You are an idiot.

You were clearly talking about “qualifications” based on prior service to the USSC in the first post to which I responded. I addressed about Hugo Black’s earlier years just as I was talking about Sotomayor’s earlier years. That is consistent despite your childish diversions. She hasn’t done anything on the USSC to speak of… yet. Your steadfast ignorance of Black’s prior conduct provides you no quarter.

My grandfather, who despised the klan, knew Hugo Black. I know he did not care for Black or his reputation as a political opportunist both as a defense attorney and as a shady municipal judge. Yet, at that time of Black’s career Birmingham, and Alabama politics and the klan were practically one and the same. If one’s corporation did business with the Birmingham region there was no avoiding dealing with Hugo Black or those that followed him. Something which did not change in that political structure until well into the 1960s. That’s just the way it was and how Black was until he changed his ways (the public ones at least) about 1938 with the Chambers case when the heat was on Hugo… FDR too. I am thankful that Black became more of a constructionist who began to favor original intent yet that was after he became less a fan of FDR’s New Deal and FDR’s court packing bill which Black also had advocated.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You sir are an ignorant a$$.

*********

For those a bit brighter than “Proud Rino” it should be noted that in the Coyle murder case where Hugo Black was the defense attorney… the defense Black chose for his client was to accuse the witness of… wait for it….. Being a Catholic.

Wanna try again?

Wow.

If you were not so affectedly pompous I might waste more time on you. Alas, no.

viking01 on September 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM

No no, we’re not done here. YOU SAID Black was the Democrats’ “primary Klan advocate on the bench,” now I want you to cite the opinions Black wrote while on the bench which back that up.

What were the opinions?

As usual you miss the central point which was your contention that qualifications (i.e. time on the bench) per your definition as being sufficient to attain a position on the USSC.

Your unimpressive tunnel vision misleads you because your focus is solely upon what Hugo Black did as a Supreme Court justice instead of considering his years before FDR appointed him to gain Southern Democrat votes. Hugo Black’s convenient excuse for his KKK membership was that he would have joined any organization to get more votes. Not exactly words a man of principles or steadfast integrity would utter!

Your mind is obviously made up so I’ll waste no further time trying to change it. Particularly on a thread as far into the archives as this one.

Well, many things, actually, but they were both in the KKK.

Of course, you said the Court had an advocate for the KKK *on the bench*, meaning that he must have done some pro-KKK things while on Supreme Court.

What were the pro-KKK decisions? We can address his earlier behavior after you point out the racist, anti-black rulings he made while on the bench.

Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM

One of the things that I truly love about statists today, usually the hanky stomping American bastard off-shoot branch (much more annoying than the French, and less willing to throw a molotov), is their ability to shrug their shoulder at one of their own who has commited the most HEINOUS offenses (up to and including manslaughter of young girls, or membership in the Klan). I dare you sir to point out one conservative who survived from that era in his seat who professed racist intentions. Lets just forget your leftists magic act. You know, the greatest one in history to date? Where the Democrats fought desegregation tooth and nail, and the Republicans were the champions. Get a lot of credit for that, don’t that?
No, now should a conservative of any degree be accused, they usually will resign out of good graces. The few that fight, even should they win, will forever have CNN/MSNBC/et-all list their offense after their name (after the R if they’re lucky).

You people make me want to puke in my own cereal. You are really what we’ve become. REALLY!? Don’t point out some republican, because I really don’t care. I’m too solidly Libertarian now. I find myself with each passing day hoping the anarchists have their moment in the sun, long enough to burn it all down. We’ll fix it next time. Assholes, Republicans and Democrats, you’re all f*cking assholes. I wondered for years if there were real differences. sure, idealogical differences, but when they both get in power, the end effect is errosion of one freedom or another, more defeceipt spending, and one more nail in their own coffin.

ryandan on September 2, 2009 at 5:57 PM

So many words, and yet you say so little.

What do Hugo Black and Robert Byrd have in common?

viking01 on September 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Well, many things, actually, but they were both in the KKK.

Of course, you said the Court had an advocate for the KKK *on the bench*, meaning that he must have done some pro-KKK things while on Supreme Court.

What were the pro-KKK decisions? We can address his earlier behavior after you point out the racist, anti-black rulings he made while on the bench.

I’d love to know what you think makes someone qualified for SCOTUS. You seem to be willing to admit that SS is, at most, a second-tier intellect, and you identify several people with greater intellects, including people from both sides of the aisle, many of whom are not currently on the Court. Yet you seem satisfied that she is there. Is SCOTUS not to be reserved for the best and the brightest of the legal minds?

Not a second tier intellect there except for Kennedy (I’m agnostic on Sotomayor). I don’t actually mind a second tier intellect, if they make reasonable decisions and stays out of the way in writing the important decisions. Warren was a second tier intellect but I also think he was the right man for the time. Burger was something akin to a third tier intellect (if that) and I think he was the right man for his time as well.

Am I satisfied? I guess so. This is a political position. Posner belongs on that Court perhaps more than anyone alive but Judge Posner is in his 70s, and this is a life position. No one is going to appoint a judge who is not reliably *this way* or *that way* anyway. No one wants a surprise.

Are we really supposed to be satisfied with someone whose sole qualification is that she has served as a judge for a long time? Given the fact that federal judges have lifetime appointments and can only therefore be removed by impeachable conduct, perhaps the fact that a judge has served for a long time is not particularly distinguishing.

I didn’t say that was her sole qualification, although implicit in that “sole” qualification are several other qualifications, because you don’t get to that level of the judiciary without having some serious chops. Sotomayor may be many bad things, but she’s not unqualified by any objective, rational measure.

That doesn’t mean she belongs there, of course, but she is qualified.

There are only four conservatives on the court so each liberal retiring takes away the chance to switch the court.

Also we are now up to two retirements for obama with ginsberg and breyer to follow. Kennedy doesn’t seem like the kind of guy that wants to work forever. Obama can have five supreme court picks easily and then the next seven presidential election will be meaningless when it comes to the court. The conservatives that stayed home picked the worst possible time when so many justices were over 70. 6 justices over 70 and conservatives picked this election to stay home because john mccain wasn’t a 100 percent conservative. The conservatives who stayed home destroyed this nation. They are pumped up about congressional elections when they have gives this country the obama supreme court for the next 30 years. 30 more years of affirmative action. They whined about mccain’s immigration policy and will now have a left wing supreme court for the next 30 years.

And this lie that no harm obama is just replacing one liberal for another liberal. The difference is stevens replacement is a liberal seat until 2040.

Lets say a republican won the next election and picked a liberal replacement. That would mean five conservatives.

But then lets say a liberal wins the presidency after that and picks scalia’s replacement and you are back to four conservatives.

Each Obama pick will be a liberal seat for 30 years which will tilt the balance of the court. This madness saying it is replacing a liberal for a liberal is enough to make you vomit. Stevens and souter were retiring they used up all their power to harm conservatives. There is a big difference for the next 30 years sotomayor and now that liberal kagan from harvard probably will be harming conservatives.

And this myth that conservatives can win because the justice will have to be more conservative than stevens. What planet are you on? Is Sotomayor conservative? Is diane wood conservative? Is Kagen from harvard conservative. Obama has a list of far left marxists lined up.

Once again thank conservatives for staying home for the most important election of our lifetime.

Conservatives kept saying it would be good to lose like when carter lost so we can get reagan.

Carter didn’t have one supreme court. Carter wasn’t elected when six justices were over 70.

Conservatives picked the worst possible time to stay home. Obama’s legacy will be the obama supreme court for the next 30 years which is far worse than obamacare.

She doesn’t seem to be as gifted a thinker as Stevens, Ginsburg, or Scalia (or Sunstein, or Chemerinsky, or Posner, or Easterbrook, or Kozinski, or Wilkinson, etc.), but who is?

Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I’d love to know what you think makes someone qualified for SCOTUS. You seem to be willing to admit that SS is, at most, a second-tier intellect, and you identify several people with greater intellects, including people from both sides of the aisle, many of whom are not currently on the Court. Yet you seem satisfied that she is there. Is SCOTUS not to be reserved for the best and the brightest of the legal minds?

Are we really supposed to be satisfied with someone whose sole qualification is that she has served as a judge for a long time? Given the fact that federal judges have lifetime appointments and can only therefore be removed by impeachable conduct, perhaps the fact that a judge has served for a long time is not particularly distinguishing.

I wasn’t willing to invest heavily in opposing SS’s nomination, largely because she wasn’t as offensive as many others that the President could have nominated. In fact, the fact that appears to be a lightweight made her more attractive in my eyes, but only because she could not be an effective champion of her liberal positions.

If, on the other hand, the President wishes to nominate Sunstein, Chemerinsky or Kagan, we should all have something to be concerned about. The only thing more dangerous than a liberal with power is a smart one. Thankfully, the list of those is pretty short.

What do Hugo Black and Robert Byrd have in common?

Obambi was pimped as some sort of scholar at Harvard qualified to be president. Six months proved that to be a sham.

Michael Jackson’s qualified doctor was licensed to practice medicine and dispense heavy duty general anesthetics like propofol. Doesn’t mean he didn’t kill his patient by idiotically putting MJ to sleep using sedation typically requiring respiratory support.

Confusing “qualifications” for “competence” could explain why our courts, the litigation lottery and overall legal swindle are so screwed up. Which reminds me of a long tenured yet politically excused Liberal PhD professor I remember from university whose brain power ranked somewhere between legume and root vegetable. On a good day.

Hugo “sorta-Sotomayor” Black was the Democrat’s primary klan advocate on the bench awhile back.

viking01 on September 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM

LOL. Didn’t he pretty much rule in favor of every antisegregation thing that came before the Court? What are you talking about?

Just because Albert Gore served eight years as VP did not make him less of a dolt or more presidential.

Perfect attendance doth not a valedictorian make. I’m surprised the Rino even considered tried to float such a weak argument here earlier.

viking01 on September 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Supreme Court Justices are essentially appellate court judges. That’s the job. If you do that job for 11 years at the second highest level possible – you may not be a good Justice, you may not be deserving, but you’re certainly qualified to be a Justice. That’s not to say she’s valedictorian, although I believe she was valedictorian at Princeton, wasn’t she? – the argument was that she was unqualified.

I don’t think she was the most deserving candidate, but that’s not news. The most deserving candidate is rarely chosen.

Hugo “sorta-Sotomayor” Black was the Democrat’s primary klan advocate on the bench awhile back. Not a healthy arrangement to be repeated when justice per Constitution is rumored the Supreme Court’s purpose.

Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Fair enough. I’d argue that she is minimally qualified, but unimpressive in just about every other way, to my mind anyway.

I’m not sure you’re right about minds never being swayed, however. I can’t pretend to be privy to the Court’s deliberations but I’d be very surprised if a few minds haven’t been changed by persuasive justices, both those currently on the Court and others in the past. I don’t think they are all equally rigid in their thinking.

Perfect attendance doth not a valedictorian make. I’m surprised the Rino even considered tried to float such a weak argument here earlier.

Missy on September 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I know you weren’t asking me that. But someone had said she was unqualified. I do not believe that is supported by facts – she clearly has an impressive resume and a long list of qualifications. If the argument is that she lacks legal reasoning ability – fine. That doesn’t necessarily make her unqualified. An unqualified nominee would be someone who had never been a judge, went to a middling laws school and didn’t make law review, hadn’t clerked for a judge at any point, had never worked in the public sector, etc. That is someone that I believe is unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.

But we’re having an argument about “qualifications” v. “legal mind.” We both agree that the latter is more important than the former. That being said, the claim I was initially responding to regarded the former, and I was responding to that. If you want to say something as unquantifiable as “an excellent legal mind” counts as a qualification, then you can just say anyone that you disagree with is unqualified for the position. Using objective measures, Sotomayor is as qualified as they come.

Based on what I’ve read, she seems like a pretty standard liberal who is more inclined to rule in favor of law enforcement in criminal cases. She doesn’t seem to be as gifted a thinker as Stevens, Ginsburg, or Scalia (or Sunstein, or Chemerinsky, or Posner, or Easterbrook, or Kozinski, or Wilkinson, etc.), but who is?

And as to your last point, the chances of anyone actually swaying anyone else is pretty much nil regardless of the justice. They’re on the Supreme Court, and they’re going to find a way to fit the reasoning to the outcome they want.