. Social justice must be decided at the polls, not on the bench. It is not too great a stretch of the imagination to see the Supreme Court eventually assume the legislative responsibilities of Congress. It would take an executive with the intestinal fortitude of Lincoln to inform the Chief Justice to enforce his own rulings.

The powers of the Federal government were divided for good reason. More and more, those powers are being acquired by the one arm not responsible to the American electorate. No matter your ideology, I suspect you would not want to see America ruled by an enrobed oligarchy.

The SC has almost always ruled from the bench. This is not a modern phenomenon. The issues have changed obviously, but its always happened. I'd argue it is often impossible not to, see my "reasonable search and seizure" example, above.

422 JustABill  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:14:32pm

re: #382 zombie

Nope. One way or another, my real name must be used.

I've created corporations and LLCs in California and Delaware. A real name is ALWAYS required.

Bummer, it was worth a shot...

423 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:21:55pm

"Here’s a live stream of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing; so far I still haven’t seen the evidence that she’s a sekrit radical judicial activist..."

Because it's not a secret, for anyone paying attention.

424 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:24:05pm

I don't like her eyes flickering like that right now. Heh.

425 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:32:08pm

re: #410 mrbaracuda

Then let me tell you I'm a fan! :D
We here in Germany enjoy the craziness of Berkeley.

Glad to be of service!

426 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:35:59pm

re: #425 zombie

I noticed there haven't been as many updates as before. Busy with something else than covering the loonies? Will you get back to more coverage?

427 zombie  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:41:23pm

re: #426 mrbaracuda

I noticed there haven't been as many updates as before. Busy with something else than covering the loonies? Will you get back to more coverage?

Well, there are two reasons for the fewer zombietime updates these days:

One is that I'm very busy with "real life" stuff and don't have as much time for blogging.

But the other, perhaps more important reason, is that with the election of Obama, there's a lot less for the moonbats to complain about, so there are fewer protests and fewer outbreaks of craziness. Now everyone just walks around with a dazed grin.

428 mrbaracuda  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 12:45:44pm

re: #427 zombie

Almost makes you wish Palin would be VP, LoL.

429 Lynn B.  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 3:11:06pm

re: #286 NoWhereAlaska

I disagree, it sounded to me as if, knowing it was on tape she had to deny that she had said it, and the folks there understood by their laughter, what she was doing.

Exactly right.

430 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 5:55:53pm
431 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 14, 2009 7:45:29pm
432 [deleted]  Wed, Jul 15, 2009 8:01:33am

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
FemNaziBitch
Couple on Trial for Murder of 8 Year Old Called Him Gay, Tortured Him ‘More Severely Than Many POWs’ - the New Civil Rights Move
A mother and her boyfriend are on trial for murdering her 8-year old son. They allegedly called him gay, and abused, beat and tortured him "more severely than many prisoners of war." Pearl Fernandez, 30, and her boyfriend Isauro ...

6 minutes ago
Views: 24 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Saying You Should Abort Is as Wrong as Saying You May Not Abort
Dawkins demonstrates that he's gone completely off the rails to seek the limelight once more. Oy, Richard Dawkins and Twitter again. InYourFaceNewYorker &#x200F;@InYourFaceNYer @RichardDawkins @AidanMcCourt I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid ...

1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Views: 68 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
CriticalDragon1177
The Japan Times - Can Japan show the West how to live peacefully with Islam?
Nicolas Gattig on Islam in Japan. Off course ignorant Islamophobic wingnut Bryan Fischer Is happy they "don't" allow Muslims in Japan. Man is he going to be upset if he reads this. Long ago, in another life, I went to ...

2 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 462 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 3 • Rating: 4
Rightwingconspirator
Photography Is Not A Crime
re: #274 NJDhockeyfan re: #262 NJDhockeyfan re: #259 jaunte So lets keep this in mind for Ferguson-Shoot an unarmed man in the head under color of authority and leave town with your identity protected. Take a picture of a protest, ...

2 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 281 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Laughing Gas
Scumbag “HBD believer” claims Michael Brown charged officer
WARNING: LINK TO HATE SITE He links to some ijreview, a right wing site: This guy makes me sick.

2 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 596 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
BadExampleMan
“Growth” and Some Jellyfish
This piece was basically just to use up some scraps I had sitting around. I liked the way the frit lace turned out but I didn't really have a use for it. I've been on a jellyfish kick lately. This ...

6 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 319 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 2
Pie-onist Overlord
Police Investigating Whether Rabbi’s Miami Killing a Hate Crime
More: Police Investigating Whether Rabbi's Miami Killing a Hate Crime (Reuters) - Police in Miami investigating the killing of a 60-year-old Orthodox rabbi over the weekend said on Monday they haven't yet decided whether the shooting was a hate crime. ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 552 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
Romantic Heretic
The War Photo No One Would Publish
An interesting story on a photograph taken during Desert Storm that no news outlet in the US would publish. It is one of those photos that stares straight at the horror of war. It's hideous, stomach turning...and something that should ...

1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 1,306 • Comments: 8
Tweets: 4 • Rating: 7
Bubblehead II
Live web Cams on Oahu, Hawaii
Couple of live web cams for Oahu. H/T to explore.org Turtle Bay - East and Ehukai Beach, Oahu Sunrise isn't for a couple more hours so there isn't much to see. But should get interesting after daybreak.

1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 709 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 3 • Rating: 5
 Frank says:

It's not ordinary and it's not mundane, but it does not involve golden showers and appliances -- talking about his sex life with Gail in 1980.