Obama nominates NewyoRican female to SCOTUS

[Ramo]

You're engaging in a childish and stupid sidestep of your original point which was you decrying people who called this an identity based pick as being racist and or sexist. I found that odd given the fact that you defend identity politics and claim this pick was part of that in that same post.

Seeing as how this thread though is about Judge Sotomayor, let's discuss her shall we? In recounting Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey," though, President Obama treats her as a daughter, not a colleague. His mention of her girlhood passion for Nancy Drew mysteries draws sweet laughter from the audience. And he repeatedly refers to Celina Sotomayor as "Sonia's mom."

Could you imagine a formal nomination speech that talked of John Roberts' mother as "John's mom"? And would anyone note that the chief justice enjoyed "Winnie the Pooh" as a boy, which he probably did?

When President Bush named his two male Supreme Court nominees, he invariably called them "Judge Roberts" and "Judge Alito." Sotomayor is supposedly every bit as much a judge, but Obama calls her "Sonia."

I find it repugnant that someone would consider a person solely what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is. I also fail to buy into the idea that members of whatever group being discussed can only be understood or represented by members of that group.

Embeded in those assumptions is that canard that the members of that group vote and feel the same about an issue which isn't the case as the issue of immigration indicates wrt Hispanics: http://www.kvoa.com/global/story.asp?S=4749422

Now that we've gone down this road could you get back to your original point?

Your incoherent rant aside (Winnie the Pooh? WTF), identity has always played a part in politics in general, including Supreme Court nominees (including, gasp, white guys). Again. O'Connor. Marshall. Justify your bald assertions.

[Ramo]

You're engaging in a childish and stupid sidestep of your original point which was you decrying people who called this an identity based pick as being racist and or sexist.

My original point was about relative qualifications. Keep up.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because your opinion as to the merits of academic (Kagan has been SG for a couple months) vs. appellate experience is worth anything at all.

I know that being dean of Harvard Law School is more impressive than anything on Sotomayor's resume.

[Ramo]

Thank you for that bald assertion. Would you like to introduce another?

[Berzerker]

Aparently you are less of an originalist than I thought.

Cant speak to what you think, but why is that? Not that I've ever used the term to describe my beliefs, but once again your response is unrelated to my post. So please answer the question: how did Madison benefit from judicial activism? You said he did and that would somehow make him confirmable today. I already have a bald spot so the less I need to scratch my head after reading yer posts will help me keep the hair I have left.

To a good number of people of the era, including Jefferson, the SCOTUS acted outside the authority granted by the Constitution and WAS judicial activism. The document does not explicitly state that the Court can strike down laws, does it?

The court didn't strike down the law, the court took Madison's side. Where did Jefferson call it judicial activism? And how did Madison benefit from it? When yer done, explain how I have betrayed this alleged originalist ideology Dino thought I had? I haven't even taken a position on anything in the Constitution wrt the case. Dino brought that up as evidence Madison could get confirmed today.

[Berzerker]

Ah, white men whining that a white man wasn't selected for a position that historically has been occupied by 98% white men. Poor things.

Of course, it's a lie that no white males were considered, since Merrick Garland made the list of the final 9 candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html?_r=1

So a white male was considered. In the end, a well-qualified candidate was picked. What's the problem?

they wouldn't be griping if she was conservative, so it aint about race or gender.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now which authors of the 1st Amendment supported the Alien & Sedition Act? Shame on them... Do you take seriously the opinion of someone who says they support the 1st Amendment while jailing people for criticizing Congress? I sure dont...

Whatever happened to the authors know best? Saying you don't take them seriously if they wrote/supported the 1st Amendment and yet passed someone that YOU feel violates the 1st Amendment... well, basically you are just fitting the facts to your point of view then.

The court didn't strike down the law, the court took Madison's side. Where did Jefferson call it judicial activism? And how did Madison benefit from it? When yer done, explain how I have betrayed this alleged originalist ideology Dino thought I had? I haven't even taken a position on anything in the Constitution wrt the case. Dino brought that up as evidence Madison could get confirmed today.

You must read Marbury v. Madison, because you aren't familiar with the case at all it appears. The SCOTUS struck down portions of the Judiciary Act which mandated the Secretary of State (Madison at the time) had to fill those slots as violating the Constitution. It struck down portions of the law, which took Madison's ultimate side (that he didn't have to make Marbury Justice of the Peace).

[Elok]

Thank you for that bald assertion. Would you like to introduce another?

I'll do it for him. Yo' mama's so fat, she affects the tides.

Anyway, I'd find it vaguely insulting to be picked for fitting a demographic category if I were Sotomayor, but if she's got sufficient judicial experience the grotesquery that is affirmative action doesn't do too much harm. Anybody care to lay odds on her confirmation?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anybody care to lay odds on her confirmation?

98%. The 2% wiggle is for any embarrasing beastiality picture potential.

[Lorizael]

You must read Marbury v. Madison, because you aren't familiar with the case at all it appears. The SCOTUS struck down portions of the Judiciary Act which mandated the Secretary of State (Madison at the time) had to fill those slots as violating the Constitution. It struck down portions of the law, which took Madison's ultimate side (that he didn't have to make Marbury Justice of the Peace).

Imran, something that has always confused me: Did Jefferson condemn the Marbury v. Madison decision even though he benefited from it? That is, he was the one to order Madison not to deliver the appointments to the Senate, right?

[MrFun]

The whining of some other white men on this site is pathetic considering our race's history of enjoying an unfair status quo.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes... Jefferson condemned it because the SCOTUS struck down parts of a law. He saw it as Federalist judges trying to take back the power they had lost in the 1800 Election (later on he tried to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase for simply being a Federalist, but due to efforts by Vice President Aaron Burr, among others, it was unsuccessful). Jefferson thought they should have won on the facts, as Congress has passed another Judiciary Act and felt it should have been able to be applied retroactively.

[Lorizael]

Yes... Jefferson condemned it because the SCOTUS struck down parts of a law.

Yeah, it's just weird to see politicians with nuanced positions. *sigh*

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it wasn't that nuanced . It obviously took away some of the legislative and executive branches' powers and gave it to the judiciary. Chief Justice Marshall's genius was that in doing so, he ruled for the (hostile) administration making it hard for them to really do much about it.

[Lorizael]

Heh. Well. Go Marshall.