Obama’s First Supreme Court Pick: Sonia Sotomayor

US News • Views: 2,869

President Obama has picked a Hispanic woman, Sonia Sotomayor, to serve on the Supreme Court; she currently sits on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and is from the Bronx. The New York Times has a collection of Statements on Sotomayor’s Nomination, and an article about her life history: ‘Kid From the Bronx’ With Hopes and Doubts.

Fox News, of course, has already published an attack piece: Sotomayor — Obama’s Nominee Spouts Biased Views on Race and Gender.

Jump to bottom

579 comments
1 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:38:03am

Feelings.


Youtube Video
2 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:38:28am

NY Time is for Fox News against. Any surprises there?

3 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:38:31am

Since when is empathy equal to legal acumen?

4 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:06am
Youtube Video
5 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:12am

re: #3 MandyManners

Since when is empathy equal to legal acumen?

Since the election.

6 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:13am

But, hey! As a Latina, she's more qualified than a white man.

7 freedomplow  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:15am

WWCPD?

8 Fast Eddie  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:25am

This is what you get for losing elections.

9 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:34am

re: #1 MandyManners

GMTA!

10 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:36am

re: #5 kansas

Since the election.

Only in FCBBHO's mind.

11 sneezey  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:39am

'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'
"The nomination is sure to draw fire from conservatives, who have criticized Sotomayor’s handling of a high-profile race case now before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor backed New Haven, Connecticut, after the city canceled promotions in its fire department because no blacks had scored well enough in testing to qualify."

Sounds like she has said some truly controversial things.

12 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:45am

Her comments regarding making policy from the bench disturb me a bit but let's let the process work and see how she does during the confirmation hearings. It really doesn't matter anyway, the Republicans couldn't stop her if they tried so I think she is pretty much a shoe in.

13 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:39:58am

re: #6 MandyManners

But, hey! As a Latina, she's more qualified than a white man.

If that's the case I vote for J Lo.

14 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:40:01am

Yes, Obama has picked an Hispanic woman for SCOTUS. Yes, Obama has picked a Latina for SCOTUS.

How do we know? Because that's all they F&%$^g talk about! It's all about Race now.

15 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:40:10am

A couple of weeks back TNR or one of the other liberal rags did an article on Sotomayer that basically said she's not so bright and a bully. Can you imagine the firestorm we'd have if a pub from the right said that?

16 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:40:12am

re: #3 MandyManners

Since when is empathy equal to legal acumen?

Around Jan 20 2009

17 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:40:35am

re: #10 MandyManners

Only in FCBBHO's mind.

Pretty lonely place there.

18 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:40:51am

OK, he can check the "Latino-woman" group off the list.

How many other groups does BO need to appease?

19 harpsicon  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:05am

If they can't stop her, the opposition has the duty to quote all her wild-eyed pronouncements back to her in the hope that some will appear on the evening news.

There's nothing like publicity to clear the air. Leftists have been getting away with hiding behind the media, but in this case there should be a serious lot of attention being paid, so it should be possible to get all those quotations and decisions out there into the public sphere.

I say go for it!

20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:12am

Sounds like they had more than one hit piece in the queue. Waiting on name to drop. Hell, sounds like MSNBC and Bush.

21 badger1970  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:17am

No surprises there. She'll get confirmed in a heartbeat. Is she qualified? Can she stay unbiased? Can she not legislate from the bench? Can she keep Ginsberg awake?

22 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:43am

re: #12 Jetpilot1101

Her comments regarding making policy from the bench disturb me a bit but let's let the process work and see how she does during the confirmation hearings. It really doesn't matter anyway, the Republicans couldn't stop her if they tried so I think she is pretty much a shoe in.

She won't change the balance of court either.

23 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:52am

re: #20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Sounds like they had more than one hit piece in the queue. Waiting on name to drop. Hell, sounds like MSNBC and Bush.

Is it a "hit piece" if what they publish is true?

24 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:41:57am

I'm going head off now. I'm not prepared to discuss a Supreme Court pick right now. TTYL

25 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:00am

re: #14 Russkilitlover

Yes, Obama has picked an Hispanic woman for SCOTUS. Yes, Obama has picked a Latina for SCOTUS.

How do we know? Because that's all they F&%$^g talk about! It's all about Race now.

What the f...ck is a latina? Are we feminizing latino now? Are my daughters Jewa's or the plural Jewot?

26 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:04am

re: #15 Thanos

A couple of weeks back TNR or one of the other liberal rags did an article on Sotomayer that basically said she's not so bright and a bully. Can you imagine the firestorm we'd have if a pub from the right said that?

Lawhawk linked to it at his website. Actually, the article seemed kind of thin to me (and I was surprised to see in at TNR). I am reserving judgment on Sotomayor until I can get a better handle on her track record.

27 Idle Drifter  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:42am

re: #3 MandyManners

I do recall my jury instructions to weigh evidence and observe the law. No where was empathy emphasized or even considered.

28 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:43am

Too soon to make a conclusion. Wait and see what comes out and let's see some of her opinions before deciding. I read somewhere that she is "temperamental" which might not be a good thing. But, let's see what comes out.

29 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:46am

re: #22 jcm

She won't change the balance of court either.

Good point. Justice Souter was a liberal and so is Ms. Sotomayor.

30 Guanxi88  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:50am

re: #23 kansas

Is it a "hit piece" if what they publish is true?

Yes, yes it is. See, any opposition to the pronouncements that Teh One so graciously condescends to make is negative, unfair, and a thinly-veiled form of racism.
//

31 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:42:59am

There was once a time was justice was blind.

That day is long gone.

The Democrats rabidly opposed any of Bush's Hispanic nominees to the federal bench. Apparently now being Hispanic is OK when you're a radical judicial activist.

Hey, I'm from the Bronx and have a lot of empathy and an interesting life story. Doesn't make me qualified for the Supreme Court.

32 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:43:48am

re: #26 Occasional Reader

Lawhawk linked to it at his website. Actually, the article seemed kind of thin to me (and I was surprised to see in at TNR). I am reserving judgment on Sotomayor until I can get a better handle on her track record.

Yes, lots of anon and non anon quotes from clerks.

33 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:43:48am

re: #29 Jetpilot1101

Good point. Justice Souter was a liberal and so is Ms. Sotomayor.

But she is young and way over on the left. And did I say she is young?

34 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:43:58am

One of the most reversed Appeals Court judges on the bench.

But her story is oh so compelling so that detail should be broomed.


And for what it's worth, someone on CNN also trashed her earlier this morning so Fox doesn't have the exclusive.

35 bloodnok  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:00am

*Shrug*

I was expecting worse, to be honest. I'll wait and see what she's done over her career.

36 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:06am

re: #31 JammieWearingFool

Hey, I'm from the Bronx and have a lot of empathy and an interesting life story. Doesn't make me qualified for the Supreme Court.

But if you've committed any tax evasion, we might be able to get you a cabinet position.

37 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:12am

re: #29 Jetpilot1101

But Souter was supposed to have been a conservative.

38 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:43am

re: #31 JammieWearingFool

There was once a time was justice was blind.

That day is long gone.

The Democrats rabidly opposed any of Bush's Hispanic nominees to the federal bench. Apparently now being Hispanic is OK when you're a radical judicial activist.

Hey, I'm from the Bronx and have a lot of empathy and an interesting life story. Doesn't make me qualified for the Supreme Court.

Yeah I miss the good old days when Justice was Blind and nobody saw when you paid off a Judge?

39 FrogMarch  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:47am

Never mind her qualifications, she's Hispanic. In our shallow ideas-don't- matter world, this is what heads each and every news story. I'm over it.
What are her qualifications?
who cares!

ugh.

40 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:52am

re: #25 Nevergiveup

What the f...ck is a latina? Are we feminizing latino now? Are my daughters Jewa's or the plural Jewot?

It's Spanish usage, here at least.

41 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:57am

re: #12 Jetpilot1101

Her comments regarding making policy from the bench disturb me a bit but let's let the process work and see how she does during the confirmation hearings. It really doesn't matter anyway, the Republicans couldn't stop her if they tried so I think she is pretty much a shoe in.

I agree. I don't see any point in getting worked up unless somebody like Thomas or Scalia retires.

42 Guanxi88  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:44:57am

re: #35 bloodnok

*Shrug*

I was expecting worse, to be honest. I'll wait and see what she's done over her career.

I think that's part of the genius, if you can call it that, of BHO's MO. SEt us up to expect Trotsky, and when we only get a plain old socialist, we're pleased and relieved.

43 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:45:01am

re: #31 JammieWearingFool

The Democrats rabidly opposed any of Bush's Hispanic nominees to the federal bench. Apparently now being Hispanic is OK when you're a radical judicial activist.

With all due respect, JWF, I really don't recall that the Democrats opposed those nominees based on their being Hispanic. So that statement doesn't really track.

44 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:45:05am

re: #26 Occasional Reader

Lawhawk linked to it at his website. Actually, the article seemed kind of thin to me (and I was surprised to see in at TNR). I am reserving judgment on Sotomayor until I can get a better handle on her track record.

Me too. I'm not willing to trust the opinions of right-wing radio or Fox News, because they're going to react negatively by default to anything Obama does.

45 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:45:17am

re: #33 Nevergiveup

But she is young and way over on the left. And did I say she is young?

young = better

/leftard

46 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:45:33am

re: #40 OldLineTexan

It's Spanish usage, here at least.

Ain't this America?

47 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:45:39am

re: #41 Ward Cleaver

I agree. I don't see any point in getting worked up unless somebody like Thomas or Scalia retires.

Aren't there any liberal justices who actually have a command of the actual law thing?

48 obscured by clouds  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:02am

Obama is physically and intellectually incapable of making a decision that I can approve of. This (nominating Sonia Sotomayor) is a perfect example. Let's just hope that all those middle-of-the-road, moderate, Colin Powell type "Republicans" will step up to the plate and stonewall this nomination. Fat chance.

49 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:06am

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I was audited once. Does that help?

50 Raiderdan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:25am

The Democrats obiesance to identity politics is complete...

Charles, please try and stop dissing FOX News all the time.

At least they aren't buying the diversity meme like the rest of the politically-correct media, which naturally will couch any criticism of Sotomayor as RAAAAAAACISM.

I heard Jeffrey Toobin on CNN gushing and gooing over the "new face of America" and wanted to vomit.

51 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:25am

The Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

...the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. ...reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

52 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:33am

re: #37 calcajun

But Souter was supposed to have been a conservative.

Well at least now we know what we are getting. As for being young, yes that is troubling but generally part of the package.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if she was a creationist. I'd like to see the left defend her on that one.

53 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:34am

re: #47 kansas

Aren't there any liberal justices who actually have a command of the actual law thing?

If they did, the wouldn't be liberal now, would they?

54 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:46:50am

re: #33 Nevergiveup

But she is young and way over on the left. And did I say she is young?

She's 54. Isn't that older than Roberts was when he was nominated?

55 LGoPs  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:06am

re: #3 MandyManners

Since when is empathy equal to legal acumen?

Emphasizing empathy, while sounding nice, is perilous when it comes to the law. IMO it essentially replaces the Rule of Law with the Rule of Man. And the Rule of Man can be capricious and arbitrary and unpredictable. Unpredictability undermines society as it erodes confidence in the fairness of the Law itself. IMHO.

56 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:08am

re: #46 Nevergiveup

Ain't this America?

Que?

57 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:20am

re: #46 Nevergiveup

Ain't this America?

I really can't get outraged about referring to a female Hispanic as "Latina". Non-issue.

58 JacksonTn  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:22am

No point in even discussing her ... she will get appointed ... unless there is some really really big skelton in her closet ... hispanic votes are to be kept by the democrats and they will be ... this is just another campaign debt being paid by Obama ...

I am waiting for the Prop 8 case to come down today ... how many times is that going to go before the court? ... how many times can it? ... anybody? ...

59 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:22am

re: #43 Occasional Reader

With all due respect, JWF, I really don't recall that the Democrats opposed those nominees based on their being Hispanic. So that statement doesn't really track.

My point is the media is gushing over the fact she's Hispanic. Why did they not defend Bush's picks with the same zeal?

60 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:43am

re: #49 JammieWearingFool

I was audited once. Does that help?

We'll but in a check mark and hope it comes up in the confirmation hearings.

61 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:54am

re: #47 kansas

Aren't there any liberal justices who actually have a command of the actual law thing?

If they did they wouldn't be liberal.

62 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:47:55am

I heard a lot of talk about empathy and feelings during The One's press conference to announce this nomination. Not once did I hear a mention of The Constitution. (I didn't watch the whole thing, I was getting ready for work.) There was some talk about The Law.

As I am still in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged, this talk about empathy and feelings was disconcerting.

63 brookly red  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:08am

re: #47 kansas

Aren't there any liberal justices who actually have a command of the actual law thing?

Good point. This may be a throw-away nomination just to clear the way for someone they really want.

64 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:08am

re: #55 LGoPs

Emphasizing empathy, while sounding nice, is perilous when it comes to the law. IMO it essentially replaces the Rule of Law with the Rule of Man. And the Rule of Man can be capricious and arbitrary and unpredictable. Unpredictability undermines society as it erodes confidence in the fairness of the Law itself. IMHO.

I could not have said it better than you.

65 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:30am

re: #57 Occasional Reader

I really can't get outraged about referring to a female Hispanic as "Latina". Non-issue.

Unless she doesn't like it.

Then it's just fun.

/

66 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:31am

re: #44 Charles

Me too. I'm not willing to trust the opinions of right-wing radio or Fox News, because they're going to react negatively by default to anything Obama does.

Of course, this was TNR, not right-wing anything. Still, the negative points raised in the article seemed somewhat petty, and poorly-sourced.

67 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:43am

Isn't it time for Mandy's Mantra?

68 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:44am

re: #62 CyanSnowHawk

I heard a lot of talk about empathy and feelings during The One's press conference to announce this nomination. Not once did I hear a mention of The Constitution. (I didn't watch the whole thing, I was getting ready for work.) There was some talk about The Law.

As I am still in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged, this talk about empathy and feelings was disconcerting.

He thinks the Constitution is flawed.

69 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:46am

How about this? Speaks for itself.

Youtube Video
70 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:48:50am

re: #59 JammieWearingFool

My point is the media is gushing over the fact she's Hispanic. Why did they not defend Bush's picks with the same zeal?

That was a white male's choice, so its inherently flawed.

71 wiffersnapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:49:20am

Good move by Obama. Liberals will hammer use the "identity politics" talking point so that the republicans vote her in based only on the fact she's latina. Something along the lines of "If you don't approve her for the Supreme Court you're a racist!" will appear within the week, if it hasn't already.

72 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:49:20am

I am so underwhelmed.

73 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:49:33am

re: #18 CIA Reject

OK, he can check the "Latino-woman" group off the list.

How many other groups does BO need to appease?

Let's see - does Scrotal Inflation Guy have a legal background?

74 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:49:37am

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW.

75 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:01am

re: #74 MandyManners

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW.

DING!

76 wiffersnapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:02am

And I guess having read the Constitution is no longer required anymore for justices. Just life-experiences. Fantastic...

77 midwestgak  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:08am

re: #56 OldLineTexan

Que?

heh. Thanks.

78 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:19am

Judging by her photos, this should be a proud day for all Uglo-Americans.

/

79 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:28am

re: #70 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That was a white male's choice, so its inherently flawed.

Which is, no doubt, the "inherent flaw" in the U.S. Constitution.

80 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:36am

re: #78 JammieWearingFool

Judging by her photos, this should be a proud day for all Uglo-Americans.

/

Ouch.

81 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:39am

re: #51 MandyManners

The Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

...the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. ...reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

And this is why I refuse to give Obama the benefit of doubt in his SCOTUS appointments. I will remain wary and suspcious. I have no confidence that he gives a rat's fart about the Constitution.

82 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:50:49am

It's a great pick.

Within a week, some "right-wing" dillweed somewhere will make a stupid, racist-y comment to splash all over the MSM.

/hilarity will ensue

83 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:00am

re: #23 kansas

Perfect point. Good on ya!

84 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:07am

I say we just act like adults here and give this nominee the benefit of the doubt until we get into the confirmation process. It has been my observation that the Supreme Court does a pretty good job onboarding new members and it takes years for any new member of the court to have much sway anyway.

85 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:14am

BTW, Jammie, how's your wife doing? Is she still in remission?

86 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:35am

re: #73 Ward Cleaver

Let's see - does Scrotal Inflation Guy have a legal background?

His resume from Miner Barnhill.

87 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:43am

re: #73 Ward Cleaver

Let's see - does Scrotal Inflation Guy have a legal background?

I regret that I have but one ding...

...and no brain bleach ...

88 bloodnok  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:47am

re: #84 Big Steve

I say we just act like adults here and give this nominee the benefit of the doubt until we get into the confirmation process. It has been my observation that the Supreme Court does a pretty good job onboarding new members and it takes years for any new member of the court to have much sway anyway.

Hear, hear.

89 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:51am

re: #82 OldLineTexan

It's a great pick.

Within a week, some "right-wing" dillweed somewhere will make a stupid, racist-y comment to splash all over the MSM.

Why are we responsible for all right wing dillweeds and the lefties aren't responsible for left wing dillweeds?

90 SlartyBartfast  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:51:57am

This is pretty scary:

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider
their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Need I add anything to that?!? That wacked-out point of view should disqualify her for a seat on some obscure county court in flyover country!

91 medaura18586  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:04am

re: #15 Thanos

A couple of weeks back TNR or one of the other liberal rags did an article on Sotomayer that basically said she's not so bright and a bully. Can you imagine the firestorm we'd have if a pub from the right said that?

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

That's the link.

Right after talking to Sotomayor on Monday night, the president telephoned the three other finalists, each of whom he had formally interviewed for the job — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appeal Judge Diane Wood of Chicago.

I find it demeaning that all his contenders were women. He spoke of what he was looking for in a nominee, -- intellect, an understanding of the judiciary's role, empathy, blah blah -- but he forgot the main requirement: ovaries.

It's disgusting if you think about it. He clearly set out to nominate a woman. Perhaps he's trying to atone for beating Hillary to the nomination.

92 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:06am

re: #80 Ward Cleaver

Ouch.

Good thing you quoted the sarc tag. Don't want to be taken out of context. Although she seems more suited as a replacement for Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.

/

93 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:13am

re: #78 JammieWearingFool

Judging by her photos, this should be a proud day for all Uglo-Americans.

/

sorry but lets not get into looks....afterall Scalia is no prized pig either.

94 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:34am

re: #87 CIA Reject

I regret that I have but one ding...

...and no brain bleach ...

I mean other than being arrested.

95 debutaunt  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:45am

re: #18 CIA Reject

OK, he can check the "Latino-woman" group off the list.

How many other groups does BO need to appease?

Oppressed terrorists for change.

96 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:48am

re: #89 kansas

Because those are the rules, as far as I can tell.

97 JacksonTn  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:52:57am

re: #86 MandyManners

His resume from Miner Barnhill.

MM ... guess will never be able to delete all those links we have on him ... they will always come up ... not that any of his droolers care ... for well ... the facts about him ...

98 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:10am

re: #54 Ward Cleaver

She's 54. Isn't that older than Roberts was when he was nominated?

Shit I'm 54. She's an old broad!

99 flyovercountry  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:11am

Re: # 25 Nevergiveup

What the f...ck is a latina? Are we feminizing latino now? Are my daughters Jewa's or the plural Jewot?


Wow, When you take spanish in high school, one of the first things you learn, is that the entire language is gender specific. There really is no reason to be offended here. I am much more worried that this nominee has neither the qualifications nor the raw ability to be on the Supreme Court. At least we are replacing one of the least qualified justices with this choice. Hang on Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

100 Liechtentrager  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:20am

re: #25 Nevergiveup

I think "Jewess" is the word you're looking for.

101 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:24am

re: #74 MandyManners

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW.

You keep saying that, but you have to admit that it might turn out that Obama is more conservative...

So far Obama has been acting more like Bush the third than anyone expected.

102 ladycatnip  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:26am
In 2001 she told a crowd at the University of California, Berkeley, “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.”

I don't consider this an "attack piece" at all. Our Lady Justice holds the scales with a blindfold - race or gender should have NOTHING to do with court rulings. Candidates either rise or fall on their own words, and Sotomayer's words do not inspire confidence that she, too, has a blindfold. When a judge rules based upon gender or race, there is no respect for our Constitution or judicial restraint.

103 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:27am

re: #69 kansas

How about this? Speaks for itself.

I have to say, now that I've heard that "make policy" quote in context, I'm less concerned about it. She seems to be referring to the difference between appellate court and trial court; and she, herself immediately acknowledges that it was a bad word choice.

104 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:35am

re: #85 Ward Cleaver

BTW, Jammie, how's your wife doing? Is she still in remission?

Clean bill of health at her last checkup. She looks and feels great. Happy to say this year she can accompany me out west this summer.

105 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:36am

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama Chicago NPR 2001

106 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:53:55am

re: #100 Liechtentrager

I think "Jewess" is the word you're looking for.

I thought Shebrew was the proper term.

/

107 Dave the.....  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:00am

Texan

Within a week, some "right-wing" dillweed somewhere will make a stupid, racist-y comment to splash all over the MSM.

That is an incredibly affective debating technique. Get the one wacko quote, publish it everywhere, then any one who opposes the person gets associated with that.

Now, I think she will be a disaster on the court, but she also could be a Democrat version of the Souter nomination.

108 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:05am

re: #97 JacksonTn

MM ... guess will never be able to delete all those links we have on him ... they will always come up ... not that any of his droolers care ... for well ... the facts about him ...

I have 489 links.

109 JacksonTn  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:06am

re: #13 kansas

If that's the case I vote for J Lo.

kansas ... ROFLMAO !

110 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:10am

re: #54 Ward Cleaver

She's 54. Isn't that older than Roberts was when he was nominated?

30 years!

111 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:19am

I'm about to start a Root Canal on a good friend and he is conservative also. So I ain't going to really get paid which means it will probably give me trouble? Ain't it always so?

112 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:46am

re: #50 Raiderdan

Charles, please try and stop dissing FOX News all the time.

No.

Fox News is turning into exactly the kind of reactionary far-right media outlet the left said it was for years.

Glenn Beck's Memorial Day show was hitting the "civil war" theme hard again, and featured Ron Paul and Alex Jones' pal Judge Napolitano. They're going all the way to the extreme right, and I have no interest in going with them.

113 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:46am

re: #85 Ward Cleaver

BTW, Jammie, how's your wife doing? Is she still in remission?

And how's June doing?

114 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:49am

re: #101 Buck

You keep saying that, but you have to admit that it might turn out that Obama is more conservative...

So far Obama has been acting more like Bush the third than anyone expected.

ROFLMAO!

Can I have some of what you're smoking this morning?

115 cliffster  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:54:58am

Si, se puede!

116 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:55:08am

re: #78 JammieWearingFool

Judging by her photos, this should be a proud day for all Uglo-Americans.

/

"Photogenically challenged", please.
/PC police

117 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:55:10am

re: #99 flyovercountry

Re: # 25 Nevergiveup


Wow, When you take spanish in high school, one of the first things you learn, is that the entire language is gender specific. There really is no reason to be offended here. I am much more worried that this nominee has neither the qualifications nor the raw ability to be on the Supreme Court. At least we are replacing one of the least qualified justices with this choice. Hang on Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

I was really just kidding around, but I still never saw that before. Latino always seemed to be good enough across the board?

118 pat  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:55:17am

This woman has a huge racial chip on her shoulder, entirely undeserved. She chooses to wear it. And it will cause havoc as she is for unlimited affirmative action.
On a brighter note, she is hard on criminals. Something the feckless Souter was not.

119 LGoPs  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:55:25am

re: #44 Charles

Me too. I'm not willing to trust the opinions of right-wing radio or Fox News, because they're going to react negatively by default to anything Obama does.

As I don't trust the opinions of the NYT for similar but converse reasons.

120 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:55:55am

re: #78 JammieWearingFool

What do her looks have to do with anything?

121 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:56:11am

re: #100 Liechtentrager

I think "Jewess" is the word you're looking for.

No a combination of English and Hebrew Jewot. And I was making a joke.

122 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:56:15am

re: #104 JammieWearingFool

Clean bill of health at her last checkup. She looks and feels great. Happy to say this year she can accompany me out west this summer.

That is great news and I'm happy for you.

123 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:56:40am

re: #118 pat

This woman has a huge racial chip on her shoulder, entirely undeserved. She chooses to wear it. And it will cause havoc as she is for unlimited affirmative action.
On a brighter note, she is hard on criminals. Something the feckless Souter was not.

How much SCOTUS work is criminal-law related? Anyone?

124 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:56:52am

re: #74 MandyManners

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW.

You need to compile the total updings for that.....

125 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:02am

re: #112 Charles

Charles, that is precisely why I have stopped watching Fox News with the exception of Neil Cavuto and Dave Ramsey and I don't even watch those guys regularly. Glenn Beck has turned into a raving lunatic and the rest of the network is turning into a right wing version of Air America.

126 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:02am

Charles, did you see the link I put up yesterday about the IFC documentary tonight featuring that crackpot Alex Jones? The LA Times review linked in there was pretty good.

127 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:06am

re: #112 Charles

No.

Fox News is turning into exactly the kind of reactionary far-right media outlet the left said it was for years.

Glenn Beck's Memorial Day was hitting the "civil war" them hard again, and featured Ron Paul and Alex Jones' pal Judge Napolitano. They're going all the way to the extreme right, and I have no interest in going with them.

I kinda like the balance... a little left, a little right... and few all out nut cases... Balance...

128 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:14am

re: #106 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I thought Shebrew was the proper term.

/

No, that's a lady-sized portion of He'brew (The Chosen Beer).

129 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:20am

re: #82 OldLineTexan

It's a great pick.

Within a week, some "right-wing" dillweed somewhere will make a stupid, racist-y comment to splash all over the MSM.

/hilarity will ensue

The Fox News article I linked above is already getting into that territory -- it's an extended whine about how hard "white men" are going to have it under Sotomayor's tyrannical rule.

130 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:21am

re: #120 Occasional Reader

What do her looks have to do with anything?

Bill Clinton asked?

/

131 Liechtentrager  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:26am

re: #84 Big Steve

Right. It took Harry Blackmun (only) 3 years to come up with Roe v. Wade.

132 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:45am

re: #112 Charles

No.

Fox News is turning into exactly the kind of reactionary far-right media outlet the left said it was for years.

Glenn Beck's Memorial Day was hitting the "civil war" them hard again, and featured Ron Paul and Alex Jones' pal Judge Napolitano. They're going all the way to the extreme right, and I have no interest in going with them.

I don't mind so much if they are to the right, but all this creationist neo-Nazi stuff is spooky.

133 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:52am

re: #112 Charles

No.

Fox News is turning into exactly the kind of reactionary far-right media outlet the left said it was for years.

Glenn Beck's Memorial Day was hitting the "civil war" them hard again, and featured Ron Paul and Alex Jones' pal Judge Napolitano. They're going all the way to the extreme right, and I have no interest in going with them.

Video was posted at Stormfront and the Paulian forums this morning. I haven't have the stomach to watch yet. It's a slow news day so maybe I'll go through it later this afternoon.

134 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:01am

re: #59 JammieWearingFool

My point is the media is gushing over the fact she's Hispanic. Why did they not defend Bush's picks with the same zeal?

The Dems are required to make a great show of their diversity in order to cover up their myriad examples of hatred and discrimination. The Klan wasn't started by the party of Lincoln.

135 fighton  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:05am

Well, this blows

136 Dave the.....  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:08am

Charles, I much as I like Fox News, and they have done great things since coming on the air, I see it as Murdach finding a new way to make money (ratings) by being way over the top. It is sad.

Kind of like the History channel with their conspiracy shows.

137 pat  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:09am

re: #123 OldLineTexan

Quite a bit. Virtually every death sentence cases. A lot of search and seizure. And a lot of criminal administration.

138 itellu3times  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:12am

Listening to her at the announcement today, it was all about her, her family, her life story. Very first person. NOT what I want to hear in a SCOTUS nominee.

But y'know who is the kind of the first person, doncha? The Obaminator.

Still, she sounds somewhat better than your average Clintonista, so I'm hopeful she won't be a total disaster, and who knows, she might do almost anything once seated.

139 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:26am

re: #126 JammieWearingFool

Charles, did you see the link I put up yesterday about the IFC documentary tonight featuring that crackpot Alex Jones? The LA Times review linked in there was pretty good.

Yes -- I set EyeTV to record it. Alex Jones' influence is really growing fast.

140 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:33am

re: #120 Occasional Reader

What do her looks have to do with anything?

I'm into attractive women.

Megan Fox for SCOTUS!

141 KenJen  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:33am

I'll bet his next Supreme Court nominee will be a bi-sexual transvestite lesbian metro-sexual.

142 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:58:42am

re: #105 jcm

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama Chicago NPR 2001

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Most frightening words by an American politician I have ever heard.

143 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:03am

re: #94 Ward Cleaver

I mean other than being arrested.

Speaking of SIG- has anybody seen Zombie in here recently? I haven't seen much from him/her/it in a while.

144 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:20am

re: #130 OldLineTexan

Bill Clinton asked?

/

Bill had rather... idiosyncratic taste, anyway.

145 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:45am

re: #68 MandyManners

He thinks the Constitution is flawed.

Apparently.

146 jaunte  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:53am

re: #112 Charles

Fox was running a promo over the weekend about the states "fighting back" for their rights "against the Feds." A wee bit provocative for a 'news' organization.

147 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:57am

re: #144 Occasional Reader

Bill had rather... idiosyncratic taste, anyway.

Look who he married?

148 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:59am

re: #129 Charles

The Fox News article I linked above is already getting into that territory -- it's an extended whine about how hard "white men" are going to have it under Sotomayor's tyrannical rule.

I read it, it was snarky.

I didn't see a money quote.

Yet.

149 danrudy  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:25am

re: #44 Charles

Well, I have heard her speach at Berkley where she pretty much says a judge is suppose to MAKE law rather then interpret. (Big NO NO in my book).
She also has had several reversals of her opinions by the supreme court because she didnt enforce the law but rather ruled from her heart. (AGAIN...not the job of a judge IMHO.)

My opinion is that a judge should interpret the law and not change it. Changing the law is our (the populace and legislators job)

150 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:34am

re: #139 Charles

Yes -- I set EyeTV to record it. Alex Jones' influence is really growing fast.

My local Ron Paulian, anti-vaxer, bilderburg group coworker keeps telling me I need to check him out and quit relying on propaganda sites like PJTV and LGF for my news.

151 brookly red  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:44am

re: #142 Russkilitlover

Most frightening words by an American politician I have ever heard.


/"I won"?

152 thesextons  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:51am

re: #74 MandyManners

I HOPE EVERYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE HE WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH IS FUCKING HAPPY NOW.

McCain lost because he was a bad candidate who lacked the nerve necessary to actually fight on the merits. He should have said that Obama is barely out of the state house and left no legacy there. Before that, he was an associate law professor, publishing ZERO scholarly works concerning his take on any legal issue. Before that, he was a community organizer, but failed to bring any quantifiable change to his little organized community. McCain should have said that Obama has no executive experience whatsoever, but damn, he sure gives a fine speech. He should have said that Obama's ideology is one not grounded in reality and though leftism sounds compassionate, incentivising government dependence is anything but compassionate. He should have said that Obama will subsidize his ideas on entitlements with future generations' prosperity. He should have done a lot more, but he did not. He failed. His campaign failed.

But most of all the Republican Party failed. It and Bush failed in their golden opportunity to put his nation back on solid financial footing. They could have decentralized and pushed responsibility back to the states for over-bloated and ineffective federal entitlement programs. Instead, they acted like leftists and grew the federal government by leaps and bounds.

You blame the wrong people for Obama's Sotomayor. The national Republican leadership, McCain included, have no one to blame but themselves for the election of novice Obama and all of his subsequent court appointments and executive actions.

153 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:53am

re: #105 jcm

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama Chicago NPR 2001

His philosophy is at fundamental odds with that of the Founding Fathers and those who believe that the best government is that which governs least. Positive liberty, indeed!

154 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:00:56am

Dow +204

155 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:01:20am

re: #142 Russkilitlover

Most frightening words by an American politician I have ever heard.

Raised the hair on the back of my neck.

156 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:01:47am

re: #146 jaunte

That's a very popular cause among a lot of mainstream conservatives now too. Very bad.

157 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:01:57am

The New York Times published this:

...Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.

She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair that he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia. The three-judge opinion she joined noted that despite ruling against him, the judges had sympathy for Mr. Ricci and noted his extraordinary efforts to better himself. But the case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court, with her onetime mentor, Judge Jose Cabranes, sharply criticizing her view. The case is now before the Supreme Court and may well be a target for Republican critics during the confirmation process. ...

Whether intended as an attack or not, the story offers very good reasons why Sotomayor does not belong on the Supreme Court.

For her, skills don't count when it comes to advancement in the ranks. The fire department may need people who know their stuff as paramedics. Lives may hang in the balance. But none of that matters to Sotomayor.

She stands the whole foundational principle of the law on its head with this opinion. From the time of Hamurabbi, the law was written down so that every man and woman knew the rules in advance, and so that it would be applied equally, as written, to all. But with Judge Sotomayor, it's not a question of what the rules were going into the test. With her, the rules say whatever she likes, and they say one thing for one man and another thing for another.

158 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:01am

re: #145 CyanSnowHawk

Apparently.

See JCM's No. 105 to see in which direction FCBBHO thinks it's flawed.

159 danrudy  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:13am

re: #74 MandyManners

I would upding you if I could.....it doesnt seem to be working

160 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:22am

re: #131 Liechtentrager

Right. It took Harry Blackmun (only) 3 years to come up with Roe v. Wade.

And Blackmun as a very conservative Republican put on the court by Nixon and by the way the vote was 7 to 2 so he did have a little company.

161 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:51am
162 subsailor68  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:53am

I guess I too am willing to wait and see how she does during the confirmation hearings. But, I am a bit concerned by President Obama's statements concerning the Constitution being a "flawed document", or that it is a "living document." And, I am a bit concerned over some of Judge Sotomayor's past statements concerning "feelings and experiences".

Hey, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I believe the Founder's did consider the Constitution a living document, as they provided a mechanism for "change": the amendment process.

And the Founder's also provided a mechanism to allow "empathy" to be taken into consideration: the amendment process. (After all, the 13th abolished slavery, the 15th eliminated race as a bar to voting, the 19th addressed womens' suffrage, and the 26th lowered the voting age.)

What I'm afraid of, is that the idea of a "living document" and the use of "empathy" don't mean the same things to this administration that they did to the Founders. The Founders provided the amendment process. This administration appears to be looking at the court instead.

163 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:03:04am

re: #152 thesextons

I can understand and appreciate your POV.

164 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:03:28am

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Obama

165 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:03:43am

Bob Edwards on NPR this morning called Sotomayor a self-described "New York Rican".

Dude... your liberal group identity vocabulary needs some brushing up. The term is Nuyorican.

166 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:04:26am

The saddest thing about Fox news is that there are legitimate issues in unfunded mandates, property rights, and other areas that are being diminished by Fox's hysterically childish approach to issues. They used to report these things better, from an adult POV.

167 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:04:40am

re: #164 jcm

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Obama

I guess "equal justice under the law" was just too ineligant for him ...

168 jaunte  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:04:45am

The basic flaw with empathy as a basis for interpretation of law is that it's so unpredictable in application.

169 Mike McDaniel  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:04:46am

re: #20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Sounds like they had more than one hit piece in the queue. Waiting on name to drop. Hell, sounds like MSNBC and Bush.

Obama's short list has been no secret. Any competent news organization would have pieces ready to go for all likely candidates.

And this one is no bargain. Classic leftist activist - the law means nothing, their own prejudices mean everything.

170 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:00am

re: #164 jcm

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Obama

Uh, Barry? That's called a "legislator".

171 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:04am

bbiab

172 Joel  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:11am

re: #34 loppyd

I have zero faith in any Obama judicial appointee.

173 Ojoe  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:27am

Hispanics can be very traditional.
Guadalupe.

174 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:35am

re: #142 Russkilitlover

Most frightening words by an American politician I have ever heard.

He believes a restricted and limited government was the wrong approach.

175 cliffster  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:46am

re: #168 jaunte

The basic flaw with empathy as a basis for interpretation of law is that it's so unpredictable in application.

The basic flaw with empathy as a basis for interpretation of law is that it's stupid.

176 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:47am

re: #172 Joel

I have zero faith in any Obama judicial appointee.

177 danrudy  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:05:50am

re: #164 jcm


In other words...who cares what the law is?...lets just pretend the law is we think it oughta be....we can't be bothered to actually change it via the normal routes. Lets just legislate it from the bench.

Uh OH!

178 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:26am

re: #152 thesextons

McCain lost because he was a bad candidate who lacked the nerve necessary to actually fight on the merits. He should have said that Obama is barely out of the state house and left no legacy there.

I think he could have been even simpler. He should have accused Obama of being a democrat, and voting with democrats 100% of the time.

Take a look at this you tube and imagine 2 or three McCain commercials created from the clips... with McCain saying at the end.... "And he voted with these guys 100% of the time, when he voted at all."

179 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:31am

re: #167 CIA Reject

I guess "equal justice under the law" was just too ineligant for him ...

Fairness for an aggrieved class.

Rooted in Gramsci and Marx.

180 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:48am

re: #165 Occasional Reader

Bob Edwards on NPR this morning called Sotomayor a self-described "New York Rican".

Dude... your liberal group identity vocabulary needs some brushing up. The term is Nuyorican.

The Puerto Ricans I know call themselves Puerto Ricans. Or Americans.

What's this Nuyorican nonsense?

181 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:51am

re: #168 jaunte

The basic flaw with empathy as a basis for interpretation of law is that it's so unpredictable in application.

All animals are created equal. But some are more equal than others.

182 Ojoe  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:56am

re: #174 jcm

The pendulum will swing back

183 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:06:56am

Opps missed the link.... here it is:

Youtube Video
184 SlartyBartfast  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:07:18am

re: #164 jcm

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

"just decisions" vs. Constitutional decisions.

Why do We the People stand for this crap? You'd think this sort of thing would be easily exposed and squashed by an informed electorate...

Hmmmm...informed. There's the rub.

185 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:07:33am

re: #177 danrudy

In other words...who cares what the law is?...lets just pretend the law is we think it oughta be....we can't be bothered to actually change it via the normal routes. Lets just legislate it from the bench.

Uh OH!

Based on empathy, ohhh I feel your pain. That nasty corporation laid you off, can't have that can we......

186 realwest  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:07:59am

Eisenhower picked Earl Warren a three time Governor of California and that state's attorney general for Chief Justice of SCOTUS because his whole life, Warren was a rock-hard conservative.
To Ike's dismay (and the dismay of many associate Justices of the SCOTUS) Chief Justice Earl Warren led THE MOST LIBERAL/LEFT Supreme Court in US History.
What she has said and done before is not exactly a predictor of what she will say and do as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
And, for all of you who've missed the news, the Democrats now run America. For better or worse, as with the economy and foreign affairs, this pick is on them.
I hope that she and the entire Supreme Court of the United States will only interpret the Constitution where there is any ambiguity in it's language. If some folks think the Constitution should be changed, there are mechanisms in place to do that and it doesn't involve the Supreme Court; it is, one way or the other, the province of American Voters.

187 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:08:03am

California Supremes uphold Prop 8.

188 P. Aaron  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:08:11am

No of this counts until we hear from Colin Powell and Tom Ridge: the heads of the Republican party.

When is their press conference?

189 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:08:40am

re: #180 JammieWearingFool

The Puerto Ricans I know call themselves Puerto Ricans. Or Americans.

What's this Nuyorican nonsense?

Check the Wiki article. The term has been around for a while. I'm not advocating it; I was just surprised that an East Coast liberal radio personality flubbed it.

190 jaunte  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:08:41am

On minority appointments: My Venezuelan co-worker (family of German and French origin) is constantly bemused by the U.S. insistence on treating Hispanic origins as a race.
His daughters get special scholarship money here, even though he comes from a wealthy family and his grandfather was once a governor of a state in Venezuela.

191 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:09:00am

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

192 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:09:47am

re: #179 jcm

Fairness for an aggrieved class.

Rooted in Gramsci and Marx.

OK- so all I need to do is figure out how to make "able-bodied white Christian male under 65 with no military experience" into an "aggrieved class"

/Yeah, that'll be easy...

193 fullroller  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:09:49am
Fox News, of course, has already published an attack piece:

Actually folks, that is a blog entry. A long ways from a news piece. The actual news piece on the Fox News front page contains no bias in either direction, and if fact seems rather upbeat.

Some of you really need to learn the difference between a blog (one persons opinion) and an actual news piece.

Doug

194 Ojoe  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:09:56am

re: #191 zombie

Of course they upheld it. The petitioners were asking for nothing less than anarchy.

195 TheSextons  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:09:58am

re: #163 MandyManners

I can understand and appreciate your POV.

I also understand, appreciate, and share your frustration.

It is sad to watch someone who is relatively moderate on the Court be replaced with a very leftist and activist jurist who views our Constitution as an unformed piece of clay to be formed to her liking and towards her own agenda.

As someone mentioned, we are a nation that should be ruled by law. But if the law has no authority over those interpreting it and those charged with making and executing it, then we are not a nation ruled by law. Rather, we are a nation whose laws are subject to its government, which is therefore a government vested with absolute power.

196 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:03am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Go Please Go.....(but leave the scrotal inflator photos in the camera)

197 kynna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:08am

Just because Fox is against her doesn't mean I'm going to be for her. Glenn Reynolds linked to a couple different views (not Fox) and I've read them and decided I think she's an awful pick but will be confirmed anyway.

I wish good health to all the of the justices on the Supreme Court. Never did I think I'd want Souter to have a change of heart and stay on longer.

198 jorline  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:19am

Drive by:

CA Supreme Court upheld prop 8.

199 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:24am

re: #191 zombie

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

Absolutely! (Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I'm highly unlikely to be the beneficiary of any of your other responsibilities.)

200 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:34am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

..
My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Riots would be more fun...

201 lawhawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:35am

There's more to dislike than like about Sotomayor's selection by President Obama. Some of her decisions are all over the map, but she's still qualified to be on the court, having spent a decade on the Second Circuit, which is one of the circuits least likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court (as opposed to the 9th, which is most frequently overturned).

Her statements aside from the court decisions show that she's easy to provide quotes - which isn't always good (and can make for fodder during the confirmation process).

She isn't a hack like Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Miers, but it will be interesting to see if she handles the confirmation nearly as well as Roberts or Alito.

It will also be interesting to see if any skeletons surface.

As it is, there are some rumors that Democrats might not be willing to back her, but I find it farfetched unless it's part of the game to make Obama move even further to the Left than Sotomayor.

BTW, for those reports who say that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic, I should direct your attention to Benjamin Cardozo (who also happened to be Jewish). He was of Portugese descent.

Besides, any nomination is historic by definition. Enough with the gender, race, religious mix on the court. We should demand nothing less than the best qualified to be on the bench. Pandering to a particular community is part and parcel of politics, but the reports should at least be honest on this particular point.

202 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:43am

re: #152 thesextons

You're kind of new here, aren't you.

203 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:10:46am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

I would say yes if work and safety allows

204 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:02am

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.

205 LGoPs  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:25am

re: #168 jaunte

The basic flaw with empathy as a basis for interpretation of law is that it's so unpredictable in application.

And predictability is essential in law. Without it, you undermine society. Liberals, with their faux sophistication and smug arrogance, unwisely tinker with the very foundations of society.

206 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:30am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Hey, I was just thinking about you!

My vote: go for it- but be careful!

207 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:32am

HT Red Pencil thread back.

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

208 brookly red  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:36am

re: #191 zombie

go for it...

209 SlartyBartfast  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:42am

re: #191 zombie

Go, Zombie, Go!

(Ditto what Big Steve said about the "inflationary" coverage.)

And be careful!

210 medaura18586  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:11:52am

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

Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.

She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia.

The case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court and is now before the Supreme Court.

I'm not down with that.

211 Ojoe  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:12:06am

re: #204 Charles

By now my inverted admiration for politics is quite large.

212 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:12:12am

re: #193 fullroller

Actually folks, that is a blog entry. A long ways from a news piece. The actual news piece on the Fox News front page contains no bias in either direction, and if fact seems rather upbeat.

Some of you really need to learn the difference between a blog (one persons opinion) and an actual news piece.

Doug

It's on the Fox News website. They published it. And it is an attack piece. Fox News published an attack piece.

213 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:12:21am

re: #192 CIA Reject

OK- so all I need to do is figure out how to make "able-bodied white Christian male under 65 with no military experience" into an "aggrieved class"

/Yeah, that'll be easy...

We have PTSD from years of being the oppressors?

214 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:12:28am

re: #190 jaunte

My Venezuelan co-worker (family of German and French origin) is constantly bemused by the U.S. insistence on treating Hispanic origins as a race.

I remember some Argentinian lawyers I worked with at a firm in NYC who were amused (more then bemused) to discover they were getting invitations from the firm's "minority" program.

215 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:12:48am

re: #192 CIA Reject

OK- so all I need to do is figure out how to make "able-bodied white Christian male under 65 with no military experience" into an "aggrieved class"

/Yeah, that'll be easy...


Oddly enough, I have a son who is going to be a senior in high school and is starting the College look-around. It turns out that most colleges are nearly 60% female undergraduates now. So, with the exception of engineering, he is receiving literature saying he DOES get special admittance considerations being male and a under represented group!

216 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:01am

re: #190 jaunte

On minority appointments: My Venezuelan co-worker (family of German and French origin) is constantly bemused by the U.S. insistence on treating Hispanic origins as a race.
His daughters get special scholarship money here, even though he comes from a wealthy family and his grandfather was once a governor of a state in Venezuela.

Practitioners of identity politics hate that. "If they come from another country, they don't understand our struggle for diversity." --Lightly paraphrased from Hispanic Business Magazine.

217 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:13am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Does Prop 8 really cause suffering and hardship in the gay community (other than hurt feelings). Don't they already have full civil partnership rights just like married heterosexuals?

218 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:21am

re: #213 jcm

We have PTSD from years of being the oppressors?

Good start...

219 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:23am

re: #15 Thanos

A couple of weeks back TNR or one of the other liberal rags did an article on Sotomayer that basically said she's not so bright and a bully. Can you imagine the firestorm we'd have if a pub from the right said that?

On the other hand, she's just what Obama is looking for!

220 Occasional Reader  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:33am

re: #207 jcm

HT Red Pencil thread back.

Well, that's not good.

221 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:13:53am

re: #191 zombie

I kind of hope you go.

222 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:13am

re: #215 Big Steve

Oddly enough, I have a son who is going to be a senior in high school and is starting the College look-around. It turns out that most colleges are nearly 60% female undergraduates now. So, with the exception of engineering, he is receiving literature saying he DOES get special admittance considerations being male and a under represented group!

CHANGE!

223 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:20am

She believes in legislating from the bench.

I think that's un-democratic and unconstitutional.

But that's me.

224 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:29am

re: #207 jcm

HT Red Pencil thread back.

Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Yikes!

225 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:34am

re: #154 Killgore Trout

Dow +204

Why?

226 lawhawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:54am

re: #204 Charles

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.

On that point, this is a good article - there's a whole cottage industry in DC that deals specifically with SCOTUS nominations - both for and against the nominees.

As for cherry picking quotes, she's got plenty of them to choose from. It's not like they had to exactly dig them up from obscure sources. She's a liberal justice, who throws in a bit of social justice from time to time (and admits as much). That doesn't mean she isn't qualified. She is.

It's just not who I would want as a SCOTUS member.

227 TheSextons  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:58am

re: #202 CyanSnowHawk

You're kind of new here, aren't you.

Not new to LGF at all, just don't post all that often.

228 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:15:13am

re: #220 Occasional Reader

Well, that's not good.

Bright side Souter voted against Heller. The balance doesn't change, just locks up a liberal seat for 30 more years.

229 ladycatnip  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:16:01am

Where's the link for the CA Supreme Court decision? I've Googled it and only find headlines that say it's going to rule on it today. I'll be relieved if they uphold it, as the courts have no business overturning the will of the voters.

230 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:16:02am

re: #204 Charles

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.


This is great advice. Also for those complaining about all the sugar coated "rich personal experience" stuff coming out....guess what it is the same just from the other side.....all pre-planned. If you chaff at the personal story side, just go back and see all the puff pieces about John Roberts and his perfectly proportioned and photogenic family that we saw endlessly.

231 Joel  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:16:13am

re: #154 Killgore Trout

Dow +204

Gee I am so sorry I did not vote for Obama.

/sarcasm

232 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:16:19am

Great, she doesn't even want to pretend that justice is blind. From what I've read the woman is a loon therefore eminently qualified to preside in the dream world that is Obamaland.

233 jaunte  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:16:20am

re: #207 jcm

HT Red Pencil thread back.

Well that should get some attention.

234 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:14am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Get pix!

235 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:18am

Root Canal done for today and he even wanted to pay me. The day is looking up, swell if it wasn't for the N Korea Nukes and missiles, and the Supreme Court. But hey, you can't have everything, I know that because I've been married for 26 years.

236 Mike McDaniel  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:34am

re: #186 realwest

Eisenhower picked Earl Warren a three time Governor of California and that state's attorney general for Chief Justice of SCOTUS because his whole life, Warren was a rock-hard conservative.
To Ike's dismay (and the dismay of many associate Justices of the SCOTUS) Chief Justice Earl Warren led THE MOST LIBERAL/LEFT Supreme Court in US History.
What she has said and done before is not exactly a predictor of what she will say and do as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
And, for all of you who've missed the news, the Democrats now run America. For better or worse, as with the economy and foreign affairs, this pick is on them.
I hope that she and the entire Supreme Court of the United States will only interpret the Constitution where there is any ambiguity in it's language. If some folks think the Constitution should be changed, there are mechanisms in place to do that and it doesn't involve the Supreme Court; it is, one way or the other, the province of American Voters.

It's worth point out that after he left office, someone asked Eisenhower if he had made any mistakes while President. His response?

"Two of my worst are sitting on the Supreme Court."

237 realwest  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:38am

re: #152 thesextons
Well

You blame the wrong people for Obama's Sotomayor. The national Republican leadership, McCain included, have no one to blame but themselves for the election of novice Obama and all of his subsequent court appointments and executive actions.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see where you mentioned the Non-Fox MSM (which is as scary to me as Fox News is) nor all of the money which Obama received by being the first candidate FROM EITHER PARTY to reject public funding for his campaign in over 20 years. I think those had something to do with Obama's victory.
And you also forgot to mention that Sen. McCain who was Mr. Reach-Across-the-Aisle himself, no longer seems to feel that way. Had he realized before or early on in the campaign that the Democratic Party is not interested in "reaching across the aisle" (except, perhaps, to have some Republicans to look to for cover if the Democratic Party's vision of American falls flat) then perhaps the election results would have been different as well.

238 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:50am

re: #71 wiffersnapper

Good move by Obama. Liberals will hammer use the "identity politics" talking point so that the republicans vote her in based only on the fact she's latina. Something along the lines of "If you don't approve her for the Supreme Court you're a racist!" will appear within the week, if it hasn't already.

There's also the fact that she has been through the judicial confirmation process twice already, with broad Republican support on both occasions. She was originally appointed to the Federal bench by Bush I. Both facts serve to take the wind out of the sails of any opposition. Any criticisms apart from her most recent decisions and statements will be met with a barrage of "flip-flop" accusations.

Even criticisms of her more recent record will be met with similar attacks, based on the GOP's insistence in the past that Democrat's Bork-fests aimed at judicial nominees were unwarranted on a Constitutional basis, and that the Senate should only examine qualifications, not ideology. The GOP has managed to stack the oppositions cannonballs for them.

239 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17:59am

Sotomayor upheld GWB's Mexico City Policy.

240 fullroller  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:05am

re: #212 Charles

Ah yes, and All web sites are required to agree with every blogger on their site and make policy for them I guess. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe they are willing to publish all viewpoints without censor?

Doug

241 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:14am

re: #232 ducktrapper

Great, she doesn't even want to pretend that justice is blind. From what I've read the woman is a loon therefore eminently qualified to preside in the dream world that is Obamaland.

sigh.....read Charle's #204

242 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:33am

re: #204 Charles

There is already some comments about the making policy comment Fox is looping:

"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."
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."

243 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:36am
244 Rexatosis  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:42am

I certainly do not want to have a judge with "empathy" on the bench. I want one who makes their rulings based on facts and the law. I did not vote for President Obama and I am definitely not happy:(

245 midwestgak  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:46am

re: #225 Nevergiveup

Why?

Good question.

246 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:50am

re: #212 Charles

It's on the Fox News website. They published it. And it is an attack piece. Fox News published an attack piece.

Also another attack piece seen at Fox News blogs...

LANNY DAVIS: It’s Time to Indict Cheney!

I have written many times in this space that I oppose any criminal prosecution of prior-administration officials on torture or other issues relating to the Iraq War and the war on terrorism, especially those CIA interrogators who relied in good faith on the instructions of policymakers and the legal opinions issued by Justice Department senior officials.

I have agreed with President Obama on the need to look forward, not backward.

But I have changed my mind about the need to indict former Vice President Dick Cheney for complicity in illegal torture.

Fair & balanced?

247 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:18:53am

Slightly OT, Drudge is reporting that the CA Supreme Court has upheld Prop. 8.

Discuss?

248 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:19:13am

re: #204 Charles

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.

I've seen enough on video, in context, in her own words.

I am not a liberal democrat, so it's a safe bet I wouldn't support a liberal judge regardless.

249 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:19:32am

After reading the New Republic piece, I'm not impressed -- with the New Republic. I think that was a very weak article. And it certainly did not conclude that she's "not very smart and a bully" -- that was a comment from one detractor, not the conclusion of the article.

250 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:19:37am

Come to think of it, there is one thing I do want to know about Sonia Sotomayor....has she been paying her taxes.

251 realwest  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:20:03am

re: #166 Thanos

The saddest thing about Fox news is that there are legitimate issues in unfunded mandates, property rights, and other areas that are being diminished by Fox's hysterically childish approach to issues. They used to report these things better, from an adult POV.


I couldn't agree with you more my friend, but why is it all on Fox News? What about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC News shows?

252 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:20:10am

re: #241 Big Steve

sigh.....read Charle's #204


Double bubble sigh. Cherry picked? She either said these things or didn't. Feelings!

253 danrudy  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:20:10am

re: #204 Charles


You are suprised that the GOP already had quotes of the potential nominees?

There were a limited number if folks who were under serious consideration. What is wrong with the GOP being prepared?
Does it really make a difference if they come out with the things she said a few minutes after she is nominated or would you prefer they wait a week?
The way I see it, if you are not happy with a nominee you better start yapping about it right away before they can gain traction.
These are merely lessons learned from the masters (the Dems) of this kind of tactic. Apparently It works....Kudos to the GOP for adopting a winning strategy for a change

254 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:20:33am

re: #187 JammieWearingFool

California Supremes uphold Prop 8.

Did they also rule that gay marriages that have already taken place are also upheld? That was the expectation.

255 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:21:03am

re: #254 Russkilitlover

Yes.

256 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:21:08am

re: #249 Charles

After reading the New Republic piece, I'm not impressed -- with the New Republic. I think that was a very weak article. And it certainly did not conclude that she's "not very smart and a bully" -- that was a comment from one detractor, not the conclusion of the article.

Unless she was caught on video killing dogs with Micheal Vick, she is going to be confirmed.

257 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:21:18am
258 jorline  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:21:54am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

I vote for the ZombieCam...coverage I can trust.

259 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:22:11am

re: #254 Russkilitlover

Did they also rule that gay marriages that have already taken place are also upheld? That was the expectation.

Yes, the ones that have already taken place are Kosher, so to speak.

260 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:22:42am

re: #240 fullroller

Ah yes, and All web sites are required to agree with every blogger on their site and make policy for them I guess. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe they are willing to publish all viewpoints without censor?

Doug

"Blogs" on Fox News are not blogs -- they're another outlet for editorial opinions. The same goes for so-called "blogs" on any MSM website. The only reason you see "blogs" on those sites is because they wanted to coopt the buzz from real blogs.

261 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:11am

re: #253 danrudy

You are suprised that the GOP already had quotes of the potential nominees?

Who said I was surprised?

262 Baier  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:17am

Special Report is the only show worth watching on Fox, or any 24 hour news channel in my humble opinion.
I hope Sotomayor is vetted in an honest and mature way. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

263 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:26am

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Youtube Video
264 SummerSong  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:33am

Sonia Sotomayor: Courts make policy (full clip)

Youtube Video
265 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:40am

re: #243 Adrenalyn

And what the fuck do those "examples" have to do with this discussion. We are discussing a woman who has some background, some right to be considered.

Idiot.

266 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:23:41am

re: #257 Iron Fist

Not just the NYT. I'd think that CBS and Reuters, at the very least, would be included as untrustworthy partisan hacks. And the AP as well. With Reuters and the AP you have a large percentage of the "news" that is brought to the front and given time in print and radio/TV media.

A lot of what we call news is suspect.

"Men, at this moment, are ruled by the clock, by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern."
--G.K. Chesterton, 1917

Some things never change ...

267 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:22am

re: #225 Nevergiveup

Why?

Stock are up because of moonbeams and rainbows, or hope and change.

"Stocks jumped Tuesday after a research group reported consumer sentiment rose in May to the highest level since September.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index vaulted to 54.9 from 40.8 last month, soaring past the 42.3 figure that economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters were expecting.

268 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:22am

re: #204 Charles

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.

Sadly, I can only agree. The confirmation process is now a crippled joke, a process that was set in motion with Bork's nomination and has steadily degenerated ever since. Although I would very much like to see an in-depth examination of a nominee's record, if only out of curiosity over who will be sitting on the court and what their views might possibly be, any hopes of having that examination be even marginally impartial faded years ago. We will be treated to what has become the usual rounds of shouting, cherry-picking of facts, distortions and outright lies - from both sides - in an exercise that generates no light at all, only heat.

269 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:30am
270 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:33am

re: #191 zombie

Ooops -- the gay marriage ban in California just got upheld by the CA supreme court.

There likely will be riots in San Francisco later today.

Should I cancel all my other responsibilities and go cover it?

(Proviso: I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.)

My schedule will abide by the lizard vote!

Depending upon how important your other responsibilities are -- go cover it. Your coverage is the only one we can trust.

271 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:42am

re: #248 Ben Hur

I've seen enough on video, in context, in her own words.

I am not a liberal democrat, so it's a safe bet I wouldn't support a liberal judge regardless.

I don't agree with her ideology.

Is she qualified?

I would say yes.

She's probably more qualified to be president than the president.

272 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:50am

re: #113 JammieWearingFool

And how's June doing?

She's doing okay. She has the occasional concern that we have to get checked out. This weekend we watched Farrah's Story, that we had DVR'd. Very sad, although her faith is encouraging. I really feel bad for her father, who's already lost one daughter to cancer. We've been keeping them in our prayers.

273 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:24:50am

re: #217 Alouette

Does Prop 8 really cause suffering and hardship in the gay community (other than hurt feelings). Don't they already have full civil partnership rights just like married heterosexuals?

Agreed -- the whole Prop. 8 thing is way way way overblown in my opinion, because all we're really talking about here is terminology. "Civil partnership rights," which no one voted against, are essentially the same thing as marriage, except for the name. The benefits etc. in California are basically identical for "domestic partners" as for "married couples," so it's a big hoo-haw about nothing, if you ask me.

274 SummerSong  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:25:31am

re: #263 jcm

Oh my, sorry. I didn't see your post before I posted.

275 realwest  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:25:45am

Well y'all it's been real. I hope you all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.

276 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:26:00am

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
— Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

277 TheSextons  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:26:19am

re: #237 realwest

Well


I'm sorry, but I didn't see where you mentioned the Non-Fox MSM (which is as scary to me as Fox News is) nor all of the money which Obama received by being the first candidate FROM EITHER PARTY to reject public funding for his campaign in over 20 years. I think those had something to do with Obama's victory.
And you also forgot to mention that Sen. McCain who was Mr. Reach-Across-the-Aisle himself, no longer seems to feel that way. Had he realized before or early on in the campaign that the Democratic Party is not interested in "reaching across the aisle" (except, perhaps, to have some Republicans to look to for cover if the Democratic Party's vision of American falls flat) then perhaps the election results would have been different as well.

I agree with you. But by citing other causes of McCain's failure, do you diminish McCain's failures and the Republican Party's failures? We could talk about the economic cluster in September/October and how people generally trust Democrats with the economy more than Republicans. That was certainly a windfall for candidate Obama. But the fact of the matter is that it was an uphill battle for any Republican, and McCain failed because of the Republican Party and because of his own shortcomings.

The Republican Party lost me at their prescription drug legislation. That was among the most fiscally reckless legislation in our nation's history and it was passed during a time when the Republican Party had control of Congress and the White House.

278 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:26:21am

re: #229 ladycatnip

Where's the link for the CA Supreme Court decision? I've Googled it and only find headlines that say it's going to rule on it today. I'll be relieved if they uphold it, as the courts have no business overturning the will of the voters.

I'm ahead of the curve, and have inside information!

It was a split decision: Prop. 8 was upheld (meaning there will be no future gay marriages in CA), BUT all previous gay marriages stand and will remain valid forever.

279 kynna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:26:22am

Dave Kopel of the Volokh Conspiracy has take on Sotomayor's Second Amendment record.

280 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:26:51am

re: #249 Charles

After reading the New Republic piece, I'm not impressed -- with the New Republic. I think that was a very weak article. And it certainly did not conclude that she's "not very smart and a bully" -- that was a comment from one detractor, not the conclusion of the article.

Like I said, lots of anon and clerk quotes so they weren't really "saying it themselves". What do you think the reaction would be the right printed the same quote however?

281 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:01am

re: #269 Iron Fist

Yeah, that is very troubling. She won't change the makeup of the Court on Second Amendment issues (although it is a close 5-4 majority right now), but her apparent hostility to gun owner's civil rights should be a red flag that disqualifies her from the bench.

Personally, I expect the Republicans to roll over and give her a 90+ votes for confirmation. They don't have the guts to oppose her.

Nah, I think there will be some opposition. I hope it is rational and directed, and it the end she will be approved along party lines with a few crossovers from the Republican Side ( read Lindsey?).

282 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:02am

re: #243 Adrenalyn

so is the next appointee to SCOTUS going to be a gay male pedophile ?

Do me a favor and don't put pedophile in with trying to show some diversity. It is not like she is so unqualified that she is only being considered because she is a Latina woman.

Also when you put ped with gay so automatically you are looking very homophobic....

Pedophilia is to Gays what blood liable is to Jews....

283 ladycatnip  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:10am

Charles,

We disagree on this one. I don't consider it an attack piece because they're digging up quotes. If they (blogs or media outlets) publish a candidate's track-record or past quotes, that's perfectly acceptable. What the left did and continues to do to Palin is an attack, an all-out assault on her beliefs, her character and any other mud that they can sling. This Fox blog on Sotomayer may be sarcastic, but it's a blog.

I haven't read any mud-slinging yet, but I'm not about to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, as he's already lost that with his first 100 days of over-stepping his bounds as president with his executive decrees.

284 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:28am

re: #274 SummerSong

Oh my, sorry. I didn't see your post before I posted.

7 sec apart.... GMTA!

285 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:48am

re: #276 jcm

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
— Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Aren't you glad that you and I know our intrinsic limitations?

/

286 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:27:57am

Well, it looks like the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of me going to cover the possible riots!

I'll see if sloughing off my real-world responsibilites would have too dire consequences, and try to make it!

That is, unless the Supreme Court throws out the Lizard vote and tells me to stay at work!

287 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:28:07am

re: #263 jcm

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

[Video]

Yes they it is, see my

242

288 erp  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:28:17am

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

289 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:28:23am

re: #193 fullroller

Actually folks, that is a blog entry. A long ways from a news piece. The actual news piece on the Fox News front page contains no bias in either direction, and if fact seems rather upbeat.

Some of you really need to learn the difference between a blog (one persons opinion) and an actual news piece.

Doug

Fox News saw fit to publish it. We're not talking about reader's comments here.

Sadly, Fox News is engaging in exactly the same tactics that so many decried when other media used them - in this case, the blurring of the distinction between editorial opinion and factual reporting. If that practice is bad when, say, ABC does it, then it's just as bad when Fox News or anyone else does it.

290 Baier  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:28:47am

re: #286 zombie

Well, it looks like the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of me going to cover the possible riots!

I'll see if sloughing off my real-world responsibilites would have too dire consequences, and try to make it!

That is, unless the Supreme Court throws out the Lizard vote and tells me to stay at work!

Be careful, and I can't wait to see the results!

291 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:29:20am

re: #286 zombie

Well, it looks like the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of me going to cover the possible riots!

I'll see if sloughing off my real-world responsibilites would have too dire consequences, and try to make it!

That is, unless the Supreme Court throws out the Lizard vote and tells me to stay at work!

If you can make it, have a gay ole time (pun intended), and get some good pictures.

292 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:29:28am

re: #276 jcm

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
— Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

It will be glossed over, but as Meygen Kelly said, if Roberts had said that ( switched around of course) he would not have been confirmed and might have been impeached from what was he on the Appeals Court?

293 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:29:30am

re: #282 Buck

I see Adrenalyn's last post bought the farm

294 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:29:44am

re: #288 erp

You haven't seen a shift?

295 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:06am

re: #283 ladycatnip

This Fox blog on Sotomayer may be sarcastic, but it's a blog.

No, it's not a blog. It's a pseudo-blog, on a mainstream media website. That's how they get you to accept unsourced top-of-the-head opinions that they'd be criticized for if they published them as "real" editorials -- by calling them "blogs."

"See, we can blog too!" -- MSM

296 kynna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:08am

re: #286 zombie

Well, it looks like the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of me going to cover the possible riots!

I'll see if sloughing off my real-world responsibilites would have too dire consequences, and try to make it!

That is, unless the Supreme Court throws out the Lizard vote and tells me to stay at work!

Good luck, Zombie! I look forward to your report. :D

297 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:19am

re: #204 Charles

Be aware that the Sotomayor quotes you're going to hear over and over before her confirmation hearings were cherry-picked well ahead of time by political attack squads that combed through every public statement of every possible nominee. The GOP came out with these quotes within minutes of the announcement -- they had them ready.

She may be a terrible nominee, or she may be less than terrible. I don't trust this political process for Sotomayor, just as I didn't trust it for Roberts.

Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.

I agree; I've become very disheartened with the political process as it works these days.

298 nyc redneck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:19am

re: #34 loppyd

One of the most reversed Appeals Court judges on the bench.

But her story is oh so compelling so that detail should be broomed.

And for what it's worth, someone on CNN also trashed her earlier this morning so Fox doesn't have the exclusive.

o picked her because he thinks she is someone guaranteed to foist his socialist agenda and policy on the ct. and not uphold the integrity of the constitution on its face, as a member of the scotus should.

299 acwgusa  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:39am

re: #288 erp

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

Fox News has decided to ally itself with racists, fascists, radical theocrats, and Glenn Beck. They are now the tabloid of the extreme nutters.

300 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:30:57am

re: #276 jcm

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
— Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Do you have the part before this quote so we can see the context?

301 subsailor68  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:06am

re: #246 NJDhockeyfan

Hmm....took a look at the Lanny Davis article you linked to. I found this sentence a bit odd:

But I have changed my mind about the need to indict former Vice President Dick Cheney for complicity in illegal torture.

Mr. Davis is a lawyer, and this is a written op piece. I just find it strange that he uses the phrase "illegal torture".

From that, it appears Mr. Davis may believe there's "legal torture".

Seems sloppy.

302 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:09am

re: #288 erp

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

180? Charles has been pretty consistent on witholding judgement until more is known. To be honest, I'm not fond of Sotomayor as a SCOTUS candidate right now, but I don't know enough about here yet.

303 laZardo  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:13am

re: #276 jcm

Speaking of women, minorities, and perspectives, posted a spinoff before heading to bed.

304 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:31am

re: #288 erp

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

That just put your karma in the crapper?

305 bkgodfrey  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:40am

Sotomayer on policy-making from the bench...

Youtube Video
306 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:31:50am

re: #288 erp

Extremism on the left is as dangerous as extremism on the right. Fox News used to be a place to get another perspective on the news but lately it has turned into a pit of wackos who are no better then Air America. I'm with Charles on this one, I'm not walking into that snakepit nor will I support it.

Case in point: Glenn Beck has gone off his rocker.

307 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:04am

re: #286 zombie

That is, unless the Supreme Court throws out the Lizard vote and tells me to stay at work!

You're doomed to go! It'd have to make its way through the lower courts before the Supremes could rule on it.

/teasing

308 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:09am

re: #288 erp

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

CJ hasn't made a 180, Fox jumped the shark.

309 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:25am

re: #300 Big Steve

Do you have the part before this quote so we can see the context?


"Who would make a better judge? A Latina woman from the Bronx, or a cracker?"

///

310 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:30am

re: #273 zombie

Agreed -- the whole Prop. 8 thing is way way way overblown in my opinion, because all we're really talking about here is terminology. "Civil partnership rights," which no one voted against, are essentially the same thing as marriage, except for the name. The benefits etc. in California are basically identical for "domestic partners" as for "married couples," so it's a big hoo-haw about nothing, if you ask me.

I had an assistant in the office who was livid in November over the prospect until I educated them that the "domestic partner" status was still available--they would get all the bells and whistles --just not the name "marriage"-- at least not legally. The person calmed down-thinking that the proposition forbid any such unions. Of course, the left and the lobby supporting the anti-8 movement do not tell people that.

311 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:36am

re: #293 Big Steve

I see Adrenalyn's last post bought the farm

I see that. I guess mine will as well. As I quoted from the doomed post.

312 acwgusa  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:32:52am

re: #309 Ben Hur

"Who would make a better judge? A Latina woman from the Bronx, or a cracker?"

///

Cheez-its or Saltines?

313 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:33:08am

re: #260 Charles

I'm not interested in any political hit pieces or whatever, I will have her own record take care of her nomination. After these two points, I'm not giving her any benefit of doubt.

She will have to explain these to the American public. She will have to expel MY doubt, not the other way around.

(Hat tip on following quote - Red Pencil)

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

[Link: jumpinginpools.blogspot.com...]

... and ...

"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"

Maybe she can explain how the richness of her experiences formed
her conclusions on the above points.

314 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:33:18am

re: #25 Nevergiveup

What the f...ck is a latina? Are we feminizing latino now? Are my daughters Jewa's or the plural Jewot?

Latina is the correct feminine. You don't refer to a woman as a Latino.

Your daughters are Jews in English, and Yehudiot in Hebrew. (Sing. Yehudiah). The old English feminine is "Jewess", which is long out of use, although you still see it occasionally.

315 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:33:26am

re: #295 Charles

No, it's not a blog. It's a pseudo-blog, on a mainstream media website. That's how they get you to accept unsourced top-of-the-head opinions that they'd be criticized for if they published them as "real" editorials -- by calling them "blogs."

"See, we can blog too!" -- MSM

I think one can argue that all the media is a blog - personal opinions all over the place - left, right, far left, far right. Not many trusted news sources anywhere - Wall St. Journal still has my respect, but that's about it.

316 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:33:48am

re: #282 Buck

Pedophilia is to Gays what blood liable libel is to Jews....

FTFA

317 Rexatosis  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:33:57am

I would suggest the Senate should go over the New Haven Firefighters' exam case with a fine tooth comb. (see the "New Haven Register" coverage--it is not exactly a "conservative" paper.) The decision was absurd and insulting to anyone who has ever busted their ass to meet the stated requirements of any job, any time, any where. If that is "empathy" I think we can live without it.

318 danrudy  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:00am

re: #261 Charles


Fair enough....you didnt say you were suprised My poor choice of words.
In fact, I don't think anyone is suprised that quotes come out right away.

Thus, I wasn't really sure why it needed to be pointed out.

Of course, the folks who are genuinely suprised to find out that folks do research on backgrounds of potential nominees scare me.... they get to vote?
/

319 flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:06am

re: #6 MandyManners

But, hey! As a Latina, she's more qualified than a white man.

Clearly, her sex and race were factors in this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to pick a woman, a Hispanic or both regarding a vacancy was made long ago. If one is against this type of pandering, fine by me, as long as you were also against George H.W. Bush picking Thomas to replace Marshall.

320 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:08am

re: #249 Charles

Just a short list of people alleged to be "not very smart":
Eisenhower, Bush, Johnson, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Palin, Biden, & so on.

It may or may not be true in some of these cases, but it always smells like a rather lame off-the-rack attack rather than a sober assessment.

321 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:17am

re: #37 calcajun

But Souter was supposed to have been a conservative.

You picks your nominees, and you takes your chances.

322 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:24am

re: #223 Ben Hur

She believes in legislating from the bench.

I think that's un-democratic and unconstitutional.

But that's me.

I think the Plaintiffs in the New Haven firefighter case currently before the SCOTUS would concur.

Legal observers have opined that the SCOTUS will overturn Sotomeyer once again in that case.

323 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:28am

re: #295 Charles

No, it's not a blog. It's a pseudo-blog, on a mainstream media website. That's how they get you to accept unsourced top-of-the-head opinions that they'd be criticized for if they published them as "real" editorials -- by calling them "blogs."

"See, we can blog too!" -- MSM

If you want to knit news, analysis, opinion, propaganda, and snark into one ugly scarf then you put it on a blog or in a Glen Beck segment....

324 bkgodfrey  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:34:52am

re: #306 Jetpilot1101

Very well said. Perhaps we can have a roundtable with Fox, MSNBC, and others and get Buchanan, Beck, Jones, and Napolitano their own kook cable news outlet.

325 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:35:11am

re: #308 jcm

CJ hasn't made a 180, Fox jumped the shark.

Fox didn't just jump the shark, it jumped the shark while nuking the fridge. They've gone back to the tabloid crappola that they started with while adding more than a dash of paranoia and conspiracy crap.

326 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:35:47am

Barry in his own words:

"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view." He added that in deciding how to vote on a nominee, senators should consider "a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record."

327 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:04am

re: #260 Charles

"coopt the buzz"

Not quite as exciting as "catch the fever!"

328 Sean  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:09am

I expect a radicalized Supreme Court in a few years.
They'll rule in the best traditions of Dred Scott and Separate-But-Equal only 180 degrees the other way and just as wrong.

Reparations, Proportional Voting and more are coming!

329 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:20am

re: #309 Ben Hur

"Who would make a better judge? A Latina woman from the Bronx, or a cracker?"

///

Oh, so Bob Beckel asked the question that led to the statement.

/

330 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:25am

re: #54 Ward Cleaver

She's 54. Isn't that older than Roberts was when he was nominated?

Roberts was 50. Looks about forty, still.

331 nyc redneck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:56am

re: #172 Joel

I have zero faith in any Obama judicial appointee.

you read my mind. i just can't imagine he is capable of nominating an objective, experienced person, who unlike him, actually respects the constitution and see the importance of upholding constitutional principles.

332 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:37:41am

re: #314 SanFranciscoZionist

Latina is the correct feminine. You don't refer to a woman as a Latino.

Your daughters are Jews in English, and Yehudiot in Hebrew. (Sing. Yehudiah). The old English feminine is "Jewess", which is long out of use, although you still see it occasionally.

I was joking mostly. But for years Latino was used in English for both genders. And I was making a joke, apparently very small, by combining English and Hebrew and thus called them Jewot.

333 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:37:41am

re: #329 OldLineTexan

Oh, so Bob Beckel asked the question that led to the statement.

/


Hey!

He marched!

He's got a free pass!

334 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:37:46am

Charles, I think the video linked to in comments #263, #264 and #305 above is very important.

It's not fake opinion posing as "blogging," it's not Fox, it's not spin -- it's a video of Sotomayor in her own words letting the mask slip and admitting that appeals courts "are where policy is made" -- i.e. she really seems to be a "judicial activist." She realized she had let the cat out of the bag and tried to sarcastically backpedal, but it's pretty obvious where her heart is on the matter.

335 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:37:58am

re: #316 calcajun

FTFA

Well, I get your point but it's not the greatest analogy as it allows that some jews might be making matzoh out of the blood of Christian children.

336 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:38:12am

re: #278 zombie

I'm ahead of the curve, and have inside information!

It was a split decision: Prop. 8 was upheld (meaning there will be no future gay marriages in CA), BUT all previous gay marriages stand and will remain valid forever.

What? Does that mean gays can never get divorced?

337 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:38:13am

re: #78 JammieWearingFool

Judging by her photos, this should be a proud day for all Uglo-Americans.

/

OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!

Done now.

338 sbulka  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:38:29am

While I wouldn't have nominated her, unless she falls on her face during confirmation hearings, I think it is the Senate's job to confirm her if she is qualified. Of course recent Repblican Presidents haven't been given the same privilege, so you can't exactly blame the Republicans for giving the Democrats a little bit of a taste of their own medicine. Bottom line is that elections should have consequences and this is one them.

What I do find annoying is the constant harping about her background. That is complete and utter nonsense. These same people who are touting the historical appointment were the people who fillibustered Estrada's appointment to the DC Court of Appeals. And I am sure they will call the Republicans who oppose her all sorts of names if they come out against her.

339 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:38:31am

My obligatory Supreme Court post:
Several years ago, when my wife was admitted to the Supreme Court bar (able to argue in front of the Supreme Court), at the reception afterwards, in a very fancy room in the back of the building, Sandra Day O'Connor and Scalia, of all the Justices, visited the reception.

340 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:38:49am

re: #335 ducktrapper

Well, I get your point but it's not the greatest analogy as it allows that some jews might be making matzoh out of the blood of Christian children.


might be?

341 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:39:11am

re: #273 zombie

Agreed -- the whole Prop. 8 thing is way way way overblown in my opinion, because all we're really talking about here is terminology. "Civil partnership rights," which no one voted against, are essentially the same thing as marriage, except for the name. The benefits etc. in California are basically identical for "domestic partners" as for "married couples," so it's a big hoo-haw about nothing, if you ask me.

The argument then becomes: why shouldn't California simply stop issuing marriage licenses, period? A civil union is a legal construct. At the state level, so is a marriage licesnse; it holds no religious or moral standing, implicit or explicit.

To my mind, this is the ultimate solution to this issue: get the state out of the marriage business, and give everyone civil union permits. Let the issue of whether such a union constitutes a marriage rest with individual churches.

States aren't allowing gay marriage; they're allowing civil unions. States also aren't discriminating against sexual orientation by granting identical permits under different names to different classes. Definition of marriage moves back where it belongs - under the control of the church or other organization granting it, a grant which confers no legal standing.

Problem solved. The only people unhappy will be those who simply don't want gays around, period. And they're simply not worthy of attention, being intrinsically anti-American and all.

342 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:39:14am

re: #172 Joel

I have zero faith in any Obama judicial appointee.

I have zero to little faith in Obama in general.

343 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:39:39am

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

Walter, there are plenty of things I wrote as a student which upon reading more than a quarter century after the fact--were cringe-inducing. Her recent opinions and writings carry more relevance than her student musings. She was also at Princeton and writing for a certain audience, if you follow my meaning.

I don't have time to jump into Lexis/Nexus or Westlaw to find her recent writings--but I'm sure they'll be up on the web by mid-day. Let's just reserve judgment until we see those documents--at least I will.

344 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:06am

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

345 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:13am

re: #300 Big Steve

Do you have the part before this quote so we can see the context?

The whole speech.

"A Latina Judge's Voice"
By Sonia Sotomayor

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
346 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:17am

re: #342 loppyd

I have zero to little faith in Obama in general.

Zero faith in the Zero

347 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:24am

re: #295 Charles

No, it's not a blog. It's a pseudo-blog, on a mainstream media website. That's how they get you to accept unsourced top-of-the-head opinions that they'd be criticized for if they published them as "real" editorials -- by calling them "blogs."

"See, we can blog too!" -- MSM

Squares trying to be hip.

Twenty-three skidoo!

348 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:38am

re: #321 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, but it's the "conservative" nominees that have been boomeranging over that past few years.

349 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:50am

re: #340 Ben Hur

might be?


Huh? What are you saying? That they are?

350 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:40:52am

re: #336 Alouette

What? Does that mean gays can never get divorced?

Heh.

Actually, I could care less about gays getting married. If they want marriage, they can have all the baggage that comes along with it to enjoy. You know, all the wonderful stuff like divorce, custody battles, complaints about the toilet seat (up or down), etc.

351 jorline  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:41:15am

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

I'm all for factual information to be put on the table.
I fully expect a liberal to be appointed...I want to insure she understands the law and the Constitution.
What's her record and do her decisions get upheld.

352 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:41:52am

re: #341 SixDegrees

That makes sense - far too much sense to ever be adopted :-)

353 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:41:54am

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

I'm not interested in any political hit pieces or whatever, I will have her own record take care of her nomination. After these two points, I'm not giving her any benefit of doubt.

She will have to explain these to the American public. She will have to expel MY doubt, not the other way around.

(Hat tip on following quote - Red Pencil)

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

[Link: jumpinginpools.blogspot.com...]

... and ...

"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"

Maybe she can explain how the richness of her experiences formed
her conclusions on the above points.

Did you click the link given for the "article" that was "quoted" at that blog, jumpinginpools? What the heck is this?

354 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:05am

re: #334 zombie

Charles, I think the video linked to in comments #263, #264 and #305 above is very important.

It's not fake opinion posing as "blogging," it's not Fox, it's not spin -- it's a video of Sotomayor in her own words letting the mask slip and admitting that appeals courts "are where policy is made" -- i.e. she really seems to be a "judicial activist." She realized she had let the cat out of the bag and tried to sarcastically backpedal, but it's pretty obvious where her heart is on the matter.

I'd like to see the context around the statement however. What led up to it, what was the panel discussion about etc.

355 Timbre  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:07am

"All your nominations are belong to us."

356 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:23am

re: #338 sbulka

While I wouldn't have nominated her, unless she falls on her face during confirmation hearings, I think it is the Senate's job to confirm her if she is qualified. Of course recent Repblican Presidents haven't been given the same privilege, so you can't exactly blame the Republicans for giving the Democrats a little bit of a taste of their own medicine. Bottom line is that elections should have consequences and this is one them.

What I do find annoying is the constant harping about her background. That is complete and utter nonsense. These same people who are touting the historical appointment were the people who fillibustered Estrada's appointment to the DC Court of Appeals. And I am sure they will call the Republicans who oppose her all sorts of names if they come out against her.

Bottom line is this is the way politics work. We the people let our leaders know what we like and dislike, and that's what we are doing here this morning.

And, talking about her background is annoying. Well, too fucking bad. She is not a tabula rasa, she has history and baggage, and it may effect the way she makes judical decisions, and she may make them in a way that benefits HER beliefs, which is not what a SC judge is suppose to do.

357 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:27am

re: #333 Ben Hur

Hey!

He marched!

He's got a free pass!


Cracker Bob can jump up and bite my crisp, salty ...

358 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:40am

re: #349 ducktrapper

Huh? What are you saying? That they are?

Might be.

359 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:45am

re: #334 zombie

Charles, I think the video linked to in comments #263, #264 and #305 above is very important.

It's not fake opinion posing as "blogging," it's not Fox, it's not spin -- it's a video of Sotomayor in her own words letting the mask slip and admitting that appeals courts "are where policy is made" -- i.e. she really seems to be a "judicial activist." She realized she had let the cat out of the bag and tried to sarcastically backpedal, but it's pretty obvious where her heart is on the matter.

But that happens to be true, according to what I've read, courts have to make policy all the time when the law does not clearly cover a issue.

360 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:48am

re: #282 Buck

Do me a favor and don't put pedophile in with trying to show some diversity. It is not like she is so unqualified that she is only being considered because she is a Latina woman.

Also when you put ped with gay so automatically you are looking very homophobic....

Pedophilia is to Gays what blood liable libel is to Jews....

What a stupid, and false analogy.

Jews DO NOT use blood of children in their religious rituals.

Some pedos prefer children of the opposite gender, while other pedos like children of the same gender. No true Scotsman, etc.

361 Jetpilot1101  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:42:49am

re: #351 jorline

I'm all for factual information to be put on the table.
I fully expect a liberal to be appointed...I want to insure she understands the law and the Constitution.
What's her record and do her decisions get upheld.

The stat that is being floated is that 80% of her decisions have been overturned. Not the greatest track record if you ask me but I'd like to reserve judgment on her until I do a bit more research on my own.

362 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:43:02am

re: #180 JammieWearingFool

The Puerto Ricans I know call themselves Puerto Ricans. Or Americans.

What's this Nuyorican nonsense?

It's just a slang term. Nuyorican. Boricua from the Bronx. Deep breaths, everyone.

363 Nevergiveup  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:43:17am

re: #344 Charles

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

I am not so sure about that. When she realized it was being filmed, she added her qualifiers. While decisions by the Appeals Court can make law, I heard her comments, her initial comments, as meaning she makes law. I am sure many Judges do feel that way, but most have the acumen not to say that in Public.

364 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:43:35am

re: #344 Charles

In the video clip, she did not so much qualify the statement, but joked about not being quoted for having said it. Now, the proof of her views on the issue of "legislating from the bench" ought to be apparent from her record. Does anybody have examples of her decisions which do indeed "establish policy" in an excessive and activist way? If so, is that the sort of Chief Justice the US should have?

365 cybermonk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:43:39am

re: #44 Charles
right wing radio is usually right about Obama. He is very predictable, so LGF accuses FOX of doing "hit pieces?" Obama has done just about everything Limbaugh has predicted. I thought LGF was non partisan, give the facts and then make a decision, it seems now that you have moved over to Obama's side on several issues.
So tell me Charles, do you agree with Pres. Obama on abortion, high taxes, the fairness doctrine, immigration, climate change, which do you support? or the rest of his radical agenda, you want to give him a chance? fine, however, he has managed to stab his own people in the back, I for one don't trust him. or am I now a "right wing extremist?"
and as a Jew and Israeli citizen I do not trust Obama when it comes to Israel. He is surrounded by Jew haters and would sell out Israel in a minute. He caters to tyrants, makes excuses for dictators and makes threats to Israel. He is either naive or a Jew hater. He associates with radicals, You have ,justifiably, criticized right wing blogs for associating with hate groups, how about the Jew haters and radicals Obama associates with or tolerates? Do those associations bother you?

366 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:44:10am

re: #191 zombie

If it's not going to harm you personally, financially or professionally to clear your schedule today, then go cover it. A nation of lizards turns its lonely eyes to you...woo woo woo.

367 ladycatnip  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:44:19am

#334 zombie

Charles...It's not fake opinion posing as "blogging," it's not Fox, it's not spin -- it's a video of Sotomayor in her own words letting the mask slip and admitting that appeals courts "are where policy is made" -- i.e. she really seems to be a "judicial activist." She realized she had let the cat out of the bag and tried to sarcastically backpedal, but it's pretty obvious where her heart is on the matter.

Which should come as no surprise from the community "activist" himself. This is why I refuse to give the One the benefit of the doubt here or anywhere else. From his campaign days to the present, the direction he's taking our country is very, very dangerous to our Constitutional Republic.

368 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:44:19am

re: #354 Thanos

I'd like to see the context around the statement however. What led up to it, what was the panel discussion about etc.

And I want even more context.

Invitees. City. State. Country. And hour, EST.

369 Buster  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:44:25am

This is yet another example that elections have consequences. The reason I held my nose and voted for McCain was, in large part, because of my fear that the SCOTUS would be adversely affected.

That said; I believe Sonia Sotomayer deserves an up or down vote by the entire Senate, just as I believed that Bush's court nominees deserved such a vote...

370 Timbre  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:44:38am

re: #364 Kenneth

She is not Chief Justice.

371 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:00am

re: #334 zombie

Charles, I think the video linked to in comments #263, #264 and #305 above is very important.

It's not fake opinion posing as "blogging," it's not Fox, it's not spin -- it's a video of Sotomayor in her own words letting the mask slip and admitting that appeals courts "are where policy is made" -- i.e. she really seems to be a "judicial activist." She realized she had let the cat out of the bag and tried to sarcastically backpedal, but it's pretty obvious where her heart is on the matter.

This is troubling as well:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

372 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:01am

re: #354 Thanos

I'd like to see the context around the statement however. What led up to it, what was the panel discussion about etc.

Her saying that she shouldn't be talking about it with cameras rolling is pretty telling to me.

373 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:12am

re: #192 CIA Reject

OK- so all I need to do is figure out how to make "able-bodied white Christian male under 65 with no military experience" into an "aggrieved class"

/Yeah, that'll be easy...

Oh, I've met plenty of you guys who seem deeply aggrieved. Mostly because you still can't figure out how to become aggrieved.

Hmmm. Can you insist on being working class? Is there a Native American great-grandfather in there? I can work with you on this.

374 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:15am

re: #341 SixDegrees

I agree; I've said the same thing.
Let atheists get married by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster at Italian restaurants. They get the civil union permit, and they're fine.

375 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:16am
Youtube Video

re: #344 Charles

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

Well, she said we don't make law, she put up her hands in quotation marks and everybody laughed, wink nod.

376 calcajun  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:18am

re: #351 jorline

I heard she is overturned a lot...

Her rulings are overturned, you perverts./

Seriously, I heard that the decisions she wrote are reversed a lot. Remember, the appellate procedure is that no one Judge makes the ruling, but one writes the opinion. Appellate courts do not make decisions in a vacuum.

377 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:19am

re: #358 Ben Hur

Might be.


Oh please. Since both homosexual and heterosexuals can be pedophiles this is a bad analogy. Period. No Jews are making matzoh from the blood of Christian children. Where's Newton's Law when someone actually says something that's OUT OF LINE?

378 VioletTiger  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:20am

re: #91 medaura18586

I find it demeaning that all his contenders were women. He spoke of what he was looking for in a nominee, -- intellect, an understanding of the judiciary's role, empathy, blah blah -- but he forgot the main requirement: ovaries.

It's disgusting if you think about it. He clearly set out to nominate a woman. Perhaps he's trying to atone for beating Hillary to the nomination.

Apparently, justice is no longer blind. I continue to find it disturbing that gender and race are issues in any such appointment. It should always be about qualifications, not quotos or having 'somebody different.'
Plus, her ruling in the New Haven fireman case tells me she will be on the 'we need one of these and one of those' bandwagon.

379 John Neverbend  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:45:46am

re: #288 erp

Charles, why the 180 on your blog these last months?

The msm will have endless paeans to Obama and anything he does, yet you dis the one place, Fox News, that will have some real news.

NRO has been providing a fairly cogent discussion about this item for some time. They've commented on all of the candidates and were not particularly positive about Sotomayor.

380 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:46:12am

re: #353 wrenchwench

Did you click the link given for the "article" that was "quoted" at that blog, jumpinginpools? What the heck is this?

That is a bad link. It evidently goes to the a domain, but there is no actual link in the URL. The info doesn't seem made up, I suspect the blog owner screwed up and hasn't fixed it.

381 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:46:12am

re: #350 Honorary Yooper

In most jurisdictions, same-sex civil unions are legal and same-sex couples are entitled to spousal benefits etc. The only thing the "gay marriage" ban actually bans is the use of the word "marriage" to describe the relationship. Frankly, that is one stupid law and ought to be struck down.

382 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:46:28am

re: #365 cybermonk

He associates with radicals, You have ,justifiably, criticized right wing blogs for associating with hate groups, how about the Jew haters and radicals Obama associates with or tolerates? Do those associations bother you?

Of course, you could just refer to the dozens and dozens of posts about that subject at LGF, instead of freaking out and accusing me of being some kind of traitor because I won't fall in line with the Fox News agenda.

383 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:46:30am
384 CIA Reject  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:46:44am

re: #373 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, I've met plenty of you guys who seem deeply aggrieved. Mostly because you still can't figure out how to become aggrieved.

Hmmm. Can you insist on being working class? Is there a Native American great-grandfather in there? I can work with you on this.

Heh - Mrs. Reject is part American Indian, that's about as close to aggrieved as I can get...

385 chukardog  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:47:27am

One only needs a cursory glance at her record to see that she is an activist, a legal lightweight and supremely unqualified, just like the Zero that nominated her.

386 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:48:02am

re: #360 Alouette

What a stupid, and false analogy.

The original comment was deleted, for a very clear reason. I don't want to discuss this. My post stands.

387 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:48:20am

re: #353 wrenchwench

Did you click the link given for the "article" that was "quoted" at that blog, jumpinginpools? What the heck is this?

Google "dly Obsession: American Gun Culture" and you will come up with other references to this material. What ever happened to that link, I don't know.

388 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:48:24am

Powerline....

I'm told that the following "Talking Points" have been sent out to a Listserv of Latino law professors:

• But, as the President has made clear, upholding those constitutional values requires more than just the intellectual ability to apply a legal rule to a set of facts. It requires a common sense understanding of how laws affect the daily realities of people's lives.

• Judge Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine and a keen awareness of the law's impact on everyday life. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts.

389 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:48:32am

re: #201 lawhawk

There's more to dislike than like about Sotomayor's selection by President Obama. Some of her decisions are all over the map, but she's still qualified to be on the court, having spent a decade on the Second Circuit, which is one of the circuits least likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court (as opposed to the 9th, which is most frequently overturned).

Her statements aside from the court decisions show that she's easy to provide quotes - which isn't always good (and can make for fodder during the confirmation process).

She isn't a hack like Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Miers, but it will be interesting to see if she handles the confirmation nearly as well as Roberts or Alito.

It will also be interesting to see if any skeletons surface.

As it is, there are some rumors that Democrats might not be willing to back her, but I find it farfetched unless it's part of the game to make Obama move even further to the Left than Sotomayor.

BTW, for those reports who say that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic, I should direct your attention to Benjamin Cardozo (who also happened to be Jewish). He was of Portugese descent.

Besides, any nomination is historic by definition. Enough with the gender, race, religious mix on the court. We should demand nothing less than the best qualified to be on the bench. Pandering to a particular community is part and parcel of politics, but the reports should at least be honest on this particular point.

DAMN! I forgot about Cardozo. How did I forget about Cardozo?

390 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:48:58am

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

That is a bad link. It evidently goes to the a domain, but there is no actual link in the URL. The info doesn't seem made up, I suspect the blog owner screwed up and hasn't fixed it.

OK, try googling the author's name, Nathan Figler.

391 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:49:00am

re: #365 cybermonk

You must have missed them. Charles has posted several threads on the the unsavory characters around Obama: Ayers, Khalidi, Wright & so on. And plenty of threads critical of Obama's foreign policy.

Look it up before you shoot off your mouth.

392 flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:49:28am

re: #91 medaura18586

Did you feel the same way when George H.W. Bush picked Thomas to replace Marshall? On the same note do you believe Sandra Day O'connor's gender had nothing to do with Reagan's decision?

393 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:49:29am

re: #344 Charles

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

I may not agree with her based on her judicial viewpoint and rulings, but this constant nattering of selective quotes to FIND cause is just so appalling. FNC has decided to swim in the cesspool with the rest of the FMSM.

394 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:06am

re: #206 CIA Reject

Hey, I was just thinking about you!

My vote: go for it- but be careful!

Because disappointed soccer moms can be dangerous!

Zomb, go, I'd like to see more than I can get on the TV--but show the nice people too, not just the weird ones, OK? Please?

395 cybermonk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:14am

re: #299 acwgusa
aren't these types of people the ones that Obama hangs with? He is chummy with our enemies and hateful or dismissive or our friends. so thats ok?

396 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:34am

re: #353 wrenchwench

Did you click the link given for the "article" that was "quoted" at that blog, jumpinginpools? What the heck is this?

A typo in the link on his page? The URL americannews looks like it's "parked", waiting for someone to buy it.

397 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:40am

re: #344 Charles

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

With a wink and a nod.

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

Her opinion on the New Haven Firefighter case was so off the reservation that she was rebuked in writing by Jose Cabranes (Clinton appointee) for
brooming the plaintiffs' claims of unfair treatment.

398 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:44am

re: #273 zombie

Agreed -- the whole Prop. 8 thing is way way way overblown in my opinion, because all we're really talking about here is terminology. "Civil partnership rights," which no one voted against, are essentially the same thing as marriage, except for the name. The benefits etc. in California are basically identical for "domestic partners" as for "married couples," so it's a big hoo-haw about nothing, if you ask me.

Terminology is what this fight is over. Why else would gay activists be so determined to apply a traditional word to their own arrangements, than for the purpose of getting rid of the word `marriage' as it used to be understood? That word has had a certain power. Connotations of endurance, fidelity, and social stability. Kirchen, Kueche, Kinder.

That whole side of society is the enemy to this movement. Kill the word, kill the thing behind the word. The easiest way to do that is to assign a new meaning to the same old word.

399 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:50:48am

re: #370 Timbre

Oops. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

400 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:51:28am

re: #393 FurryOldGuyJeans

I may not agree with her based on her judicial viewpoint and rulings, but this constant nattering of selective quotes to FIND cause is just so appalling. FNC has decided to swim in the cesspool with the rest of the FMSM.

Fox is not the only news outlet making these claims.

401 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:04am

re: #377 ducktrapper

Oh please. Since both homosexual and heterosexuals can be pedophiles this is a bad analogy. Period. No Jews are making matzoh from the blood of Christian children. Where's Newton's Law when someone actually says something that's OUT OF LINE?

LOL!

402 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:12am

re: #336 Alouette

What? Does that mean gays can never get divorced?

Bwahahahaha! You want marriage? You got it -- old school.

You can check in, but you can never check out!

403 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:18am

re: #396 Ward Cleaver

A typo in the link on his page? The URL americannews looks like it's "parked", waiting for someone to buy it.

So why is everybody linking to a blog post whose source is a mystery? If the info is out there somewhere else, link to that.

404 Digital Display  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:20am

I'm looking at the bright side...At least Obama didn't pick Harriet Meyers.

405 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:25am

re: #214 Occasional Reader

I remember some Argentinian lawyers I worked with at a firm in NYC who were amused (more then bemused) to discover they were getting invitations from the firm's "minority" program.

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez has quite a lot to say about the whole Latino/of color confusion. Her novels examine it in some detail, plus there's sex and shopping.

I've discovered that according to some folks, my cousins in Argentina are 'people of color' and I am 'white'. Jews go with anything! We're the beige carpet of humanity!

406 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:28am

This may be of concern. It seems that Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declares that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo in January this year.

Near the bottom of the page you find this.

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.


That is of concern and has the possibility to derail her nomination from the Democrat side.

407 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:28am

OT: Palin requests emergency declaration for flooding

[Link: www.gov.state.ak.us...]

408 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:42am

re: #392 flyers1974

Did you feel the same way when George H.W. Bush picked Thomas to replace Marshall? On the same note do you believe Sandra Day O'connor's gender had nothing to do with Reagan's decision?

He thought he was nominating Doris Day.

409 kynna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:50am

re: #385 chukardog

One only needs a cursory glance at her record to see that she is an activist, a legal lightweight and supremely unqualified, just like the Zero that nominated her.

She's much more qualified for this position than he is for the one he holds.

In fact, she's completely qualified. She just has some very scary views, IMO. And I say this after reading viewpoints from those who actually like her.

410 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:52:57am

Dr Levin?

411 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:03am

re: #365 cybermonk

Do those associations bother you?

Have you even been glancing at Charles' front page for the past year?

412 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #397 loppyd

With a wink and a nod.

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

Her opinion on the New Haven Firefighter case was so off the reservation that she was rebuked in writing by Jose Cabranes (Clinton appointee) for
brooming the plaintiffs' claims of unfair treatment.

EIGHTY PER CENT?!

413 Dianna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:19am

re: #360 Alouette

Yes, but "gay" is frequently smeared as "pedophilic."

If you haven't noticed that, you haven't been paying attention.

Note the number of times you hear, "Just keep them away from my children." Then tell me you don't get the implication.

414 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:34am

re: #391 Kenneth

You must have missed them. Charles has posted several threads on the the unsavory characters around Obama: Ayers, Khalidi, Wright & so on. And plenty of threads critical of Obama's foreign policy.

Look it up before you shoot off your mouth.

Typical leftie blog:
BHO All good, all the time.

Typical rightie blog:
BHO, all bad/24/7

LGF blog: BHO, Some good, some bad. A thinking person's blog.

415 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:42am

re: #402 zombie

Bwahahahaha! You want marriage? You got it -- old school.

You can check in, but you can never check out!

"You only know what happiness is once you're married. But then it's too late." - Peter Sellers

416 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:54:14am

re: #374 Kosh's Shadow

I agree; I've said the same thing.
Let atheists get married by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster at Italian restaurants. They get the civil union permit, and they're fine.

Yup. And they get all the same legal protections anyone else does - spousal insurance, automatic spousal inheritance, the right to be penalized on your Federal taxes for being a legal couple...

417 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:54:31am

re: #405 SanFranciscoZionist

We're the beige carpet of humanity!

You make the room look bigger?

/

418 cybermonk  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:54:35am

re: #382 Charles

"freaking out?"
I would hardly call this quote, Freaking out
I am not the only person who has noted a change in your attitude. I oppose Obama and what he stands for. He is my president, but I don't have to like him or support his socialist policies, I survived Jimmy Carter and I will survive Obama (I hope)
but please don't get all huffy when I criticize you.

419 Timbre  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:54:41am

re: #408 OldLineTexan

I loved Ronald Reagan. But that is a good one!

420 soxfan4life  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:03am

re: #404 HoosierHoops

I'm looking at the bright side...At least Obama didn't pick Harriet Meyers.


Just imagine the pick John McCain would have made with *sic* Sarah Palin advising him.///

421 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:03am

re: #365 cybermonk

how about the Jew haters and radicals Obama associates with or tolerates? Do those associations bother you?

You've been here since 2004 so you should know better than that.

422 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:19am

re: #389 SanFranciscoZionist

DAMN! I forgot about Cardozo. How did I forget about Cardozo?

Picked by Herbert Hoover, a Republican.

Personally, I see little that is new and/or groundbreaking with Sotomayor. She's not the first Hispanic for the SCOUTS (Cardozo was), and she's not the first woman (O'Connor was). The MSM is hyperventillating about her firsts, and I just don't see it.

423 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:25am

re: #412 MandyManners

EIGHTY PER CENT?!

Perhaps one should ask for a link.....

424 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:28am

You know I am not saying that the statement isn't bad. I want to see what surrounded it. Is it ok to ask for more facts before everyone goes snarkspastic?

425 Dianna  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:55:37am

re: #412 MandyManners

EIGHTY PER CENT?!

Well, it's one way to improve her stats. Become the voice of authority!

426 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:04am

re: #400 loppyd

Fox is not the only news outlet making these claims.

So I should have included more than FNC as wanting to swim in the cesspool. I will accept I failed to deliver full criticism and scorn to all parties.

Cherry picking quotes is still wrong in my book.

427 Kragar  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:05am

re: #425 Dianna

Well, it's one way to improve her stats. Become the voice of authority!

We'll need a bigger font.

428 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:13am

re: #418 cybermonk

"Huffy"?

429 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:27am

re: #424 Thanos

You know I am not saying that the statement isn't bad. I want to see what surrounded it. Is it ok to ask for more facts before everyone goes snarkspastic?

Was just pulling your chain, Habibi.

430 Russkilitlover  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:36am

re: #397 loppyd

With a wink and a nod.

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

Her opinion on the New Haven Firefighter case was so off the reservation that she was rebuked in writing by Jose Cabranes (Clinton appointee) for
brooming the plaintiffs' claims of unfair treatment.

80% reversal rate is stunning. If my management decisions were reversed 80% of the time - I would not last long at any place of employment.

The New Haven firefighter case was an apalling disgrace. I certainly hope that this will come up in the hearings and that more than one Senator has a problem with it. Can't blame it on youthful indescretion. This was only months ago.

431 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:56:49am

re: #335 ducktrapper

Well, I get your point but it's not the greatest analogy as it allows that some jews might be making matzoh out of the blood of Christian children.

No it does not. It simply says that both are libel. There is no reason to assume a ped is gay, or a gay is ped. Making that connection is homophobic.

Blood libel is more than "making matzoh out of the blood of Christian children". IMO You are being purposely narrow. Today a cartoon of a IDF soldier killing a Pal child in cold blood is also blood libel. The cartoon of Sharon eating a child was blood libel. Going on and on about the jewish soldiers purposely killing arab and muslim children.....blood libel.

Anyway, if you want to make that connection, fine with me, just I ask that you don't do it here. The fact that the original comment was deleted tells me I am not alone in that request.

432 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:02am

re: #344 Charles

I don't get this complaining about her statement that the court of appeal is where "policy is made." First of all, she qualified that and said "we don't make law." Second, she's right in the broader sense -- the opinions rendered by the court of appeals do affect policy. This is being taken out of context to imply that she believes she has the power to make laws -- and that's not what she said.

I think the key part in the video is the "oops" moment where she realizes she shouldn't have said it on camera. It's as if she was kind of implying that she'd say such a thing off-camera among like-minded people, but one should never go on record as saying it (or believing it). Her subsequent qualification seems like someone who was trying to stuff the cat back in the bag.

I'm sure she'll get approved -- she has the necessary judicial experience -- but I'm also sure she'll be one of those "legislate from the bench" types.

433 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:11am

re: #414 avanti

Keep that up and you're going to destroy your reputation with some people around here.

/*grin* ... I stay out of it

434 Timbre  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:16am

re: #428 MandyManners

I had a "Huffy" bicycle once.

435 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:16am

re: #397 loppyd

With a wink and a nod.

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

That should be a problem for any candidate for the SCOTUS, period. If her reversal rate is that high, Obama would be better to look at another candidate.

436 jorline  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:21am

re: #361 Jetpilot1101

The stat that is being floated is that 80% of her decisions have been overturned. Not the greatest track record if you ask me but I'd like to reserve judgment on her until I do a bit more research on my own.

I hear you Jet, but I also know that it was a conservative court. I've heard the 80% number floated. I would like to see who the dissenting votes and did it cross ideologies.

Cases like this hold water.

The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

437 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:25am

re: #403 wrenchwench

So why is everybody linking to a blog post whose source is a mystery? If the info is out there somewhere else, link to that.

Maybe he just swiped that from another blog, and the URL doesn't exist anymore.

There was another interesting bit on that page, about her supposedly claiming that people who are born poor can't be successful in this country. If she really said that, how can she believe it, given that she grew up in the projects, and has risen to being a Federal appeals judge? Unless she's implying that she only got where she is because of affirmative action.

438 soxfan4life  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:30am

It's really sad that being hispanic and being a woman are being used as reasons why she is a good pick by many on the left. Don't they understand that racial equality will really be achieved when such things aren't important.

439 lurking faith  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:31am

re: #365 cybermonk

It's not your blog; you don't get to demand that Charles should post threads about what you want to talk about each and every day.

How dare you suggest that just because he isn't focused on your personal top ten list today, he must have suddenly turned into a ravening antisemitic leftist, or whatever the hell you are trying to imply?

(I don't happen to agree with Charles's call on Fox's piece this time, but that difference of opinion doesn't negate everything else ever posted at LGF. Get a grip.)

440 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:57am

re: #418 cybermonk

but please don't get all huffy Schwinn when I criticize you.

FTFY

441 jantjepietje  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:57:58am

Turley: Past Opinions of Sotomayor Lack Intellectual Depth
on MSNBC

Youtube Video
442 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:58:13am

re: #430 Russkilitlover

80% reversal rate is stunning. If my management decisions were reversed 80% of the time - I would not last long at any place of employment.

The New Haven firefighter case was an apalling disgrace. I certainly hope that this will come up in the hearings and that more than one Senator has a problem with it. Can't blame it on youthful indescretion. This was only months ago.

Wait, wait, that's quote mining, you can't use that point.

///////////////

443 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:58:15am

re: #429 Ben Hur

Was just pulling your chain, Habibi.

:)

I kinda knew that but I wanted to use the word I coined somehow, but I got it wrong anyway...

"without everyone going snarkspastic" was how I shoulda typed it.

444 Lokotes  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:58:29am

"Fox News, of course, has already published an attack piece...." Blah, blah, blah...

Evidently, the characteristics that matter most for a potential nominee to the Supreme Court have little to do with judicial ability or temperament, or even so ephemeral a consideration as a knowledge of the law. Instead, the tag line for this appointment says it all. The president wants to choose "a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation's first Hispanic justice."

and

Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

445 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:58:32am

re: #422 Honorary Yooper

Picked by Herbert Hoover, a Republican.

Personally, I see little that is new and/or groundbreaking with Sotomayor. She's not the first Hispanic for the SCOUTS (Cardozo was), and she's not the first woman (O'Connor was). The MSM is hyperventillating about her firsts, and I just don't see it.

It's all about hopenchange. Embrace it!

446 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:21am

re: #336 Alouette

What? Does that mean gays can never get divorced?

Actually, I think that became a problem in Canada at one point, since the language of the marriage legislation had been changed, but that of the divorce legislation hadn't.

447 MandyManners  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:27am

Buzzer. bbiab

448 MrSilverDragon  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:29am

re: #420 soxfan4life

Just imagine the pick John McCain would have made with *sic* Sarah Palin advising him.///

I think I'd have more faith in that choice than Obama's choice.

449 acwgusa  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:36am

Ugh. Proposed California cuts detailed today.re: #441 jantjepietje

Turley: Past Opinions of Sotomayor Lack Intellectual Depth
on MSNBC

[Video]

Lack of Intellectual Depth is a prerequisite for several positions these days, both private and public, it seems.

450 Ward Cleaver  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:40am

re: #434 Timbre

I had a "Huffy" bicycle once.

I remember when they were still made in this country.

451 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 10:59:44am

From the SCOTUS blog Lawhawk linked to:

Opponents’ first claim – likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. The public expects Supreme Court Justices to be brilliant. Harriet Miers was painted (frequently, by conservatives) as not up to the job. The same claim (absurd to anyone who has talked with him) is still made by the left about Clarence Thomas. By contrast, John Roberts was described as brilliant and Sam Alito as exceptionally smart.

The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices.

452 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #445 Ward Cleaver

It's all about hopenchange. Embrace it!

It's more like "We have always been at war with Eastasia", IMO.

453 JammieWearingFool  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:06am

re: #272 Ward Cleaver

She's doing okay. She has the occasional concern that we have to get checked out. This weekend we watched Farrah's Story, that we had DVR'd. Very sad, although her faith is encouraging. I really feel bad for her father, who's already lost one daughter to cancer. We've been keeping them in our prayers.

There's always the fear there with us but she keeps busy and tries not to dwell on it too much. We just got through that whole ordeal last year and then my sister died so that didn't help. Then we always have her father's health issues.

Then one of my cousins died recently. All part of life.

454 MrSilverDragon  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:34am

re: #448 MrSilverDragon

I think I'd have more faith in that choice than Obama's choice.

Scratch that, s/think/know/;

455 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:39am

re: #341 SixDegrees

The argument then becomes: why shouldn't California simply stop issuing marriage licenses, period? A civil union is a legal construct. At the state level, so is a marriage licesnse; it holds no religious or moral standing, implicit or explicit.

To my mind, this is the ultimate solution to this issue: get the state out of the marriage business, and give everyone civil union permits. Let the issue of whether such a union constitutes a marriage rest with individual churches.

States aren't allowing gay marriage; they're allowing civil unions. States also aren't discriminating against sexual orientation by granting identical permits under different names to different classes. Definition of marriage moves back where it belongs - under the control of the church or other organization granting it, a grant which confers no legal standing.

Problem solved. The only people unhappy will be those who simply don't want gays around, period. And they're simply not worthy of attention, being intrinsically anti-American and all.

I'd be fine with that, except for the issue of extra-state protections and legal issues, like social security.

456 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:47am

re: #397 loppyd

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

I'm no lawyer, but that could be a problem.

457 Big Steve  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:00:56am

re: #345 jcm

Thanks

So I have read the whole "Latina better decisions than White Guy" speech. It actually was quite thought provoking. She is making a case that people with different backgrounds WILL view things differently and that this personal perspective bias is not something ANYONE can get around including wise white guys. Not saying I agree with everything in the speech but it was thought provoking and not as incendiary as the single quote lifted makes it sound.

458 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:01:17am

re: #428 MandyManners

"Huffy"?

That's a serious insult to a bicyclist. That would be like telling Danica Patrick not to get all 'chevette'.

459 soxfan4life  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:01:28am

re: #445 Ward Cleaver

It's all about hopenchange. Embrace it!


The big debate the libs on the radio here in MA are having is Cardoza was not from Central America so thus not hispanic rather European and are white people feeling like they are losing power with 0bama amd his appointments. I just want a qualified person regardless of race or sex or even sexual orientation. And the surprisingly high numbers of 0bama's appointees that can't pass that test scares me.

460 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:01:37am

re: #432 zombie

I think the key part in the video is the "oops" moment where she realizes she shouldn't have said it on camera. It's as if she was kind of implying that she'd say such a thing off-camera among like-minded people, but one should never go on record as saying it (or believing it). Her subsequent qualification seems like someone who was trying to stuff the cat back in the bag.

Past her actual words, what was VERY interesting to me was the flavor of the way she said it ... especially after the audience began reacting.

The audience's reaction, and hers to it, was very much like an "in" joke had been told.

/perhaps I'm overthinking it?

461 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:01:40am

re: #426 FurryOldGuyJeans

So I should have included more than FNC as wanting to swim in the cesspool. I will accept I failed to deliver full criticism and scorn to all parties.

Cherry picking quotes is still wrong in my book.

Read some of her opinions. No cherry picking necessary there.

462 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:02:34am

re: #414 avanti

This is getting weird... I've updinged you 3 times today. Hurry up and say something stupid, will ya?

Youtube Video
463 anubis_soundwave  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:07am

re: #288 erp

Because FOX has no "real news"; only hysterics and melodrama with no basis in fact or reality. The source is suspect.

If we don't focus on making a stronger argument for the fiscal conservative-limited government side of conservatism, then the Democrats will remain in power for the foreseeable future.

I want Obama to be one-and-done. Yammering about creationism/ID/birth certificates and generalized mudslinging will only give ammo to the Democrat Side, guaranteeing that I'll have to say "President Obama" until I'm forty years old instead of thirty-six.

Furthermore, by 2012 it may be that fiscal conservative/social-neutrals may emerge; I won't have to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich anymore. I'll finally have a cheeseburger with a bag of Munchos and a 20-oz. bottle of Coke(the cola beverage, not the drug) worth voting for.

464 Westward Ho  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:23am

re: #451 Kenneth

Finishing at the top of her class and having 80% of her decisions reversed don't square off. She does seem to be a dangerous affirmative action radical.

465 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:37am

re: #384 CIA Reject

Heh - Mrs. Reject is part American Indian, that's about as close to aggrieved as I can get...

OK. You're part of a multi-racial marriage. This is good. Kids? You can get somewhere as the father of biracial children.

466 chukardog  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:45am

How can she be qualified if indeed she does have an 80% overturn rate? Her second amendment views should automatically disqualify her. The Federalist papers completely destroy her argument of the intent of the second amendment.

Saying she's qualified, is like saying Biden is qualified the be VP because of his experience. Tenure does not make one qualified. Strict interpretation of the constitution makes one qualified. She appears to be lacking in that category.

467 lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:49am

'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'

This statement of hers, if it is truly reflective of her views on race, should disqualify her from the Court. It is racist in the extreme. A simple substitution of the words "white" for "Latina" and "black" for "white" shows just how offensive the statement is. If a white nominee to the Court had said such a thing, he would be raked over the coals, and rightly so. She should be questioned about her statement and should apologize to even merit consideration. We cannot, in this day and age, tolerate racial bias in any member of the Supreme Court.

468 lawhawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:57am

re: #451 Kenneth

re: #449 acwgusa

Here's the way to reconcile both - the criticism by Turley and that she's intellectually capable - she hasn't done the kind of legal exposition on an area of law like IP or contracts or admiralty or any other area of law. In that respect, she's a generalist and not advancing the legal theory in any particular direction.

It is a valid criticism that someone on the bench as long as she has hasn't pushed the law in a given discipline of interest (say intellectual property for example), but her knowledge generally is quite high. She's just not breaking new ground with her legal opinions (which can be a mixed bag, depending on the cases before her).

469 Randall Gross  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:03am

I've got to split but I'll check back on this later, I'm curious about something and want to solicit lizard opinion.

For decades Republican stance has been "a nominee should be affirmed by the senate if they are qualified" and have voted for the likes of Bader-Ginsburg. The left applies litmus tests. So two questions:

1. Do you think we need to start applied litmus tests besides "qualified or not"
2. Would it be hypocrisy to do so?

470 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:05am

re: #464 Westward Ho

Finishing at the top of her class and having 80% of her decisions reversed don't square off. She does seem to be a dangerous affirmative action radical.

A telling pair of facts.

471 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:18am

re: #436 jorline

Could someone post a link to that 80% reversal rate ? Hot Air has only 4 in 11 years, mostly on minor technicalities.

472 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:23am

Very shrewd choice.
By nominating a Latino female, Pres. Obama kills two birds with one stone.
So I suppose we are to believe that Obama's statement of the other day, wherein he strenously denied that he would use any nomination criteria other than merit, was not a bald-faced lie and that his choice was purely coincidental.

473 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:05:46am

re: #462 Kenneth

This is getting weird... I've updinged you 3 times today. Hurry up and say something stupid, will ya?


[Video]

Tofu is yummie.

474 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #227 TheSextons

Just funnin', forgot the sarc tag.

475 [deleted]  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:15am
476 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:23am

re: #430 Russkilitlover

80% reversal rate is stunning. If my management decisions were reversed 80% of the time - I would not last long at any place of employment.

The New Haven firefighter case was an apalling disgrace. I certainly hope that this will come up in the hearings and that more than one Senator has a problem with it. Can't blame it on youthful indescretion. This was only months ago.

The decision is expected at the end of June - reversal is expected.

She was also reversed unanimously by the SCOTUS in Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. back in 2005. Yes, I said unanimously.

477 wrenchwench  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:33am

re: #437 Ward Cleaver

Maybe he just swiped that from another blog, and the URL doesn't exist anymore.

So why is that the hot place to link when the info is also available elsewhere? Is "jumpinginpools" too reliable to need checking?

478 LGoPs  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:35am

re: #460 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Past her actual words, what was VERY interesting to me was the flavor of the way she said it ... especially after the audience began reacting.

The audience's reaction, and hers to it, was very much like an "in" joke had been told.

/perhaps I'm overthinking it?

To me it was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge moment.

479 lawhawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:49am

I'd like to see some proof of the 80% reversal rate, given that she's on the 2d Circuit, and it's among the courts least likely to be overturned (unlike the 9th).

She's been on that Circuit for a decade. If she had a 80% reversal rate, it would translate into the overall figures for the 2d Circuit.

480 Cato  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:51am

She is not a great pick. I would prefer a very smart liberal, like Cass Sunstein, rather than a liberal who may be smart.

481 flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:52am

re: #456 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I'm no lawyer, but that could be a problem.

These are not her decisions that were reversed, but rather the entire court's. The judges sit in panels. Even if this were otherwise, this is nor comparable to screwing up on the job. A judge or lower court with a conservative philosophy would have a high overturn rate if the Supreme Court were majority liberal.

482 Ben Hur  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:04am

re: #467 lightspeed

'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'

This statement of hers, if it is truly reflective of her views on race, should disqualify her from the Court. It is racist in the extreme. A simple substitution of the words "white" for "Latina" and "black" for "white" shows just how offensive the statement is. If a white nominee to the Court had said such a thing, he would be raked over the coals, and rightly so. She should be questioned about her statement and should apologize to even merit consideration. We cannot, in this day and age, tolerate racial bias in any member of the Supreme Court.

Dude, she's from the Bronx.

She's as streetina as J.Lo.

483 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:06am

re: #467 lightspeed

'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'

This statement of hers, if it is truly reflective of her views on race, should disqualify her from the Court. It is racist in the extreme. A simple substitution of the words "white" for "Latina" and "black" for "white" shows just how offensive the statement is. If a white nominee to the Court had said such a thing, he would be raked over the coals, and rightly so. She should be questioned about her statement and should apologize to even merit consideration. We cannot, in this day and age, tolerate racial bias in any member of the Supreme Court.

Gotta agree on that. Her statement reeks of racism.

Once again, she was at a liberal university (U.C. Berkeley), speaking to a sympathetic crowd, where she lets her true feelings out.

484 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:10am

I've no idea how good SCOTUS blog is, but they have something up on Ms. Sotomayor's opinions, and it is interesting.

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an obviously serious candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. We have been struck by how the amount of commentary about Judge Sotomayor has ignored the most accessible and valuable source of information: her opinions as an appellate judge. Last year, I directed a project in which a team of Akin Gump summer associates extensively reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s opinions. Amy Howe subsequently revised and expanded their work, with contributions by me.

Here, we make our first effort at summarizing what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them.

A summary of additional civil cases, as well as Judge Sotomayor’s leading criminal law opinions will follow.

485 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:13am

I'd be VERY interested in hard documentation of her reversal rate.
Until then, I'm laying the 80% in my "Gee, wouldn't it be NICE!" basket.

/it's very close at hand, but also has a commode handle attached

486 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:24am

re: #472 Spare O'Lake

Very shrewd choice.
By nominating a Latino female, Pres. Obama kills two birds with one stone.
So I suppose we are to believe that Obama's statement of the other day, wherein he strenously denied that he would use any nomination criteria other than merit, was not a bald-faced lie and that his choice was purely coincidental.

She and Elena Kagan have been top of the short list for weeks.

487 Frater Eosphoros  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:58am

Goddammit this isn't biased at all...
Sotomayor: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman (yo! yo! yo!) with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male'...
God Emperor Obama knows whats best. Do not question what your puny minds cannot understand.
This is all Bush's fault!
/s

488 OldLineTexan  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:37am

re: #473 avanti

Tofu is yummie.

Pandering to FBV!

/that's a first, IIRC

489 flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:55am

re: #466 chukardog

How can she be qualified if indeed she does have an 80% overturn rate? Her second amendment views should automatically disqualify her. The Federalist papers completely destroy her argument of the intent of the second amendment.

Saying she's qualified, is like saying Biden is qualified the be VP because of his experience. Tenure does not make one qualified. Strict interpretation of the constitution makes one qualified. She appears to be lacking in that category.

Remember, Judge Bork, extremely highly touted by conservatives, did not believe the second amendment applied to individuals.

490 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:09:00am

re: #479 lawhawk

I'd like to see some proof of the 80% reversal rate, given that she's on the 2d Circuit, and it's among the courts least likely to be overturned (unlike the 9th).

She's been on that Circuit for a decade. If she had a 80% reversal rate, it would translate into the overall figures for the 2d Circuit.

I've been searching for some proof, and this claim does not appear to be true. Some of the more extreme blogs are even claiming she has a 100% reversal rate.

Here we go again with the hysteria.

491 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:19am

re: #473 avanti

Tofu is yummie.

You must've been thru the Islands. Ever try poi? How does it taste?

/:D ... giving you a chance to reverse the positive-going trend

492 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:50am

re: #478 LGoPs

To me it was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge moment.

PRECISELY!

493 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:46am

re: #455 SanFranciscoZionist

I'd be fine with that, except for the issue of extra-state protections and legal issues, like social security.

Federal laws simply accept what the states put forward. There's no federal marriage law because it isn't required. The Commerce Clause takes care of that and all similar issues. I don't have to have my Will certified at the Federal level, for instance. Nor do I have to file my home's Title with any Federal agencies.

It's really no different from what's already in place. Today's California court decision, for example, keeps intact any gay marriages already performed; for the purposes of the Social Security Administration, those people are legally spouses.

(Ignoring Clinton's ridiculous and offensive "Defense of Marriage Act," which probably wouldn't survive SC review if it every got that far.)

494 flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:37am

re: #490 Charles

I've been searching for some proof, and this claim does not appear to be true. Some of the more extreme blogs are even claiming she has a 100% reversal rate.

Here we go again with the hysteria.

I'm looking as well, but I'm guessing it would be impossible for any judge or circuit to have an 80% reversal rate, given the number of cases the SC accepts vs. the number of decisions a circuit court makes, i.e., for a circuit to be overturned 80% of the time, the SC would have to accept far far more cases than it does.

495 lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:38am

re: #482 Ben Hur

Dude, she's from the Bronx.

She's as streetina as J.Lo.

I'm not sure of your point. Does that make her racist statement OK? I am allowed to make the same kind of statements about black people because I am a white male from the Deep South?

496 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:38am

* In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
* In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
* In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
* In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.

497 Cato  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:44am

re: #490 Charles


It is nearly impossible to have reversal rates that high. Remember, generally good attorneys write appellate court briefs and using the reasoning of either gives a colorable claim to the position. I do not mean this to sound like all results are equal, just that the plausibility of an argument narrows the likely results.

498 quickjustice  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:54am

I've publicly said that the judicial confirmation process at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court has been captured by extremist interest groups of both the left and the right. Anyone nominated to a vacancy will be subjected to fierce ideological attacks and defenses.

Prior to Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, it was widely accepted by both political parties in the U.S. Senate that the president was entitled to deference in his selection of someone who shared his judicial philosophy. Scalia, for example, a Reagan nominee, was confirmed overwhelmingly despite his conservative views. With Bork, another Reagan nominee, Democrats decided they needed to destroy the nominee on ideological grounds.

Led by Teddy Kennedy, they successful destroyed Bork's nomination even though it was obvious that he was an intellectually qualified conservative. The all-out scorched earth policy on nominees continued with G.H.W. Bush's, Clinton's, and W's nominees. (I personally loved the Roberts nomination, but wasn't enthusiastic about Alito. I argued before Alito when he sat on the Third Circuit.)

It's Sotomayor's turn to get trashed. As liberal judges go, she's probably the best of the bunch. That means that she has a reputation for integrity, even though she's liberal. That may be the best we can do at this time.

499 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:09am

re: #473 avanti

Tofu is yummie.

If you put enough sauce on it so you can't taste it, it is.
But then, I've just disproven what I was trying to say, didn't I?
(BTW, had a "Fresh City" stir fry with tofu for lunch.)

500 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:21am

She either owns the reported quotes or she doesn't. Are they germaine to the question of being qualified? I'd say yes but I'm not a senator. They speak directly to an attitude that implies that there are more important things for a SCOTUS appointee than merely interpreting the law.

501 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:44am

re: #490 Charles

I've been searching for some proof, and this claim does not appear to be true. Some of the more extreme blogs are even claiming she has a 100% reversal rate.

Here we go again with the hysteria.

I just ran a search for it, and all I can find are some very obviously biased blogs (Free Republic, etc) throwing out those 80% or 100% reversal rate numbers. Nothing concrete. I'd like to know where this number is coming from since it seems to have no basis in reality.

502 Cato  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:08am

re: #496 loppyd

That is awfully selective for a 15 year career on the bench.

503 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:18am

Unless she has nanny or tax problems, Sotomayor will be seated on the court.
It won't change the recent 5-4 balance.
It will lock down a liberal seat for 25-30 years.

She will be an activist judge, she fits very will with BHO's empathic justice requirement.

There will be a lot of yelling and screaming over all the stuff linked above.

In the end all sound and fury.

The one thing that might crop up if (R)s have a backbone. Since Specter left the judiciary, the liberal (R) is gone. To pass a nominee to the floor judiciary needs at lest one minority vote.

I don't think the (R)s will dig in on this one. They might if it changed the court balance.

504 SixDegrees  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:15:56am

re: #397 loppyd

She has an almost 80% reversal rate.

I'd like to see a reference shoring up that statement. It seems to me that anyone with that sort of record would have been called on the mat long before now. I'm having a lot of trouble believing this claim.

505 Westward Ho  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:16:01am

re: #471 avanti

I can't beleive that, no one that dumb would be a federal Judge.

506 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:16am

More on Sotomayor's so-called brilliant legal mind:

On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases.

507 avanti  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:18am

re: #497 Cato

It is nearly impossible to have reversal rates that high. Remember, generally good attorneys write appellate court briefs and using the reasoning of either gives a colorable claim to the position. I do not mean this to sound like all results are equal, just that the plausibility of an argument narrows the likely results.

Hot Air claimed 4 known reversals in 11 years and commented that was in fact a low rate, but others may turn up.

508 jcm  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:18:29am

re: #507 avanti

Hot Air claimed 4 known reversals in 11 years and commented that was in fact a low rate, but others may turn up.

She's been the known top pick for awhile, if she had a 80% reversal rate the (R)'s operatives would already have that info locked down for dissemination.

509 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:18:36am

re: #502 Cato

That is awfully selective for a 15 year career on the bench.

I urge you to read the full body of her work then.

510 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:18:57am

re: #494 flyers1974

I'm looking as well, but I'm guessing it would be impossible for any judge or circuit to have an 80% reversal rate, given the number of cases the SC accepts vs. the number of decisions a circuit court makes, i.e., for a circuit to be overturned 80% of the time, the SC would have to accept far far more cases than it does.

Right. And this is an object lesson in not believing the hype that's coming out. In addition to the out of context quotes, someone out there is already deliberately circulating falsehoods.

511 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:27am

re: #510 Charles

Right. And this is an object lesson in not believing the hype that's coming out. In addition to the out of context quotes, someone out there is already deliberately circulating falsehoods.

How is that quote about making policy being taken out of context?

512 Buck  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:28am

re: #510 Charles

Right. And this is an object lesson in not believing the hype that's coming out. In addition to the ut of context quotes, someone out there is already deliberately circulating falsehoods.

I like this analysis [Link: volokh.com...]

Seems based in facts, and is balanced.

513 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:28am

re: #505 Westward Ho

I can't beleive that, no one that dumb would be a federal Judge.


Ah! Or president? Hope and change, eh?

514 Former Belgian  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:38am

re: #483 zombie

Gotta agree on that. Her statement reeks of racism.

Once again, she was at a liberal university (U.C. Berkeley), speaking to a sympathetic crowd, where she lets her true feelings out.

Even in my leftist days I was vehemently opposed to reverse discrimination, excuse me, "affirmative action". Which in Berkeley made me a right-winger ;-) I quickly that even if you're into far-left territory economically speaking (as I was then), advocating equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome (the supposedly "progressive" position) gets you labeled a conservative around certain people, no matter how much I protested my loathing for Reagan etc.

Eventually I came to realize that the "progressives" and the reactionaries (those who want to preserve their historically entrenched privileges at the expense of the rest of us) are simply two sides of the same coin --- they just disagree over who should be the privileged class.

515 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:11am

re: #506 loppyd

More on Sotomayor's so-called brilliant legal mind:

On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases.

That tally figures out to about 80%, and it says "at most".

I wonder if some utter idiot looked at that and began screaming "80% reversal rate!"

/over-thinking it only when considering a normal intelligence level

516 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:15am

re: #475 Iron Fist

There's a split in the appellate courts, then, because the 9th Circuit (yes, that 9th Circuit) ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the States. Very specifically and in no squishy terms.

She is also wrong about Heller. Heller didn't apply itself to the States directly (as the 9th Circuit case did) but it found that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, like the right to free speech or free press. No one would argue that the States could suppress the latter two rights. Where, then, does the authority to violate the first right come from? It would be completely contrary to the character of the Bill of Rights to argue that all the rights ennumerated are applicable to the State as well as the Federal Government except the individual right recognized by the 2nd.

Bluntly, if the Left (and this woman appears to be hard, radical Left) want to get rid of the Second Amendment then there is a process for amending the Constitution. Try that, and we'll see where it gets you.

Exactly. That is why I think this can derail the nomination. I expect to hear screaming about it before too long.

517 quickjustice  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:47am

re: #334 zombie

Z-- I've argued cases to various U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the Third Circuit (N.J., Del., and PA). The U.S. Supreme Court only accepts 1% or less of appeals from decisions of those courts. As a practical matter, that means that the decisions of the Courts of Appeals often are final. It also means that cases in which Sotomayor has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court are a tiny fraction of all of her decisions.

Most reported cases decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals make policy for a region. By "policy", I mean construction of some important statute, or of the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes courts of appeals disagree among themselves on important policy matters. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court often intervenes. I saw the video clip of Sotomayor referring to "policy". The only way that remark could embarrass her is if the "policy" decided by the court is inconsistent with the statute or the U.S. Constitution.

518 Westward Ho  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:30am

re: #513 ducktrapper

Ah! Or president? Hope and change, eh?

Democracies have been known to elect dim bulbs - but bureaucrats have to have some basic intelligence.

/Yes minister was a brilliant Brit serial illustrating my point.

519 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:30am

re: #511 loppyd

How is that quote about making policy being taken out of context?

Because she immediately qualified it to say that she knows the appeals court does not make law.

520 medaura18586  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:39am

re: #392 flyers1974

Did you feel the same way when George H.W. Bush picked Thomas to replace Marshall? On the same note do you believe Sandra Day O'connor's gender had nothing to do with Reagan's decision?

I'm not a Republican hack, and was not old enough to pay attention to the nomination process regarding these judges. The eventual nominee will be either male or female, and I don't necessarily read much into the gender, but in this case, all of the candidates in Obama's short-list were women. Am I do view that as an innocent statistical improbability, or do we have some strict affirmative action in place at the pre-selection phase? No men were even considered for the job. I find that disturbing.

By the way, I'm not a fan either of Bush (senior or junior) nor of Reagan, and if the race and gender of the justices they nominated played an important role in the selection, that too disgusts me. For the same reasons.

521 Mardukhai  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:56am

Charles -- As a survivor of a "ethnic-minority" terrorist attack financed by liberal academics, I'm extremely skeptical. Perhaps the controversial quote is cherry-picked. But perhaps it isn't.

Frankly, I would hope that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" would reach a conclusion that that she is no more innately qualified than "a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

522 NY Nana  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:03am

Sonia Sotomayor, Self Described 'Newyorican' Raised In A Bronx Housing Project

Please read it all, and look for the poll on the page. It is quite interesting, especially since this article is from the local NYC CBS station.

523 lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:40am

re: #514 Former Belgian

I once had a conversation with a black muslim (Nation of Islam), who patiently explained to me that it was impossible for a black person to be racist, because only those in power can be racists. Therefore, since white people had all of the power, white people were the only ones who could be racists. I guess now that Obama is in charge the tables are turned...nah, liberals can't be racists, right?

524 littlerinkus  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:49am

Post very rarely on here but thought i'd clear up something I had been trying to figure out since I saw it mentioned in the comments here

80% reversal rate comes from the times the supreme court has looked at her cases, so the 11 out of 44 possible votes = 20% of the votes agreeing or 80% reversal

Rush has already jumped on it -- [Link: www.rushlimbaugh.com...]

525 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:40am

re: #523 lightspeed

I once had a conversation with a black muslim (Nation of Islam), who patiently explained to me that it was impossible for a black person to be racist, because only those in power can be racists. Therefore, since white people had all of the power, white people were the only ones who could be racists. I guess now that Obama is in charge the tables are turned...nah, liberals can't be racists, right?

I've had a white woman tell me the same thing. It is a tenet of progressivism and utter B.S.

526 quickjustice  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:35:32am

The lady is a liberal. Her views are consistent with that underlying philosophy. I question the "80% reversal rate". Obama would not nominate a blithering idiot unless his vetters are incompetent.

527 zombie  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:35:41am

re: #514 Former Belgian

Even in my leftist days I was vehemently opposed to reverse discrimination, excuse me, "affirmative action". Which in Berkeley made me a right-winger ;-) I quickly that even if you're into far-left territory economically speaking (as I was then), advocating equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome (the supposedly "progressive" position) gets you labeled a conservative around certain people, no matter how much I protested my loathing for Reagan etc.

Eventually I came to realize that the "progressives" and the reactionaries (those who want to preserve their historically entrenched privileges at the expense of the rest of us) are simply two sides of the same coin --- they just disagree over who should be the privileged class.

A trillion updings!

528 Francisco D'Anconia  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:35:55am

From what I've heard and read in her cases she seems to not be all that intellectually inclined. Ginsburg is a liberal but she is an intellectual liberal. I think She'll have a very difficult time arguing for rulings based on empathy with this collection of Justices. Scalia could very well domineer and direct her intellectually. Plus she was raised Catholic, Scalia is a Catholic. This could be a great opportunity for the conservative justices to convert a democratic appointee. After Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy its about time a democratic nominee switches sides

529 Mardukhai  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:21am

re: #525 ducktrapper

Anyone who thinks that women don't have any power has never been out on a date with one.

530 anant  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:57am

Has anyone read the speech from which the quote about a "wise Latina woman" making better decisions than a white man comes from? It's here:

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

I think it's pretty clear that she was speaking specifically about discrimination and civil rights cases. It's not like she was saying that a Latina woman would make a better decision than a white man in all cases, such as patent or anti-trust or securities or products liability. All she's saying is that she thinks being a member of a minority group would lead one to make better decisions in discrimination cases. We might not agree with that notion, but it's not like she's saying anything really radical from a judicial point of view. Judges are called upon to use their discretion to balance competing interests all the time, and it's absurd to think that a judge's own life experiences don't affect how he or she balances different factors.

531 ducktrapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:25am

re: #529 Mardukhai

Anyone who thinks that women don't have any power has never been out on a date with one.

Date? Hell, I've married a couple of them! What do I know? As a patriarchcal oppressor, I accept no equal.

532 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:57am

re: #524 littlerinkus

Post very rarely on here but thought i'd clear up something I had been trying to figure out since I saw it mentioned in the comments here

80% reversal rate comes from the times the supreme court has looked at her cases, so the 11 out of 44 possible votes = 20% of the votes agreeing or 80% reversal

Rush has already jumped on it -- [Link: www.rushlimbaugh.com...]

11 out of 44 is 25%, not 20%.

533 Kenneth  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:18am

re: #529 Mardukhai

Or married.

534 quickjustice  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:28am

re: #524 littlerinkus

The U.S. Supreme Court only accepts highly controversial cases, and a tiny fraction of cases decided. If Sotomayor was reversed 80% of the time going up to the U.S. Supreme Court, you have to look at how the liberals on the court voted to see if her opinions were partisan. If liberals on the Supreme Court voted to reverse her repeatedly, she's an inferior judge.

535 Flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:53am

re: #517 quickjustice

Z-- I've argued cases to various U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the Third Circuit (N.J., Del., and PA). The U.S. Supreme Court only accepts 1% or less of appeals from decisions of those courts. As a practical matter, that means that the decisions of the Courts of Appeals often are final. It also means that cases in which Sotomayor has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court are a tiny fraction of all of her decisions.

Most reported cases decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals make policy for a region. By "policy", I mean construction of some important statute, or of the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes courts of appeals disagree among themselves on important policy matters. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court often intervenes. I saw the video clip of Sotomayor referring to "policy". The only way that remark could embarrass her is if the "policy" decided by the court is inconsistent with the statute or the U.S. Constitution.

re: #520 medaura18586

I'm not a Republican hack, and was not old enough to pay attention to the nomination process regarding these judges. The eventual nominee will be either male or female, and I don't necessarily read much into the gender, but in this case, all of the candidates in Obama's short-list were women. Am I do view that as an innocent statistical improbability, or do we have some strict affirmative action in place at the pre-selection phase? No men were even considered for the job. I find that disturbing.

By the way, I'm not a fan either of Bush (senior or junior) nor of Reagan, and if the race and gender of the justices they nominated played an important role in the selection, that too disgusts me. For the same reasons.

I'm a little rusty on my SC history, but I do know that for much of the 20th century, there were actually SC seats known to "belong" to various groups, i.e., a Catholic seat, a Jewish seat, etc... With LBJ's pick of Marshall, a Black seat was created, and with Reagan's pick of O'connor, a female seat was created. Obviously this is not official policy, and at some point, a seat may lose its status as "being" catholic for example, if Catholics are appointed to other SC seats. Anyway, regardless of one's personal views of this practice, I think Dem and Republican presidents have both been loathe to ignore this unofficial policy.

536 lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:21am

re: #519 Charles

Because she immediately qualified it to say that she knows the appeals court does not make law.

I disagree. If you watch the video, when she says "we don't make law," she raises both hands as if to put the phrase in quotes. What she was saying (pretty clearly, in my opinion) was that "well, technically, we don't 'make law,' but we 'make policy,' you know."

Anyway, I am sure we will see more evidence of her activist bent.

537 Flyers1974  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:44:34am

re: #535 Flyers1974

I'm a little rusty on my SC history, but I do know that for much of the 20th century, there were actually SC seats known to "belong" to various groups, i.e., a Catholic seat, a Jewish seat, etc... With LBJ's pick of Marshall, a Black seat was created, and with Reagan's pick of O'connor, a female seat was created. Obviously this is not official policy, and at some point, a seat may lose its status as "being" catholic for example, if Catholics are appointed to other SC seats. Anyway, regardless of one's personal views of this practice, I think Dem and Republican presidents have both been loathe to ignore this unofficial policy.

Sorry, I included you in my reply by mistake, quickjustice.

538 Animal  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:44:59am

re: #374 Kosh's Shadow

I agree; I've said the same thing.
Let atheists get married by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster at Italian restaurants. They get the civil union permit, and they're fine.

Mrs. Animal and myself were married in my parent's back yard by a local Justice of the Peace. Completely secular.

539 loppyd  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:41am

re: #519 Charles

Because she immediately qualified it to say that she knows the appeals court does not make law.

While she gestured in her pooh pooh way....while the audience giggled in approval.

540 ladycatnip  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:47:53am

#522 NY Nana

Thanks for the link.

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2002. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

That statement alone should disqualify her. No judge, from small court to the supreme court should judge based upon that. When Lady Justice takes off her blindfold, then justice becomes irrelevant - it will only matter what race or gender you are.

541 quickjustice  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:37am

re: #535 Flyers1974

By nominating a Latina to Souter's seat, Obama is replacing a white male with a female Puerto Rican. The Puerto Ricans in NYC have become middle class over the past sixty years. Prominent Puerto Rican politicians such as Herman Badillo, formerly Democrats, have become Republicans. Most Puerto Ricans still are Democrats, but the ethnic dynamics are gradually breaking down as they prosper.

542 lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:54am

re: #530 anant

Has anyone read the speech from which the quote about a "wise Latina woman" making better decisions than a white man comes from?

Yes, I read it. The context doesn't make it any less racist.

it's absurd to think that a judge's own life experiences don't affect how he or she balances different factors.

Of course a judge's life experiences will shape his/her judgement. But you argument is fallacious. To say that someone is better qualified to judge one case or another based on the fact that he or she has been through the same life experiences as a party to the case flies in the face of what our justice system is supposed to be about.

Judges are supposed to rule base on the law , not on what is right or wrong, or how they feel about something or if they have sympathies for one side or another. "Life experience" should never enter into it. Is it legal, or not? Constitutional, or not? That's it. According to your logic, a Klansman would be a better judge in a murder trail where the defendant was also a member of the Klan.

543 littlerinkus  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:36am

re: #532 Kenneth

Good catch, my fault, too quick of a post. Must be then the fact that they overturned i think its 4 out of 5 of her decisions, not the actual votes...not exactly a big sample size to say the least.

re: #534 quickjustice

agreed, I haven't had a chance to look at the cases specifically yet so I don't know how the liberal justices themselves voted, all I know is one was unanimous and the rest I were split so that is worth taking a look at. Just thought I'd help clear up that 80% number since a few people had asked and I figured I probably wasn't the only one observing and wondering where the heck it was coming from as well

544 kansas  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:55:16am

re: #441 jantjepietje

Turley: Past Opinions of Sotomayor Lack Intellectual Depth
on MSNBC

Looks like MSNBC is getting into the Fox cesspool.

545 NY Nana  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:57:43am

re: #540 ladycatnip

I agree. She has many detractors in the metro NYC area, who do it with good reason.

I don't watch the local CBS station, but the article was online, and what really amazed me were the poll results so far. it is possible to skewer an on-line poll. I think, but I do not think this is the case here.

As a Jew, I have seen in my life so many candidates for office written off because they were Jews. Any appointment, be it a dog catcher or a Supreme Court seat should be done for only one reason: this individual is the best one for the position, and race and/or religion should not ever be even considered. Alas, it still is, and certain groups are given special consideration.

Once this is off the table, and merit is the criteria? We, as a nation, will have finally grown up, and be far better off.

546 USCMSNE  Tue, May 26, 2009 11:57:59am

The hit piece by fox was published by SE Cupp in their forum/blog section. That's no different than Roland Martin or Ruben Navarette spouting their garbage on CNN's front page. It's disingenuous to call it a hit piece when it came from the commentary pages.

547 medaura18586  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:10:22pm

re: #535 Flyers1974

I'm a little rusty on my SC history, but I do know that for much of the 20th century, there were actually SC seats known to "belong" to various groups, i.e., a Catholic seat, a Jewish seat, etc... With LBJ's pick of Marshall, a Black seat was created, and with Reagan's pick of O'connor, a female seat was created. Obviously this is not official policy, and at some point, a seat may lose its status as "being" catholic for example, if Catholics are appointed to other SC seats. Anyway, regardless of one's personal views of this practice, I think Dem and Republican presidents have both been loathe to ignore this unofficial policy.

I admit I'm late to the politics game, and don't much enjoy it. If gender/race/religion/class favoritism has been a common practice in SC appointments for much of the 20th century, I certainly did not know that, though I can't say I'm surprised. I am just now waking up to how cynical the politics of these appointments are, and it's pretty nauseating. I'm not claiming Obama has set a new low, but this is the first time I've paid attention, and am underwhelmed by the entire process, the petty politics.

548 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:54pm

re: #546 USCMSNE

The hit piece by fox was published by SE Cupp in their forum/blog section. That's no different than Roland Martin or Ruben Navarette spouting their garbage on CNN's front page. It's disingenuous to call it a hit piece when it came from the commentary pages.

No, it is not "disingenuous." An attack piece is an attack piece.

549 koedo  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:27pm

If she said this she should attacked:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.


Ooops, sorry. Please substitute 'white male for 'Latina woman' and visa versa.

550 SecondComing  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:25:37pm

re: #139 Charles

Yes -- I set EyeTV to record it. Alex Jones' influence is really growing fast.

I'll be recording it. These mental midgets never cease to amaze me.

551 medaura18586  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:40pm

re: #549 koedo

If she said this she should attacked:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Ooops, sorry. Please substitute 'white male for 'Latina woman' and visa versa.

Hope that wasn't a Freudian slip there... ;)

552 Anant  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:26pm

re: #542 lightspeed

There's a difference between "what our justice system is supposed to be about" and how our justice system actually works. You can't say that judges have to rule "based on the law" when it's often unclear what a law means or whether there is a conflict between a Constitutional right and a legitimate government interest. So judges are expected balance various factors or exercise their discretion within the bounds of the law. All Sotomayor is saying is that if a minority judge is the one balancing various interests in a civil rights case, you might get a "better" decision. I think it was a somewhat offensive statement, but as a description of how courts actually work in real life, I think it'is pretty accurate.

553 Raiderdan  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:44pm

Charles, I don't listen to Glenn Beck, or watch him. Or Judge Napolitano.

What I do watch and listen to is FOX's day to day coverage of news, and there is a clear difference in how they cover events vs. the rest of the politically-correct media. I also see FOX Business drawing a clear distinction with the current "recovery is on the way" cheering by CNBC and Reuters and CNN, etc.

You are confusing several of their hosts opinion with the news side of their reporting, which is what liberal critics of FOX News constantly do. If they're pushing conspiracy theories on those shows, I agree, thats unfortunate, but remember, this is television, and ratings rule.

Still, Sotomayor will be pushed by the liberal MSM because of her biography and her demography as Katie Couric gushed today with Bob Schieffer. Criticism of her legal reasoning will be again viewed as RACISM.

Obama promised a change from politics as usual. But he gave us a nominee straight from the identity politics wing of the Democrat party. We will get the same-ol, same-ol, this time with GOPers unable to criticize the choice because they constantly have to defend themselves from the MSM for being closet-racists.

554 SecondComing  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:33:22pm

re: #550 SecondComing

I'll be recording it. These mental midgets never cease to amaze me.

ha wow, big surprise. I watched a trailer on IFC and it showed Alex Jones in a Ron Paul 2008 shirt from the book depository trying to reenact Oswald shooting JFK. Part of me is giggling and part of me is groaning.

555 hous bin pharteen  Tue, May 26, 2009 12:38:26pm

Practically every TV news is on the far left. Hollywood is leftist, from TV shows to movies. The newspapers are leftist. The news magazines are from the left as well. But it seems every single day we here complaints here about Fox News. What is the problem here? The tanker trucks full of Kool Aid get lost, or what?

556 Picayune  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:57pm

re: #204 Charles

"Our political system has become little more than a tool for partisan attacks, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon."

Yep, and here's some info, or evidence of "tools" used for "partisan attacks" that should merit your review - from the Dems/left wing fringe:

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

The hypocrisy will hurt them, now that the shoe's on the other foot. The faulty legal philosophy (rule of man, not rule of law) of Obama's pick will be wrapped around him as the shroud that he wares by choice, in the months to come as the approval process unfolds. And this, regardless of his pick, is what's most important for voters to learn, regardless of the sources.

557 wiffersnapper  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:04pm

re: #238 SixDegrees

Good point

558 shifty  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:37:44pm

Fox News may have published the piece but they didnt write the words that came out of this lady's piehole. It's not something taken way out of context either like Lipstickonapiggate or McCain's '1000 years' or Kerry's 'get stuck in Iraq'.

These are solid examples that she is a bleedling-heart leftist who will use the bench to dish out some 'social justice' regardless of what the actual law says.

559 Lightspeed  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:06pm

re: #552 Anant

All Sotomayor is saying is that if a minority judge is the one balancing various interests in a civil rights case, you might get a "better" decision.

"Better" for whom? The minorities? That's how she ruled in the Ricci case. And she was roundly criticised for it. She ruled against the white plaintiffs, some say without properly addressing the legal questions in the case.

Besides, she could have made the same point without comparing herself to a generic "white male." All she had to say was "I would hope that a wise person with the richness of her experiences would better serve the cause of justice than one without." She didn't. Instead she said "...Latina woman...better than...white male." Racist and sexist.

560 Lazarus  Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:17pm

The Balkanization of America.

561 nonic  Tue, May 26, 2009 2:18:47pm

re: #545 NY Nana

Race will not be "off the table" until Obama has appointed and had confirmed on the Court every minority he can. I think we can count on it that the next nominee will be an Asian, then a Muslim, then a Native American, etc. That's the core of the whole "empathy" thing.

And all of them, like Sotomayor, will be confirmed, because Republicans will not dare "alienate" the group.

Welcome to "post racial" America. NOT.

562 nonic  Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:52pm

As for instant "attack" pieces...............

The New York Times published on May 11 the following:
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

New York Times. May 11. In context.

563 avspatti  Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:27pm

re: #40 OldLineTexan

It's Spanish usage, here at least.

Like Filipina.

564 ihateronpaul  Tue, May 26, 2009 4:02:39pm

I love how FOX News thinks they know anything about race besides what rush limbaugh has told them.

565 AFVetWife  Tue, May 26, 2009 5:00:27pm

re: #31 JammieWearingFool
Justice SHOULD BE blind. This woman is not a "blind justice." I realize that the Republicans probably cannot block her nomination by the numbers, but they must try to raise serious concerns about her, and raise the awareness of the public (insofar as much the MSM lets that slip through).

566 ihateronpaul  Tue, May 26, 2009 5:49:16pm

re: #565 AFVetWife

are conservative justices "blind" if they blindingly give corporate america all the power it wants whether or not it benefits society?

567 Gus  Tue, May 26, 2009 5:54:55pm

re: #566 ihateronpaul

are conservative justices "blind" if they blindingly give corporate america all the power it wants whether or not it benefits society?

You mean like Kelo v. City of New London?

568 solomonpanting  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:05:24pm

re: #567 Gus 802

You mean like Kelo v. City of New London?

You'll notice it was mostly conservative justices who voted in the minority.

569 koedo  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:15:58pm

ihateronpaul
5/26/09 4:02:39 pm

I love how FOX News thinks they know anything about race besides what rush limbaugh has told them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What media outlet do you think knows about race? You know, since you obviously think Fox news does not you must have some idea of who does.

570 Gus  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:17:01pm

re: #568 solomonpanting

You'll notice it was mostly conservative justices who voted in the minority.

Yes. Which was the right thing to do in my opinion. Just points out that Souter was in fact no friend of liberty from time to time. He is known as being "unpredictable."

I was looking further into his record and the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey illustrates another departure for what would have been "expected" from Justice Souter. (This is not an endorsement or departure on that case on my part.)

I am not comfortable with the Sotomayor choice but that's out of my hands. She will be 1 of 12 justices and Chief Justice Scalia will remain.

571 solomonpanting  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:21:45pm

re: #570 Gus 802

No, there's not much to be done to block her confirmation.
BTW, there are nine justices and Roberts is Chief Justice.

572 Gus  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:23:53pm

re: #571 solomonpanting

No, there's not much to be done to block her confirmation.
BTW, there are nine justices and Roberts is Chief Justice.

9! Oops, thanks.

...

Correction to #570

I am not comfortable with the Sotomayor choice but that's out of my hands. She will be 1 of 12 9 justices and Chief Justice Scalia will remain.

573 Joel  Tue, May 26, 2009 6:47:03pm

Obama voted against the confirmation of Samuel Alito who is eminently more qualified then Sotomayor is to be a Supreme Court justice. I fear we will be getting a Supreme COurt version of the infamous "Turn'em Loose" Bruce (Wright) type of judge that we were afflicted with in New York City back in the 1970's.

574 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:15:34am

There are people out there spreading falsehoods..and those are in defense of a woman who is racist. For every so called hit piece ready to roll, there were 100 liberal defense pieces ready to counter, and all of them are out there saying the same thing.

We already know Obama has no understanding of SC qualifications, based on his votes. We already know Obama has no desire for someone who will uphold the law and not legislate from the bench based on his statements.

If anyone has forgotten the numerous items we discussed here on LGF over the past few years about how liberals lie and distort to achieve their goals, maybe you should do some recall work.

Don't soften now, people..don't forget the true face of liberalism now just because you like Obama or want to cut him the slack no liberal would ever cut for you.

I think we are lucky to have Fox news around, given the all the other choices are liberal and then some. I don't see any other news show as being half as fair and balanced as Fox, nor do I see them properly identifying what is editorial and what is news.

575 voluble  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:21:12am

I know I am not physiologically or racially equipped to have an opinion but I would just like to say I told you so. My prediction was that Obama would either give us the judicial equivalent of Joe Biden or he would pick an idealogue. He did both. Well played indeed.

If flat out stating that a Latina is better qualified to be a judge than a white male is not racist then nothing is. Anyone who supports this woman needs to go ahead and sign up for the minority equivalent of Storm Front... or join Acorn... if there is a difference. It's not like she made a flippant statement that she didn't intend to put into law. She has already ruled that white men are not to be allowed equal treatment under the law. And she did it with no legal reasoning whatsoever... in a single paragraph.

As to her "backing off" the comment about making law from the bench it was widely understood by the audience she was talking to that she meant exactly what she said. She gave them the wink, wink, nudge, nudge just like Obama gives everyone the Okey Dokey. Her racial views and contempt for the law are of course disqualifying attitudes for anyone hoping to be a judge in a decent or sane society. In ours, as currently constituted they are actually seen as assets... because the judicial system is just another road to power. Judges don't get to make statements like she made... whether they half-heartedly and laughingly try to back off them or not. And again, it is not as if her pattern of rullings don't back up the allegation.

And damn that Fox News for pointing all of this out! WTH is wrong with them! Minorities can't be racist. They can make racist statements and they can make racist rulings but they can't be racists. Racists hang out at Tea Parties. They don't sit on the Supreme Court. They don't vote Democrat. EVERYONE who is anyone knows this! Hummmph!

BTW, I wonder if Sotomayor would care to provide an empathy chart to the judiciary committee showing the breakdown of empathy along racial, sex and class lines. We know white males are at the bottom but maybe she would like to explicate just where a Hindu female lays in relation to a black male for instance? If Latinas are not at the top then I would like to see her explain why she should be picked over an equally qualified applicant who is at the top. She could also explain why the ability to feel for or sympathize with others is rooted in race and physiology. Then she could explain just what the hell any of that has to do with enforcing the law as written.

There is just a wicked type of stupid loose in the country when people like Obama and Sotomayor can tell you exactly how they intend to screw you and still people support them in the hopes that someone else... who deserves it after all... will be the one to get screwed.

576 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:15:34am

re: #575 voluble

Over the top much? You've extrapolated an awful lot of racial hatred out of a very few words that were taken out of context. But don't let me interrupt your apoplexy.

577 Chaplain  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:44:27am

re: #490 Charles

I've been searching for some proof, and this claim does not appear to be true. Some of the more extreme blogs are even claiming she has a 100% reversal rate.

Here we go again with the hysteria.

I've been searching for some proof, and this claim does not appear to be true. Some of the more extreme blogs are even claiming she has a 100% reversal rate.

Here we go again with the hysteria.

Charles,
Its actually 60% overturn rate. (3 out of the 5 cases the Supreme Court heard were overturned) That isn't much of a sampling. So, I feel this is a non-story.

Personally, I am divided on this nomination. Looking over her past rulings(see bottom of article) I agree with many of her positions. However, I am opposed to victim hood. State sponsored or personal. Looking over her "controversial" lecture from 2001, she paints Latinas, herself and minorities as a whole as victims who are the only ones fit to rule in cases dealing with race. She also suggests, but doesn't outright say she is a victim of such racism personally. Although she doesn't ever come out for or against affirmative action in that speech (she does mention it), her ruling in the New Haven case does suggest that she might support affirmative action.

Affirmative action, while not fitting the literal definition of racism, does produce a similar outcome in the professional and social situations where it is applied.

I will be paying attention to the hearings and I hope a senator will make her take a stance on affirmative action so that we can finally know where she stands on this issue. Till then, I will be withholding my judgment on her nomination.

578 Wendya  Thu, May 28, 2009 9:56:14am

re: #353 wrenchwench

Did you click the link given for the "article" that was "quoted" at that blog, jumpinginpools? What the heck is this?

jumpinginpools is a satire site.

They do, however, have a bad habit of "forgetting" to tag their "stories" as satire until they're already all over the web.

It's like quoting the Onion as a news source.

579 wrenchwench  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:29:37pm

re: #578 Wendya

jumpinginpools is a satire site.

They do, however, have a bad habit of "forgetting" to tag their "stories" as satire until they're already all over the web.

It's like quoting the Onion as a news source.

Thank you for the education!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis 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: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump Allies Test a New Strategy for Blocking Election Results They Don’t Like When a member of Georgia’s Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections refused to join her colleagues as they certified two primaries this year, she claimed she had been denied her right to examine a long list of election ...
Cheechako
1 hour ago
Views: 35 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
US Military M17 & M18 Pistols Causing Unintentional Discharges Documents detail U.S. soldiers shot by their own Sig Sauer guns; military says no reason for concern Around lunchtime on Feb. 8, 2023, inside an administrative office at Fort Eustis in Virginia, a sergeant with the Army’s 221st Military ...
William Lewis
16 hours ago
Views: 74 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 724 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0