My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Actually, they were measuring the researchers' laughter. The orangutans didn't like being tickled at all, but the researchers thought it was funny as hell.
Yes. It was a secret. That's why the CIA asked for an investigation by the Justice Department. This was explained to you earlier.
It is hardly a "loony conspiracy theory" to admit that the liberal media had a field day covering this alleged Bush plot to out Plame. In fact, it's the opposite: the loony conspiracy theorists are the ones crying about how Bush and Cheney and the CIA all conspired to get her killed for being an agent.
The media had a field day because it was a national scandal. Nobody said there was a conspiracy to get her killed. However, there was a rather overt attempt to punish her husband by disavowing her publicly. Rove said Wilson had to know his wife was not off limits.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
This only became an "issue" because the liberal media plastered it all over the airwaves and newspaper headlines. It was a simple request to investigate an alleged act prior to that; after the request the "alleged" bit was forgotten and the media tried and convicted the popular targets. They overlooked the real leak; he was a journalist and thus exempt from contempt.
Journalists don't leak things; they get leaks from others and publish those leaks. Novak did not figure out who Plame was on his own. The media "plastered" this all over because, again, it was a national scandal. An ongoing covert operation was compromised, and the ability of the CIA to recruit covert agents was dealt a severe blow when people saw an administration willing to turn its back on those agents to settle a petty political squabble. That's kind of important stuff, and that's why the media might have taken an interest.
It's even harder to drive while texting as it is to drive while talking on the phone! Talking takes one hand and texting usually takes two. You can't drive with two hands on a cell phone; what the hell are you going to hold your beer with?
It's a pretty versatile camera, though it's kind of old and not as regular. There were some pipes that needed cleaning, and they needed more fiber optics but taking pictures of poop is its number two duty!
And that's why the local Border's is remaindering a book, written by Plame, describing her covert employment. I guess she wants to keep it a big dark secret. The best way to keep a secret is to write a book... She didn't care at the time, she doesn't care now.
She didn't write that book about her covert employment; she wrote that book about her covert employment getting exposed by members of her own government. And don't think she exposed any secrets that hadn't been compromised at that point - the CIA vetted every word of that book.
Of course, the fact that her husband was a political hack doesn't color her views at all.
Ummm, Joe Wilson's diplomatic career began in the 1970s; he worked under Reagan and Bush Sr. as well as Clinton. When he was in Iraq before the Gulf War he dared Saddam Hussein to kill him (Saddam had threatened diplomats if they didn't leave during the crisis) by wearing a noose for a necktie on television. George Bush Sr. called him "an American hero." Of all the things you can say about Joe Wilson, "political hack" isn't one of them.
She was working in Langley, driving to work every day, living in the suburbs. You don't drive into the CIA offices on a daily basis if you care about anyone knowing where you work.
You obviously haven't read the book, or the work of multiple journalists at the time, who showed that she was in fact traveling to Iran among other places. And saying you don't drive into CIA offices on a daily basis just shows how little you know about the agency and about Plame.
It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
I mean every liberal who hated George Bush and would do anything to spread that fear and hate, while trying to pretend that Bush was the one who was spreading fear and hate. The CIA didn't out her, and the CIA didn't spread the information when she was. It was people like Begala(1) and Stephanopolous(2) and CNN and MSNBC (with their completely unbiased "reporters" like Olberman) who picked up the info and spread it so widely that you couldn't miss it if you tried, all the while crying about how the information was being spread around.
There's so much wrong with what you're saying I hardly know where to begin. Novak was the journalist who first published her name and status, as I recall. I didn't say the CIA outed her; the CIA went to the Justice Department and asked for an investigation after she was outed. Pat Fitzgerald led the investigation. That you see Begala or Olbermann as instrumental in any of this is just bizarre, but I guess that's how it is with loony conspiracy theories.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
It's completely false that Plame didn't care if people knew -- as you should know from news reports at the time, she was actually engaged in covert operations involving WMD and Iran, operations that were probably blown along with her cover. Yes Novak reported it but he didn't figure it out on his own. It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
If you vigilantes sit still for a second and actually RTFA you'll see that there aren't any "national secrets" that were leaked here -- this information was "sensitive" and its release is embarrassing at best, but hardly a hanging offense.
On another note, I wonder if you felt the same way about the leak of a covert agent's identity during the Bush Administration? Were you hoping to see Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney in a noose?
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. You should probably forward it to the scientists who are actually studying this stuff as well. I'm sure they'll be very interested in this ongoing conspiracy to stifle your friend's research.
Not at all. If a white man said that a white man better understood the experiences of white men, that would not be racist; it would be realistic. That's pretty much all she said; interpreting it as racism is more than a bit hysterical. Which is not surprising; hysteria has been a common thread of right wing talking points since the election campaign.
Sorry I am laughing my ass off over here. That "mass of sophist nonsense" is the entire history of common law. You can turn your back on all that if you want and go join a militia or hang out in a shack in the desert but I actually like the fact that we've interpreted the Constitution as a living document and actually put some thought into applying it to the problems of today. You say I don't have the stones to stand up and spout the nonsense you spout; it has nothing to do with stones; I just don't agree with any of it.
You think I have abandoned my right to free speech and belong in Guantanamo because I am not willing to reject some of the fundamental concepts in American law? Do you realize how hysterical you sound?
The problem is that's not what she said. Look at the full quote in context and you can agree or disagree, but to portray this as simple racism is just disingenuous.
No they're not requirements but in this day and age someone who hasn't studied case law in one way or another is not getting a nomination, particularly not from a "law professor" president. Certainly the guy who posted this crap doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting one.
Oh no, I get your point loud and clear. My point is twofold: (1) you confuse disagreement with idiocy or with not understanding the constitution. That is itself idiotic; what you don't seem to understand is how common law works. The fact that the only good candidates you can think of for the Court position are yourself and some guy with an English degree but no law experience whatsoever speaks volumes. (2) you don't seem to realize that your view, as admirable as it may be, is a radical fringe view that bears no resemblance to anything in twentieth century jurisprudence. You think ideology trumps the facts of the case -- I'm sorry, but I don't. That makes every case easy for you to judge, perhaps, but that's one good reason we don't put people like you on the Court.
If the nation really wanted a really good SCOTUS justice, it should obviously pick me.... I suppose if I had a choice in the matter, I'd probably pick a thinker like Nick Gillespie. But I don't.
Well, this tells us all we need to know. Where did you go to law school? What experience do you have? Of course as you noted, you're an unlikely candidate, so let's take a look at your other choice -- someone with degrees in English literature and creative writing, whose claim to fame is that he edits a knee-jerk libertarian magazine. I can understand why you would pick someone like this ideologically, but do you have any evidence this guy has even read the Constitution all the way through, much less is familiar with a vast body of case law? I know there have been political and ideological appointments to the bench in the past but for me I'm much more comfortable with a justice who has actually, you know, studied law. Cheers!
Sotomayor stands opposite to where I do on all these issues, and it is completely fair to say that all of these have roots in the plain English of the constitution.
OK, but it's also fair to say that all of her positions have roots in the plain English of the Constitution as well. Reasonable people can disagree about such things. She tends, I think to look more closely at the instant facts at hand rather than just using the Constitution as an ideological rubber stamp. Most issues that come before the Court are not as clear cut as you seem to want them to be. I don't disagree with you on many of these points but I think you're confusing disagreement in interpretation with a lack of knowledge about or respect for the Constitution. By your standard there is no Supreme Court justice on this Court who isn't a "Constitutional nightmare." I'm not sure there ever was one.
It doesn't do that much good to "look at the merits of each case" if you make up your answers without regard to the highest law in the land.
Well, of course I agree, but that's just idiotic -- what decision did she make "without regard" to the Constitution? Did you actually read any of her decisions? If you did, did she fail to mention the bill of rights? Or did she just interpret it differently from you? There's a big difference here.
She has repeatedly drawn constitutionally invalid and harmful decisions when put to the test. So I don't want her on the supreme court.
Well, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you've done nothing to support it. "Constitutionally invalid" is nonsense -- her decisions are Constitutionally valid, according to our tradition of common law, until a higher Court overturns them. If she really ignored the Constitution or blatantly went the opposite direction, you'd have a point, but that's clearly not the case here. She just interprets things a bit differently than you do, and, again, her interpretations are much more consistent with mainstream jurisprudence in the US for the past 30 years or so at least.
I think that pointing to the (admittedly) low quality of the judges in the supreme court today and using that as some kind of rationale for putting in another lousy justice is very weird reasoning. If you think that they're poor, the right thing to do is to try to replace them if and when possible with better people. Not by adding yet another mediocre, clue-free seat of the pants thinker to the heap.
Again, I don't disagree that there might be better candidates out there, and I'd like to see someone more radical on the bench myself as well, but she is not "mediocre" or "clue-free" or "lousy." If you think all 9 justices meet that description, I'd like to know where you graduated law school. I don't necessarily agree with these people either (and they obviously don't all agree with each other), but they are far from "clue-free." Even Scalia, for example, is a remarkable intellect (and I disagree vehemently with just about every word he's ever written).
Do you really believe she's the best candidate possible, or even close? Or are you simply advocating for laziness?
I'm not really advocating for her, but I think that a lot of the attacks on her are nonsense. I'd love to see a staunch civil libertarian like Erwin Chemerinsky or Larry Tribe on the Court but the former is too controversial for a lot of people to stomach, and the latter is too old. Who do you want to see on the Court?
And again, my objection isn't just about the 1st amendment, and I never said it was. So let's stick with arguing about what I did say, ok?
No, but similar points hold true for the others, and you DID make the point about the first amendment. None of your points showed that she was constitutionally inept or a "nightmare" as you claim.
I don't buy it. Conventional wisdom among who? Almost no one I know - and that's quite a few people - subscribes to the idea that the US government -- at any level -- should repress speech and opinion. My impression is that is just propaganda we hear from the government itself. Who do you consider "conventional"? Old USSR expatriates? Saudi Shaikhs? Colonel Gaddafi? Sonia herself? Seriously, who can you point to that supports the government should suppress free speech and opinion position such that you characterize it as "conventional"?
Umm, how about every Justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court? We're talking "conventional" in the sense of the mainstream of American jurisprudential opinion, not "saudi shaikhs." And I don't disagree with your view of the first amendment but you're not going to get that kind of radical view from anyone coming out of the Obama administration.
Are you suggesting I just say "well, she's only confused on about half the amendments and the commerce clause, so, "Hurray Obama"?
No, because that would be idiotic - she's not "confused" about ANY of the amendments; she just has a different view than you do of how best to interpret them. And her view is a lot closer to the political and juridical mainstream in this country than yours, sorry to say.
The fact that it isn't just the first amendment she screws up on. She screws up on the commerce clause; she screws up on the 2nd amendment (and badly, and even according to the most recent SCOTUS ruling); she screws up on the 4th amendment; she screws up on the 5th amendment.
No; she interprets these laws differently than you do. That's not a bad thing, especially since she has consistently shown she is open to persuasion given the facts of the instant case rather than ideologically driven. You want to see someone "screw up" the 4th amendment for example, look at General Hayden -- he clearly screwed up the fourth amendment. But Sotomayor clearly understands what it says; she just applies it in a different manner than you might.
That is why she's a constitutional nightmare. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's a "wise latina" (oh, brother) and that her POV is inherently better than that of a "white male."
Talk about screwing things up -- you're just repeating right wing talking points here and they're not even close to true. Read the full speech in context.
To me? Very definitely it is. But their lawyers need to argue that persuasively and they do not appear to have done so here. I feel the same way about the bong hits 4 jesus case. Sotomayor is not the only jurist in the nation whose view of student speech rights is limited; look at Clarence Thomas on the other side of the fence arguing that we should dispense with Tinker v Des Moines altogether!
I can't wait for the edict that every single government owned computer must be running a recently patched install of OpenBSD. Yeah he's not really American but apparently he's enough of an ass that everyone will assume he is.
Slashdot Mirror
Second thing - hookers and blackjack in the white house. On second thought, forget the dictatorship.
My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Actually, they were measuring the researchers' laughter. The orangutans didn't like being tickled at all, but the researchers thought it was funny as hell.
Her employment at CIA wasn't a secret.
Yes. It was a secret. That's why the CIA asked for an investigation by the Justice Department. This was explained to you earlier.
It is hardly a "loony conspiracy theory" to admit that the liberal media had a field day covering this alleged Bush plot to out Plame. In fact, it's the opposite: the loony conspiracy theorists are the ones crying about how Bush and Cheney and the CIA all conspired to get her killed for being an agent.
The media had a field day because it was a national scandal. Nobody said there was a conspiracy to get her killed. However, there was a rather overt attempt to punish her husband by disavowing her publicly. Rove said Wilson had to know his wife was not off limits.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
This only became an "issue" because the liberal media plastered it all over the airwaves and newspaper headlines. It was a simple request to investigate an alleged act prior to that; after the request the "alleged" bit was forgotten and the media tried and convicted the popular targets. They overlooked the real leak; he was a journalist and thus exempt from contempt.
Journalists don't leak things; they get leaks from others and publish those leaks. Novak did not figure out who Plame was on his own. The media "plastered" this all over because, again, it was a national scandal. An ongoing covert operation was compromised, and the ability of the CIA to recruit covert agents was dealt a severe blow when people saw an administration willing to turn its back on those agents to settle a petty political squabble. That's kind of important stuff, and that's why the media might have taken an interest.
It's even harder to drive while texting as it is to drive while talking on the phone! Talking takes one hand and texting usually takes two. You can't drive with two hands on a cell phone; what the hell are you going to hold your beer with?
Sorry to be pedantic, but wouldn't that be a "cloacal-retentive" tag?
It's a pretty versatile camera, though it's kind of old and not as regular. There were some pipes that needed cleaning, and they needed more fiber optics but taking pictures of poop is its number two duty!
And that's why the local Border's is remaindering a book, written by Plame, describing her covert employment. I guess she wants to keep it a big dark secret. The best way to keep a secret is to write a book... She didn't care at the time, she doesn't care now.
She didn't write that book about her covert employment; she wrote that book about her covert employment getting exposed by members of her own government. And don't think she exposed any secrets that hadn't been compromised at that point - the CIA vetted every word of that book.
Of course, the fact that her husband was a political hack doesn't color her views at all.
Ummm, Joe Wilson's diplomatic career began in the 1970s; he worked under Reagan and Bush Sr. as well as Clinton. When he was in Iraq before the Gulf War he dared Saddam Hussein to kill him (Saddam had threatened diplomats if they didn't leave during the crisis) by wearing a noose for a necktie on television. George Bush Sr. called him "an American hero." Of all the things you can say about Joe Wilson, "political hack" isn't one of them.
She was working in Langley, driving to work every day, living in the suburbs. You don't drive into the CIA offices on a daily basis if you care about anyone knowing where you work.
You obviously haven't read the book, or the work of multiple journalists at the time, who showed that she was in fact traveling to Iran among other places. And saying you don't drive into CIA offices on a daily basis just shows how little you know about the agency and about Plame.
It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
I mean every liberal who hated George Bush and would do anything to spread that fear and hate, while trying to pretend that Bush was the one who was spreading fear and hate. The CIA didn't out her, and the CIA didn't spread the information when she was. It was people like Begala(1) and Stephanopolous(2) and CNN and MSNBC (with their completely unbiased "reporters" like Olberman) who picked up the info and spread it so widely that you couldn't miss it if you tried, all the while crying about how the information was being spread around.
There's so much wrong with what you're saying I hardly know where to begin. Novak was the journalist who first published her name and status, as I recall. I didn't say the CIA outed her; the CIA went to the Justice Department and asked for an investigation after she was outed. Pat Fitzgerald led the investigation. That you see Begala or Olbermann as instrumental in any of this is just bizarre, but I guess that's how it is with loony conspiracy theories.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
It's completely false that Plame didn't care if people knew -- as you should know from news reports at the time, she was actually engaged in covert operations involving WMD and Iran, operations that were probably blown along with her cover. Yes Novak reported it but he didn't figure it out on his own. It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
Stuff that splatters?
If you vigilantes sit still for a second and actually RTFA you'll see that there aren't any "national secrets" that were leaked here -- this information was "sensitive" and its release is embarrassing at best, but hardly a hanging offense.
On another note, I wonder if you felt the same way about the leak of a covert agent's identity during the Bush Administration? Were you hoping to see Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney in a noose?
"You" don't. That's what Apple's legal department is for. Believe me, if this keyboard outshines the iPhone keyboard, they'll find a way ;)
It's just in jail.
Lasers are the only acceptable solution to any problem like this.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. You should probably forward it to the scientists who are actually studying this stuff as well. I'm sure they'll be very interested in this ongoing conspiracy to stifle your friend's research.
Not at all. If a white man said that a white man better understood the experiences of white men, that would not be racist; it would be realistic. That's pretty much all she said; interpreting it as racism is more than a bit hysterical. Which is not surprising; hysteria has been a common thread of right wing talking points since the election campaign.
Sorry I am laughing my ass off over here. That "mass of sophist nonsense" is the entire history of common law. You can turn your back on all that if you want and go join a militia or hang out in a shack in the desert but I actually like the fact that we've interpreted the Constitution as a living document and actually put some thought into applying it to the problems of today. You say I don't have the stones to stand up and spout the nonsense you spout; it has nothing to do with stones; I just don't agree with any of it.
You think I have abandoned my right to free speech and belong in Guantanamo because I am not willing to reject some of the fundamental concepts in American law? Do you realize how hysterical you sound?
The problem is that's not what she said. Look at the full quote in context and you can agree or disagree, but to portray this as simple racism is just disingenuous.
No they're not requirements but in this day and age someone who hasn't studied case law in one way or another is not getting a nomination, particularly not from a "law professor" president. Certainly the guy who posted this crap doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting one.
I see, so you want a Supreme Court justice who has never studied law and who doesn't follow precedent. Good luck with that.
Oh no, I get your point loud and clear. My point is twofold: (1) you confuse disagreement with idiocy or with not understanding the constitution. That is itself idiotic; what you don't seem to understand is how common law works. The fact that the only good candidates you can think of for the Court position are yourself and some guy with an English degree but no law experience whatsoever speaks volumes. (2) you don't seem to realize that your view, as admirable as it may be, is a radical fringe view that bears no resemblance to anything in twentieth century jurisprudence. You think ideology trumps the facts of the case -- I'm sorry, but I don't. That makes every case easy for you to judge, perhaps, but that's one good reason we don't put people like you on the Court.
If the nation really wanted a really good SCOTUS justice, it should obviously pick me. ...
I suppose if I had a choice in the matter, I'd probably pick a thinker like Nick Gillespie. But I don't.
Well, this tells us all we need to know. Where did you go to law school? What experience do you have? Of course as you noted, you're an unlikely candidate, so let's take a look at your other choice -- someone with degrees in English literature and creative writing, whose claim to fame is that he edits a knee-jerk libertarian magazine. I can understand why you would pick someone like this ideologically, but do you have any evidence this guy has even read the Constitution all the way through, much less is familiar with a vast body of case law? I know there have been political and ideological appointments to the bench in the past but for me I'm much more comfortable with a justice who has actually, you know, studied law. Cheers!
Sotomayor stands opposite to where I do on all these issues, and it is completely fair to say that all of these have roots in the plain English of the constitution.
OK, but it's also fair to say that all of her positions have roots in the plain English of the Constitution as well. Reasonable people can disagree about such things. She tends, I think to look more closely at the instant facts at hand rather than just using the Constitution as an ideological rubber stamp. Most issues that come before the Court are not as clear cut as you seem to want them to be. I don't disagree with you on many of these points but I think you're confusing disagreement in interpretation with a lack of knowledge about or respect for the Constitution. By your standard there is no Supreme Court justice on this Court who isn't a "Constitutional nightmare." I'm not sure there ever was one.
It doesn't do that much good to "look at the merits of each case" if you make up your answers without regard to the highest law in the land.
Well, of course I agree, but that's just idiotic -- what decision did she make "without regard" to the Constitution? Did you actually read any of her decisions? If you did, did she fail to mention the bill of rights? Or did she just interpret it differently from you? There's a big difference here.
She has repeatedly drawn constitutionally invalid and harmful decisions when put to the test. So I don't want her on the supreme court.
Well, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you've done nothing to support it. "Constitutionally invalid" is nonsense -- her decisions are Constitutionally valid, according to our tradition of common law, until a higher Court overturns them. If she really ignored the Constitution or blatantly went the opposite direction, you'd have a point, but that's clearly not the case here. She just interprets things a bit differently than you do, and, again, her interpretations are much more consistent with mainstream jurisprudence in the US for the past 30 years or so at least.
I think that pointing to the (admittedly) low quality of the judges in the supreme court today and using that as some kind of rationale for putting in another lousy justice is very weird reasoning. If you think that they're poor, the right thing to do is to try to replace them if and when possible with better people. Not by adding yet another mediocre, clue-free seat of the pants thinker to the heap.
Again, I don't disagree that there might be better candidates out there, and I'd like to see someone more radical on the bench myself as well, but she is not "mediocre" or "clue-free" or "lousy." If you think all 9 justices meet that description, I'd like to know where you graduated law school. I don't necessarily agree with these people either (and they obviously don't all agree with each other), but they are far from "clue-free." Even Scalia, for example, is a remarkable intellect (and I disagree vehemently with just about every word he's ever written).
Do you really believe she's the best candidate possible, or even close? Or are you simply advocating for laziness?
I'm not really advocating for her, but I think that a lot of the attacks on her are nonsense. I'd love to see a staunch civil libertarian like Erwin Chemerinsky or Larry Tribe on the Court but the former is too controversial for a lot of people to stomach, and the latter is too old. Who do you want to see on the Court?
And again, my objection isn't just about the 1st amendment, and I never said it was. So let's stick with arguing about what I did say, ok?
No, but similar points hold true for the others, and you DID make the point about the first amendment. None of your points showed that she was constitutionally inept or a "nightmare" as you claim.
I don't buy it. Conventional wisdom among who? Almost no one I know - and that's quite a few people - subscribes to the idea that the US government -- at any level -- should repress speech and opinion. My impression is that is just propaganda we hear from the government itself. Who do you consider "conventional"? Old USSR expatriates? Saudi Shaikhs? Colonel Gaddafi? Sonia herself? Seriously, who can you point to that supports the government should suppress free speech and opinion position such that you characterize it as "conventional"?
Umm, how about every Justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court? We're talking "conventional" in the sense of the mainstream of American jurisprudential opinion, not "saudi shaikhs." And I don't disagree with your view of the first amendment but you're not going to get that kind of radical view from anyone coming out of the Obama administration.
Are you suggesting I just say "well, she's only confused on about half the amendments and the commerce clause, so, "Hurray Obama"?
No, because that would be idiotic - she's not "confused" about ANY of the amendments; she just has a different view than you do of how best to interpret them. And her view is a lot closer to the political and juridical mainstream in this country than yours, sorry to say.
The fact that it isn't just the first amendment she screws up on. She screws up on the commerce clause; she screws up on the 2nd amendment (and badly, and even according to the most recent SCOTUS ruling); she screws up on the 4th amendment; she screws up on the 5th amendment.
No; she interprets these laws differently than you do. That's not a bad thing, especially since she has consistently shown she is open to persuasion given the facts of the instant case rather than ideologically driven. You want to see someone "screw up" the 4th amendment for example, look at General Hayden -- he clearly screwed up the fourth amendment. But Sotomayor clearly understands what it says; she just applies it in a different manner than you might.
That is why she's a constitutional nightmare. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's a "wise latina" (oh, brother) and that her POV is inherently better than that of a "white male."
Talk about screwing things up -- you're just repeating right wing talking points here and they're not even close to true. Read the full speech in context.
To me? Very definitely it is. But their lawyers need to argue that persuasively and they do not appear to have done so here. I feel the same way about the bong hits 4 jesus case. Sotomayor is not the only jurist in the nation whose view of student speech rights is limited; look at Clarence Thomas on the other side of the fence arguing that we should dispense with Tinker v Des Moines altogether!
I can't wait for the edict that every single government owned computer must be running a recently patched install of OpenBSD. Yeah he's not really American but apparently he's enough of an ass that everyone will assume he is.