Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html en-gb 30 Wed 01 Oct 2014 08:47:34 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html alphamiguel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=99#comment225 Justin,the incidence of diabetes on Pine Ridge rez in South Dakota is 800% higher than the US average.Check it out. Sat 06 Jun 2009 13:55:00 GMT+1 gtkovacs http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=99#comment224 @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. Thu 04 Jun 2009 14:36:57 GMT+1 U13989085 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=98#comment223 please disregard 223(geezer's back again) Tue 02 Jun 2009 15:39:00 GMT+1 U13989085 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=98#comment222 It is 4:20pm but where is happy??Said - said - said: I remember when we used to sitIn the government yard in trenchtown,Oba - obaserving the ypocritesAs they would mingle with the good people we meet.Good friends we have, oh, good friends weve lostAlong the way.In this great future, you cant forget your past;So dry your tears, I seh.No, woman, no cryhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baUMk-3S33Uø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,© JuSt SpReAd ThE ViBeS ©,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø Tue 02 Jun 2009 15:20:06 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=97#comment221 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 Sat 30 May 2009 01:50:03 GMT+1 TiredOfHotAir http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=97#comment220 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. Fri 29 May 2009 23:20:40 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=96#comment219 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. Fri 29 May 2009 18:01:18 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=96#comment218 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. Fri 29 May 2009 17:14:27 GMT+1 north_of_49 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=96#comment217 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 Fri 29 May 2009 15:34:44 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=95#comment216 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 Fri 29 May 2009 14:55:21 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=95#comment215 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. Fri 29 May 2009 12:43:59 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=94#comment214 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. Fri 29 May 2009 12:41:18 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=94#comment213 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. Fri 29 May 2009 12:38:27 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=93#comment212 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.htmlAs 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. Fri 29 May 2009 10:25:42 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=93#comment211 "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 Fri 29 May 2009 00:45:48 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=92#comment210 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 Thu 28 May 2009 23:45:44 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=92#comment209 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:36:05 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=92#comment208 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:29:13 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=91#comment207 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 question177. 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:24:46 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=91#comment206 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:14:14 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=90#comment205 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? Thu 28 May 2009 22:12:17 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=90#comment204 189. At 6:36pm on 28 May 2009, robloop wrote: Ref 123 chronophobeHi. 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:07:37 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=89#comment203 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. Thu 28 May 2009 22:00:41 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=89#comment202 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 Thu 28 May 2009 21:47:32 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=88#comment201 ref #188But 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. Thu 28 May 2009 21:35:44 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=88#comment200 This post has been Removed Thu 28 May 2009 21:33:56 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=88#comment199 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. Thu 28 May 2009 21:33:45 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=87#comment198 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. Thu 28 May 2009 21:07:24 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=87#comment197 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. Thu 28 May 2009 21:06:42 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=86#comment196 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. Thu 28 May 2009 20:14:17 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=86#comment195 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. Thu 28 May 2009 19:24:16 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=85#comment194 Guns, Have you noticed that the split personalities, not getting enough feedback, are reduced to talking to each other (to itself, that is)? Thu 28 May 2009 19:23:44 GMT+1 arclightt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=85#comment193 @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! Thu 28 May 2009 19:18:38 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=84#comment192 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. Thu 28 May 2009 19:05:10 GMT+1 john-In-Dublin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=84#comment191 # 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 here4. 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 attacks5. 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". Thu 28 May 2009 18:23:11 GMT+1 arclightt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=84#comment190 @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! Thu 28 May 2009 18:12:24 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=83#comment189 bere54 (#176), very well put. Thu 28 May 2009 18:10:36 GMT+1 robloop http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=83#comment188 Ref 123 chronophobeHi. 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. Thu 28 May 2009 17:36:33 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=82#comment187 " ... 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? Thu 28 May 2009 17:15:23 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=82#comment186 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. Thu 28 May 2009 17:13:08 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=81#comment185 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. Thu 28 May 2009 17:05:34 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=81#comment184 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. Thu 28 May 2009 17:00:52 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=80#comment183 165. At 1:04pm on 28 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote: ref #159Here is an example of MSNBC biashttp://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? Thu 28 May 2009 16:58:12 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=80#comment182 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. Thu 28 May 2009 16:56:58 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=80#comment181 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 childrenThey are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. "Kahil Gibran is talking about children, not foetuses. Odd that escaped youOh 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? Thu 28 May 2009 16:51:13 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=79#comment180 " ... 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 Thu 28 May 2009 16:37:37 GMT+1 BienvenueEnLouisiana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=79#comment179 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. Thu 28 May 2009 16:32:14 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=78#comment178 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. Thu 28 May 2009 16:30:26 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=78#comment177 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. Thu 28 May 2009 16:25:15 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=77#comment176 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. Thu 28 May 2009 16:21:57 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=77#comment175 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. Thu 28 May 2009 15:58:36 GMT+1 JGall10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=76#comment174 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. Thu 28 May 2009 15:19:08 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=76#comment173 ref #167Another 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 threeI am posting this sanitized version in case the moderators censor the truth about Tutu and Carter Thu 28 May 2009 15:09:07 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=76#comment172 ref #167Another 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. Thu 28 May 2009 15:07:40 GMT+1 AnneWarfield http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=75#comment171 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. Thu 28 May 2009 14:42:21 GMT+1 SaintOne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=75#comment170 #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 Thu 28 May 2009 14:33:53 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=74#comment169 ref #130 and othersYou 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 Thu 28 May 2009 14:15:25 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=74#comment168 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. Thu 28 May 2009 13:23:50 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=73#comment167 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. Thu 28 May 2009 12:40:29 GMT+1 john-In-Dublin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=73#comment166 # 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.] Thu 28 May 2009 12:21:13 GMT+1 john-In-Dublin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=73#comment165 # 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. Thu 28 May 2009 12:14:12 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=72#comment164 ref #159Here is an example of MSNBC biashttp://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2009/fax20090326.aspI've met journalists and Keith Oberman is no Journalist. He was also pretty bad at ESPN and makes NBC footbal unwatchable. Thu 28 May 2009 12:04:58 GMT+1 john-In-Dublin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=72#comment163 # 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? Thu 28 May 2009 12:02:55 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=71#comment162 158 truetooIMO 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? Thu 28 May 2009 11:58:21 GMT+1 BRIANCM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=71#comment161 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. Thu 28 May 2009 11:34:55 GMT+1 SaintOne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=70#comment160 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 :( Thu 28 May 2009 10:55:08 GMT+1 SaintOne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=70#comment159 #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" . Thu 28 May 2009 10:47:31 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=69#comment158 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. Thu 28 May 2009 09:52:04 GMT+1 TrueToo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=69#comment157 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 childrenThey 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. Thu 28 May 2009 09:15:59 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=69#comment156 ref #138 and #139Sorry hate mongers and liars like Obermann and Maddow have no credibility. Thu 28 May 2009 09:11:19 GMT+1 bfoulkrod1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=68#comment155 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. Thu 28 May 2009 07:47:35 GMT+1 BienvenueEnLouisiana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=68#comment154 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. Thu 28 May 2009 07:15:32 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=67#comment153 and, to elaborate, if I wanted to make a career out of it,I would never run out of rocks to turn over and documentslimey stuff. But, I decided to get on with my life anddo something useful. Thu 28 May 2009 06:13:10 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=67#comment152 152, Ms. Marbles, friend of a friend. Thu 28 May 2009 06:11:29 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=66#comment151 152, guns.Are you speaking from personal experience? Thu 28 May 2009 06:09:01 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=66#comment150 150, Ms. Marbles, the FBI does a pretty good job. But, I didn't tell you that. Thu 28 May 2009 05:39:21 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=65#comment149 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. Thu 28 May 2009 05:18:14 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=65#comment148 147, Ms. Marbles, yes, you do run into that. But, the nice thing aboutsmall-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-downof the California state budget, and I couldn't find it. These politicianswanted to increase taxes, and they didn't have the cahones to tell ushow they were spending what they collect! Thu 28 May 2009 05:04:25 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=65#comment147 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.. Thu 28 May 2009 04:50:19 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=64#comment146 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. Thu 28 May 2009 04:44:20 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=64#comment145 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-fundedliberal." Thu 28 May 2009 04:06:48 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=63#comment144 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. Thu 28 May 2009 03:47:15 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=63#comment143 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 thestrange idea that they're entitled to "share my wealth." This only appliesto primates, of course, which is a branch of creation which seems to sufferfrom moral deficits. Canines and felines are another matter. But, I digress...Yes, conservatism for me is about community-building. Not the noisy, politicallycorrect way that liberals thump their chests about. Not with a big governmentbureaucracy cutting deals with big corporations and big unions to screw overeverybody 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 isgoing on. And, you're very observant for bringing Brooks' article intothe picture. Individualism is not about being selfish. It's not aboutcompelling others to adhere to your own views. It's about takingmatters into your own hands to make the world a better place bysetting a good example in whatever you do.That's really the problem with the Washington, D.C. crowd. They are sogood at playing the game that they've forgotten what it's all about. Thu 28 May 2009 03:28:45 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=62#comment142 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. Thu 28 May 2009 02:40:02 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=62#comment141 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 Thu 28 May 2009 02:24:57 GMT+1 chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=61#comment140 re: 132 gunsAre 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 Thu 28 May 2009 02:14:30 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=61#comment139 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. Thu 28 May 2009 02:06:53 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=61#comment138 RE 137Fox 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:42:03 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=60#comment137 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:36:33 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=60#comment136 ref #129You 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:24:57 GMT+1 Noliving http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=59#comment135 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 doesnt 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:23:22 GMT+1 aquarizonagal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=59#comment134 To#130 SaintdominickCheers! I admire your ability to state my own thoughts so eloquently.Thank You! Thu 28 May 2009 01:20:54 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=58#comment133 132, guns."There are several opinionsfrom 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:09:33 GMT+1 hartley2451 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=58#comment132 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. Thu 28 May 2009 01:07:28 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=57#comment131 Personally, I believe that the attacks on Sotomayor which have been airedin the media are just hype from the far right. Obviously, she is an extremelyintelligent 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 opinionsfrom the liberal side of the bench to which I am vehemently opposed - extensionof public domain to allow seizure of private property for non-public usesis one of them. If I wasn't so busy being a scientist, I would investigatehow these people think. Thu 28 May 2009 00:48:10 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=57#comment130 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). Thu 28 May 2009 00:30:47 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=57#comment129 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. Thu 28 May 2009 00:26:22 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=56#comment128 Re 121Magic 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. Wed 27 May 2009 23:56:27 GMT+1 aquarizonagal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=56#comment127 To#119 ShareacoppergovGreat Post! Cheers to you for the reminder!May you live long and also prosper! Wed 27 May 2009 23:09:53 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/05/a_diabetic_on_the_supreme_cour.html?page=55#comment126 Ref 121, MagicMay 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... Wed 27 May 2009 22:46:22 GMT+1