[dweck]

Given history, this should juice up JL....

I'm on the fence. I like the fact that she's of a diverse ethnic background, that she's a she, that she's Catholic.

But, man, that New Haven firefighter case keeps clawing at my brain (Google will reveal the details, if you're unfamiliar, basically, a CT firefighter who is dyslexic crammed for hrs to ace a promotion exam. And ace it he did. But was tossed from consideration anyway when minorities who also took the exam didn't do as well as hoped. So the test was declared flawed and the results were scrapped. He sued. Lost. Case dismissed. It's marching to the Supreme Court.).

I will also say, though that the Republican rhubarbs (Gingrich) are once again being dolts. I don't think this is a woman to whom the label "unintelligent" can be applied. And the notion that she's racist (Latina woman = better judgment comment) is stoopid. I see that as a slip of the lip. Nothing more.

 

[MidwestGirl]

I know nothing about her.

 

[Paddysmom]

Her background is sterling. As long as she never allows empathy to cloud her judgment she should be great. (that was a joke)

 

[Golfgirlrobin]

The New Haven case really bothers me. But when it comes down to it, you're replacing a liberal vote with a slightly younger liberal vote, so the change to the court is really very small. I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over it.

I am bothered by this idea that different races, sexes, etc. bring something different to the court. That's a good idea at the trial court level, but I really prefer the highest appellate courts to apply the Constitution without regard for who the parties are. I don't think you can have different Constitutions for different groups.

But all in all, I can't get worked up.

 

[Maple1]

I didn't see it a slip of the lip. Haven't seen the text of the whole speech so don't know the context, but I took it as:

A real person with real life experiences may reach better conclusions than someone who grew up with all the advantages and started at the 50 yard line instead of on their own 10 yard line.​

Which to me sounds very middle America republican - anti elitist, want a regular Joe the Plumber running things, someone with common sense....hardworking values.

 

[Paddysmom]

I don't think you can have different Constitutions for different groups.

Oh that made me laugh! Not at you, Robin, at something a Senior Senatorial Aide said to us (while we were at the Senate) in France. He said "We have 26 constitutions here. None of them work, but it is what we do."

Then he *shrugged* SO French.

 

[dweck]

A real person with real life experiences may reach better conclusions than someone who grew up with all the advantages and started at the 50 yard line instead of on their own 10 yard line.

How does struggling equate to a better understanding of the Constitution? It makes me admire her chutzpah and grit, but does it make for better decisioning? And if so, how?

Limit your response to 250 words, please.

 

[Maple1]

How does struggling equate to a better understanding of the Constitution? It makes me admire her chutzpah and grit, but does it make for better decisioning? And if so, how?

Limit your response to 250 words, please.

Being a judge at any level requires a certain amount of common sense in addition to intellect. Conservatives are always promoting the benefit of having average joes in positions of power insead of intellectuals; saying what we need is good hardworking middle America values not academic elitism.

 

[dweck]

Not sure where you're going with these blanket statements about Conservatives. Or if its just your usual rail against.

I could easily take the ball and run in the other idiotic direction: Libs are always hating religion. Sotomayor is a Catholic. Therefore she should scare Libs to death.

The point?

I guess what I'm really asking, Mape, is stereotypes aside, what do YOU think of her and her nomination?

 

[Maple1]

Not sure where you're going with these blanket statements about Conservatives. Or if its just your usual rail against.

I could easily take the ball and run in the other idiotic direction: Libs are always hating religion. Sotomayor is a Catholic. Therefore she should scare Libs to death.

The point?

QUOTE]

THUD

 

[Nick]

But when it comes down to it, you're replacing a liberal vote with a slightly younger liberal vote, so the change to the court is really very small. I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over it.

But if she's truly replacing Souter, does that mean she's really a closet conservative? Oh the irony if she turns out to be someone Obama didn't imagine.

 

[dweck]

THUD

I see... Well-then.

 

[Seamus Lab]

Not sure where you're going with these blanket statements about Conservatives. Or if its just your usual rail against.

I could easily take the ball and run in the other idiotic direction: Libs are always hating religion. Sotomayor is a Catholic. Therefore she should scare Libs to death.

The point?

QUOTE]

THUD

I'm a lib and a Catholic. Doesn't scare me at all.

As Nance said, her reputation is sterling. She graduated #2 in her class at Princeton. She has more experience on the bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years.

Her life experience does matter to me.

The opposition is having a field day. Taking her statements out of context and deliberately cutting tapes of her speaking. Their opposition is stunning. Karl Rove actually said "anybody can get in to an Ivy League School". We know that to be true because Bush got in to an Ivy League School, however he didn't graduate second in his class.

Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have labeled her a racist. Rush Limbaugh of "Barack The Magic *****" fame has labeled this woman a racist.

The opposition started weeks ago before anyone was nominated. And they wonder why the party is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[gundog]

I'm a lib and a Catholic. Doesn't scare me at all.

As Nance said, her reputation is sterling. She graduated #2 in her class at Princeton. She has more experience on the bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years.

Her life experience does matter to me.

The opposition is having a field day. Taking her statements out of context and deliberately cutting tapes of her speaking. Their opposition is stunning. Karl Rove actually said "anybody can get in to an Ivy League School". We know that to be true because Bush got in to an Ivy League School, however he didn't graduate second in his class.

Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have labeled her a racist. Rush Limbaugh of "Barack The Magic *****" fame has labeled this woman a racist.

The opposition started weeks ago before anyone was nominated. And they wonder why the party is getting smaller and smaller.

Please.....

Like it is any different when the roles are reversed.......

Clarence Thomas anyone?

 

[Nick]

The opposition is having a field day.

Not really, the Republican party itself has been fairly restrained. The reaction is more like the Democratic reaction to Roberts. You had the fringe groups going ballistic, while the Democratic Party was actually pretty restrained - especially in the beginning.

I wouldn't call it a field day when it's largely people like Gingrich and Limbaugh who are the ones freaking out. Ted Kennedy voted against Souter because he was a right-wing nut in the mold of Bork.

 

[Golfgirlrobin]

Why is it that people only start screaming about how the other side isn't treating the nominee with respect when they're the ones doing the picking?

I remember an awful lot of garbage digging by liberal commentators during the Alito and Roberts confirmation processes. The Thomas hearings speak for themselves.

Let's just stop acting like this is a one-way street.

 

[Bob Pr.]

I think she's a great choice: ♀ , Latina, smart, experienced, great personal story, someone who'll give far-righties heartburn.

 

[Maple1]

Why is it that people only start screaming about how the other side isn't treating the nominee with respect when they're the ones doing the picking?

I remember an awful lot of garbage digging by liberal commentators during the Alito and Roberts confirmation processes. The Thomas hearings speak for themselves.

Let's just stop acting like this is a one-way street.

I think you have to separate Thomas from the current nominee, Alito and Roberts. Completely different situations.

With Thomas you had a nominee that was not remotely qualified for the job no matter how he felt about the issues. And you had a situation, something, that we will likely never know for sure, involving a coke can, a woman and some hair. Who knows what the truth was, but it seemed unlikely to me that you could assemble such a large group of reputable professional people to testify if the story was completely made up. People with very little to gain, but careers to lose if it was all made up.

 

[Golfgirlrobin]

Funny how your large group of "reputable professional people" were all liberals. Certainly it was a he said/she said situation, but once again, people lined up along typical political lines. That was my actual point; that it always happens and neither side is any different from the other.

 

[theoconbrio]

But if she's truly replacing Souter, does that mean she's really a closet conservative? Oh the irony if she turns out to be someone Obama didn't imagine.

Replace "Obama" with "many Obama supporters" and I agree with you entirely. In what little I've read, she's been described as someone who prefers fairly narrow interpretations over sweeping ones--much more like Souter than Scalia or Marshall. I think Obama knows exactly what he's getting.