The American Spectator

Melvin| 5.27.09 @ 6:51AM

Oh happy days, we now have a den mother for a future Supreme Court Justice.

Robbins Mitchell| 5.27.09 @ 7:11AM

The unambiguous message that Obama is sending is that he is nominating a blatant racist who will substitute her own personal prejudices and ideological agenda for the rule of law....and that in her little world 'stare decisis' is a dead letter....anyone who has such an infantile grasp of what the founders had in mind with regard to the 2nd Amendment, is intellectually underpriveleged and not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS

Darin| 5.27.09 @ 7:33AM

Judge Sotomayor saying the court of appeals is "where policy is made" is very disturbing. A judges role is not to make policy, it is to interpret the law. The Constitutional separation of powers is very clear on this. Any judge (regardless of party) who goes outside this line is not fit to be a judge and should be impeached. Justice has little to do with how most people understand "fairness." To put it another way, is it "fair" that the Cubs haven't won the World Series in 100 years? Does that mean an umpire is justified to call a game differently to give the Cubs a better chance to win? Sotomayor's understanding of justice would agree. A White Sox fan would disagree. Yet the White Sox fan viewpoint is deemed "intolerant."

Robert Rosencrans| 5.27.09 @ 7:38AM

Soon, the Supreme Court will be spewing out high tech versions of Dred Scott decisions, in mass.

DM's Posts Everyday---Yawn| 5.27.09 @ 7:41AM

garble, arble, blah, blah....conservatives ...blah, blah, garble, garble, oof, oof, woof, poof.... are bad....garble , garble, pffft, pffft....my IQ is -20.....garble, warble, lefty all good and knowing............woof poof, ooof, loof, grrrr, grrrr.........I'm angry for some reason.....grrrr, wooof, pooof, oofus, doofus, grrr, garble, garble....

stu.b.con| 5.27.09 @ 7:53AM

The symbolism of Lady Justice holding the scales of balance while blindfolded is lost on the leftist/statist/fascists. She doesn't have one eye peering out from the blindfold to check the race,sex,religion, or relative intelligence of those in her court. Granted there have been terrible decisions made throughout history, including at SCOTUS, but quite simply two wrongs have never made one right. If separate but equal was wrong then it is wrong now, Ms. Sotomayor however has made it clear that she is committed to and has a history of tipping the scales of justice with her eyes wide open. Levelling the playing field? A lie as big as all outdoors.

As a side note, I see our little troll davey once again shows the depth of his intellect by quoting a 40 year old sci-fi movie to respong to Mr. Antle's commentary. Ooh what a sharp rebuke!

Becky| 5.27.09 @ 8:16AM

What is so special about empathy as an end all be all? From Wikipedia " ............ Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior." Is the President suggesting that the current Court has in its midst socio-paths and maladjusted individuals? Is he suggesting psychiatric tests for the Court? Empathy is a red herring, brought up to confuse the real issue, bringing the Court in line with his personal beliefs.

Northern Rebel| 5.27.09 @ 8:54AM

There is a reason why that babe with the scales is blindfolded. Justice applies to all equally, without empathy. Rich or poor, purple or green, justice is supposed to be blind.

Are you one of God's primates, Mathews? Do you believe in God, Mathews?

I have no empathy for you sir, nor pity, you hateful Devil, you.

Just kidding, I love you like a misguided brother!
:o)

NavyBrat| 5.27.09 @ 9:05AM

Since "empathy" & "sympathy" are similar, I remember something my Dad told me about "sympathy" that I thought would apply in this case, substituting that word for "empathy." My Dad would tell me, when I was feeling sorry for myself about things:

"You want sympathy, look it up in the dictionary between 'sh*t & 'syphilis'."

The same can be said for "empathy's" place in the courtroom. This woman is a blatant racist who even goes as far as to openly tout her views on her racial superiority with the very phrase, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." If THAT ain't racial supremacist bile, then neither is anything that the Nazis said about Jews, or Klan fools about black people, or any OTHER racially charged injustice one can think of.

With THIS pick alone, it can be seen the extent of liberal hypocrisy on race. It's cool for race trading charlatans like Sotomayor to say what SHE said about how white men aren't as well qualified to make sympathetic judgments. A white person could never say the converse about a Puerto Rican woman. We all know that, as Mr. Antle points out. To me, the question is, are there ANY intellectually HONEST liberals out there (I think I know the answer)? If so, why haven't any of them come forward to say, "You know, I like this pick, I think policy SHOULD be made on the bench, BUT, it's not right for Judge Sotomayor to say those things about white people, any more than it's ok for a white person to say things like that about minorities. She's wrong, & she's a racist." Alas, there ARE no intellectually honest liberals, otherwise, we'd have heard this by now. There are only what most conservatives have always known there to be in liberal circles; HYPOCRITES! They are nauseatingly two faced, adolescent people who write the rules for everyone else, & openly flout them in their own conduct & personal lives.

"I detest that man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks for another."...Homer

stu.b.con| 5.27.09 @ 9:14AM

Well said, Navy Brat!!

Anthony| 5.27.09 @ 9:14AM

Obama told us that his judical nominees would be steeped in racial identity politics and empathy, code word for distain for the rule of law. He has kept his word.
Then there is Sotomayor's insufferable arrogance and false conceit of her racial superority, which pre-supposes that a Latino woman , by defination, has better life experiences than most white men. This radicalism comes from the halls of Princeton and Yale, where this woman was fully indoctrinated.
I've observed Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench, she is arrogant, ignorant and just plain stupid, so much so, that even Judge Cabranes, as mentioned, had to say "no mas", politese for WTF??, in response to one of her inane and incoherent decisions. We are in the age of Obama's deconstruction of America as we've known it, and as our founding documents defined America. This is scarey stuff folks. It's time to re-awaken our forefather's call to take control of our own destiny.

Bill| 5.27.09 @ 9:19AM

We have an 800 year legal tradition based on the Magna Carta and the thousands of legal cases since then. What possible role, what possible profound wisdom can this woman's empathy (or anyones elses) add to this?

There is an amazing level of arrogance which informs the opinion of someone that their 55 years of life experience can even add to those 800 years let alone that it should trump them.

NavyBrat| 5.27.09 @ 9:24AM

stu. b. con: Thanks!

dnha14| 5.27.09 @ 9:28AM

Mr. Antle,

You may think you are being a realist, but you are also a quitter. This lady needs to be fought and fought hard. I recently switched to the Republican Party and as sure as I switched, I will go Independent or to another party, if the Republicans do not give this lady the Thomas and Bork treatment. She may well get confirmed, but she better have a bloody nose when she gets sworn in.

Robbins Mitchell| 5.27.09 @ 9:56AM

Well,at least part of her ignorant racist mentality comes from her being a member of National Council of La Raza...I've dealt with them here in Houston,and a more arrogant bunch of 'racistas' you never saw...this is the same bunch that wants to turn southwestern states into a nation called 'Aztlan'....she keeps to have her chops busted on this....if she were white and had something like this in her resume,she would never even have been considered,much less nominated....but this blatant racist mentality which reflects Obozo's own,is precisely why she was nominated...identity politics being mainstreamed...I don't hold a law degree,but I know enough Constitutional law and procedure to know that Sotomayor possesses one of the most inferior intellects to sit on the Federal bench in a long time...another Bush 41 judgeship nomination that backfired big time

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 10:31AM

What a shock!
One biiter, bigotted minority picks another bitter, bigotted minority to fiil a vacancy on the SCOTUS. He couldn't nominate himself, now could he? This is all part of the "we're gonna get even" mentality.

And where was the Teleprompter? The TOTUS was missing in action on this one.

I'm not one to defend President George H.W. Bush on pretty much anything, but I did hear yesterday that lower court nominations are usually picked as part of deals made with the other party. Senators can put a hold on a nominee, so deals are struck to get the higher court nominees through.

Sotomayor was put on the bench by senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan according to the report I heard. She was elevated to the 2nd Circuit by bubba the pervert, commander-in-sleaze.

This is the way Washington works. This is the stuff they don't teach us in high school or reported on by the MSM.

Hiram Stolzfus| 5.27.09 @ 11:13AM

I would hope that a wise Pennsylvania Dutch man with the richness of rural experience would reach a better conclusion than Latina urbanites who haven't experienced that life.
Where are all the Pennsylvania Dutch Supreme Court judges anyway? When is the last time that Obama said one word about the special needs of his Amish and Mennonite constituents? We're WAY underrepresented in all areas of American life, and were mad as heck. Well, actually we're mildly concerned as heck, but for us that's pretty extreme.

W. James Antle III| 5.27.09 @ 11:18AM

"You may think you are being a realist, but you are also a quitter."

I'm just making a prediction. I'll be happy if I'm wrong. I'm not going to quit pointing out the problems with this nomination.

Trotter| 5.27.09 @ 11:28AM

Based upon her own words, it sounds like Judge Sotomayor will begin her Senate confirmation hearing by exclaiming Viva La Raza.

The remainder of the hearing should prove anti-climactic.

J.C.Eaton| 5.27.09 @ 11:34AM

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Canons of Judicial ethics would be revolted with this Peter Principled twit. I couldn't be less impressed that she's a federal judge. A state court judge that uttered this twaddle would be ipso facto recallable. Yet, her banal, racist, simpering will find approval, nay, swooning admiration in the liberal camps of american jurisprudence. She will after all, be 1/9 of the most powerful oligarchy in the free world. She's infallible because she's final.

stan redmond| 5.27.09 @ 11:34AM

Obama had to search high and low for the ideal victim that hates whitey as much as Obama himself hates whitey. This pick reeks of vengeance. Guilty white voted Obama past the finish line. Obama gets even with whitey by perpetuating the destruction of American capitalism and redistributing American wealth. Now, with a democrat congress backing him up he has his judicial activist that openly declared "people of color" must be treated differently in the eyes of the law. As usual the republicans will sit on their thumbs cowering in fear and allow Obama to ride right over him.

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 11:43AM

I will admit upfront that my following comment is simply based on what I may have heard and not on any verified information. Yesterday when I listened to both obumassiah’s nominating read and sotomassah’s full-of self acceptance speech, I thought I heard the boy wonder state something about he wanted a judge that would follow principals from 200 centuries ago. Of course, this makes no sense. 200 centuries is 20,000 years ago. Since according to the anthropological record, humans were organized into communities back then, our ancestors must have had established principals which guided their lives. However, no record of these survives. As god’s annointed one, obumassiah would have full access to these principals, but as simply the greatest legal authority of all time after her patron, sotomassah does not. I pondered this and quickly realized that they must have said 20 centuries ago. My wife maintains that I misunderstand most of what she tells me, so the case for 20 centuries is much stronger. I don’t have the stomach to listen to you tube replays of their speeches, nor the desire to spend the rest of the day shampooing the carpet, so I Googled for a text version of their holy words with no success. So I’ll pretend they said “20 centuries”. Well that’s 2,000 years, which seemingly points to the life and times of the True Messiah and is possibly a reference to The Holy Bible. But since we are not a Christian nation, obumassiah says so, why would they care about the words of Our True Savior. So I pondered some more. 2,000 years ago, the world was a very complicated place. Judea and the nations surrounding the Mediterranean Sea were ruled by Rome. Outside the Roman Empire there were major civilizations in China, India and the Americas. Many other tribal groups lived in communities governed by principals. So what principals could they be talking about. If indeed they meant The Holy Bible, why were they unwilling to simply say so? After all, obumassiah claims to be Christian and sotomassah is every bit as good a Catholic as pee-lousy, teddy-boy konnedy, and joke buy-dim. If not The Holy Bible, then precisely what and why didn’t they just come out and say what they meant. Then it dawned on me. We don’t know precisely when Jesus Christ was born. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 4 to 12 BC. A rather insignificant, when compared to the glory of obumassiah, Roman leader named Octavian had just a few years prior to the first Christmas established himself as the first Roman Emperor and changed his name to Augustus. Hmmm, first Roman emperor, unspecified 2,000 year old principals. Is there a connection? Nah. Never happen. After all, our country is defined by our Constitution. Wait. I did not hear them reference that more recent set of principals. I may have to scrub the rug anyway.

melvin| 5.27.09 @ 11:54AM

I've been married for 26 years to a woman who is not the same color as I. We have raised our children to treat others as they wish to be treated.
But dammit I and sick and tired of apologizing to every Tom, Dick, and Sonia for me being white.
The very last thing this Country needs is a future judge with an inferiority complex who uses her ethnicity as a can of pepper spray.
Her, "compelling life" is not that much different from any other American, in which the media and Barrack Obama failed to note during her nomination.
I want a Supreme Court Justice that will uphold and defend the Constitution, not one with a ethnic chip on her shoulder.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 11:59AM

Gill O'Teen,

I have another explanation. Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe TOTUS took some revenge for not having any input, huh?

Al Adab| 5.27.09 @ 12:10PM

Strange, I thought we now judged people on the "Content of their character" not their ethnicity or gender. I guess MLK was wrong. Sad to see a once great, principled nation reduced to this. While Sonia won't change the balance of the court, Conservatives should stand against her for the simple reason that she will be foresworn the moment she utters her oath of office. The Constitutional views she brings violate the very document she will be sworn to defend. What a long, dark night of tyranny lies before us.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 12:13PM

For any of you who still doubt that liberals hate the constitution, just watch as Axelrod lets it slip out, as he gets Lewinskied by fellow bleeding heart Chris Matth-spews:

http://townhall.com/blog/g/52e81ac7-fc46-4bf6-bda7-c79c6e1fce1c

Real American| 5.27.09 @ 12:49PM

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a female minority who hasn't lived that life."

Q: Judge Sotomayor, if you heard or read this phrase coming from a white male appellate court judge, would you believe that person to be disqualified to become a Supreme Court Justice?

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 1:05PM

Justice Samuel Alito on how empathy plays a role in *his* adjudicating (from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court):

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

**************************

So I guess the only relevant questions is: Did you people object to Alito's nomination, or are you being disingenuous and hypocritical?

drew| 5.27.09 @ 1:10PM

From Justice Clarence Thomas' biography, and a review by former Bush Justice Department attorney John Yoo:

"While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers," Justice Thomas wrote, "poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society."

These are not the words of an angry justice, or a political justice, but of a human justice. Justice Thomas's personal story shows him to be all too aware of the imperfections in our society and mindful of the limits of the government's ability to solve them. That kind of understanding and humility, and personal courage in the face of incessant unjustified attack, is what most Americans would want on their Supreme Court.

Hippocrates is rolling in his grave.

Oldefarte| 5.27.09 @ 1:14PM

Antle's comments are extremely accurate, including his last that the Democrats have the numbers to get Sotomayor confirmed. Again, the sad part is that we allowed this to happen on 11/4/08. We should have all known what Obama was, yet we allowed his election, and the nomination of Sotomayor is only the natural result. Obama proclaimed pre-election that he believed in WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Well, along with that, he believes in POWER REDISTRIBUTION as well. Additionally, if Cheney is correct [which he no doubt is], the probability of this country [and Israel as well]being re-attacked by Muslim extremist-terrorists has been increased substantially by Obama's policies. As the Bible says, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SEW!!!!

drew| 5.27.09 @ 1:19PM

Thank you, Oldefarte, for the afternoon laugh - your wonderfully quaint comment about Cheney always being correct had me laughing out loud. How many times does someone need to lie to you before you no longer trust them?

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 1:34PM

Somebody tie a rag on Sotomayor's head and give her a crystal ball.

Not only does the Constitution have penumbras, according to liberals, but Madam Zolta is going to detect auras, too.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 1:53PM

Toddard,

From your own Alito quotation:

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. "

And now, from Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." And she has stated that she thinks the courts are "where policy is made."

Taking ones family history "into account" but not "bend(ing) the law" ala Alito, and using one's own racism to "make policy" are quite different things.
So, no, Toddard, we're being neither disingenous or hypocritical. But thanks for playing.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 1:55PM

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them."

- Justice Samuel Alito, on the important role 'empathy' plays in his decisions on the bench

I ask again: Did you people object to Alito's nomination, or are you being disingenuous and hypocritical? Shouldn't we try to run this empathy-befuddled touchy-feely Kumbaya-singing radical liberal off the bench as well?

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 2:03PM

Drew,

Sidwell Friends for Malia and Sasha, a P.
S. s--thole for other D.C. children of color. So much for Leftist empathy.

BTW, it's the "humility" and "personal courage" that make for an impartial decision since you're obviously confused.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.27.09 @ 2:05PM

I agree 100% with the author. Empathy is a codeword for racism and class warfare thru wealth redistribution. I wonder what type of em(pathetic) affirmative action hell I will have to endure (again) if this woman has any influence on the supreme court?

Empathy will likely backfire, hurting those it intends to protect. For example, the college that I attended empathized with minority students that wanted to feel at home in the dorms. This led to wholly racially segregated dorm floors (affirmative action my ass!) and my first dud middle school education level roommate whose only common ground with me was our blackness.

The college performed a massive disservice to its students thru racial discrimination in liberal disguise, insulating many from the need to interact with others unlike them, hurting their chances of success in the marketplace.

You can't cut it in the real world? Well, we'll assign a quota so you have a chance of getting that job for which you are not qualified. Loop closed.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 2:05PM

Mr. Toddard,

So Glenn Greenwald sends out democrat talking points and dutiful, useful idiots like yourself copy and paste them to conservative sites. Why? Greenwald's post proves nothing. Justice Alito said nothing close to what Sotomayor has.

And why do you insist on trying to refute conservative arguments with bleeding heart liberal talking points? Quoting from Salon, CNN, Mother Jones, Sy Hersh, wiki, Lancet studies, et al, destroys whatever point you're trying to make.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 2:07PM

Yes, it looks different without the qualifying remark, without context.

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. "

Your supposition is refuted by your own posting, your question is answered, and you remain, ever, obtuse.

speed| 5.27.09 @ 2:07PM

drew, why is Hippocrates rolling in his grave? He's the father of medicine, not law. Also, you and your liberal pals love to talk about Cheney's "lies." I'm sure you have a list. Do you want to share? Or are you as confused about that as you are about Hippocrates?

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 2:09PM

And now, from Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

And? It is improper for a Supreme Court Justice to hope that their personal experience would make them a better judge?

"And she has stated that she thinks the courts are "where policy is made.""

Ah, the out-of-context quote. Sotomeyer was explaining the difference between clerking at the district court level and at the court of appeals level. She noted - correctly - that judicial decision-making at the district court level is more about deciding individual disputes and cases, and that judging at the court of appeals level is more about setting policy. That's simply *true*. Here is the clip - feel free to retract your erroneous assertion once you've watched it:

http://www.law.duke.edu/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor

Leave it to a neoconservative to consider truth-telling a negative quality in a Supreme Court justice.

"Taking ones family history "into account" but not "bend(ing) the law" ala Alito, and using one's own racism to "make policy" are quite different things"

Indeed. The former describes both how Alito and Sotomeyer allow "empathy" a role in their decisions, and the latter describes a fantasy concocted by political partisans to sway the uninformed. It is a charge for which there is no basis.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 2:14PM

"So Glenn Greenwald sends out democrat talking points and dutiful, useful idiots like yourself copy and paste them to conservative sites."

Samuel Alito's quotes are democrat talking points? What an odd take.

"Why? Greenwald's post proves nothing. Justice Alito said nothing close to what Sotomayor has."

He described how empathy informs his decisions. That is a charge being used to smear Sotomeyer. Why do you need so much explained to you every discussion?

"And why do you insist on trying to refute conservative arguments with bleeding heart liberal talking points?"

Cite one "liberal talking point".

"Quoting from Salon, CNN, Mother Jones, Sy Hersh, wiki, Lancet studies, et al, destroys whatever point you're trying to make."

Only for someone who does not quite grasp the rules of debate. The source is, in fact, irrelevant - all that matters is the argument. Attacking the source is a *logical fallacy* - an illegitmate argument - used by those incapable of attacking ideas. It is called "ad hominem". You should look that up.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 2:27PM

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. "

Your supposition is refuted by your own posting, your question is answered, and you remain, ever, obtuse. "

Does it? Here's another Sotomayor quote:

"The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms"

Like Alito, Sotomayor will "follow the law" and not "question its plain terms" but will, also like Alito, allow empathy to inform her decisions.

Now, do we object to both of these empathy-crazed radical leftists (who both pledge to follow and apply the law) or not?

drew| 5.27.09 @ 2:31PM

It's clear that this "debate" and the anger from the Right has little to do with substance or fact. It's more than obvious that other justices (and their Presidential and Congressional supporters), including Alito and Thomas, have gone to great lengths to explain how their life experiences - and empathy - have guided their temperment, outlook, decisions, etc. Frankly, this should surprise no one - it's called being a human being. But, for those that want to play semantics, and somehow claim that Sotomayer's brand of empathy is different that Alito's or Thomas's, here something to chew on:

A 1991 quote from President George H.W. Bush discussing his Supreme Court nominee, one Clarence Thomas.

"I have followed this man's career for some time," Bush said of Thomas. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

Let me guess, Bush was applauding his empathy but implicitly didn't want or expect that this same empathy would be employed, relied on, used on the bench? uh huh.

One more: Republican Senator John Danforth on Clarence Thomas on July 16, 1991: "His empathy is with the disadvantaged people of this country. He would bring a perspective to the Supreme Court which nobody else brings."

Oh, and to suggest that her statement, "...the court of appeals is where policy is made" is somehow controversial or incorrect is silly. For most legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth. There are innumerable instances where courts clarify or make decisions on laws that end up driving policy...in fact, this is what precedent is:
–noun 1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
2. any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.

c'mon guys.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 2:33PM

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

**************

"Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man’s faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor’s rather mild comments make her a “racialist.”"

******************

Compare the inconsistent, disingenuous, neo-"conservative" faux-outrage peddled at AmSpec with the prudent, considered, logical, and truly *conservative* perspective of Daniel Larison at The American Conservative:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/05/26/thoughts-on-sotomayor/

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 3:05PM

drew,

"there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth."

Which is why she followed with:

"And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...”

...apparently the nominee has a different view of precedent(s) than you.

And Toddard quoting The American Phony won't work any better than it did last week when drew tried use it to support his censorship argument (clearing crowds for security reasons isn't censorship).

Empathy within the shade of an intellectual canopy, as possessed by Thomas and Alito (thanks for the examples) is quite different from the emotional agenda of an identity-politics warrior. Again, thanks for playing, trolls.

Jeff| 5.27.09 @ 3:05PM

This is the most ridiculous article and list of comments I have ever seen. Justice Sotomayor, as soon she will soon be, graduated in the top 2 of her class at Princeton and attended Yale Law School. Since then she has occupied herself as a prosecutor, CORPORATE LAWYER, trial judge and federel district court judge. Nominated during Bush I's Presidency, her name was floated for the Supreme Court during Bill Clinton's reign of terror. As far as I can tell the rights whole opposition to the whole nomination hinges on approximately two quotes taken out of context and a fire fighters decision of which she one of THREE votes. So frankly, save the hyprocrisy and name calling for something actually worth your time.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 3:11PM

Toddard,

"...and the latter describes a fantasy concocted by political partisans to sway the uninformed. It is a charge for which there is no basis. "

...are you f---ing kidding me? What are we -you and I- if not politically partisan? I'm not remotely ashamed of it. Why are you?

drew| 5.27.09 @ 3:34PM

doorgunner,

she followed up with a partial retraction because she's knew damn well that folks like you - who know little about the role of district courts - would take her comment out of context and make false claims. bingo - she was dead on. talk about "thanks for playing".... her understanding of how easily ignorance can skew honest comments doesn't change the reality behind what she said one iota.

"intellectual canopy"? Judge Sotomayer graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was editor of the Yale Law review....if all you're left with is baseless critiques of her "intellect", good luck.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 3:36PM

"And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...”

So she anticipated how her statement might be misunderstood and clarified, asserting that judges "don’t make law".

In short, your supposition is refuted by your own posting.

"And Toddard quoting The American Phony won't work any better than it did last week"

It seems to be working perfectly well. That you are engaging in ad hominem instead of refuting the points he made indicates that you are unable to do so.

"Empathy within the shade of an intellectual canopy, as possessed by Thomas and Alito (thanks for the examples)"

And Sotomayor.

"is quite different from the emotional agenda of an identity-politics warrior."

Indeed. If you find any evidence to support the idea that any of the judges mentioned in this piece is one of those please let us all know.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 3:38PM

Mr. Toddard,

No, you are using Greenwald's spin on Mr. Alito's testimony in a futile attempt to make conservatives look hypocritical and/or silence criticism of Sotomayor. Besides, the most important thing Mr. Alito said during his confirmation was that a judges job was to call balls and strikes. As far as I know, he has done just that.

It is B.O. who is being smeared for emphasizing empathy over substance. She has no record to brag about, so he has to push her liberal street cred. Glad I could explain that to you.

The source does matter when it routinely lies, obfuscates, quotes out of context, or omits pertinent facts; like the sources you constantly use. I attack Salon, CNN, etc., not because they are liberal, but because they are purveyors of propanda, and thus cannot be trusted. So my attacks are not ad hominem.

Mr. Antle quotes Stuart Taylor, a liberal. I've followed Mr. Taylor for years, and he is usually reasonable. When he is not, I don't attack him. Because I know he is being intellectually honest and not trying to push his agenda.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 3:44PM

"...are you f---ing kidding me? What are we -you and I- if not politically partisan? I'm not remotely ashamed of it. Why are you?"

Straw man. I was speaking of partisans of a political party, which I am certainly not.

I should say that I object to Sotomayor's selection myself, because as far as I can tell she is not an Originalist. That is an actual, substantive objection, unlike the baseless, gossipy, personality-based ones (i.e. her being an "identity-politics warrior" with an "emotional agenda") bandied about in the various faux-conservative media.

Not being an originalist, I'm sure there will be uncovered specific, legitimate (and important) reasons to object to her selection, but the empathy/affirmative-action ones aren't them, for obvious reasons.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 3:49PM

"The source does matter when it routinely lies, obfuscates, quotes out of context, or omits pertinent facts; like the sources you constantly use."

I have never seen you demonstrate any such thing. I understand how it works in your head, though:

Party X is critical of Neoconservative Y, ergo Party X = "Untrustworthy And Liberal"

And that's enough. For you.

"I attack Salon, CNN, etc.,"

Indeed - that it was makes the attack "ad hominem" by definition - you attack the source, not the argument. Thank you for clarifying.

RightKlik| 5.27.09 @ 3:51PM

To the Senators who will vote to confirm Sotomayor: When you vote to confirm Sotomayor, you will have failed in your responsibility to stand up for impartial justice and the separation of powers. http://tr.im/Vote4Racist

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 3:54PM

Jeff: At Ivy League schools there is no standardized curriculum. Certainly not when Sotormayor was at Princeton. So called 'gut' majors allowed minorities with mediocre minds not only to pass but to do so with honors. Sotomayor was just such an ethnic studies major concentrating in her ethnic identity, not physics and math. So I'm sorry to say that her honors are a guarantee of nothing. She needs to release her LSAT scores so we can take a peak at her true cognitive powers, which I believe are probably weak. Hispanics tend to score in the 19th %-tile on the LSAT so even if she were one in a hundred type Hispanic, she'd still hardly qualify as outstanding compared to the top 10 percent of whites taking the test.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 4:02PM

Here's something we can discuss: my utter inability to consistently spell Sotomayor/meyer's name correctly.

Oof.

drew| 5.27.09 @ 4:02PM

Yikes - just when I thought prejudiced usually tried to hide their bigotries...in 2009. What sort of LSAT score do people usually need to get into Yale Law? And, what colleges/universities have "standardized curriculums"? This is a woman who got almost straight A's at Princeton for her last two full years and graduated 2nd in her class....yeah, you're right, she probably has weak "cognitive powers." She was a history major - not an "ethnic studies major." Please stop lying - and, perhaps, go take an "ethnice studies" class at Princeton....you could use one.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:03PM

Sorry, I meant to say that Hispanics tend to score in the bottom 19th %-tile on the LSAT, and Puerto Ricans somewhat lower than the Hispanic average.

Obama appointed this racist as a first step in establishing SCOTUS as an antiwhite superlegislature to basically attack all critical white interests: merit in hiring and promotion, merit in college admissions, meaningful reform in public schools -- which have evolved through unions into jobs programs for the intellectually feeble, private property rights (stopping eminent domain abuse), gun rights (striking down unreasonable restrictions on ownership and conceal carry, a critical issue for whites as violence prone populations of Hispanics and blacks swell in all major cities), and right to life (prohibit state encouragement of euthanasia among the elderly, who are demographically white).

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:11PM

drew:
Well, if Sotormayor is brilliant she should have nothing to fear in revealing her LSAT scores, eh?

Her thesis is practically as poorly written as Michelle Obama's, and Michelle went from Princeton to Harvard, a higher ranked law school.

The fact is that Ivy Leagues have diluted their brand through affirmative action. When their graduates turn out to be public embarrassments like Madam Zolta/Sotormayor, it only harms the bottom line for them in the long run since people will begin to demand objective measures of talent like standardized exams.

Hell, why not let all lawyers apply for SCOTUS and test them publicly on their ability to interpret the law?

Marc Jeric| 5.27.09 @ 4:13PM

La Sotomayor is a typical product of the tenured marxists at Princeto and Yale, and of affirmative action consistently applied ove the last 40 years. Due to her empathy we will enjoy many more whiffs of the emanations from the penumbras over the next 30 years. Tell me about any case coming up at the Supreme Court - and I will tell you with 100% certainty what La Sotomayor's decision will be. Well - before escaping from a communist country so many years ago, I was force-fed 8 years of Marxism-Leninism, which qualifies me to issue the statements above.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 4:17PM

Drew,

Nice try! Even bubba the pervert couldn't put a positive spin on Sotomayor letting the cat out of the bag. She tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it was too late.

Also, are we supposed to be impressed by Princeton and Yale? If anything, these are strikes against her, based on when she attended.

Mr. Toddard,

Mr. Larison compares apples to elephants. A "conservative Catholic man" relying on "his religious tradition" to "inform and shape his judgments" isn't even on the same plane as someone who thinks their gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic background can inform their judgments.

Religious traditions are precisely about IDEAS of right and wrong. These are also the basis for laws. Religion and jurisprudence are, by their nature, intellectual pursuits.

Being a woman, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and who grew up poor, are not intellectual pursuits. They have no bearing on the fact that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. Or that eminent domain only applies to legitimate public usage.

I challenge you to defend her opinion in the New Haven firemen case.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 4:21PM

Toddard, drew, excuse me for a moment...

JOE B. if you aren't a lefty plant, you're a ... well, jeebus man, what's wrong with you?

Toddard, and esp., drew- her intellect, unquestionable. But I think she leads with her own set of prejudices.

for clarafication: Ad Hominem is latin translating literally as "to the man" in argument it describes attacking the opponents character instead of his argument. One cannot engage in ad hominem at an organization such as CNN; but you could, say, call Jack Cafferty an ass.

drew| 5.27.09 @ 4:23PM

Joe B,

I don't even know where to begin. You call Sotomayer a racist and then follow it up by labelling her "Madam Zolta." You lie about her major in a blatant attempt to somehow weaken it's value, and then claim that someone with a uber-sucessful career like Sotomayer's is a "public embarassment." The only racist here is you Joe.

You don't get into Yale law with low LSAT scores....nor do I think they have much to do with her ability to sit on the Supreme Court. Oh, and Yale Law is higher ranked than Harvard, not the other way around as you suggested. And, finally, I don't think affirmative action has much to do with this. Not only is AA not a uniquely "ivy league" policy, Sotomayer graduated with honors from a well regarded Catholic High School - and then more than proved her academic prowess by graduating second in her Princeton class. She's smart, more than competant, and qualified - get over it. And seriously, go take some ethnic studies classes.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:25PM

Doorgunner: I have Tourette's Conservatism. i tell it like it is because the time for silly polemics is over. Our nation is in danger of implosion.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:34PM

drew: Unless you went to an Ivy School you just don't know what you are talking about. Indeed, minorities are routinely admitted to Harvard and Yale with low LSAT scores (examples: Barry and Michelle). They are admitted to undergraduate programs too (examples: Barry and Michelle). So think about it, will you? If top schools are so dishonest about their admission standards that they will compromise them to get so-called diversity, then they must have a vested interest in clearing the path for at least some minority students to appear successful -- otherwise the program looks like a failure. (Yes, it's all about appearances.) Academia is not a level playing field. You appear to be extremely naive and underinformed on such matters.

History Departments have long been covers for ethnic studies programs, by the way.

drew| 5.27.09 @ 4:42PM

Joe B,
I'm calling your bluff - please stop the "crazy racist-liar act" and contribute to the debate.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:46PM

"Joe B,
I'm calling your bluff - please stop the "crazy racist-liar act" and contribute to the debate. "

Huh?

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 4:47PM

"Joe B,
I'm calling your bluff - please stop the "crazy racist-liar act" and contribute to the debate. "

Huh?

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 4:51PM

Implosion or not, affirmative action or not, her intellect is sound, Joe. Her peer reviews in the Almanc of the Federal Judiciary Support that.

And if the polemics are truly over... why are you wasting time here? That's all this is, ultimately, a time-waster.

ben| 5.27.09 @ 5:17PM

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The problem with Sotomayor's statement is that she claims her ethnicity and gender make her a better judge than a white male. She is not only championing pride in her ethnicity and gender but she is denigrating another's ethnicity and gender in the process. The fact that she would be so prideful of her heritage and such an antagonist to another would lead one to the logical conclusion that she feels disdain for white males and is thus a racist and sexist. Since whites are the majority ethnic group in the USA how can we be comfortable that her decisions will not be made from the vitriol she feels towards them.
She also claims that her ethnicity will lead her to a "better" conclusion. What does she mean by "better"? Isn't a Supreme court Justice supposed to reach conclusions based on the written laws? How can one justice reach a "better" conclusion than another if both are basing their conclusions on written law? They may very well reach different conclusions but how can one claim that their's is "better"? Perhaps it's only a better conclusion when it's made by someone who's not a white male.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 5:19PM

Mr. Toddard,

Evidently it is you who doesn't know the meaning of "ad hominem". It is not any attack. Sy Hersh is an admitted liar. So is the NYT. So is NBC and CBS. It has been proven CNN has lied. Salon defended bubba the pervert. It is not "ad hominem" to attack their credibility and trustworthiness.

And I attacked Greenwald's argument, not his character. I accept he quoted Mr. Alito's testimony accurately, even though I couldn't find it when I googled it. It was his argument that was flawed, based on what he quoted. I assume if he made up the quotes, they would have more strongly supported his flawed attack.

It is also not ad hominem to question why someone who claims to be "conservative" constantly uses liberal sources to try to prove his attacks on conservatives. Which is all I did, question. I didn't attack you, just your liberal sources. Which you use to try to prove you are a conservative? Do you see the disconnect?

jr| 5.27.09 @ 5:24PM

Just in a couple of days there is enough facts to keep this prime leftist example of empathy from being a judge in a fudge contest. I have little doubt that the more "conservative" Republicans will roll over and play like good little followers. If so, just one more nail in their political coffin. A phone call for contributions this morning from a Republican something -- not until you people start acting like adults with some morals and a decent direction.

megapotamus| 5.27.09 @ 5:54PM

There is some evidence that the Republicans' body temperature is rising a bit above the ambient. Gingrich, who you can be certain is not going to make any waves he can't ride, is straight-up denouncing Sotomayor as a racist. Not a reverse racist or a crypto-racist or an inadvertant racist but just a racist plain and simple. There is of course a long paper trail of her racist decisions and it overlaps mightily with the evidence of her incompetence. Sotomayor is the definitive affirmative action case. She has been shunted along despite a lack of any professional ability, quite sadly getting her big break in a race preferenced appointment by Bush the Elder. She has suffered no demonstrable harm in her career due to race. Rather her race and sex let her in the door which is No Whiteys Need Apply. After that her demonstrated desire to put her thumb on the scale in favor of the usual prefered groups inspired her assension. Like Obama, her racial political identity gives her both a shield and a sword. Astonishingly it seems even the rump establishment has had these hard truths beaten into them and is stiffening their spines. This does not include Orin Hatch. He claims he will vote to confirm. How he knows this before hearings is mysterious unless, again, affirmative action is in play. Ain't it always?

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 6:00PM

Toddard,

In your post of 3:36pm yourequested evidence, well, Sparky howzabout this from Stuart Taylor of the National Journal on May 23:

Quoting Sotomayor:

"Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

"Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The full text of the speech, as published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, is available on The New York Times website. (It says that the speech was in 2002; I've read elsewhere that it was October 2001.)"

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 6:01PM

"Implosion or not, affirmative action or not, her intellect is sound, Joe. Her peer reviews in the Almanc of the Federal Judiciary Support that."

And yet her decisions are being reversed at an alarming rate due to errors in reasoning or misunderstanding of the law or an unwillingness to even read arguments thoroughly. Peer reviews usually don't separate the wheat from the chaff. They're basically grades on a scale of 6 - 10, and Sotomayor seems to be 5.

"And if the polemics are truly over... why are you wasting time here? That's all this is, ultimately, a time-waster. "

I'm not here that often. But I would hardly call this a time waster. Don't you suppose your congressman or his staff might occasionally read these comments? There aren't that many conservative opinion sites with high web traffic like this one. I happen to think, though not being a lawyer, that I have a good sense of what's going on here, having read The Wall Street journal, The American Thinker, The American Spectator, etc.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 6:14PM

drew,

From your 2:31 pm post:

"There are innumerable instances where courts clarify or make decisions on laws that end up driving policy...in fact, this is what precedent is:
–noun 1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
2. any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.

c'mon guys. "

From Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Your argument doesn't hold air, let alone water. Precedent is for aiding in future adjudication, not "policy". Policy is Executive; law is Legislative... and identity politics are for the weak.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 6:24PM

Joe B.,

Reality check. Whether verifiable or not, this language IS inflammatory and DOES preclude cogent argument:

"...that Hispanics tend to score in the bottom 19th %-tile on the LSAT, and Puerto Ricans somewhat lower than the Hispanic average. "

"...in establishing SCOTUS as an antiwhite superlegislature to basically attack all critical white interests: ..."

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 7:24PM

Doorgunner: Who are you afraid of inflaming? Basically, the White house is issuing veiled threats against anyone to opposes this profoundly stupid nominee. If you aren't angry, if you don't feel threatened, then you are a fool.

This from Jeffrey Rosen:

Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That’s what makes the discussion of Soto mayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is:
Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 7:27PM

By the way Doorgunner, what exactly do YOU mean by cogent?

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 7:31PM

"And yet her decisions are being reversed at an alarming rate due to errors in reasoning or misunderstanding of the law or an unwillingness to even read arguments thoroughly"

Really? "Alarming"? How many have been reversed, and how much higher is her reversal rate than the average for someone who has served comparable time on the bench and handled a comparable number of cases?

"In your post of 3:36pm yourequested evidence, well, Sparky howzabout this from Stuart Taylor of the National Journal on May 23: "

I see nothing controversial in any of those passages. She stated that a judge's background will inform their decisions in some way, regardless of whether they aspire otherwise. Like Samuel Alito, she does not believe this is necessarily a bad thing. And she hopes that her personal experience would make her a better judge than someone who hasn't faced the adversity that she believes she has due to her ethnicity and gender and economic background. Personally, I don't believe her hope will bear fruit, but that hope is hardly evidence of her being an "identity politics warrior" with an "emotional agenda". *That* was the charge you made which I asked you to back up with evidence.

I am still waiting for it.

Incidentally, if a white male said the same thing about himself there would be bug-eyed outrage from the Left. Their outrage - or at least the fraction of it that wasn't feigned - would be unfounded as well. People of different economic and social backgrounds and ethnicities have differences. For someone, especially a "liberal", to note that openly is refreshing. And for them to hope it is a strength rather than a weakness is common sense and human nature. I wonder if what people are reacting to here, really, isn't the double standard.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 7:47PM

"Basically, the White house is issuing veiled threats against anyone to opposes this profoundly stupid nominee. If you aren't angry, if you don't feel threatened, then you are a fool."

Oh my. Another terrified neoconservative. Is there anything that doesn't frighten you people? Aren't you already curled up under your bed, gibbering in mortal terror over "Islamofascists"? Where are you going to do now that Sotomayor's coming after you as well? Excavate a bomb shelter?

"This from Jeffrey Rosen: "

Jeffrey Rosen's smear piece has been thoroughly discredited, many times, starting the day it first appeared. It relied mainly on anonymous gossip. And Rosen himself - whose opinion you so value - just yesterday said "Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court", and "Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response."

As for those few clerks and prosecutors who had negative things to say, Law Professor Darren Hutchinson explains: "It is unclear why Rosen only interviewed prosecutors and former clerks for other judges, rather than defense attorneys, litigators, and Sotomayor's own former clerks. But it does not take a degree in statistics to realize that Rosen's sample is extremely biased and limited. Although prosecutors do not hold uniform viewpoints, given the breadth of attorneys who have practiced before Sotomayor, Rosen's exclusive reliance on prosecutors is inexcusable.

Furthermore, clerks for other judges do not have the best ability to evaluate Sotomayor. In fact, the use of clerks to determine whether a judge should receive a Supreme Court nomination is extremely problematic. Most clerks have just graduated from law school, have never tried a case or practiced law, and do not have sufficient experience or knowledge of the law to make an informed assessment of a judge. Given these inherent weaknesses associated with a law clerk's opinion of a judge, Rosen's reliance upon law clerks who never worked for Sotomayor is a rather crude and unhelpful way of evaluating her qualifications.

The American Bar Association uses a much more expansive and generally accepted analysis (including talks with a broad cross-section of lawyers and judges) to evaluate judicial performance. After President Clinton nominated Sotomayor to the Second Circuit in 1997, the ABA reported that a "substantial majority" of respondents ranked her as "well qualified," while a "minority" found her "qualified."

Here is a link to the ABA report:

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings105.pdf

And here is the link to Hutchinson's evisceration of Rosen's hit piece:

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/hatchet-job-jeffrey-rosens-utterly.html

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 7:49PM

An interesting exchange on Hardball:

DAVID SHUSTER: Jonathan Turley has been watching today's developments along with us. He's also written about Sonia Sotomayor. He's a constitutional law professor at George Washington University School of Law. Jonathan, you wrote recently that "my main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions." Explain what you what you mean by that?

TURLEY: I've read roughly about 30 of these opinions. She has a much larger library of opinions. But they are notable in one thing and that it's a lack of depth. There's nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. She's been a judge a long time. That's opposed to people like Judge Wood on the 7th Circuit and she was viewed as a real intellectual powerhouse. You really can't read the opinions of this nominee and say, "Oh yeah, this person is a natural choice for the Supreme Court." Now there have been suprises. Some justices sort of reached their speed and depth while on the court. Justice John Paul Stevens is an example. Even the first half of his career in decisions on the court were not particularly deep or profound but the second half is quite the opposite. So you can have people who open up on the court and as lower court judges they may be timid in that respect. But I have to say that liberals obviously are enjoying rightfully a certain short term elation with this twofer, a woman and a Latina, being put on the court. But in terms of long term satisfaction she does not naturally suggest that she is going to be the equal of Scalia and I think that was the model for liberals. They wanted someone who would shape the intellectual foundations of the court. Her past opinions do not suggest that she is like that. They actually suggest that she will be a great justice like Thurgood Marshall. She'll be the first Latina. But I'll remind you Thurgood Marshall's opinions did not have a lasting intellectual impact on the court.

SHUSTER: But even if there isn't a lasting intellectual impact that Sotomayor has on the court and that is obviously a big "if" isn't it possible that could come with the next pick or the one after and should that be much of a factor for anybody to consider?

TURLEY: I think it should be THE factor and unfortunately it's not. The Senate does not really look at the intellectual depth of a nominee. They don't seem to feel comfortable with that type of inquiry. That should be the primary inquiry. I do believe it's wonderful to have a woman on the court. I think Diane Wood would have met all criteria. But ultimately questions about empathy and temperament are less important than whether this person is going to have a profound impact to help shape the court and this nominee really doesn't have a history to suggest that.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 7:55PM

I still want to see her LSAT scores. Her ginned up resume just doesn't cut it in this age of spin.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 8:00PM

"An interesting exchange on Hardball:"

Interesting how? Oh - you mean because he is telling you something you want to hear and reaffirming something you already believe. Helping to reinforce the intellectual box you've confined yourself to. That's the neoconservative definition of "interesting" - "something or someone that agrees with what I already believe". It's also their criteria for which outlets are exempt from "Liberal Media" status.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 8:02PM

"Her ginned up resume just doesn't cut it in this age of spin."

Demonstrate that her resume is "ginned up".

What is the difference| 5.27.09 @ 8:02PM

Obama is controled by the same people who runs America and have been since the 1st World war.

As a result America is bankrupt, and in the last throws of DEATH.

Talmudist Jews Control News and editorial Policies of Mass Media

As a result of that condition in the United States, for approximately the past fifty years the grass root population of the United States has only read, heard and seen what passed Zionist censorship and best served Zionist objectives, instead of reading, hearing and seeing what best served the interests of the grass roots population of the United States. The Zionist-ruled media for mass information in the United States never informed the grass roots population of the United States how and why President Woodrow Wilson lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. In their consideration recently of the alleged theft of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the United States Supreme Court declared "the public has a right to know the truth." The Supreme Court should have said "the public has a right to know the WHOLE truth." The reason half-truths often are more harmful than lies. The United States declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917. On April 2,1917 President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress and pleaded with them to declare war against Germany. President Wilson's appeal to Congress to declare war against Germany in effect and in fact was primarily President Wilson's liquidation of his obligation to his blackmailers. The following incontestible facts confirm that conclusion beyond all question of any doubt. President Wilson's hand trembled as he read his address. The members of Congress present had no reason to suspect why President Wilson's hand trembled. By the time the grass roots population finish reading this, they will know the reason President Wilson's hand trembled as he read his message to Congress. By the time President Wilson finished reading his appeal to Congress, many of his listeners were in tears but not for the reason the grass roots population of the United States today will be in tears when they finish reading this manuscript. When President Wilson asked Congress to declare war against Germany, President Wilson was in effect and in fact conspiring to pay the debt he obligated himself to pay to the Zionists. Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing's troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the "pretext" to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives. The United States was now at war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. That is what Great Britain and the Talmudists ("Jews") of the world conspired to achieve in their crooked diplomatic underworld. The discovery of the hoax by the British Navy shocked many honorable Englishmen. A large segment of the British public were shocked to learn the S.S. Sussex had not been sunk. The S.S. Sussex was available for anyone to visit who might care to do so to see the S.S. Sussex for themselves with their own eyes. In that war the United States mobilized 4,734,991 men to serve in the armed forces, of whom 115,516 were killed and 202,002 were either injured or maimed for life. The Right Honorable Francis Neilson, a member of Parliament, wrote a book in England called Makers of War (pp. 149150). Mr. Neilson's book created such a sensation that Mr. Neilson was compelled to resign his seat in Parliament. Things became so intolerable for Mr. Neilson in Great Britain as a Result of the exposures in his book that he was compelled for his personal safety to flee from his home in Great Britain and to make his home in the United States. In Mr. Neilson's book Makers of War (pp. 149-150), he discloses many unsuspected and undisclosed reasons for the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914. With reference to the alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel, Mr. Neilson emphasizes: "/n America, Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in the 'sinking' of the Sussex in mid-channel. Someone invented a yarn that American lives had been lost. With thus excuse he went to Congress for a declaration of war. Afterwards, the Navy found that the Sussex had not been sunk, and that no lives had been lost. " This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was the figment of an over-worked Zionist imagination. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was conceived in the imagination of a Zionist to facilitate the purpose planned and successfully executed.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 8:07PM

And another thing: in addition to her LSAT scores I want to see a brain MRI, too. Sotomayor has type 1 diabetes, which is directly linked to early cognitive decline.

"Brain Atrophy, Lesions Found in Type 1 Diabetics; May Indicate Cognitive Impairment in Diabetics Begins Early

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Cerebral atrophy is common in young persons with juvenile-onset diabetes, and there is evidence that small blood vessels within the brain's white matter are damaged in these patients, neurologists at the University at Buffalo and the University of Western Ontario have found.

Both findings, which are preliminary, may be important in understanding the development of cognitive impairment seen in older diabetics, said Richard K.T. Chan, M.D., assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery in the UB School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and first author on the study. Vladimir Hachinski, M.D., of the University of Western Ontario, is co-investigator. "

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/6174

If sen Sessions does not ask pointed health questions then consider it malpractice. Sotormayors disposition is very similar to that of someone with early onset Alzheimers. Basically, Type 1 diabetes causes lesions to form on all vital organs -- including the brain. Her facial appearance suggests she's also on prednisone.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 8:10PM

Oh god. What is it with semi-literate anti-semites?

HEY ANTI-SEMITE: WE GET IT. You will NEVER sway ANYONE'S opinion. That is simply a fact. All you do is further empower the Likudniks by being someone they can point to and say "See the sort of kooks we're up against?"

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 8:10PM

"Interesting how? Oh - you mean because he is telling you something you want to hear and reaffirming something you already believe. "

Toddard: Go away, you've run out of material.

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 8:33PM

Mr. Toddard,

You won't defend Mr. Larison's bogus argument or Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven firemen case, huh?

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 8:37PM

S.L. Toddard wrote: "Oh - you mean because he is telling you something you want to hear and reaffirming something you already believe. Helping to reinforce the intellectual box you've confined yourself to."

Pot calling kettle black.

Doorgunner| 5.27.09 @ 8:40PM

TODDARD,

Now who's being disingenuous? You seriously want us to believe that you think Sotomayor's statements are okey-dokey? We're to believe that you think they'd be just fine coming from a white guy. Here's the crucial part of the statement:

"And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. ... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning.... "

"BASIC DIFFERENCES IN LOGIC AND REASONING"- Gee, I'll bet Larry Summers wishes he could hired her to represent him in his little 'labor dispute ' with Harvard.

Really, Toddard, you're shite. And that's Ad Homunculus.

ds80| 5.27.09 @ 9:39PM

Hey Libs --- ostensibly Catholic Sotomayor may be your worst nightmare. How will she rule, re: abortion ??

If she's true to her faith she'll be strongly PRO LIFE. Anything else and she's a dishonest, lying sham.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 9:45PM

"You won't defend Mr. Larison's bogus argument or Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven firemen case, huh?"

Against what? Explain to me how her decision in the New Haven case was inconsistent with Connecticut state law or federal law.

"BASIC DIFFERENCES IN LOGIC AND REASONING"

Yes, she posits that people *may* have different perspectives, and that this may be due to cultural experiences or, "as others postulate", due perhaps to differences in logic and reasoning. Do you dispute that people have different perspectives, or that those might be due to differing cultural experiences, or do you dispute that "others postulate" that different peoples have "differences in logic and reasoning"? I'm not sure it's even categorically possible to dispute any of those claims.

Warrior| 5.27.09 @ 9:47PM

Seems like much ado about nothing. Ultimately, elections have consequences and this is one of them. We listened to how Alito and Roberts were going to shift the court into a hard right ideology and one of their first rulings is to block a death row execution because the needle could cause pain. There is no telling what side they are going to fall on, that is unless you are Scalia or Ginsburg.

If we are going after her academic record, then nobody should have voted for McCain. Quite frankly, growing up in the projects of the Bronx and making it to a college with any level of literacy is an accomplishment. Would she be my pick, no. But until there is evidence that she is not qualified then she should not be blocked.

As far as her opinion in the New Haven fire fighters case, it was definitely judicial activism. Unfortunately, and we seem to gloss this over, it was a majority opinion and two other jurists voted with her.

I think Repubs should take the high road on this one. Ask her meaningful questions respectfully. Most of these legislators are lawyers, do your research and try and get some answers. Of course, she won't offer anything of substance. Take the high road on the confirmation, it is inevitable as Collins and Snowe are not going to stop it.

There are bigger battles ahead and this one cannot be won.

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 9:52PM

My fellow conservatives, I feel your pain, but the facts are the facts. There are not enough republicons in con-gress at this time with the stones to challenge obumassiah's supreme court selection. She will be confirmed as surely as the price of oil will rise. If any do challenge her, he or she runs the risk of alienating the Hispanic and women vote. Given the current state of the political tide, do we really want to take that chance? If the answer is “Yes”, we must play our cards as deftly as obumassiah played this hand. This means that we must stick to hard facts such as her obvious bias against non-minority Americans in that fireman case. But one example of a poorly formed legal opinion won’t cut it. We must prove a large body of actual case rulings, not public speeches, in which she defied the Constitution. As a diabetic, I resent that her disease is being made an issue. Back off that, or you risk alienating me. If she is approved, she can be removed through the impeachment process if her disease ever does advance to the stage where she cannot perform her duties. Given some of the dunderhead rulings that have been pronounced by the supreme court, I don’t see how mental competence would ever be an issue. I am a living example, though I am a Type II diabetic and she has Type I, that some diabetes can be controlled through diet, exercise, the care of a good doctor, the love of a supportive family and the faith and trust that God does not have my mansion ready just yet. There are many excellent medications available that will help her fight this battle. We should all pray that she is able to keep this vicious enemy of her God-given body at bay. Remember that each of our bodies are Temples for the Lord, and that as long as they contain our souls, they are precious unto Him who created them. None of us are so lost that the Good Shepherd cannot regather us into His fold. Build up a case against her Constitutional interpretations while sticking to facts, or else get out of the way of her careening truck. Getting squashed flat like a bug will be no fun as we fight the good fight. Never surrender, but pick your battles wisely.

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 10:00PM

Warrior, my apologies. I did not mean to be an echo to your excellent thoughts, but I had not refreshed my screen while I was proofreading my comment. I, however, disagree that she gets a pass on her fireman ruling because other judges sided with her. They are not under consideration here. All that matters is how she ruled, and she was incorrect.

Big J| 5.27.09 @ 10:02PM

Doorgunner,

I honored and prayed for you and your *fellows* Monday. Went to my very first ceremony at the Houston National Cemetery. I learned a lot. Another 6 brother? Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You called it earlier with "Joe the Plant". Just my opinion.

This woman is bad for the Supreme Court. She is also exactly what the Apologizer in Chief promised, in case 60-something million weren't listening at the time. I sincerely hope that the Republicans put up half the fight that the Dem's did during Thomas and Alito's hearings. She is simply not the right (man, woman, it) for the job.

Four overturns in the past 8 years, three of which were based on her MISINTERPRETATION of law. That's just a little scary, seeing as how this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land (soon to be the most powerful legislative branch of our government).

My two cents. I don't care to parse with the likes of Drew, Toddard or others. I am galvanized in my beliefs, refuse to give in, will not listen to reason, not gonna change me, no way, no how.

There. Some Republicans in Congress could take a lesson from a dang 'ole electrician.

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 10:08PM

Big J, you'd have to gift wrap your "lesson" in a big wad of cash, before most in con-gress would even notice it. A really big wad.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 10:20PM

"Four overturns in the past 8 years, three of which were based on her MISINTERPRETATION of law. That's just a little scary"

Wow. Another scared-witless neoconservative. You are the most easily frightened group in the world. How do you people get out of bed in the morning? Is going through an average day for you like going to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the rest of us? Anyway, if you find THAT scary, you're going to find THIS terrifying:

****************

Samuel Alito once wrote that employees who allege sex discrimination ought to have a tougher time proving their claims. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Alito once argued that Congress hadn't granted state workers the family-leave benefits that are mandated for other employees. The high court rejected his thinking again.

And Alito, now President Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, once embraced a standard that would make it harder to punish water polluters. But the Supreme Court didn't go along.

In Alito's 15 years of rulings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, many of his interpretations of federal law and the Constitution are at odds with established thinking and practice, and ultimately they've been rejected by large majorities on the high court he hopes to join. . . .

In a 1996 employment discrimination case, Sheridan v. Dupont, Alito concluded in his dissent that victims of sex discrimination in the workplace should meet a higher standard of proof than was required.

Alito said proving discrimination and that the employer was responsible weren't always enough to ensure that the claim wouldn't be dismissed by a court. He based his interpretation on the rulings of another, more conservative appellate court decision, urging his colleagues on the 3rd Circuit to adopt that standard.

They didn't, and the Supreme Court later unanimously rejected that same rationale in another discrimination case, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, in 2000. . . .

In another knotty case, Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Alito questioned Congress' power to require state governments to grant family and medical leave to men and women equally.

Alito's opinion, which was echoed in opinions from other lower courts, would have denied protection to millions of workers whom Congress clearly intended to protect with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

The Supreme Court contradicted Alito's thinking in a 2003 ruling in Hibbs v. Nevada Department of Human Resources. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Alito also joined another judge in 1997 in a ruling that attempted to make it more difficult to hold polluters accountable when they fouled water supplies.

Rather than applying the standards that punished companies based on how much they polluted a body of water, Alito embraced an approach that would require proof that the pollution damaged the water. The ruling, in Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) v. Magnesium Elektron, invalidated an existing $2 million fine.

Three years later, the Supreme Court rejected Alito's analysis, saying in another case that the new standard raised "the hurdle higher than ... necessary."

**********************

Wow - look at all those overturned rulings. So in addition to his ridiculous, hippy-like obsession with letting "empathy" distort his rulings the guy's been overturned more times than we can count - far more than Sotermayor and on much weightier matters. Are you shivering in white-knuckled terror now at the fact that this oft-overturned empathy-monger is on the Supreme Court? You want him run off of it, right?

dcd| 5.27.09 @ 10:47PM

If republicans don't like her then fight. There are many ways to hobble the process, sure it makes the republicans look like hypocrites but it's not like they have much to lose these days (benifit of being the minority by far). The clarence thomas affair was hilarious, and he still gets long dong silver jokes in the halls of law schools. Sotomayer should be at least as good for an amusing show.

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 10:49PM

S.L. Toddard, methinks thou doest cut and paste too much without proofreading thy comments. Thou stated “And Alito, now President Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor”. Alito is not now anyone’s choice to replace anyone, and who THE EVIL BUSH’s choice for anything governmental is became moot last January 20. And I am nowhere as afraid as thou apparently art, which is ironic since thy guy won.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 10:52PM

Gill O'Teen: Cognitive decline due to diabetes, type I or II, can be somewhat slowed but certainly not eliminated. It's a serious medical issue that needs to be confronted, especially since Sotormayer has suffered from it for 46 years. The cumulative effects would obviously show up on a brain scan. Clearly she's on prednisone so she's got real health problems. Do we really want to appoint someone to SCOTUS who will probably be a doddering idiot in 10 years? Most chronically sick people become rather twisted and selfish; who knows what sort of attenuated reasoning she will be capable of as her health declines. Given that her life expectancy is 65 years, she is probably on the downward glide path now.

dnha14| 5.27.09 @ 10:56PM

Mr. Toddard,

It is the cyclical emotional rants that veer so far from reality made by the liberal left that drove me to the conservative side. What is there about her statement regarding decisions better than a white guy that is not racist? Lord knows one does not have to be white to be a racist. You folks would be bleeding from the ears if the statement was reversed and stated by a white guy. I despise the double standards, the it's ok for us but not for you thought process, and the general hypocrisy of the liberal positions. I recently switched party affiliation after 5 or 6 years of wavering. The nonsense from the left finally got to me. And, if the Republicans don't have the fortitude to put up at least an impression of a fight, I'll leave them too. The cards are stacked and she will probably be confirmed, providing they don't find her tax records. But she better well get the Thomas and Bork treatment that the left is so good at delivering so at least she knows she's been in a fight. It's ok for the left to defame without cause, but when anyone raises concrete issues in the other direction, the are branded evil and racist.

Thank you for your assistance in assuring me I made the right decision in moving to the right.

Signed,
Ex-pot smokin hippie radical that at one time in my life ranted like you, that is until I grew up.

jk, jd md| 5.27.09 @ 10:56PM

Instead of her LSAT score or brain MRI, perhaps we should check Judge Sotomayor's karyotype. She looks a lot like the women's bronze medal winner in the 100 meter dash from East Germany, who had her medal stripped in the 1972 Olympics, when they discovered she was really XY. (Imagine that--a guy who could only take third against two women in a contest of speed and power!)

Maybe it isn't prednisone she's taking, but perhaps anabolic steroids that help her with her hard-hitting performance as a star of the federal bench.

Moreover, we should really check her ethnic background. Honestly, she looks more Italian than Puerto Rican. After all, we already have two Italians on the High Court. (And these guys really do have the intellect to function on the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Could the Democrats please honor their aspirations to rise above race and gender in creating the truly color-blind society they claim to desire? Instead, the bigots continue to point out the irrelevant differences in people, instead of standing on intellectual honesty and judging others on their merits.

Practically, however, this nomination does not have to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since Arlen Specter joined his true party and lost his position of seniority. Unless the parliamentary rules are changed by the majority Democrats, the nomination will never reach the Senate floor for an open vote, if one minority Republican does not vote for Judge Sotomayor. This is a true test of "cojones", no?

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 11:08PM

Mr. Toddard,

The vote by the New Haven Civil Service Commission not to certify the test results was discriminatory and violated due process. This isn't against the law in your world?

I don't blame you for giving up on Mr. Larison's bogus comparison, you shouldn't have used it the first place.

Now, again, why do you quote liberals to try to prove your so-called conservative points?

Gill O'Teen| 5.27.09 @ 11:17PM

Joe B, If she is on any medication, she is under a doctor's care. Has there been any evidence of late that she is mentally incapacitated or are you only projecting future possibilities. Justice Thomas could fall in the shower Friday morning and become a vegetable. Justice Ginsburg could suffer a brain damaging stroke July 4th. Should that disqualify either of them from showing up for work tomorrow? Our former vice president has obvious and well-documented cardiac complications. None of his supporters felt these should disqualify him from that post. If he chose to run against obumassiah in 2012, I would support him. I am not fan of this nominee, but I will defend her on this point. Unless you can verify specific examples that her diabetes has interfered with her work, you need to back off on your beside-the-point commentary. None of us know the time nor the place. We need to factually address her body of legal opinion, not her health.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 11:27PM

If, God forbid, Obama serves two terms he may find himself in the novel position of appointing Sotomayors replacement on SCOTUS.

Joe B| 5.27.09 @ 11:32PM

Gill O'Teen: You miss my point. There is enough circumstantial evidence to make it imperative that any potential health issues sha has be explored fully by the judiciary committee.

Kapish?

Nick| 5.27.09 @ 11:49PM

Gill O'Teen,

This the second time today Toddard has cut and pasted from Glenn Greenwald@Salon.com. So basically he is just regurgitating democrat talking points to defend B.O.'s quota filling choice.

TOTUS should get to choose next time. And he had better pick an one-armed, transvestite, Moroccan lesbian.

Elizabeth| 5.28.09 @ 3:04AM

Joe B, you're edgy, but you rock! I agree with you regarding the judge's test scores. We haven't seen Obama's either, by the way. Another poster wrote, "We might not be able to stop Sotomayor's confirmation, but we can make sure her nose is bloodied first." I say we Bork the Broad.

Joe B| 5.28.09 @ 6:10AM

I smell blood. The White House intimidation campaign is preemptive because they know Madam Zolta will be a lousy interview -- like Barry was under tough questioning, hence the disgraceful softball interviews/free campaign adverts by network TV.

I may be mistaken, but Sessions is going to apply steady, fair pressure on this blister, and she is going to pop spectacularly.

Republicans must cease worrying about offending the swelling ranks of Hispanics in America. Hispanics are natural Democrats because, like blacks, they are either economically immobile for generations and permanent net tax consumers, or like the Obamas, economically mobile but nonetheless net tax consumers AND big time beneficiaries of affirmative action, which Sotormayor will defend, even in cases where it is truly evil to the point of making God angry, like Ricci v DeStefano.

Most Hispanics are assimilating in the US to the hip hop norm of dependency on the state for everything from lunch money to self esteem. So why would they ever vote Republican?

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 8:19AM

" It is the cyclical emotional rants that veer so far from reality made by the liberal left that drove me to the conservative side. What is there about her statement regarding decisions better than a white guy that is not racist? Lord knows one does not have to be white to be a racist. You folks would be bleeding from the ears if the statement was reversed and stated by a white guy."

Who is "you folks"? I've already stated I have no problem with her comments and wouldn't have a problem with them if made by a white male. If a white male made those comments and the Left reacted in phony outrage it would be the Left that was acting inappropriately, not the white male. Applying the illogical side equally to all parties is not the way to remedy a double standard.

"I despise the double standards, the it's ok for us but not for you thought process, and the general hypocrisy of the liberal positions."

As do I. It's the double standard that's the problem, not the comment.

"I recently switched party affiliation after 5 or 6 years of wavering. "

Congratulations. You have left a Nation-Building Big Government Welfare-State party that believes the nation should raise taxes so as not to live beyond its means to a Nation-Building Big Government Welfare-State party that believes instead in deficit spending - in *increasing* spending while *cutting* taxes, in pushing America further into debt, a party that believes we should not pay our way at all but instead push our debts off onto our grandchildren. I cannot think of a notion *less* Conservative.

I myself have been a Conservative for as long as I can remember, and never counted myself a Leftist.

"The nonsense from the left finally got to me. And, if the Republicans don't have the fortitude to put up at least an impression of a fight, I'll leave them too."

That you haven't left them already belies your claim to Conservatism.

"It's ok for the left to defame without cause, but when anyone raises concrete issues in the other direction, the are branded evil and racist."

You mean in the same way you're branding Sotomayor, I assume.

Gill O’Teen| 5.28.09 @ 8:23AM

Joe B, I did not miss your point. I just don't think it's important. Even if you are 100% correct in your diagnosis and prognostications, what’s the big deal? Think about it, as long as obumassiah has the pick would you rather have an infirm occupying a spot on the big bench, one who just might miss many key votes due to her medical condition, or would you prefer a young fit as a fiddle commie activist just raring to get to work every morning for the next 50 years at his appointed task of trashing the Constitution? Remember, the votes are not there to stop either. The diabetes issue is a loser, and we must expend our time and resources on winnable battles.

Gill O'Teen| 5.28.09 @ 8:49AM

S.L. Toddard, the last time I checked a trillion is a thousand times bigger than a billion. If you think that your lord and savior has not charted a course that will crash the ship of state with him at the wheel against the shoals of insolvency, than you clearly miscomprehend the facts. Now go find something to copy and paste you hope will refute me. Hope is all your side has anyway. If you are a conservative, I dance better than Fred Astaire ever did.

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 9:02AM

"The vote by the New Haven Civil Service Commission not to certify the test results was discriminatory and violated due process. This isn't against the law in your world?"

How did it violate due process?

"I don't blame you for giving up on Mr. Larison's bogus comparison, you shouldn't have used it the first place."

I haven't given up on it. It still stands, entirely un-refuted. I do not need to defend what has not been seriously attacked.

"Now, again, why do you quote liberals to try to prove your so-called conservative points?"

Because the arguer is irrelevant - literally irrelevant - to the argument. I evaluate the argument, not the arguer. You do the opposite. If you have a person you are told (by whichever outlets tell you things you want to hear, which in your mind makes them "conservative) is a "conservative" you believes that makes their positions and arguments, by extension, "conservative", and the people and arguments that oppose them "liberal". Which is why if I were to quote Glenn Greenwald attacking the Bush administration’s policies from a Constitutionalist perspective - which is to say for violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution, of which Greenwald is an expert - you will assume it is a "liberal" argument, because your political worldview is personality-based. I have never made one "liberal" argument on this board or anywhere. You consider them "liberal" arguments because they attack the policies of people you have been misled to believe are "conservative". You have a binary view of American politics, with Liberals on one side and Conservatives on the other, and when a "Liberal" makes an argument in favor of restraining federal power as per the limits set by the Constitution, you consider that argument "Liberal". And when someone (or a party) you consider "Conservative" increases government spending by an astronomical amount, engages in nation building, initiates massive new federal social programs, maintains an open-border policy with Mexico, or seizes for the Executive branch unprecedented, radical powers, you consider those measures "Conservative" because you have been led to believe the people initiating them are "conservative", and you consider opposition to those un-conservative measures “Liberal”. In other words, your definition of "conservatism" seems to be "anything someone I have been told is a "conservative" does, and anyone who opposes "liberals"", and your definition of "liberalism" is "anything someone who I have been told is a "liberal" says or does, or anyone who opposes (what I have been told are) "conservatives".

A person’s actions or beliefs define whether they are a liberal or conservative. You believe a person’s party-affiliation determines whether their actions or beliefs are liberal or conservative. It’s entirely backward.

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 9:04AM

"S.L. Toddard, the last time I checked a trillion is a thousand times bigger than a billion. If you think that your lord and savior has not charted a course that will crash the ship of state with him at the wheel against the shoals of insolvency, than you clearly miscomprehend the facts."

My lord and savior? To whom are you referring?

Bilwick| 5.28.09 @ 10:07AM

Maybe "Il Dufe" and his Magical Latina could show a little empathy to those of us who value liberty.

Bilwick| 5.28.09 @ 10:43AM

S. L. Toddard (the "S. L." stands for "State Lover") writes:

"Wow. Another scared-witless neoconservative. You are the most easily frightened group in the world. How do you people get out of bed in the morning? Is going through an average day for you like going to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the rest of us?" Interesting example of projection there, psych fans. From what I've observed, the moment the Hive (that coalition of sadomasochists whose overall political goal is to increase State power and diminish individual liberty) sees any resistance to its agenda, they immediately react with terror. To paraphrase Kirk Douglas on Rome in SPARTACUS: "When one man says 'No!' the whole Hive trembles."

Interestingly, I notice he also uses the term "neoconservative" (why not just "conservative"?), almost a sure sign of a party-line regurgitator. In my experience, use of the term "neoconservative" and "neocon"--except in the rare instances of people employing the terms in their correct historical context--is like use of the terms "trickle-down economics" and "McCarthyism:" l nine times out of ten, a sign atop the head of the user, with a downward-pointing arrow and the legend, "No real thinking going on in here."

S. L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 1:09PM

" S. L. Toddard (the "S. L." stands for "State Lover")"

State lover? How so? I seek to limit the power of the state, and prosecute those who have overstepped its bounds as defined by the Constitution. As an opponent of State power, I oppose the illegal domestic spying program and the Bush/Obama application of "state secrets", the Bush/Obama policy of extraordinary rendition, the Bush/Obama bailouts, and the Bush/Obama policy of refusing to hold State actors responsible for violating the law (especially vis a vis domestic spying and torture).

I wonder - does your anti-Statist affectation extend to over-reaching when that State is headed by a Republican?

I'm sure we both know the answer to that one.

"Interestingly, I notice he also uses the term "neoconservative" (why not just "conservative"?), almost a sure sign of a party-line regurgitator."

You don't say. Please cite any "party-line" I have "regurgitated", and cite which party it is to which you believe me aligned.

"In my experience..."

Hardly surprising that your "experience" (or lack thereof) would leave you in such a state of ignorance.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 1:33PM

Mr. Toddard,

Reverse descrimination violates due process.

You won't defend Mr. Larison's bogus point because you can't. Your silence is deafening.

Boy, that's a lot of words to say the same thing over and over again. A simplistic world view where everyone who is doesn't agree with you is a "neocon" or faux-conservative. I've refuted your absurd notions by pointing you to the Stuart Taylor quotes in Mr. Antle's essay. He is a liberal and a grown-up.

What makes hack, democrat lawyer Greenwald a constitutional expert? And why do you have to copy and paste his arguments? Can't you come up with your own? I make my own arguments based on facts, I don't copy and paste others.

And when you attacked Operation Iraqi Freedom by fraudulently asserting that between half a million and a million civilians had been killed by us, you were making a LIBERAL argument. And when called on it, you used liberal sources to try to prop up your lies. Not very conservative.

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 2:41PM

"Reverse descrimination violates due process."

How did that ruling violate due process.

"You won't defend Mr. Larison's bogus point because you can't. Your silence is deafening."

Mm hmm.

"A simplistic world view where everyone who is doesn't agree with you is a "neocon" or faux-conservative."

It would be. If I believed that.

"I've refuted your absurd notions by pointing you to the Stuart Taylor quotes in Mr. Antle's essay. He is a liberal and a grown-up."

Straw man. I never asserted you leveled ad hominem attacks at Stuart Taylor.

"What makes hack, democrat lawyer Greenwald a constitutional expert?"

What makes a Constitutional Law litigator a Constitutional Law expert? Is that a question you actually need to ask?

"And why do you have to copy and paste his arguments? Can't you come up with your own? I make my own arguments based on facts, I don't copy and paste others."

You make arguments? Where? I see a lot of ad hominem and disconnected bits of Rush Limbaugh's comedy routines.

"[i][/i]And when you attacked Operation Iraqi Freedom by fraudulently asserting that between half a million and a million civilians had been killed by us, you were making a LIBERAL argument."

Explain how that is a "liberal" argument. What is "liberal" about citing death toll estimates.

"And when called on it, you used liberal sources to try to prop up your lies. Not very conservative."

You are right, insofar as citing death toll estimates is neither liberal nor conservative in nature.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 4:09PM

Mr. Toddard,

I never wrote her decision violated due process. The vote by the New Haven Civil Service Commission did. Try to keep up, OK?

"Mm hmm."
Glad you admit both your vacuousness and defeat. That shows progress.

"Straw man. I never asserted you leveled ad hominem attacks at Stuart Taylor." Huh?

I never wrote that you had. I used Mr. Taylor, twice, as an example of a reasonable liberal, to refute your asinine rant that I see all liberals as always wrong. Again, try to keep up.

Greenwald is wrong because he pushes a liberal agenda no matter what the facts are. He's a propagandist for the democrat party. Just because he labels himself a constitutional expert, doesn't make him one. B.O. claims to be one too.

You've written that you believe OIF was wrong and a mistake, no? To argue your case, you used LIBERAL estimates that are false. How is that NOT making a liberal arguement?

Conservatives like Robert Novak and Joe Sobran were also against the war. They didn't depend on liberals to make their points, they made their own cases. John McLaughlin and Pat Buchanan, like you, reapeated liberal lies to bolster their position. You stoop to the liberal's level of deceit to try to win an argument.

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 6:03PM

"I never wrote her decision violated due process. The vote by the New Haven Civil Service Commission did."

How did it violate due process?

"Glad you admit both your vacuousness and defeat. That shows progress."

Thanks.

"I used Mr. Taylor, twice, as an example of a reasonable liberal, to refute your asinine rant that I see all liberals as always wrong"

Straw man. Cite where I asserted you "see all liberals as always wrong" or retract the charge.

"Greenwald is wrong because he pushes a liberal agenda no matter what the facts are"

Illegitimate. Greenwald's alleged "agenda" has no bearing on the merits of his arguments. Now cite an example of Greenwald pushing a liberal agenda in defiance of "the facts" or retract the charge.

"He's a propagandist for the democrat party"

Really?

Here is Greenwald condemning Democrat President Obama's preventive detention proposal:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/index.html

Here is Greenwald condemning Democrat President Obama for threatening to leave Britain open to terrorist attacks if they do not help conceal evidence of torture:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/

Here is Greenwald condeming Obama for adopting Bush's military comissions policy:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/15/military_commissions/

Here is Greenwald condemning Democrat President Obama's various flip-flops on Civil Liberties:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/16/obama/

Here is Greenwald condemning Obama's adoption of Bush's terrorism policies:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/19/obama/

Here is Greenwald condeming Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regime:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats/

Here is Greenwald condeming Democrats for their complicity in Bush's illegal domestic spying program as well as his torture regime:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/15/complicity/

Here is Greenwald condeming Obama's flip-flop on habeas corpus:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/

What were you saying again? Oh yeah - Greenwald's a "shill" for the Democratic Party. Most of those pieces are from the last couple months, by the way. There is literally an archive crammed with Greenwald's scathing criticism of the Democratic Party and their president. Greenwald has been the most consistent and most thoughtful of Obama's critics since he came into office. Your charge is simply and utterly *without merit* - it is patently false. Incorrect. His criticisms of both Obama AND Bush are written primarily from a Constitutional perspective, and he invariably condemns Obama for the exact same reasons he condemned Bush - for violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. He does not let Obama slide for violations that he condemned Bush for. You would *know this* if you hadn't banned him from your reading list. You would, in fact, be armed with relevant and biting criticisms of the Obama administration - ones that are based on logic, fact and law, rather than irrelevant, childish, puerile personality-based labels and a pro-wrestling-style storyline that divides the political sphere into Good Guys and Bad Guys.

"You've written that you believe OIF was wrong and a mistake, no? To argue your case, you used LIBERAL estimates that are false. How is that NOT making a liberal arguement?"

Explain how a death-toll estimate can have a political persuasion.

"John McLaughlin and Pat Buchanan, like you, reapeated liberal lies"

What lies? Please provide the quotes to which you refer as well as proof that they are "lies". If you cannot then retract the charge.

Be honest - when you read your own posts are you under the impression that your arguments have substance? "Glenn Greenwald is a Liberal and therefore his arguments - even his condemnations of Obama for violating the Constitution - are Liberal and therefore Lies" - you think that this sort of illogic is legitimate? You don't understand the disconnect? Honestly, man - READ MORE. And read OUTSIDE the outlets you turn to to have your biases and assumptions reinforced. I do not solely confine myself to conservative news and opinion outlets - that's why I read AmSpec.

Because an argument is MADE BY a Liberal or Conservative does not make THE ARGUMENT a "liberal" or "conservative" one. That the source is Liberal or Conservative does not prove - is not even an indication - that the ARGUMENT is "liberal" or "conservative".

S.L. Toddard| 5.28.09 @ 6:58PM

"You've written that you believe OIF was wrong and a mistake, no?"

I believe the attempted conquest of Iraq was a mistake in the same way I believe 2 + 2 = 4. It *was* a mistake, period. That is no longer in contention. The Bush admin claimed to believe Saddam had WMD and that we needed to conquer Iraq to remove that threat. He did not have WMD, ergo the Bush admin was *mistaken*.

Even had we found WMD, of course, the invasion *still* would have been unjustified. No evidence was ever produced or fabricated that he planned to attack the United States with his fantastical non-existent weapons, ergo there was no evidence of a clear and present danger, ergo the conquest was (and remains) unjustified.

Speaking of which, is it or is it not inarguable that the Bush admin lied? They claimed to *know* - for a fact - that Saddam posessed WMD. They did not *know* this, at best they *suspected* it (at worst they suspected otherwise). Ergo their claim to *know for a fact* that he posessed WMD was a *lie*. Is that even debatable? It seems to me to be a categorical truism. They made a false claim (that they knew *for a fact* that he had WMD), knowing it was false. That is a lie.

And due to that, thousands of American soldiers are now dead. American soldiers that would still be alive if a better man sat in the White House. I always found it odd that the people who argued that our soldiers should be home, safe, defending our Constitution and country (i.e. in their proper, Constitutional role) were called unpatriotic, while those who insisted they be sent to the other side of the world to die miserable, violent deaths on a nation-building mission claimed they "support the troops".

Funny way to show support, no? "I support you - now go and die in a foreign desert for nothing so I can feel good about waving my flag!"

Conversely, with regards to Afghanistan, watching the (previously) anti-war "liberals" who sent Obama into office now pick up and arm themselves with the same, tired, discredited arguments the Bush administration used to bilk Americans into their nation-building adventures proves once again that when member of party (Y) implements or promotes policy (X), it is (Y) that determines whether most people object or praise, rather than (X). Many now sit by while American soldiers continue to die violent, horrible deaths, and innocent civilians are slaughtered in yet another unnecessary war, all so they don't have to interrupt their hero-worship.

Pathetic.

Elizabeth| 5.28.09 @ 7:23PM

Joe B, I know many Latinos who are conservative. They are a naturally socially conservative group because of their love for God and family. I do believe we must be faithful to our beliefs--and fair, and then I think many Latinos will vote Republican.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 7:43PM

Mr. Toddard,

"How did it violate due process?" Asked and ansewered. Can't you read?

"Straw man. Cite where I asserted you "see all liberals as always wrong" or retract the charge."

Didn't I explain the meaning of a straw man to you in the past? Apparently you forgot, like you did the meaning of ad hominem. Anyway, see your asinine rant @9:02 today.

OK, it is probably more accurate to state Greenwald is a propagandist for the communist party, or at least the communist-wing of the democrat party. I concede to you on that.

Greenwald's attacking B.O. from the left. He's saying B.O. and democrats aren't liberal ENOUGH. His phony argument (which wasn't even his, he got it from someone else. (Is that why you like him so much?)) about Mr. Alito's testimony was all about carrying B.O.'s water, and getting others (look in the mirror) to do the same. You are obedient, if nothing else.

"Explain how a death-toll estimate can have a political persuasion."

Because the estimates were lies concocted by liberals.
And all three of you repeated these smears.

If you would stop copying other people's spurious arguments; tried thinking for yourself; and made your own points, you would see why you can't attack from the left to make a conservative case for something.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 7:55PM

Mr. Toddard,

"Ergo their claim to *know for a fact*"- Umm, is this supposed to be a quote?
If so, identify who was supposed to have said it.

As for the rest of your claptrap, Janeane Garofalo and Sean Penn couldn't have said it better themselves.

S.L. Toddard| 5.29.09 @ 7:52AM

"How did it violate due process?" Asked and ansewered."

You have not "ansewered". You cannot answer. You believe it violated due process because you heard it violated due process, most likely on talk radio. You have failed to demonstrate *how*, though. Not that that's surprising.

How does it violate due process? Answer or retract. Claiming something does not violate due process does not demonstrate that it violates due process.

"Didn't I explain the meaning of a straw man to you in the past? Apparently you forgot"

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

You asserted that I claimed you "see all liberals as always wrong" and clumsily tried to refute that claim. I never made that claim, it was your own construction that you then refuted, ergo it is a "straw man".

"Anyway, see your asinine rant @9:02 today."

There is no such claim there. Cite where I claim you "see all liberals as always wrong". Use a quote. If you cannot then retract the accusation.

"OK, it is probably more accurate to state Greenwald is a propagandist for the communist party, or at least the communist-wing of the democrat party."

Another unsupported and unsupportable accusation. Provide evidence or retract.

"Greenwald's attacking B.O. from the left. He's saying B.O. and democrats aren't liberal ENOUGH."

Cite any passage where Greenwald "says" this.

"His phony argument (which wasn't even his, he got it from someone else. (Is that why you like him so much?)) about Mr. Alito's testimony was all about carrying B.O.'s water"

You have already conceded Greenwald is not a shill for the Democratic party and it has already been demonstrated that Greenwald is not a water-carrier for Obama. You are actually getting worse at this.

"Because the estimates were lies concocted by liberals."

False. Demonstrate that all the estimates were "lies" or retract the accusation. Demonstrate that all the estimates were "concocted by liberals", knowingly and dishonestly, or retract the accusation.

This is getting tiresome. It's impossible to debate someone who has no idea how to debate. Instead of debating, I spend every discussion with you teaching you HOW to debate. It's quite boring.

"If you would stop copying other people's spurious arguments; tried thinking for yourself; and made your own points, you would see why you can't attack from the left"

You have failed to demonstrate that any attack I've ever waged is from "the left". Cite any argument I have *ever* made and demonstrate that it is "liberal" (as the term is commonly understood in contemporary America) in essence. NOTE: Demonstrating that people you believe to be "liberal" have made similar arguments does *not* demonstrate that *the argument itself* is "liberal".

S.L. Toddard| 5.29.09 @ 8:17AM

"Umm, is this supposed to be a quote?
If so, identify who was supposed to have said it."

No problem.

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Here are some similar quotes:

"Simply stated, there is *no doubt* that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"We *know* that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves *no doubt* that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"There is *no doubt* that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction"

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

"We *know* where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"I'm *absolutely sure* that there are weapons of mass destruction"

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

*************

Frankly it's inexcusable that you are ignorant of the arguments used to convince the people of America to support the conquest of Iraq, a nation that posed no threat. They were false arguments - lies - that led to the violent deaths of thousands of American soldiers. And now - 6 or 7 years later - you are still unaware of them? Good lord.

Joe B| 5.29.09 @ 1:02PM

Elizabeth: Assimilated Americans come in all colors but the demographic trends are alarming. I have no doubt some Hispanics, like Cubans, are majority Republican values voters. But the rising Hispanic tide is predominantly Mexican, and the culture of corruption, mistrust, tribalism, casual reproduction, and ignorance they bring with them is toxic to America's future prosperity and social order. The majority of Mexican woman get pregnant as teens, even beating out black teenagers, who have something like a 30% teen pregnancy rate. Over half of Mexican teen mothers are single, and none of them are able to support their casually produced offspring without substantial social services. More often than not these kids grow up to be sociopaths -- pick some story out of the news at random about a "young Latina bravely struggling in the US" and inevitably you will read that one or more of her kids has ADD, a learning disability, a birth defect, or a psychological problem. Some illegal Mexican teen mothers in LA back in the 80s and 90s birthed entire street gangs. (Currently, over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal- no wonder California is broke).

If any Mexican hoody rat survives to voting age do you suppose he will vote Republican if he bothers to vote at all?

Bilwick| 5.29.09 @ 1:10PM

S. L. Toddard objects to my guess that the "S. L." stands for "State Lover" by writing: "I seek to limit the power of the state . . ." Wow, you're a libertarian? You're NOT in favor in increasing the power of the State? So you're big on Second Amendment rights, support the separation of State and economy, probably a big admirer of Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, et al? Gloriosky! Is my face red! By the way I didn't say you WERE a party-line regurgitator; if you re-read what I wrote I said that your rhetoric would indicate that you were a no-thought party-line regurgitator. But if you're actually a stealth libertarian, as you indicate, then I guess it is just some sort of cloaking device to conduse the enemy. You sure confused me. Here I thought you were a grade-A State-fellator like some moron Kos Kid--but of course you're not!

But if you're actually a libertarian, as you indicate by your interest in limiting the powers of the State, shouldn't you just come out and say it. Not all of us have your powers of mind-reading.

You also ask if I opposed statism in Republican administrations. Yes, I did. In fact, it was during the Nixon administration that I had an epiphany that moved me from a sort of mainstream fusionist conservatism to a more radical libertarianism. This was when at a conference of conservative intellectuals, five out of six of the big name conservative scholars on the discussion panel came out in support of Nixon's wage and price controls. (It should be pointed out that none of these gentlemen had much background in economics.) I assume you would be opposed to such fascism if the current president, "Il Dufe," imposed wage and price controls?

Also still curious why you use "neoconservative" instead of "conservative." As I've mentioned, this usually is a litmus test to determine shallowness of throught processes. Since you're obviously not only a deep thinker with a keen sense of logic--and a closet libertarian, to boot, if what you say about being anti-statist is to be believed!--I'd be interested in seeing what your definition of "neoconservative" is. I'm assuming it isn't the boneheaded one, but I'd like to se.

S.L. Toddard| 5.29.09 @ 2:41PM

"S. L. Toddard objects to my guess that the "S. L." stands for "State Lover" by writing: "I seek to limit the power of the state . . ." Wow, you're a libertarian?"

In that I am "a person who advocates liberty", yes. But I'm not a "big L" Libertarian free-market purist who thinks police departments should be run by private companies and so forth. I do not share the strict ideology of the Libertarian Party libertarians, I should say.

"You're NOT in favor in increasing the power of the State? So you're big on Second Amendment rights, support the separation of State and economy, probably a big admirer of Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, et al? Gloriosky! Is my face red!"

As a general rule, yes, but again see the caveats above.

"By the way I didn't say you WERE a party-line regurgitator; if you re-read what I wrote I said that your rhetoric would indicate that you were a no-thought party-line regurgitator. But if you're actually a stealth libertarian, as you indicate, then I guess it is just some sort of cloaking device to conduse the enemy. You sure confused me. Here I thought you were a grade-A State-fellator like some moron Kos Kid--but of course you're not!"

No, I'm not.

"But if you're actually a libertarian, as you indicate by your interest in limiting the powers of the State, shouldn't you just come out and say it."

I am not a Libertarian, I am a conservative constitutional republican. I have mentioned it often, actually - I think in this very thread. I am considered a “liberal” for attacking the GOP, though my arguments are for the most part constitutional ones and therefore “conservative” by definition.

"You also ask if I opposed statism in Republican administrations. Yes, I did. In fact, it was during the Nixon administration that I had an epiphany that moved me from a sort of mainstream fusionist conservatism to a more radical libertarianism. This was when at a conference of conservative intellectuals, five out of six of the big name conservative scholars on the discussion panel came out in support of Nixon's wage and price controls. (It should be pointed out that none of these gentlemen had much background in economics.) I assume you would be opposed to such fascism if the current president, "Il Dufe," imposed wage and price controls?"

Indeed. I oppose our new president on just about everything, including the Sotomayor pick. I supported his now-abandoned goals of returning accountability under the Rule of Law and that sort of thing, ending the conquest of Iraq etc, which were in essence conservative goals. By an large though I reject his entire worldview.

"Also still curious why you use "neoconservative" instead of "conservative."

Nearly all the actions and most of the stated goals of the contemporary GOP are anti-conservative. Those who support the GOP in word OR at the ballot box actively support an anti-conservative agenda. I use neoconservative as a catch-all to describe those who (I'm going to grossly simplify here) support Big Government at home and Wilsonian adventurism abroad. I believe it is inarguable that the GOP embraces both, and that their record proves it beyond any doubt. The GOP is fundamentally anti- or un- conservative; is Neoconservative in the sense that you (I'm sure) understand it. And their supporters are as well. In short I use the term to distinguish between Big Government pseudo-imperialists who support the GOP and actual conservatives, who opposed nation building and Big Government free spenders like Bush, and oppose Obama with equal fervor, as they are neither of them remotely conservative.

Bilwick| 5.29.09 @ 4:29PM

Okayyyy . . . thanks for the clarification, SLT. So you ARE opposed to Il Dufe's Magical Latina?

S.L. Toddard| 5.29.09 @ 7:39PM

"Okayyyy . . . thanks for the clarification, SLT. So you ARE opposed to Il Dufe's Magical Latina?"

Correct. I stated earlier on this page: 'I should say that I object to Sotomayor's selection myself, because as far as I can tell she is not an Originalist. That is an actual, substantive objection, unlike the baseless, gossipy, personality-based ones (i.e. her being an "identity-politics warrior" with an "emotional agenda") bandied about in the various faux-conservative media.

Not being an originalist, I'm sure there will be uncovered specific, legitimate (and important) reasons to object to her selection, but the empathy/affirmative-action ones aren't them, for obvious reasons.'

*************

She is obviously extremely bright, she is accomplished, well-respected by her peers and her qualifications are excellent. But if a justice does not believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning - defined by its text and the original intent of its authors - then that justice has no place on the Supreme Court. The last set of laws we need considered a "living document" are those that restrain the power of the federal government.

Robertwofhurst| 6.1.09 @ 12:57PM

To DM's Post Everyday: Please note that the average IQ of a conservative is higher than that of the average liberal. For example, mine is 138. What that means is that I'm able to think things through to logical conclusions vs. simply taking as truth everything the far left puts out without reasoning whether true or not: and without looking down the road to see what will logically be the consequences of what the socialist congress and the self-proclaimed Marxist President will be.

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 10:50PM

By seeing this article, I understandWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
a lot, learned a lot of knowledge

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 10:53PM

Read this article, I see Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
lot of things

Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:32PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie