Another affirmative-action hire, from our affirmative-action president.

If what I've read about this woman is true, she had no business getting out of law school with a degree, much less being elevated to the Second Circuit.

More at Ace's place.

Money quote:

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.

Arrogance, racism, sexism and elitism. In one fucking sentence.

Bad, bad, bad.

OK, here's the whole quote, not Dowdified.

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 dowdification makes it seem more absolute than it really is, but it's still arrogant, elitist, racist, and sexist.

I just read about this, before I linked here this morning. Unfrakkinbelievable.

This quote really steamed me.

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] (h/t Hotair)

"Where policy is made?" No, baby. That's called the legislature. The bench is where the law is applied to the facts of specific cases.

If you voted for O!, is this what you voted for? Blatant anti-white racism and subversion of the courts?

"I wish I could believe Obama chose Sotomayor because she's the best person for the job"

I believe it. If Obama had really wanted an affirmative action hire, he would have picked a blind, lesbian Hispanic female Supreme Court justice :)

>> Blatant anti-white racism and subversion of the courts?

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

At this point, I haven't heard anything about her in the media that would indicate that she's either qualified or unqualified... all I've heard about her is that she's hispanic. I don't even know where she got her law degree or what kind of judicial experience she has. But, hey, she's Puerto Rican!

If you voted for O!, is this what you voted for? Blatant anti-white racism and subversion of the courts?

In large part, yes. That is what they voted for. The indications of Obama's inherent racism and radicalism were all there. If you read his words, you could see the evidence of it.

And even with this pander, nobody will call him on it.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

What, white people aren't allowed to be against racism?

I read this morning that she has more experience than any other current Supreme Court Justice had when they started the job. Think it's because she spent all those years working, rather than being quickly scooped up into the (predominantly white and male) government club?

But yeah, let's accuse Obama of being an affirmative-action decision maker, if that helps us forget John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin.

Eric

Shut up! I order you to be quiet!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

Lori -

Let's review:

Sotomayor has been overturned 5 of the seven times one of her decisions has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

She's been publicly rebuked by fellow jurist Justice Jose Cabranes for her conduct in the New Haven Firefighter case. In case you don't know, Cabranes was appointed by Clinton, and hardly what one would call a conservative.

So, based upon her job performance yeah, she's an affirmative-action hire. With all the negative connotations that carries with it.

Looking at her positions, her judicial theories, and her record, she is supremely unqualified to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Liberals would do well to oppose her as vigorously as conservatives opposed Harriet Miers.

Oh, and Lori - you really don't want that argument about Palin. By any measurement you like, she was the most qualified to the office of President of McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden.

It's funny to me that minutes after this woman has been nominated, people who couldn't pick her name out of a hat last night already have a cemented opinion of her. I'm sure in the back rooms there was somebody ammassing snippets on every possible nominee, and the minute her name was released so were the snippets.

The Supreme Court isn't like baseball. One lousy team member in baseball can screw everything up. On the Supreme Court, the person in question is only 1 vote out of 9.

>> white people aren't allowed to be against racism?

Of course they are, when it applies. The racism (or just plain old politcal sidesmanship) here is assuming that this Hispanic woman is automatically unqualified. And I say automatically, because I really doubt anyone here has read about her record before this morning. Obama isn't the first President to elect a Supreme Court nominee for political and posterity reasons. Anyone want to argue that Sandra Day O'Connor was the most qualified nominee back in the 80's?

Eric -

There are times when a single utterance is sufficient to disqualify a person.

This is one such time.

We already made the mistake of allowing a man who stated without a moment's pause "I think it's good for everyone when we spread the wealth around" to become the president of our nation.

We ought not compound the error by allowing a woman who was chosen solely because of her race and gender to be elevated to a lifetime appointment with almost no possibility (aside from felonious activity) of removal.

>> I mean, seriously. What the fucking fuck?

I gotta ask- What's that about? A seatbelt ticket?

Brian,
Unless you are in the HR department of the Supreme Court, I am not interested in considering your opinion (stated as fact, of course) of who you think is qualified or not for this job. Especially if your standards indicate that you think Palin was more qualified for President than Obama.

And please don't tell me what I argument I want and don't want to have. You think women want to have arguments about men holding the door for them.

And for whomever else is a middle-class white person who thinks they are being discriminated against in the US Government job market: Have you seen the group photo of our representatives in Washington lately?

I gotta ask- What's that about? A seatbelt ticket?

It's a personal thing that holds meaning for those who understand it.

The seatbelt issue is completely separate.

Thanks lujlp...I was afraid I was the only (old) one who got Eric's quote...

Oh Boy! A Fisking! A Fisking!

Brian, Unless you are in the HR department of the Supreme Court, I am not interested in considering your opinion (stated as fact, of course) of who you think is qualified or not for this job. Especially if your standards indicate that you think Palin was more qualified for President than Obama.

Shorter lori: "Your worldview is invalid, therefore your opinions are invalid."

Lori, a cursory examination of Obama's "achievements" is sufficient to disqualify him from anything higher level than cube-farm operative at a second-tier law firm.

And please don't tell me what I argument I want and don't want to have. You think women want to have arguments about men holding the door for them.

When you've had someone yell "I have arms, you know" when you hold the door for her, then you will understand. If you've never had it happen to you, you can believe me when I tell you I've seen it, and so have many of my contemporaries.

And for whomever else is a middle-class white person who thinks they are being discriminated against in the US Government job market: Have you seen the group photo of our representatives in Washington lately?

The existence of a past injustice is not grounds for present injustice. Either a person is qualified regardless of their race and gender, or they are qualified because of their race and gender.

You cannot have it both ways.

Sonia Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven in a case pending before the Supreme Court in which the city, having only one hispanic and no black firefighters passing the officer examination declared the test invalid and set it aside, promoting nobody.

She was admonished by Judge (not Justice, as I said earlier) Jose Cabranes for her convoluted reasoning with failed to address any of the Constitutional questions in the case.

Of course lori will no doubt follow the Python analogy by casting me as the villager:

"We have found a witch! May we burn her?"

Thank you, Brian, for saving me the trouble of posting the quote published in this morning's LA Times.

Out. Fucking. Rageous.

She is apparently the best hispanic that could be found who is not burdened with politically-incorrect genitalia. She is unabashedly racist and sexist, and publically jokes about "not legislating from the bench." It's great to be a minority chick, isn't it? You can say the darnedest things!

She'll get along well with Ginsburg, who is most recently miffed that all those bad men on the court disagreed with her position that women should be able to take maternity leave but still earn the same pension benefits as those men and women who did not take time off from work. "I am woman. Hear me whine. Give me stuff."

In response to Amy, I think it's quite reasonable to note she is the first Hispanic to this court. We do want to be in a colorblind society, but that wasn't always our history, and so yes, it's appropriate to note the first (or even the second.)

What would be inappropriate is the demand that Sotomayor's seat is from now on the Hispanic seat, just as Ginsburg's seat is the Jewish Woman's seat, and presumably Scalia's seat is reserved for vafanculo uttering Italian judges.

It's undemocratic to have seats reserved for some special interest, but it's reasonable to note that some group in our melting pot has accomplished some arbitrary achievement.

Now as for this thread, that quote above means nothing for it is still stripped of context. What is the context that these people are deciding? Not the caveat "wise" too. Specifically what is the context for "hasn't lived that life". What life? the quote is meaningless and tells us more about whom Brian gets his marching orders from than it says out of context about Sotomayor.

And seriously Brian, you're so far out there with your bitterness and outrage factor that I think people tend to dismiss what you are saying as coming from "that kook." But you know, I love you so anyway.

I am more interested in hearing what was behind that actual quote, and finding out what her decision was in the firefighter's case.

And I am very glad we don't have Spy Camera Napolitano as our liberal defender of civil rights....

But I have to note that Sotomayor was a prosecutor. So the most liberal liberal female communist treasonous most likely alien from another planet left wing lefty moonbat justice to ever get a chance to rip our country apart was a prosecutor, and still she scares the remnants of the right. Jeez imagine what might have happened at Obama appointed a former defense attorney, we would have had the brain goo of all those conservative talk show hosts splattered across the glass panes of their studios.

Napolitano was a prosecutor too. Says a lot about the horrible treasonous left if we don't have the cajones to appoint a defense attorney or god forbid a personal injury lawyer.

Well. There it is.

the quote is meaningless and tells us more about whom Brian gets his marching orders from than it says out of context about Sotomayor.

I don't get marching orders.

All I need to know about her is her position on the firefighter case. She will not decide based upon law, but upon desired outcome. This is not a mindset that is appropriate to a justice.

The fact that she doesn't have a problem with legislating from the bench ought to alarm you as well, jerry.

The only consolation here is that one squishy social-justice type is being replaced with another.

Which doesn't really get us to where the court ought to be - interpreting the law as written rather than how they wish it were written.

"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Jerry -

Although I haven't looked, and getting her to answer it now is going to be like pulling teeth (judicial nominees are famous for not answering questions regarding past decisions) I'd like to know her position in what I consider to be three landmark cases in recent history:

Raich v. Gonzales
Kelo v. New Haven Development Corporation
McConnell v. FEC.

Her position in those three cases would tell me all I need to know about her suitability to the position.

I'd be willing to bet real money that she would be on the wrong side in at least two of them, if not all three.

Dear Brian,
I am very sorry to hear about your terrible experience of being admonished for holding the door for someone. That is honestly a really ridiculous incident that happened that one time, probably by someone who was having a terrible day and decided to be a jerk to a stranger. Kind of like that guy who almost ran me over on 41st street and then called me a "fucking bitch" out the window, for crossing the street while he was trying to make a right turn. But, I try not to let stuff like that shape my worldview.

You have every right to your opinions, just don't state your opinions as if they are fact, then get on the defensive when others don't agree with your findings.

And finally, past injustice does much to inform and perpetuate current injustice, as it sets a standard by which we measure one's qualifications, or lack thereof. We look up to and promote those who seem like 'leaders', set by the current (past injustice-laden) standard of what a 'leader' looks like. A 'leader' looks like a white dude in many circles. And even if he's not totally white, he acts kinda white-ish, and hey, at least he's still a dude, right?

White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not. I've seen it happen in the corporate as well as educational world - half-assers getting promotions and scholarships because they've buddied up with the 'right' people...people who they can 'relate' to...people who don't intimidate the bosses or professors with their marginal, hard-to-understand experiences....people who look just like they do, and have the same set of stuff in their pants.

If you've never had it happen to you, you can believe me when I tell you I've seen it, and so have many of my contemporaries.

Look, if I walked around saying I was Emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

The fact that she doesn't have a problem with legislating from the bench ought to alarm you as well, jerry.

So let's talk about that, and what she means when she says appeals courts make policy, and indeed even what the founders would have had to say about activist judges as well as discussions of Scalia/Alito/Roberts as activist judges, just activist in a different way.

But Brian, honestly, we have a Democratic and liberal President. Can you name three liberal judges that you would be okay with seeing named to the Court that would have you saying, merely, "I would prefer a Conservative, but these folks are qualified, and will be good?"

I get the impression that no one Obama nominates short of nominating a conservative will make the right happy, and if so, well, I think that means the right has dealt itself out of the hand.

How about someone who hasn't shown such an in-your-face disregard for the Constitution? Or one that hasn't shown such racist and sexist tendencies?

Obama stated quite clearly that his criteria for a SC candidate included "empathy". If by "empathy" he means a judge who will disregard the law if so doing would result in favor to a disadvantaged defendant, then there is nobody who meets his criteria that I will find acceptable.

I want strict constructionists. I do not want people who believe in a "living" Constitution. Nor do I want (more) justices who look to foreign law as a way of deciding cases in America.

However, elections have consequences. And as a result of 52% of this country buying into Mr. Hopenchange's Magical Skittle-farting Unicorn Theory, we are about to get "progressive" social-justice shoved up our ass for the next 20-40 years.

White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not. I've seen it happen in the corporate as well as educational world - half-assers getting promotions and scholarships because they've buddied up with the 'right' people...people who they can 'relate' to...people who don't intimidate the bosses or professors with their marginal, hard-to-understand experiences....people who look just like they do, and have the same set of stuff in their pants.

That's not white male privilege. That's being part of an in-group. The same happens to white females, to females in general, and it even happens when you walk through the hood.

Not everything bad that happens to you is associated to others having a white penis.

By the way, what would you call Ruth Padel's recent playing of a 25 year old sexual smear card so that she could get her (non-white) male rival to resign and she could win election as some sort of poet schmoet? She also defeated an Indian male. I guess Ruth is an example of:

a) white female privilege
b) female privilege
c) bitch's privilege

Too bad her rivals had penii!! But then they deserved it, I am sure if you examine her biography you will agree she had been kept down by the patriarchy.

"And seriously Brian, you're so far out there with your bitterness and outrage factor that I think people tend to dismiss what you are saying as coming from "that kook."

Yup. Nailed it.

"Of course lori will no doubt follow the Python analogy by casting me as the villager: bla bla bla..."

Yeah, Bri-guy, No doubt, bro! You know me SO well, bud!! What say we meet up after work and hit the links? I'll tape O'Reilly in case we wind up having too many Heinekens.

That's okay Brian, I understand that Limbaugh hasn't briefed you with the name of a single liberal judge who can make it up to Limbaugh's standards.

That is honestly a really ridiculous incident that happened that one time, probably by someone who was having a terrible day and decided to be a jerk to a stranger.

Actually, it was on a date, and it was the girl I was taking out that evening. As you might guess, that was a VERY short date.

Kind of like that guy who almost ran me over on 41st street and then called me a "fucking bitch" out the window, for crossing the street while he was trying to make a right turn.

No, that's "Hello" in Midtownese.

You have every right to your opinions, just don't state your opinions as if they are fact, then get on the defensive when others don't agree with your findings.

I'm not the one who declared someone's statement invalid. As I recall, you declared my statement invalid because I don't believe that Palin is a drooling idiot or that Obama is qualified to be President. An unbiased review of all evidence (that would require going outside of the ABCNNBCBS Cabal, away from Fucks news, and turning off The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live) would show that Palin was, in fact, more qualified to the office of the President than her running mate, or either of the men on the opposition ticket.

And finally, past injustice does much to inform and perpetuate current injustice, as it sets a standard by which we measure one's qualifications, or lack thereof.

That's as may be. It still doesn't call for an injustice to be committed in vengeance.

he acts kinda white-ish

What the fuck does that mean, exactly?

White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not.

Explain that to the firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions and raises because they were white.

If you've never had it happen to you, you can believe me when I tell you I've seen it, and so have many of my contemporaries.

I've seen plenty going the other way. And it is neither right, nor justified.

Either we live in a meritocracy, or we do not. If the government is going to keep its thumb on the scale, there will never be equality.

Sotomayor is in favor of keeping the thumb on the scale.

1st mortea I'm not yet 30 - I just like good british humor

2nd "What do we burn besides witches?"

Yeah, Bri-guy, No doubt, bro! You know me SO well, bud!! What say we meet up after work and hit the links? I'll tape O'Reilly in case we wind up having too many Heinekens.

You couldn't get more condescending if you tried.

I couldn't golf my way out of a wet paper sack, I don't watch O'Reilly, and I don't drink Heineken unless there's nothing else.

You can keep fighting the straw-brians in your brain if you like. Or you can address the substance of my commentary. Which you've yet to do.

Because you got nothin'

"MORE WITCHES!!!"

Of course there's another explanation - she could be Obama's sacrificial lamb. Someone put forth to appease the far-left, only to be shot down by the "moderates".

Then he gets credit for trying to move the court left, puts forth a liberal like Souter who gets confirmed easily, and wins all around.

Hell, it worked for Bush. Twice.

"White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not."

And so are fairies, Lori m! (By the way, did you see the Empress' new CLOTHES? Fabulous, aren't they?!)

Got any other trite cliche's from Wymn's Studies to share?

Another woman carried on men's shoulders complaining how she's been kept down... .

"Not everything bad that happens to you is associated to others having a white penis."

I'm sorry, did I mention that I have a shitty life that I'm bitter about? No, that sounds like something some others on here would say, maybe in Amy's advice column. In fact, my life rocks. My success was part earned and part luck, because I was born middle class and white. I work hard, take care of my shit, and if I feel I am not being treated equally, I bail and start my own thing, which so far has been successful, every time. And I love a good penis, so there.

I mentioned the 'fucking bitch' comment because I was trying to make a point stating that I don't use that incident as a reason to demonize all men, in a way that I see all feminists being demonized on here. The door thing is not at the forefront of today's feminist issues and just as you state that 'keeping the thumb on the scale' prevents true equality (which I agree with), making the door thing the biggest issue of feminism keeps other, real issues of equality off the table. Let's not have it both ways, then.

But seriously, I can't believe that shit happened to you on a date. Was it in Midtown?

I'm just saying that it's really annoying to hear/see that white men feel discriminated against in this country...so maybe they gave someone else the job, does that threaten everything we stand for, or does it just threaten the status quo of the last 200 years? What is everyone so afraid of? Is it that hard to imagine that a Puerto Rican lady will be just as *adequate* for the job as GW was for his? Can we really call her appointment an 'injustice?' that seems a little dramatic.

Are we so afraid of having potentially unqualified people in our government? Helllooo? Has anyone out there ever been to the DMV? Maybe if I had any confidence at all in our government's ability to get things done swiftly, smartly and within a reasonable budget, I'd say that they ALL MUST BE GENIUSES. But alas...

Anyway Brian, I agree with some of your points, but I didn't declare your statement invalid, and I didn't call Palin a big dummy or whatever. I do think McCain made a huge equal-opportunity decision with her, based on the climate of the 08 election. But we can agree to disagree on that and other points. No need to be angry about it.

"Another woman carried on men's shoulders complaining how she's been kept down..."

HAHAHA! This is the best one I've heard all day. I haven't been carried on a man's shoulder's since I was three years old, Jay. That was before I was running my own manufacturing company and putting myself through graduate school.

I don't recall seeing your signature on my last paycheck, JAY R.

Oh right, that's my signature.

***

For the record, one can acknowledge injustice without playing the victim card. You are the one holding that card, please don't try to put it in my hand.

Anyway Brian, I agree with some of your points, but I didn't declare your statement invalid, and I didn't call Palin a big dummy or whatever. I do think McCain made a huge equal-opportunity decision with her, based on the climate of the 08 election. But we can agree to disagree on that and other points. No need to be angry about it.

You'll get no argument from me. He chose her, in part, because she's a chick. He also chose her because she's a conservative. And that's the REAL pander he was going for. He knew that picking her wasn't going to get him much from the women. He had to shore up his conservative bona fides. He failed.

But let's not pretend that people (probably even you) have this idea in their heads that Palin was utterly unqualified to hold any office whatsoever. And that is what sets me off. The idea that we somehow "dodged a bullet" by keeping her out of the oval office.

But seriously, I can't believe that shit happened to you on a date. Was it in Midtown?

No, West Hartford. I should have seen it coming really. Ideology-addled college girl from preppy white-bread town.

Although I have to say I've not gotten that response in a good ten years, so maybe they've finally gotten the hint that we hold doors to be polite, and not as some kind of commentary on female strength and social standing.

Is it that hard to imagine that a Puerto Rican lady will be just as *adequate* for the job as GW was for his?

Two words: Miguel Estrada.

There was a man who was actually qualified for the position. The Democrats opposed him for one reason - he is hispanic.

In other words, the Democrats certainly have no right to claim that her race offers her any special insight into the law, after they blocked, demonized, and assaulted a man on the sole basis of same.

Me? I look at the merits. Given her position in the firefighter case, I can guess where she'd be in my "Big Three" (noted above).

I consider all three of them wrongly decided, for varying reasons. All go to the heart of a Constitutional Republic.

And if she takes the "wrong" side on those, then I don't want her on the court. It'll only fuck things up further.

"The existence of a past injustice is not grounds for present injustice. Either a person is qualified regardless of their race and gender, or they are qualified because of their race and gender."

Word, to steal from Crid.

"Are we so afraid of having potentially unqualified people in our government? Helllooo? Has anyone out there ever been to the DMV? "

Lori scares me. Do you really see no need for a higher standard for scotus nominees than window-fillers at the DMV?

I'd never heard the woman's name before this am, but what I'm hearing about her past decisions isn't good. She can't be the best he could do.

I'm just saying that it's really annoying to hear/see that white men feel discriminated against in this country

As a shrink might ask, why is that *annoying* to you?

Why do you, yourself, think differently about white males (and seemingly think less of white males) than you do for other groups?

My success was part earned and part luck, because I was born middle class and white. I work hard, take care of my shit, and if I feel I am not being treated equally, I bail and start my own thing, which so far has been successful, every time.

Do you understand how similar you sound to Brian (and to many other people I read both left and right)? A perhaps vicious and nasty paraphrase "I did it through my own hardwork, and anyone else who failed is lazy" which itself contradicts the luck factor that you ascribe to being white.

What about other people who work hard, but may not be as lucky as you in how their work has paid off? You seem to believe it's their own fault, as opposed to just being about luck.

Earlier today, I heard that Sotomayor had a hard urban life in her youth. In hindsight, that was pretty lucky for her, wasn't it? In the same way that being biracial was lucky for Obama, or being born in 1960 was very lucky for Obama catching the wave at just the peak.

In short, everyone is lucky, everyone faces hardships, and as a culture we usually put more value in the individual than in some group membership. That is, everyone has hardships, and everyone has talents.

So why is it annoying for you to hear certain individuals who are white complain that they face discrimination for being white?

What do you think of Ruth Padel?
What did you think of the Duke Students?
What do you think of the discrimination against fathers in the courts?

Why would you be *annoyed* when someone says they face discrimination? What assumptions and stereotypes are *you* holding onto?

Jerry -

Where have I ever dismissed the work of others? I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from lobbing random insults at me as a way of using a comparison to me as a further insult.

Lori m.,

So long as men continue to predominate in society's real glass cellar, doing the bulk of the hard, lonely, dirty, dangerous jobs, and so long as men continue to earn money that is predominately spent by or for women, all while women continue to decry the fictional glass ceiling and complain whenever their delicate sensibilities are offended, or when they can't "have it all," women will continue to be collectively carried on men's shoulders. It's called "female privilege."

You laugh at the very idea, but you were carried on men's shoulders today when you flushed your toilet, when you climbed into your car, when you drove on paved roads, when you flipped on the switch and the lights came on, when you assume you can call the fire department or police in a pinch, etc.

Of course I freely admit that men, in their own way, are carried on women's shoulders (or perhaps more accurately, pelvises), as well --but less and less these days. The difference is, men can see both sides of the equation, and so don't constantly complain about their situation. Sorry, but "victimhood" just isn't our thing like it is with women (with whom it has become virtually a fetish, don't you think?).

Can you really not see your own female privilege? If not, I think you have been convinced that the coin by which you have been mesmerized has only one side. But you must know, deep down, that there is more gender symmetry to concepts like "privilege" and "oppression" than you are willing to admit. But if you acknowledged this, you'd somehow lose your "upper hand" in the discussion, right? For the same reason, all of history has to be re-written in terms of women's continuous weakness and oppression by men, correct?

I mean, without concepts like "male privilege," "patriarchy," "female victimhood," and the "need for empowerment" of women, how could you, as a modern woman, ever define your place in the world? Moving forward without your comforting feminist paradigm? A scary thought, indeed!

I'm not scary, just a bit of a libertarian. OF COURSE there should be a higher standard for ALL govt. positions. I don't think this woman's qualifications rest below the bar. The bar is low, however.

That's why we have the private sector...now if we could only get those pesky businessfolks to take the moral high ground....we could really use a govt. role model in that regard.

These are huge issues that are much bigger discussions than bullet-pointed blog points, and we all know that. I'm into a healthy argument, and (hey Brian), I even had a passionate debate last year where I fought IN DEFENSE OF Sarah Palin to a bunch of bleeding hearts who were scared to death of her becoming VP. I actually think she'd be just as adequate as the next guy.

Adequate. That's the best we've got right now. Wanting more and expecting more are two different things. I think Obama is trying to raise the bar...the success of this remains to be seen.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a small business owner in an industry that the govt. is doing everything in their power to sell down the river for the promise of cheap foreign imports, but I believe just about all of the over-qualified people are in the private sector. Let's not forget that this is one of the many things that has made America great.

I even had a passionate debate last year where I fought IN DEFENSE OF Sarah Palin to a bunch of bleeding hearts who were scared to death of her becoming VP.

Adequate. That's the best we've got right now. Wanting more and expecting more are two different things. I think Obama is trying to raise the bar...the success of this remains to be seen.

No. Reagan was adequate. Bush 41 was sub-par. Clinton was unacceptable. Bush 43 was useless. Obama is unconscionable.

He's already managed to fall below my already-low expectations. I hadn't thought it possible to have a president worse than Carter, certainly not in the same lifetime. But here he stands, a tribute to brute incompetence.

Is it too much to ask for a Justice that doesn't think remaking the law is part of the job description?

Yeah, white men have a real burden, what with running the banking system into the ground, not to mention the auto industry, and leading pretty much every other major American company that has ever failed.

I guess those guys were the best people for the job.

Women and minorities have just as much right to suck at their jobs as the white guys sitting beside them. That's real affirmative action.

Yeah, I am carried on the back on men because I don't happen to work at the sewage treatment plant where my shit goes when I flush it. And they just repaved the roads in my town (stimulus money at work? different discussion)...and can you believe I actually saw a WOMAN on the road crew, laying down asphalt? Doesn't she know that she is upsetting the entire power balance of Jay's universe?

Don't put words in my mouth, Jay. I NEVER said people who don't make it are LAZY. And what you claim that I "seem to believe" seems more a manifestation of your own "insult others to boost myself" form of debate. I like how you use my defense of myself and twist it into an offensive attack on others. In fact, I never even insinuated half the shit you just accused me of. I also don't understand this rationale that women are spending most of the money in the world, money that is earned by men. Really? Is that where all that Iraq war money went? A gagillion dollars for all new hijabs for the ladies!! Please.

Maybe you are talking about 'Real Housewives of NY', but you're not talking about me. I couldn't be less interested in 'the upper hand', or the 'every knock is a boost' mentality. I don't define my good qualities by comparison with another's poor qualities. That's for insecure people.

That said, I shouldn't even have to defend my personal self on this blog. Notice I didn't make any assumptions about your life, except for pointing out the fact that you DO NOT sign my paycheck. But maybe now it's safe to assume that you work at the sewage treatment plant, in some windowless basement room, chained to a wall, unable to quit your job, knee deep in every shit I've taken for the past 30 years?

But because I do believe in respecting others, Jay, I pledge never to flush another used tampon.

That's it, I'm done. Take the upper hand by having the last word, Jay. You need the leg up more than I do.

"leading pretty much every other major American company that has ever failed."

oh, yeah, and what about the companies that have succeeded? They were led by a 6' tall pookah named Harvey, right?

elsewise what were we arguing about again?

Oh, yeah, appointing the most qualified person for the job. Funnily enough, seems that there were two other women mor qualified, but they didn't meet the minority standard...
is that a qualification, or an accident of birth?
JUSt because a person is in some way part of a physical group, doesn't mean they will hold the motives of that group. Most Scotus Justices have not been quite what everyone imagined they would be. Souter is a prime example of that...

So? We get back to qualifications. I don't care anything about people, other than they have a good brain. Last I checked, brains all look remarkably similar regardless of physical issues.

who you think is qualified or not for this job. Especially if your standards indicate that you think Palin was more qualified for President than Obama.

Palin was the only candidate in that race who had ever held an chief executive position - the only one who had ever had to make a payroll, create a budget, and be the final arbiter in any decision process. So, yes, on paper at least, she was the most qualified candidate.

And for whomever else is a middle-class white person who thinks they are being discriminated against in the US Government job market: Have you seen the group photo of our representatives in Washington lately?

Representatives (incl. Senators) are only 536 jobs out of how many thousands. And representatives are elected positions. In the positions not determined by a popularity contest, preference is decidedly not given to middle class male persons of pallor.

White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not. I've seen it happen in the corporate as well as educational world - half-assers getting promotions and scholarships because they've buddied up with the 'right' people...people who they can 'relate' to...people who don't intimidate the bosses or professors with their marginal, hard-to-understand experiences....people who look just like they do, and have the same set of stuff in their pants.

No, group identity politics is alive and well. I've seen women managers announce they will only hire a woman for a job - despite several well-qualified male applicants (of various ethnicities and life experiences).

And I, too, have seen it happen in the corporate as well as educational world - half-assers getting promotions and scholarships because they've buddied up with the 'right' people...people who they can 'relate' to...people who don't intimidate the bosses or professors with their marginal, hard-to-understand experiences....people who look just like they do, and have the same set of stuff in their pants.

Group identity politics is what affirmative action was supposed to dismantle - instead it's just set up more layers of it.

"Don't put words in my mouth, Jay. I NEVER said people who don't make it are LAZY."

Uh, Lori m., I never said what you said I said, so I didn't put any words in your mouth, or anywhere else for that matter. That was Jerry, I think.

I think she was referring to me as well, but I was going to let her figure out the difference between Jay R, and jerry. It's pretty clear that all us white males look alike to her. (Making an assumption about you.) She certainly treats us all as a homogeneous group, keeping her down with the class ceiling.

Did I put words in her mouth?

Lori: "My success was part earned and part luck, because I was born middle class and white. I work hard, take care of my shit, and if I feel I am not being treated equally, I bail and start my own thing, which so far has been successful, every time."

I think that clearly suggests that Lori feels that if you haven't made it, you probably aren't taking care of your own shit. If you do, you'll make it, just as she did.

That is, if you can't make it and you're white, she thinks you must be lazy.

And add to that:

"I'm just saying that it's really annoying to hear/see that white men feel discriminated against in this country..."

So let's see. I have 4 years of post graduate schooling and 2 masters, and was doing okay until a divorce I didn't ask for upended my life, mainly by moving my kids to a city in which I had no support system and few job prospects in my otherwise chosen career. Add to that child support of about $3.5K per month, after taxes -- about 70% of my net income.

Should I complain of discrimination in the courts against fathers, Lori is annoyed.

Since I clearly haven't been as successful as Lori, and really haven't been taking care of my shit all I can assume is she thinks I am probably lazy. Because I am lucky to be a white male.

Other people who in the past were annoyed:

Plantation owners: it's annoying to hear the Negro complaints.

Men: it's annoying to hear our wives complain about the vote.

Straights: it's annoying to hear the gays complain about don't ask don't tell.

Businesspersons: it's annoying to hear the disabled complain about restrooms and access.

Lori: it's annoying to hear white males complain of discrimination.

Sorry Lori, when someone tells me they are being discriminated against, I am not annoyed. I am interested. I listen to their arguments and investigate.

If I fail to do so, they are not the ones who are lazy.

Lori, as I asked you above, what does your annoyance say about *you*? What are your reasons for being annoyed? And have you listened to what the people who annoy you are saying?

I'm a lawyer, and I had a trial before Sotomayor when she was a Southern District judge. I also know a lot of people who have had dealings with her in one context or another.

On the plus side, she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude, then from Yale Law School. She was a judge on the Southern District for about six years before being kicked up to the Second Circuit about ten years ago. On paper, her qualifications look good, so those of you who say she's doesn't have the resume for the job are talking out of your ass. BUT.

BUT. I was dismayed that Obama picked her. I certainly don't think she's a idiot (as in having a low IQ), as some of you are saying. BUT, that said, nor did I find her to be either brilliant or particularly insightful (and our Supreme Court justices should be both). I've seen a lot of judges who have the knack of narrowing right in on the crucial point. She doesn't have that knack, in my opinion -- she gets caught up in side issues and sometimes seems to miss the forest altogether. She's also a bully who's way more interested in hearing herself get snarky than in actually hearing the arguments and even the answers to her own questions. From my own case, and from her other opinions I've read, I have the distinct impression that she makes up her mind before hearing the arguments, and then sticks to her decision like a bulldog.

She won't send the country down in flames -- well, not all by herself, anyway -- but I predict she'll be a thoroughly mediocre justice, and won't have much influence on her colleagues. However, she'll irritate them. A lot.

Gail -

I don't know that anyone has said she's stupid. Nobody's questioned her educational credentials.

But the fact that Obama's made it pretty clear that she was chosen for genes and not brains, all that is meaningless.

But there's certainly no valid opposition based upon that.

However as you've no doubt seen yourself, questions of temperament and bearing have already emerged, and it's only day one. There are also questions of judicial philosophy.

If she is truly motivated to go beyond mere interpretation of the law and forge new ground, then we could be talking about someone who will at least try to fundamentally alter the court's function in a way not seen since Marbury

So while she might not represent the end of the world, she could be the beginning of the end.

Supreme Court positions are too precious and powerful to be wasted on capriciousness.

> On the plus side, she graduated
> from Princeton summa cum laude,
> then from Yale Law School.

How exactly are these regarded as pluses?

"White male privilege is alive and well, whether you are able to see it or not."

It's not "privilege". It was earned, just not by the guy(s) you have in mind.

The whole shootin' match here was invented and put into play by white men from Europe. And true to the predictions of the day, since the public has now discovered it can vote itself largesse from the public treasury in addition to the pols buying themselves votes, the game is winding down.

I'm a pessimist. I see a lot of takers in the USA, but not very many damned providers.

Crid - society has become obsessed with credentials. And Sotomayor has credentials by the bushel basket.

And in this case, those credentials are about as useful as tits on a boar.

Because all the credentials in the world don't change the fact that she has the wrong belief on what the proper job of a justice is.

I figure Obama nominated a latina because if the republicans mount an all out offensive against her they'll risk pissing off that demographic. A demographic which is now the largest minority group in the USA.

If she gets shot down in flames, there goes the republican latino vote, if she gets in, he has an ally on the court. Win-win for BHO.

I get the feeling Obama is one hell of a chess player.

If she gets shot down in flames, there goes the republican latino vote, if she gets in, he has an ally on the court. Win-win for BHO.

Here's the thing, JoJo, after eight years of continuous pandering, the hispanic Republican vote has completely failed to materialize.

From what I can tell, the hispanics aren't interested in open borders, immigration amnesty, or high government positions. They're interested in the same shit traditional conservative Americans are - less government interference, lower taxes, national defense.

Now you see the violence inherent in the system!

Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory!?

Well, if they gripped it by the husk...

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

And my favorite Holy Grail quote

Dingo: You must spank her well, and after you are done with her, you may deal with her as you like... and then... spank me.

All: And me. And me too. And me.

Dingo: Yes. Yes, you must give us all a good spanking.

Dingo: And after the spanking, the oral sex.

Galahad: Well, I could stay a bit longer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjio-F47IfM
start @ 2:22