I’m not writing about Sotomayor
There seems to be no point, since her nomination is a done deal and the hearings a formality. Also, I’ve written about the issues connected with her nomination several times before (see this).
But I thought you might appreciate a thread on the subject anyway—so, talk amongst yourselves.
Thank you for initialing this topic, the thing that really makes my blood boil is twilight zone notion of ’empathy’ as a criteria for anyone sitting on the bench, it reminds me of the ’empathy’ that white southern Jim Crow judges had for white litigants, this was wrong then, it’s wrong now, it’s wrong always. Liberals that support this are status quo and traditional (dare i say …conservative?) in the VERY WORST sense of the word.
…my blood boil is “this” twilight zone notion…
…”initiating” this topic
ugh
Boy you are stupid. And incurious. My 10 year old can take you in a spelling bee and logic test. 😉
Substantively however,
The legacy drive-by press is using this as an opportunity to pile on Republicans as being mean to Latinos.
It is never about substance or ideas. It’s always about race, sex (as Nyom has a problem with), and poor vs. rich.
Nuts
Well, You couldn’t be objective. You must be sexist. That’s the only thing I can chalk it up to. You NEVER addressed the point that she had more experience than the less than 1 term senator. You never addressed the point that 80% of her staff and her time is being used by idiots like you. You never dealt with substance.
I only saw you slinging arrows of disdain. You are sexist. Deal with substance and i’d have a different opinion.
As far as Sotomayor goes. She isn’t a drastic change from Souter who she is replacing as far as I read.
Yes she is an activist sometimes. Some of that will go by the wayside now that she is on the bench.
She may have had more numerical experience (number of days) but it wasn’t quality experience in my opinion of her, she’s incurious about foreign policy and science, and incapable of of finishing her term in the governorship, though I do pity unreasoned criticism of her which my simple criticism has not been a party to, furthermore she wasn’t running for president — I’m not voting for a vice-president, and why do you equate the simple criticism of incuriosity with the criminal felony of wife beating, fantasized or not, that’s pretty disrespectful to the female host of this blog — if not everyone, as if the two things were on the same playing field? If it’s not being facetious then it’s scary.
Baklava, you believe that some of Sotomayor’s activism will go by the wayside once she is on the bench. Like when she was on the Court of Appeals?
But, the issue is more important than Sotomayor. If the Senate (representing the country? Ha!) shrugs again at the idea that the Courts could, or should, be guided by the empathy, ideology or prejudice of the Justices, then we are that much further down a very slippery slope.
I liked the United States as a Constitutional Republic; this is not change I hope for.
Sotomayor is a drastic change — and one that should be avoided if congress can manage it.
Nyom wrote, “She may have had more numerical experience (number of days) but it wasn’t quality experience in my opinion of her”
Because you are sexist. She had executive experience which Obama didn’t have. His experience consisted of bloviating for the last 20 years. Bloviating is not experience. His senate term was not fulfilled and he has no mark on any legislation except as co-sponsor which was a weak showing. You couldn’t have plucked somebody with less experience IF YOU TRIED.
Nyom the sexist wrote, “she’s incurious about foreign policy and science,”
Speaking of incurious… geez…. you can’t be serious with these wife beating allegations of yours… go easy on her! She defined the Bush Doctrine better than Charlie Gibson did and still was excoriated by the incurious like you.
Nyom after beating his wife for so long wrote, “nd incapable of of finishing her term in the governorship,”
This is like you beating your wife for 3 years and her medical bills run up to $500,000 (that is injurious to her family) and you call her a quitter because she gives Alaska back to her people and removes herself from the situation (runs to WEAVE). You are a sad sack.
Nyom wrote, “hough I do pity unreasoned criticism”
You pity yourself then.
Nyom wrote, “of her which my simple criticism has not been a party tond why do you equate the simple criticism of incuriosity with the criminal felony of wife beating”
See how incurious you are. I’ve explained this a few times and you fail reading comprehension.
One more time… When somebody alleges inaccurate accusations – I feel free to do so against the one who alleges such accusations. Thus the relevance as the history of “when did you stop beating your wife” is the accusation in the question that for decades has been known to be – an inaccurate accusation. It’s all about leveling stupid and inaccurate accusations. Why would anybody have to defend themselves from LAZY people like you? Of course, I don’t think you should have to defend yourself from the wife beater accusation. I’m simply showing you your OWN SELF by making the accusation. Get it now?
Nyom wrote, “that’s pretty disrespectful to the female host of this blog”
What is disrespectful sir is:
1) Making false allegations about someone who you don’t know (Sarah)
2) Being sexist (you)
You have a double standard. You can’t see straight. You have given no credibility to a woman smarter than yourself and with more experience than the candidate who became president. Idiot.
Nyom wrote, “She may have had more numerical experience (number of days) but it wasn’t quality experience in my opinion of her”
Because you are sexist. She had executive experience which Obama didn’t have. His experience consisted of bloviating for the last 20 years. Bloviating is not experience. His senate term was not fulfilled and he has no mark on any legislation except as co-sponsor which was a weak showing. You couldn’t have plucked somebody with less experience IF YOU TRIED.
Nyom the sexist wrote, “she’s incurious about foreign policy and science,”
Speaking of incurious… geez…. you can’t be serious with these wife beating allegations of yours… go easy on her! She defined the Bush Doctrine better than Charlie Gibson did and still was excoriated by the incurious like you.
Nyom after beating his wife for so long wrote, “nd incapable of of finishing her term in the governorship,”
This is like you beating your wife for 3 years and her medical bills run up to $500,000 (that is injurious to her family) and you call her a quitter because she gives Alaska back to her people and removes herself from the situation (runs to WEAVE). You are a sad sack.
Nyom wrote, “hough I do pity unreasoned criticism”
You pity yourself then.
Nyom wrote, “of her which my simple criticism has not been a party to”
yes it has. Labeling somebody incurious and a quitter when they are neither is.
Nyom asked, “nd why do you equate the simple criticism of incuriosity with the criminal felony of wife beating”
See how incurious you are. I’ve explained this a few times and you fail reading comprehension.
One more time… When somebody alleges inaccurate accusations – I feel free to do so against the one who alleges such accusations. Thus the relevance as the history of “when did you stop beating your wife” is the accusation in the question that for decades has been known to be – an inaccurate accusation. It’s all about leveling stupid and inaccurate accusations. Why would anybody have to defend themselves from LAZY people like you? Of course, I don’t think you should have to defend yourself from the wife beater accusation. I’m simply showing you your OWN SELF by making the accusation. Get it now?
Nyom wrote, “that’s pretty disrespectful to the female host of this blog”
What is disrespectful sir is:
1) Making false allegations about someone who you don’t know (Sarah)
2) Being sexist (you)
You have a double standard. You can’t see straight. You have given no credibility to a woman smarter than yourself and with more experience than the candidate who became president. Idiot.
And while we are speaking of incompetence. Can we get a recall Al Franken thing going in Minnesota?
I mean. I expect this kind of stuff in CA. What happened to you guys/gals in Minnesota?
I’m not reading all that.
nyomythus Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
You must be incurious then.
Very
LOL. You guys are funny.
I haven’t been around this blog very long so I don’t get why Baklava goes after nyomythus so intently. Did something happen between the two of you?
I think Baklava is correct with this statement:
“The legacy drive-by press is using this as an opportunity to pile on Republicans as being mean to Latinos.”
But not just the media, the entire Democrat party. Politically, this is a win for them. Aren’t hispanics the largest growing segment of the population? Interestingly, when I asked my two closest friends about this nomination (both of whom are liberals) they said she was a great pick, because “she is female and she is a latina.” Nothing about her jurisprudence. Nothing about her decision making. I don’t think they even care. Fascinating.
In the end, though, I think the joke is on them. This appears to be an affirmative action appointment. If you are basing your decisions only on race and gender, you will not necessarily get the best person.
Take Obama, for instance. . .
Oops. That should be “fastest growing segment.”
MikeLL asked, Did something happen between the two of you?
Only that he makes inaccurate accusations and repeatedly.
So I do to him also so he can see how it feels. 🙂
I do believe he is incurious though. That one isn’t inaccurate.
A good woman has taken it on the chin by the likes of Nyom and he doesn’t get it.
Watch what happens to somebody named Meg Whitman coming up. She may be a candidate for CA governor.
oh my … the nyom’s of the world will hit her with all they have…. I’ve seen emails from coworkers (in the state) already. It’s gonna get bad for her.
The emails were negative. I replied back to an email saying that I like her. (that’s all I wrote)
I read her stance on CA. She’s conservative and has the economic prescription for CA. She’s the antidote for what ails CA.
The nyom’s of the world will unite against her. You’ll see!
http://www.megwhitman.com/story/205/whitman-state-budget-cuts-must-not-jeopardize-public-safety.html
Her stance of reducing the state’s payroll of 30,000 positions will be met with vitriol and….
…. inaccurate accusations by the likes of incurious Nyom’s…
Oh the little inner scraps we have on the Right, no one fights like family, this is true.
Just the folks who do due diligence and don’t have double standards who can’t stand the lazy and incurious like yourself.
Neo, I heard Obama’s statement on Roberts during Robert’s confirmation hearing on the Mike Gallagher show today. So when I got to a computer I searched and found it.
http://www.barackobama.com/2005/09/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_10.php
After glowing praise of Robert’s Obamas says this
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
MikeLL: as you can see, the disagreement between Baklava and nyomythus goes back to Sarah Palin. IIRC, it was her religious connections that really got nyomythus going on Sarah Palin. I was a lifelong non-churchgoer, and was indifferent to Palin’s religious beliefs, but for some reason they really set nyomythus off.
Now that the dust has cleared, the allegations regarding the nefarious effects of Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs have pretty much been debunked.
Another Obama statement from the link above:
I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
The weak are “us” as individuals.
The strong is the government Obama.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Under tough questioning from Republicans, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor conceded Tuesday…
“I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging…”
My guess is she was trying to entertain the academic crowd?
Baklava, keep Palin topic on Palin threads. I posted my response to that again there.
Regarding Sotomayer, she seems to be tap dancing pretty frantically to change the percieved meaning of words she repeated several times over a period of years, to the effect that a “wise latina woman” would reach a better conclusion than a “white man”.
She can spin it all she wants, this is what she actually said – as opposed to what she is now trying to say that she said, or meant.
As a white male, and father of an 11 year old white male, I seriously doubt either of us would ever get a fair hearing in front of this woman.
She’s a joke, but unfortunately she’s a joke that is going to be put on the USSC by the democrat party.
They have a lock on the vote and don’t need a single republican vote to put her there. She is definitely not the best and brightest legal mind that was available for this position, and this is nothing more than racial politics at it’s worst.
Regarding nyomythus bringing up Palin in this thread (what’s up with that?!?! anyway….) the former Alaskan governor is now charged with yet another ethics charge even as she prepares to leave office.
The charge in question?
“In her complaint, Andree McLeod said that two days before Palin was named John McCain’s running mate, she signed travel documents that stated “conclusion of state business.” A similar document soon after the election stated “return to duty status.
McLeod said Palin’s signature on the documents demonstrated a “willingness to forgo her duties as governor” to travel on the national campaign. She added that she filed the complaint now only because she was waiting for a final document from the state in response to a public records request.
McLeod said that given that temporary absence, Palin should have turned over the governor’s responsibilities to Parnell as required by the state constitution.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_ethics_complaint
Funny, I don’t see similar ethics complaints against either Obonga or Hillary for far worse excesses as they ran during the primaries. Obonga spent more time running for president than he did acting as senator!
Anyway, as Palin noted:
First, there actually is no constitutional requirement that the governor turn over power when they leave the state.
Second, this charge is extremely similar to a previous ethics charge that had been filed earlier, and dismissed already.
There is a substantial amount of money required to defend against such charges, and I don’t blame Palin for deciding against putting her family in poverty just to say she stayed in the kitchen and could take the heat.
I watched some of the Sotomayor hearings on TV yesterday. She looked terrible. Hatch and Sessions scored. Feinstein and Leahy acted like disagreeable idiots who think the electorate is as idiotic as they are. Their only tactic is to keep repeating talking points that boil down to, “Who are you going to believe: me or the record?” They can’t engage the opposition; they count on the media to ignore the arguments that they can’t address. The Ricci case is a killer. Hatch missed an opportunity to ask Sotomayor to condemn the smears that People for the American Way (hah!) is putting out about Frank Ricci.