Obama Pick Sonia Sotomayor Reflects America

posted by John Nichols on 05/26/2009 @ 08:45am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (93)

Subscribe Now

When Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his planned retirement, the pressure was on President Obama to add a second woman to a bench.

At the same time, Obama was encouraged to pick a Hispanic justice.

He did both, and a good deal more.

Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the high court, was made at the White House this morning, with the president hailing her as "an inspiring woman who I think will make a great justice."

Describing Sotomayor as a lawyer who "has worked at almost every level of our judicial system," Obama noted that she has "more experience on the bench and more varied experience of the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when they were appointed."

While much will be made of the fact that Obama has chosen a woman of Puerto Rican background to serve on a court that until the 1960s was made up entirely of white men, the president has, as well, chosen a jurist whose specific experience will make her a key player on a court that, in coming years, will be taking on more and more cases involving financial and economic issues.

Judge Sotomayor's 11 years of service on the federal appeals bench (as an appointee of Bill Clinton) have been served just a few blocks from Wall Street in Manhattan, as were her six years as a federal judge (as an appointee of George H.W. Bush as the recommendation of former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan).

"As the top federal appeals court in the nation's commercial center," the New York Times notes, "the court is known in particular for its expertise in corporate and securities law."

Obama specifically cited Sotomayor's legal skills with regard to financial and corporate issues as something that made her particularly appealing as a nominee.

The daughter of a factory worker who died when she was a child, Sotomayor -- who diagnosed with diabetes as an eight year old -- was raised by her mother, a nurse at a methadone clinic. Inspired by "Perry Mason" television programs, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and then from Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Before her appointment to the federal bench, Sotomayor served as an assistant district attorney for Manhattan, , working with D.A. Robert Morgenthau, who developed a reputation for policing -- or at least trying to police -- Wall Street.

Obama picked Sotomayor from a slate of women finalists that reportedly included Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Sotomayor was not the most liberal of the prospective jurists, but that did not matter to conservatives who have been preparing for a fight. Wendy Long, counsel to the right's Judicial Confirmation Network, came out swinging: "Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

That's a reference to a case involving applications for promotions within the New Haven, Connecticut fire department, in which Sotomayor was a member of a judicial panel that objected to tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion when no minority candidates ranked at the top of the list of those who took the test.

That white male jurists agreed with Sotomayor will be lost on her critics. But her record is generally seen as being very much in the mainstream of legal debates about diversity and affirmative action.

The swift strike at this nominee provides a reminder of how important this confirmation battle will be to conservatives, who see the fight to block Obama's first high-court pick as essential to the renewal of their sagging political fortunes.

But Sotomayor will have plenty of allies.

Even before the nomination was announced, National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy announced that NOW would launch a "Confirm Her" campaign to ensure swift confirmation of the nominee.

"Nominated to serve as the third woman and first Hispanic on the Supreme Court in the history of the United States, Judge Sotomayor will serve the nation with distinction. She brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by experience. President Obama said he wanted a justice with 'towering intellect' and a 'common touch' and he found both in Judge Sotomayor," said Gandy. "What more do women want? We want a swift confirmation in the U.S. Senate, and Associate Justice Sotomayor to join Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court before the Senate's August recess."

Comments (93)

well, she's female and hispanic, and not incompetant.

QUALIFIED!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 08:57am
Yes, IBB, but I'm sure Larry will be telling us how she knows a guy who knew a guy who was a member of the American Communist Party any day now!

Plus HAPP will make some snarky comment.

SJCHER will wait until the end of Rush's "first hour monologue" for HIS take on her.

and PONTI will claim that Sandra Day O'Connor was Hispanic and "Reagan did it first!!!!".

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 09:19am
"Sotomayor: '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'... "

"Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'..."

Unqualified to judge anything or anyone with beliefs like this...

..no matter what the color, creed, or race.

Pathelic PC pick.

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 09:21am
Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 09:21am

""Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'..." "

Try learning some context. She was explaining, in response to a question from a student, the different between trial courts and appeal courts.

Posted by zmann at 05/26/2009 @ 09:26am
heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 09:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

and so it begins...lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 09:27am
"Pathelic PC pick."

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 09:21am

Welcome back (sort of) boob guy. Have your much discussed boy-boobs reached new heights of bra size?

Anyone who reads JOMAMMA's inane, half-assed, and stupidly worded regurgitations of the party line should bear in mind that he is a visceral chauvinist.

But please, don't believe me just cause I say so. Consult JOMAMMA. Here is one of JOMAMMA's ugly outbursts on non-Anglos from that ancient historical epoch of...last February.

Here is what JOMAMMA says about Them that tells you all you need to know about what he makes of someone named "Sonia Sotomayor" even if (as one assumes) he had never heard of her before 30 seconds ago. Namely, according to JO, they...

"enter the country or live there and breed like crazy...Europe is hitting 25% Islamic soon, and US is hitting 35% Hispanic...PLUS..they are draining the social system of cash and resources while putting nothing back in of equal or greater values...plus being illiterate in their own language, the added pressure of the host country to "help" them is over bearing... ..add to this the fact that the liberals in the host country actually sue in court to give the invaders(un resticted and illegal immigrants) more rights than the host citizens, like push 1 for English and native language voting ballots, in state tuition...it won't take long and the Israelis will be voted out of their own country..legaly... learn from the Muslims in Europe and the Mexicans in the US how to invaded, destroy and take over a more sophisticated and wealthy society using their own wealth, productivity, generosity, and the local liberals against the locals in their own country, combined with the gigantic birth rates...victory with out a shot being fired.."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/26/2009 @ 09:38am
Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 09:21am

Sorry, MAASCH, didn't mean to leave you out....(revision)-

"MAASCH/JOMAMM will quote Drudge...."

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 09:45am
Just to clarify, the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court was appointed by Herbert Hoover over 75 years ago: Benjamin Cardozo. The fact that he was the descendant of Portuguese Jews takes nothing away from his Hispanic heritage. His brilliant record in New York State and on the US Supreme Court indicates that Cardozo deserves to be remembered for more than having constituted an ethnic milestone, so to speak.

Posted by feinfein at 05/26/2009 @ 09:55am
What worries me is that the entire punditocracy corresponding to elite opinion in the Democratic Party base has latched on to "She's a woman!" and "She's Hispanic!" but I have yet to see a single lede celebrating President Obama's pick on the grounds of her RECORD.

This judge was appointed by both HW Bush and Bill Clinton. The odds are good that we are seeing a candidate overly friendly to big business and the interests of the very wealthy.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:02am
The key point being : " ... "As the top federal appeals court in the nation's commercial center," the New York Times notes, "the court is known in particular for its expertise in corporate and securities law ..."

Congratulations, we have another corporate judge nominee for the supreme court.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:04am
To make it abundantly clear, this new judge is supposed to replace David Souter.

David Souter was actually a decent, independent-minded jurist, as far as I can tell with my lay understanding of supreme court judges. He generally enraged servants of big business agendas and other nefarious powers in Washington, DC.

I don't personally give a damn whether the replacement is a white male or a black male or a Hispanic woman or a Native American or anything like that.

I want a justice as good as Souter was.

If this woman comes from a court that specializes in corporate and financial law, the odds are good that she will be worse than Souter. Judges that specialize in these laws get to be appointed because they show a friendliness to big business.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:08am
Excellent choice. May she have the persuasive powers needed to sway Justice Kennedy into the progressive majority in cases that count.

Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 10:13am
I see Phil is still wandering the streets..and the meds still haven't taken hold..

as well as his propensity to leave out context...no matter..we all know Phil...

Judges should be judging according to how the cases fit into the intent and spirirt of the law. Not how they "feel, believe, or want things to be based on any specific cultural" background or political bent"

She doesn't fit the requirments..but she does fit every other criteria libs have for fairness ...so......she's in.

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 10:23am
Sorry, MAASCH, didn't mean to leave you out....(revision)-

"MAASCH/JOMAMM will quote Drudge...."

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 09:45am

Actually I read the links Drudge provided...a little different than your pronouncement of what I did, but I did read the articles from there, as wqell as others.

Thanks for saying "Hi",...I guess.

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 10:26am
Posted by feinfein at 05/26/2009 @ 09:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

The noise in the press surrounding this latest nomination indicates that the newest nominee is already just noted for an ethnic/gender milestone.

There hasn't been a single announcement that I've seen as to what specific decisions this woman has made in her career as a judge that qualify her for the supreme court, or as a jurist in general. All I've seen is some idiotic thing about a nude photo shoot in New York City she shut down and how she "saved baseball". However, there is absolutely nothing on:

1) Her record on civil liberties, if any.

2) Her record on the separation of powers if any at all.

3) Her record on the interests of big business and Wall Street versus the interests of working people, if any.

4) Her record on the environment, if any.

5) Her record on collective bargaining and unions, if any.

6) Her record on deregulation, if any.

So far, I have no reason to see this nomination as remotely serious. It looks like Obama picked a Hispanic woman to pander to two important constituencies in his party: NOW members, and Hispanic voters. I have yet to see any aspect of this woman's record though that seems like she is a heavyweight candidate for any reason beyond the purely political ....

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:40am
ANTI-SOCIAL should be arriving any moment now to reveal more symptoms, probably with a vein-popping and lip-twitching fury that even exceedes prior episodes.

But let's give him a little assisstance in steering his insights toward the goal...

ANTISOCIAL, please indicate when you first recognized that...

(a) Sonia Sotomayor's bench was actually a key node in the Marxist-Leninist plot to communize America going back to at least the Kennedy admin?;

(b) that, unequivocally, she has been designated for this SCOTUS post to establish a Bolivar-Chavezista order with Obama as Permanent Maximum Leader?;

(c) that the crack shock troops of the ever-merciless ACORN will be descending from the black helicopters en masse to violently enforce the clutch of laws that Sotomayor will write from the bench?;

(d) that Congress will be dissolved by autumn by Sotomayor since there is some risk that in the future it may contain more Repugnants. And with Sotomayor single handedly writing the laws from the bench there is no need for messing around with any other branch of govt but the Unitary Obamazecutive as Maximum Leader?;

(e) And, finally, when did you realize that the proto-communistic revolutionary Sotomayor, who has been laying relatively low as a seemingly moderate judge, is the real reason that you are a "three pump chump" unable to pleasure a woman? When did you ascertain with unimpeachable air-tight logic that Sotomayor has been drying up your reservior of essential fluids and juices through the sweepingly communistic instrument of her legal opinions that make law from the bench? When? When? When?

Don't hold anything back, REV. It may be your last chance to speak before Sotomayor dispatches ACORN to your door to initiate a "5 Year Plan"...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/26/2009 @ 10:42am
Also, while we are on the topic of the purely crass and political, it was tactically stupid of President Obama to pick a nominee in her mid-50's. The nominee could get confirmed and die of cancer in 6 years, with little surprise from statisticians working in the health insurance industry.

He should have picked someone under 40.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 10:26am

No problem. Where you been? Another voyage into the "Poorly Made" world of Guangdong Province?

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 11:02am
BTW, Sotomayor a "compelling choice"....

as recently stated by that radical Marxist....

Orrin Hatch!

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 11:04am
Her ethnicity and gender are irrelevent, or they should be. (Of course in this oversensitive quick-to-accuse society they never are.

Her quaifications are all that matters.

Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 05/26/2009 @ 11:05am
SORRY, QUALIFICATIONS

Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 05/26/2009 @ 11:06am
"as well as his propensity to leave out context..."

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 10:23am

Awfully lazy of JOMAMMA to obligate other people to furnish his context for him. But this is a guy who is shameless about making "big buys" (invasion of Iraq) and then passing the bill onto everyone else.

But since we are here: What was that context, JO? A John Bircher meeting that you tried to organize? Reveries of a Minuteman rally that you saw on TV, passages you recall from a David Duke campaign speech? Do tell us all about that all-important context that mitigates your stated views on non-Anglo Saxons who "breed like crazy", are illiterate, were reared in inferior cultures, and take over whole nations without "firing a shot" (in JO's words).

More JO feigning sophistication that he would not accur in 500 lifteimes, all in the lumbering effort to recast Sotomayor into a Clarence "Long Dong Uncle" Thomas case of unashamed and unvarnished tokenism:

"Judges should be judging according to how the cases fit into the intent and spirirt of the law. Not how they "feel, believe, or want things to be based on any specific cultural" background or political bent""

As a judge, Sotomayor writes opinions. JOMAMMA will name the ones that he read in forming his (more accurately: "his") sweeping and unconditional assessment right here:

1. ________________________________

2. ________________________________

3. ________________________________

4. ________________________________

5. ________________________________

6. ________________________________

7. ________________________________

8. ________________________________

9. ________________________________

10. _______________________________

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/26/2009 @ 11:10am
It will surprise no one at the Nation that most conservatives will not be happy with Ms Sotomayor on the Supreme Court; and I count myself among that number.

That said, I am consistent in my view of presidential nominations. Back during Alito and Roberts, I said that presidents deserve to have their nominees confirmed unless there is evidence of judicial malfeasance.

Thus, I believe Obama deserves to have this regrettable choice confirmed (and she most likely will be).

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:23am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:23am

It's also a likely 90% "done deal", Larry, with or without your blessing.

Sotomayor will get Snowe or Collins...and there will be no unified "regular" Repub Senate member vote against her. Likely as not 10-20 will break ranks, maybe more.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 11:39am
"That white male jurists agreed with Sotomayor will be lost on her critics."

***********************************************************

That was a nifty little slieght of hand. Her collegues agreed that the test had disparate racial impact and that the board did not violate the law in refusing to promote the whites who scored the highest. (This was the legal ruling.)

Her callegues, in fact, did not agree that a judge's race should should influence how he rules on a particular case, which is what Sotomayer said and is what Wendy Long was criticizing.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 11:58am
Ahh, Phil McCrevice in his head..

Has the shovel or axe been removed from your forehead? If not it could explain your logic flow..

Your simple babblings are entertaining, tho...

thank you.

As for the paragraph that seems to have you obsessed with the focus of rainman...it was from a book I saw in Barnes and Noble about the death of Europe from a population demographic shift that is under way as you sleep walk, in Europe...and a parallel was made here with our our country as our politicians from both sides ignore our borders and create a new future for the US are a satellite of Latin America, complete with Obies economic plan to kill the dollar as a world reserve and reduce our economy to a model of France where growth and crawls and wealth leaves their borders...

enjoy...your "free heath care that is on the way to you.. as you drive your government designed "green" overprice underperforming GM car built by the union owners as the consumers ignore the thing...and are taxed out of the gas to run the cars they do want to buy.."

Nice world for ya Phil, old boy..perfect for those who never achieve...you are right at home.

The rest of us are already packing....

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 12:00pm
It's also a likely 90% "done deal", Larry, with or without your blessing.

Sotomayor will get Snowe or Collins...and there will be no unified "regular" Repub Senate member vote against her. Likely as not 10-20 will break ranks, maybe more.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 11:39am |

Can't bring yourself to acknowledge that I'm consistent on my political philosophy here Mask? or that you're wrong.

<Yes, IBB, but I'm sure Larry will be telling us how she knows a guy who knew a guy who was a member of the American Communist Party any day now!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 09:19am>

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 12:00pm
Sotomayor as dredged up by the NYT and Drudge: "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...."

Assuming the NYT is quoting her accurately, this is a troubling statement. If Sotomayor had merely spoken of reaching "a different conclusion," that would in my view not be problematic; indeed it would even be a commonplace given the complex reality of cultural, sexual, and individual difference. However, to assert as she apparently did that such a person has a superior ability--whether moral or intellectual or what have you--seems to fit any reasonable definition of a racist view. This is not by any means to claim that Sotomayor can be branded a racist person in toto or even that racist views predominate in her thinking, but I do not see how that particular statement can be explained away. Whether it or anything else about Sotomayor should disqualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court is of course up to the Senate and by extension the American people.

Posted by feinfein at 05/26/2009 @ 12:02pm
Several of Sotomayor's opinions are available on the NYTimes website. You don't have to be a Lexis subscriber to find them.

She was summa from Princeton. We should all be so mediocre.

A qualified USSC justice nominee under 40? Name one.

Many of the remarks posted here are embarrassingly ignorant.

Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 12:05pm
"...it was from a book I saw in Barnes and Noble"

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 12:00pm

Oh oh.

Notice: he didn't read it. Just the dust cover. Wise. Informed. Steeped in the details. No emotionalized gland-driven reactions (like what makes him lactate), just the facts. Yes, that's our JOMAMMA.

"The rest of us are already packing...."

Undoubtably for Somalia. A paradise. No government. No Obama nor Joe. No unions. No schools. It simply does not get better than this sparkling showcase of libertarian glory thus it must be JO's destination for absolute freedom & liberty.

Bon voyage...

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 12:00pm

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/26/2009 @ 12:19pm
I wanted Paster Wright. Oh well, Will she stand up to the four horsemen of the apocalypse? --Thomas, Robert, Scalia, Alito

Oh, America, you warped vessel--when will you be worth your million Trotskyites or 10 millions dead Indians ?

Posted by hkaplan at 05/26/2009 @ 12:26pm
I was extremely disappointed in Obama's pick. I demanded that the person must be LGBTQI (one or more) in addition to at least 2 other approved victim group qualifications. Obama failed miserably in picking a minimally qualified victim.

Posted by sntauri at 05/26/2009 @ 12:32pm
Brilliant--by all relevant considerations. Obama has delivered by the criteria he mapped out as guide. Empathy, I believe, requires a judge who sees the "constitution as a living document " (not a frozen one) that must be receptive to the gloss which time and experience attempt to put upon it. Such a judge must be sensitive to the rights guaranteed to all in the constitution especially when those rights are in danger of being jettisoned for political reasons or face legislative invasion.

Posted by drsam8 at 05/26/2009 @ 12:39pm
Since she was appointed to the bench by the first President Bush and President Clinton, it is possible that economic conservatives may be happy? Who really knows until a Justice has spent sometime on the bench?

Posted by pjcasey at 05/26/2009 @ 12:44pm
Empathy, I believe, requires a judge who sees the "constitution as a living document " (not a frozen one) that must be receptive to the gloss which time and experience attempt to put upon it. Such a judge must be sensitive to the rights guaranteed to all in the constitution especially when those rights are in danger of being jettisoned for political reasons or face legislative invasion.

Posted by drsam8 at 05/26/2009 @ 12:39pm

Great example of the leftist attitude that the Constitution means whatever a Justice wants it to mean; not what it says.

I guess you're another one who sees the amendment process as antiquated and meant to be ignored? It's much easier to have an activist justice simply reinvent the constitution for you.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 12:51pm
Posted by sntauri at 05/26/2009 @ 12:32pm

Don't worry. Long Dong Uncle Thomas's sense of his own victimhood more than compensates. Whole nations cannot, in aggregate, compare with the burden of self-pity that Long Dong bears within his dumpy black robe (along with a few porn videos).

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/26/2009 @ 12:51pm
Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 12:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

The only information about her judicial record I've seen on the NYT web site was the idiotic story about how she "saved baseball" and how she shut down a nude photo shoot in New York City. Ruling with multi-millionaire celebrity baseball players in a "strike" against the baseball ownership is hardly "progressive" and shutting down a nude photo shoot is newsworthy on the New York Post for about 2 hours, the day it happens. Largely, the nomination appears to be publicly received purely in terms of identity politics and ridiculous horse race commentary. The entire progressive universe appears to have accepted this woman's nomination purely on the grounds that a) she was nominated by a Democratic president, b) she is a woman, c) she is Puerto Rican. On those grounds, he could have appointed Jennifer Lopez and we'd have the same reception from "progressives".

I really despise the way that this nominee has been publicly introduced. She should have been publicly introduced with a big list of decisions that influenced the choice President Obama made, along with a serious and detailed statement of what CHANGE President Obama hoped to see transpire in the future of the Supreme Court decisions.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 12:59pm
And I'm sure things will get all mucked-up in the Senate and Al Gore will have to step in again and then Obama and the Senate will make some sort of a deal and just nominate Al... (forgot that one-- Mahehehehehehsk)

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2009 @ 1:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 12:00pm

Sorry, Larry, didn't know you needed a little "ego pick-me-up"....

Yes! Larry IS consistant (for the most part) on his view on Presidential perogatives and powers. He IS stating his identical view from Bush to Obama.

Now, when it comes to SOME applications of Presidential power, he's a little less consistant. Say, if Obama wanted to BOMB somebody....Larry's all for it and would be consistant with this Bush position. Obama wants to NEGOTIATE with somebody...even as BUSH negotiated with that someone (or tried)...

not as much consistancy.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 1:28pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2009 @ 1:12pm

Haha, yes, HSUB...you were just "joking around" last summer. I'll go along with that if you want.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 1:29pm
Larry's all for it and would be consistant with this Bush position. Obama wants to NEGOTIATE with somebody...even as BUSH negotiated with that someone (or tried)...

not as much consistancy.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 1:28pm

Wrong again. I was mostly against Bush negotiating with Iran. As I said, I'm not against negotiation, but there must be grounds for negotiation and I felt that Bush did not have those set in place.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 1:43pm
I want a justice as good as Souter was.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:08am

Hey, even Souter was no Souter when he started. It takes a couple of years of reading you name in the NYT before the praise and vilifacation of your opinions molds you into a liberal activist.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 1:44pm
syfriendly ...

you haven't looked well enough. Many of Sotomayor's opinions are readily accessible, if you care to make the effort.

And yr argumentation is less than specious, it's simply stupid.

To be ignored.

Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 1:54pm
Also, while we are on the topic of the purely crass and political, it was tactically stupid of President Obama to pick a nominee in her mid-50's.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 10:44am

Don't forget she's had diabetis since she was 8.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 1:43pm

Hmmmm?

"Because when it comes to National Security, I believe every president, Democrat or Republican acts to preserve the Nation.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, or whomever, will take action to preserve our safety and the Union. And I don't need to know how they do it. I just want to know they will."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:07pm

Whitewashing Torture In Front of the CIA posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/20/2009 @ 3:13pm

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 2:10pm
you were just "joking around" last summer. I'll go along with that if you want. heheh Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 1:29pm

Confusius say: Crowded elevator Smell different to midget.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2009 @ 2:19pm
"Because when it comes to National Security, I believe every president, Democrat or Republican acts to preserve the Nation.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, or whomever, will take action to preserve our safety and the Union. And I don't need to know how they do it. I just want to know they will."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:07pm

Whitewashing Torture In Front of the CIA posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/20/2009 @ 3:13pm

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 2:10pm

What is your point?

I still hold the same view.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 2:41pm
I wish the Nation would not print some of the comments from strange characters who take up space with their back and forth expletive arguments which are senseless. I never see anything like this in the comments section of the N.Y.Times and doubt they would print such ravings. I hope the Nation will do the same and it seems to follow many of the articles in your magazine. Some of these comments are hateful comments which should be censored as these are troublemakers trying to downgrade your magazine. It discourages many of us from sending in our comments.

Posted by pvolkov at 05/26/2009 @ 2:43pm
It discourages many of us from sending in our comments. Posted by pvolkov at 05/26/2009 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person

Want to censure-- the "ignore this person" actually works!

If that's encouraging....

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by pvolkov at 05/26/2009 @ 2:43pm

Censorship is wrong. No dictating (like the NYT) what can be said or read here.

If you don't care for some comments, use the "ignore this person" facility. Your own personal censorship, simple & effective. You needn't be discouraged from voicing your opinions.

Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by pvolkov at 05/26/2009 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

oh its not that bad...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/26/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 2:41pm

Just interesting, that your authoritarianism (i.e. investment of primary governing power in an executive leader) occasionally conflicts with your politics.

You believe Obama "acts to preserve the Nation" and "will take action to preserve our safety and the Union"....yet accuse him (and yes, Bush) of naivete when it comes to negotiating with Iran.

Just interesting.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by pvolkov at 05/26/2009 @ 2:43pm

Not that we haven't had left-wing advocates of censorship before...and they're just as repugnant as any on the Right....

my Spidey-Sense makes me think this is a poser.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 3:20pm
Hey, is this thing on? Can you guys hear me? I haven't been banned again, have I?

Any way, I'm having a "be careful what you wish for" sense right now. You guys have been wishing for a hispanic female for so long that you've yet to look under the hood.

The biggest criticism I've read was in TNR and it said that she's not a brilliant intellect. That's not to say she's dumb. Clearly, lawyers are smarter than the average of the population and she's smarter than the average lawyer. But she's not "top ten percent" smart.

The average IQ on SCOTUS is probably 150 or so. She will be in the lower half.

On Peter's thread I spoke of token oposition followed by a quick confirmation. I hope the right doesn't make the same mistake the left made on Harriet Meiers: that is the Left created a serious delay so that the Right was able to sink her and get Alito.

I hope she doesn't fail only to be replaced with Chomsky.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 09:21am

""Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'..." "

Try learning some context. She was explaining, in response to a question from a student, the different between trial courts and appeal courts.

Posted by zmann at 05/26/2009 @ 09:26am

How's this for "context"? ********************************************************** http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/ 2009/05/26/obama%E2%80%99s-past-aids-gop- critics-of-sotomayor/

In a quote you will see looped until she is confirmed, Sotomayor sat on a Duke University panel in February 2005 and said that the U.S. Court of Appeals "is where policy is made."

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is, Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said in a professorial tone. Aware of the gravity of the comment, she offered a casual caveat. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't," putting her hands up to signify air quotes, "make law, I know." As the audience laughed, she continued, "Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation, it's application."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 3:40pm
Posted by sloper at 05/26/2009 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

No, my "argumentation" is not specious. And I am not opposed to the nomination. I am complaining that people are too accepting, without question.

Can you articulate which of her decisions you favor?

Posted by syfriendly at 05/26/2009 @ 3:44pm
I'm somewhat disturbed that she "represents" the most egregious, anti-democratic portions of the criminal-injustice system -- persocuters and corporate law...

Talk me down...

Posted by chetdude at 05/26/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 3:40pm

And is she wrong that compared to a trial court, "policy" and "interpretation, application" are made by appeals courts? If she's not, then she's not "unqualified to judge anyone or anything with beliefs like that." You'd have to ask a decent legal analyst if she is right or wrong, which I am not.

Posted by zmann at 05/26/2009 @ 3:56pm
This justice was appointed for one reason and that is because the Democrats, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, need the Latino vote to hold on to their good paying jobs. Chuck will face atleast two women in his next bid for re-election and Harry is just holding on. President Obama is trying to get the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California votes in 2010 and 2012 which they (the Democrats) believe will give them POWER for the next generation or two.

Personally, I don't want to follow Harry, Chuck, Obama, Nancy, Hillary or the rest of the democrats who are just as bereft of ideas as the republicans. The fact that the republicans are currently in the out house seems to have emboldened them (the democrats) to go for total control of congress, which would be just as disasterous as the Bush years. No one party or two, should have total control of the law making branch of the government for and by the people.

Finally, this appears to be more showmanship from Obama, who promised us real change, but has delivered more of the same...this pick is more status quo politics as usual. He (Obama) has been a real disappointment in nearly every appointment he has made. I would rather he spend more time doing what the people voted him President to do, instead of governing by demographics, individual constituencies, and corporate media "que" cards. Doing the will of "the people" is the surest way to keep their seats, and the Presidency for another 4 years. All of this trickery and political posturing and dealmaking, even when it appears to be a good thing, can be dubious. Who of you would really want to keep Harry, Chuck, Nancy, et al. in office for years to come? Really?!

Posted by thommie at 05/26/2009 @ 4:06pm
Did Souter just get bored with D.C., tired of the job, or what? What's the matter with this guy?

Gets a lifetime bill-payer, isn't happy with it. Muat be nice not having to be in with the rest of the grunts.

(CAVEAT: I take this back if it turns out he's got physical problems, etc.)

Nonetheless, I think almost all Presidents end up getting surprised, somewhere along the line, with their judicial appointees' decisions eventually.

This will probably be no different.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/26/2009 @ 4:38pm
Muat?

Maybe "must".

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/26/2009 @ 4:40pm
I am getting my popcorn ready for the Republican circus , that Sotomayor nomination is allready causing . Lets point out several attacks the right is making Lets see: According to them she does not have the intellectual background,has anyone allerted Princeton and Yale where she has two degrees from and graduated top of her class? They are attacking her experience. Has more judicial experience than any seated justice upon their nomination or any Supreme Justice nomination in100 years. Questioning her legal status; Last time I checked the Bronx is in New York where she was born and part of the United States. Her parents are from Puerto Rico and if they would pick up a history book once in a while or paid attention in elementary school they would know that Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States ceded by Spain during the Spanish - American war. meaning all Puerto Ricans are citizens and have been for over 125 years. Ms. Sotomayor has been nominated to the federal courts, first by President George H. W. Bush ; Are they saying President Bush was unqualified to make that choice? The Democrats and some of us Independents are going to laugh all the way to the voting booths considering that the legal Hispanic vote is the fastest growing voting block in the country. I will enjoy my popcorn while i watch this circus unfold ; Republicans happy hunting!

Posted by IndependentJosh at 05/26/2009 @ 6:02pm
SHE IS IS A GOOD CHOICE.HER CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE ARE UNQUESTIONABLE.HER THINKING MAY BE DIFFERANT THEN SOME ON THE SUPREME COURT BUT ISEN'T THAT WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT? ISEN'T IT ABOUT BRILLIANT LEGAL MINDS DEBATING LAW TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.IF IT IS NOT THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A COMPUTER UP THERE FEED IN THE INFORMATION AND GET A TEXT MESSAGE OF THE DECISION. JOE CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS

Posted by CITYLIFE9 at 05/26/2009 @ 7:46pm
Great example of the leftist attitude that the Constitution means whatever a Justice wants it to mean; not what it says.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 12:51pm |

Ummm...hmmm. Isn't that the job description of a Supreme Court Justice: to "interpret the Constitution" and tell the rest of us what it means? And isn't that why we go through the rigmarole of a Senate confirmation to make sure we get highly qualified people who understand not only existing law, but the fundamental assumptions, beliefs and concepts (like Judeo-Christian empathy) that underscore the law, so they can make wise judgments in the future?

I have never quite understood the concept of the Constitution as a non-living (static) document. I mean, in a world where nothing changes, then the law doesn't change, and if the law doesn't change then what do we need a Supreme Court for, anyway? Puh-LEASE!

But the Constitution changes...because people change, the US changes and the world changes. The true miracle of the Constitution is that it is both flexible enough to absorb those changes without bending the rule of law till it shatters, and that it is strong enough to withstand even the most hackneyed attempts to undermine it. I doubt Justice Thomas wants to live in a world in which slavery still existed in the US; it is the flexible nature of the document that allows him to sit where he does. I doubt Justice Scalia would want to live in a world in which empathy didn't exist in the courts, or his Italian immigrant ancestors might have been turned away at Ellis Island (or wherever his family came through...I don't pretend to know).

The whole "empathy shouldn't exist" in a Justice argument is really quite silly, for it is empathy that makes us human. All good Christians know that.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/26/2009 @ 8:16pm
With the fixation by Mr. Nichols and other libs about Sonia Sotomayor being female and being Hispanic, it is clear to me that it is libs who did not understand and do not understand the following words:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. , August 28, 1963

Posted by sjchermak at 05/26/2009 @ 8:57pm
She is both ugly and a racist!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2009 @ 9:21pm
....they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. , August 28, 1963

Posted by sjchermak at 05/26/2009 @ 8:57pm

Never realized that MLK is a Randian.....he must've read her masterpiece of 1957!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2009 @ 9:24pm
Now, now, let's not be PC (pissy)

Posted by WWW at 05/26/2009 @ 9:48pm
She believes judges MAKE law and MAKE policy. She is wrong. Laws are made by elected legislators; policies are made by elected officials. Her history is one of sloppy useage of language, fuzzy-headed thinking, and a disporportionately high number of her decisions being overturned on appeal. This is a political recommendation only; it has little to do with her legal background.She is an avowed racist. Americans demand far better than this choice.

Posted by tucanofulano at 05/26/2009 @ 9:52pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/26/2009 @ 3:34pm

Some questions: What criteria did you use in determining her I.Q.?

What is the average I.Q. of someone who graduates Summa Cum Laude from Princeton?

What is the average I.Q. of someone who graduates from Yale Law School?

Finally, what is the average I.Q. of someone who constantly makes claims that are fundamentally at odds with reality?

Posted by RMT at 05/26/2009 @ 10:56pm
She has a top academic mind and is the most experienced judge picked for the SCOTUS in the last 100 years.

To the right wing she is too liberal and activist even though she has always ruled on precedent.

To the left wing she is not liberal enough and a corporate shill even though she's ruled in key cases against corporations to protect the environment.

A perfect pick.

Posted by KQuark at 05/26/2009 @ 11:27pm
<i>Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/26/2009 @ 8:16pm </i>

The response is exceedingly simple: the standard for overturning a law is the Constitution, not a judge's own moral principles.

Does the Constitution change? Of course it does. The follow-up question, though is: in a society that cherishes democratic values (despite being a republic), who gets to change it?

What many of us would defend is that the people do, via the amendment process (technically, processES, since there are 2 options). Not only does evolution mean much more when it comes from the ground up rather than being imposed from on high (ex: Brown v. Board was rightly and unanimously decided, but it accomplished almost nothing compared to the Civil Rights Act), but such evolution is also far more legitimate because it comes with the consent of the people and enables the compromise that suits difficult social issues far better than the imposition of 5 people's values.

Ask yourself this: precisely what qualifies 9 people to decide that their vision of the good society is more correct than that of the people and their elected and accountable representatives? They're not morally superior, and even if they were, the ethic of the philosopher-king (whether 1 or 9) is repugnant to our society.

Judicial review is justified insofar as it relies on the Constitution, because it is the CONSTITUTION that is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution that therefore presents the sole basis on which laws can justifiably be declared invalid. That's what the judicial function mean. Constitutional principles accomodate themselves to next contexts, but judges have no right to strike down laws based on their own philosophical preferences and vision.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/26/2009 @ 11:27pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 05/26/2009 @ 10:26am

No problem. Where you been? Another voyage into the "Poorly Made" world of Guangdong Province?

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2009 @ 11:02am

Quite the opposite if you recall...I am selling American products to China...it goes well...hope to have a safe port for our profits by Christmas...hopefiully somewhere near Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi keep there mony..even if mine is chump change in comparison..but it will be away from the parasites.

and I don't want dollars since Obama and company are killing it off completely along with our economy. In 3 years we will be in Carter territory with inflation, interest rates and unemployment. And Obama re elected.

I will be in the Islands..safely away from the coming free health care that will collapse the entire house of cards.

Posted by YourJomamma at 05/27/2009 @ 12:39am
She is not qualified. She practices reverse racism...look at Ricci case. It a case like that that puts distance between the races. She is a legislative judge ...period. And anyway the hopeless quest to pack the court with "diversity" is futile. She has Puerto Rican heritage, which must make the Mexicans unhappy. We need 500-1,500 people on the Supreme Court to satisfy all the race, gender, ethinic, religious groups residing in America. So what does Obama do? He used the nomination for cheap political payback, liberal "feelgoodness" and put someone on the court who will bend the law. But thats ok--Obama likes to ignore Bondholder contract law. What a joke!

Posted by mike63 at 05/27/2009 @ 01:24am
Fellow conservatives: Let's sit this one out - we won.

Face it. Obama was never going to appoint another Roberts or Alito.

Souter was a solid lib, and his replacement is much less than his equal - frankly, she's a lightweight by comparison.

She demonstrates the reason we should NEVER consider race and/or gender in such appointments, a policy that the libs are married to.

In this case, it may be their downfall.

Posted by Elcobar at 05/27/2009 @ 01:32am
Posted by sjchermak at 05/26/2009 @ 8:57pm

SJ-ASSCLOWN,

Glad you are here, just in time.

Once again, have to ask ya a couple of questions...

1-Do you, or do you not, believe that Spetmeber 11 was the "high point" of George W Loser's regency as his handlers seem to think since they campaigned so hard on it in '04?

2-Name the SPECIFIC programs that W Loser & Doomsday Dick had implimented to present the slaughter toward the end of their first year in office. You have described his security program in bizzare, totally abstracted terms as "responsible" (???), blah blah blah. But what tangible steps were taken to shore up security by the self-proclaimed "adults" after the shambolic Clinton make-believe era of security?

3-A ticking bomb was handed to George W Loser on August 6, '01 between the photo ops at the phony ranch that he jettisoned for the Dallas suburbs the moment he was leaving office since the photo op backdrop was no longer needed. What did the preening metrosexual Loser do with the ticking bomb, SJ? Be S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C.

For those keeping score: SJ has whined and moaned that the memo did not give a place, time or even a telephone number to chat with the terrorists (!!) -- as if insisting loudly on obvious points like "shit smells!!" is somehow an intelligent insight or exonerating toward people who are supposed to keep the shit away from us.

To repeat: George W Loser was told an attack was immanent. So, SJ, name the CONCRETE steps that the repugnant-led government set in motion when told "OBL poised to strike, like soon" from a security perspective on the defining issue in every sense of the George W Loser era.

Take all the spoace you need. Spare no detail. Leave nothing out. No hand-waving, just hard facts. We're counting on ya'...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 07:49am
Posted by RMT at 05/26/2009 @ 10:56pm

Look, I don't know her. I am relaying what I read at TNR. I conceded that she is much smarter than the average American and even smarter than the average lawyer.

I am aware of her acedemic credentials.

My point was that among lawyers, Alito and Roberts are one in a hundred. Sotomayer is one in ten. That'll make a difference.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 07:53am
Posted by mike63 at 05/27/2009 @ 01:24am

"She is not qualified. She practices reverse racism"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't racism enshrined in the Constitution when it was written?

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Posted by zmann at 05/27/2009 @ 08:03am
Here is how people who obsess over the color of someone's skin, what their last name is, who their parents are, what tribe they can be said to be in (et cetera) think and behave. We have already seen on this thread the racism and chauvinism of such grim creatures from the ideological bunker as JOMAMMA and the guy who was made-to-order to live totally within an ideologcal burqa, PONTI-FECES. But, wait. There's more!

We start with the with a typically phony, disgustingly self-important stab at "high principle" as SJ-ASSCLOWN disengeniously cites the words of an avowed man of the left whose high ethical practice SJ attempts to hijack:

"With the fixation by Mr. Nichols and other libs about Sonia Sotomayor being female and being Hispanic, it is clear to me that it is libs who did not understand and do not understand the following words: [CITES MLK, WHOM THE DENSELY INDOCTRINATED DUNCE SJ-ASSCLOWN WOULD OTHERWISE DENOUNCE FOR BEING PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS: A LEFTIST] --- sjchermak at 05/26/2009 @ 8:57pm"

Then, the tribally obssesseed Igors and fellow travellors pop their tiny, heavy-browed heads out of the ideological swamp on cue within a matter of hours:

"And anyway the hopeless quest to pack the court with "diversity" is futile. She has Puerto Rican heritage, which must make the Mexicans unhappy. We need 500-1,500 people on the Supreme Court to satisfy all the race, gender, ethinic, religious groups residing in America. --- mike63 at 05/27/2009 @ 01:24am"

...And then the next mindless ideologue who long ago ceased to notice what goes on in the world outside of pill-popper talk radio:

"She demonstrates the reason we should NEVER consider race and/or gender in such appointments, a policy that the libs are married to.---Elcobar at 05/27/2009 @ 01:32am"

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 08:05am
her judgement agains the firefighters who passed the new haven exam penalized them instead of the city of new haven which (if there was anying wrong with the exam, (not yet speficied), or any other aspect of the promotion process should be held accountable.

and, in trying to bury the decision in a legal black hole, ms sotomayor, a competent if not exceptional jurist, did herself no favors.

h.c. ecco

Posted by nurrevir at 05/27/2009 @ 08:13am
She demonstrates the reason we should NEVER consider race and/or gender in such appointments, a policy that the libs are married to.----Posted by Elcobar at 05/27/2009 @ 01:32am

So George H.W. Bush picked Clarence Thomas SOLELY on his qualifications?

You don't REALLY believe that, do you???

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 08:18am
Hey Phil (McCrevice, A.k.a the racist John_Shaft):

YOU are the ONE who claims the Aug. 6, 2001 memo was of such great significance, ignoring the fact it did not tell anybody anything they did not already know....

and ignoring the fact that the Bush administration was re-evaluating the approach to terror threats in order to be more pro-active against these threats.

You ignore the fact that the President (Bush, George W.) said of the prior approach to fighting terror that he was tired of "swatting flies"... he and his administration were attempting to be more successful and productive in stopping the terror threats than the approach of the past.

Since you ignore these things, and imply in your standard schizophrenic and psychotic manner that the Bush administration fell short with regard to the terror threat that became reality on September 11, 2001 -----

YOU explain in DETAIL what was supposed to have happened...

YOU explain what the Bush administration was supposed to have done....

and remember that certain things such as Patriot act provisions, etc. that may have enabled some of the "dots" to surface in order that they be connected......

are off of the table for a lib to say those should have been done prior to Sept 11.....

because you on the left crucified President Bush for doing them AFTER Sept 11.....

In other words you on the left can't have your cake and eat it, too. (if your nurses let you have that at the sanitorium)

Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 08:21am
TO ALL: Take notice of what buttons to press with SJ-ASSCLOWN!! Works every time!!! (And we have not yet touched on SJ's gushing appraisals of Blair's stewardship of security, views that cannot be differentiated from that of a jihadi with a high-powered miscroscope)...

"YOU explain what the Bush administration was supposed to have done.... "

Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 08:21am

SJ-ASSCLOWN forgets that Scalia, Renhquist, Long Dong (probably while taking a distracted break from porn videos), O'Connor and Kennedy bull-dozed in on the Florida Supreme Court to appoint George W Loser as POTUS. Not the sovereign people. Not Gore. Not Ralph. And, so it follows, not me either.

However, some pople have ALREADY explained what the self-proclaimed "adults" could have done before 9-11 instead of failing in the face of enemies as no previous admin ever had. Perhaps most notable among them was Richard A Clarke, a guy with decades of security experience, mainly in GOP admins.

Instead of reading bumper stickers and priding himself on being a dittohead, SJ could read Clarke's book (Against All Enemies) where he in fact discusses (to the extent possible for an insider) what could have been done differently.

Come on, SJ. Get off your ass. Stop whining and moaning and boo-hooing and wallowing in self-pity and all those other rightwing loser type things and show a little initiative for a change. Start by taking off the ideological burqa in which you are enveloped and read something.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 09:18am
Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 08:21am

So, by that, SJCHER, even if we accept "Bush protected us for 7 years"....

you ARE admitting that Dubya was NOT protecting us...his first 8 months?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 09:56am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't racism enshrined in the Constitution when it was written?

Posted by zmann at 05/27/2009 @ 08:03am

What are Amendments for?

Maybe you aren't a constitutional expert, but think of changes to contracts you may face routinely in daily life.......like credit card terms, cell phone plan changes,....simple stuff to clear your head of cobwebs....oh, no need to thank me!

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 10:47am
Phil,

Richard Clarke has been discredited.

Richard Clarke, Fraud March 21, 2004 http://www.powerlineblog.com/ archives/2004/03/006178.php

Mask,

"Dubya" was working to try and protect us. The dots were not connected because they did not surface due to policy put in place by the prior administration (the wall between law enforcement and intelligence)

April 15, 2004, 4:34 p.m. Millennial Mistake Jamie Gorelick's dangerous "wall of separation." http://www.nationalreview.com/ levin/levin200404151634.asp

(my links may contain spaces that need to be removed after pasting into your browser)

Comment: Nice try, Phil. Nice try, Mask. You both came up empty, as always, but will certainly try again. Both of you are like Energizer Bunnies, you keep going and going and going.

Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 11:08am
sjASSCLOWN at 05/27/2009 @ 08:21am:

"You ignore the fact that the President (Bush, George W.) said of the prior approach to fighting terror that he was tired of "swatting flies"... he and his administration were attempting to be more successful and productive in stopping the terror threats than the approach of the past."

Questions, SJ:

1-So did it work effectively and as planned when the "adults" around George W Loser "were attempting to be more successful and productive in stopping the terror threats"? Do the people of, say, NYC who saw their city attacked agree with your assessment?

2-Did OBL & AQ die of dehydradation from shitting their pants endlessly after the poet/warrior George W Loser gruffly said..."he was tired of "swatting flies"..." ???

sjASSCLOWN at 05/27/2009 @ 11:08am:

Who is discredited again?

SJ-ASSCLOWN and his fellow travellers can expect to be far indeed from getting a sniff of power any time soon when they insist up and down that "success" equals "failure" (see: SJ glorying in the security "triumph" of 9/11). And when, with the subserviance of the Stalinist hack, they mindlessly go along in campaigns against dedicated public servants like Clarke who has the courage to hold himself and America to higher standards tha the cro-mag rigthwinger.

In contrast with the gutless armchair warriors, Richard Clarke went before the 9/11 commission and said not enough had been done pre-attack. Clarke faced the victims to apologize, even though it was not him who refused to shake intelligence trees and haul ass to battle stations during the summer of '01.

By contrast, Loser & Doomsday Dick jointly testified for an hour, then went out to campaign on 9-11 as if it were an achivement. It's the difference b/w a real man...and con men.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 11:50am
SJ-ASSCLOWN has impressed himself for being a self-nominated Final Arbiter of Who & What constiutes a Racist & Racism. So, let's do an experiment with him. Shall we?

SJ is adament in insisting that all votes need not be an counted in an election since a black person's vote is less likely to agree with his own perferences for voting the CroMag right. We'll put that aside for the moment to ask SJ a simple question.

SJ, below is a long quotation from your fellow CroMag rightist travellor JOMAMMA. It is sufficiently long (no sound bite snippet) and seems so unambigous and rehearsed that we can easily take it at face value to reflect JOMAMMA's long-held views.

You decide, SJ: Is JOMAMMA's outburst racist or not?

QUTOE FROM JOMAMMA: They "enter the country or live there and breed like crazy...Europe is hitting 25% Islamic soon, and US is hitting 35% Hispanic...PLUS..they are draining the social system of cash and resources while putting nothing back in of equal or greater values...plus being illiterate in their own language, the added pressure of the host country to "help" them is over bearing... ..add to this the fact that the liberals in the host country actually sue in court to give the invaders(un resticted and illegal immigrants) more rights than the host citizens, like push 1 for English and native language voting ballots, in state tuition...it won't take long and the Israelis will be voted out of their own country..legaly... learn from the Muslims in Europe and the Mexicans in the US how to invaded, destroy and take over a more sophisticated and wealthy society using their own wealth, productivity, generosity, and the local liberals against the locals in their own country, combined with the gigantic birth rates...victory with out a shot being fired.."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 12:17pm
If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor will become the 6th Catholic on the bench. Doesn't that worry anyone?

Her judicial record on religious freedom is muddled and she ruled to uphold President Bush's banning of contraceptive aid to fight AIDS in Africa.

This selection is political pandering and it will backfire on all of us. Roe v. Wade will go down if she is confirmed, and she will still be sitting on the bench a quarter of a century from now.

This is not change I can believe in!

Posted by rgillock at 05/28/2009 @ 02:33am
It concerns me profoundly that Sotomayor is Catholic, and I hope that there will be some serious vetting on this account. It is not coincidence that ALL of the most conservative members of the Court right now and in the recent past have been Catholic.

The Catholic Church is very strict on many of the primary tenets of the Separation of Church and State, not least among them Abortion and more recently same-gender marriage.

The Catholic Church is still in the Middle Ages over other personal issues and issues of privacy, including divorce, even.

It is not by accident that the Separation of Church and State was written into the Constitution in the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is because the founders knew well the danger to individual citizens that arises from the Church's meddling with the State.

Sotomayor would join Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and their dread follower. What makes us think that she would break from her Church on the issues which are important to the Separation of Church and State?

Posted by boblocke at 05/28/2009 @ 2:10pm
1) A lot of Catholics are liberal

2) Religious test for Supreme Court justice? Really?

Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 7:07pm
In my opinion Americans are NOT RACISTS.

Sotomayor IS A RACIST.

Sotomayor IS NOT a reflection of America.

Sotomayor's legal career history is one of failure, as measured by a 60% overturning of her decisions.

So she is NOT QUALIFIED, and she is a RACIST.

She does accurately reflect Obama's anger towards America.

Is this person someone you would want deciding your case? I sure would not.

She ought to withdraw.

Posted by tucanofulano at 05/29/2009 @ 11:36am
Why is she racist?

Posted by Thrawn at 05/29/2009 @ 7:41pm