The Supreme Court high hurdles contest
Able to leap tall life obstacles in a single bound!
Not all “compelling personal stories” are equal
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Since when did securing a Supreme Court seat become a high hurdles contest? The White House and Democrats have turned Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination into a personal Olympics event. Pay no attention to her jurisprudence. She grew up in a Bronx public housing project. She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 8. Her father died a year later.
And oh, by the way, did you hear that she was poor?
It’s a “compelling personal story,” as we heard 20,956 times on Tuesday. Sotomayor’s a “real” person. Why, she even read Nancy Drew as a young girl, President Obama told us. She’s “faced down barriers, overcome the odds and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago,” Obama said.
If Sotomayor were auditioning to be Oprah Winfrey’s fill-in host, I’d understand the over-the-top hyping of her life narrative. But isn’t anybody on Sotomayor’s side the least bit embarrassed by all this liberal condescension?
Republicans are not allowed to mention Sotomayor’s ethnicity lest they be branded bigots, but every Democrat on cable television harped on her multicultural “diversity” and “obstacle”-climbing. President Obama made sure to roll his r’s when noting that her parents came from Puerrrrto Rrrrico. New York Sen. Schumer stated outright: “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court.” Color-coded tokenism dominated the headlines, with blaring references to Sotomayor as the high court’s potential “first Hispanic.” (Not true.)
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill – one of the leading Democrats tasked with guiding Sotomayor through the nomination process — carried the “compelling personal story” talking points to the tokenist extreme in an interview on Fox News:
“If you look at what this woman has been through, and the obstacles that she has had to overcome, I think she does have a richly, uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” McCaskill asserted. “Overcoming incredible odds and I think that is new to the courts. There have been a lot of privileged people that have landed on the Supreme Court. The fact that she has lived the life of the common American, trying to grow up in public housing, reaching for scholarships, reaching for the courtroom as a courtroom prosecutor, all of those things will make her a better and wiser judge. And I don’t think that is identity politics. I think that is the American experience.”
Clever. Challenging Sotomayor’s credentials and extreme views on race and the law is not merely anti-Hispanic. It’s anti-American!
More significantly, Sen. McCaskill waved the high-hurdle card after being asked to defend Sotomayor’s infamous statement at a 2001 University of California at Berkeley speech asserting brown-skin moral authority: “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.” McCaskill actually denied that Sotomayor had make the remarks, then argued the words were taken out of context.
You want context? It’s even worse than that soundbite. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, “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.’” The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”
The selective elevation of hardship-as-primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary. If personal turmoil makes one “incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” let’s put reality-show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin on the bench. Millions of viewers tune in to watch their “compelling personal story” of life with eight children on television. It’s a “richly, uniquely American experience” of facing obstacles and overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat.
McCaskill’s assertion that “overcoming incredible odds” is “new to the courts” is ridiculous. Is she arguing that Thurgood Marshall, Felix Frankfurter, and Sandra Day O’Connor faced lower hurdles than Sotomayor? And how about Clarence Thomas, a descendant of slaves, grew up in abject poverty in the South without a father. The object lesson, of course, is that not all compelling personal stories are equal. Thomas’s crime, of course, was embracing the wrong ideology. So his incredible set of odds and obstacles don’t count in left-wing eyes.
Democrats are eager to celebrate diversity, you see, as long as the diversely-pigmented pledge allegiance to the Left for life.
***
Slublog in the Green Room spotlights the NYTimes editorial on Sotomayor today, which illustrates my point precisely.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
White House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 CommentsObamacare arguments, day 3 open thread: Fate of the mandate; Updated
March 28, 2012 12:12 PM by Doug Powers
236 CommentsObamacare arguments, day 2: ‘Train wreck for the Obama administration’
March 27, 2012 03:25 PM by Doug Powers
257 Comments
Pelosi Celebrates 2 Year Anniversary of Health Care Law That ‘Honored Vows of Our Founders’
March 22, 2012 04:46 PM by Doug Powers
61 Comments
SCOTUS: No Live TV for Obamacare Arguments
March 16, 2012 02:39 PM by Doug Powers
46 CommentsNYT: White House Organizing Prayer Vigil Outside Supreme Court During Hearing on Obamacare
March 9, 2012 04:20 PM by Doug Powers
105 CommentsSupreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Twitchy
» P. Diddy brags about spending millions on strippers; photographer replies: ‘pay what you owe me’AmSpecBlog
» Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New PollAmerican Thinker
» Fun & Games with Mainstream Media NumbersTwitchy
» Lil Wayne: ‘fuk Pusha T’Twitchy
» Roseanne Barr: Defending S.E. Cupp is more disgusting than Photoshopping a penis in her mouthRedstate
» Bomber Turned Left Wing Activist, Brett Kimberlin, Tries to Silence Conservative Oppositionprotein wisdom
» Hey, Barry … who is this “we” you speak of? [Darleen Click]
Great …
CHIPS on the Supreme Court …
HAHA
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Rush reminded me of something Joe Biden said when Clarence Thomas was appointed. “He would never have gotten this if he were not black”. Oh Lord, I can’t take much more of this insanity and hypocrisy. These people are truly nuts, and they think they are this intelligent elite bunch who can save the world. I have to get back to my praying now.
Probably more qualified for the job than Ms.Sotamayor!
I heard that, too. The thought I had directly following it was “Neither would our feckless leader.”
I really hate identity politics.
Everyone here does realize that white males are a minority. We certainly make up less than 50% of the population. We need some affirmative action, too!
The arrogance of leftists is quite literally mind numbing. People like Soros, Obama, Biden, Colin Powell and lgm and lil swiss miss really believe they are an intellectual elite who should rule over us peasants by virtue of their intellectual superiority.
Combine that with a unheard of case of narcissism like our current “Dear Leader” proudly demonstrates at every opportunity and you have the prescription for the “perfect storm” in a bloated government…
Seems WP has eaten my 1st post.
—————————
If it really troubles you so much, LeGuMe dip the current ones in orange paint. Or in your case, perhaps tie-dye them.
Here we are to-it, boys & girls:
Time to draw that line in the sand. If we listen to tools like The Colon or Tiny Tool, the light are already out. We simply need to turn the keys over to the Statists and head for the hills.
Those who wish to redeem the Republican Party, its an uphill climb. I’m not ready to abandon it, (although I am exceedingly grieved to find that McCain really is as bad as I thought, and even more so by the number of people who still think the sun rises & sets at his word…).
Redeeming the R-party needs to start at the bottom, and build up. Any other method will fail. Republicans also need to close the tent-flap and make the tent smaller! Right now, the tent is so big that Statism is Ok, and welcome too! After all: we are a big tent, right?
speaking of narcissism…I just turned on our local weather channel…just to find out the temperature. That’s all I wanted, just to find out the temperature. And there was O speaking about the food shelves being empty. On my local weather channel!! He is everywhere! I am literally sick to my stomach about this. Every time I turn around, there he is, in my face. Yes, I really do believe there will be statues erected in his honor, all over the country. Already they are naming schools after him and he hasn’t even proven he can lead our country. In fact, every day he is proving just the opposite. What happens when he crashes and burns? I guess all those schools and streets and towns will have to be re-named.
Anyone see the farce in how she is portrayed in the media?
Reminds me of Steve Martin in ” The Jerk ”
” I was born, a poor black child… ”
Type one diabetes reduces lifespan by an average of 15 years. Sotamayor is 54 years old. At age 50 a woman is predicted to live to 82. 82 -15 equals 67. Therefore, we can expect Sotamayor to sit on the top court of the land for 13 years if she sticks it out till the day she departs this green earth. If she develops severe complications from her disease she may retire sooner and if she has to join us in the health care we get under Obama’s plan she will surely suffer sooner. It’s hard to wait for a kidney and even harder if you first have to wait a year to even get an appointment with a nephrologist.
Wow, I have had those kind of “
qualifications” err.. I mean, “life challenges” too.. I should be nominated!I am part of the biggest minority group of all. Me, myself! I have unique life experiences that noone else has shared. Some were hard and some weren’t. I got help along the way, “affirmative” help from my family, friends, teachers, etc. I’ve had hard setbacks that would make you cry. This gives me a unique view of the world. Call Obama…I’m willing to serve!
It’s funny. My wife isn’t white. But when I look at her the first thing I “see” isn’t the color of her skin. I suspect when a leftist looks at her all they see is an “oppressed, woman of color” which is, in their vocabulary triple-redundant…
When Katie Couric speaks on the radio every work morning, I usually roll my eyes and head to the kitchen for more coffee. This morning she made a point that I had to agree with. She was talking about a Puerto Rican poor single mother who raised two children to become a doctor and a judge. NYC is a tough place to raise children, alone. I have to hand it to her. I wish more people could raise their children to be successful, as she did, and not be government dependents. I don’t know the “doctor”, and I certainly disagree with Sonia’s idea of the Constitution, but I will respect the mother.
Are you kidding? She would not have to be on the same universal health”care” plan as the rest of us peons. She would get the elite healthcare that Congress gets and will always get.
I suspect many, many Americans are not aware of the health care and retirement benefits that Congress has awarded itself and other key government “servants.” If more people knew there would be fewer people pulling the lever for leftists at election time.
I would still like to know how all these dirt poor liberals get into Ivy League Colleges!
It appears that many of those who claim to be “dirt poor” like Obama were not. He was largely raised by his racist, white grandparents who were NOT poor. And it appears that he is disinclined to release his college paperwork precisely because it might disclose who paid for his Ivy League education…
Can you say “quotas”? I knew you could.
Actually, it’s reported that Sotomayor graduated Summa cum Laude. So, whether she got in because of her minority status or not, she’s obviously smart.
She’s also just as obviously WRONG when it comes to the role of judges in American law.
It sounds like you’re saying this at least partially in jest, which I totally understand. Actually, you might (or might NOT!) be surprised to learn that some universities are actually having serious discussions about the proportions of males vs. females on some campuses and in some programs (eg. ‘affirmative action’ quotas for males). It seems, the once unreachable goal of male-female equity (of course, in sheer numbers – via demographic ‘bean counting’) has not only been reached in many cases, but now an over-representation of females exists in many program areas.
…Sigh, go figure (trans. means: ‘when does it end?’)
PS. Apologies for venturing off-topic somewhat…
Well rightwingrocker Eric Estrada is indeed a Republican-although he did support McCain. If he is any relation to Miguel I do not know.
OK now I can see this coming.
When asked about some of her “gaffes” her answer will be something like….Well on that particular day I didn’t get a chance to check my sugar. It is estimated that my sugar was 267, which explains why my brief/gaffe didn’t make any sense.
I have corrected my sugar issues with a disciplined approach that will not allow that to happen again. I promise and cross my heart blah blah blah blah lie blah lie blah lie lie blah.
Repubs and Dems eat this answer up. CONFIRMED!!!
Ivy League schools ACTIVELY look for poor minorities to recruit, as do all the others. They often are offered a full ride.
SOME of them actively recruit poor kids from any ethnic background. Much less common, though.
I have NO problem with a school administering private grants targeted at poor and/or minorities. I think that is laudable, in fact.
I have a HUGE problem with fudging the admission standards to push them into their programs, though.
No, her response will be more like:
You stupid gringos don’t understand the subtle nuances of the Spanish language and cannot comprehend that I was using the phrase in context of its meaning in Spanish and you monolingual, racist, white males cannot fathom what I really intended when I said that. You may kiss my diverse butt know…
Leftists idiots in the Senate will think it true and any Republicans in the Senate will be too scared to respond.
Who ever came up with the idea that PRs, or Cubans for that matter, speak Spanish?
Well the folks in Ecuador told me that they are the only ones in the Western Hemisphere who actually speak Spanish…
The same guys that claim we speak English… when it’s obvious we speak ‘Merican!
Ragspierre said (#122):
Maybe, but they don’t make them Summa Cum Laude (Latin for “some loud mouth”). That is earned in competition with everyone else.
probably already been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, but besides sotomayor being a racist, she also believes the duty of a judge is to make policy, not just interpret it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
To be sure, and that wasn’t a point directed to Judge Sotomayor, who I think everyone recognizes as an accomplished person.
She has proven her merit…and her racist and sexist views, along with her contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution.
By her own words, she has fully disqualified herself for the nation’s highest court, much less the one on which she sits at the moment.
But, have no fear. She will be confirmed, and will work as an object lesson against electing anyone remotely like Obama again. I can’t wait.
Once again lgm demonstrates his lack of proficiency in another language! His/her Latin teacher must be sooo proud.
Of course the actual direct translation is: “with highest praise” and the commonly understood meaning is “with highest honors.”
In light of “grade inflation” and the fact that Sotomayor probably took a good number of her courses in underwater basket weaving, minority and women’s studies and other suitably challenging subjects I am not ready to bow down and grovel.
I guess lgm’s new motto is “Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.” Let’s see how he translates that…
Competition in a liberal professors class can also have “affirmative” grading. How about a member of The Harvard Law Review who has no examples of his written work at Harvard to show us?
Is “affirmative grading” a way of rewarding students for what they don’t know they haven’t learned or for what they have learned that just ain’t so?
One must also remember that no matter how long some families have been in this country English is still a second language. Amazing that some people come here and learn it in less than one lifetime. In the affirmative line of thought time is a variable and learning is a constant. Grading is done on how far you’ve come from where you were, not on how well you’ve done compared to your peers.
Well, lgm demonstrates that time is variable and learning is constant with every post. The major problem for lgm is that in his/her case the value of the constant is null…
That’s funny
Ah, not just getting onto the Harvard Law Review, but becoming president of the same with absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind of scholarly legal writing before or after.
Affirmative Action, through its manifestation in the form of race-based quotas in academic admissions, is the handmaiden of grade inflation. Last I heard, something like 90% of Harvard degrees are “Cum Laude” awards, because you really have to work at it to get less than an A- in any given class.
When I see supporters of someone like Sotomayor bandying about terms like “Summa Cum Laude” with no supporting evidence in the form of transcripts, the first thing that comes to my mind isn’t, “Boy, she must really be smart!” but rather, “Princeton must’ve been really desperate to polish its ‘diversity’ credentials.”
Well lgm a really smart racist/fascist/thief is even more dangerous than a dumb one. That “competition with everyone else” seems to NOT resonate with her as with the Firefighters case- Ricci v. DeStefano.
It was indeed she who stated merit SHOULD NOT be, or at least a lesser, consideration in hiring and promotion but ONLY race and gender.
Read her ruling and not just the spin.
I think, Arizona, that you will look long and hard for her ruling…
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
She punted, along with the other members of her appellate panel. Perhaps to avoid leaving a trail to cloud her SCOTUS ambitions. Perhaps to just get where she wanted to go in terms of outcome. Gutless, by any measure.
Now, the case rests with the Supremes, and a very pivotal case it will be, too.
After which, she will have been overturned in more than 60% of her cases.
Once she’s confirmed, that will be a little awkward around the office, won’t it?
Exactly, but with empathy of course.
Perhaps her legal education did not cover
Going back to the Harvard law years, what will Obama put in his library after his presidency? Time line…birth…moved around….went to school….took some courses…got some grades..wrote nothing….had ghost writer write two books…no letters…no papers…potus..exit. Shouldn’t need any foreign donations to build this double wide trailer!
Sure LGM, sure.
Face it obama, your lord and master has proven himself a lightweight. Nominating this racist simply proves that.
Please provide details about this “damage” you refer to.
And would you have felt the same way about “color” had Estrada been nominated? No? Then you’re just as big a hypocrite as the editorial board of the NYT.
I’ve posted thrice, none appears.
The “racism” charge is just projection, by the true racists,
upon those who are not (in an attempt to silence them).
It’s really getting a bit old. We’ve seen it over, and over, and over again from the Democratic Socialist Communists.
The Program of the Communist Party USA mentions variations on the word “race” (racial, racism, racist) 124 times and variations on the word “oppress” (oppression, oppressed) 116 times. Its overarching theme is that white male capitalists are racist oppressors and the system (capitalism) must be dismantled.
That’s what this is really all about…
the Communists’ attempts to “bring an Empire to its knees“.
anyone else get the feeling this administration is determined to get reparation in one form or another?
Wow, the hypocrisy is amazing…Here is quote for you…
Who said this???? SAM ALITO during his confirmation hearing.
George H.W. Bush on Clarence Thomas:
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I was referring to the M/M board, obviously (to most).
Well, it’s really not that big a deal, but I guess it wasn’t that obvious to me, for some reason. I am sorry if I misunderstood or offended you.
Aside from the fact that lgm is either ignorant or blind to his own racism, here is a candidate with some “color” that the Democrats raked over the coals, in total die
Now read a few excerpts from Slate, never accused of being a conservative publication: Miguel, Ma Belle: The racial ugliness under the Miguel Estrada nomination. By Dahlia LithwickPosted Thursday, Feb. 27, 2003 (http://www.slate.com/id/2079445/) Emphasis mine.
and the article wraps up with this gem:
Just switch the names.
There is a nice, concise summary of Sotomayor’s dubious judicial history in http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2009/05/guns-intellect-judgment-are-key.html, particularly from liberals!
To wit:
and
It ends with
One could say the same about the young president.
Oh dear God! How much more of this insanity are we going to take?
Guess I’d better get to work on that safe house in the mountains. I’m leaving tomorrow.
The argument that Sotamayor has overcome poverty and racism and that this makes her worthy of such over-the-top celebration is racist and classist to the core. The people who are so impressed that she is a step away from the high court are acting like they just saw a pig on the Moon. It’s just the absolutely amazingly amazing thing that she is there at all, don’tcha know…
So, why is it so amazingly amazing that a Puerto Rican woman can succeed in her chosen field in America? We have seen all kinds of people achieve all kinds of great things in this country, through their intelligence, skill or unstoppable drive. It would be idiotic to say that people can’t get ahead in America because of such things as Puerto Rican heritage or humble beginnings. One only has to look at Clarence Thomas, who grew up in a situation even more dire, in every respect, but succeeded on his own merits, as so many others have.
So, what is it about poor Puerto Ricans from the Bronx that makes Sotamayor’s success so remarkable, so unbelievable, so amazingly amazing? You are left with the inescapable conclusion that the people are so surprised because they feel, deep down, that poor Puerto Ricans from the Bronx are ignorant and inferior, which is why it is so surprising when one of them succeeds. Pig on the Moon.
Since it seems to be a day to pull anonymous blog postings out of context, let me say, unnecessarily, that I in know way share this view. I know that poor Puerto Ricans in the Bronx are people just like me who happen to be in difficult circumstances, but are possessed of the same abilities and intelligence as any other people, and the success of one of their number, while welcome, is not at all surprising.
My wife isnt either. In fact, she is 50% the same as our host, which then makes our daughters 25% Filipino as well.
Then again, unlike what the stereotyping bigoted trolls on here (and, no doubt, other sites) think, neither am I. After all, only “Whitey” can be Conservative, else we are all sell outs, right?
Oh, did I forget to mention that in the past? Gee, guess it would be because according to Liberals, such things aren’t supposed to matter. That is, unless it involves one of their own.
The only thing LGM demonstrates is what happens when you are dropped and stepped on repeatedly.
Sounds like she’s being nominated for Queen For A Day. Where are you, Jack Bailey?
Isn’t it amazing that they tout her compelling life story and attribute her success to hard work and personal sacrifice, yet they are trying to replace those values with the welfare state?
I’m sure whatever Statist web-site you gleaned your quotes from thinks they really got the conservatives now!
Ew, ew, they used the “E” word, too! Hypocrites!!!!
But, really, how stupid can a group of people be?
Of course no conservative wants a judge devoid of empathy. We just don’t want a Justice of the Supreme Court who, by admission of THE ONE, uses empathy as her guiding light, rather than the rule of law. To use a very apt analogy, we want an impartial umpire calling the games.
I think it is a universal that all good umpires can empathize with the looser and winners, but they don’t call the game on the basis of who they perceive the players to be. Which is expressly what THE ONE and Sotomayor said they wanted and will do, respectively.
My very Scots-Irish family, like all others in America, holds stories of prejudice and persecution as part of our history. There isn’t a family in America that wasn’t the target of bigots at one point or another…religious, ethnic, political, place of origin, etc. My American Indian ancestors certainly knew that experience.
So, duh, we all have a story of people in our families who overcame the bigotry of small people, and overcame privation. The American Dream realized.
That’s the “take-away” from Sotomayor’s life-story. During the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush years, this lady realized the American Dream, largely because of the work of her intact nuclear family, and the opportunities she uniquely found in America.
I loved how when Obama was introducing her he said her mother wanted her to have a good education so she sent her to Catholic School! He admitted that the govt run schools are not as good.
On another note, I don’t recall alot of hype about Scalia being the first Italian justice.
And WHO nominated the first female Justice?
Hmmm….?
WarEagle82 said (#130):
It was a joke, numbnuts (from Austin Powers). I put the link to the correct translation in the my post.
You’re accusing liberals of being racist for insisting on a Hispanic judge and then accusing us of, I’m not sure what, for opposing Hispanic candidate Estrada. It would have been good to have Estrada on the bench. Like Sotomayor, he had the credentials and experience and intelligence. The problem was, he was nuttier than “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” Bork.
As usual, you got it wrong.
You are a racist, as is Sotomayor.
You support her appointment on the basis of her race.
Leftists opposed Estrada on the basis of his race, coupled with his perceived ideology.
Race was…first, last, and always…what the LEFT pivoted on.
as if what has been reported is not enough about this woman….just saw a story on fox news that sotomayor ruled in a 2nd amendment case that states have the right to ban guns. This case will be coming up in the next few months to the Supreme Court…gee how nice that she could again be making a decision for us all about the 2nd amendment….she can excuse herself from the case but will she should she be installed on the court??
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomay…ond-amendment/
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten…x?RsrcID=48718
Quote:
n a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
dear leader picking someone who obviously goes against what he says thus giving us lip service about our 2nd amendment rights…
oh one last thing….she is a member of “la ratza” !!!
Well that’s a two-fer of a different color – not only are you denigrating the genuine intellect of Miguel Estrada, you also seem to be implying the same untruth the Left did in 1987, when they smeared the Honorable Judge Bork as a racist over a previously existing land covenant. It’s unfair.
Reverse racism is real, and a major tool in the Democrats’ overwhelming arsenal of dirty tricks and unsavory tactics.
Yes, but that only works when a donk nominates them.
Ragspierre said (#161):
OK,
OK, that makes me a pro Hispanic racist.
Now that makes me an anti-Hispanic racist. I’m willing to be a racist, I just need to know whether I hate whites or Hispanics.
DBNinKY said (!163):
Conservatives are unlucky with “seems to be”, as in Saddam seems to be developing…, Terry Schaivo seems to be …, . It’s probably safer for you to stick to things you actually know.
I heard about that, but I was referring to the book Bork wrote afterwards. That book was so nutty, even people who had been uncertain at the time of the confirmation hearings were grateful Bork had been Borked.
And what do you know of either Bork or Estrada that wasn’t fed to you by the liberal media – have you ever read or listened to non-biased interviews of these men, or given open minded consideration to their accounts of the political allegations made against them?
“Nutty” only to the close-minded -
Note that lgm has to torture what I did say into something I did not say to make a “point”.
That is called a lie.
My statement was, “Leftists opposed Estrada on the basis of his race, coupled with his perceived ideology”. They said it, and it is true. Because of his race, they regarded him as a threat.
lgm is a racist, due to his use of race as a pivotal criteria for how he views an individual.
Really? Name five.
I read the book and found it brilliant.
You?
Perhaps, you should take your own advice. I’ve seen you harping incessantly about the “untruths” of Conservatives yet never account for the “untruths” perpetrated by the Left. Intelectual dishonesty has always been your game on this blog and you play it very well. Many lefty professors, like you, are SPECIALISTS, with no REAL WORLD experience so it is amazing that you can lecture anybody about the “known” or “unknown.”
You are an ignorant buffoon. I find it amazing that you can lug that ginormous ego around that lofty ivory tower of yours. You are intellectually arrogant, meaning, that you think your limited “knowledge” supercedes the practical knowledge that actual lawyers like Rags bring to the table. Keep trying to convince us and yourself that you know anything more than your chosen career field. Looking down your nose at those who don’t inhabit the same inward-looking echo chamber as you doesn’t even imply common sense.
Have fun collecting your tenure-provided, public-supported, academic paycheck and filling your students’ heads with white noise.
As lgm’s posts get nastier and he now resorts to ad hominem and strawmen, please use him as a barometer of the left. They see their utopian plans falling apart. They are scared.
Oh, he’s still an idiot. Just a scared idiot.
John Deaux said (#171):
My tone the past two days is a reaction to what was said about me on this blog. I’ve been trying to reflect some of the nastiness back at you. You can start by reading the post right above yours.
You know, my 9 year old knows better than to act like that. What are you, six?
Here was another Supreme Court Chief Justice who considered the person rather than the constitution
New bumper sticker -
This is the way to handle this, IMNHO.
Respectfully, no person of conscience should EVER consider “Borking” anybody, because that was an exercise in lying, and in the foulest form of character assassination. The people who did it were (are)morally reprehensible.
If anything, the treatment of Thomas was worse. It has become a pattern with our unprincipled opposition.
They recognize no rules, and I have argued and do argue that there are no rules in such a case.
BUT…regardless of rules…when it comes to a simple question of truth v. lies, decency v. evil, we have GOT to always follow the high road.
That means we act as people throughout our history, until recently, act when faced by an otherwise qualified nominee under “advice and consent”. We respectfully but thoroughly inquire, and…unless there is good reason not to…we give the President their choice.
He then gets to live with the consequences. As do we all…
Danceswithdachshunds said (#177):
That means: use her vocal opposition to decisions such as Griswold, and principles such as the right to privacy (ninth amendment), as a reason to vote against her. Good luck.
Sotomayor is a Catholic Hispanic, and there are no decisions to determine where she stands on social issues like abortion or even gay marriage.
The Left may have it’s own Souter in a SC Justice Sotomayor, and wouldn’t that be scrumptious!
BTW – when critics once derided the Burger Court for displaying no discernible “theme,” Justice Powell wisely responded by asking could a litigant retain confidence in a Court that rendered decisions on a set philosophy rather than “applicable law.”
Seeking justices who display “empathy” over precedent in judging cases is no different; it is an attempt to imprint upon the highest court in the land a philosophy that comports the Constitution to its own ideology of emotion over law.
This person is a racist, a bigot, a sexist and more. How she has been allowed to continue on the way she has for this long is nothing more than an excercise in the damage that Liberalism is able to do and does on a daily basis in this country.
How many cases has she judged based on her contempt for Whitey? How many times has she been able to legislate and “create policy” instead of interpret the Law?
The amount of destruction she will be permitted to do if allowed to sit for the rest of her life on the bench of the highest court in the land is unfathomable…unconscionable.
Do NOT allow these Socialist, Leftists, to intimidate you. Yes, there is racism here…but it is coming from THEM and it is so loud, it is deafening. Not only should she not be rewarded for her life-long work in racism, she should be stripped of her current position, have every single case she has ever sat on reviewed for any chance she used racist viewpoints or legislated from the bench and never, EVER be permitted into a courtroom where she has the opportunity to make decisions ever, EVER again.
Senator John Cornyn of Texas threw Newt and Rush “under the bus” in an interview with NPR. I would suggest it is time to throw most of the current Republicans, including Cornyn, out of office and find some people who’ll stand up for the Constitution.
lgm, as is typical, shows that he and his Statist fellows have no integrity…
WHATSOEVER.