Judge Sotomayor's Diabetes: Not a Weakness But a Strength

posted by John Nichols on 05/27/2009 @ 09:52am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (78)

Subscribe Now

There is little doubt that Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, when and if she is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, will be a role model.

As the first Latina on the bench, she would be both a jurist and a constant reminder that this is a richly-diverse and multicultural country that is at its best when we encourage the children of all Americans -- no matter what their race, ethnicity, gender or class -- to study hard, work hard and achieve great things.

National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguía said it best after President Obama announced his selection of Judge Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

"Today is a monumental day for Latinos," declared Murguía. "Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land. Judge Sotomayor's story personifies the American Dream for so many Latinos in this country."

While some suggest that former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew who traced his own family ties to the Iberian Peninsula, was the first Hispanic to serve on the high court, there can be no question that Judge Sotomayor's confirmation would bring a new measure of diversity to the court by adding to its bench a Latina with a clear and vital connection to a native-born and immigrant community that is transforming America for the better. (Notably, Cardozo, one of the most highly-regarded jurists of the 20th century, was the last Supreme Court nominee with judicial experience comparable to Sotomayor's.)

Sotomayor is, as well, the product of a working-class background. The daughter of a factory worker and a nurse in a methadone clinic, she grew up in the South Bronx and later the East Bronx, neighborhoods of a New York City borough that served for a time when she was young as something of a national symbol of urban decay. She teaches powerful lessons about how to survive and thrive in tough, challenging settings.

But Sotomayor's most important service as a role model may be as a Type 1 diabetic -- someone who has, since the age of eight, had to deal with what has variously been referred to as "childhood," "juvenile" or "insulin-dependent" diabetes.

This is a big deal.

If she is confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor would be the third woman on the Supreme Court.

She would be the first Latina.

And she would be the first justice known to have Type-1 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association hailed Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor as a move that "affirms that people with diabetes should not be discriminated against and each person with diabetes should be judged based on his or her merits, not on stereotypes or misinformation about diabetes."

They're right, of course.

But it is important to note how meaningful that affirmation is.

"In the days leading up to this nomination, there were several media reports suggesting that Judge Sotomayor should not be considered for this position simply because she has type 1 diabetes," explains R. Paul Robertson, MD, who serves as president for the medical and science sector of the American Diabetes Association. "The advancements in the management of type 1 diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades and the ability of people to manage their diabetes successfully has been proven. People with diabetes can function and live a long and healthy life."

The ADA adds, "As this process moves forward, the diabetes community expects that Judge Sotomayor's nomination will be evaluated based on her qualifications and years of experience -- and not her diabetes. To evaluate her in any other way would be a disservice to the United States."

Fair points, well made. But let's not be too quick to dismiss the fact of Judge Sotomayor's long struggle with a particularly serious form of diabetes. That experience is an asset for a judicial nominee, especially at this moment in history.

Remember that Judge Sotomayor's diabetes affected her career choices. As a girl she had been drawn to Nancy Drew novels. She wanted to be a police detective. But she determined at an early age that her disease might make it difficult for her to do the job. That's when she made the decision that would eventually lead her to the federal bench.

"If I couldn't do detective work as a police officer, I could do it as a lawyer," she explained in an interview with the New York Daily News.

Bill Ahearn, of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, told AFP that Sotomayor's nomination "is a teachable moment to a great degree" because it helps explain the disease to the broader American public and "an exemplary moment" for showing those who have Type 1 diabetes that with careful treatment they can achieve great things.

"This is important particularly for those kids who have the disease and are looking at a life of very strenuous management of that disease" -- a regimen that includes frequent insulin injections, blood-sugar monitoring, and dietary restrictions -- Ahearn explained.

It is also important for a court that will deal, increasingly, with healthcare access and medical-research issues.

To have a judge who understands, through personal experience, the challenges and the needs of Americans with serious diseases, lifelong conditions and profound hopes for medical breakthroughs.

This is another piece of the diversity puzzle, an essential piece that ought not be underestimated.

In a very real sense, the disease that steered her toward a legal career and a place on the federal bench is one of the greatest strengths that Judge Sotomayor would bring to the Supreme Court.

Comments (78)

Yeeaaahhhh.....okaaaay.

Think you're stretching a point beyond Silly Putty elasticity, Mr Nichols.

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 09:53am
Nichols, I'm so sorry that there were not more things wrong with her. Think how great it would have been if she was (fill in the blanks yourself, I can't actually put in any disease or so called disability because of pending hate thought legislation), because it would be affirming.

Posted by sntauri at 05/27/2009 @ 10:03am
We really need to stop allowing conservatives to set the qualifications for our supreme court nominees.

I heard Schumer on Maddow last night ranting and raving about how "moderate" Sotomayer is and how she voted 95% of the time with her Republican colleague on the federal appeals court.

This is typical DLC "liberal is a dirty word" reactionary conduct in face of the success of Ronald Reagan. It is time to turn the page on this sort of thinking, and embrace deep compassionate thinkers who are true liberals and progressives. It is OK to be proud of who we are and defend nominees that reflect our progressive values.

I know Schumer is posturing for the political fight he is about to become embroiled in over Sotomayer, but we MUST change the terms of the debate now that we are in power so that Republicans are on the defensive - where "conservative" becomes a dirty word. No one (or not a sufficient number) complained about Alito or Roberts who were unabashed CONSERVATIVES! Why can't we achieve the same success in promoting and defending successfully progressive candidates for the bench?

Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2009 @ 10:30am
I can see Nichols' point.....

The next SC Nominee must have personal bankruptcy in his/her background....it's such a relevant issue in these times!

Or perhaps, we need the next Nominee to have Mortgage workout/bailout experience......I mean, 2/3 of Americans own homes and most will have mortgages in their lifetimes!

Of course, we also need ex-alcoholics and currrent alcoholics....just to have a balanced and fair SC!

How silly can you, John Dittohead (of Magic), go?

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 10:41am
"This is a big deal.

If she is confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor would be the third woman on the Supreme Court.

She would be the first Latina.

And she would be the first justice known to have Type-1 diabetes."...Nichols

Identity politics front and center for all to see and done without shame.

Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 10:43am
she's getting confirmed.

she appears quite qualified and i doubt even the most ideologically retarded of the republicans will risk further damaging their brand name with hispanics...

so don't look for big histrionic theatrics from them over this, even.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/27/2009 @ 10:48am
It is OK to be proud of who we are and defend nominees that reflect our progressive values.

Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2009 @ 10:30am

It's kind of hard to defend progr...sorry....liberal values with such a long list of failure.

Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 10:48am
I wanted to know if Sotomayor would be a dependable ally for liberals in facing banks and Wall Street, as we are likely to see judicial involvement at the high level soon with respect to these parties, as the government tries to re-regulate them.

Well, the fix is in: "liberal" Sotomayor is actually well-loved by Wall Street entities, enough that the Wall Street Journal is has pronounced her "within the mainstream" (as they define it):

" ... In 2006, the judge was part of a Second Circuit panel that ruled investors couldn't proceed with a class-action suit accusing Wall Street banks of fraudulently pricing initial public offerings. The ruling negated settlements that would have yielded investors more than $1 billion. "That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream," said Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who represented a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in the matter ..."

" ... The judge has favored corporate defendants in suits that test when cases can be brought as class actions. Judges often must determine whether plaintiffs' claims should be pre-empted by more defense-friendly federal and international laws.

"There is no reason for the business community to be concerned" about Judge Sotomayor, said Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP who has represented businesses including Wachovia Corp. and Dow Chemical Co ..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338260937756559.html

Posted by syfriendly at 05/27/2009 @ 10:53am
" ... As the first Latina on the bench, she would be both a jurist and a constant reminder that this is a richly-diverse and multicultural country that is at its best when we encourage the children of all Americans -- no matter what they race, ethnicity, gender or class -- to study hard, work hard and achieve great things ..."

posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 05/27/2009 @ 09:52am

Beyond identity politics, and the fact that a Democratic president is nominating her, is there any specific reason you are supporting Sotomayor? Something tells me that there are much more serious and inspiring figures to choose for the SCOTUS.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/27/2009 @ 10:55am
John Nichols, here's something I posted to cka2nd, and on Sotomayor, you're clones of each other, so....I bring it forth here....Identity Politics Exhibit A:

cka AND Nichols, you are a perfect fit....with George Will's "Identity Justice" commentary today:

Perhaps Sotomayor (& cka2nd) subscribes to the Thurgood Marshall doctrine: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up" (quoted in the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992). Does she think the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold, an emblem of impartiality, and be partial to certain categories of persons? A better jurisprudential doctrine was expressed by a certain Illinois state legislator in a 2001 radio interview: "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. ... 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."

==================================

I can really dig the central element of cka2nd AND Nichols, Thurgood Marshall and Sotomayor that "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up"!

What this endorses implicitly, is that each of us can feel free to do what we "think is right and let the law catch up". I like it!

This is surely the foundational principal of an aweful lot of what one considers anti-Gubber, anti-collectivist & libertarian thoughts.

Just as Timothy Geitner gave me a license to fudge even more on my taxes for `08, now I can go even further once Sotomayor is confirmed.

This is the kind of personal freedom I will HAPPILY embrace!

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 11:03am
the bigger the fight about this, the better for the OBAMAGARCHS.

goldman who?

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2009 @ 11:05am
had to laugh last night watching Rachel Maddow. She called Sotomayor a conservative justice.

Kind of tells you how far to the left Maddow is, and perhaps why her ratings are at or near the bottom each week.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 11:06am
"To have a judge who understands, through personal experience, the challenges and the needs of Americans with with serious diseases, lifelong conditions and profound hopes for medical breakthroughs." Nichols

Hey Mr. Nichols, would it be too much to ask to have a judge who understands the Constitution and the law???? From a long list of pathetic articles that you have penned, this one ranks right up there among the dumbest.

Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 11:03am

HAPP, who gave Sarah Palin "license" to fudge on her taxes?

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 11:09am
Mask says above,

"....Yeeaaahhhh.....okaaaay.

Think you're stretching a point beyond Silly Putty elasticity, Mr Nichols......"

MARK this DATE DOWN...May 27, 2009....

It has finally happened.... I AGREE with MASK!!!......MASK is right!!!!

Mr. Nichols article is absurd. I have very close relatives with a history of diabetes. I also know other close friends with the disease.

They live their life (or lived, if no longer alive) with the disease every day and also live a totally normal life with normal interaction in the workplace or with friends or with other activities they are involved with.

People deal with this every day with no hoopla or fanfare.

But now Mr. Nichols is using Ms. Sotomayor as a prop, once again. Since she is nominated by a lib for the Supreme Court, all of a sudden some milestone has been reached because she has diabetes, a disease that others including many non-libs have lived with daily for a long time now.

The actual milestones on some of these things have been achieved long time ago. That milestone would be people living a normal life with the disease.

There is nothing special about her diabetes that is unique or even worthy of mention.

What matters is her perspective on the law. Will she rule with regard to what the law or Constitution says, or does she believe that the law can be bent, twisted, ignored, or created on the fly if need be in order to advance social causes....which is not the purpose of the courts or our judical system?

What Mr. Nichols is no doubt hoping for is that Ms. Sotomayor will issue rulings in favor of socialist medicine if need be, and Mr. Nichols probably thinks because she is diabetic she "knows" how necessary socialist health care is, and how good it is in Europe.

Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 11:24am
It's kind of hard to defend redneck...sorry....conservative values with such a long list of failure. Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 10:48am

Posted by ficheye at 05/27/2009 @ 11:31am
I mean, it works well both ways. Let's be fair.

Posted by ficheye at 05/27/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 10:48am

Thurgood Marshall was an unabashed "liberal" and one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time.

We need to purge this DLC thinking from our ranks and assert boldly that most Americans want PROGRESSIVE change - CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

WE don't want to re-live the horse and buggy days of Sarah Palin, where everyone has a rifle underneath the bed and are scared to death of anything that looks or thinks different than the blandness and conformity found in much of small town America.

New and fresh ideas that are capable of moving this nation forward are a GOOD thing, and progressives everywhere should not shirk and cower in the face of conservative attacks on progressive values.

Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2009 @ 11:43am
Nichols,

Were you saying the same thing about Clarence Thomas? Were you extolling the virtues of his African American heritage and humble beginnings?

Let's look into the archives. I think I'll know what we'll find. Something tells me that her being a Latina and a diabetic would not be inspiring to you in the least if she were a conservative.

That's to be expected from you, I suppose. No surprises...you don't have an objective, intellectually honest bone in your body. But, unfortunately, it makes your views on this predictable, boring, and a complete waste of your readers' time.

Posted by jimmylove at 05/27/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by jimmylove at 05/27/2009 @ 11:44am

Please tell me you're not surprised. You've been here long enough to not be. Progressive mag = support for everything progressive, no matter how nonsensical

Conservative mag = support for everything conservative, no matter how nonsensical

It's the circle of life.

Posted by k330k at 05/27/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 11:24am

Sure we can agree, SJCHER. Mr Nichols delves into fantasy and silliness cross the political spectrum.

Here's something else we can agree on...

despite the claims of "fighting hard" and numerous attacks, insults, innuendoes, and "more stuff we've dug up" from Rush, Sean, Levin, Fox News, etc....

Sotomayor WILL be confirmed, she likely WILL get more than "just Snowe, Collins, and Specter" from the GOP aisle, and two months from now all the feigned outrage that you and the above throw out will all be forgotten and swept away by the "next bright shiny object".

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 12:09pm
K330k,

You're right. I'm not suprised. I think the same thing about the partisan garbage on the far right. I guess it's sort of like watching a train wreck. As much as I want to, I just can't look away. :)

Posted by jimmylove at 05/27/2009 @ 12:29pm
Plenty of folks with working class roots sell out their heritage. Just look at Condoleezza 'War Criminal' Rice. And so far Barack Obama is doing a pretty good job screwing over the people who had the most hope for his presidency.

As for Sotomayor, we'll see. Her track record suggests a pro-business leaning. Certainly no liberal in any meaningful way. Perhaps she has been hedging to keep herself viable for just the appointment she has now received. Who knows.

One thing is clear: As a public employee, she has now enjoyed many years of quite good medical care at the public's expense. Members of Congress enjoy still better care at taxpayer expense and there has been little if any movement there toward a system that would be as good as that Congress enjoys.

The beneficiaries of wealth and good fortune, not to mention the generosity of hopeful voters, show little regard for the people who put them in their positions of power. It was ever thus.

Posted by HuSan at 05/27/2009 @ 12:53pm
Here's a true test--Is she smarter than Thomas, not right wing/fascist like Scalia, smart Princeton grad, judicial activist like Roberts, less Catholic than Scalia ???

I thinks she passes all these--but does she have the fortitude to stand up to the previously named four horsemen of the apocalypse or will she wimp out like Justice Ginsburg ?

Posted by hkaplan at 05/27/2009 @ 1:04pm
The beneficiaries of wealth and good fortune.....show little regard for the people who put them in their positions of power. It was ever thus.-------Posted by HuSan at 05/27/2009 @ 12:53pm

You DO realize the Editor of this magazine (Katrina vanden Heuvel)...is an heiress, right?

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 1:19pm
"American radicals have honored democracy by trying to make it better. With the courage and conviction to stand hard against the current, they have contributed new ideas and helped to build better institutions. For this they have won love and affection from some of their fellow Americans, while drawing the resentment and fear of others. But their record stands well in a democracy, which requires far more than lip service for success. Out of both conviction and necessity they have sought to give it what it needs-vitality, variety, choice. Their offense against a timid society has been the recognition that "faith without deeds is dead".

Harvey Goldberg - From_the introduction - American Radicals, Ed. by himself

..."radical" defines a nature different in quality from the temporizing "liberal" spirit. so expert in weighing principle against expediency. (Heywood) Broun made the point with characteristic directness: "In the final court of reckoning I believe the angels will indulge in few long cheers for any liberal. With minor exceptions he's a trimmer. 'There is much to be said on both sides' is one of his favorite sayings, or 'The truth lies somewhere between the two.' Thus split, he conciliates.."

Harvey Goldberg & William Appleman Williams

Posted by Sorelish at 05/27/2009 @ 1:30pm
Thurgood Marshall was an unabashed "liberal" and one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time.

Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2009 @ 11:43am |

That is nothing more than opinion...not fact. And you know what people say about opinions.

Posted by fram at 05/27/2009 @ 1:44pm
"Let's look into the archives" about Clarence "Long Dong Uncle" Thomas ---jimmySLOVENLY @ 11:44am

OK, SLOVENLY, let's look at the archive. It says Long Dong was the least qualified nomimee for the SCOTUS in decades. But GHW Bush wanted him tokenistically affirmative actioned into the SCOTUS.

NY TIMES: "The American Bar Association has given Judge Clarence Thomas a mixed rating in evaluating his fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice, officials of the group said today. The bar association committee that conducts the evaluations split on President Bush's choice to succeed Thurgood Marshall on the Court, with a majority rating Judge Thomas "qualified" for the job and a minority of two members finding him "unqualified." No one on the committee found him to be "well qualified," the third available rating and the association's highest.

Last year the committee unanimously found Judge David H. Souter to be "well qualified" for the Supreme Court. The last nominee to receive less than unanimous support from the committee was Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination was defeated in 1987...

...The White House was quick today to applaud the rating for Judge Thomas, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But the mixed review is not likely to add momentum for Judge Thomas's confirmation next month the way the bar association's judgment on Judge Souter did last year. One senior Congressional aide labeled the evaluation of Judge Thomas "the equivalent of middling." It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a nominee to be confirmed without a unanimous evaluation of at least "qualified." The association's records show there may have been a dissenting vote given to Justice Potter Stewart in 1958, although that is unclear...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 1:53pm
SJ-ASSCLOWN has impressed himself for being a self-nominated Final Arbiter of Who & What constitutes 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?

QOUTE FROM 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 05/27/2009 @ 1:57pm
Origins of THE CLARENCE THOMAS-LONG DONG SILVER AXIS

When Repugnants try to airlift disgruntled lightweights who are far beyond to depth into serious positions (think village selectwoman Palin), odd things will happen as a result of the cynical and shameless tokenism...

from WIKIPEDIA: "Long Dong Silver or Bruno Vasconcellos is a retired porn star. He appeared in several pornographic movies with Brian Carl in the UK and USA during the late 1970s and early 1980s, famed for the size of his penis (reputedly 18 inches / 45 centimeters), although it is generally believed to have been extended with a prosthetic sheath. His debut film was the low-budget Sex Freaks released in 1979, in which he co-starred with Vicki Scott. In 1982 he appeared with the legendary Seka in Beauty and the Beast, shot in America. His name is a reference to Long John Silver.

He received new fame in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1991.[1][2][3][4][5]

[1]Press, Bill "The return of Long Dong Silver." InsidePolitics, CNN, July 5, 2001. Called him "the now-famous "Long Dong Silver." Retrieved April 24, 2009 [2]Mann, Judy, "A strange justice for all." The Washington Post, November 9, 1994. Called him "a well known performer." Retrieved April 24, 2009(subscription) [3]Handy, Bruce, "Oh, behave!" Time (magazine), February 2, 1998. Says "..Long Dong Silver became a household name.." Retrieved April 24, 2009 [4]Friedman, David, "A mind of its own,"Simon and Schuster, 2001.ISBN 0684853205, 9780684853208. Calls him (p 135)"a supernaturally endowed porn star" and discusses Anita Hill's testimony in the Thomas confirmation hearings related to Thomas' alleged comments about the actor..."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/27/2009 @ 2:12pm
Is it more difficult to study with diabetes or with dyslexia ? Is there more pressure taking an exam at Columbia than taking an exam for the only promotion in the only job you will ever have ? Fair questions, I think.

Posted by Bopalou2008 at 05/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
Plenty of folks with working class roots sell out their heritage. Just look at Condoleezza 'War Criminal' Rice.

Posted by HuSan at 05/27/2009 @ 12:53pm

Or Clarence Thomas.

Posted by skeletonman at 05/27/2009 @ 3:04pm
Of course, we also need ex-alcoholics and currrent alcoholics....just to have a balanced and fair SC!

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 10:41am | ignore this person | warn this person

Why not?

We just got through with a Prez who was drunk, basically, until 40.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/27/2009 @ 3:25pm
Go Red Wings.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/27/2009 @ 3:28pm
On a serious note, we've got to find out why this diabetes stuff is so common now.

I don't remember it ever being so prevalent.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/27/2009 @ 3:30pm
You DO realize the Editor of this magazine (Katrina vanden Heuvel)...is an heiress, right?

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

In that case, single perhaps?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/27/2009 @ 3:34pm
On a serious note, we've got to find out why this diabetes stuff is so common now.

I don't remember it ever being so prevalent.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/27/2009 @ 3:30pm

One word:

Obesity.

At least where Type II diabetes is concerned (also called Adult Onset or - incorrectly - Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) and results when the body becomes resistant to insulin.

Type II is the form which is running rampant.

Prevalence of Type I diabetes (the type that Judge Sotomayor has) is relatively static.

Type I has been known as Juvenile Diabetes in the past; it is an autoimmune disorder where the Beta Islet cells of the pancreas are attacked by one's own immune system, resulting in the inability to produce insulin.

Posted by skeletonman at 05/27/2009 @ 3:54pm
schnellerheinz,

You say "....We just got through with a Prez who was drunk, basically, until 40......"

I say: And who was totally sober and clear headed and logical and had common sense and empathy for people and bold vision and excellent management skills after 40.

You say "...Go Red Wings...."

I say: Can't argue with you there. With the Caps, Devils and Sharks out of the playoffs and the Senators never making the playoffs at all this year, the Stanley Cup does belong in Hockeytown.

Posted by sjchermak at 05/27/2009 @ 4:30pm
Sotomayor WILL be confirmed, she likely WILL get more than "just Snowe, Collins, and Specter" from the GOP aisle, and two months from now all the feigned outrage that you and the above throw out will all be forgotten and swept away by the "next bright shiny object".

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2009 @ 12:09pm

Who is feigning outrage? Do you have names?

Here's my disagreement with Sotomayer's judicial philosphy:

America is the wealthiest nation on earth. I think that's a good thing. Have you ever stopped to consider what wealth is?

Wealth is the present value of future earnings.

A bond's price is the discounted value of future interest and principle payments. A Stock's price is the discounted expected value of dividends and capital appreciation.

But in order to put a value on a future event, you need to believe in stability, and predictability. Humanity craves stability. That's why we want laws, for which the meaning of the law will mean the same tomorrow as it does today.

Sotomayer's approach, like the "liberal" approach to a "living" consitution in general, is that today it means whatever will give the poor and disadvantaged an avantage over the rich and lucky. Tomorrow it will mean whatever I say it means in order to give an advantage to the poor and unlucky.

This is the opposite of stability and predictability. It destroys wealth. It makes the future less certain. And liberals applaud this because it reduces the difference between the rich and the poor.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/27/2009 @ 4:49pm
Nichols, Were you saying the same thing about Clarence Thomas? Were you extolling the virtues of his African American heritage and humble beginnings? Posted by jimmylove at 05/27/2009 @ 11:44am

I think Clarence himself wouldn't do it. He in fact would deny he's even black, made ample use of affirmative action he'd deny others,..., an inspiration to his race-- no.

"Sometimes, when I get a little down," Justice Thomas said wearily, he goes online. "I look up wonderful speeches, like speeches by Douglas MacArthur, to hear him give without a note that speech at West Point -- ‘duty, honor, country.' How can you not hear those words and not feel strongly about what we have?"

He continued: "Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?"

A favorite movie can be a comfort, too.

"I have on many occasions or a number of occasions when things were becoming particularly routine gone down to my basement to watch ‘Saving Private Ryan,' " he said. "I can't tell you why that particular movie, except we have it and it's about something important in our lives -- World War II."

The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

"Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 5:53pm
"It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."

Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned." He was asked how his religious faith influenced his work on the court.

"I think that it really gives content to the oath that you took," Justice Thomas said. "You say, ‘So help me God.' " The questions from students were read to Justice Thomas, and the first one seemed to throw him off. "Since the Civil War, what has changed the way Americans view the Constitution the most and why?" an unidentified student asked.

Justice Thomas gave a rambling response, touching on the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights of freed slaves, the application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states and Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that endorsed the doctrine of "separate but equal."

"I'm sure there are other things that have happened," he said, wrapping up his answer. "So I would have to say just off the top of my head the Fourteenth Amendment. And I bet you someone's going to hear that and say, well, no, it's the dormant commerce clause or something."

That was a curious aside. Few Americans could name the dormant commerce clause, and it has no obvious connection to how popular views of the Constitution changed after the Civil War."

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 5:55pm
"In any event, Justice Thomas seemed a little sensitive to the sort of second-guessing that comes with the territory for those who sit on the Supreme Court.

"This job is easy for people who've never done it," he said later. "What I have found in this job is they know more about it than I do, especially if they have the title ‘law professor.' "

Yeah, he sure does inspire those living in Black America, to be as white and dumb as possible...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 5:58pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 5:58pm

you're a racist. I guess only those people of color who support your philosophy are equal in your sight.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 6:06pm
I guess only those people of color who support your philosophy are equal in your sight. Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 6:06pm

When someone, such as Clarence, can only be inspired by 'successful' people, none from his own race and then denies their very struggle to get him where he is today, no--- that is a racist of the self-loathing kind.

antisocili, you're simply a soulless kook.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 6:13pm
When someone, such as Clarence, can only be inspired by 'successful' people, none from his own race and then denies their very struggle to get him where he is today, no--- that is a racist of the self-loathing kind.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 6:13pm

this just shows how ignorant you are about Justice Thomas.

You ought to read his autobiography and learn.

My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir (Hardcover) by Clarence Thomas (Author)

<Provocative, inspiring, and unflinchingly honest, My Grandfather's Son is the story of one of America's most remarkable and controversial leaders, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, told in his own words.

Thomas was born in rural Georgia on June 23, 1948, into a life marked by poverty and hunger. His parents divorced when Thomas was still a baby, and his father moved north to Philadelphia, leaving his young mother to raise him and his brother and sister on the ten dollars a week she earned as a maid. At age seven, Thomas and his six-year-old brother were sent to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, and her stepmother in their Savannah home. It was a move that would forever change Thomas's life.

His grandfather, whom he called "Daddy," was a black man with a strict work ethic, trying to raise a family in the years of Jim Crow. Thomas witnessed his grandparents' steadfastness despite injustices, their hopefulness despite bigotry, and their deep love for their country. His own quiet ambition would propel him to Holy Cross and Yale Law School, and eventually--despite a bitter, highly contested public confirmation--to the highest court in the land.

My Grandfather's Son is the story of a determined man whose faith, courage, aand perseverance inspired him to rise up against all odds and achieve his dreams

Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 7:22pm
antisociali, is that from the book cover?

In any case Clarence doesn't advocate the heroic history of those of his race that fought against racial injustice. More ignores it ever happened and illustrates how far one can go by taking it in the ass, er, being cowered by the white man's greater worth (in his own mind).

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 7:40pm
antisociali, is that from the book cover?

In any case Clarence doesn't advocate the heroic history of those of his race that fought against racial injustice. More ignores it ever happened and illustrates how far one can go by taking it in the ass, er, being cowered by the white man's greater worth (in his own mind).

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

It's the Amazon book review.

And your answers still show you know nothing about Thomas.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 7:44pm
antisociali, what you still haven't read the book? Ha, like that's a surprise...

But by your own book review, when one grows up like Clarence, seeing his closest major authority figure continually cowed, it makes perfect sense that a new con repub GOP would be a comfy fit... to justify resistance is futile.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 8:00pm
for those complaining about sotomayor's 'identity politics', mr. alito said this at his hearing:

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me. And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what i t's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them"

ok, then. this pretty much demolishes the argument that sotomayor will have an 'empathy problem,' should she be elected.

Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 10:16pm
Today's WSJ Editorial:

The 'Empathy' Nominee

Is Sonia Sotomayor judically superior to 'a white male'?

In making Sonia Sotomayor his first nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday, President Obama appears to have found the ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom.

This isn't a jurisprudence that the Founders would recognize, but it is the creative view.....In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity.

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "....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."

....more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor's likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics....

There are signs of what this means in practice in her lower court decisions. One of them is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving the promotion of white firefighters in New Haven and now pending before the Supreme Court...

After the three judge panel issued a brief opinion repeating the district court's decision, the appeals court declined to rehear the case en banc, an outcome which infuriated Ms. Sotomayor's colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes. In a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, Judge Cabranes criticized the slip-shod handling of the case by a majority that lacked the courage of its racial preference convictions....

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 10:18pm
WSJ Editorial continued:

Judge Cabranes added that the discrimination issues raised by the case were "worthy of review" by the Supreme Court, which took the case and may well overturn the Sotomayor panel's ruling. The case raises the question of whether a judge with an avowed commitment to applying her own "experience" to cases was disinclined to an argument made by those not sharing that personal experience.

Or consider the result last year in Knight v. Commissioner, in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld her ruling in a tax case involving individual tax deductions, even as her reasoning drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. The Second Circuit opinion "flies in the face of the statutory language," he wrote for the Court.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned 6-3 her 2007 ruling in Riverkeeper v. EPA in which she found that the EPA could not consider cost-benefit analysis in judging whether companies need to upgrade to the best technology available, even when the costs were wholly disproportionate to the benefits. And in the 2006 case of Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, the Court ruled 8-0 to overturn her position that a state class-action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch was not pre-empted by federal law.

Even the best judges get overturned, of course, but the issue here is less the result than Judge Sotomayor's legal reasoning. As a lower court judge, she was restrained by a higher authority. On the Supreme Court, she is limited only by the other Justices she can win over to her arguments.

As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the le

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2009 @ 10:20pm
"had to laugh last night watching Rachel Maddow. She called Sotomayor a conservative justice."

sotomayor is extremely close to alito in terms of her political leanings......so, indeed, she is a conservative.

obama's choice was, thus, brilliant, because he has completely flummoxed the right wing. they have no arguments against her (which are sound).

"Kind of tells you how far to the left Maddow is, and perhaps why her ratings are at or near the bottom each week"

american idol and the nba finals have great ratings, but do they actually make you think?

Posted by darladoon at 05/27/2009 @ 10:21pm
I just heard Sotomayor only got 3 opinions overturned versus her 300+ rulings. Isn't that like batting 999?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 11:00pm
The funny thing is everybody is talking about her race..I thought justice is blind...We say we a progressive people and somehow it always comes back to race... I personally would want the best person for the job..with no preference to race.. Why does it matter if a Hispanic, Asian, black or Indian is appointed to the court...Will these minorities groups have an advantage if they are ever in front of the court? We need to judge her on knowledge of the Constitution and her interpretation of the Constitution in past rulings. Shouldn't this be what really matters??? Is the next supreme court Justice so uninteresting the media has to preach a feel good story about her race and humble background....

Posted by lumber61 at 05/28/2009 @ 12:20am
"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.

As "par for the course" liberals always LIE LIE LIE about supporting the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the "rule of law" rather they openly suborn perverting it!

Posted by BigPasture at 05/28/2009 @ 12:26am
I just heard Sotomayor only got 3 opinions overturned versus her 300+ rulings. Isn't that like batting 999?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2009 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Unfortunately her cases reviewed by the SCOTUS reveal a 60% failure rate in "overturns"! Not all 300 made it there.

Posted by BigPasture at 05/28/2009 @ 12:28am
Judge Sotomayor's nomination teaches us that diabetes is not a hindrance if one works hard as this judge does. If she is confirmed and she better be, this will be a monumental moment for every diabetic. I am so over the moon with this announcement, I am speechless.

Evelyn Guzman http://www.free-symptoms-of-diabetes-alert.com (If you want to visit, just click but if it doesn't work, copy and paste it onto your browser.)

Posted by randeg at 05/28/2009 @ 06:43am
WHERE IS THE BOLDNESS IN JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS BY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS In recent judicial appointments, Democratic Presidents have tended to be overly cautious, even mildly timid. On the other hand, Republican Presidents have acted boldly to install justices with extreme right wing views. In doing so, they have used the euphemism of "strict constructionists" to secure their wishes and turn back any relevant challenges by Democratic Senators. Thus have they installed unabashed rightists such as Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito. Democratic appointees to the bench are mildly left of center. What is often ignored by critics is that the role of judges is essential for the survival and credibility of a federal system whose constitution is often designed to further the ends of "liberty, equality and justice." Are those ends met when right-wing jurists routinely deny (even sabotage) minority rights in exercising their duty of judicial review? Without proper balance in judgment, the judiciary cannot discharge with credibility its expected role as a sentinel of justice. It cannot become a citadel into which ordinary citizens, especially minorities (gays, lesbians, ethnics, women, religious groups, atheists, etc) can ultimately retreat. That is what is wrong with the current composition of the Supreme Court! Time and time again, right wing members of the court have trumped minority rights with a trumpeting vision and an unredeeming sense of finality. Though some may deny it, the law is not mathematics with very predictable results. Judges put their own particular gloss in their interpretation of the constituion. They take into account, knowingly or benignly, their own philosophic orientations, intellectual inclinations and cultural predispositions. To approach this

Posted by drsam8 at 05/28/2009 @ 06:47am
Since this is such a weak article (as if anyone is seriously arguing that being a diabetic should preclude her appointment)...

Here's an article I think many of you will find interesting from The Daily Mail.

It talks about how the US squandered it's moral authority in Iraq and is now impotent to deal with a worthy cause like the humanitarian diaster in North Korea and how the Chinese are too immoral to do anything about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article -1189084/MAX-HASTINGS-North-Koreas-ruler- mad-But-threats-expose-impotence-America- amorality-Chinese.html

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/28/2009 @ 07:48am
"It talks about how the US squandered it's moral authority in Iraq...."---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/28/2009 @ 07:48am

Darin, you one of the new "reformed neo-con" right-wingers now, who "suddenly" figured out that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 07:53am
Darin, you one of the new "reformed neo-con" right-wingers now, who "suddenly" figured out that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 07:53am

No. I just thought many of you would find the article interesting. I certainly found the info on China interesting.

I agree it was costly, but I still think it was worth it to plant the seed of democracy in the ME.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/28/2009 @ 07:57am
ANTISOCIAL (05/27@6:06pm) to B-FOOLS: "you're a racist. I guess only those people of color who support your philosophy are equal..."

That is quite a thin reed on which to hang such a weighty accusation! But let's test out ANTISOCIAL & his biiiiig, showy "high-minded" campaigns for righteousness. Let's see what kind of double-standards and half-assed shoddy reasoning drives conservaLoserdom. Let's examine whether or not conservaLosers are a "say anything" bunch of creeps and phonies for whom words and principles are meaningless, mere means toward their wretched ends.

ANTI, you are a mega-intellect by your own dismally low standards. Below is an extended quote from your fellow travellor JOMAMMA. Is it racist? Why? Or why not?

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 05/28/2009 @ 08:23am
Big_PILE_OF_SHIT_IN_THE_Pasture (05/28@ 12:26): "'Empathy' is the latest code word for liberal activism"

DARLA already posted this earlier & Glenn Greenwald was on it yesterday. But, in reply to this latest stoopid meme from the rightwing zombies, consider S-Alito's all but lactating empathy in reply to Tom "Trotsky" Coburn during his Senate confirmation:

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant - and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases - I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me. And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing - the barriers that it puts up to them"

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/28/2009 @ 08:34am
It's being reported right now that Sotomayor may not be a reliable pro-choice judge. If this is so, watch how long before Mr. Nichols and all others who are blindly supporting this nomination, suddenly turn on her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by fram at 05/28/2009 @ 08:43am
I agree it was costly, but I still think it was worth it to plant the seed of democracy in the ME.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/28/2009 @ 07:57am

And you still think that's happened?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 09:21am
And you still think that's happened?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 09:21am

I agree with Darin. And if Iran could ever be rid of the Mullahs, that is a nation that truly could become a democracy.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00am

But you don't like democracies, Larry....you like republics!

LOL

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:20am
Darin_The_Big_Fat_Troll said: "Sotomayer's approach, like the "liberal" approach to a "living" consitution (sic) in general, is that today it means whatever will give the poor and disadvantaged an avantage (sic) over the rich and lucky. Tomorrow it will mean whatever I say it means in order to give an advantage to the poor and unlucky."

You are just making stuff up! If Sotomayor did more to honor stare decisis, she could just skip hearings and phone in her decisions. She is VERY MUCH a middle of the road judge. In fact, she will likely be a disappointment to most of Obama's supporters. I doubt that she'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but she will defer to the legislative branch on abortion restriction legislation.

If she were an elected representative she might be more progressive, but her decisions show clearly that she strongly honors precedent and decides narrowly. Her writings are not all that different from John Roberts'.

Posted by anandakos at 05/28/2009 @ 11:39am
"Sotomayor's approach". Apologies to Her Honor.

Posted by anandakos at 05/28/2009 @ 11:42am
But you don't like democracies, Larry....you like republics!

LOL

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:20am

You love to twist and distort.

I've said that OUR country is not a pure democracy, it is a constitutional republic.

Other nations can and will have different structures. We are a nation of states Mask, despite what you and the left wish to believe.

When we pledge allegiance, we pledge allegiance to what Mask? The Republic!

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:24pm
"Other nations can and will have different structures."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:24pm

So if Iran has a "constitutional republic" just of a "different structure"....why do you want to change it to a "democracy"?

"And if Iran could ever be rid of the Mullahs, that is a nation that truly could become a democracy."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00am

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:29pm
So if Iran has a "constitutional republic" just of a "different structure"....why do you want to change it to a "democracy"?

"And if Iran could ever be rid of the Mullahs, that is a nation that truly could become a democracy."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 11:00am

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:29pm

I know you think that you are being sly, but it's not going to fly.

Iran is a republic in name only. It is run by the Ayatollah and the Mullahs who have the authority to override the people at any time.

It thus does not meet the definition of a Republic, since the people do not have the ultimate authority to decide their government.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:49pm
"since the people do not have the ultimate authority to decide their government."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

And the definition of "democracy" is...?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:56pm
"since the people do not have the ultimate authority to decide their government."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

And the definition of "democracy" is...?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:56pm

you are still trying to equate the US with a pure democracy and we are not.

We are first a constitutional republic that consists of a number of states that unite around a central govt that is limited to defending the states and representing them to all other nations, while retaining the greater amount of authority within each state to determine what meets the needs of the citizens.

Liberals like yourself think of it as a nation like France, but we are not. No other country's constitution extends the level of authority that our constitution empowers the individual states with.

Finally, we are a representative rather than a direct democracy because of our emphasis on the importance of each state to the whole.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:05pm
add on to my last to Mask,

<The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[17] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it">

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:13pm
No, Larry, I'm asking you to give me a definition of democracy that does NOT fit the phrase "the people ___ have the ultimate authority to decide their government."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

DO we in our "constitutional republic with representational democracy"....have "ultimate authority to decide our government"?

Careful....say "Yes" and you undercut your Electoral College argument, since it gives "ultimate authority" to the Electors.

Say "No" and you accept an intermediary between us and government and THIS comment...."It thus does not meet the definition of a Republic, since the people do not have the ultimate authority to decide their government."...is meaningless given YOUR definition of a "republic".

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:52pm
No, Larry, I'm asking you to give me a definition of democracy that does NOT fit the phrase "the people ___ have the ultimate authority to decide their government."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

DO we in our "constitutional republic with representational democracy"....have "ultimate authority to decide our government"?

Careful....say "Yes" and you undercut your Electoral College argument, since it gives "ultimate authority" to the Electors.

Say "No" and you accept an intermediary between us and government and THIS comment...."It thus does not meet the definition of a Republic, since the people do not have the ultimate authority to decide their government."...is meaningless given YOUR definition of a "republic".

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:52pm

Not at all. I cannot believe you would even attempt something that so badly mischaracterizes our republic. I think you need to retake High School American Government. Last time I checked, we vote for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which at the national level, give us representative govt. And we have the same representative levels of govt at the state level.

With your Iranian example, the elections are meaningless given that it is only a shadow govt that is subject to override by the Ayatolah and the Mullahs.

We have nothing similar. Our Supreme Court cannot simply dismiss either the President or the Congress; nor can they direct that laws and policies be ignored. They can only vote on the constitutionality.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 7:00pm
My first thought after learning that Sotomayor is a diabetic to wonder what her height and weight are. I believe it is standard medical advice for diabetics to avoid obesity. It looks like she is well-nourished, to say the least. Anybody know her height and weight?

Posted by jsens at 05/30/2009 @ 4:47pm