Quotes of the day
posted at 10:45 pm on May 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
He was looking for someone with the ability to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote.
“[Obama] was very struck, when he met with her, about how thoughtful she was as a judge,” says the source. “He believed she had a precise approach to cases that would be effective in winning over Kennedy when possible.”
The president considered Sotomayor’s opinions to be “rigorous, precise, not overly flamboyant.” Reports have called her more workmanlike than visionary – a precision that impressed Obama, who is looking to turn narrow decisions his way.
***
Sotomayor’s colleague and former Yale Law School professor, Judge Guido Calabresi, became aware of the anonymous sniping after she joined him on the 2nd Circuit in 1998. He eventually concluded that the complaints reflected sexism among male attorneys.
“They didn’t like the idea of a woman being as strong as her male colleagues,” Calabresi said in an interview.
He further characterized Sotomayor as a “wonderful colleague” who doesn’t mince words. He said she had “in a not insignificant number of cases changed my mind . . . both by charm, but mainly by the force of her legal argument.”
The forcefulness — or fearlessness — showed even before Sotomayor graduated from law school. While she was at Yale in the late 1970s, The Washington Post reported at the time, she filed a discrimination complaint against a Washington law firm after a partner asked her questions that she considered objectionable.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It is not what Obama says, it is how he says it.
It is not what Obama says, it is what you think he said, what you think he meant when you nodded in agreement with the sounds Obama makes.
Skandia Recluse on May 27, 2009 at 10:50 PM
*Obligatory bigoted “blog posting” from HotAir.com for O’Reilly to use tomorrow.*
warrenmr on May 27, 2009 at 10:50 PM
If Bill O’Reilly is reads this:
“F*** You, too”
Got that?
bluelightbrigade on May 27, 2009 at 10:52 PM
So she can get angry at you (base also on previous stories( quickly, but has thin skin?
WashJeff on May 27, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Hey Bill, quote me:
Falafel.
capitalist piglet on May 27, 2009 at 10:53 PM
This story is simply fluff and rambling. Even I don’t think that Obama is arrogant enough to believe he can sprinkle some kind of pixie-dust on Kennedy to get him to vote his way.
And – well … if he had tried to do that – excuse me for saying this – but why didn’t he pick a more attractive woman for the job? I absolutely can’t stand looking at this woman for five seconds – it burns my eyes – I cannot imagine a chummy working lunch with her in the SCOTUS lunchroom.
It’s just a silly story on it’s face. I believe he picked her because she’s a liberal – and she was being groomed for a pick during the Clinton years. How do you think the press immediately came up with her name? They’ve been talking about her for weeks – and it wasn’t due to a White House leak.
Just a silly story. David Frum’s take is more accurate than this and it’s 180 degrees out. And quite frankly – he’s wrong too.
HondaV65 on May 27, 2009 at 10:54 PM
That’s pretty insulting for all concerned. Justice Kennedy is weak minded and easily lead, possibly bullied. Justice Scallia is suppose to be best friends with Justice Ginsburg but I don’t see their voting records reflecting that influence.
Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I love how 60 percent of her cases that have been examined by the court she’s appointed to have been overturned, but O’s people had the audacity to call her the “most qualified nominee in the past one hundred years” as is their usual understatement. She could very well be the Jocelyn Elders on the Court that will haunt them down the road as Jocelyn did Bubba.
Marcus on May 27, 2009 at 10:55 PM
OT…I caught the premiere of the new animated series “The Goode Family” on ABC tonight; it’s the latest creation from the people who did Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill.
Laughed non-stop for the first 10 minutes. It’s a keeper.
It will be on in an hour for you Left Coasties.
Del Dolemonte on May 27, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Just wondering if you know what is a typical overturn rate
Jamson64 on May 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM
He doesn’t read this stuff. Some underling tells some other underling and it goes into the show somewhere. Sort of like that “pass it on” game in school.
ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I am willing to bet that Scalia would agree with that characterization of Kennedy. At least some of his dissents have strongly implied that.
Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I still want to see her tax returns.
Limerick on May 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
That’s right. It’s Bill O’Reilly’s fault that people here say incredibly stupid things. Poor Hot Air commenters – nothing is ever your fault.
Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
La Raza…….!
Seven Percent Solution on May 27, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Who knew that Supreme Court decisions could hinge on whether a justice can “charm” others into voting with her? We would be better off with SCOTUS judges that have never been inside a law school. Anyone claiming to be a “constitutional scholar” should be summarily disqualified.
drewas on May 27, 2009 at 11:05 PM
I wouldn’t doubt some of the sniping is due to sexism. Lawyers can be some of the worst.
Let’s hope she is, indeed, legally sharp.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:07 PM
LOL…like we were hoping that Obama would be, indeed, a pragmatic moderate.
ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Obama wanted a judge as willfully ignorant of the Constitution, and history, as he himself is, and it looks like he found her.
18-1 on May 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM
So I ran across the Republicans for Obama site the other day. Guess what their number one reason to support Obama is?
National Debt
The federal debt matters. We cannot saddle future taxpayers with having to service the debt we create with our irresponsible fiscal policies. Cutting the deficit will additionally decrease interest rates and increase private investment.
Have these people no shame?
18-1 on May 27, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Typical overturn rate? Well I’m no lawyer but I would assume that if the Supreme Court even wants to take the case and doesn’t reject it out front that they have a problem with the findings and the overturn rate would be probably be around 50 percent. Question is , is why is the “most qualified candidate in the past 100 years” having more than one or two of her rulings examined to begin with?
Marcus on May 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
That’s right. It’s Bill O’Reilly’s fault that people here say incredibly stupid things. Poor Hot Air commenters – nothing is ever your fault.
Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
I disagree. The stupid things you say are completely your fault.
Bishop on May 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
You know, I never voted for Bush, didn’t really like a lot of his policies….but I couldn’t stand the far-left dismissal of absolutely everything he did without real thought.
Ditto now for Obama. I have read some pretty clear editorials on her work, and she’s shaping up, so far, to be one who sticks to the issues of law.
What in the world is wrong with that? That IS the approach desired. Isn’t it?
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:17 PM
It may very well be true but it is still insulting to both people. And if that was really his intent, how dumb is it that it is now in the public domain? Justice Kennedy is certainly hard to count on by either side but to publicly ridicule him can’t be a smart move.
Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 11:18 PM
The leftards are contesting this 60% rate and say that the average is 75%. That’s b.s. They are claiming that she only had 5 cases go up on cert but that is besides the point. I don’t know how to figure it out, but I know how they are fudging.
The leftards are ignoring the fact that she was in the USDC for 6 years. She had to have reversals. Also, not all the opinions would be published. So, unless someone has access to Lexis/Nexis and find all the cases, published and unpublished that she sat on, their claims are b.s.
Also, the 2nd may have a low reversal based on the fact that they do not do many death penalty cases where you would normally find a lot of reversals.
Blake on May 27, 2009 at 11:21 PM
No. The USSC takes cases where the lower courts are issuing conflicting opinions. The court could agree with the outcome of a case they agree to hear, but want to clarify the law. Good example of this were the lethal injection cases.
Blake on May 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I’ve also heard what Sotomayor has actually said.
ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Sotomayor- doesn’t that mean “better than a white guy” in Latina.
Race-hustler picks La Raza promoter.
Lovely.
profitsbeard on May 27, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Can you use a different picture for these posts? Perhaps a stick or a piece of lint.
Asher on May 27, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Well, she’s the most qualified candidate in the past 100 years, and doesn’t look like anybody on the money. It’s only Souter.
Marcus on May 27, 2009 at 11:26 PM
SHE IS A RACIST.
QUOTE ME ON THAT BILL OREILLY!
TimeTraveler on May 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Look, the woman is going to be confirmed. That doesn’t mean I have to say that judicial activism is the way to go. Nor should it be that way for the Republican party.
ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
She could beg a case, make some deal
But it wasn’t because of sex appeal
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Republicans for Obama is a strawman created by some union organizers during the presidential campaign.
single stack on May 27, 2009 at 11:32 PM
She might try mentioning the Constitution every once in a while. Karma, Judge, Karma.
Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I’m not too worried about activism. The appointments go in waves. The Supreme Court activism ended years and years ago. My perspective is that it spawned a lot of wanna be’s, who then tackled state and local issues and really set off a backlash. The actual Supreme court activism was needed. That is the only way we could end Jim Crow.
The rest is just aftermath. Today’s “crop” of liberal judges are far more disciplined. They wouldn’t have made it through the Bush years if they weren’t.
So, the available pool just isn’t all that scary. I personally get nervous when they misjudge what the people are ready to swallow. That’s too much change too fast, and it often backfires, even if it’s inevitable and even right.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM
…mostly because Scalia is brilliant, and somehow managed to get to the Supreme Court without being maniacally “empathetic” to the point of discrimination.
emailnuevo on May 27, 2009 at 11:36 PM
If Obama had picked someone from the 9th Circuit, my circuit…..then I’d say you could worry. *haha
They are known for being nutty.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
She started young playing the victim just to gain some leverage
Turn your back on her and she will slip some poison into your legal beverage
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Her record doesn’t demonstrate much real empathy or junky stuff. I think that’s just all spin to sell the nomination politically.
Seriously, she seems …. appropriate to me.
The biggest concern, and the right has already pointed this out, is that she possibly could be mediocre. Her record isn’t brilliant by any shakes.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Law firms are notoriously sexist. It’s possible it was a very valid complaint.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Good night all, sweet dreams
Hey Hawkdriver, haven’t seen you since Memorial Day. Take care, we’re thinking of you.
Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Mr. Community organizer with the twelve czars (and counting) who do all the work around the place so he doesn’t have to get bogged down in too many details about much of anything, now thinks he knows what a “good judge” is.
My impression is that Obama is busy crafting his ongoing political heist of the U.S.A. and is desperately busy (or not) doing what he does when he’s awake and not substance-influenced: plotting how to deconstruct and destroy the United States of America.
I’m sure he and Sotomayer had a big laugh at the idea…
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Of course that’s the spin on it, not the actual evidence; that’s why it’s acerbic. I’m sorry, but punishing a group of firefighters for not having been born black is absolutely ridiculous.
She is only appropriate if and when we decide that the Constitution will be replaced with the collected works of Stephanie Meyer. They’re life-changing, I hear, and full of heart-warming emotional tales!
emailnuevo on May 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Maybe, but the way Jim Crow was ended was the reaffirmation of explicit constitutional rights, not ones made up by judges between the lines of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
Some are real kooks.
ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 11:43 PM
“she seems …. appropriate to me.”
That’s probably my least favorite adjective in the English language. Would you care to elaborate, further define, or choose a near synonym?
Appropriate how? To what? In what way? As opposed to…?
That sentence is so meaningless as to be painful, as it stands.
notropis on May 27, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Hmmmm, my impression about Yale and a few other “Ivy Leagues” is that they’ve focused far too much on ethnicities and races and gender to notice they’re ethically challenged as educational institutions.
I’m sure they’ve provided Sotomayer and others with a good education but anyone familiar with them knows that they’re far out-pitched and hyper-publicized while graduating a certain amount of people who have been “made to feel good about themselves” by what the rest of us know to be inflated standards. A Yale degree is not proof that someone’s capable in a broader sense of capability, it just means they worked a very special system (congrats for that, but…).
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM
What’s she gonna do? Unzip her robe a bit? Please…this is laughable on its face.
SouthernGent on May 27, 2009 at 11:45 PM
And Yale does enroll, as does Harvard, a segment of applicants who are accurately predicted to not do well such that the rest of their applicants and admitteds will feel they’re excelling by comparison. John Kerry was just such a student, admitted with low academic achievement with a verified ability to meet the costs but not expected to excell, but tolerated, so to speak, and graduated so the average student could feel “superior” by comparison.
Anyone doubts this process, go talk with a few donors.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Just bury your money and dry your family’s tears
She’ll take you home and have you in jail in a few short years
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Yes, yes it is laughable. It’s pathetically idiotically laughable. To the point of tears when one stops and considers who actually made such a claim…utterly pathetic.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
True. That’s also true in every single profession I know.
She’s not twanging that way to me, anyway. She’s pretty moderate, for an Obama appointment. I agree with the GOP on this one. She should sail through fine, with a few tough questions. If she turns out to be a dud who can’t rise to the next level? That’s on Obama. Clarence Thomas certainly is.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:49 PM
The exceptionally hyper-inflated rhetoric of a diminished intellect who speaks well in the White House.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
So is that ^^.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
You might not hear him groan and yell
But you can be sure that he’ll never be the same after the flash from hell
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I do but that does not justify Sotomayor’s cruddy decisions.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Except she graduated 2nd in her class. All this discussion of her academic achievements gives me a headache. Good grief, that was how long ago?
Professionalism is more than just your skill set or how you did in college, for heaven’s sakes.
And those making light of persuasion on the Court should read Toobin’s book on The Nine. It’s a fascinating story of how it REALLY works.
There is most definitely room for persuasion.
I don’t see that she’s particularly shown skill at that, but we’ll see.
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 11:53 PM
“They” “say” (Leftwing media, otherwise, reporting this propaganda today) that “the Obama Administration went over her taxes extensively and didn’t find anything…”
So either she’s never paid what she should have or she’s a well-paid underprivileged minority.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM
If anyone here or there doesn’t understand and recognize the difference between wisdom and academic skills, they’re not worth the salt and carbon they’re made of.
I know a lot of people who memorize chemical formulas but can’t say “thank you” or know when to say it. Nor blow their noses in public.
I’m glad she’s a great learner but this does not associate with nor address her character. Nor her intellect, in reality: how she strings information together.
That last part is largely due to character.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
And yet she’s been fool enough to be a board member (thereabouts) with LaRaza. Which shows her character, that abysmal decision and defective association.
Lourdes on May 27, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
His heart would gyrate and his knees would knock
As her privates would stop a cuckoo clock
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 27, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Well, you guys can worry if you want. I think it’s an OK first choice from him.
I don’t know if these appointments of “women” or “Latinos” are going to work out. Thomas sure hasn’t. He’s a big huge dud.
And it could BE the result of affirmative action stuff. A lot of women in my own history got caught up in that. They always seemed to me to be looking for an easy way out of plain hard work. But…
Her record is pretty solid. I see no big red flags.
So, it diversifies the Supreme Court without shaking the peach tree, so to speak.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Are you going to try to tell me that WWII guys sang this sexist crud?
:)
Not buying it. It’s just sexism.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:05 AM
You haven’t read much, have you?
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure for the highest court, parley-voo?
Her character is like the back of a hack
If she get’s you in court she’ll stab you right in your Gringo back
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM
This woman was also a George Bush appointee first. So there is the other person to blame now that we will have a big government, interference, anti-property rights, anti-gun rights voice on the Supreme Court.
The Dean on May 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM
You’re like a fox up a tree barking at the dogs beneath, telling them they’re too hairy.
The sexist issue is that of Sotomayor’s and Barack Obama’s. They’ve earned the description, they should now be made to wear it, and wear it, and wear it.
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM
^interference in private business, I meant to say.
The Dean on May 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM
…APPOINTEE TO A LOWER COURT.
In the present context, she’s being considered (by the Left, few others) for the Supreme Court.
Huge difference. I doubt, strongly doubt, George Bush (Sr. or W) would ever consider this woman for the Supreme Court.
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
It’s her crazy Hispanic-lady overplucked eyebrows that get to me.
That and that she’s a racist and a sexist, among a number of other things. I’m thinking also Marxist since she and Barack are so thick.
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 12:10 AM
No, I’m just a moderate blogging at a right site.
In the AM, I’m a moderate blogging at a left site.
Let me tell you guys something. The snark attacks are identical.
:)
You’ve got a lot more in common with the far-left than you imagine.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
He’s the same Bush that appointed Souter!
Another piece of evidence that there is no real difference between mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats.
The Dean on May 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Actually, that was just a standard trade of a Moynihan pick for a D’Amato pick. But, of course, Lew Rockwell wouldn’t have compromised so — nor would have the sainted Dr. Paul.
And, of course Lew Rockwell (or Dr. Paul, for that matter) has about a zero chance of ever making any decision that substantively affects our nation in any way, shape or form. Which always makes it easy to bloviate.
notropis on May 28, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Is AnninCA now the hall monitor, parley-voo?
Is AnninCA now the hall monitor, parley-voo?
She thinks she’ll win the verbal war
Playing victim and standing guard at the PC door
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 28, 2009 at 12:12 AM
John McCain was pretty good tonight about Sotomayor on Sean Hannity’s show. McCain did vote against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals because he concluded she was not qualified and because of her decisions.
Phil Byler on May 28, 2009 at 12:14 AM
What’s interesting to me is that I bet you don’t know how many years I’ve been looking at very ugly men in politics or the justice system.
Never once did I mention just how unattractive they were.
And there are a ton of really unappealing men in government.
Eyebrows? Please! I could name 5 right away whose bushy eyebrows are downright scary to girls. That’s why the evil guy always has bushy eyebrows.
Amazing to me that you “pluck” this out about her. That IS sexism.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Why does the supreme court need to be diversified? The Law does not, or is not supposed to, make allowances for the race or gender of the judge. The judges are there to apply the law without bias or passion. Sotomayor has already admitted she will invalidate that principle.
BTW, the supreme court is already “diversified”. There are Jews, women, blacks, and lots of Catholics ALREADY on it. Are there any conservative white anglo-saxon males on it? Even one? If it gets any more “diversified”, it would look like some Star Trek convention.
keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Hussein.
J.E. Dyer on May 28, 2009 at 12:16 AM
I was always assigned that job in elementary school. *hehe
I don’t care. I just was letting you know that your little rhyme deal doesn’t hide the truth.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM
And when did someone on this site wish eternal damnation on Gibbs? Or anyone else, for that matter?
It’s interesting engaging you, despite the emotional language, but you lose credibility with that one. How would you feel if I said, “I hang out at the AireCaliente all day. Man, Ann, you sound Mexican!” It’s just pointless.
The meat is this: we’re supposed to softball this lady because of her race and sex. You won’t hear about Sotomayor’s America, of course, but there are legitimate grounds to oppose her.
emailnuevo on May 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM
In the famous words of Rahm Emanuel . . .
The Other McCain on May 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM
AnninCA imagines she knows the score, parley-voo?
AnninCA imagines she knows the score, parley-voo?
She thinks all guys are alike
That’s probably why she’s alone again tonight
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM
AnninCA,
I am so glad you have been commenting here on HotAir. It is so refreshing to see reasonable comments from reasonable people.
So many comments are all too often so shrill, and so one sided, don’t you think?
Finally, we can have some adult conversation and find common ground for the common problems we all face.
Skandia Recluse on May 28, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I think the women on the Court have really contributed, and they both have stated there needs to be a woman appointed at this time. Ruth Ginsberg is seriously ill.
I think we’ve learned that diversity is good in this arena. How far we go to achieve this? That’s the question, but isn’t it always the question? We don’t want to be so ga-ga over diversity that we overlook competence. We also don’t want to be so tunnel-vision that we overlook the value of diversity.
It’s a dance, in short.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:20 AM
As if such a person existed. No one that intelligent would get bogged down in the idiotic collectivism of the Left. It would be like a supermodel deliberately disfiguring herself.
venividivici on May 28, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Why does gender matter in being the best judge possible for the job? How did America become the most free nation on earth without any female judges for most of its existence? The amazing development of law in America proves that female judges are not needed for reasons of their gender. Seems to me that Sotomayor brings nothing to the table but her genitals and her politics – two things that no judge should bring to the bench.
keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Well, gosh, thank you. I’m tough. I can handle snark. But it’s nice to hear that I’m not talking to the black hole once in awhile.
I actually know better than that. And if I forget, I can log off.
I have a lovely very liberal son who actually enjoys talking to me. That’s my best clue that I’m not veering too far off.
We were talking about the CA prop 8 issue today, and I reminded him that most people don’t even think about that issue until someone they love is stuck in this situation. The vote should not be taken so personally. He agreed. Believe me, that’s a huge concession on his part.
I think that RL people just are a lot more commonsense than those of us on-line. Nobody in their right mind would ever put up with all the personal attacks.
If I told 75% of my friends to come on-line and post, the very first insulting post would so shock them!
It’s nearly always below the belt.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM
WWI, and, yes, they did – but I’ll not elaborate.
OldEnglish on May 28, 2009 at 12:26 AM
AnninCA thinks she grasps the truth, parley-voo?
AnninCA thinks she grasps the truth, parley-voo?
But she can’t see the forest for one or another tree
Can’t understand that from tyrants we must be free
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Simple. Sexism is real. Very real. I’ve even seen posts suggesting that she can’t be a good judge because she’s not had children.
Seriously.
Nobody ever held men to that.
But it’s taken as standard criticism of any woman.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Love that defiant American spirit!!!!
katy on May 28, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Funny thing about those moderates, though. They get far more offended by snarks from those right-wingers. Now ain’t that weird?
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Warning.
Personal comment headed your way.
You’re really creepy.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:29 AM
You’re not funny. Go away.
Xolom on May 28, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I mean, where were those moderates telling us that the Democrats had better be very careful in attacking Robert Bork? Or Samuel Alito? Or Alberto Gonzalez?
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 12:31 AM
If I should die on the Russian front, bury me with a Russian @unt
If I should die on the Russian shore bury me with a Russian #hore
If I should die in the Russian air, bury me with the pair!
I heard nothing. I saw nothing. I know nothing. That was not me who said that. Someone else must be using my computer. I have not even gotten up yet today.
OberfeldwebelSchultz on May 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM
You stepped in it. “Sexism” is not a legal principle. It is not part of the Constitution. It is politics. The supreme court is mandated only to rule according to legal principles, not according to one’s political view of the world. Once we allow that, and it has been allowed unfortunately, you get into judicial activism and that is when politics takes over. What Satomayor promises is to use her race and gender to influence her decisions.
keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I don’t know about others. I can only speak for me.
No, I was so shocked by progressives who said almost verbatim what is said here that I abandoned the Democratic party.
I’m serious. The internet really did affect me that much. I just was obviously naive and maybe took it too seriously.
But I’ve still got no desire to go back to Democrats.
I do see that it’s all the same clap-trap rhetoric, whether on the right or left.
Snark is snark.
Doesn’t really matter which angle it comes from. It’s all the same type of personal, below-the-belt junk.
So, no. In fact, I’m Independent now. And I took much more offense from the liberals doing than I do from the right.
Why? I had lower expectations.
And you can consider that a bit of an insult.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
And why do moderates hate Rush Limbaugh but not Olbermann or Matthews or Maddow?
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I haven’t seen her use gender in the least.
That wasn’t the context of my comment.
AnninCA on May 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »