because the method of intimidation favored is to claim the opposing views are only driven by prejudice and paranoia.
Except of course that one is right and one is full of crap. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Figuring her panel's overturn rate by the Supremes is probably a better indication of why she should not be on the Supreme Court but is fine where she is.
Three cases out of thousands - lower than the average. And this is a canard in any case, as SCOTUS only hears cases it is likely to reverse.
The real problem, she was selected for what she is
The nominee with the most experience on the federal bench in a hundred years? A nominee who's academic credentials blow Sclaia out of the water? What about her?
The real problem, she was selected for what she is, not who she is or how she ruled...
I worry about this too.
Why. She has academic credentials that blow Scalia out of the water, and she has more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in a hundred years. But I guess for the wingers like the parent poster, any nominee that's not a WASP is "identity politics" or an "affirmative action pick".
Deep down, I agree with the guy up-thread who said that it wasn't evidence of racism, just that she plays identity politics.
It was neither. If you read the speech in question, she's talking about how very intelligent, respected, white justices made horrible decisions on discrimination in the past. Her point was that a "wise Latina woman" would probably have a better perspective than those intelligent, respected justices who nonetheless made horrible decisions. It's just as reasonable a statement as say, Laurence Lessig, stating that someone with experience in copyright issues could come to a better decision than a judge who didn't have that experience.
Further putting the lie to this lame Republican talking point (I apologize for the redundancy of that statement), look at her dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani, where she ruled in favor of a white bigot:
One of her more controversial cases was Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002), involving an employee of the New York City Police Department who was terminated from his desk job because, when he received mailings requesting that he make charitable contributions, he responded by mailing back racist and bigoted materials. On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Sotomayor dissented from the majority's decision to award summary judgment to the police department. She acknowledged that the speech was "patently offensive, hateful, and insulting," but cautioned the majority against "gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech it does not like.
The point is that politicians whoring themselves to MPAA/RIAA is a thoroughly bipartisan affair, obviously. And note that the majority of those 50 Senators were Republicans, when the Republicans were a minority in the Senate.
Fixed that for you. The GOP is every bit as pro-Hollywood as the Democrats are (see: GOP support for DMCA), because Hollywood is big business - they just don't get the flack for it.
Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.
Only until the second he passed Hillary in the primaries. Then it was non-stop, 24/7 concern trolling over Rev. Wright, "white working class voters", "lack of experience", etc. And even after winning a landslide election, the media STILL talks to 2 Republicans for every Democrat they put on the air. And if they'd spend a quarter of the effort investigating the Bush Administrations claims for why we had to invade Iraq as they spent investigating Geithner and AIG bonuses, maybe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, which has gotten more Americans killed than Osama Bin Laddin.
Four cases that were important enough to make it to the highest court in the land. When you restrict the set from thousands to that 11, four is a pretty big number
1-2% is a large number? On what planet?
Also, why do you say the rejection was over "summary details"? I'll admit I haven't read the opinions in question
You almost answered your own question in one sentence. I give you an E for effort.
Given her failure to get it right on 10 of the 11 (and soon to be 11 of 12) cases that have gone the distance, combined with the other criticisms discussed ad nauseum, I hope the Senate rejects Sotomayor and forces Obama to choose a better nominee.
You do know she blows Scalia, the paragon of a 'brilliant conservative judge' out of the water, right? Magna cum lade from Prinston, won the highest academic honor for an undergrad, and got her JD from Yale while editing two journals. Oh, and she's got more experience on the federal bench than any nominee in a hundred years. But it's a free country, keep voicing your Concerns all you want.
So having an opinion dissenting from yours is crazy?
The fact that your opinion has zero basis in reality. As noted by the fact that you continue to blather for another five paragraphs w/o trying to come up with any evidence to support your assertion. I would say your trolling, but it's so hard to tell the difference between a troll and a Kool Aid drinking teabagger at this point, since the wingnut worldview lapped our satire a long time ago.
If she gave a take where she said "The jews control the media and the banks"
Then it's a good thing she didn't say anything remotely of the kind.
I want a judge who follows and respects my own interpretation of the law
Fixed that for you.
I think that whites often come to better conclusions when they are faced with difficult questions of ethics than either blacks or latinos. How do you feel about that comment?
That you like making lame analogies and attacking straw men. Any more questions?
Her resume pretty much blows away any nominee in the last couple generations:
Sigma cum laude from Prinston. Won the Pyne Prize, Prinston's top academic award for undergrads. Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Managing editor for Yale Studies in World Public Order. JD from Yale. More federal bench experience than any nominee in a hundred years.
You know, Texas just might leave the union (with other states not far behind) in the next eight years if our nation's situation doesn't improve at the federal level.
I suppose you're one of the teabaggers that was out protesting the Obama administration - right after he signed the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Where the fuck were you guys when Bush was doubling the national debt to $10 trillion? Where the fuck was Chuck Norris when Bush was spying on Americans without warrants and getting more Americans killed in his bogus Iraq war than Bin Laddin did on 911?
Most of the problems with the current state of the union and the overreach of the federal government were caused by Texans.
You need to work on that humor. Your sarcasm wasn' funny.
What sarcasm? Is your head shoved so far up your ass that you don't know what state George W. Bush is from? How about Alberto Gonzalez? Karl Rove?
And don't forget that wingnuts mocked the "Hollywood liberal elite" for saying they'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Yet Obama's in office for three months and the Anti-American wingnuts are talking about states seceding from the country.
There is no "double standard", only wingnuts focusing on glittering trivialities. Sotomayor was speaking in the context of racial and sexual discrimination - something that white men have never had to deal with in this country. So your "what if I white man said the same thing" wouldn't have the same context, and thus a completely irrelevant comparison.
The claim that anyone is incapable of seeing the perspective of some other group solely on the grounds that he didn't grow up in the same environment is simply without merit.
You can empathize with someone all you want, but you wont have the same kind of perspective unless you've been through the same kind of situation, and that's why I brought up FDR. He helped the poor enormously, but he never had to sleep under a bridge, go days without food or worry about how he was going to take care of his children. Just as a poor, but disease-free person could empathize with FDR's polio, but wouldn't have the same perspective if they never had the disease.
And now I see the idiot wingnuts have mod points to go along with their own set of facts. But reality just doesn't match your storyline: Obama opposes a renewed Fairness Doctrine, and Congress isn't pushing it. But even if it was renewed, it wouldn't do jack or shit to silence Rush, and Jack left town. This is because the FD doesn't apply to programs, but stations - they're free to broadcast Rush, Beck, Liddy, Savage et all - they'd just have to balance it out with someone as far left as those guys are to the right. Of course, they'd have to go to North Korea to get them, and that might be a problem with the currently increasing tensions.
Happens all the time, as opposed to, say, Wall Street execs who take home multimillion dollar bonuses while losing money for their companies and shareholders.
That and worker productivity rates have increased all that time, yet worker wages have stagnated or declined. The rewards from those increases have just gone to the top instead.
There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
Uh, no. You don't have competition because of natural monopolies - you aren't going to have multiple cable companies make the massive investments in infrastructure when a maximum of one line will be used at one time - not because of government. Yes, monopolies are granted, but that's so an unregulated company doesn't come in with lower rates the regulated company, and then jack up rates when the regulated company is driven out of business.
I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out. It's a free country. But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market". Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
Yes, because paying 1000% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.
Slashdot Mirror
Well he gave the Queen of England an ipod stuffed with songs.
Well the Queen gave him a framed picture of herself. I would have taken the iPod.
because the method of intimidation favored is to claim the opposing views are only driven by prejudice and paranoia.
Except of course that one is right and one is full of crap. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Figuring her panel's overturn rate by the Supremes is probably a better indication of why she should not be on the Supreme Court but is fine where she is.
Three cases out of thousands - lower than the average. And this is a canard in any case, as SCOTUS only hears cases it is likely to reverse.
The real problem, she was selected for what she is
The nominee with the most experience on the federal bench in a hundred years? A nominee who's academic credentials blow Sclaia out of the water? What about her?
I worry about this too.
Why. She has academic credentials that blow Scalia out of the water, and she has more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in a hundred years. But I guess for the wingers like the parent poster, any nominee that's not a WASP is "identity politics" or an "affirmative action pick".
Deep down, I agree with the guy up-thread who said that it wasn't evidence of racism, just that she plays identity politics.
It was neither. If you read the speech in question, she's talking about how very intelligent, respected, white justices made horrible decisions on discrimination in the past. Her point was that a "wise Latina woman" would probably have a better perspective than those intelligent, respected justices who nonetheless made horrible decisions. It's just as reasonable a statement as say, Laurence Lessig, stating that someone with experience in copyright issues could come to a better decision than a judge who didn't have that experience.
Further putting the lie to this lame Republican talking point (I apologize for the redundancy of that statement), look at her dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani, where she ruled in favor of a white bigot:
That's why the laser uses heavy light, so it curves around the surface of the Earth to strike the intended target.
The point is that politicians whoring themselves to MPAA/RIAA is a thoroughly bipartisan affair, obviously. And note that the majority of those 50 Senators were Republicans, when the Republicans were a minority in the Senate.
Fixed that for you. The GOP is every bit as pro-Hollywood as the Democrats are (see: GOP support for DMCA), because Hollywood is big business - they just don't get the flack for it.
Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.
Only until the second he passed Hillary in the primaries. Then it was non-stop, 24/7 concern trolling over Rev. Wright, "white working class voters", "lack of experience", etc. And even after winning a landslide election, the media STILL talks to 2 Republicans for every Democrat they put on the air. And if they'd spend a quarter of the effort investigating the Bush Administrations claims for why we had to invade Iraq as they spent investigating Geithner and AIG bonuses, maybe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, which has gotten more Americans killed than Osama Bin Laddin.
Four cases that were important enough to make it to the highest court in the land. When you restrict the set from thousands to that 11, four is a pretty big number
1-2% is a large number? On what planet?
Also, why do you say the rejection was over "summary details"? I'll admit I haven't read the opinions in question
You almost answered your own question in one sentence. I give you an E for effort.
Given her failure to get it right on 10 of the 11 (and soon to be 11 of 12) cases that have gone the distance, combined with the other criticisms discussed ad nauseum, I hope the Senate rejects Sotomayor and forces Obama to choose a better nominee.
You do know she blows Scalia, the paragon of a 'brilliant conservative judge' out of the water, right? Magna cum lade from Prinston, won the highest academic honor for an undergrad, and got her JD from Yale while editing two journals. Oh, and she's got more experience on the federal bench than any nominee in a hundred years. But it's a free country, keep voicing your Concerns all you want.
So having an opinion dissenting from yours is crazy?
The fact that your opinion has zero basis in reality. As noted by the fact that you continue to blather for another five paragraphs w/o trying to come up with any evidence to support your assertion. I would say your trolling, but it's so hard to tell the difference between a troll and a Kool Aid drinking teabagger at this point, since the wingnut worldview lapped our satire a long time ago.
If she gave a take where she said "The jews control the media and the banks"
Then it's a good thing she didn't say anything remotely of the kind.
I want a judge who follows and respects my own interpretation of the law
Fixed that for you.
I think that whites often come to better conclusions when they are faced with difficult questions of ethics than either blacks or latinos. How do you feel about that comment?
That you like making lame analogies and attacking straw men. Any more questions?
Which minority group is being denied housing, voting rights or employment?
Unless you are blind, they are easily identified: just look for darker skin.
Please back up accusations with empirical evidence.
Google 'voter disenfranchisement' if you don't remember the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Someone who claims someone is "superior" (better, more enlightened, smarter, etc..) based solely or even partly on race, is "racist".
Good thing you're putting words in her mouth then.
Her resume pretty much blows away any nominee in the last couple generations:
Sigma cum laude from Prinston.
Won the Pyne Prize, Prinston's top academic award for undergrads.
Editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Managing editor for Yale Studies in World Public Order.
JD from Yale.
More federal bench experience than any nominee in a hundred years.
You know, Texas just might leave the union (with other states not far behind) in the next eight years if our nation's situation doesn't improve at the federal level.
I suppose you're one of the teabaggers that was out protesting the Obama administration - right after he signed the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Where the fuck were you guys when Bush was doubling the national debt to $10 trillion? Where the fuck was Chuck Norris when Bush was spying on Americans without warrants and getting more Americans killed in his bogus Iraq war than Bin Laddin did on 911?
You need to work on that humor. Your sarcasm wasn' funny.
What sarcasm? Is your head shoved so far up your ass that you don't know what state George W. Bush is from? How about Alberto Gonzalez? Karl Rove?
And don't forget that wingnuts mocked the "Hollywood liberal elite" for saying they'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Yet Obama's in office for three months and the Anti-American wingnuts are talking about states seceding from the country.
There is no "double standard", only wingnuts focusing on glittering trivialities. Sotomayor was speaking in the context of racial and sexual discrimination - something that white men have never had to deal with in this country. So your "what if I white man said the same thing" wouldn't have the same context, and thus a completely irrelevant comparison.
There's also the fact that companies can't tap your work phone, despite owning the infrastructure (the reason they can read your emails).
You're quibbling over summary details on 4 cases out of thousands? Yes, you do seem to be very Concerned.
The claim that anyone is incapable of seeing the perspective of some other group solely on the grounds that he didn't grow up in the same environment is simply without merit.
You can empathize with someone all you want, but you wont have the same kind of perspective unless you've been through the same kind of situation, and that's why I brought up FDR. He helped the poor enormously, but he never had to sleep under a bridge, go days without food or worry about how he was going to take care of his children. Just as a poor, but disease-free person could empathize with FDR's polio, but wouldn't have the same perspective if they never had the disease.
And now I see the idiot wingnuts have mod points to go along with their own set of facts. But reality just doesn't match your storyline: Obama opposes a renewed Fairness Doctrine, and Congress isn't pushing it. But even if it was renewed, it wouldn't do jack or shit to silence Rush, and Jack left town. This is because the FD doesn't apply to programs, but stations - they're free to broadcast Rush, Beck, Liddy, Savage et all - they'd just have to balance it out with someone as far left as those guys are to the right. Of course, they'd have to go to North Korea to get them, and that might be a problem with the currently increasing tensions.
So you're in favor of mandated pension plans, eh?
Happens all the time, as opposed to, say, Wall Street execs who take home multimillion dollar bonuses while losing money for their companies and shareholders.
That and worker productivity rates have increased all that time, yet worker wages have stagnated or declined. The rewards from those increases have just gone to the top instead.
There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
Uh, no. You don't have competition because of natural monopolies - you aren't going to have multiple cable companies make the massive investments in infrastructure when a maximum of one line will be used at one time - not because of government. Yes, monopolies are granted, but that's so an unregulated company doesn't come in with lower rates the regulated company, and then jack up rates when the regulated company is driven out of business.
I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out. It's a free country. But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market". Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
Yes, because paying 1000% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.