I think President Obama deserves the same deference and consideration for his SCOTUS choice as he gave Republican nominees while he was a Senator. Which is none. Do it without rancor, without ugliness. Just some party discipline to show the American people that there is in fact an opposition.

A new Gitmo torture procedure just released: Make the prisoner watch the entire Sotomayor hearings and then follow it up with an hour long interview with Joe Jackson and his ideas about the new Jackson 3.

re: #1 Iron Fist

I still wanna' know if she believes that the Second Amendment applies to citizens.

This is still going on? For G*d's sake just stop the agony and CONFIRM HER ALREADY!

/Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!

I keep looking for the "wisdom" this "Latina" claims to profess. Instead, I find her rather obtuse.

re: #4 MandyManners

I still wanna' know if she believes that the Second Amendment applies to citizens.

Aux armes.

Look Mommy, the circus is in town! Can we get some bread while we watch?

She's such a wise latina, I sotomayor. I know lame, but anything is better than listening to this again today. Maybe I'll tune into Rush for a change.

Well if you look at the complete contradiction between her statement yesterday about "wise latina" in the context of agreeing with O'Connor, when in the original speech she made the coment in order to disagree with O'Connor, one has to wonder about her truthfulness.

Further, she has defended her grilling of attorneys in her court as a way of giving them the opportunity to trefine their arguments - Well perhaps she could take that same opportunity to refine what is obviously a contradiction and is probably a lie.

Shouldn't she have to answer for that? Shouldn't she be held to the same standard that she hoilds attorneys in her court?

Who did the GOP poll and "focus group" to get the impression that "Wise Latina" and "Abortion" would play well in Peoria?

Someone engrave "judicial activism" on a clue bat and mail it to the GOP senate caucus please.

50 bucks to the Senator who asks her the meaning of "is"

re: #9 Iron Fist

The answer is no, I think. She'll never say that, of course. She'll dodge, parry, spin, and duck (there is a joke there) what she can.

And the Republicans will let her. They aren't concerned with wininning. They just want to look good while they lose.

I'm struggling with trying not to believe that.

You know, she must have been sworn in for the hearing. "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?" If so, she is clearly violating that by her statements.

Sotolieor

Day 3:

Observation 1c:

Grass has grown approximately .5 mm since yesterday.

Paint is still tacky, due to humidity.

re: #11 karmic_inquisitor

Well if you look at the complete contradiction between her statement yesterday about "wise latina" in the context of agreeing with O'Connor, when in the original speech she made the coment in order to disagree with O'Connor, one has to wonder about her truthfulness.

Further, she has defended her grilling of attorneys in her court as a way of giving them the opportunity to trefine their arguments - Well perhaps she could take that same opportunity to refine what is obviously a contradiction and is probably a lie.

Shouldn't she have to answer for that? Shouldn't she be held to the same standard that she hoilds attorneys in her court?

I'm just frustrated with the whole process. I'm tired of the politics in politics.

Clinton deplores Iran's actions but offers to talk

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday deplored Iran's crushing of dissent after June's election but said the Obama administration still wanted talks with Tehran over its nuclear program.

In what the State Department billed as a major foreign policy speech, Clinton said neither she nor President Barack Obama had illusions that such a dialogue would guarantee success and said the opportunity for talks was not open-ended.

"But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice -- whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation," Clinton said.

"Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice," added Clinton.

/spit

re: #12 DaddyG

Who did the GOP poll and "focus group" to get the impression that "Wise Latina" and "Abortion" would play well in Peoria?

Someone engrave "judicial activism" on a clue bat and mail it to the GOP senate caucus please.

That's the whole point. The Republicans are going to lose, both here and everywhere else between now and 2010, and they should know that- after all they can count can't they?

The only question is whether or not they are going to make themselves look like idiots while they lose.

So far the answer to that question is not encouraging...

re: #12 DaddyG

Who did the GOP poll and "focus group" to get the impression that "Wise Latina" and "Abortion" would play well in Peoria?

Someone engrave "judicial activism" on a clue bat and mail it to the GOP senate caucus please.

Probably the same GOP genius in the Senate who announced Monday that the party would consider a full Senate vote on Sotomayor with 20 or more naysayers to be a "victory."

Trying to pitch a 4-to-1 defeat as a "victory" tells you everything you need to know about GOP leadership at the moment.

A couple of thoughts regarding the Wise Latina comment:
I find it off putting when someone refers to themselves as wise. Maybe it's just me but it seems that that appellation is one that others make about you. You do not make it about yourself.
I also would have stood up and cheered if she had referred to herself as an American, rather than as a Latina. just a personal quirk of mine.

re: #18 MrSilverDragon

Day 3:

Observation 1c:

Grass has grown approximately .5 mm since yesterday.

Paint is still tacky, due to humidity.

I only watch to see if soto "throws" some gang signs at one of the Repubs.
/

re: #18 MrSilverDragon

Day 3:

Observation 1c:

Grass has grown approximately .5 mm since yesterday.

Paint is still tacky, due to humidity.

How is the melting ice progressing?

Anybody notice that when asked what something means, she tends to say "well, to me it means...blah,blah,blah." No absolutes, everything subjective and relative. Hmmm.

re: #12 DaddyG

Who did the GOP poll and "focus group" to get the impression that "Wise Latina" and "Abortion" would play well in Peoria?

Someone engrave "judicial activism" on a clue bat and mail it to the GOP senate caucus please.

The problem for them is that she is not a judicial activist. Hard to attack her on that when there's absolutely no evidence of it in her record.

re: #23 LGoPs

A couple of thoughts regarding the Wise Latina comment:
I find it off putting when someone refers to themselves as wise. Maybe it's just me but it seems that that appellation is one that others make about you. You do not make it about yourself.
I also would have stood up and cheered if she had referred to herself as an American, rather than as a Latina. just a personal quirk of mine.

She was not referring to herself in that remark.

re: #21 CIA Reject

That's the whole point. The Republicans are going to lose, both here and everywhere else between now and 2010, and they should know that- after all they can count can't they?

The only question is whether or not they are going to make themselves look like idiots while they lose.

So far the answer to that question is not encouraging...

Hi CIA Reject! Hope you're doing great today! Ah, my friend, there may be a ray of hope for us in all this:

Obama's Slipping Grip on the Public

(I know, I'm not a real Dick Morris fan - but heck, even a busted clock is right twice a day. Interesting numbers anyway.)

;-)

They want me to watch. This way, I get to disappoint them for a change.

re: #26 SixDegrees

How is the melting ice progressing?

Dunno, Gore was unavailable for comment.

If the GOP was a serious party with a true core belief in Judicial Restraint and an actual desire to win actual elections in 2010 they would hammer Judge Sotomayor on the New Haven Firefighters and Kelo cases and force her to explain her decision making process to the public. While Peoria may not care CT does and Sen. Chris Dodd is up for re-election and having to defend either case will do him no favors in the General Election against former Rep. Simmons.

Did the Senate pass the Health Care Reform Socialize Medicine Bill?
If so...
/We're DOOMED!@

re: #29 Charles

She was not referring to herself in that remark.

She was referring to a hypothetical person perhaps but the inference is clear to me that she was referring to herself.

re: #34 NelsFree

Yep.

re: #28 Charles

The problem for them is that she is not a judicial activist. Hard to attack her on that when there's absolutely no evidence of it in her record.

Fair enough. I'm not interested in attacking her. I'm interested in some intelligent dialog between Senators and the Supreme Court nominee about her Judicial philosophy. All the discussion about political pet positions and old speeches to college law clubs is embarrassing and meaningless.

If the GOP asks fair and relevant questions and she passes their muster then more power to her. Save the outrage for an outrageous nominee.

re: #34 NelsFree

WASHINGTON – The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The 13-10 party line vote advanced a $600 billion measure that would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. Democratic leaders are driving for floor votes in the House and Senate before Congress goes on its August break.

But don't worry. I'm sure nobody read it.

In her own words.

re: #38 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

But don't worry. I'm sure nobody read it.

Okay, it's out of committee and the Ruling Elites are jockeying for floor votes. Time to email, call, and visit our Congresscritters and (deleted) convince them to stop the Socialization of America!

re: #30 subsailor68

Hi Sub! - good to see you too.

Thanks for the link- hopefully this is a trend that the Republicans can capitalize on, but for them to do it most effectively, IMHO, they are going to have to frame their opposition in "grand terms" like the proper role of the Supreme Court (eg the "judicial activism" issue) and stake out the high ground there rather than try to play "gotcha" games with offhand remarks that somebody on the other side makes.

That kind of schoolyard stuff is not going to get us anywhere and it makes me cringe whenever I hear it.

re: #39 MandyManners

In her own words.

Her sense of humor, of irony? What was she expressing?

Remember - this very same committee confirmed Sotomayor twice in the 1990s. They have nothing on her.

I don't know why this charade is being played out at all.
I mean the Left Party has the votes, let's drop this dog and pony show, vote her in and turn our attention to something worthwhile.

re: #39 MandyManners

In her own words.

[Video]

Saying that court decisions influence policy is a simple statement of fact.

re: #44 realwest

I don't know why this charade is being played out at all.
I mean the Left Party has the votes, let's drop this dog and pony show, vote her in and turn our attention to something worthwhile.

It all requires sanction.

re: #43 Charles

Same committee, but slightly different makeup. She's getting confirmed, and this is just window dressing. They've got to go through the motions.

re: #41 CIA Reject

Hi Sub! - good to see you too.

Thanks for the link- hopefully this is a trend that the Republicans can capitalize on, but for them to do it most effectively, IMHO, they are going to have to frame their opposition in "grand terms" like the proper role of the Supreme Court (eg the "judicial activism" issue) and stake out the high ground there rather than try to play "gotcha" games with offhand remarks that somebody on the other side makes.

That kind of schoolyard stuff is not going to get us anywhere and it makes me cringe whenever I hear it.

Yep! I couldn't agree more! I've got my little list of folks I admire (agree with them or not) - like Moynihan. It's sad that I haven't been able to add anyone to it in quite a while.

re: #43 Charles

Remember - this very same committee confirmed Sotomayor twice in the 1990s. They have nothing on her.

Yes, but that does not mean that the committee is made of the same people. To make your point even stronger, during at least one of the 90's-era confirmations the committee was controlled by Republicans.

I think the Republicans are blowing too much goodwill over this nomination. All they are doing is putting a show on for the base, but the problem is that it is getting a load of air time. The more I see the Republican party in action the more understand why they lost power.

re: #44 realwest

I don't know why this charade is being played out at all.
I mean the Left Party has the votes, let's drop this dog and pony show, vote her in and turn our attention to something worthwhile.

Amen! Especially since all that drawing out the process appears to be doing is giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with!

re: #43 Charles

Remember - this very same committee confirmed Sotomayor twice in the 1990s. They have nothing on her.

That is another reason for Term Limits.

re: #48 subsailor68

Yep! I couldn't agree more! I've got my little list of folks I admire (agree with them or not) - like Moynihan. It's sad that I haven't been able to add anyone to it in quite a while.

I miss DPM- he's the only liberal I ever voted for, and I did so regularly!

she will be confirmed and time will show she is just as far left as BO...what she said last year or today means nothing...after all BO nominated her

re: #47 lawhawk

Same committee, but slightly different makeup. She's getting confirmed, and this is just window dressing. They've got to go through the motions.

Why do they have to go through the motions? (by they, I mean, the GOP)?
As I said, in comment #44 just go ahead, let the Left Party confirm her (cause with that great statesman Al Franken they now have the votes) and move on to important things where the Left Party will not march in lockstep - at least those not up for re-election this year?

re: #45 Charles

Where I work, there are times that stating the obvious is forbidden.

I had a boss once say, "You can't say that out loud with [that guy] within earshot!"

She had the audacity to speak the obvious, if you ask me.

re: #33 Rexatosis

If the GOP was a serious party with a true core belief in Judicial Restraint and an actual desire to win actual elections in 2010 they would hammer Judge Sotomayor on the New Haven Firefighters and Kelo cases and force her to explain her decision making process to the public. While Peoria may not care CT does and Sen. Chris Dodd is up for re-election and having to defend either case will do him no favors in the General Election against former Rep. Simmons.

In the New Haven case, she was upholding the city's law that was already on the books; she didn't make new law at all, and sided with an existing city statute put there by duly elected officials. It's hard to find a better example of judicial restraint; this ruling (which was shared unanimously by the two other judges on the panel) is about as far from judicial activism as it is possible to get.

Sotomayor didn't participate in the Kelo case. She applied it in an appeals court case. Again, this isn't making new law from the bench; it's a case of applying existing law handed down by the Supreme Court. Although I certainly believe that Kelo was a tremendously bad decision, it is currently the law of the land, and it isn't up to judges to change it. What ought to have happened the day after the Kelo decision was handed down is that Congress should have immediately introduced legislation overturning that decision and shoring up existing law. But again, this is an example of judicial restraint rather than activism. She was following the higher court's guidance.

re: #44 realwest

They'll spend more time on this than they will debating the health care or energy bill, which must be rammed through because the nation is in a crisis (repeat with shrieking and fainting masses for effect).

Imagine if Congress spent as much time debating the merits of the porkfest as holding hearings on the confirmation of Sotomayor, we might have actually gotten a better stimulus package (or better yet - no package at all since it is a massive deficit spending package).

Instead, this is all about grandstanding before the cameras to show that their staffers did their research on obscure legal issues and cases and that the Senators have managed to regurgitate same and to show that Sotomayor's handlers did a good job preparing her for this dog and pony show.

re: #35 LGoPs

She was referring to a hypothetical person perhaps but the inference is clear to me that she was referring to herself.

Actually, it was a rhetorical twist on a very similar and famous statement made by Sandra Day O'Connor, and was intended in that spirit.

re: #12 DaddyG

The GOP made a political decision to focus their strategy on "wise Latina" and abortion. Both play well to their base, but have no negative effect on Democratic voters.

re: #51 CIA Reject

Personally I hope that this whole process is giving both parties enough rope to hang themselves with. Lord knows they deserve it.

Does the electorate know ? That's the vital question.

The electorate will know eventually.

re: #43 Charles

Remember - this very same committee confirmed Sotomayor twice in the 1990s. They have nothing on her.

true...you could say that about every supreme court nominee that comes out of some circuit court on some level.

I would imagine she was vetted long ago and has been watched down in the "minor leagues" for some time.

re: #60 Kenneth

The GOP made a political decision to focus their strategy on "wise Latina" and abortion. Both play well to their base, but have no negative effect on Democratic voters.

I think, without a doubt, abortion has a negative affect on Democratic voters.

Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge - study

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A dramatic warming of the planet 55 million years ago cannot be solely explained by a surge in carbon dioxide levels, a study shows, highlighting gaps in scientists' understanding of impacts from rapid climate change.

During an event called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, global temperatures rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius within several thousand years. The world at that time was already warmer than now with no surface ice.

"We now believe that the CO2 did not cause all the warming, that there were additional factors," said Richard Zeebe, an oceanographer with the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

re: #29 Charles

Yes, but most would think she was implying herself.

re: #57 SixDegrees
"(which was shared unanimously by the two other judges on the panel)"
Uh, no it wasn't. Judge Carbanes (sp?) wrote a dissenting opinon and as lawhawk has posted here and linked to, at least twice, ALL NINE of the Justices of SCOTUS took her to task for the rather cavalier way she dealt with that case, although four of the nine did dissent in the ultimate decision.

re: #55 realwest

Why do they have to go through the motions? (by they, I mean, the GOP)?
As I said, in comment #44 just go ahead, let the Left Party confirm her (cause with that great statesman Al Franken they now have the votes) and move on to important things where the Left Party will not march in lockstep - at least those not up for re-election this year?

It is my understanding that the committee can stop the approval with one Republican voting against her.

re: #58 lawhawk

They'll spend more time on this than they will debating the health care or energy bill, which must be rammed through because the nation is in a crisis (repeat with shrieking and fainting masses for effect).

Imagine if Congress spent as much time debating the merits of the porkfest as holding hearings on the confirmation of Sotomayor, we might have actually gotten a better stimulus package (or better yet - no package at all since it is a massive deficit spending package).

Instead, this is all about grandstanding before the cameras to show that their staffers did their research on obscure legal issues and cases and that the Senators have managed to regurgitate same and to show that Sotomayor's handlers did a good job preparing her for this dog and pony show.

that wouldn't be as fun.

re: #27 Claire

Anybody notice that when asked what something means, she tends to say "well, to me it means...blah,blah,blah." No absolutes, everything subjective and relative. Hmmm.

"Only the Sith speak of absolutes"
/Young Obi Wan Kenobi
//Hollywood contrivance
///My brain hurts

re: #63 Baier

I think, without a doubt, abortion has a negative affect on Democratic voters.

It does, if you are aborted you cannot vote.

re: #28 Charles

The problem for them is that she is not a judicial activist. Hard to attack her on that when there's absolutely no evidence of it in her record.

Oh come on now Charles, you are just the same old same old mendacious Charles! xD

re: #45 Charles

Saying that court decisions influence policy is a simple statement of fact.

Since policy must be crafted to adhere to court decisions, there is no way a court decision can not influence policy.

Having courts that establish policy is another matter altogether. There is apparently scant evidence that she has ever done that.

re: #70 Ojoe

It does, if you are aborted you cannot vote.

:) you know what I meant...

re: #69 Gang of One

"Only the Sith speak of absolutes"
/Young Obi Wan Kenobi
//Hollywood contrivance
///My brain hurts

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Three days of watching these bloviating, cluster - f*cking, weasels is my limit. This is just another DC - style train wreck...same trains, same outcome.

Wake me up in 2012.

re: #58 lawhawk

They'll spend more time on this than they will debating the health care or energy bill, which must be rammed through because the nation is in a crisis (repeat with shrieking and fainting masses for effect).

Imagine if Congress spent as much time debating the merits of the porkfest as holding hearings on the confirmation of Sotomayor, we might have actually gotten a better stimulus package (or better yet - no package at all since it is a massive deficit spending package).

Instead, this is all about grandstanding before the cameras to show that their staffers did their research on obscure legal issues and cases and that the Senators have managed to regurgitate same and to show that Sotomayor's handlers did a good job preparing her for this dog and pony show.

Indeed. While the GOP is so busy screeching about misinterpretations of a single line from a single speech, the looming health care bill has passed it's first committee vote in the Senate. The entire issue has been ignored by the GOP in favor of grandstanding on the Sotomayor non-issues and fluff.

re: #73 Baier

LGF the humor site.

Quite needed these days.

BBL

re: #72 reine.de.tout

Evidence? Schmevidence.

Where are the pitchforks!

re: #69 Gang of One

Heh. My 'favorite' line from any movie right there. Absolutely, no one but the Sith speak in absolutes? You sure you don't wanna rephrase that sage Jedi Master?

re: #75 fluffy bunny Hey there fluffy bunny - thanks for your e-mail; I did reply to you - did you receive it?

Oye Mamacita

re: #56 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Where I work, there are times that stating the obvious is forbidden.

I had a boss once say, "You can't say that out loud with [that guy] within earshot!"

She had the audacity to speak the obvious, if you ask me.

I tried to post a correction to another blog about the false BHO handshake snub and got a e-mail from the moderator saying "pro Obama comments are not allowed on this blog"

re: #58 lawhawk

They'll spend more time on this than they will debating the health care or energy bill, which must be rammed through because the nation is in a crisis (repeat with shrieking and fainting masses for effect).

Imagine if Congress spent as much time debating the merits of the porkfest as holding hearings on the confirmation of Sotomayor, we might have actually gotten a better stimulus package (or better yet - no package at all since it is a massive deficit spending package).

Instead, this is all about grandstanding before the cameras to show that their staffers did their research on obscure legal issues and cases and that the Senators have managed to regurgitate same and to show that Sotomayor's handlers did a good job preparing her for this dog and pony show.

Very frightening - they will not spend this much time debating healthcare or energy, and what is more upsetting to me . . . they won't research those issues nearly as well.

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

Totally off-topic!

Much more interesting!

Zowie! Zowie! Zowie!

Check out this auction of American illustration art, currently in progress! Beautiful work, on all sorts of topics and spanning some 60 years of the great period of American illustration!

And those of you who have a yen for really hot pin-up art--come on, I know there are one or two of you out there--there are some really beautiful canvases which are not terribly expensive.

But even if you're not interested in buying (and no, I'm not connected with this, and benefit in no way), you owe it to yourself to check out the artwork. Really.

They've got some neat stuff, and the starting bids are rock bottom. Honestly, I like most of these illustrations better than any 20th century works considered fine art.

“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

sing these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

re: #44 realwest

I was wondering about this. The Republican Senators cannot block her confirmation anyway, can they?

re: #72 reine.de.tout

Since policy must be crafted to adhere to court decisions, there is no way a court decision can not influence policy.

Having courts that establish policy is another matter altogether. There is apparently scant evidence that she has ever done that.

I've looked, and I've found no evidence that she has ever tried to legislate from the bench. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

re: #79 Scion9

Heh. My 'favorite' line from any movie right there. Absolutely, no one but the Sith speak in absolutes? You sure you don't wanna rephrase that sage Jedi Master?

Jedi Master Oblivious pays no heed to your astute observation, young paduwan.

Part of the effort with "wise latina" and abortion on the part of the GOP is to get her to blow up.

She has a track record of getting a little hot when frustrated.

Also remember how Democrats found "temperment" as the big thing to throw at Republican nominees after Scalia.

Republicans are going to try to force contradictions to the surface whenever and wherever they can. More ammunition in the next election cycle.

And, lets not forget, the abortion issue is used by both sides to raise a lot of money. The issue will go nowhere ever at this point, but it doesn't keep either side from sending out "action letters" to stoke passions and raise funds. Were abortion to be abandoned by both parties (which as a practical matter it should be) they'd each see a drop of about 30% in their fund raising capacity.

So the party out of power will always raise abortion at a televised SC confirmation hearing. Roberts' hearing had Democrats posturing on abortion too. There is nothing really to condemn as the Republicans play the same card.

re: #87 Charles

I've looked, and I've found no evidence that she has ever tried to legislate from the bench. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

That's not what Rush says...//

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Of which? My brain definitely hurts, though.

re: #67 NelsFree
Um, no actually that's not true. If only one Republican could stop the whole process they'd have done so already.
This is folks, much ado about nothing: she's replacing Souter after all and she (and probably half the people on LGF) are smarter than Souter.
So, seriously, let's get this over with and have the Senate "debate" health care as a RIGHT - as per the House version of the bill - that will cost more than a $100 Billion a year for each of the next 15 or so years.
And hey, if you vote to televise it, you know Chuck Shumer will go along with that!

em>re: #80 realwest

{Realwest} How are you...any news?

Checking mail now.

re: #90 Baier

That's not what Rush says...//

Who cares what a radio personality says? I see the sarc tags, but I'm really puzzled by this - I find Rush amusing, and some of his links are quite informative, but what he has to say, he just says.

Though I can't imagine what it's like to sit and just talk to empty air for three hours.

re: #82 avanti

I tried to post a correction to another blog about the false BHO handshake snub and got a e-mail from the moderator saying "pro Obama comments are not allowed on this blog"

There are bullies all over the place.

re: #66 realwest

"(which was shared unanimously by the two other judges on the panel)"
Uh, no it wasn't. Judge Carbanes (sp?) wrote a dissenting opinon and as lawhawk has posted here and linked to, at least twice, ALL NINE of the Justices of SCOTUS took her to task for the rather cavalier way she dealt with that case, although four of the nine did dissent in the ultimate decision.

News to me about Cabranes; my references claim the decision was unanimous. But I'll happily accept your correction; it doesn't change my main point, which is that this hardly qualifies as a case of judicial activism, but rather one of upholding existing law. If she's going to be attacked as an activist, it would be more prudent to select a case in which she actually overturned existing law.

re: #79 Scion9

Heh. My 'favorite' line from any movie right there. Absolutely, no one but the Sith speak in absolutes? You sure you don't wanna rephrase that sage Jedi Master?

When I heard that line, I was dismayed, as there are absolutes. True there are in-betweens, but I got the impression that to consider absolutes is un-PC.

Maybe I'm just imagining things ...

re: #85 Kenneth

No one 55 million years ago was measuring the solar constant either; there is a tremendous amount we do not accurately know & it is far from surprising that we cannot come up with good climate models.

re: #50 Baier

I think the Republicans are blowing too much goodwill over this nomination. All they are doing is putting a show on for the base, but the problem is that it is getting a load of air time. The more I see the Republican party in action the more understand why they lost power.

I don't agree. Some Republicans may be doing that (e.g., I don't think Graham did himself or his party any favors yesterday). Sessions, OTOH, was very respectful but also pursued a number of important points that obviously threw her into some confusion and self-contradiction. Not a good sign. Cornyn did the same today. Her responses about her "judicial activism" or lack thereof were especially disjointed.

The qualifications and national scrutiny for an appointment to the SCOTUS are obviously higher for this position than they are for the positions she's been confirmed to in the past. And if the American people are watching these hearings, I would hope they would now be concerned about the confirmation of this nominee.

As I said last night, for me this isn't a question of her ideology. It's a question of her judgment and/or her candor. If we're to believe the explanations she's given in these hearings of her past remarks, then she has displayed, on numerous occasions, extremely poor judgment. And consistent displays of poor judgment, in my book, make someone a poor candidate for the SC, regardless of his or her ideology. OTOH, if we're not to believe her explanations, then ...

I keep getting kicked out of the thread. Click on quote, kicked out. Check post for karma, kicked out. Click on reply, kicked out. I feel like I'm Yosemite Sam in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Charles, are you mad at me?

re: #100 NelsFree

I keep getting kicked out of the thread. Click on quote, kicked out. Check post for karma, kicked out. Click on reply, kicked out. I feel like I'm Yosemite Sam in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Charles, are you mad at me?

Is your software current?

re: #87 Charles

The concern isn't that she has legislated from the bench, it's that she will now be in a position to do so. I agree there isn't evidence to show that she's done so to date, but the Supreme Court is a different creature, which does create policy from which the rest of government must follow.

Knowing how she intends to use that immense power is a question that should be asked - and answered. It's a tremendous responsibility, and so far it looks like she's answering appropriately.

Then again, so did Breyer and Souter, and both turned out to be far to the left of where they started.

re: #100 NelsFree

Working fine here on Safari.

Ah, BBL.

re: #94 Dianna

Who cares what a radio personality says? I see the sarc tags, but I'm really puzzled by this - I find Rush amusing, and some of his links are quite informative, but what he has to say, he just says.

Though I can't imagine what it's like to sit and just talk to empty air for three hours.

Unfortunately, you cannot be a republican leader and ignore Rush. He has real influence and little accountability.

re: #87 Charles

I've looked, and I've found no evidence that she has ever tried to legislate from the bench. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

I used the word "scant" because I had not done any sort of vigorous research, but I know I had not heard anybody saying that she had legislated from the bench, so I assumed there was no "there" there.

It's distracting to focus on things that are not real issues.

Would I have preferred for a conservative to have been nominated?
Yes.

Is it likely a Democrat President is going to nominate a conservative?
No.

There seems to me to be a good possibility that Sotomayor will at least do minimum harm; and she may turn out to be good at the job.

re: #91 Gang of One

Of which? My brain definitely hurts, though.

Simple logic. Stating that only the Sith speak of absolutes is in itself an absolute, thereby disproving the very statement Obi Wan had just made.

re: #85 Kenneth

“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

He's a bit of a alarmist on climate change, but his science seems valid. Watch his

video.

re: #93 Fluffy Bunny
Nope, oncologist hasn't called me with the results of the cancer test yet. He usually calls just before 9:00AM unless a) the test results aren't back yet - and they've always been back early the next morning for the last 3 years b) he thinks I'll be upset at the news and wants to give me time he doesn't have until the end of the day to "discuss it" with me or c) is just too busy with other patients.
All told I've had 12 tests with him and only b) has ever been applicable to "late" calls.
But who knows what the results are or what they may signify - maybe not even my oncologist.

re: #98 Ojoe

The current residences of this rock have a teensy weensy tiny little bitty miniscule super small atomic-level amount of data...

re: #102 lawhawk

that's my point as well...she's lying

re: #82 avanti

So observations reflecting objective facts are not allowed if the facts contradict the predetermined mindset? That's not a blog worth commenting on. A few years back I had a similar experience at a lefty democrat blog. I attempted to counter the "Bush lied" meme by posting some facts. I was told, "Look, this blog is for hating Bush. You can't post that shit here."

BTW: I saw that video & it's obvious Obama was not being snubbed but was in fact introducing US officials.

I may have misunderstood the committee rules. Maybe it requires at least one Republican vote for approval. Darn, I need Iceweasal's brain again!

re: #6 gruvin

I keep looking for the "wisdom" this "Latina" claims to profess. Instead, I find her rather obtuse.

I think obtuse is the goal until she gets confirmed.

re: #108 realwest

The waiting is hideous.

re: #104 Baier

Unfortunately, you cannot be a republican leader and ignore Rush. He has real influence and little accountability.

That simply demonstrates the vapidity of the republican leadership, then.

re: #106 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Simple logic. Stating that only the Sith speak of absolutes is in itself an absolute, thereby disproving the very statement Obi Wan had just made.

Of course!
/forehead-to-palm

re: #115 Dianna

1,000 updings.

re: #105 reine.de.tout
Hi reine! Hey, check out lawhawk's #102 though.

re: #112 NelsFree

I may have misunderstood the committee rules. Maybe it requires at least one Republican vote for approval. Darn, I need Iceweasal's brain again!

No you don't. It will only cause you pain.

/slowly hides clue-by-four...

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Third jar on the left.

Abby Normal.

re: #98 Ojoe

I don't know if there is an indirect method whereby historical record of solar constant can be measured. The study is interesting because while it did not rule out a role for CO2 in global warming, the record shows that CO2 could not have been responsible for half the warming seen. This observation undermines the models used in modern GW predictions.

re: #115 Dianna

That simply demonstrates the vapidity of the republican leadership, then.

you don't think Obama and the other Dem's bow down before the daily KOS?...hell, they had to get endorsed by them.

re: #115 Dianna

That simply demonstrates the vapidity of the republican leadership, then.

I could not agree with you more. The leaders chose to respond by pandering rather than bucking.

I'm going to go find some breakfast. Hopefully, we will have a different topic when I get back.

re: #87 Charles

I've looked, and I've found no evidence that she has ever tried to legislate from the bench. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

I think that's right. Krauthammer makes the point that this is only because she's always been constrained by precedent and the decisions of the high court. But as both Roberts and Alito pointed out numerous times during their hearings, the SC is also bound by its own precedent ... or at least both of them repeatedly professed to believe that (has she even been asked this question?)

So I continue to believe that the "judicial activist" label is, for the most part, just a generic slur that's going to be thrown against any nominee of a Democrat and pretty much a red herring in this case.

re: #101 midwestgak

Is your software current?

(Climbing up the ladder to the High Diving Tower, again)
H'm, about 2.5 amps. Is that enough current? Wait, I thought that HARDWARE draws current...?
/h

re: #121 VegasRick

Ah cha cha cha!

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Third jar on the left.

You realize that you've just unleashed a "Young Frankenstein" thread, don't you?

re: #102 lawhawk

The concern isn't that she has legislated from the bench, it's that she will now be in a position to do so. I agree there isn't evidence to show that she's done so to date, but the Supreme Court is a different creature, which does create policy from which the rest of government must follow.

Knowing how she intends to use that immense power is a question that should be asked - and answered. It's a tremendous responsibility, and so far it looks like she's answering appropriately.

Then again, so did Breyer and Souter, and both turned out to be far to the left of where they started.

I see that point, and understand the concern, but again, I haven't found anything in her past that indicates she'll suddenly come out as a radical left wing judicial activist once she's confirmed. If her rulings remain consistent with her record, she'll be pretty much a centrist - left on some things, right on others.

re: #76 SixDegrees

Indeed. While the GOP is so busy screeching about misinterpretations of a single line from a single speech, the looming health care bill has passed it's first committee vote in the Senate. The entire issue has been ignored by the GOP in favor of grandstanding on the Sotomayor non-issues and fluff.

Yeh, but if you are speaking about the "Wise Latina" comment , it was not a single speech, she used that line at least six other times.

LGF is now safe in China...

[Link: finance.yahoo.com...]

re: #108 realwest

I hope you'll be OK. :>

re: #111 Kenneth

So observations reflecting objective facts are not allowed if the facts contradict the predetermined mindset? That's not a blog worth commenting on. A few years back I had a similar experience at a lefty democrat blog. I attempted to counter the "Bush lied" meme by posting some facts. I was told, "Look, this blog is for hating Bush. You can't post that shit here."

BTW: I saw that video & it's obvious Obama was not being snubbed but was in fact introducing US officials.

I was pretty much driven off a leftie blog myself, and I'm a leftie.

re: #129 CIA Reject

You realize that you've just unleashed a "Young Frankenstein" thread, don't you?

"Walk this way"

re: #110 albusteve

that's my point as well...she's lying

She is.

Phew! I'm not a lawyer, so much of this hearing - particularly the discussion of various legal issues, approaches, is getting a little tedious for me. (And hey, I've got a terrific lawyer - and some friends, old and new (like realwest) - who are lawyers.) That said, when it comes to this stuff, it seems something like:

"An Inquiry into the Relative Pulchritude of Members Included in the Equine Species in Nature" - Lawyer Jones

"All the Pretty Horses" - Cormac McCarthy

re: #115 Dianna Well when the Kerfuffle between Rush and Emmanuel Obama was hot, several polls were taken and they evidenced that only 11% of registered republicans think Rush is A voice of the Republican party and less thought he was a leader of the Republican Party.
Remember Rush - like Al Franken and Randi Rhodes (remember her?) is an entertainer - it's all about Rush,his ego and MONEY.

re: #129 CIA Reject

You realize that you've just unleashed a "Young Frankenstein" thread, don't you?

*singing badly* I...ain't got no body...

re: #111 Kenneth

BTW: I saw that video & it's obvious Obama was not being snubbed but was in fact introducing US officials.

And that's why I didn't post about it.

(Climbs up the ladder to the High Diving Tower, AGAIN)

re: #136 VegasRick

"Walk this way"

"what hump?"

re: #133 buzzsawmonkey

Fronk-in-shteen, please.

Not Igor, it's eye gore. :)

re: #134 mrbaracuda

I hope you'll be OK. :>

Thanks, ME TOO!

re: #136 VegasRick

"Walk this way"

Said a give?

re: #102 lawhawk

The concern isn't that she has legislated from the bench, it's that she will now be in a position to do so. I agree there isn't evidence to show that she's done so to date, but the Supreme Court is a different creature, which does create policy from which the rest of government must follow.

Knowing how she intends to use that immense power is a question that should be asked - and answered. It's a tremendous responsibility, and so far it looks like she's answering appropriately.

Then again, so did Breyer and Souter, and both turned out to be far to the left of where they started.

The appointment has a history of changing recipients. There's simply no way to know how a person will react once in the position of Supreme Court Justice. At all. No amount of interrogation suffices, because the very act of appointment itself places the person in an environment where they have never been before. Change, though not inevitable, is often the result.

The only real metric that can be used is whether or not the nominee is qualified. A history of poorly reasoned decisions from the bench, a lack of understanding of the fundamental legal issues that come before the court, or examples of gross legal incompetence in some other endeavor would certainly raise questions about fitness for the post. And Conservatives have, for several years now, demanded that nominees be evaluated solely on such merits, with questions of ideology and temperament left by the wayside. As it should be. Questions over ideology should be dealt with at the ballot box during Presidential elections. Perhaps if more people had thought about this simple fact, with at least two retirements from the SC a virtual certainty between now and 2012, the outcome of the last election might have been different.

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Third jar on the left.

The brain marked Abe Normal?

re: #133 buzzsawmonkey

Fronk-in-shteen, please.

"My Uncle's work was DOO-DOO!"
/stabs scalpel into leg

re: #123 Charpete67

you don't think Obama and the other Dem's bow down before the daily KOS?...hell, they had to get endorsed by them.

The difference, though, is that KOS himself is active in politics, trying to act as a Dem party agent of influence.

I think that the bow to Kos' associates says that there is a great deal wrong with American politics.

Perhaps it is the same thing that's been wrong from the start - that gaining office requires first the appeasement of the fringes, then the dive for the middle. Or maybe it's the way information sources have multiplied and fragmented, so that most people are overloaded, fatigued and spun past thinking. There is a narrowness to most political world views, presently, that I find quite worrisome.

re: #137 opnion

She is.

if you asked yourself, can I trust this politician?, and answered no, you'd be right 90% of the time...SC nominees are no different

re: #130 Charles

Agreed.

re: #148 Kenneth

The brain marked Abe Normal?

Blucher!

re: #150 NelsFree

re: #149 buzzsawmonkey

re: #148 Kenneth

re: #146 midwestgak

re: #140 BlueCanuck

re: #133 buzzsawmonkey

"He's going to be a very popular fellow..."

re: #118 realwest

Hi reine! Hey, check out lawhawk's #102 though.

I did.
Here's the thing:
She can be asked that question (and I hope she is), and she can answer it, and we still will not know what she will actually do.

re: #147 SixDegrees

The appointment has a history of changing recipients. There's simply no way to know how a person will react once in the position of Supreme Court Justice. At all. No amount of interrogation suffices, because the very act of appointment itself places the person in an environment where they have never been before. Change, though not inevitable, is often the result.

The only real metric that can be used is whether or not the nominee is qualified. A history of poorly reasoned decisions from the bench, a lack of understanding of the fundamental legal issues that come before the court, or examples of gross legal incompetence in some other endeavor would certainly raise questions about fitness for the post. And Conservatives have, for several years now, demanded that nominees be evaluated solely on such merits, with questions of ideology and temperament left by the wayside. As it should be. Questions over ideology should be dealt with at the ballot box during Presidential elections. Perhaps if more people had thought about this simple fact, with at least two retirements from the SC a virtual certainty between now and 2012, the outcome of the last election might have been different.

(Climbing up the ladder to the High Diving Tower, A-GAIN)
So, how has Chief Justice Roberts changed since his appointment?

re: #110 albusteve

that's my point as well...she's lying

If you can prove that statement, I'd suggest contacting your nearest Republican Senator and turning over your evidence to them immediately. Lying before a Senate committee is a Federal crime that isn't taken lightly, and would immediately derail Sotomayor's nomination if true or even credible.

re: #94 Dianna

... Though I can't imagine what it's like to sit and just talk to empty air for three hours.

That would make you a Senator.

re: #151 Dianna

The difference, though, is that KOS himself is active in politics, trying to act as a Dem party agent of influence.

I think that the bow to Kos' associates says that there is a great deal wrong with American politics.

Perhaps it is the same thing that's been wrong from the start - that gaining office requires first the appeasement of the fringes, then the dive for the middle. Or maybe it's the way information sources have multiplied and fragmented, so that most people are overloaded, fatigued and spun past thinking. There is a narrowness to most political world views, presently, that I find quite worrisome.

Agreed...I meant to only point out it happens on both sides and I hate it both ways. I wish Republicans would lead with principles and ideals and then rally support.

re: #151 Dianna
Great comment Dianna - I agree 100%. With one additional thought - didn't Kos get money from the DNC or moveon.org (which is really the same thing) which would take him out of blogger territory and put him squarely in the flakery business?

re: #152 albusteve

if you asked yourself, can I trust this politician?, and answered no, you'd be right 90% of the time...SC nominees are no different

Exactly right, she is being very careful & shading the truth as you would expect.
The issue is, is she qualified & she seems to be.

re: #158 SixDegrees

If you can prove that statement, I'd suggest contacting your nearest Republican Senator and turning over your evidence to them immediately. Lying before a Senate committee is a Federal crime that isn't taken lightly, and would immediately derail Sotomayor's nomination if true or even credible.

you are dreaming in absolutes...don't be silly

re: #108 realwest

Prayers and angels on the way! You have mail.

BBL
(Jumps off the springboard into the bucket of water)

re: #16 Iron Fist

They don't want to win. They just want to look good.

Then, perhaps they should reconsider having Jeff Sessions asking why Sotomayor didn't look at a case like another Puerto Rican did.

re: #159 Son of the Black Dog

That would make you a Senator.

Over my dead body!

re: #162 opnion

Exactly right, she is being very careful & shading the truth as you would expect.
The issue is, is she qualified & she seems to be.

the issue is, it doesn't matter...she's in regardless of what blather she spills to the committee

re: #136 VegasRick

"Walk this way"

re: #161 realwest

Great comment Dianna - I agree 100%. With one additional thought - didn't Kos get money from the DNC or moveon.org (which is really the same thing) which would take him out of blogger territory and put him squarely in the flakery business?

I don't honestly know. I think it depends on how the money arrived.

The fact that Kos has been fairly quiet the last few months is very, very interesting, though.

re: #163 albusteve

you are dreaming in absolutes...don't be silly

I'm relatively sure that its usually only the Sith who deal in absolutes.

re: #157 NelsFree

(Climbing up the ladder to the High Diving Tower, A-GAIN)
So, how has Chief Justice Roberts changed since his appointment?

Please re-read my post. Begin with

Change, though not inevitable, is often the result [of an SC appointment].

The Republicans are all worthless and weak. They should give the citizens of these United States twenty push ups.

Some varm milk . . . perhaps?

The other point that few discuss but should be in focus right now is a simple one:

Is this the best that Obama (heralded as being a deeply intellectual Constitutional scholar himself who would "restore" Constitutionality to government) can do?

Is this the best nominee that he could find? One that has a perspective on the law that would facilitate this "restoration" that Liberal Democrats have screamed at us as urgent and necessary? If she is that person, could she be troubled to elaborate on what this perspective is so that it can be debated before she is handed a life time appointment to the highest court?

re: #173 buzzsawmonkey

Or one of the homeless people who hangs out in my neighborhood.

Or my advanced differential equations professor- whose class met at 7:30 AM.

re: #171 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm relatively sure that its usually only the Sith who deal in absolutes.

I love vodka, I must be Sithy

re: #168 albusteve

the issue is, it doesn't matter...she's in regardless of what blather she spills to the committee

The Dems would confirm a banana spider, sent by Obama, but she seems qualified.

re: #57 SixDegrees

In the New Haven case, she was upholding the city's law that was already on the books; she didn't make new law at all, and sided with an existing city statute put there by duly elected officials. It's hard to find a better example of judicial restraint; this ruling (which was shared unanimously by the two other judges on the panel) is about as far from judicial activism as it is possible to get.

Sotomayor didn't participate in the Kelo case. She applied it in an appeals court case. Again, this isn't making new law from the bench; it's a case of applying existing law handed down by the Supreme Court. Although I certainly believe that Kelo was a tremendously bad decision, it is currently the law of the land, and it isn't up to judges to change it. What ought to have happened the day after the Kelo decision was handed down is that Congress should have immediately introduced legislation overturning that decision and shoring up existing law. But again, this is an example of judicial restraint rather than activism. She was following the higher court's guidance.

While I'm not trying to argue that she is, in fact, a "judicial activist," the consensus appears to be that she way overapplied the Kelo decision in Didden, so I certainly would not term that an example of judicial restraint by any stretch.

But you are correct to point out that she wasn't involved in the Kelo decision itself, and there seems to be some confusion about that. She did, apparently (I didn't hear it myself) make a rather odd blunder yesterday in describing the Court's decision in Kelo, and that's been getting quite a bit of attention.

re: #176 karmic_inquisitor

The other point that few discuss but should be in focus right now is a simple one:

Is this the best that Obama (heralded as being a deeply intellectual Constitutional scholar himself who would "restore" Constitutionality to government) can do?

Is this the best nominee that he could find? One that has a perspective on the law that would facilitate this "restoration" that Liberal Democrats have screamed at us as urgent and necessary? If she is that person, could she be troubled to elaborate on what this perspective is so that it can be debated before she is handed a life time appointment to the highest court?

that's extremist fear mongering, step over there--->

re: #175 midwestgak

Some varm milk . . . perhaps?

OVALTINE!

re: #164 Fluffy Bunny
Received and replied to!

re: #180 buzzsawmonkey

The only way I could ever have dealt with differential equations would have been to have a universal joint first.

That wasn't my thing, but the material did make a lot more sense after a couple of shots of bourbon. (just not at 7:30 AM!)

re: #178 albusteve

I love vodka, I must be Sithy

Well, I guess if you drink enough you'll get sith faced.

I am getting this feeling we are getting Ginsburged.

/deja vu all over again.

re: #180 buzzsawmonkey

The only way I could ever have dealt with differential equations would have been to have a universal joint first.

Wow. A car/math/drug pun! It could be driven in any direction!

re: #183 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

OVALTINE!

I have this Orphan Annie Ovaltine mug.

re: #186 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, I guess if you drink enough you'll get sith faced.

I hath

re: #183 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

OVALTINE!

Taffeta, sweetheart.

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

I guess this would be the time to quote what someone (I forget who) said of the Bourbons; "They learned nothing and forgot nothing."

Guess that's why they named the booze after them!

re: #185 CIA Reject

That wasn't my thing, but the material did make a lot more sense after a couple of shots of bourbon. (just not at 7:30 AM!)

But I bet your professor didn't repeat the same material for four lectures in a row. We only got through 1/3 of the syllabus. :-(

re: #176 karmic_inquisitor
It's the best he could do while pandering to the Latino community!

re: #190 reine.de.tout

I have this Orphan Annie Ovaltine mug.

Wow. Was that a marketing promotion?

re: #197 midwestgak

Wow. Was that a marketing promotion?

I think so.
I have a collection of coffee mugs, nothing special, and my mom got me that one and this Shirley Temple one.

In The Red

The second quarter tax receipts, following today's Treasury report for the month of June: down 30.9% from the same period last year.

I think this is what is referred to in business as "falling off a cliff," when cash receipts diminish greatly and rapidly. Gulp.

The problem with having an MBA is that your mind is trained to reduce expenditures and cash disbursements in such a situation, when clearly, the correct solution (we know this from the people who have Masters in Governmental Affairs, or some such equivalent degree, who are currently in charge) is to massively increase spending. A 31% drop in 2Q receipts 2009 vs. 2008, and we are going pedal to the metal in spending -- not just a tweak of federal spending, but testing the outer limits of our debt capacity by any absolute or relative measure. What happened to the self-description of Democrats being the "reality-based" party?

Well y'all it's been real. But I gotta go eat lunch now.
Hope I get the chance to see you all down the road!

re: #176 karmic_inquisitor

The other point that few discuss but should be in focus right now is a simple one:

Is this the best that Obama (heralded as being a deeply intellectual Constitutional scholar himself who would "restore" Constitutionality to government) can do?

Is this the best nominee that he could find? One that has a perspective on the law that would facilitate this "restoration" that Liberal Democrats have screamed at us as urgent and necessary? If she is that person, could she be troubled to elaborate on what this perspective is so that it can be debated before she is handed a life time appointment to the highest court?

'fraid not. The appointment well was poisoned long ago, beginning with Bork and proceeding through several more outbursts of sheer nastiness. No nominee is going to go down that road, where hyper-hypothetical arguments are fired at the nominee in a constant barrage, in the hopes that it will elicit some tiny, insignificant contradiction or error that can be magnified to the size of a small moon. The climate is such that we will probably never see an unguarded, candid nominee come before the committee for several lifetimes; all will be carefully rehearsed and will tightly constrain themselves to a prepared script as much as possible.

OT~

So the president is supposed to speak regarding health care reform. I am thinking to myself that there is absolutely no reform involved. Reform implies more efficiency, streamlining, making it simpler, or making it less expensive. This is adding considerable bureaucracy and cost. Where's the reform?

re: #195 vxbush

But I bet your professor didn't repeat the same material for four lectures in a row. We only got through 1/3 of the syllabus. :-(

Actually. since you bring it up, he had a very interesting and effective method of presenting the material (at that hour of the morning he needed it!).

At each class, after the first day, he spent the first 15 minutes reviewing EVERYTHING he had done since the beginning of the term. Since he strictly limited himself to 15 minutes this review necessarily got more and more compressed as the term went on, but because of the repetition you actually understood it. This method was so effective that on the last day of the term he summed up the entire course in fifteen minutes and we actually UNDERSTOOD it!

That class was perhaps the best learning experience I had in college...

re: #190 reine.de.tout

I have this Orphan Annie Ovaltine mug.

Hi reine!! Well, I had this one - 'cause I'm a lot older than you. (I got mine new.)

:-)

Ovaltine Mug

re: #198 buzzsawmonkey

Ovaltine was the sponsor of the Little Orphan Annie radio show for years.

Be sure to drink your Ovaltine. Ovaltine?! A crummy commercial?! Son of a bitch!

re: #196 realwest

It's the best he could do while pandering to the Latino community!

...and we have a WINNAHHH!

G*d bless, RW!

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

Was that Jean Shepherd? I can't remember now.

Yup- from the "Christmas Story"

re: #199 reine.de.tout

I think so.
I have a collection of coffee mugs, nothing special, and my mom got me that one and this Shirley Temple one.

ha. Bisquick promotion. And drink milk. Double impact.

Bill Gates...the real Poseidon!

[Link: www.nola.com...]

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

Was that Jean Shepherd? I can't remember now.

Yes, as quoted from A Christmas Story, after Ralphie uses the Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring to decode a very important message from Annie herself. ;-)

re: #192 midwestgak

Taffeta, sweetheart.

"No tongues."

re: #205 subsailor68

Hi reine!! Well, I had this one - 'cause I'm a lot older than you. (I got mine new.)

:-)

Ovaltine Mug

Wow!
that's great!
Is yours still in good shape?
Mine has couple of dings and a crack.
But it's still an interesting item to hvae.

Michael Coren (A pro-Israeli christian with his own show) takes on two moonbats in Toronto, including the President of the York Federation of Students.

Check it out.

Good Afternoon Lizard nation!
what up?

NYT isn't even trying to hide the agenda:

Why We Must Ratıon Health Care

re: #204 CIA Reject

Actually. since you bring it up, he had a very interesting and effective method of presenting the material (at that hour of the morning he needed it!).

At each class, after the first day, he spent the first 15 minutes reviewing EVERYTHING he had done since the beginning of the term. Since he strictly limited himself to 15 minutes this review necessarily got more and more compressed as the term went on, but because of the repetition you actually understood it. This method was so effective that on the last day of the term he summed up the entire course in fifteen minutes and we actually UNDERSTOOD it!

That class was perhaps the best learning experience I had in college...

Nice. That's not a bad idea for most math classes, actually. My professor would just forget where he was at, and so he'd teach the same lectures over and over. You couldn't convince him otherwise.

re: #212 albusteve

Bill Gates...the real Poseidon!

[Link: www.nola.com...]

That is sooo cool. I met a retired NOLA Captain last week. He was too cool for words.

re: #143 albusteve

"what hump?"

Blucher!!

re: #210 CIA Reject

Yup- from the "Christmas Story"

re: #215 reine.de.tout

Wow!
that's great!
Is yours still in good shape?
Mine has couple of dings and a crack.
But it's still an interesting item to hvae.

Ah, sadly, it's long gone now. You know the old saying: three moves equals one fire. I'm glad you've still got yours!

:-)

re: #11 karmic_inquisitor

Shouldn't she be held to the same standard that she hoilds attorneys in her court?

Yeah, Who is she to judge !?

oh yeah, never mind.

re: #222 eschew_obfuscation

Blucher!!

*Whinney*

That was on last night, BTW. Still hilarious.

re: #218 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ashamed to admit it... sometimes I have the same thoughts.

re: #214 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

"No tongues."

. . . it's pronounced Fronkensteen.

re: #226 doppelganglander

*Whinney*

That was on last night, BTW. Still hilarious.

I have it on VHS (yeah, I still have a VHS machine). Have to watch it at least once a year.

re: #221 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

That is sooo cool. I met a retired NOLA Captain last week. He was too cool for words.

the only NOLA I know of is New Orleans LA

re: #228 buzzsawmonkey

Forget the hearings. I'm contemplating my gavel.

Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays?

re: #222 eschew_obfuscation

Blucher!!

Brain Depository-- After 5 PM Insert Brains through slot in door.

re: #233 buzzsawmonkey

Note that this article is by Peter Singer, the "bioethicist" at Princeton who equates handicapped children with chimpanzees.

That's just swell. Let's ration Peter Singer's health care first, hm?

re: #228 buzzsawmonkey

Forget the hearings. I'm contemplating my gavel.

Thought you gave that up for Lint!
(sorry, all I could come up with)
(yes, I know you're Jewish)
(Well, I think you're Jewish)
("Funny, he doesn't look Druish.")

Hey Hoops! quick question. i am buying my grandson a laptop for school and he also plays games, ie runescape, simms and a few others. whats important? processer speed, RAM, and such. i need it to be wireless and an optical reader on board. any quick suggestions?

RASMUSSEN REPORTS

Following Two Days of Hearings, 90% Expect Sotomayor to Be Confirmed.

A new national telephone survey finds that 37% of voters now favor her confirmation while 43% are opposed.

re: #233 buzzsawmonkey

Note that this article is by Peter Singer, the "bioethicist" at Princeton who equates handicapped children with chimpanzees.

Absurd that Singer should be a professor of bioethics. I doubt he'd know what ethics were if they slapped him in the face.

re: #233 buzzsawmonkey

Note that this article is by Peter Singer, the "bioethicist" at Princeton who equates handicapped children with chimpanzees.

...and here we have the slippery slope to euthenasia...

can I do it for 3 or 4 hunnert?

re: #234 calcajun

Brain Depository-- After 5 PM Insert Brains through slot in door.

Damn your eyes.

re: #231 albusteve

National Oceanographic somethinerother.

SEA KITTEH SCIENCE!

re: #227 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ashamed to admit it... sometimes I have the same thoughts.

Don't buy into their BS. Socialism always sounds good till you actually take a look at what they do to implement it. There is a big difference between a individual choosing whether they can afford to receive treatment and the government saying they aren't worth spending the money on.

re: #242 midwestgak

Damn your eyes.

Too late!

re: #229 midwestgak

. . . it's pronounced Fronkensteen.

Abby Someone.

"Abby" who?

Abby Normal.

"Abby Normal"?!

I'm almost certain that was the name.

re: #203 Dahveed

OT~

So the president is supposed to speak regarding health care reform. I am thinking to myself that there is absolutely no reform involved. Reform implies more efficiency, streamlining, making it simpler, or making it less expensive. This is adding considerable bureaucracy and cost. Where's the reform?

Take a look at the scintillating beacon of efficiency and expertise represented by the government's current medical management miracle - the VA Hospital System.

Oh, wait...

re: #240 eschew_obfuscation

...and here we have the slippery slope to euthenasia...

Looks more like the express lane to me...

re: #240 eschew_obfuscation

...and here we have the slippery slope to euthenasia...

not to mention youthineurope...
/

re: #242 midwestgak

Damn your eyes.

"Puthin onna Witz!"

re: #218 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

NYT isn't even trying to hide the agenda:

Why We Must Ratıon Health Care

That's the most Orwellian article I've seen - possibly ever. This snippet:

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word.

Well, no shit Sherlock. (And he then goes on to describe why it shouldn't be a dirty word.)

Then the other shoe drops. Who wrote this, and what else has he written?

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”

This guy is goofy. Let's ration health care, but we also need to focus on saving lives. Except for those who we've decided no longer deserve to live.

re: #240 eschew_obfuscation

...and here we have the slippery slope to euthenasia...

But I enjoy asian teens.

/

re: #20 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice -- whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation," Clinton said.

I think it's pretty obvious that the current iranian regime has already made that choice.

re: #248 CIA Reject

Looks more like the express lane to me...

They're looking for a way to tax it. I mean, more than the estate tax.

re: #245 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Too late!

He was my boyfriend!

re: #248 CIA Reject

Looks more like the express lane to me...

Don't laugh. When the present younger generation come to grips with the mountain of debt we've left them to shoulder--and we're the largest demographic segment of the population, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to shove grandma and grandpa off onto the ice floes.

re: #250 calcajun

"Puthin onna Witz!"

"Come back friend! I'll make espresso!"

re: #251 subsailor68

That's the most Orwellian article I've seen - possibly ever. This snippet:

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word.

Well, no shit Sherlock. (And he then goes on to describe why it shouldn't be a dirty word.)

Then the other shoe drops. Who wrote this, and what else has he written?

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”

This guy is goofy. Let's ration health care, but we also need to focus on saving lives. Except for those who we've decided no longer deserve to live.

I wanna be on the committee that chooses who lives and dies...please? Pick me, pick me.
///

Gee, I make a great straight man!

(see...even that line is a setup ;-P)

Hey, Peter Singer!! I've got an idea that fits right in with your philosophy:

Let's take the New York Times off life support.

re: #220 buzzsawmonkey

Most of the vintage Little Orphan Annie strips have been compiled. Some, I think, by Fantagraphics, some I know are available from Dover (including "Little Orphan Annie in the Great Depression," which is great).

They are well worth getting. They are exciting--gangsters, spies, etc.--gruesome, on occasion, and always optimistic and pro-capitalist throughout.

I was always a big Pogo fan, myself.
I have a very old book called "the Pogo Papers.
It isn't in good condition at all, but I love it.

re: #256 calcajun

Don't laugh. When the present younger generation come to grips with the mountain of debt we've left them to shoulder--and we're the largest demographic segment of the population, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to shove grandma and grandpa off onto the ice floes.

I wasn't laughing. You're right.