BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

A diabetic on the Supreme Court?

Justin Webb | 18:14 UK time, Tuesday, 26 May 2009

For me - and any other parent of a type one diabetic child - the most fascinating and uplifting fact about Judge Sotomayor is not her childhood fascination for Perry Mason or her Hispanic roots, but the fact that she contracted this illness at the age of eight and is now 54, apparently healthy, and obviously successful!

There was some perfectly legitimate discussion of the issue before the nomination, but generally an acceptance it seems that the issue is not an issue.

Her nomination, it could be argued, is a pro-life decision in the sense that it accepts that life is life and is to be celebrated and lived for the moment, without huge thought about the long-term future.

Comments

  • 1. At 6:32pm on 26 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    I don't care about her diabetes (other than I'm sorry she has it), and neither, I'm pretty confident, does anyone else. I'm a whole lot more interested in her outlook on the Constitution, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:37pm on 26 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    This is just another factor adding to the appeal of Sotomayor as a role model for so many who have been under or unrepresented on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor reached this pinnacle by her own talent and hard work, despite the various obstacles she had to overcome. She is the right choice for Obama's first nominee, I think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:09pm on 26 May 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    A disability should have no impact on the evaluation of any individual for any position. Diabetics have medications to regulate this condition. We need to look at people as people and not race, religion, sex or other layers by which we choose to define them. The diabetics to worry about are the ones that have no access to medications.

    I grow weary of everyone saying: in the moment, in the present moment and centered and all the other semi-Eastern philosophical terms. Most do not understand the meaning. In the East the meaning is of the past, present and future all being part of any action and therefore all actions should be responsible. In the West the terms mean: It is OK to be selfish, it's all about me. I'm sure Madoff was in the moment each time he took on a new investor.

    The current Suprme court will benefit from a new point of view. In Washington all decisions are political, some are even correct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 7:18pm on 26 May 2009, RomeStu wrote:

    I understand that every aspect of a nominee will be picked over, but to highlight Sotomayor's diabetes - a condition with which she has not only lived but also succeeded sufficiently to be nominated - seems a little odd. Surely we should be discussing her known positions on various important issues.

    That said, her diabetes is one more small aspect which makes her a suitable candidate (IMO), because she can fully understand the implications of living with a chronic illness, and the way it affects people's lives.

    I hope the Senate confirm her.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:22pm on 26 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    As a diabetic, I sympathize with her physical problem but, quite frankly, her ailment is irrelevant to her appointment and nomination. What I am looking for is her knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, domestic and international laws, her education - which happens to be superb - her performance as a judge, and her life experiences.

    Based on what I have read about her, she appears to be superbly qualified for the job, and is likely to be not only an asset but a formidable opponent to the likes of Roberts, Alito and Scalia.

    The only concern I have is the judgment on the New Haven firefighters lawsuit which, in my opinion, should have favored the white firefighters. My opinion is based strictly on the fact that the test was given and taken on good faith, they passed, and they should have been given the promotions they were promised. If the test was unfair in the sense that it favored suburbanites and impaired the chances of minorities raised in the inner city or ghettos to pass it, it should have been ammended and given again to those that failed, after remedial training was provided. I think it is important to remember that judge Sotomayor did not write the opinion on that case, and that she was only a member of the panel of judges that heard the case. I expect the conservatives concerns will be focused on this ruling and, of course, her position on abortion.

    Other than that, I would have preferred a Brooklyn Dodgers fan (I still root for my birthplace) but a Yankees fan is not a bad alternative.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:42pm on 26 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    I didn't note her fascination with Perry Mason as a child. While that's not relevant to her ability as a SC justice, it's still interesting. I still like Perry, Della, Paul, Tragg, and Burger. Not in my opinion part of Minow's "vast wasteland".

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 7:47pm on 26 May 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    Eh, I think it's an ok choice. I can't see much that would prevent her from being confirmed. Besides, she's got an uplifting life story, and her nomination won't change the makeup of the Supreme Court. I wish her good luck and good health.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:19pm on 26 May 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    "There was some perfectly legitimate discussion of the issue before the nomination"

    Other than Kevin Pho and Amy Tenderich, who has mentioned the subject before today? "Discussion" implies that there were more than two or three people. In any case, it's not as if its a life-threatening situation and Justin should take heart from the comments others have made in relation to his son's situation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:52pm on 26 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    Why should her diabetes matter at all. Were she to die she could easily be replaced. I can see concern if a presidential candidate were ill, since his replacement would cause disruption. But the Surpeme Court? I don't think so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:57pm on 26 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    saintD (#5), there will always be some decision which disappoints, at least for a judge with a long records. Souter is my ideal justice, but I didn't like his position with the majority in Kelo v City of New London."

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 9:01pm on 26 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    I don't care whether or not she has diabetes or not. I don't believe that it will have an effect one way or another on how she makes her decisions on the Supreme Court. Millions of people in this country have diabetes and it doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs or live their lives.

    When I first heard the news of Judge Sotomayer's appointment I thought I'd heard that name before. Sure enough, she was the judge who ruled in favor of the Major League Baseball Player's association in their complaint against owners sighting that the owners had acted in bad faith while trying to negoiate a collective bargaining agreement. Her ruling literally ended a strike that had wiped out the final third of the 1994 season and first 18 games of the 1995 season. I think if she is remembered for anything it will be that one ruling. If for no other reason than if forced labor peace on a Sport that had thirty years of nonstop conflict. There has not been a strike in Major League Baseball since.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 9:05pm on 26 May 2009, Young-Mr-Grace wrote:

    She appears to be well qualified for the role and to have an interesting and inspiring life story which will no doubt aid her decision making. Good luck to her.

    You're all doing very well !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 9:11pm on 26 May 2009, Picarra wrote:

    Surely an Hispanic Secretary of Justice is an higher appointment? And Bush did it first!
    My question is if this woman understands that between the woman and the baby there is a placenta? which invalidates the baby killers claim to a woman's right to her body. By the way, it is criminal for a person to take their own life, and even mutilate their own body. If she validates the right of a woman to kill a baby, does that validate the right for any body to kill her as well?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 9:36pm on 26 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    The face of America is becoming less white, less European in ancestry, and that is being reflected in its power structure which is also becoming less male dominated. The connections Europeans in general and Britain in particular, the so called special relationship is becoming more slender, more tenuous, less important. America is starting to look like the real United Nations both in its demography and its power structure.

    Questions from Republicans and possibly among some Democrats in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings will revolve around statements she made at various times which suggest she may have an activist attitude towards the way the court is supposed to work, that is that the court should be in effect legislating. Other issues will revolve around statements she made suggesting that her ethnicity and other non judicial factors of her personal background may play a role in her legal decisions. Nevertheless, I think she will be confirmed, probably by more than a slender margin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 9:38pm on 26 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    Justin:

    with all due respect her fight with Diabetes is as irrelvant as her being hispanic or a woman.

    The concern people should have is that she believes in judicial activism and she is biased against whites. Witness her decision on the New Haven Fire Fighters case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 10:09pm on 26 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    @15 (MK): I'm not convinced she's biased against whites.

    @all: What I suspect is that she holds to a view that says that the Constitution can be twisted by the justices into all kinds of interesting shapes to suit the mood of the moment. This combines judicial and legislative power (which was one of the things the Federalist flagged as a bad idea a long time ago). There is no "check and balance" for that kind of behavior, other than impeachment of justices (and good luck ever getting the Congress to care enough about their oaths to seriously consider that).

    It would be nice if the conservatives would grill her on these kinds of issues, rather than pulling out the standard litmus tests. What does she think are the current checks and balances for the court, as she envisions it? How should those checks and balances work? What represents an inappropriate combining of judicial and legislative power (and provide examples)? What represents an inappropriate combining of judicial and executive power (and provide examples)?

    It will never happen, but it's nice to dream.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 10:17pm on 26 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #16

    Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Republicans unlike the Democrats usually follow the advice and consent on the supreme court.

    I do want her to explain herself on the New Haven Fire Fighters came because she did not show empathy there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:19pm on 26 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    arclightt (#16), it soesn't seem as if you have listened to many hearings for Supreme Court nominees. I have. These are held by the Judiciary Committee. The members are knowledgeable about the judicial process and history, and take their role in the examination of nominees very seriously. I expect we will see the sort of questions you suggest, from members of both parties, as we have in the past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:26pm on 26 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 13 If she validates the right of a woman to kill a baby, does that validate the right for any body to kill her as well?

    and 15: The concern people should have is that she believes in judicial activism and she is biased against whites.

    Ahh, the plaintive yodeling of these 'moderate' right thinking Americans. Such a joyful noise.

    For my part, I agree with the sane posters from the US here (and you too, Marcus!). Obama has made a fine choice, and I wish Judge Sotomayer well. And let's note that type 1 diabetes need not limit the aspirations of anyone.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:49pm on 26 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    By the way, Sotomayor is white. "Hispanic" is not a racial or color category.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 11:02pm on 26 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    To my uninformed eyes, she appears to be a centrist. If this is so, then
    this will undoubtedly turn out to be one of the least controversial decisions
    that Obama will have made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 11:04pm on 26 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Oops, I just saw her stand on guns. I hope that she doesn't try to
    take away my religion as well!

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:12pm on 26 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Candian Pink I agree with you whole heartedly. It seems to me that the right wing tries to defend racists policies by branding anyone who disagrees with them a racist. This does nothing to help further the debate or advance the cause of justice. In fact it seems to cause more harm to the debate than help.

    Having said that, I'm not really concerned with what Republicans have to say at the moment. They lost the election but act as if they won the election. I don't believe they recieved the memo which stated that the American people were tired of their economic policies and decided to try something else. My advice to the GOP is really simple, either offer up solutions and try and work with the President or remain quiet and do not try and interfer with reforms or else you risk sinking further alienating the American People.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:17pm on 26 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re # 5

    I less concerned with what how republicans will vote on this matter than I am with how New Englanders will vote on her appointment. I would hope that Senators Kerry and Kennedy (Both enthusiastic Red Sox Fans) would not use the fact that She is a Yankees fan against her.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:28pm on 26 May 2009, frayedcat wrote:

    #19 - nicely said. Heaven forbid a supreme court justice might actually have a uterus and placenta, and might thoroughly understand the legal ramifications both of having a placenta, and being not-quite-caucasian. Watch out ye whites without placentas - your rights (to push around females and non-whites) are at risk!

    Best, fastest, highest scoring player on my son's soccer team has diabetes - he just checks his levels at the bench once in a while (not too often either).

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:44pm on 26 May 2009, threnodio wrote:

    My late partner (an American by the way)was diabetic and she was absolutely clear about two things. Firstly, it is not an illness, it is a condition. Secondly, it is not a life altering trauma, it is a minor inconvenience.

    She would have been livid about all this speculation.

    Is Judge Sotomayor a good lawyer, a good judge and an appropriate appointee? These are the only questions which should matter. The rest is column fodder on a bad news day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 00:47am on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #23

    So far none of you have explained why her ruling on the New Haven firefighters case is not reverse discrimination. I hope Ricci is called to testify.

    Also explain her contention I am paraphrasing that a hispanic older woman would make often better decisions than an older white male. Reverse it and there would be crys of racism.

    I hope her miminimal judicial intellect will make her just a single vote not an influencer the way Stevens and Scalia are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 01:10am on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 27

    I have to confess that I am not as familiar with the facts of the case and I do feel comfortable commenting on it untill I have read her opinion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a previous poster said Judge Sotomoyer was just one Judge on the panel who heard that case. From what I have heard this case is being heard by the Supreme Court. What would disturb me is if she herself would render an opinion as a Supreme Court Justice, when she has already rendered an opinion as a Federal Judge. It must be pointed out that she was appointed to the bench by a Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 01:12am on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 20, Gary

    Thanks. Unfortunately, many of our countrymen have pre-conceived ideas and often confuse nationality with ethnicity, assign a category to specific groups based on common language regardless of ethnic differences, or are simply unfamiliar with the ethnic makeup of other countries or cultures. Misconceptions on this issue lead to generalizations that often result in decisions detrimental to our security and our moral standing in the world.

    Confusion on this issue is evident not only with "Hispanics", but also Persians and Arabs who are often seen as one and the same, and who are often considered synonymous to Muslim. Hopefully, someday in the not too distant future, we will start seeing people as individuals, rather than members of a specific ethnic group, and judge their qualifications and actions based on what they have accomplished rather than the pigmentation of their skin or their physiognomy.

    On the issue of the New Haven firefighters I think it is worth noting that one of the plaintiffs is "Hispanic". Are people suggesting judge Sotomayor discriminates against Hispanics? As I indicated before, I am uncomfortable with the decision on this case, but I don't think it had anything to do with discrimination and much to do with the way the panel of judges that heard the case interpreted the law.

    Judge Sotomayor will be asked tough questions by both conservative and liberal members of the Judiciary Committee as is customary, but I am confident she will be confirmed by a comfortable majority.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 01:18am on 27 May 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:

    " I beg to differ..."

    Are fellow diabetics the only ones who can focus on Justin's point of view for once, and not just on a fresh arena in which to voice their own opinions? I doubt he is arguing that being diabetic is a significant qualification for the Supreme Court. Justin has a young son who has type I diabetes - I am an old type II diabetic who is struggling with life under the influence of insulin. Justin is happy to see that a person who has had diabetes since childhood, has lived, lived well, and excelled. This one is about hope for his son, not about a fresh piece of political meat to tear apart amongst us internet carnivores.

    I'm encouraged, too, Justin. I'm sure you are out there showing your son how much is possible in his world. Bravo to what must be a great-hearted woman.

    KScurmudgeon

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 01:23am on 27 May 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    #26. threnodio: "My late partner (an American by the way) was diabetic and she was absolutely clear about two things. Firstly, it is not an illness, it is a condition. Secondly, it is not a life altering trauma, it is a minor inconvenience."

    Let's hope that Justin reads and accepts this. Like other young people, his son will get used to the routine, just as those with cancer or colostomies do - and some are very young. Frankly, if I were given the choice, I'd rather have a shot each day rather than the other two.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 01:27am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    Magic Kirin:

    "So far none of you have explained why her ruling on the New Haven firefighters case is not reverse discrimination. I hope Ricci is called to testify."

    Of course it is reverse racism.

    But in the world of polical correctness, such things must never be acknowledged for what they are let alone discussed.

    On this site, such a decision must be praised without reservation. But in the real world this will be a tremendous battle.

    She is a left-wing judicial activist - the very essence of politically correct ideoolgy.

    At a Duke U Law conference, she announed that the District Court of Appeals is "where policy is made".

    She has even stated that her race and sex will be a basis for making judicial decisions. This goes beyond mere ideology into militancy.

    It is astounding - yet she is the nominee.

    She is both Hispanic and a woman, which means she fills the quota for sex and race. But above all, she is a left-wing activist.

    The left-wing will be in ecstasy over her choice. Obama could not have done better as far pleasing this large and powerful constituency.

    But it will be a very long and exhausting fight. And we are already exhausted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 01:35am on 27 May 2009, topspin wrote:


    There are plenty of world class athletes with diabetes, now that might be a story.


    "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."----- What a profoundly bigoted statement, yet the Left will find virtue in it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 01:42am on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Here's the thing about Diabetes. It does run in families and has affected my family. My cousin, was diagnosed with Diabetes when he was eight. My Father was diagnosed with Diabetes when he was in his fifties. Having said that, I don't think that will play a role in how she decides cases. Personally, I am more concerned with what her opinion is on issues like Gay Marriage and Gitmo are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 01:44am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    Billy2USA:

    "What a profoundly bigoted statement, yet the Left will find virtue in it."

    Absolutely.

    But what is far more serious than the obvious bigotry is what this means regarding the law.

    The idea that race and sex identity should be the basis for making and interpreting law is sheer madness. No nation can survive with this nonsense as the basis for its laws and its judicial system.

    Yet this is what we are facing, but the media are wallowing in worship of Obama and political correctness.

    No one is daring to ask these questions. Political correctness is the equivalent of a secular substitute for religious faith. Asking whether race and sex should be the basis for law is not allowed. It must be accepted and praised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 01:48am on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 31, David

    "Frankly, if I were given the choice, I'd rather have a shot each day rather than the other two."

    I have two of the three you mentioned, and I refuse to let minor obstacles stop my ability to annoy "conservatives" with my "liberal" bias...such as it is!

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 01:49am on 27 May 2009, U13817236 wrote:

    "without huge thought for the long term future"...that's the American creed in a nutshell: live for today and take no heed for the long term consequences - which is exactly why we have the financial debacle created by short term greed and profligacy and why we have global warming created by more immediate self-indulgence heedless of future implications. Live for today and screw future generations and most of the rest of the world, the philoshophy of arrogant America and at least one fawning foreign correspondent cum cheerleader! "pro-life" as long as it's priveleged American life, but the rest of the victims of the pursuit of American hedonism will still go uncounted with Obama Copacabana and the new multicultural imperialists!

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 01:49am on 27 May 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:

    32. At 01:27am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    "But it will be a very long and exhausting fight. And we are already exhausted."

    Are we? The nation, or a majority, voted for a change. These are the throes of change....
    How much do you fear change? What do you (plural) have to offer a nation and a world exhausted with exasperation at the last, GOP, administration?

    Please, offer us a plausible alternative, and not just nay-saying and entrenchments.

    KScurmudgeon

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 01:58am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    Kscurmudgeon:

    "Please, offer us a plausible alternative, and not just nay-saying and entrenchments."

    Please - spare me the breathless condescension and the "Bulletin from Above" style.

    If you have a response to my comments, I will read them with interest. Clucking and nagging lectures are not helpful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 02:22am on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    How is it that asking for a plausible alternative is translated into "breathless condescension"? I suspect that only someone with a serious inferiority complex would see condescension in what is a simple suggestion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 02:25am on 27 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    If you have a response to my comments, I will read them with interest. Clucking and nagging lectures are not helpful.

    Kansas Curmudgeon, and gunsandreligion --

    You are, if I recall correctly, both Republicans? And this is what you have to work with as you seek to re-boot the GOP. Are you sure you don't want to join the Democrats?

    More of a future, perhaps.

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 02:50am on 27 May 2009, toughdirtyjoe wrote:

    This move was another political move by Barack hoping to gain hispanic votes in 2012. I really dont care I just want the economy to get better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 02:55am on 27 May 2009, Dan wrote:

    I'm a physician who takes care of children with diabetes. I would like to see a few diabetic role models that are not athletes or mucicians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 03:11am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    bere54:

    "I suspect that only someone with a serious inferiority complex would see condescension in what is a simple suggestion."

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    It is enjoyable for some to make up foolish and fatuous personal insults. But surely you can do that without particpating in a forum?

    This site is not about attempts to mock and ridicule those who dare to question or disagree with yout. The topic of this thread is the judicial appointment. Searching your brain for ornate insults and childish mockery are not substitutes for discussion of the topic.

    Those who resort to personal abuse are terrified of disagreement or questions. Well, in a free society you cannot avoid it. You can be certain that your insults will not stop me from posting.

    If you are looking for a site where everyone marches in lockstep and never questions, you may have found it here. But sometimes you will have to deal with posters who will question the leftist status quo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 03:11am on 27 May 2009, Nom DePlume wrote:

    I too find it odd that her diabetes could be considered a factor in her becoming a Supreme Court Justice. When 'Affirmative Action' legislation was enacted it was a necessity to force businesses and government agencies to acknowledge the laws against discrimination. However, in the current time I disagree with affirmative action's premise that some people need to be 'protected' because of their ethnicity. In the case of a sitting President trying to choose a candidate that provides a more representative court to our populace I must applaud his choice. We don't currently have a 'Hispanic' person on the court yet they represent a significant portion of our population. We only have a single female on the court and yet women comprise more than %50 of our population. Why then should he not choose a Hispanic woman to 'even the scales' as long as said woman has demonstrated the capability of doing the job? This isn't affirmative action at work it is simply an acknowledgment that the existing court isn't representative of our population. If our Supreme Court was 7 'people of color' and just 2 'white' people I would hope President Obama would try to find a highly capable 'white' person to sit on the court.

    I have read statements about the concept of 'choosing the best person for the job' being ignored with this choice, but what criteria do you use for a Supreme? Clearly she seems qualified from an educational and experience perspective. This isn't like the New Haven 20 case in which a standardized test was given and the results were discarded due to a value judgment on the 'politically correct' aspects of the results. I'm well aware that she was a member of the 3 judge panel that denied the NH 20's appeal; which does concern me as to her policy towards affirmative action. That seems to be clearly discrimination based upon race. Also 'reverse discrimination' has no meaning. It is simply discrimination no matter who is being discriminated against; something I thought our country no longer believed in. After all, we elected a bi-racial man to be President! Isn't it time to acknowledge that at this point in America's evolution we need to remove any and all barriers to equality? It's time to say as a culture and a people that every man and woman is responsible for his or her own success with no barriers based upon anything but their ability to do the job allowed? I would think that someone of 'minority' background would be insulted that they needed 'protection' as that implies they are inferior and NEED protection. Personally, I don't really care if a company has a discriminatory policy because I know it won't take long for them to get their butts kicked by their competitors who hire based upon talent alone, thus naturally having a diversified workforce.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 03:17am on 27 May 2009, Nom DePlume wrote:

    Before someone comments 'you must be a white person if you think minorities aren't disadvantaged in today's America' I would like to point out that I am a 'mixed bag' ethnically speaking. My primary ethnicity would be 'Euro-Mutt' and Pottawatomie (American) Indian Tribe. I simply believe deeply in the concept that we are all created equally and while some have various cultural and financial advantages others do not but STILL succeed. After all our President is the product of a 'broken home' with a single mother who could at best be described as 'lower middle class' in regards to income.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 03:24am on 27 May 2009, Nom DePlume wrote:

    #37 DF

    I believe you mistake Mr. Webb's intent with his (poorly phrased I admit) comment "without huge thought for the long term future". I believe his intent is to state that you cannot base today's choice solely on what 'might' happen in the future. Because Judge Sotomayor MAY have a health problem in the distant future due to her diabetic condition is NOT a reason to fail to nominate or confirm her as a Supreme Court Justice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 03:24am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:

    guiwshiz:

    Also 'reverse discrimination' has no meaning. It is simply discrimination no matter who is being discriminated against; something I thought our country no longer believed in. After all, we elected a bi-racial man to be President! Isn't it time to acknowledge that at this point in America's evolution we need to remove any and all barriers to equality? It's time to say as a culture and a people that every man and woman is responsible for his or her own success with no barriers based upon anything but their ability to do the job allowed? I would think that someone of 'minority' background would be insulted that they needed 'protection' as that implies they are inferior and NEED protection. Personally, I don't really care if a company has a discriminatory policy because I know it won't take long for them to get their butts kicked by their competitors who hire based upon talent alone, thus naturally having a diversified workforce.


    Bravo. I am in full agreement.

    The idea of choosing a candidate based on race and sex belongs to the past. But it will take time to accept and acknowledge that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 03:28am on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    It's very interesting that those who continuously hurl personal insults are quite often the ones ranting against the use of personal insults. Can they really have no idea of what they are saying? I am always well aware when I am insulting someone and I don't deny it, so I am at a loss to understand how others cannot see this in themselves. Perhaps those of us who are self-aware are simply more astute.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 03:28am on 27 May 2009, canadacold wrote:

    Justin - I am sure for you that the diabetic issue is huge. We are so lucky to be living in times when treatments can normalise peoples lives.
    For myself, one of my children needed a pacemaker as a teenager and has gone on to a career and a child.
    Sonia seems well qualified to do the job. This is all we should be concerned about, I am sure she would not be agreeing to the appointment, should she be advised against it for her health.
    Incidently, the doctor in town who delivered me many, many years ago had diabetes and lived to a ripe old age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 03:31am on 27 May 2009, Nom DePlume wrote:

    Okay, is it just me or does the BBC really need to get some faster readers for moderators? I just read the last 10 entries (again) and see 4 comments 'awaiting moderation'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 03:43am on 27 May 2009, _marko wrote:

    To #44 TimothyR444

    "I suspect that only someone with a serious inferiority complex would see condescension in what is a simple suggestion"

    1) Why do you see this as an insult?

    "Those who resort to personal abuse are terrified of disagreement or questions"

    2) What is preventing you from answering questions posed to you?

    3) Would you regard MagicKirin as politically incorrect?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 03:53am on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    52, _marko -

    TR444 has, as you know, described himself in his remark about those resorting to abuse being terrified of disagreement or questions. The odd thing is, the rest of us see this clearly and he cannot. This is odd, but fascinating also. I wonder if there is a psychology term for this type of personality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 04:17am on 27 May 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:

    37. At 01:49am on 27 May 2009, DouglasFeith wrote:

    "without huge thought for the long term future"...that's the American creed in a nutshell: live for today and take no heed for the long term consequences - which is exactly why we have the financial debacle created by short term greed and profligacy and why we have global warming created by more immediate self-indulgence heedless of future implications. Live for today and screw future generations and most of the rest of the world, the philoshophy of arrogant America and at least one fawning foreign correspondent cum cheerleader! "pro-life" as long as it's priveleged American life, but the rest of the victims of the pursuit of American hedonism will still go uncounted with Obama Copacabana and the new multicultural imperialists!

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I was with you, mostly, until the last. I will have to work through your comments from the last to the first, backwards.

    'Multicultural imperialists'- there is a novelty in human affairs. Every empire has always been about us versus them, and us controlling and extracting wealth from them. To be multicultural flies in the face of the xenophobic, monolithic nature at the basis of an imperial culture, whatever its actual makeup might be. If we are multicultural, you should be able to find a way to join us and stop being a victim.

    The 'pursuit of American hedonism', and its 'victims' - America, especially the USA, is the realization of the dreams and aspirations of those millions of unfortunate people from every country in the world, especially from Europe, who were so unsuccessful at home that they gave up everything for a chance to survive and perhaps prosper in a very alien and risky place. What you call hedonism is the fulfullment of the efforts and designs of the poorest classes of the world - for the most part the world's peasants. This country is, for better and for worse, the result of their dreams, hopes, and sweat. If we eat richer, live larger, consume more, and have fewer fears than you, then we have reason to pity those of you who stayed behind. You have become victims, perhaps, but of what? Of less opportunity, yes, but also of the shackles of the traditions and systems we left behind and that you have not fully thrown off, even centuries later. How did we become the privileged ones?

    '"pro-life"' - Here your focus on your own anger has blinded you to Mr. Webb's effort to lift us all up a bit. You think 'pro-life' is a reservation preferred for Americans, and a political thing. His statement is that the achievements of this one woman can be taken as an affirmation of life for us all, of hope for the afflicted - a matter that is very apolitical.

    'Live for today and take no heed for the long-term consequences.......' we are spoiled, yes, by plenty of room, cheap land, fair and open working conditions, cheap energy, open opportunity to advance through the class structure to make as much of ourselves as our own talents will serve our individual determination. Economic growth is made of such things, and prosperity allows a society to cure many ills. A better way to state your challenge would be to ask how this growth and prosperity can be encouraged and ensured to those parts of the human race that have so far not had them. What peasant does not live for today, and scheme how he can get just a little more, or a lot? Where, in the world, does the vast majority of the people not live for today? Resources here have not been locked down and bought up for centuries past, so we are spoiled by the opportunity both to find a way and, unfortunately, to just move on if things get too unpleasant.

    "without huge thought for the long term future" - here is where you began, and
    you began by completely substituting your anger at America for Justin Webb's simple hope that this nominee's story might be able to lift his personal expectations, from concern for his son's long term future to a better chance to have some confidence in his next few years.

    I think most Americans are not like you - we do not live with an obsessive fear of the future. We are eager for it, and plan for it with joyful expectation. I am by profession an environmental manager for a manufacturing facility. My primary responsibility is ensuring my company's compliance with the federal, state, and local regulations, and pressing for the fulfillment of our corporate environmental policy, which is thoughtful, progressive, and compassionate. This nation is not unmindful of our natural heritage, nor are we preparing at all to bring it or the world to destruction.

    We may look like utter fools, but our experience has been different from yours.

    KScurmudgeon

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 04:31am on 27 May 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:

    39. At 01:58am on 27 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
    Kscurmudgeon:
    Please - spare me the breathless condescension and the "Bulletin from Above" style."

    The condescension was not intended for you, but for the Republican party and the Right in general, as was the 'clucking and nagging'. I am still a registered member of the GOP, and as such I feel it is my responsibility to hector them. Conservatives have been badly served lately, I think.

    'If you have a response to my comments, I will read them with interest. Clucking and nagging lectures are not helpful.'

    Sorry, I was hoping for some substantive leadership from the right - it seemed likely you might be a source.

    KScurmudgeon

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 04:32am on 27 May 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    #32. TimothyR444: "Obama could not have done better as far (as) pleasing this large and powerful constituency."

    Which is why he was elected. Former presidents have chosen those who reflect their views, and now the current incumbent is doing the same. With at least three more years to go, possibly seven, you're in for a rough ride. Get used to it.

    #44. "It is enjoyable for some to make up foolish and fatuous personal insults. But surely you can do that without particpating in a forum. . . Those who resort to personal abuse are terrified of disagreement or questions."

    Yourself included.

    You're a newbie on this blog, that is, unless you have ever posted under another pseudonym, so you really should get to know what passes and what doesn't. The mods have been very lenient with you by permitting your foolishness to appear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 05:47am on 27 May 2009, Parrisia wrote:

    Let's just hope she (Justice Sotomayor) doesn't have any tax issues like some other appointees...

    A SHORT QUIZ (courtesy of Parrisia)
    In a written statement President Obama has said the following: "Continued detention, isolation and show trial based on spurious charges cast serious doubt on the regime's willingness to be a responsible member of the international community". Who could he be refering to?

    A. Aung Sang Suu Kyi and the Burmese government
    B. the Gitmo detainees and the US government
    C. all the above - President Obama is determined that the US reclaim the moral highground on issues of justice and human rights
    D. none of the above - The President's press officer retracted the statement 6 hrs later

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 05:58am on 27 May 2009, AOAnstey wrote:

    As a recent diabetic, I can attest that Justice Sotomayor must be a disciplined, clear-headed person to be still healthy after 46 years with the disease. People without diabetes cannot conceive what it is like to live with it successfully. You have to regulate everything: what you eat, when you eat, the amount of exercise you get, managing stress levels, and so on and on. Her condition should be regarded as an added recommendation for the appointment rather than the reverse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 07:21am on 27 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    22, guns.
    "Oops, I just saw her stand on guns. I hope that she doesn't try to take away my religion as well!"

    Don't get upset. You can still hunt deer. You just can't kill them with an uzi. And nobody would dispute your right to pray over the carcass.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 07:58am on 27 May 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    #34. AmericanSportFan: "I am more concerned with what her opinion is on issues like Gay Marriage and Gitmo are."

    Indeed - especially since the California Supreme Court just upheld Proposition 8 but also the validity of the 18,000 or so same-gender marriages before the vote was taken.

    It will surprise no-one if the issue eventually wends it way to the (US) Supreme Court, a number of actions already having being commenced. It may take a couple of years, during which I fully expect there to be at least one additional replacement, although this might not strikingly affect the political balance of the Court. Considering how many other states have now legalised same-gender marriage, it is not unreasonable to predict that others will follow and that the Justices will see merit in the suit/s. After all, is it fair (or even constitutional) that there should be two classes of couples: those who married before Proposition 8 and who are recognised by the state, and those enduring partnerships which are refused the same recognition because they were too late. Fortunately California does recognise Domestic Partnerships and, except for the word, I am unsure what the difference is. I sympathise with those who want to be married, but I don't see that "marriage" confers any additional status or benefits not already available.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 08:32am on 27 May 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Justice Sotomayor.
    A Puerto Rican, Roman Catholic, divorcee, raised by a mother, having lost the father to illness when young seems to fit the present day trend for nominations in todays cosmopolitan America, looking for new guidance. The mention of the condition of diabetes I believe is immaterial. You will be telling me next, she is also left-handed.
    And another female of the species to boot. Where will it all end?
    Both she, and Obama appear to have risen to the heights from more of a plastic spoon background than the usual bought and paid for, pampered silver spoon scenario one has become so used to.
    Yet again, many appear to be forced to look extremely hard through rose coloured sunglasses to accept a hispanic Cinderella to follow in the footsteps of a mixed race Prince Charming taking the helms of their respective positions at the summit of achievement.
    Definitely another candidate for the glass ceiling concept entering the top echelons of power.
    But, will the glass slipper fit without pinching? Only time will tell if both these intelligent "minority" pathfinders are made of sterner stuff or possess glass jaws, during the battles ahead.. The jury is still out on this one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 08:37am on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    RE 60,

    I don't think that sort of mixed bag ruling by the California Supreme Court will stand. I'm not sure how the issue of Marriage will be handled in the Supreme Court. That's why an appointment like this is huge. Twelve years ago the conservatives in congress, and many democrats as well, pushed through congress the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Sadly there were many in the Republicans wanted to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    Whatever ones personal feelings on this subject are, I believe we on this forum can agree that The Federal Government has no business trying to define marriage. By the way,, no where in these marriage statues or court rulings being passed in the various states does it say that churches have to perform marriage ceramonies for same sex couples. The courts generally seem to recognize that religious organizations can define marriage however they wish. Having said that, if I were dating a male I woould want to have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple. Coincidentally, my girlfriend is opposed to gay marriage, event though she has told me in the pasts that she has dated a woman and is attracted to women. I can not be sure if her opposition is genuine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:06am on 27 May 2009, RomeStu wrote:

    62 sportfan
    "Whatever ones personal feelings on this subject are, I believe we on this forum can agree that The Federal Government has no business trying to define marriage."


    Sorry to disagree, but actually I do beleive that the Federal Government really should define marriage rights (or civil union/partnership).
    It is often the word "marriage" which creates such strong opposition to gay marriage. However this is one of the last unnecessary discriminations. Gays who wish to commit should be entitled to the same tax and inheritance benefits as straight couples who marry ... and then have all the same hassle if they then separate/divorce.

    Of course no church should ever have to marry anyone who doesn't fit their religious beliefs, but the equal right to the civil benefits of commitment should be enthroned in law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 10:19am on 27 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    53. bere54 wrote:

    I wonder if there is a psychology term for this type of personality.

    The Internet is riddled with people who see themselves as amateur psychologists and insist on analysing others based on anonymous comments on a forum. Many of them, like yourself, are on this very blog. Generally it is simply a cover for an inability to argue the point. But nobody is fooled by it, except those who want to be fooled.


    51. guiwhiz wrote:

    Okay, is it just me or does the BBC really need to get some faster readers for moderators?

    It's just you. If you want to see slow moderation, check out the BBC's Have Your Say. They make a tortoise look like lightning.


    56. David_Cunard wrote:

    The mods have been very lenient with you by permitting your foolishness to appear.

    You cant be serious. If you want an example of moderator leniency have a look at the "kitchen club," who latch onto dead threads and discuss any off-topic subject under the sun. They've now resuscitated a thread from February and are seeing what they can get away with on it. Ironically, the thread is titled, "Obama gets away with it."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/02/obama_gets_away_with_it.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 10:39am on 27 May 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:

    AmericanSportFan # 62
    Nice, openhearted response to David_Cunard # 60.
    Surely Justice Sotomayor if successful will sit with her colleagues in the USA Supreme Court dispensing judicial decisions on USA earthly matters, eliminating the shades of gray that have sprung up or been introduced into the daily lives effecting all Americans irrespective of their beliefs and family backgrounds. One hopes that just a balanced "live and let live" attitude for the laws of the land will emerge, free of the wishes of biased pressure groups or individuals.
    As an European, I find the differing statehood preferences confusing, both to me and to all Americans living under one flag, be it the death penalty, medical research, pro life, pro choice, same sex relationships, health, marriage etc, etc -: All of them irritations that seem to promote as many to commit criminal acts to further their specific cause and following, or deny others their rights. Hence the necessity for a SCOTUS to ensure a level playing field.
    Should higher decisions concerning those that some consider to be black and white questions be necessary, then the man [or woman] with the power above who represents all beliefs and those without any,[if he / she exists], will no doubt see fit to correct those who have strayed from any straight and narrow path when we depart this planet. We will all find out in the end.
    Consequently, I believe nobody wants or will accept any nominee who wants to be a hanging judge and play at being a god. The world has turned and I hope Ms Sotomayor has turned with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 11:01am on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 63

    I think misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that the Federal Government has no business trying to define what marriage is and isn't. Christian Conservatives have tried to define it as between a man and a woman.

    However, they wanted to make it a part of the Constitution. I don't believe that Federal Government should make marriage a constitutional issue. I do believe that the defence of marriage act is unconstitutional because it basically establishes marriage from a religious perspective. That is in direct violation of the first amendments which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religio, or respecting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speach or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences."

    The Defense of Marriage Act is inviolation of this article of the constitution because it tries to define marriage through a christian perspective. Because of this, it tries to establish religion in this country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 11:34am on 27 May 2009, gtkovacs wrote:

    Justin, I'm disappointed. This is a non-story. A non-event. Pathetic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 11:40am on 27 May 2009, Andrew Prescott wrote:

    Perhaps there is a knowledgable person on legal matters who can explain the relation of her remarks about 'policy', and the common law and whether there is any conflict. Much of the law of English speaking countries is made in the courts. And most state constitutions say that the English common law shall apply untill such time as it is trumped by an act of congress.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:54am on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 67

    I think you are only partially right. The fact Judge Sotomayor has diabetes is a non story. However, her appointment as the first hispanic justice to the Supreme Court is news because it shows how much my country has changed in the two hundred and swenty six years since Great Britian recognized our independence. It shows that America is becoming more and more culturally diverse. That is a good thing.

    Cioncidentally I saw a story about Judge Sotomayor on my local newscast this morning. Apparently, her brother is Doctor with a practice here in Central New York. IT seems that the Judge visits here three times a year and they mentioned that she takes her nieces and nephews out for icecream and a movie at the local multiplex.

    I also found this interesting article in my local newspaper: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/pablo_martinez_monsivais_appre.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 12:12pm on 27 May 2009, lochraven wrote:

    #54 KScurmudgeon,

    I enjoyed reading your response.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 12:15pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 33, Billy

    "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."----- What a profoundly bigoted statement, yet the Left will find virtue in it."

    I too find her statement inappropiate, regardless of whether or not it reflects her life experiences and the many challenges she had to overcome to rise to the position she has reached.

    I do, however, find a record that consists of 111 white men, 2 women, and 2 African-Americans quite disturbing as well. Insisting on the preservation of the status quo is not surprising, and rage against someone who challenges it is to be expected. Sonia Sotomayor should and will be judged on her record, not her gender or ethnicity.

    Sadly, we live in a world where every word is dissected and every decision is considered symptomatic of the character and intellectual acumen of a person. If I am not mistaken, judge Sotomayor has written opinions or ruled on approximately 400 cases, I think it is worthwhile to look at the entire package before forming an opinion about her qualifications to serve in the Supreme Court.

    Instead of focusing on triviality we ought to look at her record. She ruled in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases; has been a solid supporter of First Amendment rights, including religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech; and she has a solid record on civil rights, often ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, gender, or ethnicity. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much on abortion, same-sex marriage or the death penalty, and questions to determine her position on those issues are bound to be brought up during the upcoming hearings.

    Considering her outstanding academic achievements, her extensive legal experience, life experiences, and the good judgment she has shown in most of her opinions and/or decisions, I am confident Sonia Maria Sotomayor will be an asset to the Supreme Court and will serve the American people well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 12:39pm on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 71

    you're right we don't know what her position is on the issues of Abortion or the death penalty are. These are important issues that the court deals with a daily basis. I'm not sure where she stands, but I really want to understand what she has too say.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 12:43pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #71

    First accepting the premise Sotomayor will be confirmed.

    I think it is acceptible for her to be questions on judicial activism, her comments about her heritage and the New Haven ruling.

    I would note that no Republican has said they will reject her.

    A courtesy not given to Clarence Thomas who had just an impressive life story or Robert Bork who was blocked for petty and partsian reasons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 12:58pm on 27 May 2009, frayedcat wrote:

    #27 and 28 - the New Haven Firefighters union, and in a separate case some individual firefighters, sued the City of New Haven for reverse discrimination. The City of New Haven is the entity that took the affirmative action (not the court) after a series of public hearings. There were like at least 5 court opinions in the various lawsuits and the white firefighters pretty much lost them all. The appellate court decision was 'per curium' (3 judges, not just Soto) - It's all part of this trend of throwing out affirmative action to achieve racial equality. It will be the US Supreme Court that makes the policy on this one.

    Here's what the US Supreme Court heard this April (from their website): QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
    This case presents the question whether Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause allow a government employer to reject the results of a civil-service selection process because it does not like the racial distribution of the results. Specifically: 1. When a content-valid civil-service examination and race-neutral selection process yield unintended racially disproportionate results, do a municipality and its
    officials racially discriminate in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VII when they reject the results and the successful candidates to achieve racial proportionality in candidates selected?
    2. Does an employer violate 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(l), which makes it unlawful for employers "to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race," when it rejects the results of such tests because of the race of the successful candidates?

    HISTORICALLY my thoughts are that this is a GREAT piece of history, because of the role the volunteer firefighters had politically in NYC/Tammany Hall/Tweed machine and the Irish immigrant/black labor riots on the east coast.

    As to the nominee's role, I think the appellate court decision was sloppy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 1:01pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 73, Mirek

    "A courtesy not given to Clarence Thomas who had just an impressive life story"

    Judiciary Committee hearings have little to do with courtesy and much to do with the qualification of nominees to be confirmed. Justice Thomas does have an impressive life story, but his education and legal record was quite unimpressive. As a result we have a SC Justice who seldom says a word and obediently follows the lead of his mentors. That is not something we should strive for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 1:25pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #75

    Thomas does not make many public statement but writes many oppinions. The point was that he was crucified by a democratic lead judicial committee.
    Anita Hill had no witness and credibility.

    In the case of Bork Ted Kennedy announced he would fight the nomination even before the hearings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 1:40pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 76, Magic

    "Anita Hill had no witness and credibility."

    Few victims of rape or sexual harrassment have witnesses to prove their case. Anita Hill was no exception.

    Ted Kennedy's partisanship on the Bork nomination was consistent with conservatives positions on nominations made by Democratic President. No party has an exclusive in that arena. What is important, however, is what takes place during the hearings, where members of the Judiciary ask tough questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee, and in that regard both side take their role very seriously, as they should.

    I expect Judge Sotomayor to undergo close scrutiny, but I am confident she will be confirmed by a comfortable majority. I would not be surprised if many of the questions are targeted at the President in anticipation of future and more pivotal appointments, rather than the nominee.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 1:43pm on 27 May 2009, robloop wrote:

    Justin
    Your opening comments about Sonia Sotomayor amount to a load of insipid, politically correct, blather!

    From her own mouth, Sotomayor makes abundantly evident that she is a chavinist and bigot, but never mind, she's not a white male so can get away with this in the nauseating political and social atmosphere that now prevails in the U.S.

    We can bet that IF she was "pro-life" in the real sense, rather than the convoluted sense you've suggested, Obama would not have chosen her. Her witless comments about "white male" judges not possessing her 'female Latino wisdom' almost certainly endeared her further to this president. Having noted the unmitigated success Latino parts of the world are, naturally I am enthralled by its wisdom and the wondrously wise prospect Sotomayor represents!

    Were Sotomayor white Anglo-Saxon, or Germanic, and said something similar toward another race we can bet that there would be howls of wrath - not least from white liberals - and her candidacy dead in water. Had she been male and said of a females what she did, again we could have counted on similar outrage.

    Evident, too, is that she regards part of her role as a judge, that of making laws. If it hasn't already done so, Congress should take heed that it is about to surrender its legislative role to the courts, but then, from what I've seen so far I believe that Barack Obama will welcome that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 1:57pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 78, Rob

    "We can bet that IF she was "pro-life" in the real sense, rather than the convoluted sense you've suggested"

    If the "real sense" of being pro-life is limited to protecting the life of a zygote or a fetus, while endorsing the death penalty and enthusiastically supporting crusades, I certainly hope she is pro-choice; even though I only support abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

    Hopefully the Judiciary will encompass more than the traditional one-dimensional theme of the far right and look at the whole package. From my vantage point, she is an outstanding nominee with a couple of questionable opinions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 2:03pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 78, Rob

    "Were Sotomayor white Anglo-Saxon, or Germanic"

    The surname Sotomayor, or Soutomaior, originated in Galicia and northern Portugal, the home of Iberians, Celts and Germanic Alans and Visigoths in ancient times. Obviously, I am not intimately or even superficially familiar with Judge Sotomayor's ancestry and, therefore, I can not make a conclusive statement regarding her ethnicity, but you may want to do a little more research on the topic of ethnicity before you announce your opinions to the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 2:24pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    Ref 76, Magic
    ref #77

    "Anita Hill had no witness and credibility."

    Few victims of rape or sexual harrassment have witnesses to prove their case. Anita Hill was no exception.

    (Ever hear Presumed innocence, did you see the hearings? I did and Hill was exposed as a fraud. She did get a book deal and cushy university job out of it)

    Ted Kennedy's partisanship on the Bork nomination was consistent with conservatives positions on nominations made by Democratic President. No party has an exclusive in that arena. What is important, however, is what takes place during the hearings, where members of the Judiciary ask tough questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee, and in that regard both side take their role very seriously, as they should.

    (Excuse me did not Ruth Bader Ginsburg get a majority of 90+, but you have not addressed the fact that Kennedy made his decision before the hearing. In Sotomayor's case no republican on record has opposed her)

    I expect Judge Sotomayor to undergo close scrutiny, but I am confident she will be confirmed by a comfortable majority. I would not be surprised if many of the questions are targeted at the President in anticipation of future and more pivotal appointments, rather than the nominee.


    (You are right about the majority because the Rublican do not block supreme Court nominations, at least in recent memory)

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 2:42pm on 27 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    @18 (GAH): Gary, I'd love to be more optimistic about all this, but considering how treatment of judicial appointees back to at least Robert Bork have been mishandled by the Congress, in the never-ending search by the two political parties for the next source of political power, I am not sanguine about this.

    All this stir, by the way, should be an enormous black and red flag for all of us who are citizens. The Federalist clearly indicates that under the original structure of the government, the judiciary (specifically the SC) was the WEAKEST branch of government; the lifetime appointments to the SC were a form of compensation for that weak state. The Federalist also pointed out that if the judiciary ever combined either legislative or executive powers with the defined role of the judiciary, it would move from being the WEAKEST branch of the government to being the STRONGEST.

    The amount of attention paid to SC appointments clearly indicates that the SC has already been moved out of the purely judicial sphere into a combined judicial / legislative sphere at the very least (I don't think there's evidence that the SC has moved into a judicial / executive sphere, but I'm happy to hear counterargument on that score). Such movement requires at the very least a redefined set of checks and balances; yet no such checks and balances have been or are being offered up. This is why it's even more important that SOMEBODY ask the hard questions of not only this nominee but future nominees as well, and begin to force the Congress and the two political parties to look at the results of their stupid search for increased power. I don't think it will happen, though, because the folks in committee don't want to tie their own hands, or the hands of their party, in the search for power; they can't start asking questions that might challenge such a search.

    I don't give a fig if this person is male, female, black, white, red, yellow, or even green and purple. All I care about is this: Does this person understand the difference between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, and understand clearly the role of each, and understand that an appointment to the Court is NOT an opportunity to use the courts as a legislative or executive arm of the government?

    @71 (StD): Quoting Sotomayor: "...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I agree with you that this was at the very least inappropriate. It's really not trivial, however, because it reveals a potential misunderstanding about the role of the judiciary.

    Quoting you: "Instead of focusing on triviality we ought to look at her record." I agree; however, instead of looking just at WHAT she decided, it's more important to look at WHY she decided the way she did. Same for any other appointee to the court. That takes longer, but would yield better results. As I indicated, however, I'm not sanguine this will happen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 2:53pm on 27 May 2009, robloop wrote:

    Ref 79 saintDominick

    The "real sense" or being 'pro-life' does not include preserving the life of a brutal or depraved murderer. Having deliberately deprived another human being of an irreplaceable commodity, their life, and this proven beyond any doubt, a murderer deserves to lose their life as part of society's punishment.

    Of course the far left does not see it that way, but then, devoid, or almost devoid of a moral code, what else would we expect from the far left! It favours preserving the lives of murderers and murdering the innocent unborn - or, after being induced, killing the child after it's head emerges from the uterus. Barack Obama also favours allowing babies who survive botched abortions to simply die. And all of this is civilized behaviour? In Canada they kill babies right up to time of birth, i.e. right up to their full nine months! And this is civilized behaviour? Evidently 'civilization' has gone to hell, a circumstance favoured by the far left!

    Ref 80
    Having listened to, and read, Sonia Sotomayor's own words, and seen that from her and others much is made of her 'Latino' background, I haven't the slightest intention of wasting time researching her ethnicity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 2:56pm on 27 May 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:

    TrueToo # 64
    You are doing it again.
    Why denigrate any poster using references to "amateur psychologists" or those who wish to participate to the best of their abilities on this or a past thread in joining any or all conversations about American life, and life in general that evolve via this blog.
    Perhaps the kitchen squad find that encompassing some lateral thinking on the subjects Justin submits, leads them further to discuss the associated pleasantaries of life, and talking about apples and oranges plucked from around the world is more soothing than some whose soul purpose seems to be squeezing the juice into all topics. Bitter does not make for better. Establishing one's favourite taste is only achieved by experiencing all that is on offer.
    Whether you feel it is necessary to push your love of the Koran, [ or was it the Torah? I forget] others the good book and yet others the pearls of wisdom from Donald Duck / Beano into each ongoing thread, each reader may decide for themselves if they will just read and move on or participate further in any discussion. [FYI, I see "Rock star risk" from 24th August 2008 is still open should you wish to throw any more stones and start an offshoot club yourself. Good luck with it].
    We can all feel confused at times about the rulings of our extremely flexible moderators yet a Grand Inquisitor demanding just one path of thought is unwelcomed. Similarly the hope for Justice Sotomayor joining the Supreme Court. Will she be a valued servant for the American peoples in shaping future laws, or a dictator and follow a divine right of fixed thought reserved for ancient kings, religions and relics? .As StD. # 75 also so rightly states, balanced input is essential and silence is not always golden.
    A wise man like yourself should always learn more from the simple words of fools than the fool will ever learn from the diatribes of wise men. Yet even we fools with an open mind, open heart and the wish to hear everything usually succeed in ascending the learning curve of knowledge..Eventually.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 3:09pm on 27 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    41, chronophobe, I must thank you for your concern. But, I am really
    just a right-leaning independent, disappointed with the financial shenanigans
    of both parties, which are "borrow and spend."

    I thought that Clinton was a great president, but he had to deal with
    a Republican Congress. One party controlling two (or three) branches of
    government is a guarantee of complete disaster.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 4:24pm on 27 May 2009, SammiMalek wrote:

    I am baffled that people suggest a nominee's personal experiences should not factor into his/her approach to interpreting the law. Who do we think wrote the Constitution? Robots? The Founders were men very much driven by their personal experiences. They based the foundation of this country on the premise that all men are created equal (let's not discuss here their awfully narrow and too literal definition of "men") based on their experience of having been discriminated against. They guaranteed us free speech and freedom of religion because their own free speech and freedom of religion had been trampled.
    The very foundation of this country is based on personal experiences of a few who set out to change the way they were being treated. I cannot believe anyone would say with a straight face that a judge who has no understanding of a particular topic (such as disability) is equally able to render sound judgment on the issue as is a judge who has had personal experiences in that area. The experience doesn't mean the judge will ignore the law; it just means he/she will look at it in the proper context.
    Judge Sotomayor isnt qualified to be a Justice because she is a Latina, because she comes from the Bronx, because she has diabetes or because she is a woman; she is plenty qualified because of her Princeton and Yale education, her Phi Beta Kappa, her law review experience, her private complex litigation experience and more years on the federal bench than any of the current Justices had when they were nominated. Her being a Latina, a women and a person with diabetes simply give her an advantage over others who do not have these varied experiences. So even if you strip away all of the aforementioned add-ons that the Right is taking issues with, she is still one of the most qualified jurists in the country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 4:30pm on 27 May 2009, SammiMalek wrote:

    p.s. Re the comment: Quoting Sotomayor: "...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
    This quote has been taken completely out of context. I urge everyone to read the text of the entire speech before using this as a lynch pin or calling it inappropriate.
    p.p.s. I'm baffled that people think it is completely appropriate for Bush to nominate staunch conservatives like Roberts and Alito, but nominating a liberal judge to balance to court (or rather, keep the same make up of the current court) is considered outrageous. And for anyone who thinks the Constitution is "clear" and easy to interpret, I highly recommend you audit a Constitutional Law class, preferably with Prof. Bell of NYU Law, considering that a full law degree is not within everyone's budget.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 4:34pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    arclight (#82), whatever view individuals may hold about the roles of the various branches of US government, they have evolved over time in practice by the way that each branch has interpreted its role, and applied the "checks and balances." Thus, Chief Justice Marshall asserted the doctrine of judicial review, and, for the most part, the Congress and the Executive have accepted it. The Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office, but it has chosen to apply this infrequently. And so on. On the whole, I think it has worked out pretty well. As for "strict construction," my observation is that a lot of people are for it in practice, but readily abandon it when an activist court gives them a result they want. This is true of both (so-called) liberals and conservatives.

    As for Sotomayor's oft-quoted remark, I read the whole thing, not just the snippet given above, and I didn't find anything objectionable about it. Justice O'Conner was giving an idealistic perspective which I do not believe comports with reality. Every member of the Supreme Court is highly trained and experienced in the law, and all are of sufficient age to have acquired such wisdom as comes from age, yet we have had quite a few five to four decisions? Why should that be? It is because the law is often not that cut-and-dried, and individual justices are the product of their own makeup and experiences in life, as well as their legal training, so see things in different ways. Reasonable people can disagree about many things. I don't see anything wrong with that. The protections against unreasonable Supreme Court decisions are the requirements for Senate confirmation, and the requirement for five votes to decide a case. If that's not enough checks and balances to achieve a good result, I don't know what more you would want.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 4:39pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Republicans have not blocked Supreme Court appointments in recent memory because most recent presidents have been Republicans. President Clinton (a Democrat) made only two appointments, Ginsburg and Breyer. Both were highly qualified and Breyer was not controversial. Ginsburg was somewhat controversial, but not nearly enough to offset her strong qualifications.

    Actually, both Republicans and Democrats objected to the appointment of Harriet Miers, who was simply not qualified.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 4:41pm on 27 May 2009, RickMcDaniel wrote:

    My primary concern, is the religion, and the fact that it could play a major role in decisions, and indeed, that too many of the justices on the court, are of the same religion, creating a major issue for me, of separation of church and state.

    For this reason, I oppose this nomination.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 4:56pm on 27 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:

    #83

    "an irreplaceable commodity, their life"


    Don't worry, they end up in heaven.......

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 5:04pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Apparently, the full text of the speech by Sotomayor containing the controversial quote is not available online, however I have found a link to a much more extensive quote, with some additional discussion, for anyone here who cares to form opinions on more than sound bites:

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=5306

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 5:11pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    MK (#27) "So far none of you have explained why her ruling on the New Haven firefighters case is not reverse discrimination."

    It was not a case of so-called "reverse discrimination" because the New Haven Fire Department did not go against the results of the test to promote minorities who did not pass it. What they did was to throw out the test as suspect, and promote no one based on its results. They have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their test is unbiased, and they are within their rights to discard it and seek another test if the results suggest that it might be biased.

    That is merely my layman's opinion. This case is currently before the Supreme Court, so we will likely get the official answer to your question soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 5:34pm on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    RE 65

    What have to understand about US law is the fact that the Constitution divides power between the Federal Government and the various states as stated by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Unfortunately this clause is somewhat vague as there is no word or list of things which the Constitution says is a state issue or a federal issue. This has give rise to a two hundred year old debate over "States Rights" and has been used to justify various conservative political positions with in the United States. It has even been sighted by various southern states to justify their leaving the United States prior to the start of the cival war. It has also been used to block progress on civil rights. Unfortunately for the right wing, these arguments have been unable to prevent progress from actually happening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 5:50pm on 27 May 2009, DA_RUE_STIR wrote:

    I know of plenty of "white men" who grew up dirt poor and worked hard for what they have.
    Sotomayor is clearly a racist to make the those types of statements.
    What We the People do not need in the Supreme court is someone who wants to punish the "white people of America" for crimes against minorities commited in the past.
    The fact that 80% of her rulings had to be overturned speaks volumes of her ineptitude as a judge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 5:56pm on 27 May 2009, extremesense wrote:

    Oh for pete's sake! I'm a type 1 diabetic, it's no big deal, it hasn't changed me and I'm sure it doesn't affect how Judge Sotomeyer comes to make her decisions in the courtroom.

    Once and for all, in the western world with access to good medical facilities, type 1 diabetes is eminently treatable although in later life you may go blind, have to have your legs chopped off starting at the toes, have serious heart, kidney and vascular problems (stroke, AAA). But remember that's later life and who wants to live for ever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:00pm on 27 May 2009, palmtrees85 wrote:

    I have to say that, from the absurdity metric (i.e. the Jon Stewart-esque "the least objective argument will simply look the craziest," vis-a-vis the real world), the arguments against her appointment are thought provoking.

    I have read on various comments,
    1) That she shouldn't have been a minority (as her being one is evidence of a biased decision process)
    2) That she shouldn't believe in Common Law (as presumably the legislative and executive branches are the "important" ones)
    3) That she shouldn't reason through decision in the context of humankind (as the Constitution and God explain things clearly enough)

    ... based on these requirements, and imagining where they come from, I can only conclude that conservative talk radio's ideal candidate was actually IBM's Deep Blue.

    PS: Do you "nominating someone who will interpret the law strictly" guys remember that you lot nominated Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court? The guy who visited a bed-ridden Ashcroft in an effort to re-authorize an illegal wiretapping program? A guy who didn't believe the right to habeas corpus was written in our Constitution?

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 6:00pm on 27 May 2009, DA_RUE_STIR wrote:

    Her diabetes is only relivent if she has an episode which would cause her to be without a clear mind, oh wait 80% of her rulings had to be overturned by higher courts, she is already screwed up in the head!

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 6:52pm on 27 May 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    The films "First Monday in October" and "House Calls".

    Both Walter Matthau films. The former about the Supreme Court. I visulised Glenda Jackson in the first named but was wrong. One "house call" not made today - although perhaps it was.

    Both fictional film worlds of course.

    The West Wing - William Fitchner and Glenn (beck?) Close - allegedly. The Supremes?

    So, Justin. Has the freedom to do anagrams - and publish them - been tested by the so called 4 Conservatives, 4 Liberals and one in betweenie (no offence) Justices?

    Subject: A diabetic on the Supreme Court question mark justin webb
    Anagram: Judgement pending?

    We may see. So the First Monday in october still?

    It is not only Jumbos that never forget - I was alway taut that too - in a wee - quiet way that is. lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 6:56pm on 27 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 32 TimothyR444 wrote - of the New Haven firefighters case

    "Of course it is reverse racism./ But in the world of polical correctness, such things must never be acknowledged for what they are let alone discussed./On this site, such a decision must be praised without reservation. But in the real world this will be a tremendous battle."

    I see. So who, exactly, praised the decision without reservation on this site?

    Idid a word search for New Haven, and at the time you posted all I could find was Kirin whining about it, and saintDominick saying [eg at #5] that, although he supported the nominee, he disagreed with this particular decision.

    Personally, I have no particular view on the decision, because I don't know enough about it. All I do know is that, from reading posts such as # 93 by Gary_A_Hill, it appears to be rather less straightforward than the rightwingers are making out. Who'd have thought?

    So I repeat - where is your evidence that "On this site, such a decision must be praised without reservation"? If anywhere?

    [I do apologise for introducing you to such alien concepts as evidence, proof and facts.]

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 6:56pm on 27 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    ASF, 62, everybody knows that if women are attracted to other women,
    then they are merely "experimenting."

    59, Ms. Marbles, as for praying, I'm saving that for when I encounter
    a bear that my 30-06 can't take down. And, actually, I did hear
    about a bear that was praying. He had encountered a wounded hunter in
    the wilderness, and was heard to have been saying, "Father, I thank thee
    for the wonderful meal that thou hast prepared for me..."

    #65, waterman, we actually prefer it to be confusing. If the law of the
    land becomes burdensome, we can just move to another state, as opposed to
    having to emigrate. And, what do you have against "hanging judges?" Since
    you are still around, what have they ever done to you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 7:09pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #93

    New Haven threw out the test because they were afraid of being sued. It was a fair test and since everyone who would have been promoted was either white or hispanic, it is reverse discrimination.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 7:24pm on 27 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    This entire thing over her comments she made at Stanford seems to have been taken out of context as conservatives seem to have taken part of a quote and taken it completely out of context.

    What bothers me about these attacks is that Rush Limbaugh, de facto leader of the Republican party, is the one leading the charge. Yesterday and to day he has openly referred to Judge Sotomayor as being both a Bigot and a racist. I find the fact that Limbaugh is calling anyone a racist to be ironic, since he himself was fired from a job in Television for making racist comments on the air. A few years ago Rush Limbaugh was hired by ESPN do be a studio analyst for their Sunday Pregame coverage of the National Football League. Four weeks into the Season Limbaugh made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb, who happens to be African American. The comments he said, which many people in and outside of ESPN and the NFL percieved to be racist, eventually forced ESPN to get rid of Limbaugh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 7:32pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    "The fact that 80% of her rulings had to be overturned speaks volumes of her ineptitude as a judge."

    This is an example of how to lie with statistics. Sotomayor has been on the Court of Appeals for more than a decade. Only seven of her cases have reached the US Supreme Court. Of these, one was upheld and one is still pending. It is true that the percentage of the six cases overturned is very high, but these are a tiny fraction of her cases on the Court of Appeals, most of which were not appealed, or appealed but not accepted by the USSC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 7:41pm on 27 May 2009, hms_shannon wrote:

    Ref54,Kscurmudgeon.
    I like the "can do" sentiment of your post.
    With that "can do"one can make it even here in Wales.
    I left school at 15 & retired at 46.My brother in law with a dregree from Cambridge & oxford "its a long story"has to keep going till past 65.
    Early to bed ,
    Early to rise,
    work like crazy,
    and advertize.
    Then comes the best bit ,share with thoes in real need...

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 7:42pm on 27 May 2009, SammiMalek wrote:

    By the way, where is the statistic of 80% overruled (and I've read 60% elsewhere) come from? I did a quick search on Westlaw in the Second Circuit database. There are 231 decisions on which Sotomayor is listed as a judge (she didn't always write the opinion, of course, but she was merely on the panel). Out of those, 9 had a red flag, which means they were either reversed or vacated by the Supreme Court, or were abrogated by statute. I don't honestly have the time to look at the 231 (or even the 9 with red flags), but I'm wondering if someone has already done this.

    I have seen the CNN article detailing the 6 or 7 cases that were reversed (I can't remember how many), but given the length of time she has been on the court, I don't see that as alarming, unless it really is 80%. So for anyone who has done their homework (and having watched FoxNews doesn't count!), I'd like to know the whether this is right and what the source is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 7:59pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    MK (#102), I don't know how you could know whether the test was fair or not. I certainly don't. They were sued anyway and that is one of the points on which the parties disagree. The Supreme Court will settle it, and I am satisfied to defer to them.

    Here's a link to a summary of the case: http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=12764

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 8:03pm on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    92, Gary -

    Thank you for providing that link. When read in context, it does make a completely reasonable point. I had suspected it would have a different ring to it when read in context. But of course then it's not nearly so "sexy."

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 8:19pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    bere54 (#108), I'm glad my link worked for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 8:29pm on 27 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#84 watermanaquarius

    Your words seem always 'golden,' at least in my very limited experience.

    Regarding Sonia Sotomayor:

    I believe that some will object to her because she is President Obama's choice. Some will object because she is a woman and a Latina. Some will object just for the purpose of objecting. Perhaps some will even object because she lacks 'judicial stature.' She is, after all, not
    very tall.

    I think that the law and justice should be tempered with compassion and humanity, otherwise it may ride on the back of braying ass.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 8:31pm on 27 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Do you all remember fivethirtyeight.com? They are the statistical gurus who tracked the US Presidential Election, and who established a reputation for calling it right. That's because their mission is to call it right rather than to push a political agenda. Here's a link to their analysis of Sotomayors's record on appeals. No flim-flam here:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 8:55pm on 27 May 2009, Dark Side of the Goon wrote:

    "reverse racism" - lovely phrase. Racism is racism is racism, no matter what the source.

    Of course, while we're working our way towards a level playing field for everyone there will be a few bumps along the way and those used to privilege will doubtless be concerned at perceived losses as that happens. C'est la vie.

    UKWales - your last sounds like a Sinatra song.

    If you can make it there/you'll make it anywhere
    It's up to you Newport Neeeewwwwpoooooort etc?

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 8:55pm on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    111, Gary -

    Another good link; thanks. As I guess you know, I am not proficient at finding these sorts of things myself so am very appreciative when others do the legwork (or fingerwork). I had never heard of fivethirtyeight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 9:04pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #100

    Amazing John admidts he doesn't know something. Too bad he won't admidt that on terrorism and other matters he doesn't understand.

    I live in New England so I may get more news about it than some other people on the board; for people to spend that much time on it especially Ricci who is dylexic and than to have it thrown out is blatantly wrong.

    It will be overturned and the person who contributed to the appeals decision Sotomayor a lesser intellect than Clarence Thomas will be sitting on the supreme Court.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 9:29pm on 27 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#114 Magickirin

    What is your criteria for considering Sonia Sotomayor a "lesser intellect?"
    I would really like you to list this in full detail, without rhetoric or references to Fox News.

    Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 9:47pm on 27 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 64 TrueToo The Internet is riddled with people who see themselves as amateur psychologists and insist on analysing others based on anonymous comments on a forum. Many of them, like yourself, are on this very blog. Generally it is simply a cover for an inability to argue the point. But nobody is fooled by it, except those who want to be fooled.

    TT,

    Thanks for the chuckle.

    You really truly do miss the irony in this little psychological analysis of yours, don't you?

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 10:06pm on 27 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    115, aqua -

    To a right-wing conservative, anyone who is liberal or moderate is automatically of lesser intellect than anyone who is right-wing. That is the only criterion #114 and his ilk use. Sotomayor's impressive academic background and other stellar credentials are of no importance to them. They belittle her intellect based on their own notions of her political leanings. Or -- could it also be because she is a woman?

    It's an odd stance to take. I was opposed to Roberts' confirmation, but I never questioned his intellect. That seem beyond doubt. It was his rigidity and his ultra-conservative views that disturbed me. And his total lack of empathy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 10:11pm on 27 May 2009, U13989085 wrote:

    Mind Jah lick you with diseases
    I say the most dangerous diseases
    I'm talking like the
    Elephantiasis and Poliomyelitis
    Arthritis and the one Diabetes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1aNPPLpdjQ

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:11pm on 27 May 2009, Spare_a_Copper_Guv wrote:

    Having a life-threatening illness or being close to someone who does, can be liberating. It makes you confront mortality earlier than normal and, after the shock, hopefully realise that today is THE day - live it to the full but be generous, because tomorrow you may not have the chance. Money ceases to be the big motivator.

    The sooner we all realise that we all share a life-threatening illness called LIFE (remember - no one has got out alive so far :o) the better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:24pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 102, Mirek Kondracki

    "It was a fair test and since everyone who would have been promoted was either white or hispanic, it is reverse discrimination."

    Since I never read the test I can not support or reject your statement. I think it is important to point out that the test in question was only part of the criteria used by New Haven to promote firefighters. Other factors included demonstrated performance, attendance record, leadership qualities, disciplinary record, etc. The criteria used by the government of New Haven, which is consistent with government and private industry criteria for promotion, includes subjective as well as demonstrable requirements. It is not clear the firefighters who passed the test but were not promoted met the promotion criteria.

    I have read articles on the Internet and newspapers that indicate judge Sotomayor wrote 400 opinions, others indicate it may have been half that number; regardless of what the exact number was, if only 5 of her rulings or opinions were picked by one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in history and 3 were overturned, I would say judge Sotomayor has demonstrated exceptional good judgment.

    Right wing opposition is, of course, not surprising and in some ways welcome as it helps expose the level of intolerance of people when even after being reduced to a tiny minority because of their excesses and their policies of fear, division, deception, and overt opposition to diversity continue to espouse the very reasons they were so soundly rejected in November. Please keep it up, we need to increase the Democratic majority in Congress next year.

    Sonia Maria Sotomayor's acdemic record is exceptional, her extensive legal record is more impressive than any of the incumbents, and she has a personal story that appeals to mainstream America as it represents what is best in our country. A person whose father had a third grade education, barely spoke English, and died when Sonia was 9 years old leaving the widow no option but to work six days a week to raise her children, and yet, both siblings managed to get scholarships and graduate with honors in Ivy League universities, rising to the highest levels in their respective professions, is the kind of narrative Americans like to hear and show as an example of what our country has to offer.

    On the issue of Clarence Thomas, I would say that anyone else would not have survived the Anita Hill episode, or qualified for the SC with such a modest education and legal record. It is also important to remember that ultra-conservative Scalia was confirmed by unanimous decision.

    The GOP has the right, indeed, the obligation to question the credentials of every nominee, and so do the Democrats in Congress, but I find the intense hatred that is evident in some of the comments being made against this remarkable person very offensive because of what they represent. I thought, apparently naively, that the prejudices of yesteryear were a thing of the past. It looks like I was mistaken.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:41pm on 27 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #115 and 117

    So I can't use Fox News a leading International New Source? I am just returning the liberl rhetoric about Thomas only being nominated because he was a black conservative.

    But Fox News did have a profile on their news show not Oppinion shows on how she is a mediorce judge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 10:41pm on 27 May 2009, BRIANCM wrote:

    Ms. Sotomayor has stated that her ethnic heritage and her sex have impacts on her decisions. She made the statement in front of Duke University students. A judges personal life and judicial repsonsibilities should not conflict. I do not seeing this as being the case with Ms. Sotomayor. Terrible choice. And pleae stop with the bleeding heart liberal stuff that she came from a housing project in NYC and she has had struggles. So have millions of other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 10:52pm on 27 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 65 robloop: Evidently 'civilization' has gone to hell, a circumstance favoured by the far left!

    Long time since you've been about the place! How are you? I see time has not dulled your passion for these subjects of discussion.

    Now being as I am, from the vantage point of where you are writing from on the ideological spectrum, no doubt one of those on the 'far left,' I take a certain umbrage at your contention that I favour the end of civilization.

    First, allow me to point out that abortions can be done in Canada (and the US, as well, BTW) after 22 weeks, but only under some pretty dramatic circumstances.

    This is how the Pro-Choice Action Network (not a group likely to be shy about presenting the available options) describes abortion availability in Canada:

    Most abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancythe first trimester. A few doctors in BC do abortions on request up to about 20 or 22 weeks, as well as a few clinics in Ontario, Quebec, and Washington State. Abortions are also available after 22 weeks in the rare event that your life or health becomes seriously threatened by the pregnancy, or in cases of serious fetal abnormality.

    I'm not sure how this constitutes an end to civilization as we know it. In fact, it seems to me a pretty civilized thing to allow a woman to save her life by having an abortion.

    As to the ending of the foetus' life because of gross abnormality, I would find that a tough call, personally. But, and this is the key point, it is not a call best made by anyone other than the mother.

    As to capital punishment, there are always cases that cry out for an ultimate form of punishment. However, consider this: if the state, and society as a whole, show compassion and mercy for those least deserving of compassion and mercy, does this not set an important example for those considering their options regarding an abortion? If society as a whole demonstrates through its deeds that it truly believes all life to be sacred, that ethos will be much more likely to manifest itself in the freely chosen actions of its individual members.

    Now, I could go on. But like it or not, in this society the "we" of the village have left bulk of the child rearing to each individual (and mostly to women alone). And it seems grossly unfair to step in as the collective authority and deny those responsible for bearing and raising children the right to decide if and when they will do it. Just as we might take offence when the state intervenes in determining how we raise our young.

    Yours
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 11:05pm on 27 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#117 Bere54

    "Stance" could be very important. It appears that even wearing heeled shoes she is barely 'average' height for a woman and certainly much shorter than a man. Could this be counted against her at the hearings?

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 11:16pm on 27 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#120 Dominickvilla

    Thank you for your post and the words about Justice Thomas. I was hoping that he would not be confirmed. He is not a person of great intellect or extraordinary accomplishment by many standards. His ethics and morality have always seemed doubtful to me.

    Some of what you see posted here is based on racism, sexism and extreme political bias. You have knowledge, tempered with an open mind but that will not always be respected by some here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 11:42pm on 27 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#121 Magickirin

    I only wanted to know if you had any other sources for your views than those transmitted by Fox News?

    Usually people have multiple sources for information that influence opinion. I wanted to know on what other sources you have based your information that Sonia Sotomayor is a "lesser intellect." I thought perhaps you might have access to school transcripts, her IQ scores, her actual law work or judicial records.

    It was just a thought and there is no need for you to trouble yourself for an answer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 11:46pm on 27 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 121, Magic

    May I suggest you listen to more than one TV or radio station? I enjoy NPR, but I watch CNN, ABC, and the BBC often. Balance is critical in forming a good opinion.

    Regarding judge Sotomayor "lesser intellect", you may want to consider the definition of intellect:

    The ability to learn and reason, the capacity for knowledge and understanding, and the ability to think abstractly or profoundly.

    and the fact that Ms. Sotomayor graduated from Princeton on top of her class and was the editor of the Yale Law Journal. Surely she must have grasped something here and there during her life experiences and personal achievements...

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 00:09am on 28 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#119 Shareacoppergov

    Great Post! Cheers to you for the reminder!

    May you live long and also prosper!

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 00:56am on 28 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 121

    Magic karin I hope you realize that Fox News is not what it claims to be. It is neither fair or balenced in its reporting. It was formed by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes with the sole intention of being a vehicle for the Republican party to spread its propoganda.

    Remember the tea parties ( which were a reference to the Boston Tea Party, where the Sons of Liberty siezed British Ships and dumped cases of tea in Boston Harbor) that occured last month? Fox news openly promoted and sponsored the tea parties. In many cases, Fox News exagerated the numbers to make it seem like there were more protesters than they actually were.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 01:26am on 28 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 121, Mirek Kondracki (MagicKirin)

    "So I can't use Fox News a leading International New Source? I am just returning the liberl rhetoric about Thomas only being nominated because he was a black conservative."

    You can, obviously, watch and listen whatever you want; what some of us have suggested is that listening to several sources is often the best way to reach a balanced conclusion on any issue.

    Regarding Justice Clarence Thomas' qualifications I think it is important to remember the American Bar Association offered a split rating between qualified and not qualified when he was nominated. Thomas attended and graduated from Yale where he neither excelled as a scholar nor graduate near the bottom of his class. The Anita Hill allegations should not be dismissed simply because she didn't have witnesses, most rape or sexual harrassment victims don't have witnesses, that doesn't mean their claims are not true. President George H. W. Bush did not nominate judge Thomas because he was the most qualified jurist available to serve in the Supreme Court, he did it for political reasons and to ensure the seat vacated by Justice Thurgood Marshall remained in the hands of an ethnic minority jurist.

    I don't believe Affirmative Action is needed any more. It served its purpose a few decades ago to help minorities overcome the barriers that had prevented them from becoming successful members of our society, but those barriers are, for the most part, no longer there. That is the reason it is so disturbing to see the attacks and discern the level of hatred that consumes so many people because a "Latina" female has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Make no mistake, the attacks are not attributed to her education, or her performance as a judge, they are prompted by overt cultural intolerance and ideological bias.

    In one of my previous posts I mentioned the nomination and confirmation of Justice Scalia by a unanimous vote, in spite of the fact that he was an acknowledged conservative. The contrast between the willingness of Democrats to confirm a conservative judge, and the savagery of the conservative attacks against judge Sotomayor speaks volumes and explains the reason the GOP lost so many seats and, hopefully, will lose many more next year.

    Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an exceptional scholar and a highly qualified jurist who happens to be a "Hispanic" female.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 01:30am on 28 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 122, Brian

    "Ms. Sotomayor has stated that her ethnic heritage and her sex have impacts on her decisions."

    Whether people like to admit it or not, gender, ethnicity, education, and life experience do influence our decisions and the way we see the world around us. That is precisely the essence of the statement she made while discussing the plight of minorities in the USA when she stated that a "Latina" woman is better equipped to understand how minorities feel than a white male (I am not paraphrasing her statement).

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 01:48am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Personally, I believe that the attacks on Sotomayor which have been aired
    in the media are just hype from the far right. Obviously, she is an extremely
    intelligent and well qualified candidate, and must be somewhat of a centrist,
    having originally been appointed to the bench by a Republican.

    I'm more concerned about her philosophy of Constitutional interpretation,
    and how that might affect her legal opinions. There are several opinions
    from the liberal side of the bench to which I am vehemently opposed - extension
    of public domain to allow seizure of private property for non-public uses
    is one of them. If I wasn't so busy being a scientist, I would investigate
    how these people think.


    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 02:07am on 28 May 2009, hartley2451 wrote:

    not really sure what the big deal is type 1 diabetes is a completely managable thing is you simply do all the things you are required to do. A friend of mine is a type 1 diabetic and the only time it ever impacts on him in negative way is when he doesn't take care of it. - this is irrelevant to her politics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 02:09am on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    132, guns.
    "There are several opinions
    from the liberal side of the bench to which I am vehemently opposed - extension of public domain to allow seizure of private property for non-public uses is one of them. If I wasn't so busy being a scientist, I would investigate how these people think."

    Or who is paying them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 02:20am on 28 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#130 Saintdominick

    Cheers! I admire your ability to state my own thoughts so eloquently.

    Thank You!

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 02:23am on 28 May 2009, Noliving wrote:

    saintDominick: May I suggest that you don't make assumptions about people, specifically magickirin. Just because magic is talking about a fox news source doesn't mean magic only watches or spends the most time watching or listening too fox news and that magic doesn't know what they are talking about because the source is fox news and you don't agree with magic views. I mean for crying out loud, magic is posting on a bbc news blog, clearly magic gets news from more then one source. I just find it insulting that your telling magic to stop only listening/watching fox news and that magic doesn
    t have a "balanced" view(which you now call conclusion)/good opinion, yet these posts by you and magic are on bbc news blog, its quite obvious that magic looks at more than one source when it comes to news, I mean magic posting here proves that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 02:24am on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #129

    You obious know nothing about the tea partys. they were grassroot orginizations. Alot most authentic than the /soros sponsored Obama Grassroots funding.

    This was not reported by certain outlet like NBC because they claim any criticism (see Jeanne Garafalo) of the savior is racism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 02:36am on 28 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    I just heard a startling Statistic about the Supreme Court. Every year the court recieved about 8000 cases and chose to hear about 80. That works out to aproximately one percent of the cases that they recieve. Of those case, they over turn 60 of the case, which is a 75 percent reversal rate. So far Judge Sotomayer has had of her six cases reviewed before the Supreme Court, out of aproximately 400 opinions she's written. She has had two decisions upheld, three decisions overturned and one case is still pending. Out of all the decisions she has written, only three have been overturn. This is according to the Rachel Maddow Show.

    And yet, Conservative pundits such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are trying to say that she's a bad judge whos case have been repeatedly over turned. Once again they just don't have the evidence to support it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 02:42am on 28 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    RE 137

    Fox News was promoting the Tea Parties. Just go on You tube and you will find clips of Fox mentioning the tea parties repeatedly. Everyone on the channel from Glen Beck, to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity kept mentioning the tea parties. Fox News also tried to over estimate how many people actually attended the tea parties in an effort to make it look like there were more people than their actually were.

    In on case Kieth Olberman showed footage of Neal Cavuto falsifying the number of people who were actually in attendence at the Sacremento Tea Party. He also showed footage of Fox over estimating how many people actually attend tea parties in Boston and Philadelphia.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 03:06am on 28 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    American sports fan, why do you tell these lies, why do you try to distort the facts. By your own numbers most of her decisions were not reviewed by the court. So far 6 out of 400 have been heard, about 1.5%. The normal rate is 1%. Of those five cases she's been overturned 60% of the time compared to 75% on average. Depending on how the case now being heard comes out it will be either 50% or 80%. That's also about average. Based on that, who wants an average Judge for a Supreme Court Justice? But it is not based on that. In fact what you cited is irrelevant one way or the other.

    I hope these hearings are over soon. We all know who is going to say what and how the vote will come out. It could hardly be better scripted. It's just a waste of time to hear about it.

    BTW, except for the briefest of mentions initially when the announcement was made, I haven't heard the media talk about here diabetes at all. It is not an issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 03:14am on 28 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 132 guns

    Are you referring to this ruling?

    As a communitarian type liberal, I would say that I find it makes me shake my head too. Actually, it really steams me up. Though I wouldn't go as far as Marbles, and suggest it is due to corruption.

    I find the arguments of both the majority and minority in this case unsatisfactory. It is neither sufficient to invoke the public good that is ultimately served by expanding the tax base through expropriation and development, nor is it simply a question of protecting the property rights of individuals.

    This was a functioning community, and for the City of New London to seek erase it, and disperse its residents to the winds, was wrong. For the Supreme Court to rule that this destruction of a community was justified by the greater "public" good was wrong. No one seems to have given a crap about the good of that community, as a community. Pfizer should have been forced to accommodate and integrate into its plans what was already there, full stop.

    The planners probably didn't want all those humble folks sullying the view from the shiny condos by the new marina.

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 03:24am on 28 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    Oh, and guns, apropos of all that community stuff, have you seen this op-ed in the NYT by David Brooks?

    I don't know if this link will work (since sometimes the Times wants you to sign in). Anyway, he talks about the message of John Ford westerns as being that it is ultimately community and civil order that triumph over individualism and untrammeled freedom (actually, he gets this from Richard Slotkin, whose podcast lectures I tried to link to once, but were roundly rejected by the mods).

    Guys like this give me some hope for the GOP. You'll be running low on cat food in that lifeboat of yours, sooner or later ...

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 03:40am on 28 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    142, chrono -

    David Brooks has come a long way in the last couple of years. He once made an argument in The Atlantic that today's teenagers learn responsibility and build character by having to choose among cell phone plans, much in the way the teenagers of yesteryear accomplished this by doing farm chores. He was not being facetious. And right after Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, Brooks announced gleefully on NPR, "End of discussion!" As far as I know, he's never admitted he was wrong about that. But lately he seems to have gained a bit of wisdom, and I have hope for him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 04:28am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    142, chronophobe, I'm actually pretty cushy here in the lifeboat. Actually,
    it's a stealth lifeboat, just so that some crazy survivors don't get the
    strange idea that they're entitled to "share my wealth." This only applies
    to primates, of course, which is a branch of creation which seems to suffer
    from moral deficits. Canines and felines are another matter. But, I digress...

    Yes, conservatism for me is about community-building. Not the noisy, politically
    correct way that liberals thump their chests about. Not with a big government
    bureaucracy cutting deals with big corporations and big unions to screw over
    everybody else. But, with individuals taking responsibility for their lives,
    practicing what they preach.

    That's something that I love about small towns. People can see what is
    going on. And, you're very observant for bringing Brooks' article into
    the picture. Individualism is not about being selfish. It's not about
    compelling others to adhere to your own views. It's about taking
    matters into your own hands to make the world a better place by
    setting a good example in whatever you do.

    That's really the problem with the Washington, D.C. crowd. They are so
    good at playing the game that they've forgotten what it's all about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 04:47am on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    ASF (#138), evidence is irrelevant to right-wing radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh. They don't have to convince anybody because they don't even believe their own rhetoric. All they need is a message that sells to the gullible, whether there is any truth to it or not. It's just a business.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 05:06am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    142, chronophobe, I did not mean to insult you by dragging in the term
    "liberal." What I should have said was "politically correct and PAC-funded
    liberal."

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 05:44am on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    144, guns.
    "That's something that I love about small towns. People can see what is going on."

    I have lived in small towns and in a couple of humongous cities. The small town is just, if not more, corrupt. It is run by an ingroup, and you had best be part of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 05:50am on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    144, guns, further.

    I should say that some small towns are good and I am living in one of them. The guys who are the power care about the town and the people in it. That's not to say that they don't divvy up the contracts, etc..

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 06:04am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    147, Ms. Marbles, yes, you do run into that. But, the nice thing about
    small-town crooks is that they don't think that they're going to get caught.

    In big cities and states, we never find out. I was looking for a break-down
    of the California state budget, and I couldn't find it. These politicians
    wanted to increase taxes, and they didn't have the cahones to tell us
    how they were spending what they collect!

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 06:18am on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    149, guns.
    "But, the nice thing about small-town crooks is that they don't think that they're going to get caught."

    People may know what they are doing, but who is going to catch them? Thier buddies? Good luck.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 06:39am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    150, Ms. Marbles, the FBI does a pretty good job. But, I didn't tell you that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 07:09am on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    152, guns.

    Are you speaking from personal experience?

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 07:11am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    152, Ms. Marbles, friend of a friend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 07:13am on 28 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    and, to elaborate, if I wanted to make a career out of it,
    I would never run out of rocks to turn over and document
    slimey stuff. But, I decided to get on with my life and
    do something useful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 08:15am on 28 May 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    130:
    I take exception to statements such as this: "Make no mistake, the attacks are not attributed to her education, or her performance as a judge, they are prompted by overt cultural intolerance and ideological bias." Not only does it dismiss Republican criticism of the nominee out hand, but it furthers the incorrect perception that the Republican party is sexist and racist. Everyone knows that the party has image problems, but come on, this is distasteful opportunism, and quite frankly one of the dirtiest forms of race baiting.

    147:

    That sounds more like cronyism, which is not the same thing as corruption. However, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a small town or small rural county that isn't run like a little fiefdom by the local sheriff or judge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 08:47am on 28 May 2009, bfoulkrod1 wrote:

    1. At 6:32pm on 26 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    I don't care about her diabetes (other than I'm sorry she has it), and neither, I'm pretty confident, does anyone else. I'm a whole lot more interested in her outlook on the Constitution, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed.

    'nuff said...perfect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 10:11am on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #138 and #139

    Sorry hate mongers and liars like Obermann and Maddow have no credibility.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 10:15am on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    78. robloop,

    I agree. People can be as racist and sexist as they like and get away with it, as long as they are not white males.

    Good to see you posting again.


    123. chronophobe wrote:

    But, and this is the key point, it is not a call best made by anyone other than the mother.

    Here I must strongly disagree. To quote Kahlil Gibran:

    Your children are not your children

    They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself.


    To allow one person, whether the mother or not, the authority over the life or death of the unborn makes no sense. The issue here is far broader than personal choice.

    Having said that, it's rare to see the abortion/death penalty argument presented in a persuasive, reasonable fashion rather than the knee jerk, aggressive and monosyllabic response generally directed at pro-lifers, so thanks for that.

    But if you turn your argument around, surely it is far worse to kill the unborn than to kill those who have committed horrific crimes - especially given the incidents of recidivism on the part of violent criminals released on parole and the limp wrist of the Western "justice" system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 10:52am on 28 May 2009, American Sport Fan wrote:

    Re 140 I am not telling distortions I am reporting what I have heard. I happen to listen to Kieth Olberman, a dedicated Journalist who has seen it all and done it all. He has even had Rush Limbaugh confess that it was his dream to co host Sports Center with Olbermen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 11:47am on 28 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:

    #157 MagicKirin

    "Sorry hate mongers and liars like Obermann and Maddow have no credibility"

    I assume that you use the same logic to deduce that Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Cheney, Bush and Palin, have no credibility? They all fall into either or both catergoires - "hante mongers" and "liars" .

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 11:55am on 28 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:

    158. At 10:15am on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    "I agree. People can be as racist and sexist as they like and get away with it, as long as they are not white males."

    This does happen unfortunately. One persons positive discrimination is anothers negative discrimination. The fact that we are talking about someone being "Hispanic", "black", or "white", shows that there is still discrimination, and it will probably never go away.

    "To allow one person, whether the mother or not, the authority over the life or death of the unborn makes no sense."

    I don't think anyone will ever agree on this. I think however, that if a woman has had an abortion already, she should not be allowed another one at a later time(unless due to health reasons). It is not something that people should take for granted, and if they can't get that into their head after the first time, then quite frankly it's disgusting.

    I remember reading someone that someone (an actress I believe), had had over 5 abortions in her life. That makes me sick :(




    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 12:34pm on 28 May 2009, BRIANCM wrote:

    Ms. Sotomayor has had three of five decision overturned by the Supreme Court. Although she has written many decisions she has be over ruled three out of five times by the suprme court. Ms. Sotomayor also belives that a Latina women is more capable at writing decision that a white male. Read her history before you rush to judgement. In Connecticut a firfighters exam was overturned by the city of New haven because to many white males passed the tests. Ms. Sotomayor sided with the city. New Haven, Conn., firefighters said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city. Ms. Sotomayor is a EEOC appointee. She should be rejected without further adeu.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 12:58pm on 28 May 2009, RomeStu wrote:

    158 truetoo

    IMO a resolutely pro-life (ie no abortion ever) position can only be justified if the required level of welfare to enable the unwanted babies to live a reasonable life is provided.
    So much pro-life rhetoric stops at birth .... and has no interest in the actual LIFE of the new baby.

    Until this happens any attempt to stop abortion will simply create many thousands of unwanted children, most of whom will live miserable lives. How humane is that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 1:02pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 114 MagicKirin wrote: [of me]

    "Amazing John admidts [sic] he doesn't know something. Too bad he won't admidt [sic]that on terrorism and other matters he doesn't understand."

    1 Nice to know that Magic thinks I'm amazing. I think he's amazing too. But not in a good way.

    2 Magic, no one knows everything. It is generally accepted that the beginning of wisdom is to accept how little you know. Unlike me, you have never let a lack of knowledge or wisdom [or evidence or sources or links or spelling or grammar or punctuation] inhibit you from expressing your opinion, which is invariably based on your innumerable hatreds and prejudices and/or what they say on Fox.

    3 I don't recall off hand my postings on terrorism. Perhaps you can direct me to one?


    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 1:04pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #159

    Here is an example of MSNBC bias

    http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2009/fax20090326.asp
    I've met journalists and Keith Oberman is no Journalist. He was also pretty bad at ESPN and makes NBC footbal unwatchable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 1:14pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 115 aquarizonagal wrote:

    "To#114 Magickirin/What is your criteria for considering Sonia Sotomayor a "lesser intellect?"/I would really like you to list this in full detail, without rhetoric or references to Fox News./Thank you."

    Aquarizonagal, while I applaud your courtesy, I strongly recommend you don't hold your breath waiting for a serious response.

    As has been repeatedly demonstrated, in Magicland, words mean what Magic wants them to mean, and 'facts' means his opinions and prejudices. He has frequently been asked for sources. Fox seems to be the main one - if not the only one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 1:21pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 117 bere54 wrote: [referring to Magic]

    "115, aqua -

    To a right-wing conservative, anyone who is liberal or moderate is automatically of lesser intellect than anyone who is right-wing. That is the only criterion #114 and his ilk use. "

    But Bere - Magic isn't a conservative. He's told us that he's a 'moderate'. A moderate who hates Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, etc etc etc. [The list is too long to include here.]

    Naturally, since he's a 'moderate', anyone who ever disagrees with him is an extremist [a hater, a hate-monger, a liar, a terrorist, a terrorist sympathiser, an appeaser, an anti-Semite etc etc etc - the list is too long to include here.]

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 1:40pm on 28 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 155, Bienvenue

    "Not only does it dismiss Republican criticism of the nominee out hand, but it furthers the incorrect perception that the Republican party is sexist and racist."

    There is a difference between constructive criticism, which should always be welcomed, and charges of "reverse discrimination" or distortions of someone's record. I am a white male, and prefer to judge people based on their education, convictions, and deeds rather than their skin pigmentation or gender. As I have pointed out previously, my two best friends are conservative Republicans, and my son-in-law is an evangelical Christian Republican that opposes everything the Democrats do, including the appointment of Republican politicians who immediately become RINOs...until they change their mind, at which time they once again become heroes who saw the light. In spite of our philosophical disagreements, I value their friendship, respect their honesty and beliefs, and do not consider them racist or sexist.

    The sentiment that, I believe, is more pronounced among Republicans than among Democrats is tolerance. Republicans are much more apt to oppose policies put forth by Democrats on the basis of ideology, they oppose nominations for the same reason, and at times demonize individuals, and don't hesitate to distort the record of their opponents to achieve their goals.

    I am a Democrat, I am not pro-choice, I believe President Obama's position on Iraq is an endorsement of Bush's policy, I believe his position on Afghanistan is the same, albeit perhaps for a greater focus on Al Qaeda, and his current position on Guantanamo mimicks what the Bush Administration said during its last year in office. I also think that Obama's fiscal policies, regardless of necessity, are as irresponsible as Bush's. Sadly, without a better alternative, the only way to preserve our way of life and save capitalism is to infuse large amounts of government money until private enterprise can take over.

    I am a Democrat because I believe government has a role in protecting the welfare of society, and because in spite of minimal differences in foreign policy, the Dems tend to be more respectful of other cultures and tend to give diplomacy and compromise a chance before they act.

    In my opinion, sexism has all but disappeared, but there are still pockets of racism in our society. Racism is, clearly, not as pervasive as it once was, but they still exist as a result of ignorance of anything foreign or different to what we are accustomed to.

    A neighbor of mine was truly perplexed a few years ago when I told him my ancestry is from Spain. He responded, without malice, that that was impossible because I am white, and added that I was probably mistaken and that my ancestors probably came from Italy...or Portugal! He then put his arm next to mine to prove his point and told me that his parents were from southern Portugal and his skin is much darker than mine! I saw no point in continuing the friendly exchange and changed the topic. My neighbor, incidentally, is Republican not because of philosophical convictions, both his children receive government assistance because they are bi-polar, but because as he put it, the Democratic party is the party of blacks. This is what we are up against.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 2:23pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    161. SaintOne,

    The assumption by the social engineers of the left is that if you belong to a group that has undergone racist oppression, your own racism is excused.

    It's an extremely damaging and patronising assumption.

    The ability to discriminate is what gets you across the street on one piece and assists you through life in countless other ways. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in itself. It's how you apply it that counts.

    There are many women who deeply regret aborting their unborn child. It can't be otherwise since abortion is turning against life itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:15pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #130 and others

    You failed to mention Robert Bork a brilliant man was blocked by petty partsian reasons by Democrats. Clarence Thomas did not get an easy confirmation and why we should accept Anita Hill's word over Thomas when Thomas had witness that confirmed his account is beyond me?

    I asked another poster did you watch the hearings? I did and Hill was not credible.

    My jibes at Sotomayor is firing back to all the pundits and posters on this board who question Thomas inteligence and qualification

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 3:33pm on 28 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:

    #168 St D

    "my son-in-law is an evangelical Christian Republican"

    What was your daughter thinking!!?!

    I jest...but seriously, that must make for interesting family meals....

    :p

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 3:42pm on 28 May 2009, AnneWarfield wrote:

    We need a new way to look at leadership. Leadership is no longer a position; it is a way of thinking. Nominee Sotomayor pushed through adversity to get to where she is today. This tells me she does not take a back seat to life. Whether Sotomayer has diabetes or not, she exudes the characteristics of a leader.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 4:07pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #167

    Another moonbat lie.

    I never said I hated Barack Obama, I've said he was unqualified which I stand by. I never said I hated Michelle Obama I said she was a mean spirited person who has been given a free ride.

    I do hate Demond Tutu and Jimmy Cater two anti-semitic hypocrites who have done great harm to the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 4:09pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #167

    Another moonbat lie.

    I never said I hated Barack Obama, I've said he was unqualified which I stand by. I never said I hated Michelle Obama I said she was a mean spirited person who has been given a free ride.

    I do not think much of the other three

    I am posting this sanitized version in case the moderators censor the truth about Tutu and Carter

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 4:19pm on 28 May 2009, JGall10 wrote:

    Dear Justin,
    Thank you for this, I greatly enjoy reading your blog. I find the nomination and confirmation process to the US Supreme Court hugely interesting. Hopefully you'll get the opportunity/time to offer some thoughts on the likely approach (or political difficulties facing) of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 4:58pm on 28 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    169: "There are many women who deeply regret aborting their unborn child."

    That may very well be so. There are also many women who do not regret having had an abortion, but rather are thankful they had the legal right to do so. And there are many people who deeply regret any number of things they have done but who do not therefore think there should be laws denying them the right to choose or not to choose to do those things. If many of the people who drop out of college later deeply regret that decision, does that mean there ought to be a law against dropping out of college? What happened to accepting personal responsibility for one's actions? I thought personal responsibility was at the heart of conservatism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 5:21pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    169. At 2:23pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:
    161. SaintOne,

    The assumption by the social engineers of the left is that if you belong to a group that has undergone racist oppression, your own racism is excused."

    Coming from a former Apartheid South African, a country where dleiberate, brutal rascism was part of the very consitution this is rich.

    it is not a right/left issue. Not all righwingers are rascists, though it is a right wing failing. Israel being a perfect case in point.


    "The ability to discriminate is what gets you across the street on one piece and assists you through life in countless other ways. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in itself. It's how you apply it that counts."


    Please detail "justified rascism". Then tell us what a "nice rape" is or a gentle torture.

    Crooked thinking.


    "There are many women who deeply regret aborting their unborn child. It can't be otherwise since abortion is turning against life itself."


    Pity more men do not regret getting women pregnant eh?

    The abortion "debate" is long over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 5:25pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    MK (#170) "I asked another poster did you watch the hearings? I did and Hill was not credible."

    I did, and found her credible. That is a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can disagree. The confirmation vote was 52 to 48, unusually narrow for a Supreme Court confirmation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 5:30pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    164. At 1:02pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    "2 Magic, no one knows everything. It is generally accepted that the beginning of wisdom is to accept how little you know. Unlike me, you have never let a lack of knowledge or wisdom [or evidence or sources or links or spelling or grammar or punctuation] inhibit you from expressing your opinion, which is invariably based on your innumerable hatreds and prejudices and/or what they say on Fox."


    Magic thinks that Alan Dershovitz is a great mind and that Ariel Sharon is a greater humanist than Archbishop Tutu (possibly he is the only person other than Avigor Lieberman to beleive this).

    So we are not exactly dealing with a great intellect or ethical scholar here.

    No wonder the US far right is in such a shambles.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 5:32pm on 28 May 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    168:
    Thank you for being civil about your responce. It confirms that my decision to critic the statement in your post rather than you directly was the correct one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 5:37pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    " ... pundits and posters on this board who question Thomas inteligence and qualification.

    It's fruitless to argue these points, I think. The real problem with Thomas is that he is an extreme originalist. Scalia is the other originalist on the Court, who is generally regarded as highly intelligent and qualified, but his originalism is tempered by a decent regard for precedent. Thomas, by some accounts, doesn't have much regard for precedent, which puts him out of the mainstream of judicial philosophy. See the following article from The Washington Post on this point:

    pundits and posters on this board who question Thomas inteligence and qualification

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 5:51pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    158. At 10:15am on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    123. chronophobe wrote:

    But, and this is the key point, it is not a call best made by anyone other than the mother.

    Here I must strongly disagree. To quote Kahlil Gibran:

    Your children are not your children

    They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. "


    Kahil Gibran is talking about children, not foetuses. Odd that escaped you

    Oh and apply this ridiculous saying with people's children and you will be arrested. The law says otherwise.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer man.

    "To allow one person, whether the mother or not, the authority over the life or death of the unborn makes no sense. The issue here is far broader than personal choice."


    It makes no sense to tell someone what they can dow ith their own body. And restrict this to one sex.

    "Having said that, it's rare to see the abortion/death penalty argument presented in a persuasive, reasonable fashion rather than the knee jerk, aggressive and monosyllabic response generally directed at pro-lifers, so thanks for that."

    Those seeking to oppress women have no case worth considering, like rascists

    "But if you turn your argument around, surely it is far worse to kill the unborn than to kill those who have committed horrific crimes - especially given the incidents of recidivism on the part of violent criminals released on parole and the limp wrist of the Western "justice" system."

    So we are apparently not against killing - we would just prefer to kill human beings t rather than foetuses.

    Is that supposed to be pro-life? Pro-life but pro death penalty?




    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 5:56pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    84. watermanaquarius wrote:

    Why denigrate any poster using references to "amateur psychologists" or those who wish to participate to the best of their abilities on this or a past thread in joining any or all conversations about American life, and life in general that evolve via this blog.

    That isn't what bere54 was doing. She was sniping away at others - something she does a lot of the time, as do quite a few others here. I don't start these games of ping pong where the ball is the insult and it just gets smacked back and forth. Again, why continually make comments that consist exclusively of mud thrown at others and contribute nothing to the debate?

    I'm not sure why you are mixed up about the Koran and the Torah. Or what point, if any, you are trying to make.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 5:58pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    165. At 1:04pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
    ref #159

    Here is an example of MSNBC bias

    http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2009/fax20090326.asp
    I've met journalists and Keith Oberman is no Journalist. He was also pretty bad at ESPN and makes NBC footbal unwatchable.


    Do you have any idea how completely ridiculous you look by citing these right wing peculiar websites?

    All you have done is provide proof the opposite of what you state.

    There are plenty of respectable right-wing sites so why go to the most extreme?

    And the "research Director " of this far right farce is called Rich Noyse. Is that supposed to be a real name?

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 6:00pm on 28 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 171, Saint

    "I jest...but seriously, that must make for interesting family meals...."

    They are certainly challenging and require diplomatic skills that would make Henry Kissinger blush with envy. A supply of Tums in the glove compartment of my car come in handy on the drive back home. Suffice it to say that if he joined this blog he would make the most partisan bloggers look moderate.


    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 6:05pm on 28 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 170, Magic

    "I asked another poster did you watch the hearings? I did and Hill was not credible."

    I did, and I found Anita Hill's statements very convincing. Unfortunately, there were no witnesses or conclusive evidence to corroborate her claims, and good ole Clarence got away with it.

    Judge Bork was, indeed, a highly qualified and intelligent individual. Unfortunately, he came across as arrogant, abrassive, and unprepared to respond to the questions he was asked.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 6:13pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    170. At 3:15pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
    ref #130 and others

    "Clarence Thomas did not get an easy confirmation and why we should accept Anita Hill's word over Thomas when Thomas had witness that confirmed his account is beyond me?"


    Really would these witnesses be the five that confirmed Anita Hill's version of events?

    You are not relying on David Brock who openly stated he libelled Hill?

    Might be good to learn the facts before commenting them.


    "Sexual harrasment is

    I asked another poster did you watch the hearings? I did and Hill was not credible."



    I did too and Hill was only too credible. Thomas came over as a poetaster of the highest order.

    "My jibes at Sotomayor is firing back to all the pundits and posters on this board who question Thomas inteligence and qualification"

    Thomas was elected despite a credible charge of sexual harrasment. Republican right wingers attemting to stuff the Supreme Court. Hopefully obama will get the chance to make some more appointments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 6:15pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    " ... Robert Bork a brilliant man was blocked by petty partsian reasons by Democrats."

    Brilliance, though desirable, is not sufficient for confirmation to the US Supreme Court. Bork was defeated primarily because of his stated opposition to Roe v Wade as "wrongly decided," meaning that he would overturn it, and to the "right of privacy" generally. The "right of privacy" is one of those inferred rights which strict constructionists like Bork don't like, but it is the doctrine which keeps government from interfering in the private affairs of citizens in such as ways as limiting choices and availability of contraception. Most Americans think government should stay out of the bedroom.

    Bork was another extreme originalist. If we're going to have one on the Supreme Court, I think it better to have the less brilliant Thomas, who is less influential than Bork would have been.

    Besides, Bork's name has entered the vocabulary, as in "he's been Borked." Would this work as well with Thomas or any other name?

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 6:36pm on 28 May 2009, robloop wrote:

    Ref 123 chronophobe
    Hi. How are you doing? I got a good chuckle from your opening comment. If you go back and do a little research you'll discover that Canada has no abortion law and that there is no limit to when an abortion can be performed. As to when most abortions are performed, this is slightly irrelevant regarding what is permitted and actually occurs. No doubt the Pro-Choice Action Network will present to public the cleanest face it can to a grubby activity.

    With consideration to 'civilization' per se', in my estimation no true civilization would permit partial birth abortions (I don't have a weak stomach, but this is pure barbarism), or allow babies to die in some dark and dank back room after surviving a botched abortion, yet this is what is permitted in supposedly civilized Western societies.
    I'm not moved by the notion that many or most women have an abortion because it threatens their life. Nowadays rarely does that occur. Most women have an abortion because a child is unwanted or its birth inconvenient. It's now mostly a form of contraception - and tells us the depths to which, in civilized terms, we've sunk. Not long ago I watched a video showing, by ultra-sound, an abortion being performed. When the vacuum cleaner-type machine approached the infant, the infant first tried to get away from it into the top section of the womb and then as the machine began tearing the child apart it's mouth could be seen in a silent scream of agony. It made quite an impression. The doctor who showed the video was once America's leading abortionist, but now an outspoken opponent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 7:10pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    bere54 (#176), very well put.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:12pm on 28 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    @88(GAH): Gary, a couple of comments, please:

    "Every member of the Supreme Court is highly trained and experienced in the law, and all are of sufficient age to have acquired such wisdom as comes from age, yet we have had quite a few five to four decisions? Why should that be? It is because the law is often not that cut-and-dried, and individual justices are the product of their own makeup and experiences in life, as well as their legal training, so see things in different ways."

    This is true but not conclusive. The number of 5/4 decisions could also be a function of increased political polarization manifesting itself in the ideological makeup of the court. I can't pull statistics on the distribution of decisions over time and issue; if someone else can point me to a source, it would be enlightening to bounce that against the overall political environment. If the decision breakdown distribution changed to become more 5/4 over time, or to become more 5/4 over given issues within a given period of time, then a charge could be made that the ongoing ideological warfare was polluting the proper function of the court. I believe it has; I just don't have the statistical tools available to be able to prove the point.

    "The protections against unreasonable Supreme Court decisions are the requirements for Senate confirmation, and the requirement for five votes to decide a case. If that's not enough checks and balances to achieve a good result, I don't know what more you would want."

    If both of these were still functioning properly, I would agree with you. Obviously the 5-justice threshold provides the same protection it did; however, I do not believe the Senate has properly executed its responsibilities here in a very long time, certainly not since Bork in 1987. It would be useful to review pre-Bork confirmation hearings to see if the rot that began manifesting itself at that time was actually present beforehand.

    It would also be useful to compare the quality of confirmation hearings with the cost of Senate campaigns to determine if the continued escalation in campaign costs is related to the degradation in objective judgement of the confirmation process. Election to the Senate costs a great deal of money; those who contribute that $$$$ by definition expect something for their contributions. Since the confirmation process is one of the major responsibilities of the Senate, it's reasonable to expect that folks wishing to use the law itself, rather than the budget, to promote their particular ideology would focus on the Senate rather than the House.

    Our individual outlooks on this nomination, and on other nominations, elections, and appointments to other courts, rests as far as I can tell on our response to this question: Are our courts simply the place where our actions are judged against the law as written by the legislature and enforced by the executive? Or are our courts just another place or method to get something we desire if we can't get it through the legislative or executive branches, i.e. just another weapons system?

    For myself, I lean toward the first view, but that may well be a minority view now. I'm sure it is among the monied interests in this country.

    An attorney friend of mine told me a number of months ago that "...we have already all but obliterated the concept of the rule of law, and we are well on the way to obliterating the idea of obtaining the consent of the governed...". He's an attorney; that makes this remark all the more concerning to me. There's no hidden context here, either; he meant just what this says.

    Regards!

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 7:23pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 174 MagicKirin wrote:

    "ref #167/Another moonbat lie./I never said I hated Barack Obama, I've said he was unqualified which I stand by. I never said I hated Michelle Obama I said she was a mean spirited person who has been given a free ride./I do not think much of the other three/I am posting this sanitized version in case the moderators censor the truth about Tutu and Carter"

    1. I know I should just ignore the latest Magic nonsense, but anyway...

    2. No idea what a 'moonbat' is. Presumably it's some strange species native to Magicland, that bizarre world where lies are truth, war is peace, freedom is slavery etc etc. [Actually that's Orwell's 1984, but the same principles apply.]

    3. In the real world, Magic, something is not 'another lie' unless [a] it's a lie and [b] it was preceded by one or more lies. Neither is true here

    4. If you try reading what I wrote, I didn't say you SAID you hated the people I listed - I simply deduced it logically from your many, many, many attacks

    5. More specifically, yes it is true, as far as it goes, to say you called Michelle a mean spirited person who has been given a free ride. You also called her shallow and ignorant, said she had an ignorant big mouth, and added 'any criticism is warranted'. And this in the space of the last week - I'm sure I could find more snide, ill-founded, mean-spirited and gratuitous insults if I bothered checking further back, but I have better things to do. [I'm pretty sure you threw in 'hater' or 'hatemonger' at some stage - that's one of your favourites, which is ironic coming from such an accomplished hater.]

    6. But of course you don't hate her, Magic.

    7. And for the record, coming from humble beginnings, she has managed to raise a family, do a hard job, get an advanced degree - and learn to read, write and spell. More than can be said for Magic.

    8. "I do not think much of the other three". [The other 3 being Carter, Mandela and Tutu.]

    Really Magic? Because all 3 Nobel Laureates speak ever so highly of you...

    9. Just in case anyone's forgotten who Magic does love [apart from Magic] and put forward for our admiration - well there's Bush. Cheney. Palin. The government of the State of Israel. Et al.

    10. "I am posting this sanitized version in case the moderators censor the truth about Tutu and Carter". Or, in English, "I am posting this sanitized version in case the moderators censor lies about Tutu and Carter".

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 8:05pm on 28 May 2009, faeyth wrote:

    I have no idea what Justin is talking about,or why diabetes would have any relevance.A lot of people have health issues.Most people don't really care either which way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 8:18pm on 28 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    @168 (StD): "Republicans are much more apt to oppose policies put forth by Democrats on the basis of ideology, they oppose nominations for the same reason, and at times demonize individuals, and don't hesitate to distort the record of their opponents to achieve their goals."

    If I may, I'll ask if you have read DailyKos, or other similar Dem blogs and sites? Demonization is not anywhere near exclusive to the R party. Considering the shameless caricatures indulged in by the Dem supporters in Hollywood during the 70s and 80s, it's hard to argue that the Rs are historically "better" at this dishonorable practice.

    It's NOT a badge of honor for either side to be able to say, "We gave as good as we got".


    "my son-in-law is an evangelical Christian Republican that opposes everything the Democrats do, including the appointment of Republican politicians who immediately become RINOs...until they change their mind, at which time they once again become heroes who saw the light." If he instinctively opposes everything the Ds do, he's reacting emotionally instead of responding intelligently, and that's inexcusable for an adult, and especially for an adult representing Christ.

    "I am a Democrat because I believe government has a role in protecting the welfare of society, and because in spite of minimal differences in foreign policy, the Dems tend to be more respectful of other cultures and tend to give diplomacy and compromise a chance before they act."

    Is it a demonization to charge that an entire section of the electorate believes that government has no role in protecting the welfare of society? I think it might be. I'll further gently suggest that this question has a broad spectrum of opinion around it, rather than just two polar positions, and that characterizing this as a question with only two possible answers (do care or don't) is not useful.

    My own stance is that government (like individuals) should provide a hand up, but not a handout. Got folks with no employment? Put them to work doing SOMETHING. We have streets to clean, brush to cut, roads to repair, trash to haul, walls to paint, etc., etc., etc. Put them to WORK. But, alas, some Ds think that that's discriminatory in some fashion (i.e. we should just pay them to sit on their fanny), and some Rs think that the folks should just be left to starve. Neither of the polar positions is correct, but that's what the two groups of partisans serve up (or are demonized by the other partisans as serving up).

    Another Katrina? It's outside the norm--the gov should be prepared for another of those "rainy days" (!). Being prepared means above all that the gov should NOT be spending cash where it doesn't absolutely have to today and tomorrow, so that when it DOES have to spend large amounts of cash, it can do so without worry about the finances. Consistently running a deficit year after year, or not honestly financing SS/Medicare/Medicaid, is NOT consistent with protecting the general welfare, for this reason alone if not for others. Based on the history, though, it's not obvious that anyone in the political process really believes this, or has believed it for a long time (last 50 years or so). Our positions on the finances are pretty close, I think.

    On diplomacy and compromise: Remember that diplomacy and compromise allowed Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Hutu/Tutsi leadership (among others) to mistreat and butcher fellow human beings on a large scale and for a long time. The Ds were the leaders of the "diplomacy and compromise" approach to the USSR; Solzhenitsyn criticized them in his books for failing to oppose the Russian gulags. Was diplomacy and compromise the correct posture? This is even harder than the hand up / handout discussion, because here we're discussing either (a) letting a human being oppress another human being, and possibly doing nothing effective about it, or (b) engaging in such a way that one or both of the human beings may be hurt or killed (inadvertent injury or death of innocents in war is one of the ugliest parts of the cost).

    I think it's probably simplistic to say that either group really is consistently good about judging these situations. That's ultimately because we as citizens don't have a sound basis for judging them either. Most of us don't have a foundation for deciding when to engage in conflict (whether armed or not), don't have the discipline to ignore our emotions and focus on facts, and don't understand the costs in blood required if conflict has to be armed. I don't yet, although I hope to continue to improve here.

    Regards!

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 8:23pm on 28 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    Guns, Have you noticed that the split personalities, not getting enough feedback, are reduced to talking to each other (to itself, that is)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 8:24pm on 28 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    183: "Again, why continually make comments that consist exclusively of mud thrown at others and contribute nothing to the debate?"

    Why don't you object to mud-throwing when it is done to others by those who agree with you on just about every subject? Is it that you see "mud" only in the comments by those whose outlooks differs from yours?

    Interesting. Mystifying.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 9:14pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    176. bere54,

    Your argument is a bit tangential. College is not a question of life and death, which is always bigger than simple personal choice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 10:06pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    189. robloop,

    You make a compelling argument. As is the death penalty/abortion argument when it is turned against those who are pro-abortion and keep initiating that particular debate to try to discredit pro-lifers. Someone who will hold a candlelight vigil outside the prison where a serial killer is to be executed and yet condone the "termination" of a fetus fully recognisable as a human being must have a tough time reconciling these two attitudes - a far tougher time than those who believe in executing the guilty criminal while sparing the innocent unborn.


    177. Simon21,

    I'm not a "former apartheid South African." You should try to separate your own fantasies about people from reality. You should also try to elevate your style of debate above that of a playground kid yelling, "My daddy's stronger than your daddy."

    Far from being "long over," the abortion debate will never end.


    182. Simon21,

    You should reread that comment of yours a few times. Then maybe you'll figure out what it is that you are unable to figure out about Kahlil Gibran. I'll give you a clue: he wasn't writing a legal text.

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 10:07pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    arclightt (#191):

    Where is said "in practice" in #88, I meant "in theory."

    Sure 5/4 votes reflect political factors. A person's politics are part of his or her life experience separate from legal training and experience, and one of the things that will influence how a justice looks at a case. The notion that the application of the law is apolitical is, I think, incorrect. That does not mean that I think the function of a justice is to ensure that the politics of one group or another be enshrined in law. Of course not. I mean only that justices are human too, and educated humans with different life experiences may reasonably disagree.

    Unanimous Supreme Court decisions are better than split decisions, usually. One way to get more of them is to appoint an entire Court of justices who are nearly identical in sex, ethnicity, religion, education, legal experience, and political party. That would not be a good thing.

    I don't know what you mean by "rot." The Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings were the exception, not the rule, and the problem was that there were substantive reasons which made these nominations controversial.

    The more usual case, and the preferred one, is that a president nominates someone who may be considered either liberal or conservative (or moderate or unknown), but who is in any case highly qualified by education, experience, and temperament to serve. Such nominees are usually confirmed by a substantial majority. Consider, for example, Scalia, nominated by Reagan, and known to be conservative. He was confirmed unanimously.

    The system is working well, in my view.

    As for your attorney friend, there is no context at all to his remark. That's the sort of remark that calls for specific examples. My opinion of attorneys is that there is one on each side of every dispute and half of them are wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:33pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    faeyth (#193), you seem to not to understand what this forum is. It is Mr. Webb's blog, which is a place where he publishes his thoughts on whatever interests him, and offers readers an opportunity to comment. He has a personal interest in the subject of childhood diabetes, as he has made clear in earlier threads, so he chose to remark on that fact about Sotomayor.

    It's his forum, he can write what he pleases. He has no duty to meet your standard of what is relevant in the context of American politics, and no duty to pick topics of interest to any particular reader.

    When I don't like the topic of the day, I just ignore it. More typically, particularly since new topics have become less frequent than daily, the contributors expand on the original topic to keep it interesting, and sometimes diverge into other subjects altogether (which some then complain about). That's the way it works.

    If it sounds like I'm patronizing you, it's because I am.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 10:33pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 202. At 10:35pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #188

    But it does not address the point that Republican honor the advise and consent more than Democrats.

    Prediction after the hearing Sotomayor will get 80+ votes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 10:47pm on 28 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    arclightt (#191) "I can't pull statistics on the distribution of decisions over time and issue; if someone else can point me to a source, it would be enlightening to bounce that against the overall political environment."

    There are lots of studies of the US Supreme Court. Here is a link to an abstract of just one study on the subject of ideology on the Court. The site no doubt contains other studies which may be of interest.

    supreme court study

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 11:00pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    197. At 9:14pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:
    176. bere54,

    Your argument is a bit tangential. College is not a question of life and death, which is always bigger than simple personal choice."

    Neither is abortion a matter of life and death so your argument, is, as usual, incoherent.

    What is consistent is the fact that you want the right to interfere with a woman's body.


    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 11:07pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    189. At 6:36pm on 28 May 2009, robloop wrote:
    Ref 123 chronophobe
    Hi. How are you doing? I got a good chuckle from your opening comment. If you go back and do a little research you'll discover that Canada has no abortion law and that there is no limit to when an abortion can be performed.


    But you say it is an irrelevant question since you disapprove of contraception per se. So the actual term does not matter.

    "With consideration to 'civilization' per se', in my estimation no true civilization would permit partial birth abortions (I don't have a weak stomach, but this is pure barbarism), or allow babies to die in some dark and dank back room after surviving a botched abortion, yet this is what is permitted in supposedly civilized Western societies."


    Yeh not really up with this hospital thing are you? Many procedures come across as "barbaric" to the inexperienced. Particulalty when they go wrong.

    In fact there are no theatre operations which look unbarbaric iof they go wrong.

    "I'm not moved by the notion that many or most women have an abortion because it threatens their life. Nowadays rarely does that occur. Most women have an abortion because a child is unwanted or its birth inconvenient. It's now mostly a form of contraception - and tells us the depths to which, in civilized terms, we've sunk."

    So all we have to do is crush our women and we will be more "civilised"?

    That appears to be your argument - its all the fault of the "wimmin". What a pity they comprise 50 per cent of the world's population and insist on having the same rights as your wonderful, child fathering, self.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:12pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    194. At 8:18pm on 28 May 2009, arclightt wrote:

    "On diplomacy and compromise: Remember that diplomacy and compromise allowed Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Hutu/Tutsi leadership (among others) to mistreat and butcher fellow human beings on a large scale and for a long time. The Ds were the leaders of the "diplomacy and compromise" approach to the USSR; Solzhenitsyn criticized them in his books for failing to oppose the Russian gulags."


    Interesting but correct me if I am wrong did not Solzhenitsyn live and die in Russia?

    And was not the whole of Eastern europe and Russia freed from communism by diplomacy and not nuclear war as advocated by the right? Surely one of the greatest diplomatic triumphs of modern times?

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 11:14pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    192. At 7:23pm on 28 May 2009, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    5. More specifically, yes it is true, as far as it goes, to say you called Michelle a mean spirited person who has been given a free ride. You also called her shallow and ignorant, said she had an ignorant big mouth, and added 'any criticism is warranted'. And this in the space of the last week - I'm sure I could find more snide, ill-founded, mean-spirited and gratuitous insults if I bothered checking further back, but I have better things to do. [I'm pretty sure you threw in 'hater' or 'hatemonger' at some stage - that's one of your favourites, which is ironic coming from such an accomplished hater.]
    "


    To Magic Michelle's problem is her skin colour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 11:24pm on 28 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    198. At 10:06pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:
    189. robloop,

    You make a compelling argument. As is the death penalty/abortion argument when it is turned against those who are pro-abortion and keep initiating that particular debate to try to discredit pro-lifers. Someone who will hold a candlelight vigil outside the prison where a serial killer is to be executed and yet condone the "termination" of a fetus fully recognisable as a human being must have a tough time reconciling these two attitudes - a far tougher time than those who believe in executing the guilty criminal while sparing the innocent unborn."

    A foetus compared to a human being - where is the problem?

    How can a pro-lifer be in favour of the death penalty? Pro-life? Or part5al pro-life.

    Simple question


    177. Simon21,

    I'm not a "former apartheid South African." You should try to separate your own fantasies about people from reality. You should also try to elevate your style of debate above that of a playground kid yelling, "My daddy's stronger than your daddy."


    I haven't mentioned daddies of any sort actually - though they are relevant to any debate on abortion being responsible for getting women pregnant (in case you need that explained.

    But my original point stands, you talking about rascism is hilarious. It is like hearing the KKK speak on disabled legislation.

    There is no credibility.

    "Far from being "long over," the abortion debate will never end."

    It has ended genius, no one is proposing abolishing it and it is being extended.


    "You should reread that comment of yours a few times. Then maybe you'll figure out what it is that you are unable to figure out about Kahlil Gibran. I'll give you a clue: he wasn't writing a legal text."


    Hmm maybe you should read before you quote. Gibran is talking about children, abortion is not about children.

    And again my point stands, I wouldn't try to act on his comments if I were you, not if you want to escape chokey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 11:29pm on 28 May 2009, bere54 wrote:

    197 -

    Women have always viewed abortion as a personal choice, whether legal or illegal. Much as you seem to want to control their choices, it is out of your hands. Fortunately. As for my hands, I wash them of you. Give it up. We will never allow you to take away our rights.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 11:36pm on 28 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    196. bere54 wrote:

    As you know, I'm talking about comments that consist exclusively of mud-throwing with no attempt at debate. I see few if any of those kind of comments from the handful of people here whose views I mostly agree with, even though they come up against a lot of provocation from the leftie in crowd here.

    There's no mystery about it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 00:45am on 29 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 144 guns,

    Ok, forget the Republicans. You're an anarcho-syndicalist! Mr. Guns, meet Mr. Rocker.

    But seriously (???) -- I see the charm of small town life as well. Though as Ms. Marbles points out, they can be as or more cliquish than big cities.

    What I have a hard time with are those who move out to the burbs, or into gated "communities," send their kids to private school, and say, "to hell with" the common culture. Even in the best of small towns, or the worst of imitation "communities," there is no escaping the facts of the broader culture. What is happening in East Los or South Central affects life in the leafy 'burbs and small towns too.

    We do indeed live locally, but we are bound to the bigger world by the ties of citizenship.

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 01:45am on 29 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    "Your children are not your children.
    They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself."


    It is a wise and beautiful poem. We would do well to remember that the ones who carry that life inside themselves have a privileged position in apprehending the expression of Life's longing.

    Life is so bounteous, so generous, so overflowing. It never begrudges a single seed. Life is glad to whisper, to the only one capable of answering in full truth: "The seed is planted. Is it time?"

    Yours,
    Pinko






    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 11:25am on 29 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    212. chronophobe,

    Yes, Kahlil Gibran was extraordinary. The beauty and power of his work have seldom been matched.


    208. Simon21 wrote:

    But my original point stands, you talking about rascism is hilarious.

    You seem to know a lot about racism, except how to spell it. You wont goad me into a personal discussion here. Unlike you, I have no interest in delving into people's personal lives on this blog. I couldn't care less who or what you are. My main interest is in the quality of the debate and the strength of the argument. You continually weaken yours with your sneering and your insults. I'm seldom prepared to wade through them to get to the occasional valid point you may make. Carry on with your style of "debate" if you must but you do yourself and others no favours here.


    209. bere54,

    I have a blog name, please use it. If you are so sensitive to differing opinions, why not stay in the kitchen where you are mostly in accord with others? Here's Camille Paglia on abortion:

    Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

    On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?


    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index3.html

    As for my hands, I wash them of you.

    Promises, promises. Seriously, don't be too quick to wash your hands of people: they might write something you want to respond to. Others on this blog also keep on washing their hands of people and then coming back and debating them again. Must run out of soap fast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 1:38pm on 29 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    213. At 11:25am on 29 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:
    212. chronophobe,

    Yes, Kahlil Gibran was extraordinary. The beauty and power of his work have seldom been matched."

    But to bring him into a debate on abortion is both ridiculous and very ignorant.


    "208. Simon21 wrote:

    But my original point stands, you talking about rascism is hilarious.

    You seem to know a lot about racism, except how to spell it. You wont goad me into a personal discussion here. Unlike you, I have no interest in delving into people's personal lives on this blog. I couldn't care less who or what you are. My main interest is in the quality of the debate and the strength of the argument."


    You do not debate but merely trail a series of half-baked right-wing prejudices.

    Your attempts to prove the Palestinians do not exist (and have no right to do so) and to quote Kahil Gibran in a debate on abortion are cases in point.

    "Here's Camille Paglia on abortion:"

    Another famous right wing lick spittle and notorious self-publicist. Isn't she a declared lesbian? Not likely to have children is she?

    Hitler was against abortion too. You are in delightful company.




    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 1:41pm on 29 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    212. At 01:45am on 29 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:
    "Your children are not your children.
    They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself."

    It is a wise and beautiful poem. We would do well to remember that the ones who carry that life inside themselves have a privileged position in apprehending the expression of Life's longing. "


    And the way we show them to be in this privileged position is to interfere with their bodies?


    "Life is so bounteous, so generous, so overflowing. It never begrudges a single seed. Life is glad to whisper, to the only one capable of answering in full truth: "The seed is planted. Is it time?"


    Wouldn't relate this gibberish to someone dying of bowel cancer.



    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 1:43pm on 29 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    209. At 11:29pm on 28 May 2009, bere54 wrote:
    197 -

    Women have always viewed abortion as a personal choice, whether legal or illegal. Much as you seem to want to control their choices, it is out of your hands. Fortunately. As for my hands, I wash them of you. Give it up. We will never allow you to take away our rights."


    I wouldn't worry. The abortion debate is about over. No one is seriously suggesting abolishing women's rights and indeed freedom of choice is being expanded to countries where they have never been.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 3:55pm on 29 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    Uh, simon, sometimes you miss the point. The one carrying life is the one in the best position to know if it is time, this time, i.e., she is the only one in a position to choose.

    Also, Paglia, 'lick spittle' or not, is saying that while she personally regards abortion as killing, she sees no role for the state in messing with any woman's body. I would certainly agree with the latter half her assessment. As to the first half, for me personally, the jury is still out. Probably always will be, 'cuz 'Life's longing for itself' will never speak to me as personally and as intimately as it will speak to a woman.

    From my vantage point I am uneasy with abortion. And I will happily converse about the nature of my unease. But really, so what? I am largely a spectator to the event of life giving, and I respect absolutely the right of a woman to choose.

    TT -- why the rage? When you 'debate,' you are debating a person, not a disembodied set of ideas. And for you to suggest that it is only others who get personal is more than a little ironic.

    Anyway, why think of what you are doing here as a debate, which implies that someone will win. There are no judges to award points, and no prizes here. This is, at its best, a conversation. Just a thought.

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 4:34pm on 29 May 2009, north_of_49 wrote:

    It is interesting how Americans get all sweaty when they find what they consider a flaw in character/faith/racial origin/economic status of some public figure. Why should the nomination of Ms Sotomayor be any different? I don't know much about type 1 diabetes other than with attention to detail allows most of those who have it tAo live essentially normal lives.
    Does diabetes affect one's intellect? Maybe it is just that now prejudging on race, education or religion is no longer tolerated some flaw has to be found

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 6:14pm on 29 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    217. At 3:55pm on 29 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:
    Uh, simon, sometimes you miss the point. The one carrying life is the one in the best position to know if it is time, this time, i.e., she is the only one in a position to choose.

    Also, Paglia, 'lick spittle' or not, is saying that while she personally regards abortion as killing, she sees no role for the state in messing with any woman's body. "

    I take your point but if aborting a foetus is regarded as "killing" then the state necessarily becomes involved as it is in every other form of "killing".

    I had the very dubious pleasure of meeting La Paglia and reading her.

    She seemed like another of these 1980's right wing converts who threw their earlier principles in the bin when they realised where the money was.

    I go by the principle that the first and most fundamental freedom is control of one's own body. SAnd that applies regardless to one's sex.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 7:01pm on 29 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    217. chronophobe,

    There ain't no "rage." I don't get enraged and I don't hate anyone. Anyway, rage is generally worse for the ragor than the ragee.

    Why do you embellish things so?

    Re personal attacks, I don't start them. Sometimes its necessary to counter the worst of them. Funny thing about the Internet, there are people on it who cannot debate with those they disagree with without insult and who seem to think that repeating an insult often enough will make it true, or make others believe it is true.

    Anyway, why think of what you are doing here as a debate...

    I guess we all have our reasons for being here. Mine are as valid as anyone else's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 00:20am on 30 May 2009, TiredOfHotAir wrote:

    The only relevant consequence about her having diabetes is unknown - whether any complications could develop which would affect her ability to judge cases. But any nominee could develop health issues including those with no such conditions when they are nominated, and many have.

    A disturbing situation surrounding this nomination is the apparent involvement of various pressure groups with their own agendas, pressing for the appointment of a woman, a man, a non-white, a white, a pro-abortionist, an anti-abortionist, for gun control, against gun control, etc. Such one-issue interests actually represent various facets of bigotry even if they characterise themselves otherwise. And to grill a nominee with questions about how they feel about hot-button issues on which they have not yet rendered legal judgments is prejudicial since it demands that the nominee prejudge those issues outside of the legal framework of relevant data and how the Constitution applies to those issues. The only criteria which should be applied are the nominee's general character as well as their ability and experience in interpreting the Constitution and its applicability to laws passed together with its relevance for and impact upon the people who live under that Constitution. Apart from that it does not matter whether the nominee is pink, purple, eats a particular cereal for breakfast or even eats breakfast, owns a Schnauzer, or whatever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 02:50am on 30 May 2009, chronophobe wrote:

    simon -- you and la Paglia might have more in common than you think: "As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.)"

    Link here should you care to read more.

    That being said, she is a grating sort of personae. What she is up to in the little essay linked to is a mystery to me. Well, OK, not really. She is using any and all available means to beat the Democrats over the head.

    On the one hand, she says she is for abortion on demand because the processes of the body are pre-political as "nature planted them there before birth." On the other, she asserts that abortion is murder because what are being killed are "concrete individuals." Which of course begs the question: as the foetus has been planted by nature in the body, and it is unborn, why is it accorded the status of an individual?

    Anyway, my own mixed feelings about the ethics of abortion (I have, as I have said, no mixed feelings about the legality of it) are quite different from those of Paglia.

    Yours,
    Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 4:20pm on 02 Jun 2009, U13989085 wrote:

    It is 4:20pm but where is happy??

    Said - said - said: I remember when we used to sit
    In the government yard in trenchtown,
    Oba - obaserving the ypocrites
    As they would mingle with the good people we meet.
    Good friends we have, oh, good friends weve lost
    Along the way.
    In this great future, you cant forget your past;
    So dry your tears, I seh.

    No, woman, no cry
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baUMk-3S33U

    ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,© JuSt SpReAd ThE ViBeS ©,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 4:39pm on 02 Jun 2009, U13989085 wrote:

    please disregard 223
    (geezer's back again)

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 3:36pm on 04 Jun 2009, gtkovacs wrote:

    @69. Your first 2 sentences made my point. Justin did not post about any of the other questions or issues, just the non-story that the lady has diabetes. I do not suggest that her nomination is a non-story.

    I am coming ever more to the view that Justin Webb is a bit of a lightweight. Sorry Justin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 2:55pm on 06 Jun 2009, alphamiguel wrote:

    Justin,the incidence of diabetes on Pine Ridge rez in South Dakota is 800% higher than the US average.Check it out.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.