Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJudge Sonia Sotomayor has been confirmed to serve as the 111th justice on the United States Supreme Court.
President Barack Obama declared that the vote, by an overwhelming 68-31 Senate majority, "moved America yet another step closer to a more perfect union."
The president's meaning was clear, his sentiment correct.
Justice Sotomayor is a Latina, the first ever to sit on the nation's highest court. And for all the controversy that her past comments about the need and value of diversity on the courts may have inspired among those who cling to a disappearing and discredited past, there is simply no question that the addition of a wise Latina to the Supreme Court represents a measure of progress not merely for one ethnic group but for the whole of America.
"Over the years, it has become increasingly important for our courts to reflect the growing Latino presence in this country," declared the statement celebrating the Senate vote from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a leading Latino civil rights organization. "MALDEF thanks President Obama and the members of the U.S. Senate for their leadership in choosing a highly qualified and dedicated public servant to serve our country. Judge Sotomayor's confirmation reflects the commitment of our nation's leaders to promote the legitimacy of the judicial system and secure our community's trust and confidence in the courts."
It was, we can hope, an understanding of this reality that led nine Republicans to join the Senate's Democrats in voting to confirm Barack Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, the history buff who chairs the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke a necessary truth Thursday when said that Judge Sotomayor is "someone whose remarkable life story and varied experience will add diversity and perspective, which the Court sorely needs."
When the American experiment began, the president, the vice president, the members of the Cabinet, the members of Congress and the members of the Supreme Court were monied white men.
There was some diversity of religion -- although not a lot -- and a good deal of diversity of opinion.
But it was safe to say that the wisdom of all humanity was missing from the three branches of our federal government.
This was not by chance.
As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall observed with regard to the founders on the 200th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution: "(The) government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today."
Marshall, so central a figure to this country's progress, recognized that America was an evolved and evolving nation.
When he uttered those words, in 1987, he embodied racial and ethnic diversity of the high court, while Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provided the only gender balance.
It was not merely the court that was unrepresentative.
All three branches of the federal government remained then -- and remain now -- weighted toward the wealthy, the white and the male.
The struggle to create a government that reflected America advanced first in the legislative branch, which began to diversify as barriers to voting by African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics and women were broken down.
Executive branch diversity came more slowly, with initial breakthroughs at the Cabinet level and, this year, with the assumption of the presidency by an African-American male.
But what may well be the most important diversity, that of the judicial branch which interprets the constitutionality of laws regarding the liberty and opportunity of all Americans, has come in fits and starts.
It was a big deal when a Jew was nominated to the high court, Louis Brandeis, was nominated in 1916 to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. As Justice William O. Douglas observed, there were objections because "Brandeis was a militant crusader for social justice whoever his opponent might be. He was dangerous not only because of his brilliance, his arithmetic, his courage. He was dangerous because he was incorruptible. . . [and] the fears of the Establishment were greater because Brandeis was the first Jew to be named to the Court." Passionate advocacy by President Woodrow Wilson -- "He is a friend of all just men and a lover of the right; and he knows more than how to talk about the right -- he knows how to set it forward in the face of its enemies," the chief executive said of Brandeis -- and partisan loyalty secured confirmation on a 47-22 vote. (Support for the nomination came from 44 Democrats and three Republicans reformers: Wisconsin's Bob La Follette, Nebraska;s George Norris, Washington's Miles Poindexter.)
The ensuing nomination of the first African-American justice, Thurgood Marshall, came at a moment of great social ferment and progress and Marshall was quickly confirmed in the summer of 1967. His confirmation by the Senate came by a 69-11 vote, with segregationist dead-enders (most of them Democrats) casting the majority of the "no" votes.
It was even easier for the first woman, Sandra Day O'Connor, a relatively-conservative Republican nominated by a conservative Republican president, Ronald Reagan. O'Connor was confirmed in September, 1981, on a 99-0 vote of the Senate.
The next great breakthrough came on a Thursday afternoon in the summer of 2009, when the Senate confirmed Judge Sotomayor.
Like Brandeis, Marshall and O'Connor before her, Justice Sotomayor will be first and foremost a jurist. But she is something else.
From this day forward, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is and always will be an essential player in the story of American progress.
There will be more progress.
The court will be joined by more women, more people of color, by Muslims and Buddhists and out gays and lesbians.
This progress will face resistance, just as the progress represented by Judge Sotomayor's nomination and confirmation did.
But, as Justice Marshall assured us on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, "The progress has been dramatic, and it will continue."
Said Marshall:
The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the People" no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality," and who strived to better them.And so we must be careful, when focusing on the events which took place in Philadelphia two centuries ago, that we not overlook the momentous events which followed, and thereby lose our proper sense of perspective. Otherwise, the odds are that for many Americans the bicentennial celebration will be little more than a blind pilgrimage to the shrine of the original document now stored in a vault in the National Archives. If we seek, instead, a sensitive understanding of the Constitution's inherent defects, and its promising evolution through 200 years of history, the celebration of the "Miracle at Philadelphia" will, in my view, be a far more meaningful and humbling experience. We will see that the true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.
Thus, in this bicentennial year, we may not all participate in the festivities with flagwaving fervor. Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.
Those who recognize the wisdom of Justice Thurgood Marshall, as expressed 22 years ago, will understand that the celebration of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation is about more than one woman, one Latina or one justice on the high court. It is a celebration of the national evolution that Marshall knew to be the greatest accomplishment of this American experiment.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
John Nichols started a sentence with: "There can be no honest debate that..."
is this truly the rhetoric of diversity and open-mindedness?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 2:49pm
68-31?
Who's the missing Senator?
Posted by Mask at 08/06/2009 @ 2:51pm
oh, and John--this article is just a Russ Feingold ass-kissing exercise? Mask would agree with me, "there can be no honest debate" that he wouldn't (just kidding Mask, you can disagree, but you probably do agree. Indeed, I'm willing to bet you would!)
but seriously John--the lobbying for a position in a potential future Russ Feingold white house is already tiring, and he's at best, what, 7 or 8 years from that being a possibility?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 2:53pm
you might be interested, John, that as far as the supreme court goes, a white man, william brennan, appointed by a republican president, dwight eisenhower, has done as much if not more to promote diversity and protect racial minorities than any other justice this past century, if not in the history of the court.
but that doesn't play, does it? a wise old white man being good for the country.
and if racial diversity is so important--then clarence thomas should be beyond criticism by The Nation right? certainly he would be if he was liberal instead of conservative.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 3:01pm
isn't this a bit childish and tedious- the first this and the first that on the Supremes. how about something more challenging- who was the first moron to be appointed, and who was the latest idiot to sit on that sublime bench. remember that after the court's ridiculously partisan 5-4 decision, Florida, 2000 Bush v Gore, it is difficult to take these Supremes seriously. isn't it all just politics and partisan plays? call me Skeptic.
Posted by inedal at 08/06/2009 @ 3:12pm
Wow, what if Sotomayor turns out to not be radically liberal enough for John Nichols and company?
Psst... It'll be subtle, but our tip off to that will start with her suddenly appearing even fatter and with exaggerated hispanic facial features in mainstream (aka, liberal) editorial cartoons. And eventually, if she's not radically liberal enough she will be portrayed in Doonesbury as just a stupid floating sombrero.
Seeing these insulting characterizations, we will then be assured she's actually in the mainstream.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:18pm
isn't it all just politics and partisan plays?
Posted by inedal at 08/06/2009 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--absolutely it is.
which would would liberals be happier with: a court with 9 william brennans or a court with 9 clarence thomases?
but The Nation would quibble with the all-brennan court. The writers here would say: can we make it an all thurgood marshall court instead?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 3:27pm
mask: the only senator absent was ted kennedy.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 3:29pm
My guess would be Kennedy. The guy is pretty sick.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:30pm
and if racial diversity is so important--then clarence thomas should be beyond criticism by The Nation right? certainly he would be if he was liberal instead of conservative.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 3:01pm
Thomas is on the Court solely because he is a black man who replaced a black man (typical Republican thinking). Sarcasm alert: Thomas' previous scholarly record as a long-standing jurist certainly isn't what got him on the Court, nor were his private morals involved in the deed. The Republicans needed to replace "the black liberal one" with a "black conservative one" and there weren't many of those back in the late 80's-early 90's that would hold the Republican line quite as well as Thomas has done. Thomas is nuthin if not loyal to those who brung him.
Why did the Republicans "need" to replace a highly qualified black jurist with another (VERY inexperienced and unqualified) black jurist? Because if they hadn't, the Supreme Court would have then become all-white again and the nation would have been in an uproar; and the Republicans wanted to show how much a friend they were to black people. Yeah, not since Lincoln.
Oh, and wasn't it Bush 41 who originally elevated Judge Sotomayor to the Federal bench? Oh, I forgot, he's not a REAL conservative by today's standards of right wing nut-job extremism.
So let me congratulate a wise Latina woman for fulfilling the American dream and reaching the highest level of her profession. I celebrate with her and hope that she brings balance to an unbalanced Court, wisdom to a court that chooses to side with business over the People, and hope for all the young Latinas and Latinos who yearn to do everything they can to make our country better for EVERYONE.
Congrats!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
"Thomas is on the Court solely because he is a black man who replaced a black man (typical Republican thinking)."
--didn't a republican put the first woman on the court? and why would republicans be disappointed with thomas? he's very conservative.
"Sarcasm alert: Thomas' previous scholarly record as a long-standing jurist certainly isn't what got him on the Court"
--why does one have to have been a judge to be a supreme court justice? warren burger was never a judge.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 3:42pm
The practice of nominating appeals court justices did not become common practice until around 1965.
William H. Rehnquist was never a judge, Hugo Black and Robert Jackson also.
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 3:54pm
Qualifications being equal or better of course, this is the slot for an Hispanic female. Just as with Thomas and Ginsburg, it's the only way to have the court reflect the makeup of the population it administers jurisprudence to --- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 08/06/2009 @ 4:10pm
Make no mistake about it, this was a vote by the heart and soul of the Republican Party, with a paltry handful of exceptions, against Hispanic-Americans as a group. Of course on the other hand, it was a vote in support of the prejudicial White core of the Republican base.
So I trust that Democrats will use film clips of Republican Senators speaking against Sotomayor in all future election campaigns from now until the cows come home, in locales where Hispanic-Americans are more than a few percentage points of the electorate.
Dems, it's priceless!
Posted by magicmystic at 08/06/2009 @ 4:13pm
so magicmystic, you think hispanic voters will vote overwhelmingly for democrats in the midyear elections?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 4:20pm
*midterm, my apologies.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
What amazing hubris Stephen. Tell me, assuming you're not black, did you paint on black face to type,"Thomas is nuthin if not loyal to those who brung him."?
Let me ask you this, after your racist tirade against Thomas, why don't you comment on critics of Obama's qualifications to be named editor of the Harvard Law Review? Hint: They say he got the job because he's half black and no other reason.
How are you any different than those idiots is what I wonder.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 4:22pm
"So let me congratulate a wise Latina woman for fulfilling the American dream and reaching the highest level of her profession"...
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
She is a Latina woman..but as to whether or not she is wise...that remains to be seennn so far from her past statements and over turned rulings, wise seems a stretch..
If Thomas is on court because he is black, then is The Wise Latina Woman there because she is wise? or Latina? or woman?...
....she is there because of Affirmative Action, as is the President. It aint for her jurisprudence apparently.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 5:05pm
Regardless, it was the Presidents choice and he should have his choice...
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 5:05pm
....she is there because of Affirmative Action, as is the President. It aint for her jurisprudence apparently.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 5:05pm
Talk about a racist statement. I read this statment to imply that anytime a nonwhite person achieves any postition of importance or power it is not due to their abilities but due to affirmative action. Is that what your implying? If so your claiming that only white people can reach powerful or important positions by ability alone?. Or does it only count if those people are liberals?
Posted by Extraneous at 08/06/2009 @ 5:24pm
Posted by Extraneous at 08/06/2009 @ 5:24pm
not racist..realist. The celebration here is because she is a "wise Latina Woman"...not because of her jurisprudence, in fact it is barely mentioned.
I am mearly pointing it out...
I always believed that a SC Judge should be choosen for theoir legal accumen and their expertise in judging the constitutionality of a law or practice based on the constitution...
not whether the court matches the complextion of the population..that is racist and Affirmative Actions goals...
and what is the celebration here about...her race....
I am not a racist..I am a realist.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 5:36pm
"I always believed that a SC Judge should be choosen for theoir legal accumen and their expertise in judging the constitutionality of a law or practice based on the constitution...
not whether the court matches the complextion of the population..that is racist and Affirmative Actions goals... "
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 5:36pm
YJ,
Do you think Thomas should have been nominated?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 5:41pm
Talk about a racist statement. I read this statment to imply that anytime a nonwhite person achieves any postition of importance or power it is not due to their abilities but due to affirmative action. Is that what your implying? If so your claiming that only white people can reach powerful or important positions by ability alone?. Or does it only count if those people are liberals?
Posted by Extraneous at 08/06/2009 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Help prove that to YourJomama by naming the ONLY president of the harvard law review in its history NEVER to achieve his station by actually publishing a paper????
Maybe you will convince both he and I you are right?!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 5:47pm
"Help prove that to YourJomama by naming the ONLY president of the harvard law review in its history NEVER to achieve his station by actually publishing a paper????"
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 5:47pm
Page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, Obama's unsigned article on Stallman vs. Youngquist.
TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES.
"The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he'd written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review."
http://tinyurl.com/6cadod
Keep those talking points coming, BigP.
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 5:57pm
John Nichols, if you really value the leadership of women, then quote feminist women. Sonia Sotomayor would have NEVER been able to developer her talents without the help of the feminist movement.
And yet, in true male chauvinistic fashion, you NEVER gave credit to the feminist movement and you never quoted any women. Instead, you quoted Russ Feingold, Thurgood Marshall, Woodrow Wilson, et al. You NEVER quoted any feminist women who congratulated Sotomayor. Shame on you, John Nichols. You are VERY patriarchal.
Posted by ktrig at 08/06/2009 @ 5:59pm
Her conservative approach to law will never compensate for the neocon activist judges appointed by BushDick Cheney.
Replaying Bush v Gore, at least she wouldn't be as activist as the ol' gal from Texas. Those Day's O'Conner are behind us for the meantime.
Posted by winyahn at 08/06/2009 @ 6:05pm
The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review." Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, what don't you find convenient about that since it was NOT a consideration in his appointment?
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:06pm
ktrig--John Nichols is just praying at the altar of Russ Feingold, his G-d!
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 6:08pm
How are you any different than those idiots is what I wonder. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/06/2009 @ 4:22pm
I was wondering how long it would take to be called a racist?
I support Affirmative Action, and I'm a ...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it... a white guy from the South. I grew up in the Big Brass Buckle of the Bible Belt...Texas! And no, I didn't put on blackface, that's just how us ignant sutherners rite.
It's not Thomas' skin that bothered me, it was his lack of experience.
I'm not saying Thomas wasn't qualified to sit on the bench (actually I am), but that he was CHOSEN by 41 simply because he was black. YOUR side usually has a problem with that, not mine. I actually see nothing wrong with it if it's stated up front that Affirmative Action DID play a role in Thomas' elevation to the Court. Thomas could have been the poster boy for Republican support of Affirmative Action, but instead, they tried to portray him as some sort of conservative intellectual equivalent to Thurgood Marshall! Marshall was a GIANT! No Republican will ever admit that Thomas' entire career is due to Affirmative Action (until he got to the Court to strike it down whenever he can...thus proving his loyalty to them that brung him).
To state in one breath that Thomas was qualified for the court, then turn around and state that Sotomayor, who runs RINGS around Thomas' and Alito's and Roberts' credentials as far as experience in jurisprudence goes, is not qualified...well that's just B.S. ...and being from Texas, I know BS when I see it. (Go Longhorns!)
As for Barack's qualifications...dude...he was in Harvard Law...that makes him smarter than you and me any day of the week. If AA helped him in a prejudiced America, so be it. No problem with that here.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:11pm
"So, what don't you find convenient about that since it was NOT a consideration in his appointment?"
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:06pm
Your source for this statement? And will you admit you were incorrect in asserting he never wrote an article?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:11pm
Fraim,
Why shouldn't Thomas be nominated. Or anyone else be nominated? You,too,can be nominated, but I would hope you would be voted upon for your jurisprudence and not because you of any gender or race.
The far left has a history of celebrating the diversity and not the quality or qualifacations of an applicant. Quotas old sport,quotas linked to fairness. And when competence is questioned or disagreements come up, the leftys hurl "racist!!!" in a scatter gun pattern.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:16pm
Your source for this statement? And will you admit you were incorrect in asserting he never wrote an article?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
How about YOU and the Obama campaign and harvard since the paper was ANONYMOUS!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:21pm
Flaim, not Fraim...sorry.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:22pm
YJ,
"Why shouldn't Thomas be nominated."
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:16pm
You earlier stated:
"not whether the court matches the complextion of the population"
Do you think Thomas was nominated because of his superior legal acumen or because of his race and ideology?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:24pm
I hope she can address issues of poverty. Perhaps this year will be a year for change even globally. The Borgen Project has some good information on the cost of addressing global poverty (borgenproject dot org). It only takes $30 billion annually to end world hunger! Yet... we are spending $550 billion annually on the defense budget.
Posted by hawaiianchica423 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:25pm
Replaying Bush v Gore, at least she wouldn't be as activist as the ol' gal from Texas. Those Day's O'Conner are behind us for the meantime.
Posted by winyahn at 08/06/2009 @ 6:05pm
BTW, Sandra Day O'Connor was from Arizona. It's where she has a ranch and lives now...she's a friend of John McCain's. I applaud Reagan for elevating her to the court (even though at the time I thought everything he did was evil and he was the Great Satan).
She was a fine Justice, even though I did not agree with her on everything. I ended up liking the fact that she controlled the swing vote on most matters.
Lots of respect for her....at least she wasn't as much of an ideologue as Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts...
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:31pm
As for Barack's qualifications...dude...he was in Harvard Law...that makes him smarter than you and me any day of the week.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--that's a sad commentary on the mindset of the average American. the real diversity, if diversity is truly to be valued, is we need to have presidents and judges who aren't all Ivy-Leaguers.
someone mentioned Robert Jackson earlier. guy went to Albany Law School. Back then law school was 1 year. he was one of the most eloquent, well-reasoned judges in the court's history. read his opinions sometime. gorgeous prose, beautiful logic. he also served as a judge on the nuermberg trials after WWII.
you think anyone who graduates from albany law school in the year 2009 has a chance of clerking for a supreme court judge?
hell no.
all the clerks are from harvard, yale, columbia, stanford, etc. the real lack of diversity is that people with power, be they men or women, black or white, yankees or southerners, etc, etc etc---they all go to the same schools.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 6:31pm
"How about YOU and the Obama campaign and harvard since the paper was ANONYMOUS!"
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:21pm
I provided a link to article discussing the paper. And Harvard Law Review presidents are elected, not appointed.
"You don't become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits."
Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of '91; associate White House counsel, 2001-'03
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:32pm
You,too,can be nominated, but I would hope you would be voted upon for your jurisprudence and not because you of any gender or race.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--"You" cannot be nominated unless you went to harvard, or yale, or columbia, or stanford, etc.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 6:35pm
Do you think Thomas was nominated because of his superior legal acumen or because of his race and ideology?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:24pm
I believe the President should get his nmination seriously vetted...
and yes, I believe he was picked for his being black, for if the nominaee would have been a white male teh "Racist" screams would have drowned out all else...
I also believe he was picked because he is a conservative and speaks out for conservative causes...and in that light was seen as a person who would not legislate from the bench, which is a conservative tenet..
and Thomas was celebrated and decried as a conservative... it was a a victory for conservativism as a SC judge..not as a black...
I believe our new judge is celebrated as a"wise Latina Woman"...because her hearings never celebrated her jurisprudence at all...
Look, she may follow the pattern of recent judges and piss off those who nominated her..and she maybe a good judge..time will tell..the focus is on her race and not her positions or jurisprudence..Thomas focus was on his conservatism, not his race so much... except by the same people who celebrate her race today...the LEFT....as they "oreoed him and uncle tommed him. " And still do.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:37pm
Thomas is nuthin if not loyal to those who brung him.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Based on your strictly overt racism concerning the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I can't wait to hear" your defense" of Anita Hill former Okla. OU law professor dredged up out of Thomas past D.C. job by the Demoncrats to smear him without any supporting factual or physical evidence just her tainted testamony! This should be great!
Since at the time Demoncrats and the ACLU were so busy calling my three term representative a "house nigger", and a Uncle Tom I would really like hearing your opinion!
I doubt you've read his book either.
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:37pm
It only takes $30 billion annually to end world hunger! Yet... we are spending $550 billion annually on the defense budget.
Posted by hawaiianchica423 at 08/06/2009
Get real...we have spend countless trillions on poverty and we have....
poverty...
And your types always have the same line of crapp..if we just shut down the defense budget we will end poverty...people end poverty not governments..that much should be obvious to a blind man.
We have govt safety nets which all agree are a good thing...trouble is most people in the nets have converted it into a hammock.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:41pm
"I hope she can address issues of poverty"
Posted by hawaiianchica423 at 08/06/2009
thats not her job...
and this is EXACTLY why your types should not be near the judicial branch or the process...
..you want the courts to do the legislatures job.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:43pm
"and yes, I believe he was picked for his being black, for if the nominaee would have been a white male teh "Racist" screams would have drowned out all else"
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:37pm
YJ,
Thank you for your honest response.
"I believe our new judge is celebrated as a"wise Latina Woman"...because her hearings never celebrated her jurisprudence at all"
I watched the proceedings. Perhaps you only heard the Republican questions?
It's true many are celebrating her confirmation as an historic event. I have no issue with that given her jurisprudence experience.
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:46pm
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 6:46pm
I believe she is a liberal judge and will act accordingly.
Historical event? I thought there was Abe Fortas...a hispanic first? As long as we are celebrating where one comes from...
Am I wrong?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:55pm
"Historical event? I thought there was Abe Fortas...a hispanic first? As long as we are celebrating where one comes from...
Am I wrong?"
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 6:55pm
Fortas' father was an orthodox Jew from England. His parents were born in Russia and Lithuania.
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 7:20pm
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 7:20pm
Wasn't there another justice that was hispanic, before anyone thought of him as hispanic?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 7:22pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 7:22pm
Some point to Cardozo, since his grandparents came from Portugal. But they were Sephardi Jews and Cardozo stated that they never adhered to either the language or cultural traditions of that country.
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 7:32pm
Do you think Thomas should have been nominated?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 5:41pm
Nominating Thomas was one of the few conservative actions taken by Bush 41 who was just another Rockefeller liberal Republican. I'm certainly glad that I never voted for him.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/06/2009 @ 7:35pm
Hats off to the future 111th Justice and for what passed as a fairly smooth confirmation process. Hope the trend continues.
"The court will be joined by more women, more people of color, by Muslims and Buddhists and out gays and lesbians."
"The progress has been dramatic, and it will continue." - very apropos.
Posted by hdthoreau at 08/06/2009 @ 7:51pm
Posted by hdthoreau at 08/06/2009 @ 7:51pm
Then as an example of a smooth process....
we can expect no more lynchings like Thomas was or moral lectures from the likes of Teddy Kennedy and we can be spared another addition to our lexicon, as in BORKED ?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/06/2009 @ 8:03pm
clarence Thomas is and was a sex offender. He made unwanted sexual advances to women who said; NO!! Bill Clinton did NOT rape, attack of touch women in his life. It was consensual. So whether ole' Uncle Tomas was a liberal or not, is bullshit. Democrats would have rejected a liberal rapist, but some posters in here do not have the intellectual capacity to see the reality of it. Once again, the republican party is finished! They destroyed themselves!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/06/2009 @ 8:04pm
Hey, lets all be grateful that it hasn't Bush who had the opportunity to make the appointment. That was the point. Remember the timing of Souter's retirement? And just think it was Bush's daddy who appointed him...lol...
Si se puede! Viva Zapata! Whatever. A big collective sigh of relief is in order.
Posted by OneVote at 08/06/2009 @ 8:10pm
i wonder if lloyd blankfein is hosting her confirmation party.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2009 @ 8:13pm
After the Obama black version of Reagan as Ron Headrest, here comes Sotomayor as la Pasionaria in the PC (politically correct) format. Evolution or involution?
Posted by WWW at 08/06/2009 @ 8:16pm
So, it's official! We have the first Wise Latina on the court.....no one will take offense if here on out, I just call her Wise Latina to honor her self-professed and superior wisdom?
We'll see how the Wise Latina rule on 5-4 decisions!
Posted by Happy at 08/06/2009 @ 8:17pm
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin's account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
"The president encouraged this approach," Mr. Messina wrote. "He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform."
••
health INSURANCE reform?
wasn't that supposed to be healthcare reform?
sorry, america. next time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2009 @ 8:43pm
I celebrate the election of Ms. Sotomayor to the court although I must say she is not nearly as liberal as I would like her to be. Definitely, she is to the right of Souter and so probably we will wind up with a Court moving a little bit to the right. I gently invite Mr. Scalia to the dream world of retirement while in this Presidency that will guarantee him a good health insurance plan. (Unless that he selects the socialized plan of Medicare).
A lot has been said about merits, race, gender or affirmative action. Of course that a Rep Prez will tend to nominate conservative candidates, while a Dem will liberal candidates. It is so predictable that one can laugh about it if it not were the Supreme Court that is in question. To guarantee eliminating excessive political influence I would support the existence of a Counsel with representation of say the first 30 Law Schools that would submit to the President say seven or so candidates for the Prez to select among. Those candidates could be from the two sides of the aisle but surely they wouldn't be people as for example Clarence Thomas who has not ever - that I am aware - written any original and persuasive opinion on SC hearings. An even better example would be President Bush's former legal counsel ( I even forgot her name) that could have winded up in the SC.
However, a liberal majority is needed. Let's remember that only liberal leaning courts have been the ones that have passed landmark decisions regarding civil rights and the protection of individuals against powerful companies.
Posted by Frank42 at 08/06/2009 @ 9:33pm
Hmmm. John McCain has never voted against a SC nominee before voting against Justice Sotomayor. John McCain is facing a primary challenge from Chris Simcox, the co-founder of the Minutemen group.
Think the two are related?
Posted by FLaim at 08/06/2009 @ 10:05pm
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 6:31pm
I totally forgot! Sarah Palin went to beauty school, which makes her incredibly well-qualified to run the most powerful nation in the world!
Look...I prefer to have a smart person with his (or her) finger on the nuclear trigger. I prefer to have smart people on the Supreme Court. That's NOT to say that I am elitist. I eat barbecue and mashed taters, love Dairy Queen and some down home cookin.' Chicken Fried Steak is just about the most perfect food in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm
But PLEASE, when it comes to government, I would prefer to have smarter people than I am running the show, so I can go out to do the things I like to do and not have to worry about whether a C- President who got everything handed to him on a platter (including his Presidency) will find new and exciting ways to piss off some foreign terrorists so they attack us again.
I don't need 'ol Bessie from Alaska who runs the 7/11 to be my congressperson, just to show everyone that I'm good folks. I AM good folks, but I have a brain, too. God gave it to me, so I figgered I'd best use it.
I am tired of the "Play to the stupidest people in the nation" kind of politics which is why I support STRONG public schools. We need to be MORE educated, not less. Sarah Palin should NEVER have been seriously considered by ANYONE to have been a potential President of the United States, and I hope the people of Alaska are ashamed for electing a quitter as Governor. I'm not talking about her politics, I'm talking about her brain power (or lack thereof). Judg...um...JUSTICE Sotomayor brings a thoughtfulness, matched with education, matched with experience to the bench. God Bless her and God Bless the USA.
The rest of ya'll...grow up!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:02pm
Posted by BigPasture at 08/06/2009 @ 6:37pm
Sorry BP, I don't respond to you. Until you can come up with something other than "Obamanation that makes desolation" (that was even difficult to type) and "Demoncrats," well, I just have nothing to say to you.
And I respect true conservatives, of which you are neither.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:07pm
"The court will be joined by more women, more people of color, by Muslims and Buddhists and out gays and lesbians."
Posted by hdthoreau at 08/06/2009 @ 7:51pm
Your post made me laugh... A black lesbian Muslim would just about make their heads explode. heheh
I'd pay to watch that.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:13pm
Stephen Carver: "But PLEASE, when it comes to government, I would prefer to have smarter people than I am running the show, so I can go out to do the things I like to do and not have to worry about whether a C- President who got everything handed to him on a platter"
--you know where he got those Cs? Yale AND Harvard! thank you for proving my point.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 11:37pm
Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2009 @ 11:37pm
I actually agree with that specific point of yours. That's how non-elitist I am. Except that nowadays, without his daddy, W. couldn't have even gotten INTO Yale or Harvard (and Yale and Harvard should both be ashamed for letting him in all those years ago).
Would you agree with me that a college education from a reputable school, graduating with high grades (don't have to be stellar) is a good thing for a President to have, regardless of whether he inhaled or not?
Hell, if someone from my generation (Obama) or afterwards gets elected and DIDN'T inhale at least once, I wouldn't vote for him or her strictly for that reason alone! Who wants THAT kind of loser for President?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:57pm
"The court will be joined by more women, more people of color, by Muslims and Buddhists and out gays and lesbians." Posted by hdthoreau at 08/06/2009 @ 7:51pm Your post made me laugh... A black lesbian Muslim would just about make their heads explode. heheh I'd pay to watch that. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I belive that would be a non sequitor....my guess is she would be Allah Akbahred by one of the enlightened AQ types.....
For as some idiot above stated that we were attacked because Bush incited the Muslims... Can you imagine the attacks we would get for putting a woman who is lesbian in a position to judge? A triple infidel squared for sure
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 12:35am
The great experiment, make no mistakes,
was meant to give us all a mighty dream:
pie in the sky, bacon on huge pancakes,
and top it all with signor Ponzi's scheme.
Posted by chinpoko at 08/07/2009 @ 01:22am
clarence Thomas is and was a sex offender. He made unwanted sexual advances to women who said; NO!! Bill Clinton did NOT rape, attack of touch women in his life. It was consensual. So whether ole' Uncle Tomas was a liberal or not, is bullshit. Democrats would have rejected a liberal rapist, but some posters in here do not have the intellectual capacity to see the reality of it. Once again, the republican party is finished! They destroyed themselves!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/06/2009 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh great, another "RACIAL ELITIST" just like Stephan Carver1! I offer you the same opportunity to contridict your obvious leanings!
Based on your strictly overt racism concerning the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I can't wait to hear" your defense" of Anita Hill former Okla. OU law professor dredged up out of Thomas past D.C. job by the Demoncrats to smear him without any supporting factual or physical evidence just her tainted testamony! This should be great!
Since at the time Demoncrats and the ACLU were so busy calling my three term representative a "house nigger", and a Uncle Tom I would really like hearing your opinion!
I doubt you've read his book either.
Posted by BigPasture at 08/07/2009 @ 02:45am
"Evolving into what? is ofte the question
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/07/2009 @ 06:33am
at least she wasn't as much of an ideologue as Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts...
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 6:31pm
Alito, Scalia, Roberts... have jobs because of her.
Posted by winyahn at 08/07/2009 @ 07:58am
Interesting the Right-wing take on college education....
given their three biggest influences....Beck....Limbaugh...and Hannity...
are all college drop-outs!
Whatever happened to all the William F. Buckleys on the Right??? The best they've got is Arthur Laffer, who HONEST-TO-GOD said-
"[J]ust wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid ... done by the government"
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 08:14am
Would you agree with me that a college education from a reputable school, graduating with high grades (don't have to be stellar) is a good thing for a President to have, regardless of whether he inhaled or not?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/06/2009 @ 11:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you still vote for clinton if he was the same man intellectually but didn't have the experience of going to yale and instead went to the Univrsity of Arkansas?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 08:22am
I know I'm a little off topic here but I'd like to return to healthcare for a minute. It seems that reform is in real jeopardy.
Healthcare reform advocates have spent the last 16 years bitching about how in 1993, they were defeated by "dirty tricks". There's more than a kernal of truth to that statement. Nonetheless I find it supremely ironic that they are staring down the barrel of another defeat, this time it is 100% attributable to dirty tricks, but it's their own dirty tricks backfiring on them.
If reform goes down in flames, Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. Oh sure, they'll bitch about Rush and Sean, but these two "no talent ass clowns" aren't making the difference.
Elections are about shared political goals. In 2008 the most pressing, and widely shared political goal was Healthcare reform. The 30 million Americans (and 15 million illegal aliens) who lack insurance is intolerably high and voters wanted it fixed!
Unfortunately, the the Democrats elected to enact reform didn't trust the voters. They didn't trust them to understand it. The didn't trust them to sustain the politcal will to continue funding it. They didn't trust them to be smart enough to see through the inevitable bullshit that would spew from Rush and Sean. So, Democrat in Congress (and the lawyers, like Mask, that they hire on staff) adopted a strategy; it was a strategy of crisis. Since they didn't trust voters to do the right for rational reasons, they adopted the "never waste a good crisis."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 08:24am
This is a crisis! We can't possilby take time to read this bill, IT'S A CRISIS. We can't possibly be expected to take time to explain to the public was is contained in the bill, THIS IS A CRISIS! We can't take time to honestly, and rationally discuss what our goals should be or what we can afford. THIS IS A CRISIS!
Americans are unwilling to accept a bill of goods sight unseen simply because Nancy Pelosi is running around like a chicken with her head cut off warning about "well dressed Americans carrying Nazi symbols."
If Democrats fail to enact meaningful reform in 2009, it is because they deserve to fail.
I know many of you are getting sick of the feud between Mask and I, but I'm pretty proud of the half-a-dozen posts I left on the Savan thread this morning exposing Mask's implementation of this exact stratedy described above when I tried to slow things down and ask a question about Ms. Savan's assertions. If you enjoy watching charletans being exposed, you might like the posts I left this morning starting at 7:34 a.m.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/458119/race_lies_and_health_scares
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:34am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 08:24am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 08:24am
Darin, may I say, your analysis of current events and politics...
is as accurate as your analysis of my profession.
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 09:58am
"For as some idiot above stated that we were attacked because Bush incited the Muslims... Can you imagine the attacks we would get for putting a woman who is lesbian in a position to judge? A triple infidel squared for sure"
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 12:35am
Sometimes, from the mouths of babes...
...Notice that JOMAMMARIES even admits that rightwingers-conservatives-traditionalists, or whatever you want to call them, go apeshit violent and crazy over what someone else's identity is, like a Muslim lesbian...or, hell yeah, a wise Latina jurist...or African-American POTUS for that matter.
You see, whether the apeshit crazy fuck is named in Semite style as "Mohammaed Atta" or in tuetonic terms as "James von Brunn", it is a matter of...
Same shit...
Different flies.
This is because, wherever they may be -- Saudio Arabia, or Austria, or Burma --Rightwingers are fucking freaks, obsessed with other people, their names, their looks, what they have been able to earn, who they want to rim in their hearts...and on and on.
So, for once, JOMAMMA has made some sense because he has revealed the sick darkness that resides at the core of the disgusting ideology of conservatism that always has resentment and violence close to the surface due to its inferiority complex.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/07/2009 @ 10:34am
"...is as accurate as your analysis of my profession."
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 09:58am
OK, I'll guess...
MASK,
I surmise that you are a techno DJ, perhaps getting a little long of tooth for it, at least one night a week.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/07/2009 @ 10:37am
your profession, mask, being what? anonymously dodging straight-forward questions on blogs all day?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 10:39am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/07/2009 @ 10:37am
No...though I worked in college radio.
Actually, if I could find a way to make money off of bloggers who bird-dog me in an obsessive way....I could quite my job and make a fortune off atleast one poster here!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 10:43am
if you could get paid to avoid answering a straight-forward question Mask you'd be able to pay for this country's healthcare until the next iceage.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 10:46am
"Since at the time Demoncrats and the ACLU were so busy calling my three term representative a "house n****r", and a Uncle Tom I would really like hearing your opinion!"
---BigPasture at 08/07/2009 @ 02:45am
If we can coax BIG out of Warren Jeff's former compound for a moment, where he has been keeping vigil and writing some "Free Warren from the Fascist Feds!!" and "Josef Fritzl was framed!!" letters to the editor, we may ask him...
BIG,
Name one (ONE) occasion on which Demos or the ACLU referred to J.C. Watts using the same filthy racial slur with which you have gratitously polluted this webpage on perhaps a dozen occasions, wedged in between your regular bouts of Warren Jeffs/Child Molester worship.
Below, you will find a form to make a report.
REPORT OF RACIAL SLUR AGAINST WATTS BY BIG (WHO, BY THE WAY, CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF HIMSELF STOP CALLING WATTS A "N****R"):
Name of Speaker/Writer who slurred Watts:
Check at least one for speaker affiliation: ___ Demo ___ ACLU
Date on which racial slur was uttered:
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/07/2009 @ 10:46am
"No...though I worked in college radio."
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 10:43am
You would have had to, in order to have shoe-horned a reference to "System of Down" into one of your (non-recent) posts!
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/07/2009 @ 10:49am
Sickest post yet Phil. You are one twisted soul.
The post segement you parsed above that you cite is not a view of mine, rather a view of what your side considers ......it is only to point out the silly statement of one of your compadres that Bush incited the attacks on America, an assinine thought at best, so if he (and you) believe that nonsense , then what would do you think the crazys in AQ would do if you libs appointed a Muslim Lesbian to a highest court in America given their views on women as well as gays ?
No one mention race except... You.
You need employment to keep you level along with serious doses of horse tranquilizers... I suggest perhaps a position where you could put the little plastic tips on the ends of shoe laces.
Or work for the DNC and help them deal with all of those obvious plants in Town Hall meetings that voice opposition to your gift of giving them free health care, run and designed by those like you...
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 10:59am
Stephen_Carver1,
After all this time, you are plowing the "Daddy bought him [George W. Bush] his MBA" routine again.
Here is how that falls apart for you:
1. Back when "W" was in Harvard Business School, the Bush family was prominent, but no more so than a lot of other wealthy or powerful families. George H.W. Bush had not yet been Vice-President, let alone President. His father, Prescott Bush, had been a U.S. Senator.
2. If the Bush family had been entitled by Harvard to "buy" W an MBA, it certainly would seem that a lot of other equally prominent or at that time more prominent families would also have been able to buy their sons and daughters MBAs also. Why would Harvard extend that courtesy only to the Bushes?
3. Thus, Harvard Business School would essentially be a degree mill for the rich and powerful.
4. Harvard Business School is of course NOT a degree mill for the rich and powerful.
5. Thus, the Bush family did NOT buy "W" his MBA.
I do realize that people of power and means do have abilities to get into places like Harvard and Yale, that someone with the same academic skills but not the connections may not be able to achieve. But people who do not qualify altogether are not admitted to those institutions, no matter what their family connections or prominence, and once students are in those schools they have to keep up academically, no matter what their family lineage.
People of prominence are not allowed to stay in those schools if their grades would otherwise flunk them out....they flunk out.
It is amazing that you pass yourself off as someone who has intelligence and common sense, yet you continue to believe in and promote old worn out leftist canards.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2009 @ 11:08am
YourJomamma,
You said above: ".....Sickest post yet Phil. You are one twisted soul. ...."
Phil is twisted because it is apparent he is getting lousy treatment at the sanitorium.
His nurses sometimes neglect him and he does not get his meds.
Other times, it appears they make mistakes on the dosage and over-medicate him.
The nurses need to keep Phil away from the computer and get him involved in basic basket-weaving, at least until they get his medications straightened out.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 10:46am
urmy, do I need to start worrying about you boiling my kid's pet rabbit alive?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2009 @ 11:08am
Speaking of college educations, SJCHER...
why is it some of the most prominent right-wing talkers on the radio....Beck...Hannity...Limbaugh...
are all college drop-outs?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
--in other words, I'm going to lamely attempt to character assisinate because you're trying to get me to answer a straight-forward question. Karl Rove would be proud.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 11:58am
Reading JOHN NICHOLS gives one another indication that the LEFT has not a clue what "DIVERSITY" really means. The country has always been diverse, long before the left claimed to be the champions of the concept. Today, for them, its about how many black people or Latino's are in responsible positions in gov. or industry, how many court decisions favor minorities, or the percentages in hiring,as if somehow THOSE things makes the country progressive. And its about accusing people who reject anyone not white, for ANY reason, as being "opposed" to diversity. As in many cases, the left has taken a time honored tradition, made themselves champion of a distorted version of it and used it to promote their own agenda. They are full of shit. Diversity means NONE of those things. In a real world like the left pretends to believe in, the heritage of Sotomayor would actually mean absolutely nothing. Yet it means everything to the Nichol's of the world, which to me merely points up the hypocrisy and contradictions in his "philosophy" and others like him.
I honestly don't give a red rats ass that she's Latino. I don't even care if she makes what I consider misguided decisions. I care about her competency and ability to interpret the law and make sound decisions. So I guess I"M the real progressive here.
SCREW DIVERSITY: WE ALREADY HAVE IT. CELEBRATE COMPETENCE
Chip Thornton
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2009 @ 11:08am
Speaking of college educations, SJCHER...
why is it some of the most prominent right-wing talkers on the radio....Beck...Hannity...Limbaugh...
are all college drop-outs?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
--above posted by Mask more than once. watch out, he might start boiling your rabbits!
p.s.--what's with Mask's "obsession" with Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. I mean, he posts about them a lot, so clearly he's mentally unstable.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 11:58am
No....I am pointing out that you have an obsession with me, which you continue to seem to want to keep proving, even when on other threads, I answer your questions.
Unless there's some other posters here that you bird-dog, thus negating that image?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 12:04pm
well, i have received the urmish judgement as well.
it all seems as some odd sort of projection as the content of the posts usually violate the same "rule" about content that shouldn't be violated.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2009 @ 12:13pm
No....I am pointing out that you have an obsession with me, which you continue to seem to want to keep proving, even when on other threads, I answer your questions.
Unless there's some other posters here that you bird-dog, thus negating that image?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you mean the question that you finally kinda answered in a wishy-washy way (by saying since people can't pay for medical care with eggs anymore you guess you sorta support a single payer or universal health care model even though you're not sure it'll actually improve the current system)?
yeah--way to take a stance!
and if I'm "obsessed" by trying to get you to answer a straight-forward question (which you finally kinda,s orta did in a wishy-washy way) then you won't be posting the same thing on multiple threads anymore or ever asking someone more than once to answer a question or to take a wager which you think you're guaranteed to win in an attempt to make them look bad or catch them in a gotcha moment right?
but woe is you, right Mask? I mean, how dare someone apply the same argument/debate method you use on others to you?
but I must just be a crazy person who'll steal your kids pet, kill it, and eat it,r ight? so even if i use your same methods I'm crazy but you're not.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:31pm
--you still vote for clinton if he was the same man intellectually but didn't have the experience of going to yale and instead went to the Univrsity of Arkansas?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 08:22am
Actually, the fact that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes (sp?) Scholar helped in my decision to vote for him (and the fact he was up against Bush 41...shiver)...and he could have gotten that distinction regardless of whether he went to Yale or not.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:33pm
well, i have received the urmish judgement as well.
it all seems as some odd sort of projection as the content of the posts usually violate the same "rule" about content that shouldn't be violated.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2009 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--there you go Mask; see: you're not my only target (and when I debate with antisocialist about religion I never see you say I'm obsessed--could it be b/c you're also debating him from the same viewpoint?...no, couldn't be that).
--frosty: you mean using someone's method against them isn't a tried-and-true technique (on these blogs and in real life)?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:36pm
Unfortunately, the the Democrats elected to enact reform didn't trust the voters. They didn't trust them to understand it. The didn't trust them to sustain the politcal will to continue funding it. They didn't trust them to be smart enough to see through the inevitable bullshit that would spew from Rush and Sean. So, Democrat in Congress (and the lawyers, like Mask, that they hire on staff) adopted a strategy; it was a strategy of crisis. Since they didn't trust voters to do the right for rational reasons, they adopted the "never waste a good crisis."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 08:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
No...they got bought out by the insurance industry. All they care about is getting reelected until they make the right connections to go into private business worht millions. Congress has become a stepping stone to high finance, the insurance industry, boards of major corporations, etc. Money has corrupted all of it, just like it did in 1993.
BTW, who do you think was behind all those "dirty tricks" 15 years ago? The insurance industry.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:37pm
Alito, Scalia, Roberts... have jobs because of her.
Posted by winyahn at 08/07/2009 @ 07:58am
No, they have jobs because of the Bush Family.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 12:38pm
"--you mean the question that you finally kinda answered in a wishy-washy way"----Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 12:31pm
Oh, so NOW, I'm answering the question, just not answering the question the way you WANT me to answer it....
where as before you kept claiming-
"--in other words, I'm going to lamely attempt to character assisinate because you're trying to get me to answer a straight-forward question."-Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 11:58am
So, urmy, getting harder and harder for me to meet your ever-changing criteria, isn't it?
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2009 @ 12:13pm
See how it works, FROSTY.
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by Mask at 08/07/2009 @ 1:25pm
OMG, I just read Tiger2LOver's take on Thomas?Clinton and sex offense. Is this person for real?
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2009 @ 11:08am
First of all, I don't "pass myself off" as anything, except a citizen. I simply say what I think. So, here's what I think about your post:
1. Daddy was in oil and used his oil money and his contacts to get his eldest son into Yale (chip off the old block), where he had also gone to school, which was not unheard of among the wealthy and elite in those days. (I'm not even going to DISCUSS Prescott Bush, aka g-daddy, and what he did for the Nazis...). So to your point about Yale and Harvard being treadmills for the rich, I actually agree with you (see my recent posts with urmygyro). Students like Sotomayor, Obama and yes even Thomas, though Affirmative Action may have helped get them in, worked their asses off to stay in. Affirmative Action was designed to allow people who couldn't get in because of money, to get in the highest class educational facilities the nation has to offer: like Yale and Harvard! (but I digress)
So anyway, HW's son W. (or "Shrub" as he was loving labeled by a big fan), gradumacated Yale in 68. Daddy became a Congresscritter in 66 and worked his way up the Republican flagpole to become CIA Director in 75. Wow...only 9 years!
Anyway, Daddy (and Mommy "We were grooming JEB to be President, not George") thought it would be a good idea to get him into Harvard, make him a businessman, so maybe he could run the oil company. Shrub started Harvard in 73 and gradumacated in 76. During that same time frame time he was AWOL from the National Guard, too. (I keep digressing!)
So, between 68 and 73, he was into all sorts of trouble, so maybe, just maybe, Daddy (the up and coming Republican) thought Harvard would be a good chance for his boy to settle down (as we say in Texas).
(Continued)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:08pm
(cont.)
Was Shrub partying too much during those years? Doing too much cocaine? Hey, maybe that's why Daddy wanted him back in school...keep him out of Daddy's political hair!
I find it really funny that ya'll had such a big problem with Bill's inhalation but not Shrub's. (Damn it, stop digressing!)
So anyway, while I guess you are technically right (you've won the debate point!) and I cannot "prove" that Daddy, who was becoming more and more prominent within the Republican Party while his son was at Harvard (and I think you'll agree with me that the Republicans have numerous Harvard alumni), did not "buy" Shrub his actual MBA. However, I do know enough about collegiate politics to know that they simply couldn't let Shrub fail out of Harvard (daddy being head of the CIA by then), so what do colleges do with failing students when they simply cannot be allowed to fail? They give them C's. What was Shrub's final average at Harvard? C. And I can't "prove" any of it; just sounds like common sense to me.
This pattern continued throughout Shrub's life:
Tried to run a business: failed.
Tried to run for Congress: failed.
Tried to run an oil company: failed (with perhaps some illegalities involved, but now we'll never know).
Bought and tried to run a baseball team: failed.
Ran for Governor of Texas (the weakest Governor in the country ‘cause we Texans don't trust big government) while his Daddy was President: he won!
Ran for a second term as Governor: he won!
Quit his Governor job (Hey, Palin!) term to become President (he won by a Supreme Court vote of 5-4).
Tried to run a country: failed miserably.
His partying days couldn't have been too bad, though, he did manage to screw over 300 million people.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:16pm
OMG, I just read Tiger2LOver's take on Thomas?Clinton and sex offense. Is this person for real?
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/07/2009 @ 2:08pm |
Amazing isn't it?
And the fixation on Bush is more mind numbing now than when Bush was in office....
and has anything change since Bush left?
Any lower deficiets?
Any lower spending?
Any lower taxes?
Any lower unemployment rate?
Any departure from Iraq?
Any lefty protests or articles here on the Lefty Loon site about Code Pink protesting Iraq and the war?
Any lowering of war in Afaganistan?
Any protests?
Any economic improvements?
In fact more troops to Afgan needed(sound like Viet Nam?)...any higher spending into debt than Bush?
Is Obama any more popular than Bush? His policys more popular? Congress more popular?
Where is BUSHFOOLS and his assinine polls now??
And Clinton does to Obama what Carter did to him in N Korea...
Yup...lots change...and still no hope.
Any bets Hillary(where is she BTW?) is sharpening her weapons as Obama doesn't look so good...even after only 6months in the job?
And with guys like ..Tiger2LOver's..on their side...wow.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 2:34pm
Mask: "Oh, so NOW, I'm answering the question, just not answering the question the way you WANT me to answer it...."
--I don't care about the substance of the question, just that you actually answered it. And yes, you answered it in a wishy-washy way. You're for a free market unless costs get too expensive for part of the population. You're for single payer or universal health care, kinda, but only b/c they're what you think is a political inevitability, and, oh yeah--you're not even sure that you think they'll work better than the current system.
WAY TO TAKE A STAND!
"So, urmy, getting harder and harder for me to meet your ever-changing criteria, isn't it?"
--No, you finally answered the question. And I'm glad you finally answered it; because it revealed a person who's thoughts on health care are not clear.
but yes, claim I'll kill and cook your kid's pet becaues I repeatedly asked you a question (until you finally answered it). heheh.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 2:34pm
YJ,
Nice list. As soon as Bush and the Republicans stop blaming Bill Clinton and the Democrats for 9/11, I'll be first in line to start blaming Obama for the economic crap that was left on the White House doorstep after eight years of Republican misrule.
I mean, fair's fair, right? We wouldn't want to blame Bush for anything that happened while HE was President, would we?
Can I just say how much I enjoy typing the following:
Justice Sotomayor!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/07/2009 @ 4:56pm
Stephen
All who have been on this site for awhile know how I feel about Bush... Both of them.
And you ain't even close.
FYI, Bush started the problem and Obamas making it 10 times worse .... And will be remembered for doing so.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/07/2009 @ 5:59pm
So, it's official! We have the first Wise Latina on the court.....no one will take offense if here on out, I just call her Wise Latina to honor her self-professed and superior wisdom?
We'll see how the Wise Latina rule on 5-4 decisions!
Posted by Happy at 08/06/2009 @ 8:17pm
And yet, Happ, isn't it something that George H.W. Bush had no problem with this lady.
In fact, he respected her jurisprudence enough to elevate her to the federal bench.
Right Happ?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/07/2009 @ 8:34pm
In fact, he respected her jurisprudence enough to elevate her to the federal bench.
Right Happ?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/07/2009 @ 8:34pm
Just goes to show why Bush was the most Hispanic-friendly nat'l politician...following on the heel of his TX Governorship.
That Sotomayor turned into a Racist Wise Latina AFTER becoming a Fed judge, just goes to show the snake she is!
Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 09:54am
As a white male I was deeply offended by Sotomayors comments. There is nothing to celebrate . America continues to hold a double standard when it comes to reverse racism and many of us are getting sick of it.
Posted by Dencal26 at 08/08/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Dencal26 at 08/08/2009 @ 4:11pm
I'm sorry, but I am a white guy too and the charge of reverse racism is crap handed out by those people who neither understand that we've had hundreds of years of a white male dominated society, nor that the term "reverse racism" is an oxymoron (usually used by morons). White males cannot scream about reverse racism when our society is STILL run by predominantly white males. Affirmative Action was created to help level the playing field and hopefully, make it so that idiots like you will STOP looking at a person's race before you look at their qualifications. That's what's so ironic about your reverse racism....you scream that only white males should be considered for things that wise Latina women are more than capable of doing. You're just upset because your racism stops you from seeing that wise Latina woman (and others) ARE equal to white males.
Idiots.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/08/2009 @ 5:16pm
There are two Italian-Americans on the Court. Unfortunately, we are not particularly proud of either one of them.
:-)
Posted by toritto at 08/08/2009 @ 5:47pm
There are two Italian-Americans on the Court. Unfortunately, we are not particularly proud of either one of them.
:-)
Posted by toritto at 08/08/2009 @ 5:47pm
I understand....since they aren't likely God Fathers who've done you any favors. Speaking as a non-Italian American, we sure are proud of your ethnic group for their long-standing contributions to corruption.....
You don't happen to live in New Jersey or NYC, do ya? If you do, I apologize to you Wise Guys, profusely........LOL!
Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 11:19pm
Finally, we may look forward to news w/o the Perils of Sonia, as she tiptoes through the confirmation for SCOTUS, a deservedly disrespected branch of our government - as are all the others - by independently thinking observers. Who the fxxx cares! We are at war in three cuntries. Our children's taxes are being spent in the trillions. Our President is a liar, a smooth deceiver (except on the Gates-broo-ha-ha-ha). The banks are still unregulated. The Fed is denying us, savers, any interest on our life-savings to boost banking-margins. We could not have a worse government if Putin and his oligarchs were in charge.
Posted by goedel at 08/09/2009 @ 11:46am
Dear Happy:
"Speaking as a non-Italian American, we sure are proud of your ethnic group for their long-standing contributions to corruption.....
Justice Sottomayor remembers where she came from - unfortunately Scalia and Alito forgot.....
Your comment should be a reminder to them.
:-)
P.S. No I don't live in N. Y. or N. J.
Posted by toritto at 08/09/2009 @ 1:08pm
Stephen_Carver1,
Above, you enlightened us with this:
"............However, I do know enough about collegiate politics to know that they simply couldn't let Shrub fail out of Harvard (daddy being head of the CIA by then), so what do colleges do with failing students when they simply cannot be allowed to fail? They give them C's. What was Shrub's final average at Harvard? C.
And I can't "prove" any of it; just sounds like common sense to me. ........."
In your first paragraph you imply that George W. Bush was a failing student at Harvard, and given courtesy "C's".......
Where is the information that backs up your assertion that he was failing his classes? Do you have comments from his professors that indicate this is so?
I think your second paragraph (of the two I repeated here) is more on the mark....this enlightenment you provide is a reflection of your opinion, nothing more.
But as is often the case in liberal-land, opinion very quickly morphs into reality, in the minds of those on the left. You believe something is so, you perceive something is so, you will something should be so, and thus it becomes so.
And then that leads to leftists making statements that are simply a reflection of their opinion, but are made in a tone and a context that implies that the leftist is declaring absolute fact and truth.
With all this divine truth and enlightenment and intelligence you possess, how do you explain that George W. Bush's grades at Yale were better than John F. Kerry's?
We were led to believe (by the left) how much smarter and intelligent Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) was, even Kerry himself could not believe how he was losing the election to President Bush.
What say you about that? It should be interesting and entertaining.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2009 @ 5:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/09/2009 @ 5:41pm
scherm,
I got nuthing except that it was well known that W was a drunk and cokehead while at school... (he has essentially admitted it himself...when he was "born again" and quit abusing substances - for which I honestly say, good on him. Not an easy thing to do and I have respect for ANYONE who succeeds in it.) Do YOU know a lot of drunks and cokeheads who do well at Yale and Harvard all on their own?
He may actually have been a great C student at Yale and Harvard. If so, then Yale and Harvard REALLY need to be condemned, because the man couldn't speak English while he was President. He couldn't run a business (or a nation), either, so maybe Harvard should for their MBA back, too. Then again, perhaps he only failed English 101. Or maybe he just failed third grade.
As for Kerry, I never said he was smarter than Bush. I neither know nor care whether he was smarter than Bush or got better grades or not, because I didn't like Kerry and didn't vote for him (actually I did in the general, but not in the primary). However, Kerry did fight bravely in Vietnam (unlike Bush and Cheney) and what the Swift Boaters did on W's behalf was mean and unconscionable.
Oh, and sherm, quit trying to make me out to be something I have NEVER claimed to be: smart and a holder of divine truth. If you actually READ the post you cut and pasted, I said I couldn't prove any of it and that it just seemed like common sense to me.
Then again, the common people (and common sense) are what the Republicans seem to have forgotten about in their RUSH to help big business the past 30 years. Oh...and to cover up their affairs, being the family values party and all. Just when I think Republicans can't go lower, you pull out Sarah Palin.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/10/2009 @ 12:39am
Stephen_Carver1,
I did read the post I cut and pasted.
By your demeanor you pass yourself off as enlightened and intelligent.
The situation is as I implied it is. Essentially you believe what you believe and nobody can convince you otherwise, even though you have no actual facts to back your opinion up.
As far as the hero John F. Kerry, not all agree he fought bravely in Vietnam and not all agree that what the Swift Boaters did was "wrong".
I don't remember any major public refutation of the Swift Boaters' contentions...there was none.
Plenty of leftist websites have "refuted" what they said, but there was no in-depth report or segment on any of the major networks that took apart what they claimed.
If their claims could have been refuted, the mainstream media would have done so. The Swift Boaters were in a position to be aware of Kerry's activities in Vietnam, so it is possible that there is credibility in what they said.
As I remember, it seems that one of the leftist "refutations" against the Swift Boaters was that a wealthy Republican helped finance the publication of their book. Now, you see this all the time in liberal-land, the source of some information is proclaimed to be invalid (by a leftist) and thus by default the information is also proclaimed invalid.
But that only flies in liberal-land...nowhere else.
As I remember it, Kerry mentioned how when he was illegally in Cambodia during Christmastime 1968 (while President Nixon was lying and saying the military was not in Cambodia), that the experience was "seared" in him.
Many of those who had knowledge of where Kerry was stationed say he could not possibly have been in Cambodia...and Lyndon Johnson was still President.
So Kerry was lying. The Swiftees were not "mean".
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 10:33am
What is also kind of hilarious is that you have Democrats who have no idea who was President when.
The current Vice-President thinks Franklin D. Roosevelt was President in 1929 and went on television that did not exist yet.
The candidate for President in 2004 for the Democrats contended that Richard Nixon was President in 1968.
And yet the supporters of these people question George W. Bush's intelligence!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 10:39am
In fact, he respected her jurisprudence enough to elevate her to the federal bench.
Right Happ?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/07/2009 @ 8:34pm
Just goes to show why Bush was the most Hispanic-friendly nat'l politician...following on the heel of his TX Governorship.
That Sotomayor turned into a Racist Wise Latina AFTER becoming a Fed judge, just goes to show the snake she is!
Posted by Happy at 08/08/2009 @ 09:54am
LOL
Sort of analogous to what a number of people have in terms of attitude towards trial attorneys (and they usually tend to describe themselves as "conservative"):
generally, they hate lawyers. That is, at least until THEIR KID or THEY THEMSELVES are injured in an accident--then they want F. Lee Bailey or Johnny F**kin' Cochran!! And go for the jugular, by all means.
IOW, lawyers/judges are ok, until they rule in a way displeasing to me. Then, like a disappointed child, I start name-calling.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/10/2009 @ 8:04pm
And yet the supporters of these people question George W. Bush's intelligence!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
Once again. Please let me explain.
When you're a manly, studly, fist-waving "bring it on" draft-dodging poser like Bush/Cheney, you WILL tend to get called out. Bottom line. You WILL get treated somewhat more roughly then others.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/10/2009 @ 8:17pm
Ahem.
"than" others.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/10/2009 @ 8:20pm
As a hispanic I am offended. BFD.
Posted by apoorspic at 08/11/2009 @ 9:06pm