Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Newsflash: Obama Picks Sotomayor

Newsflash: Obama Picks Sotomayor

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In an unsurprising move, the White House announced this morning that President Obama has picked Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

Sotomayor, a New York native born in a housing project in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, is the child of Puerto Rican parents. As such, if confirmed by the Senate, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the nation’s highest court.

A graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School, Sotomayor has experience as a prosecutor and as a private attorney. She was appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of New York in 1992.

Though ironically first appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Sotomayor was named to the Appellate court by President Clinton. One of her first significant decisions, which is widely credited with saving Major League Baseball in 1995, was to rule in favor of the players against the owners in their strike which resulted in the cancellation of the World Series.

In another decision, she sided with the principles of affirmative action and identity politics by deciding against white firefighters suing the city of New Haven, CT, in a discrimination case brought by them after the city scotched the results of a promotion exam in which only one minority individual (ironically a Latino) had a high enough qualifying score. In yet another irony, this case is now before the Supreme Court.

Her nomination is the first by a Democratic President in 15 years. With four months to go before the October opening of the Court’s fall session, the Senate will have more than sufficient time to discuss and confirm her.

Republicans are sending mixed signals as to their reactions to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Some have indicated they will filibuster if they consider Obama’s appointee too liberal, while others, perhaps mindful of the large Latino voting population, are taking a more moderate stance.

If confirmed, she will become the second female Justice on this Court, joining sitting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Powered by

About Clavos

Raised in Mexico by American parents, Clavos is proudly bi-cultural, and considers both Spanish and English as his native languages. A lifelong boating enthusiast, Clavos lives aboard his ancient trawler, Second Act, in Coconut Grove, Florida and enjoys cruising the Bahamas and Florida Keys from that base. When not dealing with the never-ending maintenance issues inherent in ancient trawlers, Clavos sells yachts to finance his boat habit, but his real love (after boating, of course) is writing and editing; a craft he has practiced at Blogcritics since 2006.
  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    This should be fun. She has a history of statements which suggest she believes in large scale judicial activism.

    Dave

  • Doug Hunter

    [Edited] It is en vogue among the leftists who run this country to bash white males so this statement is not currently considered racist in the same way it would be if the roles were reversed.

    The decision in regards to the racism via whites is easily explainable through the core of leftist race philosophy. Whites are stereotyped as semi-evil oppressors whereas everyone else is a victim based on simply being born a different color. (and all this time you thought stereotyping was bad and being colorblind a virtue.. how the trap has been sprung for you!) The case, with white plaintiffs, didn’t fit the stereotype, didn’t set off her empathy alarm, and therefore must be dismissed.

    Had the races of the plaintiffs been reversed I can guarantee you with 98% accuracy the decision of the court would have been reversed. This is a new day though, things are a changin whether it be the interpretation of the constitution, the definition of marriage, or even what constitutes racism.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos-/ Christine Lakatos

    Sotomayor seems qualified, however, I think she is biased, something she needs to tame down in my opinion….and that is coming from a women (who happens to be part Spanish)!

  • HH

    You’ve all completely missed the context of the above quote. She is saying that an Latina woman is better suited to make decisions for Latina women. Just like an old white man is better better qualified to empathise with the “plight” of old white men.

  • Baronius

    HH, don’t you believe in equal treatment under the law? Shouldn’t a good judge make desisions based on the law, rather than empathy? Sotomayor is going to rule on cases involving people of all races and both sexes. She shouldn’t aspire to be a good justice for Latinas any more than a white male justice should focus on his race and sex.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Dave, BULL…..She does not have a “history” of statements which suggest she believes in large scale judicial activism…
    Cite one case that Federal Judge Soytamayor ruled on that had this outcome you “suggest.”
    You can’t start innuendo and wink wink nod nod here dear…
    She was a good choice for Bush 41, Clinton 42, and Obama 44..what makes you an expert?
    It’s whack a mole time I see…damn now I’ll never get my articles published!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    What is wrong with fostering a rich and diverse culture in this country through education and good solid decent role models?

    I am going to rename the GOP the “petty party.” It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much that are seething with jealousy …Obama hit the Senate and became President of the United States of America in 2 count em 2 years! Now we have the first Latina woman headed to the supreme court bench. Get out of her way so she can sit down!

  • Bliffle

    Clavos’ article states:

    “Republicans are sending mixed signals as to their reactions to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.”

    Mixed? I don’t think so. They published antagonistic articles before anyone was nominated.

    It seems clear to me that the republicans have decided to say “no” to anyone Obama nominates.

    So they really ARE becoming the Party Of NO.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Better the party of no than the party which puts the final nails in the coffin of the constitution.

    This clip alone ought to give anyone pause to think twice about Sotomayor.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    I am going to rename the GOP the “petty party.” It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much…

    That’s an interesting comment, and would probably be news to people like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, not to mention thousands and thousands of successful businessmen, physicians, teachers, attorneys, judges, military personnel, etc.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #9

    In Dave’s world pretending is a big part of reality. Must be hard to take when someone says something honest. She didn’t make it that way Dave. She’s calling it like she sees it.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Even the leftist magazine “The New Republic” expressed concerns about Sotomayor’s qualifications, intelligence, and temperament.

    But identity politics is all that matters to the Dems and the MSM, so she’ll likely be confirmed with about 75 yea votes (with many “moderate” Republicans cowering in fear over the thought of voting against her and being denounced as “sexist” and “racist” by the “objective” media).

    She’s not the most qualified potential nominee. Not by a long shot. But, hey, she has a uterus and she’s not White, so she’s good enough for 0bama!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    JD,

    It was actually four years. Count ‘em. F-o-u-r.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Bingo, Cindy.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What exactly is the problem with that clip they keep showing? I’ve seen it a few times rolling around on the various news shows and I can’t quite fathom why it would send so many people into paranoid uproar.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Jordan, you need a schoolboy naivety about how the judicial system actually works.

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, the Party of No? Look at the current justices and their Senate confirmation votes –

    Nominated by Republicans:
    Roberts 78-22
    Stevens 98-0
    Scalia 98-0
    Kennedy 97-0
    Alito 58-42
    Thomas 52-48

    Nominated by Democrats:
    Ginsburg 97-3
    Breyer 87-9

    Note that the four most recent confirmation votes average out to 68-32 during the Bush administration and 92-6 during the Clinton administration. Which party politicizes the process?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    From the NYT:

    In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

    In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

    So, she’s basically a sexist and a racist. But, in the Orwellian Bizarro World in which we presently reside, it will be those who point out her divisive remarks who are denounced as “sexist” and “racist” by the “objective” media.

    Sigh…

  • Baronius

    Jordan, if the clip is the one Dave linked to, the problem is that in our system, courts aren’t supposed to set policy. That being said, I think that her comments were fine in context.

  • Clavos

    …the problem is that in our system, courts aren’t supposed to set policy.

    Bar, you are but a naive schoolboy…

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Actually, the “New Republic” actually expressed the concerns of others, many of whom were unnamed sources.

    In an article posted today at TNR, the same author of the piece RJ alluded to states, “Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.”

    And in response to many, like RJ, who have trouble with reading comprehension when they have already formed an opinion, he goes on to write, “Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. “

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    From The New Republic:

    [T]here are … many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

    The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

    Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

    Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

    It’s possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they’re not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement–they’d like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor … may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.

    The New Republic is clearly a racist and sexist right-wing rag.

  • Jordan Richardson

    But doesn’t she say “cuz we don’t make law, I know” or something along those lines? And then she goes on to say “I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.”

    So how does that amount to anything worth noting?

    In fairness, I guess my question ought to be more directed at Mr. Nalle.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I didn’t think it was a good idea to have Dave editing my article he is too busy making comments here. I want another editor so I am submitting in Culture. I also forwarded a copy of that little note you wrote Dave.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jordan,

    I guess people don’t have Baronius’ sense of context. They’d apparently prefer a judge who would not tell them the truth about how things really work. I guess it allows them to pretend things work the way they are supposed to, if no one actually…you know…talks about it.

    El B- I hope my bingo prize is not one of those afghans crocheted in multicolored polyester yarn. I don’t like those.

  • Clavos

    Actually, Jordan, she said:

    “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] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know.”

    No orator, is she?

  • Clavos

    Jeannie #25:

    Your article is still showing in the queue as a “Draft.” That is far more likely the reason Dave hasn’t edited it yet, not because “he is too busy making comments here.”

    And, there is more than one editor in Politics.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    It’s a cynical pick by 0bama, but a politically smart one.

    He gets “diversity” kudos in the media (as if he needed any more…), wins over some female and Hispanic voters with the identity politics aspect, appeases his leftist base (which is angry over some of his recent national security/foreign policy decisions), secures a left-wing judicial activist “progressive” on the Supreme Court for a generation, and puts the GOP in a tight spot.

    If the Republicans don’t fight this nomination, their base will be angry. And if they do fight this nomination, they’ll be smeared as divisive hate-mongers.

    Win-win for 0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter.

  • Clavos

    Jeannie,

    To submit an article for editing and publishing, you have to put it in “Pending” when you’re ready. This information was included in the instructions you received when you were accepted as a BC writer

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    #27:

    There is hope yet, I suppose. Perhaps she’ll make such a complete fool of herself at the confirmation hearings – maybe calling Jeff Sessions a “gringo” or something – that she’ll be dumped before a vote.

    Or maybe video will surface of her running a puppy through a shredder or something.

    It’s not over until the Boricua gorda sings!

  • Clavos

    It’s not over until the Boricua gorda sings!

    ¡REAV!*

    *¡Reiendome En Alta Voz!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Potential political ramifications in 2012:

    Florida is a purplish state, and offers a large chunk of Electoral Votes. And the Orlando area is a fast-growing part of that state, which can swing to either party in an election.

    It also has a large and growing Hispanic population, including a sizable community of Puerto Ricans. And many of these Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be “Newyoricans” – like Sotomayor.

    Maybe the way to win Florida these days isn’t to pander to Cubans in Miami-Dade County; instead, you pander to Puerto Ricans/Newyoricans in Orange County!

    0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter is/are genius, I tell you…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    #33:

    No clue…singing in a high voice?

  • Clavos

    0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter is/are genius, I tell you…

    Almost as smart as Karl Rove…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    We need a supreme court that reflects the country and you need a political department that can handle more than one opinion at a time.

  • Clavos

    No clue…singing in a high voice?

    Laughing Out Loud.

  • Clavos

    We need a supreme court that reflects the country and you need a political department that can handle more than one opinion at a time.

    Uncalled for, but I’ll edit you and even publish you anyway. That is, if you ever actually stop crying and submit it.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    JD,

    I’m not sure why you are so disgruntled here. You were doing it wrong, now you’ve been told how to do it correctly.

    It was writer error, not editor error. No need to get snippy. Geez.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Karl Rove couldn’t even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures in academia land…funny how hard they try to discredit people that excelled in college. Ironic

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Submitted already where it should have gone to begin with..Culture :)

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Karl Rove couldn’t even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures in academia land…funny how hard they try to discredit people that [sic] excelled in college.”

    College success != life success

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Clavos

    Karl Rove couldn’t even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures…

    I should be such failure as those two.

    I’ve known more than one college graduate who is a semi-literate moron; in fact, lots of ‘em.

    Per Wikipedia:

    In June 1971, Rove dropped out of college to take a paid position as the Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee. Joe Abate, who was National Chairman of the College Republicans at the time, became a mentor to Rove.”

    Not exactly “couldn’t even graduate from college.”

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, if you look at the range of articles on this site, you’ll have more confidence in the willingness of the staff to present all political sides. It might be a little to early in your tenure here to be accusing editors of bias.

  • Arch Conservative

    “I am going to rename the GOP the “petty party.” It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much that are seething with jealousy …”

    I’ll just pick one Republican Jeannie…..Mitt Romney is more successful and has made more money than you, all of your friends, and all of your family members combined. There can be no doubt that if you were given a thousand years on this planet you could not even come close to the success Mitt Romney has obtained in his 60.

    The fact is that unlike Alito, whom the Dems tried to paint as a racist, Sotomayer is actually a fat, racist, pig and the GOP should show her the same respect and consideration that King Barry showed Alito and Roberts when he was a Senator. She’s ugly too.

    Oh and bliffle with your little “party of no” remark. Baronius, who put you in your place four comments later by using the truth, shouldn’t have had to. [personal attack deleted]

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Money is not everything in this world ARCH.
    You can fill your bank account to the brim and still be empty inside… [edited]

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yeah, Mitt Romney also believes that God came down and literally screwed Mary to produce Jesus. He also believes that anyone can become a “god.” And that the people God dislikes have “dark skin.” Oh, and temple marriage! Aaaaand Romney believes that God is so stupid that he needs to memorize a secret handshake lest he be left out of the upper echelon of heaven.

    At least he’s rich and good-looking, though. I guess it doesn’t matter if he’s batshit crazy underneath all the Reaganesque sheen.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yeah Mitt Romney is such a religious whackjob that he was unable to succeed in the business world because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about all his bizarre religious convictions. Oh and let’s not forget the countless Joseph Smith statues he erected in MA while governor there…..

    Attacking the Mormon faith is the best criticism of Mitt Romney you can come up with Jordan? Really? That’s pretty lame, even for someone like you.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch, it was never my intention to launch a full-scale critique of Mitt Romney. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    It was my intention to demonstrate that your “success on every level, no matter what or who you ask” doctrine in regards to your new favourite guypal is a little hollow when you consider the nutty ideas floating around in his head.

    Now if you want to deem a reliance on such an archaic, bizarre faith as a “brilliant success,” go right ahead. But don’t you dare sit there and accuse others of “cheerleading” when you’re waving the pompoms with the best of ‘em.

    Remember: your ridiculous point was that Mitt Romney was more successful than Jeannie in “any way that could be measured.”

  • Jordan Richardson

    Mitt Romney is also extremely “successful” trying to relate to African Americans. Honestly, when you don’t know what the hell you’re doing, all the successful people start with the Baha Men and work their way outwards in large, ever-expanding circles that finish with saying the word “bling-bling” and referring to a baby as “Michael Jordan.”

    He does have successful looks, though. He looks like a lawyer who advertises on the back of a bus. He looks like the American president in a Canadian movie (stole those from Letterman).

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    To The Arch Conservative And Anyone else here at BC who does not agree with me,

    I have just as much right to be a BC Critic as any of you. You can all try to “razzle dazzle me with your facts and figures” The only thing that does is make me dizzy…:)
    You can wave your fancy college diplomas in front of me. I don’t care because when you were in your frat houses playing “Animal House” I was serving my country in the USAF at home and abroad…:)
    You can remind me how much money you have or make or are entitled to. I do care about this because while you are comfortable there are millions of starving children, abused women and unempowered men all around this “blue ball” that would appreciate the “things you squander” This only reinforces my premise that for the most part “the republican and conservative philosophy lacks EMPATHY…:(
    We all have a seat at this table in that we all have opinions and beliefs, hopes and dreams….even if you don”t like it.
    I am now really fired up! so thank you BC. I am going to start an essay today about a wonderful, intelligent and experienced woman who is about to become the first Latina to sit on the highest court in our land; I will write it tastefully and eloquently in honor of Judge Soytamayor. I suggest you get out of the way so that the “lady can sit down”…:)oh yeah and I’m going to publish it in culture where I feel most welcome!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Oh one more note. I spelled her name wrong It’s Sotomayor. I can always admit when I’ve made a mistake…#52

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nice show, Jeannie. Don’t take crap from anyone.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “you could not equal the success, in any way it might possibly be measured, that Mitt Romney has attained in one.”

    Although I don’t know her well, I believe one way Jeannie equaled the success of Romney is in earning the Republican nomination for President. And considering she didn’t spend any of her own money, she was more successful than he was at it.

  • http://marksaleski.com MarkSaleski

    She’s ugly too.

    there’s ugly, and then there’s ugly on the inside.

  • Clavos

    According to The Wall Street Journal, Judge Sotomayor,

    In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. “Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,” she declared. “I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.” (emphasis added)

    I have a two-fold problem with the Judge’s viewpoint here:

    First, it indicates a strong bias in the judge’s judicial mindset; a bias which is highly inappropriate for a SCOTUS Justice.

    Secondly, it is not simply a legal bias, such as activist or strict constructionist, it is a bias which is at once sexist and racist, both of which are illegal.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I happen to agree here, Clavos. That was an imprudent statement. It may come to haunt her.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    It may come to haunt her. As well it should, during the Senate hearings.

    Let’s suppose for a moment, and merely for the sake of argument, that she clarifies her statement as follows:

    Yes, Senator, I said that and I meant it. To elaborate, I am convinced that women are smarter, more perceptive and in all other respects better than men, and that Latinas are smarter, more perceptive and in all other respects better than all other women. I am committed to adhering to this view when I participate in the matters which come before me as a Supreme Court justice. To the extent that by doing so I violate my oath of office and a few meaningless and silly laws, too damn bad.

    Since that oath, along with nearly all of the laws and precedents by which the Supreme Court has heretofore considered itself bound were authored by dead, white, non-Hispanic males, I shall simply ignore them.

    Any further questions?

    It does seem highly unlikely that she would ever say such a thing in public, and I rather doubt that she even thinks it. Still, it would be worth watching the exchange. I wonder how many Senators would vote against confirmation if she said it.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’d say that is a more damning comment that what some may regard as her questionable decisions.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What she’ll probably do is to dissociate herself from that statement – that it was politically-motivated, geared to the Hispanic audience, blah blah blah.

    Even so, it ain’t gonna fly.

  • http://roblogpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/deranged-hippie-scum-wail-over-dead.html RJ

    Jordan,

    I’m guessing you’re an atheist then? Because ALL religions sound bizarre to those who do not practice them.

    Islam? Catholicism? Hinduism? Judaism? They all sound absolutely nuts to a nonbeliever who reads their fundamental tenets.

    Leftists attack Mormonism simply because it’s an easy target: a minority religious group composed primarily of socially conservative White people. That’s all.

    If Mormons were “progressive” and had better tans, leftists who be praising them endlessly and trying to give them special “minority rights.”

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://roblogpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/deranged-hippie-scum-wail-over-dead.html RJ

    “I am now really fired up! so thank you BC. I am going to start an essay today about a wonderful, intelligent and experienced woman who is about to become the first Latina to sit on the highest court in our land; I will write it tastefully and eloquently in honor of Judge Soytamayor.”

    Hopefully in your essay you will manage to spell her name correctly.

  • Baronius

    Yes, that statement could come back to haunt her, but to get at that particular piece of cheese, a Senator will have to risk a big spring-loaded charge of racism cracking him on the back of the neck.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, maybe so; and given the lack of backbone they all seem to share in common, probably she won’t be challenged on this point, or at least not vigorously enough.
    Still, if there is a good enough reason for her disqualification, that must be it.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    In Dave’s world pretending is a big part of reality. Must be hard to take when someone says something honest. She didn’t make it that way Dave. She’s calling it like she sees it.

    Then if she’s ethical she should be objecting to it, not joking about it. Sorry, Cindy. You can’t win this one.

    Dave

  • Doug Hunter

    You can’t ‘win’ an argument with a true leftist because they have no standards except adherence to their leftist religious beliefs. When a politician who adheres to their religion gets caught with a freezerful or cash or running a prostitution ring from his house they simply reelect them. When their boy gets caught selling his seat they just place the sold seat and reshuffle to the next douchbag. It doesn’t matter what they do, say, or anything else it only matters what they feel.

    In the mind of the Cindy’s of the world a drugged out crack whore who’s lived on the back of society her entire life without ever contributing anything and sells her vote to the local democrat for some dope is far more ‘successful’ than any Republican ever could be. Talking to a leftist is like bizarro world. Failure, dependence, division, and hatred are virtues while freedom, independence, equality, and success are the enemy. Very odd.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Here is an article about Judge Sotomayor’s comments at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, later published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. It does seem likely that Judge Sotomayor will be given ample opportunity to explain her rather bizarre remarks there and elsewhere.

    I have attempted elsewhere to deal with “her” recent decision on the firefighters, one of whom was Hispanic, who were not promoted on the basis of test scores, and do not put a lot of weight on the last three paragraphs in the article. As best I can determine, it was “her” decision only in the sense that she was one of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel who unanimously affirmed the decision of the District Court; she later voted to buck the case up the Supreme Court.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dave,

    That is okay with me.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dave,

    Just in case I wasn’t very clear in #67. I agree with you. But so should they all be objecting to it. Fact is they don’t. I see what she said as evidence people should be paying attention to more than anything–things don’t work the way it’s claimed they do. When some of us try to say things like no one listens. We’re told exactly how the law and courts work and why it’s good. I see what she said as validating.

    I almost suspect she was intentionally letting people in on the secret.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    When some of us try to say things like [this] no one listens.

    Even if she’s not letting us in on the secret Dave. I hope you see, at least, that that is the way things work.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, I don’t think it’s a secret. Not if you have any experience with the system. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all be working to make it work the way it is supposed to, because in principle and in most instances it’s a pretty good justice system — certainly compared to most of the rest of the world.

    Dave

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    It doesn’t and will never work. When people have power over other people. It’s like the colonels from west point I served at my bar. They have an ‘altered reality’. They are part of a ‘culture’. Their power is reinforced by status. They apparently all rationalize that what they do is necessary. Everyone else does it. That is what we are taught to do–fit into the group, be like everyone else.

    Look at some social science studies about what people are and do Dave. 70% of us would shock someone to death just because an authority seems to think it won’t be a problem. People entering a culture are inducted into its rules, kindergartners, people who work at home depot, soldiers, judges. No one feels powerful enough to change things and still maintain their position–so everyone goes along. Can’t fight city hall.

    It’s just like police culture values machismo. Military culture holds itself as above civilians. Judges are just members of an elite culture that has a hell of a lot of power like the others.

    Unfortunately, it’s those people like the ones I went to college with…the one’s I wouldn’t ever seek advice from on any important matter–those are the ones in charge.

  • Clavos

    No one feels powerful enough to change things and still maintain their position–so everyone goes along. Can’t fight city hall.

    I think you’re projecting here, Cindy. Unlike you, most people aren’t particularly interested in change at the group or societal level; they aren’t interested in changing the status quo — they’re happy (or think they are) with their current situation.

    Military culture holds itself as above civilians.

    As a grunt, I never had that sense of my fellows. Officers (some of them) were a different matter, particularly among the flag ranks.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #71:

    “It doesn’t and will never work. When people have power over other people.”

    It’s a preemptive statement allowing for no exception. In fact, it’s just as ideological as any absurd claim from the extreme Right – all too transparent for its fundamentalist and fanatical mindset, religious or secular. Besides, it obliterates the all-important distinction between power and authority.

    If one were to think in fact of a principle to encapsulate the dogma of anarchism, that would be it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    See does speak of officers, Clavos. In fact, related her experiences at length on one of the threads.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Clav,

    To your first comment. I agree and I wish I had said that instead. That sounds much more like most people. Yes, I am projecting. I am in the minority. But there are some like me, and sometimes we’re all like me–it happens when we actually do want to change something. Usually, when something isn’t in our favor.

    To your second point.

    Right Clav. I should have confined my comment to the colonels, generals, etc.

  • Clavos

    @#75:

    I can read, Roger, but thanks for your help…

  • Clavos

    OTOH, Cindy, it’s the folks like you, who continue to tilt at the windmills, however glacially change comes, who actually do wreak change, gradual as it usually is.

    It’s one of the best characteristics of a (mostly) free society like ours that all can so tilt to their heart’s content.

    Even though I don’t agree with or want (most of) the kind of society you fight for, I’m glad you’re there, pointing out the flaws — that benefits all of us to one degree or another.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A very fair statement. But passion must be tempered with reason. One doesn’t have to tear the house down and build it anew in order to improve it.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    It’s a preemptive statement allowing for no exception.

    You don’t have the information to make such a judgment. It’s not preemptive. As, I have probably told you 42,000 times by now. It’s a conclusion that is arrived at after exhausting all others. You don’t seem to comprehend this detail.

    Before I finally accepted this conclusion. I spent about 20 years studying, and testing ideas that problems were based on other causes. And to some degree (or in certain ways of thinking about it) they are, but it is a root cause that promotes and creates most of the other problems.

    If you continue in this vein you will remind me of Doug Hunter soon. If you want to speak to me as if I have a brain, you might learn why I think what I do and how I have come to my conclusions. It’s pretty condescending to cut down what I think in a paragraph when you don’t even know why I think it. Wouldn’t you say?

    What it says to me is you think you can know everything. There is nothing valid but what you already have considered. I think of you as blind and deluded and in need of saying such things to validate yourself. When you do that though, it sort of has the effect of not allowing you to see that there are things you simply do not know about. We all have things we don not know about. It’s only natural.

    In fact, it’s just as ideological as any absurd claim from the extreme Right – all too transparent for its fundamentalist and fanatical mindset, religious or secular.

    It is also true. And provable.

    First of all, what position is not ideological? Saying this as criticism is an absurdity. It’s a rigid and intricate ideology that proclaims human beings can make accurate analysis to forecast the outcomes and design a system that will work as they think it will in such a complex environment that is the problem.

    To observe something that is a part of the human condition and say we need to address this in whatever we do is not the problem. It doesn’t make a rigid ideology.

    Besides, it obliterates the all-important distinction between power and authority.

    What, that authority is justified? There is no meaningful distinction. It’s a value judgment. If you value authority and say it’s necessary, then you will make a distinction. Unless you mean what I am saying below and in that case I don’t ignore the distinction but simply speak to where authority and power are one.

    So, I will accept ‘authority’ without power. Authority in the sense that one has knowledge, skill, or experience. As long as this authority does not require or demand adherence to its decisions.

    If one were to think in fact of a principle to encapsulate the dogma of anarchism, that would be it.

    Anarchism has a dogma. You are just discovering this? The fact that you have been talking to me this long and you still have not managed to find out that that is the one single opinion upon which anarchism rests, makes me wonder that you aren’t ashamed to have been talking all this time and making judgments about something you clearly know nothing about. And you could have found that out in 5 minutes at any time. Yet, still you chose to argue and argue as if you were informed. What does that tell you?

    (There is an exception to power and authority when it comes to adults and children. Here it must always be kept in mind that we are working to help individuals grow into exercising their own voice and ability to think. We need to refrain from abusing our power and always have their rights and their interest in mind. Giving over as much power as possible. Allowing children to draw their own conclusions but guiding them to consider things. Encouraging them to think critically so they can learn for themselves what things mean, instead of ‘teaching’ them what we think. Allowing them to struggle find their own way.)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    But passion must be tempered with reason.

    How very condescending of you.

    You’re ignorant. You think you are self-examined and wise. But you’re just ignorant and blind. You think you have it all figured out. But likely no one else buys it. Just you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The fact that the proposition is supported, (as you claim) time and time again by your experience and perceptions is of no import as to the nature of the statement. The best that could be said for it is that it’s an inductive argument along the lines of:

    “The simplest and most common form of mathematical induction proves that a statement involving a natural number n holds for all values of n. The proof consists of two steps:
    The basis (base case): showing that the statement holds when n = 0 or n = 1.
    The inductive step: showing that if the statement holds for some n, then the statement also holds when n + 1 is substituted for n.
    The assumption in the inductive step that the statement holds for some n is called the induction hypothesis (or inductive hypothesis). To perform the inductive step, one assumes the induction hypothesis and then uses this assumption to prove the statement for n + 1.”

    Even in cases mathematical induction, one can’t get away from so-called “inductive hypothesis.” And mathematical induction is of the most rigorous kind (compared to other kinds of inductive argument).

    That kind of rigor is badly missing in generalizations as to what is or is not possible in the human sphere – not to mention that the inductive hypothesis in such arguments is bound to be weak – affected by the accuracy of observations, personal predispositions to see the world one way rather than another, the person’s perceptions, a whole gamut of things, in other words.

    So at best, that status to be attributed to your statement is that of “unproven conclusion.”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #77

    Clav,

    I see eye to eye with you on everything you said there. Including the part about being in a mostly free society and the advantage of being able to speak out.

    I appreciate the way you put that in a very personal way.

    [And now you know partly why I love Don Quixote. :-) Though his windmills are maybe metaphors for another metaphor for me, in that I see them as representing real things that are simply not real to the majority.)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    So at best, that status to be attributed to your statement is that of “unproven conclusion.”

    In science, despite layman claims that this or that ‘proves’ a thing–it is always the case that a conclusion is tentatively supported by what we know at the moment. Some of our conclusions–evolution, for example–have a great deal of evidence in support of them.

    A scientist, if she values scientific inquiry always tries to keep that in mind. In a ‘soft science’ it’s even more critical if one is to continue to take in new information.

    This is why I often append the words…’that is what I think, so far’.

    I accept your assessment that it is an ‘unproven conclusion’.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How different from the tactics of the enraged Left or Right – calling people ignorant because they point to obvious flaws in thinking.

    It’s no different from Archie Bunker mentality – invectives thrown left and right at anyone and everyone who dares to question your highness – except for passion perhaps. But even that is debatable because Archie Bunker (and all such who are so readily put in that despicable category) don’t like in passion either.

    So the difference, if any, pertains only to the quality of the sentiment which propels the opinion. But all the goodness to be attributed to that noble sentiment is squandered – why a pity! – by intolerance of even the slightest disagreement.

    Yes, I am ignorant, more ignorant than you suppose, because unlike you, I don’t know everything yet.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “don’t lack in passion …”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I see you haven’t acquired the capacity for tolerating any criticism. No matter how deserving.

    That’s all I have to say about your tantrum. You can take up the rest of the normal 42 posts we’d go ’round with talking to yourself, if you like.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Where is the tantrum, except for your predilection for name calling whenever challenges. You didn’t dispute any of my points – about (1) the preemptive status of the statement (allowing no exceptions) or (2) the recommendation that passion should be tempered with reason.

    You chose, instead, to resort to name calling: “ignorant,” “condescending” and now “throwing a tantrum” or “incapacity to tolerate criticism.”

    But the criticism offered here is not of my positions or the validity of anything I said but only criticism of my person.

    As to my tolerance of diverging opinions, people like Archie, Doug Hunter, even H&C – I always try to engage them and, if possible, find a common ground. I haven’t called either of them Archie Bunker or bigot or any such name because that’s tantamount to closing all avenues of communication. (Ruvy is an exception, but me and Ruvy have a relationship, so we can dish it out at times without breaking it).

    But anyway, I don’t have to explain myself to you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “whenever challenged”

  • Jordan Richardson

    All the pseudo-intellectual babble in the world can’t conceal the fact that you two are basically having a childish playground scuffle on the internet.

    Honestly, it’s old. Email each other or something…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Whatever, Jordan. No one’s coming in when you’re having spats with a whole bunch of people. So what’s your point? That Cindy is a female?

    Whatever the argument – and I don’t really care for your fucking characterization of either my content or motives – it arises out of the discussion of issues.

    So thank you for your suggestion, but no thank you.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    His point is it’s annoying and tiresome. I agree with him.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    In real life, it would have just stuffed a grapefruit in your mouth before you could have gotten #73 out. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Then don’t participate.

  • Ma rk

    …would have just stuffed a grapefruit in your mouth before you could have gotten #73 out. :-)

    lol…it’s love I tell ya!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I agree. In fact, for me, it’s more my fault than yours. I’ll learn to ‘walk away’ on the internet as I would in real life.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    We wouldn’t have gotten as far as #73, whatever it was. I have my own coterie of acquaintances and friends; and you’re not invited.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Atta girl, especially since by your own admission, you’re very bad at it. You shine only in person.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    However, with Mark I’d be much more likely to aim the grapefruit!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I thought the other day you said you’d feed me to keep my mouth shut. Now you want to suffocate me.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Well, I didn’t want to suffocate you. But nor did I mean it to call to mind a scene from 9 1/2 Weeks.

    It just struck me as a funny image! You know, the grapefruit in the mouth one. Sorry I am amusing myself at the expense of boring Jordan, et al, silly.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t remember the grapefruit in particular. What sticks to mind are strawberries and sweet cream. I like Mickey.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyway, just wanted to say I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, and if I did, I’m sorry. We just seem to have certain irreconcilable philosophical differences.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So what’s your point? That Cindy is a female?

    Yes. My point is that Cindy is a female…

    WTF?

    and I don’t really care for your fucking characterization of either my content or motives

    I didn’t offer you either, champ.

    it arises out of the discussion of issue

    Yeah, everything arises out of the “discussion of issues.” Way to be incredibly general!

    I have my own coterie of acquaintances and friends

    Are they aware that you refer to them as a coterie?

    Honestly, Roger, lighten up. You appear to have no problem directing your opinions about others towards others, including going so far as to suggest to people what they should write and how they should write it, yet you have a major problem with somebody coming in after 5902348950345 posts with you arguing the same childish nonsense that you claim comes up as the result of a “discussion of issues.”

    Honestly. You have no sense of persons.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Sorry I am amusing myself at the expense of boring Jordan, et al, silly.

    No no no. Now it’s getting good!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Indeed. Good, we’re all made up.

    (p.s. Mickey is a sadist.)

    Now I’m only left to get over being mad at Mark.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ah shit, now I feel guilty for #103. Ignore all of that except for the following words:

    coterie
    champ
    result
    female
    point
    the

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Simply that there are plenty of heated arguments between guys – and you’re also in the midsts of them (and I, too) and no one makes a big deal out of that, unless the comments’ policy re personal attack is violated. That’s all.

    When I engage Cindy in these thread, I engage her irrespective of her gender. And if our exchanges get heated at times, they have to do (for my part) with the subject matter, nothing else.

    Why are they more heated than with some others? Again, for my part, because she’s articulate and intelligent above the average cut, and we do (again, speaking for myself only) have great many points of intellectual agreement.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wouldn’t worry about Mark. Mark is a pussy cat. On my better days, however, I’m a teddy bear. I know you’d find it hard to believe, though.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not going to respond to your long comment, Jordan. And you are entitle to your opinion. But if you have problem with some of my postings, I have two suggestions. Either complain to the editors or just ignore them. But don’t give me lessons on how and what should I post.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I won’t worry. I’m not very mad at him. I’m sure I’ll get over it. :-)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I think Jordan and Roger should get a room. Oh, sorry! I had to try it just once! (lol)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I just knew you were gonna say that before I even read the remark. Too bad Jet ain’t here to object.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What I should have added to my long laundry list in #107 is that I care what you think (about issues, that is). Perhaps it’s hard for some to understand. And it’s got nothing to do with gender. (For example, I also care about what Mark thinks).

    So there! Let anyone put it in their pipe and smoke it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Dearest RJ (Going back in time to #60 for a moment, kids):

    I’m guessing you’re an atheist then?

    You’d be guessing wrong, but I’m dying to see the relevance.

    Because ALL religions sound bizarre to those who do not practice them.

    Is that why I’ve been studying religion both in and out of university for around 11-12 years now? Because they “sound bizarre.” Hardly. They fascinate me.

    Leftists attack Mormonism simply because it’s an easy target: a minority religious group composed primarily of socially conservative White people. That’s all.

    “Leftists” may, in fact, do that. I couldn’t really be bothered with what “leftists” do because I’m not all that interested in the idea of being so dismissive. While I do examine vested interests, like why it might be convenient for a pharmaceutical company to sponsor a study showing why certain drugs are effective, I don’t really care that much about political stances. I find agreement with Clavos more often than I’d like to admit, for instance, and this sometimes scares me nearly as much as the clown under my bed. Nearly

    Point being, RJ, that I wouldn’t dismiss what I said about Mormonism as simply something from the Left.

    If Mormons were “progressive” and had better tans, leftists who be praising them endlessly and trying to give them special “minority rights.”

    Yeah. Maybe they’d even get their own state…

    RJ, is your point about Romney’s faith honestly to say that it’s so complex and beautiful that outsiders won’t understand it? Mormonism is one of the most ridiculous religions known to man. There is some ridiculous stuff in all religion, sure, but Mormonism has the market cornered in North America. Golden plates? Having a secret handshake for heaven? Having a “real name” that only your spouse(s) can know? Having children so that you can give the souls access to human bodies so that those souls in human bodies can go to heaven?

    Shall I go on or are you getting my point about Romney’s success in the context of Arch’s discussion. Because, really, I can go on. I LOVE Mormonism. It’s awesomely hilarious.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Right back at ya, slick.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Who brought up gender, Rog? I’ve been looking back in the thread, sadly, and I can’t quite figure out how that came into it.

    By the way, I apologize for my interjection here. I’m just being a jerk.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I think Jordan and Roger should get a room.

    Only if there’s ice.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jordan,

    I didn’t mean to suggest that YOU would find that to be the point of difference, but believe you me, that matter had come up plenty of times before.

    So I guess I just threw it up, “for general consideration,” you might say. Sorry.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    LOL Jordan.

    (Roger, whooops, correction: Mickey’s character was a sadist, of course. I’m sure you understood. But I’d hate to leave that mistake like that.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    BTW, I do like your picture with a wine glass, either half-full or half-empty. It’s a decent red, I hope.

    And no, it’s not a come-on.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Jen and I make our own wine. I believe the picture is a strawberry Riesling.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I should hope so. Mickey is quite a womanizer – at least that’s the reputation – and way more popular in Europe and Japan than in the US. Recently though, I’ve seen him gain way too much weight.

    My favorite picture though – “Year of the Dragon,” where he plays “the most decorated cop in NYC – a polish-extraction.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And “Barfly” of course!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just watch out for the whites. They’re addictive. Joyce’s favorites though. But he was half-blind and it had carried him through the Ulysses.

    Small price to pay for immortality.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jordan,

    I think Roger might be a bit bewildered where I’ve made assertions that gender bias might be relevant to past difficulties we’ve had. Why I would say such things may be an enigma to him. But that sort of gives me an insight. I can’t imagine it sounds much different to him when I bring it up, than it does to you where he just did. No wonder he thinks I’m irrational.

    (Egads, strawberry wine?! *shudders*…Um, I mean, right…sounds delicious!)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No, I don’t. But then again, you think I’m a fascist chauvinistic pig, so I guess I’ll have to remain one.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Sorry Roger, I was just going by your post #117. It struck me as being innocent that way and it was funny. I’m just in a mischievous mood. Poor you and Jordan, Mark.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    [and] Mark.

    (they’re just nerf grapefruits anyway)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I was just going to withdraw all I have said in #107 and #113 in the interest of consistency – surely the highest of all virtues.

    So shall I do it or shall I let those silly little things stand?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Never mind! I’ll let it stand for as long as the mood strikes.

  • SJ

    “This should be fun. She has a history of statements which suggest she believes in large scale judicial activism.

    Dave”

    ———————

    Like what statements?