Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor

SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor

By Michelle Malkin • May 26, 2009 09:55 AM

So, it’s Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics triumphs. Here’s the bio/record info I shared at the beginning of the month:

“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.

-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”

And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network:

Memorandum

TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCN
DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his
Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.

• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.

o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been
deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.

• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider
their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.

• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the
standard for any Supreme Court justice.”

• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

Legal analyst Stuart Taylor sums up this p.c. pick:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15.

It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor’s Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.

Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.

***

Update: Obama praised Sotomayor in his announcement for having “saved baseball” and read Nancy Drew as a young child. The White House is pushing the “compelling personal story” angle hard.

There are murmurs of filibuster threats by the GOP.

Alas, those are idle threats, as all the GOP’s past filibuster threats have been over the past year.

Mark my words.

Posted in: Supreme Court

Printer Friendly

comments (218)

trackbacks (58)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#101

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm, corona said:

Go to the Wikipedia article now and add the facts. They will of course be deleted, and eventually, the entire article will be locked in a pristine, leftist propaganda, state. You will have helped prove what snot-nosed cowards the loons over there are.
#102

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, lgm said:

Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Read conservative judge Richard Posner on this point. Judicial decisions have consequences that judges should take into account. If saving the spotted owl means shutting down the lumber industry, we need to think twice before applying the simplest literal interpretation of a law. We need judges who can understand what it means to be an unemployed lumberjack. We also need judges who understand the consequences to women of their decisions.

There are murmurs of filibuster threats by the GOP.

Duh! The GOP would filibuster a bathroom break if they could.
#103

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, JonR said:

Elections have consequences! Did anyone really expect Obama to pick anyone from the middle? The Administration is hoping that the fact that this leftist being hispanic will blunt the Republican opposition to the appointment. If ever the Republicans needed bal.s, it is now!!
#104

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, Gorebot said:

And for a follow-up, Obambi will replace Ginsberg with Hugo Chavez.
#105

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, longbow said:

Duh! The GOP would filibuster a bathroom break if they could.

I think they must have already done this, then, since all the DemocRATs are full of s—!
#106

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, tpro1 said:

BTW, you make as many generalities as my children, with almost certainly little or no data to back your assertions.

Ilovemycountry #75
America wants this woman … you people are in the minority.

… but the rest of humanity is ready …

Whom did you poll to determine these conclusions? Just asking…
#107

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm, yohannbiimu said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

Hey everybody, gusee what?

America wants this woman to be on the Supreme Court – you people are in the minority.

And since when did this matter for anything? Her record shows that she does not have the temperament to make judgments according the legal constitutional precedent and merit. She has shown that she cannot make objective judgment, and has a terrible record with regard to having her judgments overturned.

All-in-all, she is nothing that Obama said that she is with regard to being objective and having any constitutional temperament. If she would be presented for what she is by the media, then the vast majority of the American people would reject her. Hell, if the media had informed the American people about who Obama was, he wouldn’t have made it through the democrat primaries…
#108

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm, right4life said:

We know you all wish she was like Scalia or Bork – but the rest of humanity is ready to move forward with a more just less hostile world.

tell KIM JONG IL that!! ROFL…
#109

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm, James Felix said:

America wants this woman to be on the Supreme Court – you people are in the minority.

Since no one here has objected to the idea of a woman on the Supreme Court this statement is a complete non-sequiter.

We know you all wish she was like Scalia or Bork – but the rest of humanity is ready to move forward with a more just less hostile world.

Fair enough. Now please show me one example – just one – of a place where substituting racially-based favortism for impartially applied laws has ever made things more just or less hostile.

You are a deeply, deeply foolish person, one seemingly incapable of rational thought.
#110

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, By Choice said:

And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

..and the law, particularily the Constitution, means nothing….words, just words……
puke!!
#111

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, atheling said:
I was one of those late states who had no choice in the primaries.

I supported Palin/McCain as the lesser of two evils.

Those of you who voted 3rd party – THANKS A LOT.

You helped screw this country by handing Obama a victory.

Apparently you did not see my response to Cristy Li. I repost it here for your pleasure.

On May 26th, 2009 at 10:26 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 10:09 am, Cristy Li said:
Congratulations to all of you who vowed not to vote for McCain.

I reject your premise, much like I would a bad tuna fish sandwich, with violent projectile vomiting.
#112

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:51 pm, iamsaved said:

Some food for thought…
#113

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm, Ragspierre said:

judge Richard Posner on this point. Judicial decisions have consequences that judges should take into account.

This is absolutely true, but you got it absolutely wrong.

Posner is a leading light in the area of law and economics. He, I think correctly, advocates that courts SOMETIMES apply a cost/benefit analysis to cases before them. Part of the basis for this is that the Congress (and state legislatures) draft laws intentionally to be so loose that they only provide a mandate for court interpretation. Cowards that they are. So, Posner opines that courts HAVE to apply appropriate guides to give effect to laws that does not violate common sense, including economic analysis.

THAT is completely different than applying a racial, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. filter to a given case. That is EXACTLY what Obama and Sotomayor have in mind.
#115

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, Send_Me said:

1. I wonder how McCain will vote… (considering that he voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg, not to mention his liking of O’Connor.)
2. I’m proud to say that I voted on principle, which is to say, for neither Obama nor McCain.
3. Expect about as much effort out of the Republicans right now as the State Dep. with North Korea. Both situations require balls, and neither group has any.
#116

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, right_on said:

Julian Epstein says she is the best, most capable person in the nation for this position…Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it?

A Clintonyte gushing brilliance over this nomination (“She’s a ‘centrist’.”)…he felt Kimba Wood, Zoe Baird, and Janet Reno, were also “the best choices” for Attorney General at (that) time. How did that work out?

I wonder if she has tax, I.I. gardener, or housekeeper issues, as is endemic with her party? Can’t go there, though…it’s racist to question a nominee’s ability to abide by the laws on which they adjudicate.

There will be nary a Republican who will , even as a token protest, challenge this nomination…the little cowards don’t have the stones to even hint at going after the constitutionality of the vast majority of Obama’s actions/decrees/decisions so far. Why should this be any different?
#117

On May 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm, Buy Danish said:

Obama praised Sotomayor in his announcement for having “saved baseball” and read Nancy Drew as a young child. The White House is pushing the “compelling personal story” angle hard.

Yep, he’s painting an image that’s like a Norman Rockwell painting – the same way Barack emphasizes his Kansan heritage. Any day now we’ll hear all about how apple pie is her favorite dessert.
#119

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:02 pm, atheling said:

Rogue Cheddar:

Big Whoop. Your puerile response is perfectly congruent with your unthinking voting pattern.

Again, thanks for voting for Obama, you fool.
#120

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, letget said:

If there is any really negative stuff about this gal the blogs will find it. They are probably already all over it, I hope. You know the msm won’t. Judge Napalatino (sp) on Fox this morning knows her and he said she is left of left. Just what bho said he would name.
L
#121

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, Ragspierre said:

Look, she’s an avowed racist.

She’s an avowed sexist.

She is one of the most clearly radical people in the Federal judiciary, and has been reversed FREQUENTLY…even reprimanded by a higher court. THAT IS VERY UNUSUAL.
#122

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, cabrerski said:

America wants this woman to be on the Supreme Court – you people are in the minority.

Did they do the polling during American Idol? Did you have to text in a number for your response? I trust that you are assuming that with Obama’s election, everything he does has America’s stamp of approval.

Granted that Obama won convincingly in the last election. But it is a far stretch of logic to assume that the majority of Americans will agree with ALL of his decisions/actions. Many of his supporters are in a tizzy over the continuation of Bush’s war on terrorism policies. The last polling data I saw indicates that America does not want to continue to bail out banks and auto manufacturers.

Please feel to rephrase your comment at any time (unless, of course, you are a news producer/announcer at MS/NBC).
#123

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm, DBNinKY said:

We know you all wish she was like Scalia or Bork – but the rest of humanity is ready to move forward with a more just less hostile world.

Does your shift manager know you’re back on the Internet again – don’t you have burgers to flip or a fry basket to empty?

I mean, given your even handed opinion of us conservatives, how ur we’ins gonna keeps drawin’ ur checks if you’ins keeps losin’ yur jobs?

Now skedaddle on back to work and remeber, I’es likes my welfare check big and on time!
#124

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

I keep a copy of the constitution in my safe deposit box with my property deeds, insurance policies, and other important documents that are the bedrock of my security.

If the Supreme Court runs amuck — radically amuck and completely shreds the guarantees of liberty and freedom in the constitution — there is no recourse in law. The Supreme Court is the final word on law in this country.

There would be no possibility of opposition in the courts, but opposition there would have to be. If an illegal leftist dictatorship evolves in this country with the help of a rogue, leftist court, then that illegal government would have to be taken down by whatever means necessary.
#125

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#100):

Posner is a leading light in the area of law and economics. He, I think correctly, … opines that courts HAVE to apply appropriate guides to give effect to laws that does not violate common sense, including economic analysis.

THAT is completely different than applying a racial, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. filter to a given case.

Great comment, but …

It’s OK to apply common sense to economic analysis. It should be OK to use “common sense” and take into account the effect of a ruling on minorities and women. Not all unintended consequences are economic.
#126

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

BTW, lgm (surprise!) grossly distorted several things in # 89.

Posner could only be described as a “conservative” by a Maxist.

Posner NEVER personalizes his suggestion that a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate in fashioning a ruling in a case. He doesn’t suggest that a judge consider the impact on A lumberjack, but on the industry. That is NEUTRAL as to race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc., as INDUSTRIES are made up of all kinds of people, and the composition of the player in the industry is TOTALLY EXTRANEOUS to the cost/benefit ratio.

That is the inverse of what THE ONE, and his pick for SCOTUS favor. They advocate taking the blindfold off of the Goddess Of Justice, and having her look closely at the race, the gender, and a bunch of other PERSONAL factors. That replaces our notion of “A Nation Of Laws, and Not Of Men” with a notion of “A Nation Of Identities, and Not Of Law”.
#127

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm, Weary Citizen said:

Another government quota system (er, I mean affirmative action) hire. She may be qualified, but we all know she got “extra credit” because of her ethnicity. I bet la raza and lulac are jumping for joy.
#128

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:02 pm, atheling said:
Rogue Cheddar:

Big Whoop. Your puerile response is perfectly congruent with your unthinking voting pattern.

Again, thanks for voting for Obama, you fool.

I reject your premise and your thanks!
My unthinking voting pattern? How dare you?! How very dare you?! I vote my conscience and for a candidate that most closely fits my values with regards to the country and it’s constitution. Obama and McCain weren’t qualified! I refuse to be a sheep led by one party or the other. If you insist on blaming me for Obama, well, your not only a fool, you can also kiss my lily white wrinkly tax paying you know what!
#129

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, atheling said:

Rogue Cheddar:

Yeah, your ego is what led us to this. You and your high and mighty “conscience”, which is nothing but a massage for your ego, is what it comes down to.

Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils and forego the adolescent idea of purity in politics.

You’re a fool, and your foolishness helped put that demagogue in the White House. You can cover your ears and scream, “lalalala, I’m not listening”, but that’s the fact. YOU AND YOUR ILK PUT THIS JERK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
#130

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm, Ragspierre said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. M L King

Me, too. I fought for that dream back in the day.

I am fighting for it now. Racism is alive and well, and it now sits in the White House.
#131

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

Ragspierre you only fought against MLK, you fought againt Mandela, now you’re fighting against Obama.

I’ll bet your mama is proud, you are fighting against the same looking people she spent her life fighting against.
#132

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, James Felix said:

Ragspierre you only fought against MLK, you fought againt Mandela, now you’re fighting against Obama.

On issues of race the beliefs of King and Obama are opposite. Completely incompatable. For you to suggest that one is somehow the legacy of the other only underscores, again, how foolish and unserious a person you are.
#133

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, Ragspierre said:

Ilovecuba;

You are wrong. Today, yesterday, and predictably tomorrow.

You have no idea who I am, or what I have fought to do, what I fight for today, and will fight for tomorrow.

You have shown by your statement that you are the hater here. You can’t square what you are for with the dream of a nation in which a race, gender, and every other group identifier you want imposed is meaningless.

You are for everything that King said he was against.

A bigot is what you are, and that is a despicable thing to be.
#134

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, PhredE said:

James Felix:
“On issues of race the beliefs of King and Obama are opposite. Completely incompatible.”

Yup, you got that right.
#135

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, sonofdy said:

Ragspierre: I am sure ILMC got his views of you from the fact that you don’t praise obama like a god after each post.
#137

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm, Khyris said:

“I would hope that a Perfect Aryan Superman with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Jew Woman who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor

How is this any different than her original quote?
#140

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, 2Brave2Bscared said:

Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils and forego the adolescent idea of purity in politics.

You’re a fool, and your foolishness helped put that demagogue in the White House. You can cover your ears and scream, “lalalala, I’m not listening”, but that’s the fact. YOU AND YOUR ILK PUT THIS JERK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Give it a rest. The only fool here is you. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

That’s atheling for you. He thinks that if we only keep voting for the “lesser of two evils” we’ll be ok. But evil is evil, and soft despotism leads to tyranny just the same.

We’ve been settling for the “lesser of two evils” for a long time now. Where has it gotten us?
#141

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm, Khyris said:

“I would hope that a Perfect Aryan Superman with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Jew Woman who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor

How is this any different than her original quote?

Excellent.
#143

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, Ragspierre said:

By contrast, if Jeffrey Rosen’s reporting is correct, Sotomayor was almost unanimously disliked by her colleagues on the Second Circuit and even more by their clerks.

David Frum

Sounds like a real peach. She already has Black Robe Disease.
#144

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

You guys are hysterical – the most racist, least educated, most closed minded people in this country and you claim to know about MLK – what a joke.

Then, you claim to be an MLK supporter, but also claim that Obama is the opposite.

Who would MLK support Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?

I can’t wait to see the crazy replies to that question.
#145

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, Ragspierre said:

Who would MLK support Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?

Nobody can know the answer to that.

But, unless MLK was a racist, he would not make his decision on the race of any candidate.

Many, many voters in the last election did. As they have been conditioned to do.

Like you, they looked first at extraneous and bigoted indicators. They stopped looking there.

That is a shame.
#146

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, flmom said:

You guys are hysterical – the most racist, least educated, most closed minded people in this country

You must say this every morning when you look into the mirror. You should change your name to Ilovemyprojection, it’s a much better fit than your current one.
#147

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, Gorebot said:

Don’t you folks unnerstand?

Racism be okay as long as it be the right kind of racism!!!

When you guys gonna get wit’ da system?

Hey, where my weffare check be at???
#148

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, Ilovemycountry said a bunch of crap.

Hey, clown…this ain’t no MLK martyrhood society. We get all that we need by tuning in NPR ~any~ time. MLK was good for the country in that he advocated non-violence at a time when things could have gone the other way.

OTH, MLK turned out near the end of his life to be — ideologically speaking — a fervent communist committed to bootstrapping off the momentum of the Civil Rights movement to push the country seriously leftward. (Remind you of anybody?) And, as we all know, he was no saint in his personal life.

This country had a lot of heroes before MLK came along. Frankly, I am so sick of the MLK cult that I no longer give a rat’s butt about the brother. Your posts are really boring me.
#149

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, b-cat said:

ILMC is a race baiter. Nothing more, nothing less.
#150

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Khyris said:

Don’t all you hysterical, close-minded, uneducated racists get it?
Her skin color is important because it’s a sign to all people of her skin color (but not anyone else) that hard work pays off. It’s important that someone of her skin color be on the supreme court, because all people of her skin color think the same way and it’s important to have those ethnic opinions represented. Also, if someone of her skin color is on the supreme court, this will raise the inherent value of everyone else of the same skin color in her reflected glory rather than that overrated individual merit nonsense.

It’s amazing all the op-eds that say exactly the above this morning (and a few clueless commentors here). The LA times snow-job is particularly gag-me-with-a-spooon worthy. MLK is has been spinning in his grave for decades, but by now if we could hook him up to a dynamo, we’d solve the world’s energy troubles.

MLK would choose Palin or Obama?
Lessee: The woman Obama appointed has a ridiculous track record of being overturned and rebuked even by fellow liberal activist judges for having a complete lack of even pretence for jurisprudence. He either appointed her because of her “qualifications” or because of her skin color. So the “content of his character” is either an idiot, or a racist. Pretty safe bet Reverend MLK would prefer the bible thumper who practices what she preaches. Even an atheist can see that.
#151

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm, jjmurphy said:

No matter if Sotomayor is confirmed or not. One like her in philosophy WILL be named to the Supreme Court. The Republicans have neither the will nor the way to stop all the possibilities. Since they will be replacing Souter, not much of a change. When one of the strict contitutionalists resigns or dies, THAT will be a “biggie”.
#152

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, Ragspierre said:

There is some opinion out there that she is such a repellent dope that she will actually push some of the fence-sitting justices to the right.

Who knows…

The facts are still the facts. She is a racist, and a sexist by her own declaration.

She is a very poor jurist on her record.

We can expect no better, but we should…

VERY VOCALLY OPPOSE HER.
#153

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Interesting, I saw this from Drudge, and followed the link. What hypocrites the Dems are…unbelievable. This is what they did the Estrada…

Why the Dems “Borked” Estrada:

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin

“The groups singled out three–Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)–as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.”

OK, so they did this because they didn’t want Republicans to take credit for nominating the first Latino to the Supreme Court?????

Politics much?
#154

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

OK, so they did this because they didn’t want Republicans to take credit for nominating the first Latino to the Supreme Court?????

Politics much?

To say nothing of racism much…
#155

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, atheling said:
Rogue Cheddar:

Yeah, your ego is what led us to this. You and your high and mighty “conscience”, which is nothing but a massage for your ego, is what it comes down to.

Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils and forego the adolescent idea of purity in politics.

You’re a fool, and your foolishness helped put that demagogue in the White House. You can cover your ears and scream, “lalalala, I’m not listening”, but that’s the fact. YOU AND YOUR ILK PUT THIS JERK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Excuse me for voting my beliefs, my conscience, my ego, my adolescent idea of purity in politics? Whatever. You want to blame me and my ilk for not voting your lesser of two evils into the Whitehouse, fine, have at it. You can still vote for evil all you want, but I blame you and your ilk for voting stupidity that continues to foster candidate choices that, how you say, suck! I think your inpotent rage is causing you to point fingers in the wrong direction.
#156

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Oh, and for those who want to read the entire “strategy” for screwing Bush nominees, here’s a recap word for word by Libtards in the Senate…

Now, imagine if Republicans had used that kind of language…dangerous…because he is Latino.

Uh huh. Who’s the racist now? Hmmm, this would make a great political ad with all those incriminating quotes, no?
#157

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, James Felix said:

You guys are hysterical – the most racist, least educated, most closed minded people in this country and you claim to know about MLK – what a joke.

This is an ad hominem attack, one that is misspelled and unsupported by facts to boot.

Then, you claim to be an MLK supporter, but also claim that Obama is the opposite.

On issues of race, they are. One advocated judging people based on their actions and character, demanding equal treatment under the law. The other advocates the law favoring people based on the color of their skin. Newsflash for you: those are opposite positions.

Who would MLK support Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?

I don’t know, and neither do you. It’s also not relevant whom he’d support.

You’re commiting an average of one logical fallacy per paragraph. That’s impressive, even for a liberal.
#158

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, atheling said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

I voted for evil? Sarah Palin is evil? Listen you yourself. What idiocy! You are accusing me of “fostering” candidate choices that “suck”? How so?

Your delusional and moronic rantings support my assertion that you are too stupid and egotistical to vote. Hell, how about putting your country before yourself, for once? Instead of your pseudo moralizing about your “conscience” and adolescent rants about “evil”, HOW ABOUT THINKING ABOUT AMERICA INSTEAD OF YOURSELF, YOU SELFISH ADOLESCENT BOOB?
#159

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, Gorebot said:

Whichever Democrat operatives duped Republican primary voters to select McCain last year must be lickin’ their collective chops overtime, woweeee!
#161

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, dadinseattle said:

‘Leaders’ that do not take our
US Constitution, oaths of Office, our laws, or limits on their power seriously-are inclined to nominate and support those whom have publicly declared that the ‘ends’ justify the ‘means’.
Exactly whom people that want our Constitutional Republic preserved would dread sitting on our nations highest court!
Statists”, however are jumping for joy today!
Tea party movement unity is going to change that!
#162

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, atheling said:

Gorebot:

They registered themselves as Republicans so they can vote for a crappy candidate in the Primaries. That’s what the Dems do.
#163

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

Guys…!!!

I don’t think the numbers for third-party voting support any idea that THE ONE would not be where he is if all conservatives voted for McAnus.

The results of the election were a given when McAnus was nominated and THE ONE anointed by the MSM.

We got what we got. We have to fashion ways to fight what we got. That will take all of us working together.
#165

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, James Felix said:

The results of the election were a given when McAnus was nominated…

That sounds like a fast food item I would not order.
#167

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, Gorebot said:

“To remind Americans how dangerous liberal facism is, dial 1-800-BIN-LADEN, now.”

“To remind Americans how dangerous liberal facism is so that they can remember it beyond five minutes, dial 1-800-MSNBC-24-7, now.”

“If you would like to hear this recording en Espanol, please dial 1-800-HOME-DEPOT, now.”

“Thank you; the next time you dial, your call will be very important to us, maybe.”
#168

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, EWTHeckman said:

atheling,

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember the numbers for conservative third party votes still would not have put McCain over the top even if he had received all those votes too. If you have numbers to back up your position, please link to them.

That said, I chose to vote for McCain (in spite of having to use extreme effort to squelch my gag reflex) while praying that he would become physically unable to remain in office almost immediately. In other words, I actually voted for Palin. That was the only shot we had at getting a decent President.

And even if McCain did hold on, that would have given us an extra 4 years to prepare for the collapse the left is pushing us towards.
#169

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

We need to think going forward — not backwards. I agree, McCain was the most pathetic pick for the Republican party knowing the slobbering love affair with Obama based on his looks, his hipness, and not because of his [lack of] experience.

Regardless WHO you had up against “the one” I still think we would’ve lost.

We need to think about 2010 elections right now, and getting rid of people like Pelosi and Reid. Think Tom Daschle if you still think this can’t be done.

We can recoup some lost ground in Congress and move towards a successful 2012 elections. Considering the way the nation’s headed and the economy tanking even further — the recession will not end at the end of this year – this is going to be a long one. And then people will finally realize that this so-called “change” wasn’t such a good idea after all. The honeymoon will end, and people will start asking questions.

Just ask the 1000 car dealerships that Obama is closing down. Some job creation there…and this is only the beginning of his socialist agenda.

This is not what America is, or what it deserves.
#170

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

EWTHeckman said:

And even if McCain did hold on, that would have given us an extra 4 years to prepare for the collapse the left is pushing us towards.

You mean he would have reversed the Bush bailouts? He wouldn’t be interested in the McCain-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill? Or the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill?
#171

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, graysonret said:

I keep a copy of the constitution in my safe deposit box

Better leave it there. By the time Obama is through with this country, the Constitution will be DOA. Heck, in a few years, having a copy of the Constitution could be a violation of national law, as a terrorist activity.
#172

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, atheling said:

EWTHeckman:

Even if what you say is true, numbers wise, it still does not mitigate the PRINCIPLE of voting strategically.

And what if we are faced with the same problem in 2012? Should those fools who vote for ideological purity vote for a 3rd party again and possibly hand Obama a 2nd term?
#173

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, atheling said:

This is not what America is, or what it deserves.

I’m not sure I can agree with that. The voters in this country, left and right, have become so stupid, and so self absorbed, that I’m beginning to believe that we deserve every shackle we bear.

In a representative government, you get the leader you deserve.
#174

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, Ragspierre said:

And what if we are faced with the same problem in 2012? Should those fools who vote for ideological purity vote for a 3rd party again and possibly hand Obama a 2nd term?

How about this; the GOP (or whoever is left standing) FACTORS into the nominating process the preferences of their base, including us purists who had to vote for people we deplore?

Wouldn’t THAT be much better…????
#175

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, atheling said:
On May 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
I voted for evil? Sarah Palin is evil? Listen you yourself. What idiocy! You are accusing me of “fostering” candidate choices that “suck”? How so?

Your delusional and moronic rantings support my assertion that you are too stupid and egotistical to vote. Hell, how about putting your country before yourself, for once? Instead of your pseudo moralizing about your “conscience” and adolescent rants about “evil”, HOW ABOUT THINKING ABOUT AMERICA INSTEAD OF YOURSELF, YOU SELFISH ADOLESCENT BOOB?

1. I was not ranting about evil, you did, as you said you picked the lesser of two evils, and blamed me for not joining you in your tortured logic.
2. Sarah Palin was not a candidate for President. Although, I did like her. John McCain was, however, too unpalatable for me. My choice, I can live with it.
3.I am not an adolescent, though my wife will say otherwise (notice how I refrain from screaming at you in all CAPS), and I do take my vote very serious, and when I do, I think of my country and constitution first and foremost. Sorry,McCain was not the answer. You hurt my feelings here. (sniff)

Here, try this.
Candidates for POTUS: Barack Obama or Adolph Hitler? (just for fun, I leave it up to you to decide who is the lesser of two evils)

Hmmm, what to do, what to do?
According to you, I and my ilk have no third choice, I beg to differ.
#176

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, Ragspierre said:

In a representative government, you get the leader you deserve.

I have believed that all my life, and still do as a general proposition.

However, where you have an election in which the MSM becomes the PR firm for one candidate, I think that fundamentally skews the whole ideal of democracy.
#179

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, Southpaw said:

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor.

Wow.
Should be interesting to hear her and Obama explain that one. Wonder how the white males currently on the U.S. Supreme Court feel about it.
#180

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, atheling said:

Ragspierre:

It’s up the the electorate to punish or bypass the MSM for their corruption, instead of swallowing it wholesale, as they do.

I’m sorry, but in a political system such as ours, there is no excuse for the voter’s ignorance, laziness, or selfishness.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Our Founding Fathers set up a wonderful, revolutionary system of government, in which The People consent to who will govern them. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it.

If we wear chains, it’s because we voted for them.
#181

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, atheling said:

Cheddar:

Your wife is smarter than you are.

I’d vote for Obama over Hitler. You go ahead and throw away your vote for Duesterberg.
#182

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm, EWTHeckman said:

You mean he would have reversed the Bush bailouts? He wouldn’t be interested in the McCain-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill? Or the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill?

That would be expecting way too much from McCain. Though if he became unable to continue as President, Palin may have actually tried to reverse these problems.

On the other hand, McCain wouldn’t be using an industrial strength plunger to push this country down the toilet any faster, just letting us drain at a more sedate pace. Hopefully that would have allowed enough time for the rest of us to prepare for the American Dark Ages.
#183

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, Ragspierre said:

atheling said:

I am put in mind of my favorite focus-group story.

A big petroleum refiner asked a marketing firm to put together a campaign for a new motor oil.

A petroleum engineer, watching the focus-group footage, and hearing the member’s responses showing their understanding of the qualities of motor oil, turned to the marketing guy in disgust and said, “We need smarter focus-groups”.

He just didn’t get it. Focus groups are supposed to be a representative sample of the consumer base to which you are targeting a product. They are what they are, if actually representative.

You and I may want a nation of exercised, informed, and aware voters. We got what we got, and that implies that we have to fashion ways to get our points across to them effectively.

It isn’t enough to say they deserve this administration. My kids don’t. Their kids don’t. Most of the dupes that voted for the moderate myth of Obama don’t. They were lied to.
#184

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm, WestCoastCoconut said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 11:08 am, BlameAmericaLast said:

Well, this is payback to the Hispanic community from Obama and a big “thank you” for selecting him as president.

I think UNIVISION is already thanking him continuously by announcing her nomination. I just wish they stop drooling an get to the issues.

Oh I forgot it’s univision they do have time to report the issues with all the half naked women dancing and TV novelas.
#185

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm, atheling said:

Ragspierre:

I completely disagree with your last two sentences.

The “myth” of Obama was dispelled by the blogosphere, conservative talk radio, and conservative pundits. Those dupes went ahead and voted for the myth anyway.

They fully deserve what they get.
#188

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, CantCureStupid said:

Ragspierre,

I respectfully request permission to use McAnus to refer to the RINO King. That is bloody brilliant (and hysterical)!!!

Regards,
CCS
#189

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, 2Brave2Bscared said:

Is there a reason why none of my comments are going through?
#190

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, Ragspierre said:

Granted, with my thanks.
#191

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

Ilovemycountry said:

You guys are hysterical – the most racist, least educated, most closed minded people in this country and you claim to know about MLK – what a joke.

That’s about the most ignorant, prejudiced, uniformed post I’ve ever read on this blog. And that’s the NICEST thing I could say about it.

Congratulations. You have demonstrated clearly that you need to be ignored.
#192

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, Ragspierre said:

They fully deserve what they get.

I deal with questions of fraud a good bit.

Do you think that people who are the victims of fraud get what they deserve?
#194

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, atheling said:

Ragspierre:

Only when they have had access to the actual facts of the matter, and have been warned, as the Americann voter was.
#195

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm, atheling said:

On May 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, NJ-Aviator said

And I bet that creature wasn’t even posting his own words. He goes to other sites and plagiarizes, folks here have found him out.

He can’t come up with an original thought of his own, because he has no brain.
#196

On May 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, Ragspierre said:

Only when they have had access to the actual facts of the matter, and have been warned, as the Americann voter was.

But it is demonstrable that they did not have access to the “actual facts” through the media they use and trust.

Sometimes, we have to recognize that a lot of us are WAY outside the norm, and that we have an obligation to bring people up to speed.

We can easily say, “We need smarter focus groups”, and have the result we will always get with that attitude.

Put another way; I often see train-wrecks in the making. I could stand on my hill and silently cluck my tongue at the stupid error people are making. Or, I could shout and wave my arms, or do something EFFECTIVE to make people aware of the danger.

Which is better?
#198

On May 26th, 2009 at 5:10 pm, atheling said:

Ragspierre:

THen you contradict yourself.

The American voter are adults. They should be adult enough to investigate candidates themselves, and to view what the media portrays with some level of skepticism. They are not little children who need nannies to watch over them and guide them all the time, especially when it comes to voting.

The corruption of the msm is nothing new. Ever since the founding of our Republic, we have had problems with the press, and if an American adult is so bloody ignorant of his own nation’s history that he hadn’t the wherewithal to regard the media with some suspicion, then he is a fool and deserves to be duped.

My grandfather always used to say, “Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you read”. And he was referring to the media. And he was born in the early 20th century. So, if a mere nobody like him can figure out that the media should not be completely trusted, why is it that so many Americans today swallow their stories wholesale?

No, I’m sorry, your excuses do not fly. We are adults, and we should know better. There is no justification for our laziness and ignorance.
#199

On May 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#111):

Posner could only be described as a “conservative” by a Maxist.

That might be true in your definition of “Marxist”, but:

the administration of President Ronald Reagan saw Posner and other members of the Chicago School as its intellectual bedfellows, providing theoretical muscle to its antiregulatory politics. In 1981 Reagan nominated Posner to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

Then you say:

Posner NEVER personalizes his suggestion that a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate in fashioning a ruling in a case.

True, but why not? Why is economics the only external factor allowed?

He doesn’t suggest that a judge consider the impact on A lumberjack, but on the industry. That is NEUTRAL as to race, gender, sexual-orientation,

Economic impacts are important only because they lead to impacts on actual people. There are other ways to impact people. Anti gay laws impact gays, for example.
#200

On May 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm, bigterpfan said:

So let me get this straight. The same public was smart enough to overcome the mainstream media in 2000 and 2004 wasn’t smart enough to do so in 2008. Or perhaps the duping by the mainstreamers was just so much worse in 2008. I agree with Atheling. Access to info is out that for all and to assume that only “we” are smart enough to have found it and that the rest of the public is just a bunch of suckered lambs constitutes arrogance of the worst sort.