September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Y2K12 | Main | Phone lines are open »

May 26, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Was that before she ruled having white skin was punishable? Of course in her party it's widely accepted.


Righties are not burdened with the hobgoblin of consistency. The fact thatSotomayor was appointed to the bench by a Bush will be ignored.

Of course, righties think people with white skins deserve to win by virtue of their complexion.


The people with the white skin actually passed the damn test...I know that's beside the point. Diversity by any means necessary.


Justcorbly needs to go back and review the history of how and why Bush 41 appointed Sotomayor. Hint: It wasn't because he agreed with her or thought she was exceptionally qualified. The fact that she was only appointed because of a deal with Daniel Patrick Moynihan that promised Bush would have no opposition to the three judges he did want will be ignored.

Of course, Lefties think people deserve to win by virtue of their physical characteristics rather than their qualifications.

Ed Cone

Hey, "Bill" - you usually sign your own name here. Why the pseudonym this time? Afraid that your ugly race-baiting will come back to haunt you? If so, you're probably right. I'd hide from that crap, too.


She's white, she's black, she's liberal, she's moderate, she's conservative, she's empathetic, she's a she, she's from a broken home, she's a yankee fan (the most damning, imo). It's all very interesting (I'm being generous), but the reality is appointing someone to the supreme court is a generous privilege of being in the Oval Office. I'm really not fond of Scalia or Roberts, but they were GW's appointments to make. As this one will be Obama's. I'm personally waiting for a new William O. Douglas to sit on the court.


"Of course, Lefties think people deserve to win by virtue of their physical characteristics rather than their qualifications." Posted by: Spag | May 26,

As opposed to others who think people deserve to LOSE by virtue of their physical characteristics.


JW, the facts don't support you on that. Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, etc. All appointed by Republicans- and look what the liberals did to Thomas and Estrada.

Sorry, the Left has no credibility on these matters. Their record on any number of issues involving race, etc. is phony political pandering.


"Sorry, the Left has no credibility on these matters. Their record on any number of issues involving race, etc. is phony political pandering."

Ah, yes, the self-righteousness of the right rears its purty lil' head. I didn't realize the left had a lock on phony political pandering. You sure they haven't let the right have just a little bit?


People on the Right pander, too. I never claimed otherwise. But we are talking about a very specific thing here- the hypocritical righteous indignation of liberals on matters of identity politics.


Okay since it isn't possible to ignore Maria Sotomayor's race or gender and we as a society seem to be pre-obsessed about these sort of artificial barriers, what specifically about Sotomayor's background or experience makes her not qualified to be on the Supreme Court? (Other than she's a Yankees fan.) Before you answer, I would submit that it's too easy to say there might be someone more qualified or differently qualified, so it must be something that disqualifies her. All other things being equal (background/experience), is there something fundamentally wrong about promoting diversity on the Supreme Court?


I don't think I have said that she wasn't qualified. But I will submit to you a quote that might be painful for some to read:

"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record."

-Barack Obama, voting against the confirmation of Samuel Alito.

On another thread, Ed questions whether Republican's will be hypocrites on the up/down vote that he (Ed) is now so fond of. My question is whether Obama and Democrats will be hypocrites on whether qualifications alone are sufficient?


I don't find it painful at all. It is in the Senate's purview to disagree and react to the appointment. I expect there to be disagreements on the appointment largely along party lines. The Republicans in the Senate will exercise their right to express disapproval of the selection based on whatever criteria they want - this is a means of reenforcing their own party's identity. Obama clearly states that he supports the examination of the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record - clearly something he has done with Sotomayor. I think this quote supports his current approach - he recognizes the President's authority AND he recognizes that it is his responsiblity to provide a dissent. That is the very nature of a two-party system. I don't think this quote means what you might think it means (to paraphrase Inigo Montoya.)


"I don't think this quote means what you might think it means"


Is there some hidden message, some code words in the quote that is only able to be discerned by some sort of divine providence to those of a certain worldview?

Help us out. Point out some of the code words,

The comments to this entry are closed.