If only I was a

Latina woman,
Unmarried and with no children to support,
Living in luxury in Greenwich Village, one of the highest-rent districts in New York,
Who went to some of the best Ivy League schools in the nation,
With a history of having my judicial decisions overturned by higher courts,
Who saved Major League Baseball... or at least the 1995 season,
Who has claimed to be a superior intelect than white men because she is a Latina woman,
And who can't seem to walk straight without assistance (the news just said that Sotomayor just broke her ankle at an airport while walking to a meeting with a Senator... remember the hassles the media gave Ford, one of the best athletes to ever sit in the White House, for tripping on an airplane stairwell?),
And a great degree of empathy for minorities and disadvantaged people (whether they deserve that empathy or not and regardless of what the law actually says),

Then I too would be qualified to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. Or so Sonia Sotomayor would seem to believe.

But I'm just a guy with a long history of REAL jobs, a wife, two kids, a mortgage to pay and mouths to feed. I certainly don't have the ability to make decisions with the same level of ability and empathy as Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

If only...

Elliot

It's "If I were," not "If I was" (conditional, subjunctive mood).

Now, please rewrite your post so it's truthful.

It's "If I were," not "If I was" (conditional, subjunctive mood).

Now, please rewrite your post so it's truthful.

But it WERE truthful.

:D

Elliot

Don't make me get up and walk over there, ET! Let's start with this line, "who has claimed to be a superior intelect than white men because she is a Latina woman." "Intelect" is spelled incorrectly, plus "Latina woman" is redundant. "Latina" IS a female. Now I'll give you a chance to rework the rest of it. Please post her actual quote too as your evidence.

Don't forget she upheld the NFL's Rule that you have to be 3 years removed from High school to play in the NFL. Maurice Clarett challenged that rule when he was kicked out of Ohio St.

What a trooper! "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle Monday morning in an airport stumble, then boarded her flight to Washington as scheduled and made the roughly hourlong trip to Washington to meet with senators who will vote on her confirmation. She even stopped at the White House Monday after her arrival in Washington, before heading to a local medical office for an x-ray. She will keep her six appointments with senators despite the injury." (AP)

Don't make me get up and walk over there, ET! Let's start with this line, "who has claimed to be a superior intelect than white men because she is a Latina woman." "Intelect" is spelled incorrectly, plus "Latina woman" is redundant. "Latina" IS a female. Now I'll give you a chance to rework the rest of it. Please post her actual quote too as your evidence.


All right... let's use her direct quote AND clear up the redundancy issue in one fell swoop:



"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." Judge Sonia M. Sotomayor, at the Annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, 2001.


So, what was that about redundancy, Wondergirl? You'd think that that a "wise Latina woman" of such "rich[ness] of experience" would know that "Latina Woman" is a redundancy. She clearly didn't think so, at least not at the time she said them. And she clearly reaches better conclusions than I do as a White male who hasn't lived her life.

Any other issues with my OP? I'll be happy to clear them up.

Elliot

Only superior smarts will make this possible:

"Sotomayor graduated with an A.B. summa c.u.m laude, from Princeton University in 1976, and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal." (Wikipedia)

Note, SUMMA c.u.m laude. "Summa" in Latin is the best, superlative. And you don't get to be a Yale Law Journal editor because yer cute or even because yer a Latina.

So, what was that about redundancy, Wondergirl? You'd think that that a "wise Latina woman" of such "rich[ness] of experience" would know that "Latina Woman" is a redundancy. She clearly didn't think so, at least not at the time she said them. And she clearly reaches better conclusions than I do as a White male who hasn't lived her life.

I, white woman, slave to a patriarchial society, would reach better conclusions than any white male who has enjoyed and profited from that same patriarchial society.

She was using "Latina woman" so all you gringoes out there know what she's talking about.

I, white woman, slave to a patriarchial society, would reach better conclusions than any white male who has enjoyed and profited from that same patriarchial society.

So much for a post racialist sociaty as promised by Obama.


She was using "Latina woman" so all you gringoes out there know what she's talking about.

And I was using it to show how SHE speaks... including how she talks down to "gringoes". SHE said it, and I was quoting her.

That's a poor argument, Wondy, and you know it. You called ME on the redundancy, but never realized that I was quoting her when I wrote it. Just admit it and move on.

So, let me get this straight. Judge Sotomayor believes that being a Latina somehow gives her a better perspective on the situations of the 87% of the country that aren't Hispanic? Including a better perspective than Whites who are included among the 75% majority of the population?

How does that work?

I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't qualified to sit on the bench or be a member of SCOTUS. But I fail to see how being a Latina makes her MORE qualified to be a judge than a White man, who in fact would be part of that majority of the population, and would therefore have a better understanding of what that majority feels than she would.

If, of course, having such an understanding is what being a SCOTUS Justice is all about in the first place. Which it shouldn't be. It SHOULD be about interpreting the law as it is, not as we wish it was.

Elliot

So much for a post racialist sociaty as promised by Obama.
I'm sure that means something to someone. You mean "post-racial society"?

but never realized that I was quoting her when I wrote it. Just admit it and move on.
Of course I knew those were her words. My explanation stands. Even she knows there is a difference, as per her comment from her Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: "If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means."

So, let me get this straight. Judge Sotomayor believes that being a Latina somehow gives her a better perspective on the situations of the 87% of the country that aren't Hispanic? Including a better perspective than Whites who are included among the 75% majority of the population?
And all those white male justices for all these years have done us proud?

It SHOULD be about interpreting the law as it is, not as we wish it was.
Elliot, Elliot, Elliot... you aren't paying attention... "as we wish it were" (not "was").

I'm sure that means something to someone. You mean "post-racial society"?

Quoting Obama that time. He talks funny too.

Of course I knew those were her words. My explanation stands. Even she knows there is a difference, as per her comment from her Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: "If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means."

And all those white male justices for all these years have done us proud?[/quote]

Some have. Renquist, Scalia, Roberts, Alito to name just a few.

On the other hand, we've had a few Whites who were not so good. Read "Men In Black" by Mark Levin.


Elliot, Elliot, Elliot... you aren't paying attention... "as we wish it were" (not "was").

I'm telling you, I were right all along. You was wrong.

Elliot

Haven't I read somewhere here before that 60 percent of her opinions on the appeals court have been overturned by SCOTUS? That's SUPERIOR?

What a trooper! "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle Monday morning in an airport stumble, then boarded her flight to Washington as scheduled and made the roughly hourlong trip to Washington to meet with senators who will vote on her confirmation. She even stopped at the White House Monday after her arrival in Washington, before heading to a local medical office for an x-ray. She will keep her six appointments with senators despite the injury." (AP)

As Doug Powers put it, since it was her right ankle she'll be "incapable of leaning to the right (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/08/sotomayor-accident-reassures-liberals/)."

As Doug Powers put it, since it was her right ankle she'll be "incapable of leaning to the right (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/08/sotomayor-accident-reassures-liberals/)."
Powers apparently doesn't know his left from his right. (We teach that in preschool.) I have a bad right knee and some little bit of experience. If anything, she will tend to favor the right.

Powers apparently doesn't know his left from his right. (We teach that in preschool.) I have a bad right knee and some little bit of experience. If anything, she will tend to favor the right.

She might 'favor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/favor%5B2%5D)' (see 1c) it but she'll be leaning to the left.

She might 'favor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/favor%5B2%5D)' (see 1c) it but she'll be leaning to the left.
You may have a dictionary, but I, like Ms. Sotomayor, have life experience. We disabled people tend to overcompensate and favor the afflicted side. She will definitely lean to the right as she walks, climbs stairs, and brandishes her cane or crutches.

You forgot Elliot that your just a white guy who works (worked?) for a bank.

She went to Yale Law School. So no, you don't have the ability to make decisions at the level of Ms Sotomayor.

So, let me get this right now. She is a minority woman that is disabled? Does that make her of superior intellect or just plane stupid for walking on a broken ankle? If her ankle was really broken she would have been in excruciating pain and would have needed to be taken immediately to the hospital. This is from experience. Not board a plane and continue on her merry way. Sounds like a sympathy play to me.

So, let me get this right now. She is a minority woman that is disabled? Does that make her of superior intellect or just plane stupid for walking on a broken ankle? If her ankle was really broken she would have been in excruciating pain and would have needed to be taken immediately to the hospital. This is from experience. Not board a plane and continue on her merry way. sounds like a sympathy play to me.
It was a minor break of a small bone that still allowed her to limp along. It wasn't even as bad as those tough, manly football players who play through the pain of a ACL, etc. injury.

My mom broke her big toe and could move around fairly well, but the doctor casted her entire leg.

Btw, "plane stupid" is spelled "plain stupid."

She could be the most brilliant mind of the 21st century but that is not why Obama chose her. She was picked because Obama is thinking of the hispanic vote in the next election!

She could be the most brilliant mind of the 21st century but that is not why Obama chose her. She was picked because Obama is thinking of the hispanic vote in the next election!
He already has their vote, doesn't need her to get it.

Thenation.com --

"Despite idiotic and widespread pundit commentary earlier this year that insisted Latino votes wouldn't vote for an African-American candidate, Latinos in fact gave Obama two-thirds of their votes.

In other words, Latino voters roughly provided Obama with his victory margin--both in the popular vote and in the key swing states that flipped from red to blue."

Nothing wrong with a little insurance

Nothing wrong with a little insurance
If anything (stretch your mind a little!), Sotomayor was a thank-you.

If anything (stretch your mind a little!), Sotomayor was a thank-you.
Yeah, I am a white male so I isn't never been learnded much ahu ahu

Yeah, I am a white male so I aint never been learnded much ahu ahu
I can tell.

I can tell.

Ha!

Does being condescending make you feel better about yourself?

Does being condescending make you feel better about yourself?
Not when you set it up for me.

Not when you set it up for me.

Having to assert yourself as superior is a sign of a deep insecurity. :(

Watch it! I'm a counselor.

Saying "Yeah, I am a white male so I aint never been learnded much ahu ahu" certainly sends a message.

Watch it! I'm a counselor.

Saying "Yeah, I am a white male so I aint never been learnded much ahu ahu" certainly sends a message.

I was joking... and counselors can't be insecure??

I was joking.....and counselors can't be insecure?????
Not this one.

Trying to belittle someone is being a bully, and we all know why bullies picked on us? Because they were insecure and unhappy with themselves. At least that is what was always told to me. I don't want to fight, I just think you were being a little full of yourself and rude that's all.

Trying to belittle someone is being a bully, and we all know why bullies picked on us? Because they were insecure and unhappy with themselves. At least that is what was always told to me. I don't want to fight, I just think you were being a little full of yourself and rude thats all.
And I thought you and I were joking around.

And I thought you and I were joking around.

Emotion is hard to recognize though typing so if you were joking I appologize! :o

If you wanted bully, I would have been a lot nastier. I simply countered every "rude" comment you made. I'll stay away from you in the future and have fun with excon or someone else.

If you wanted bully, I would have been a lot nastier. I simply countered every "rude" comment you made. I'll stay away from you in the future and have fun with excon or someone else.

What?? :confused::confused:

I thought you said you were joking??

I thought you said you were joking???
I was, and I accept your apology (and I apologize that you were misled). If my typing gives you the wrong impression, it's better I don't post in the same threads as you.

Poor Elliott. He will be horrified at what happened to his thread. (Sorry, ET!)

I was, and I accept your apology (and I apologize that you were misled). If my typing gives you the wrong impression, it's better I don't post in the same threads as you.

I did not mean for it to turn nasty! :(

I did not mean for it to turn nasty! :(
Okay, then let's be friends and continue to enjoy this site.

Okay, then let's be friends and continue to enjoy this site.

Sounds good :o

I can tell.

I got to say... you're good!:cool:

i gotta say....you're good!:cool:
I larnt it all watchin' you, babe!

Now, back to that Sotomayor girl. Isn't she something!!

Obama is enamored with the personal narrative and group identity politics . That much is clear. She has a compelling personal narrative no doubt about it. So did Justice Thomas and that did not exempt him from challenges to his nomination both reasonable and unreasonable. In fact there are many people in the country who share her personal and family "Horatio Alger " story. We celebrate it .That is what Americans routinely had in common in the days when we believed in the "melting pot".

She needs to be evaluated on her experience ,her judicial philosophy,her temperament ,and job performance . Senators who interview her must not shy away from the tough scrutiny that a life-time appointment merits. And, they should not walk on egg shells and skip legitimate issues for fear of offending "groups " of electorate . Nor should they vote for or against her based on which "groups" the bean counters think she represents.

(I defer to our resident language expert in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors)

Obama is enamored with the personal narrative and group identity politics .You mean like McCain and Joe the Plumber?

As usual your snipe from the cheap seats is irrelevant and wrong. McCain led the fight for immigration reform in the Senate in opposition to many in the Republican party.
Joe the Plumber ? Did I miss something ? When was he appointed to any position of importance ?

As usual your snipe from the cheap seats is irrelevent and wrong. McCain led the fight for immigration reform in the Senate in opposition to many in the Republican party.
Joe the Plumber ? Did I miss something ? When was he appointed to any position of importance ?Irrelavent? Does it not show that a Republican is also "is enamored with the personal narrative and group identity politics"? Yes I think it does.

Huh ? Joe the plumber asked Obama about taxes and then got smeared by the Democrats . I don't know what group he supposedly represents besides the American worker concerned about the amt. of taxes being taken from his paycheck.

huh ? Joe the plumber asked Obama about taxes and then got smeared by the Democrats . I don't know what group he supposedly represents besides the American worker concerned about the amt. of taxes being taken from his paycheck.
R4o1X08L7a4

You may have a dictionary, but I, like Ms. Sotomayor, have life experience. We disabled people tend to overcompensate and favor the afflicted side. She will definitely lean to the right as she walks, climbs stairs, and brandishes her cane or crutches.

Hey, you started with the corrections. I doubt if she uses a cane, probably a walking boot in which case she will lean to the left.

R4o1X08L7a4

Lol I believe this about says it all. And wish I had a penny for every time Sarah Palin referred to him. He was her mascot. He and Joe Six Pack:p

Whatever you posted I will see it tonight when I am back at my home computer. I still suspect it has nothing to do with the op about Justice Sotomayor.

lol I believe this about says it all. And wish I had a penny for every time Sarah Palin referred to him. He was her mascot. He and Joe Six Pack:p

You must have missed this part, "and then got smeared by the Democrats." That's what the left always does when the little guy, the black, the Hispanic, the woman - whatever aggrieved group they supposedly represent - doesn't toe the liberal line. Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sotomayor_and_the_ugliness_of.html) and Janice Rogers Brown (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/sotomayor_and_white_wise_guys.html) come to mind. And somehow they get away with it.

Two examples, the first is right here in that you folks are mocking Republicans coming to the defense of Joe the Plumber, an ordinary guy who simply had the audacity to ask The One a question. The second, Obama in Egypt speaking of women's rights in the Islamic world while telling us we need to respect their belief that their women must be confined to the hijab. Were you defending Joe the Plumber then or now? Are you going to protest Obama's two-faced approach to women's rights in the Muslim world?

You must have missed this part, "and then got smeared by the Democrats." You mean like your opposition to Sotomayor? Why do you think you are on a different plane of existence?

You mean like your opposition to Sotomayor? Why do you think you are on a different plane of existence?

NK, once again your point might be relevant if I were guilty of smearing Sotomayor. Opposition is not the same as smearing. Questioning her qualifications, her previous comments and her record as a judge is not the same as smearing. That is not only reasonable it should be expected. I'm not the one here who's "plane of existence" should be questioned.

.. if I were guilty of smearing Sotomayor. Opposition is not the same as smearing. Who here smeared Joe the Plumber? You were talking about "the left" and I'm talking about "the right".
The Liberal Curmudgeon: Right-Wing Commentators Start Smearing Sotomayor (http://www.theliberalcurmudgeon.com/2009/05/right-wing-commentators-start-smearing.html)
Smearing Sotomayor - Joan Walsh - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/05/28/rush_newt_coulter/index.html)
Conservatives react to historic Supreme Court nominee by smearing Sotomayor as "racist," "bigot" | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013)

Who here smeared Joe the Plumber? You were talking about "the left" and I'm talking about "the right".
The Liberal Curmudgeon: Right-Wing Commentators Start Smearing Sotomayor (http://www.theliberalcurmudgeon.com/2009/05/right-wing-commentators-start-smearing.html)
Smearing Sotomayor - Joan Walsh - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/05/28/rush_newt_coulter/index.html)
Conservatives react to historic Supreme Court nominee by smearing Sotomayor as "racist," "bigot" | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013)

NK, I said you guys were "mocking Republicans coming to the defense of Joe the Plumber," not smearing him. You might read before reacting, even your own words when you equated my "opposition to Sotomayor" with the smear tactics of the left. I haven't smeared her and your links to what others say has no bearing on what I've said about her.

I don't know why you keep trying to make us look foolish, it always backfires on you. Perhaps you enjoy wearing egg on your face.

The smear tactics of the left, the smear tactics of the right, is there really any difference?

If only I was a

Latina woman, but I'm only a guy I certainly don't have the ability to make decisions with the same level of ability and empathy as Judge Sonia Sotomayor.Hello El:

Nahhh, El. You're not just a guy. You're a JEW. I don't know why, but JEWS are endowed with the ability and empathy to understand the law better than any other group. That's just so. You know it, and I know it.

So, if JEWS can do it, why not another group?

You're a historian. You're going to tell me that JEWS know more about the law because of something that happened in our background. Kind of like we're good with money, because that's what we were relegated to... So, if JEWS can be good with money because of something that JEWS experienced, why can't Latinos be good or better at something than a member of a group who HASN'T experienced the same stuff they have??

excon

The smear tactics of the left, the smear tactics of the right, is there really any difference?

I commented on smears and you smeared me personally, so you tell me.

I commented on smears and you smeared me personally, so you tell me.Oh dear Steve-O, you're making stuff up again. Log off and enjoy life away from the computer.

Oh dear Steve-O, you're making stuff up again. Log off and enjoy life away from the computer.

NK, try being relevant to the discussion for a change.

What a trooper! "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle Monday morning in an airport stumble, then boarded her flight to Washington as scheduled and made the roughly hourlong trip to Washington to meet with senators who will vote on her confirmation. She even stopped at the White House Monday after her arrival in Washington, before heading to a local medical office for an x-ray. She will keep her six appointments with senators despite the injury." (AP)

Remember what happened to Gwen Ifill when she started getting heat about her book and if she should be the moderator of the VP debate ?

Remember what happened to Gwen Ifill when she started getting heat about her book and if she should be the moderator of the VP debate ?I do! It all ended being all for nought. She did a fine job.

I was talking about her breaking her ankle .

I was talking about her breaking her ankle .
Like "break a leg," said before a play? Yes, Gwen did a great job!

Yeah some trooper... coincidence ?

yeah some trooper ....coincidence ?
Just a happy one.

Everybody here has been reduced to playground tactics. You lose your leg to stand on when you keep going with this stuff. MY dad can beat up your dad" No my dad can beat up YOUR dad"

Let's all take a minute and grow up again.
Now, Excon, I am usually in agreement with you but your JEW post was over the line. At least for me, maybe not for you.

Painting any group of people with one color is detrimental to any progress to be made. And shouldn't that be the goal? The common interest. It's fun to debate, but we have left the real debate long ago. Now we are just throwing punches.

Jews can talk that way to each other . Elliot will not be offended .

It's fun to debate, but we have left the real debate long ago.

This morning I added my 2 cents to the op (#48 ) and have yet to get a serious reply .

Hello again, c:

I wasn't being intentionally offensive and I wasn't hurling stones either. I BELIEVE what I said in my post.

What limited knowledge I have about my own history pails in comparison to Elliot. What I DO know, is that in ancient days, the handling of money was considered distasteful. It was left to the underclass to deal with - the JEWS. In those days money was called "filthy lucre" - having to do with the devil, no doubt.

Nonetheless, the JEWS learned their craft well. The banking industry was started by and is to this day run by the Jews.

The JEWS were relegated to the handling of diamonds too. Today, if you want a diamond in the US, it came through a JEW.

Wouldn't a JEW be a better person to interpret banking laws or diamond industry decisions?? He WOULD, indeed.

Therefore, a person with Sotomayor's background IS better suited to deal with certain decisions than old white men would be. It cannot be denied, although the right thinks it can, even when their own guy, Samuel Alito said virtually the same stuff, and the righty's didn't bat an eye.

excon

That is why she needs more scrutiny . Alito never once suggested that he could make "better decisions" than another group because of his experiences or his groups experiences. I think the groups experiences are irrelevant . I think it is the individual making the call that matters and I think their experience should not trump the law.

Obama thinks so highly of this empathy thing that Alito is supposed to have. But as a Senator he did not vote to confirm him even though he admitted Alito was qualified .

But Obama doesn't think very highly of the Constitution . He addressed this in comments about the Warren Court. He said the Warren Court as liberal as it was did not go far enough because it did not take economic factors like radical redistribution into consideration.

Hello again, c:

I wasn't being intentionally offensive and I wasn't hurling stones either. I BELIEVE what I said in my post.

What limited knowledge I have about my own history pails in comparison to Elliot. What I DO know, is that in ancient days, the handling of money was considered distasteful. It was left to the underclass to deal with - the JEWS. In those days money was called "filthy lucre" - having to do with the devil, no doubt.

Nonetheless, the JEWS learned their craft well. The banking industry was started by and is to this day run by the Jews.

The JEWS were relegated to the handling of diamonds too. Today, if you want a diamond in the US, it came through a JEW.

Wouldn't a JEW be a better person to interpret banking laws or diamond industry decisions??? He WOULD, indeed.

Therefore, a person with Sotomayor's background IS better suited to deal with certain decisions than old white men would be. It cannot be denied, although the right thinks it can, even when their own guy, Samuel Alito said virtually the same stuff, and the righty's didn't bat an eye.

excon

I see where you are coming from. I'm feeling better, thank you.

But Obama doesn't think very highly of the Constitution . He addressed this in comments about the Warren Court. He said the Warren Court as liberal as it was did not go far enough because it did not take economic factors like radical redistribution into consideration.More misdirection:
Scarborough falsely claimed Obama said the Warren Court was "not, quote, 'radical enough' " | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021)

Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that, during a 2001 radio interview, Sen. Barack Obama said that "the Warren Court was not, quote, 'radical enough.' " In fact, Obama didn't say the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not "radical enough." Scarborough also falsely claimed that during the interview Obama said "the Warren Court did not go far enough, that actually one of the great tragedies was there was no redistribution of wealth." In fact, the "traged[y]" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts in its efforts to bring about political and economic justice.

It is on video tape.

Hey righties, you got to find another fault. That one statement has been beat to death. As I said once before, what else you got?

t's fun to debate, but we have left the real debate long ago. Now we are just throwing punches.

It's nice to see you're coming around too.

Here is the transcript.. not just the piece you cherry picked :



OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.


Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview) - Morningstar (http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/227830/2584303.aspx)

Hey righties, you got to find another fault. That one statement has been beat to death. As I said once before, what else you got?

I don't think his Warren comment, his views on "social justice" and judges with "empathy" have been beaten enough. When people begin to understand and react to the ramifications then perhaps we can say they have.

Isn't that what the opposition did to Bush? His opponents beat him to death over every issue they could imagine for 8 years. Correction, they're still beating him over it, Cindy Sheehad is still protesting at his home (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVkg6MWZQm53Euxs6dFhx_Pl3MPQD98N61G80).

I don't think his Warren comment, his views on "social justice" and judges with "empathy" have been beaten enough.
I spent over $17,000 and three years of grad school learning about empathy. Just because one has empathy doesn't mean one will cave, but it does mean one can get inside someone else's skin and imagine how that person feels--not a bad ability nowadays. So a Justice has empathy? Why is this a problem? I'm guessing at least the females on the SC have had empathy. Maybe it's not a guy thing.

Maybe it's not a guy thing.It used to be a christian thing but it seems to get lost when it's convenient.

It used to be a christian thing but it seems to get lost when it's convenient.
Solomon is considered the wisest man who ever lived. His decision about how to satisfy the two women with one living baby just overflows with empathy.

I spent over $17,000 and three years of grad school learning about empathy. Just because one has empathy doesn't mean one will cave, but it does mean one can get inside someone else's skin and imagine how that person feels--not a bad ability nowadays. So a Justice has empathy? Why is this a problem? I'm guessing at least the females on the SC have had empathy. Maybe it's not a guy thing.

As I've said before, a judge can have empathy. A judge has to make calls all the time, they have some latitude. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to uphold the constitution without partiality or they are violating their oath.


"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

As I've said before, a judge can have empathy. A judge has to make calls all the time, they have some latitude. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to uphold the constitution without partiality or they are violating their oath.
All I am hearing from the Right is that Sotomayor wouldn't rule fairly because she would be empathetic. Tell me I'm hearing wrong. (Empathy does not make one partial.)

It used to be a christian thing but it seems to get lost when it's convenient.

Again with the insults.

There are two distinct and separate things in play here and Jakester explained it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/torture-christianity-354043.html#post1736911) as well as anyone on the Christianity board. And that is the difference between "1) the individual and his personal life as it relates to God and mankind; 2) the government and its role and function as it relates to people."

Whether I have empathy- as a Christian or otherwise - is irrelevant.

Again with the insults.

There are two distinct and separate things in play here and Jakester explained it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/torture-christianity-354043.html#post1736911) as well as anyone on the Christianity board. And that is the difference between "1) the individual and his personal life as it relates to God and mankind; 2) the government and its role and function as it relates to people."

Whether or not I have empathy- as a Christian or otherwise - is irrelevant.
You don't think empathy belongs in the quiver of a SC justice?

Solomon is considered the wisest man who ever lived. His decision about how to satisfy the two women with one living baby just overflows with empathy.

Yeah, cut the kid in half and give half to each woman just overflows with empathy.

You don't think empathy belongs in the quiver of a SC justice?

Of course not. What do you not get about the role of a Supreme Court Justice? It has nothing to understanding someone's feelings and emotions, to "put oneself in their shoes." It is about the rule of law. Period.

Of course not. What do you not get about the role of a Supreme Court Justice? It has nothing to understanding someone's feelings and emotions, to "put oneself in their shoes." It is about the rule of law. Period.
Then where did Solomon get off making such a wise decision? He had to have had empathy in order to make a fair decision. Empathy doesn't mean for only one of the parties. It should be for both, and yes, it is very much involved in making fair decisions.

From acslaw.org --

"This criticism confuses empathy with sympathy. It also misunderstands the judge's role. Empathy is the capacity to understand the perspective of another. It is an essential attribute for living in the social world, and a crucial component of legal judgment. Judges need to understand multiple perspectives. What they do with that understanding is a separate question."

Why Justice Entails Empathy
May 14, 2009, 9:56PM

This post is a short response to the right wing mockery of empathy in judgment.

In order to judge matters correctly, a person must be capable of independence in judgment. What follows is a simple proof which demonstrates the necessity of empathy and the consequences of its absence.

(1) Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought.

(2) Freedom of thought presupposes the ability to shift perspectives.

(3) The ability to shift perspectives presupposes empathy.

Therefore, (4) Independence of judgment presupposes empathy.

(1a) The absence of empathy implies the inability to shift perspectives.

(2a) The inability to shift perspectives implies slavery of thought.

(3a) Slavery of thought implies co-dependent judgment.

Therefore, (4a) The absence of empathy implies co-dependent judgment.

(4) and (4a) have something counter-intuitive to say: only through empathy can one think freely, and so, only through empathy can one escape the prison of herd mentality. As the right wing makes fun of empathy in judgment, they implicitly champion co-dependent judgment.

Game, set and match to Wondergirl. Killed another one of their talking points. :)

Game, set and match to Wondergirl. Killed another one of their talking points. :)
Librarians rule!!

Game, set and match to Wondergirl. Killed another one of their talking points. :)

Based on your totally impartial point of view I'm sure.

Based on your totally impartial point of view I'm sure.
He and I haven't dated yet, so I think he is impartial.

We try to be as impartial as you are.

from acslaw.org --

"This criticism confuses empathy with sympathy. It also misunderstands the judge's role. Empathy is the capacity to understand the perspective of another. It is an essential attribute for living in the social world, and a crucial component of legal judgment. Judges need to understand multiple perspectives. What they do with that understanding is a separate question."

"The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations."

That would make their view of empathy in the legal system no surprise. I had already defined empathy by the way.

(1) Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought.

The constitution trumps independence of thought.

The constitution trumps independence of thought.
That not the intent of the statement. I read "Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought" to mean letting go of your biases.

The constitution trumps independence of thought.
You'd better read the posted statement again -- and think about what it says and means.

For both of you since you don't seem to get it, the reasoning Wondergirl posted is just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo. Independence of thought is great and empathy is a wonderful thing, but in the legal system they are all subject to a standard, the law. In this case that standard is the constitution of the United States, which is not a living, breathing, malleable to your feelings or mood document, nor is it subject to international law. It is the supreme law of this land. The ONLY relevant thing here is the constitution. Checkmate.

The ONLY relevant thing here is the constitution. Checkmate.Hello Steve:

I again, state that the right wing Supreme Court Justices have the same bias and empathy that ANY HUMAN INDIVIDUAL has. Their empathy, however, lies with the cops.

It's PROVABLE. I can bring up case after case, as I've done before, and I'll do again, if these right wingers keep insisting that THEIR bias is Constitutional - cause it AIN'T.

What WOULD be cool, is for them to admit that ALL the rulings that have ever been, and ever will be, has been based upon A HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the law. When HUMANS interpret the law, the PUT their own experiences into the decision. Right wingers ARE humans, are they not?? Don't answer that.

excon

Nah, I hang around judges and lawyers. Your constitution or stated laws do always not cover all situations, that why judges write *judgements* and they include verbiage that include their interpretation of situations.

For both of you since you don't seem to get it, the reasoning Wondergirl posted is just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo. Independence of thought is great and empathy is a wonderful thing
Tsk, tsk. AGAIN, you did not track well when you reread my post. It's "independence of judgment," not "independence of thought." And isn't your hope for "independence of judgment"?? Seems like that's what you've been saying.

Right wingers ARE humans, are they not??? Don't answer that.

Most of us are indeed human, yes. Ex, I don't deny we all have biases but that has no bearing on my point which is there is an ideal we should seek in a justice, impartiality, and a standard they are subjected to, the constitution. No?

All I am hearing from the Right is that Sotomayor wouldn't rule fairly because she would be empathetic. Tell me I'm hearing wrong. (Empathy does not make one partial.)

I don't know what you are hearing from someone else My Concern is that she proclaimed more than once that she would make "BETTER" Decisions because of her ethnic and gender experiences . That is rubbish and even Obama claims she misspoke.

Tsk, tsk. AGAIN, you did not track well when you reread my post. It's "independence of judgment," not "independence of thought." And isn't your hope for "independence of judgment"???????????

You can't argue my point so you nitpick, well done.

You can't argue my point so you nitpick, well done.
Nitpick?? Big difference between those two terms -- independence of thought and independence of judgment and how they relate.

For both of you since you don't seem to get it, the reasoning Wondergirl posted is just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo. Independence of thought is great and empathy is a wonderful thing, but in the legal system they are all subject to a standard, the law. In this case that standard is the constitution of the United States, which is not a living, breathing, malleable to your feelings or mood document, nor is it subject to international law. It is the supreme law of this land. The ONLY relevant thing here is the constitution. Checkmate.

The constitution is a joke in the federal goverments eyes now can't you see? Our rights and freedoms are stolen everyday and most people turn a blind eye or even favor losing them! I for one am becoming very ashamed of this country and the ignorant masses so willing to give up freedom to feel that they are secure. Land of the free no longer are we!

The constitution is a joke in the federal goverments eyes now can't you see?? Our rights and freedoms are stolen everyday and most people turn a blind eye or even favor losing them! I for one am becoming very ashamed of this country and the ignorant masses so willing to give up freedom to feel that they are secure. Land of the free no longer are we!

Give up our freedom? No longer the land of the free? I haven't felt any of that. The only lack of freedom I've seen are the people trying to rid us of "freedom of choice" and that freedom for any two consenting adults to marry thing. That is taking freedoms away right there. And don't throw the old gun control thing at me. Gun control is not gun banishing.
It's gun good sense. gun good judgment, it's keeping guns out of the hands of idiots that have shown to be a danger with a gun.

Give up our freedom? No longer the land of the free? I haven't felt any of that. The only lack of freedom I've seen are the people trying to rid us of "freedom of choice" and that freedom for any two consenting adults to marry thing. That is taking freedoms away right there. And don't throw the old gun control thing at me. Gun control is not gun banishing.
It's gun good sense., gun good judgment, it's keeping guns out of the hands of idiots that have shown to be a danger with a gun.

Their was murder long before guns but the second amendment is long gone so why bother. As for "freedom of choice" I am not against abortion but I don't like it when people try to pretty things up. Abortion is killing an unborn baby plain and simple. When a pregnant woman is killed and her "fetus" dies as well, the killer can be charged with two homicides. If a girl goes and gets an abortion she is not killing, she is practicing her "freedom of choice", both babies are dead no matter what you call it. Call it a fetus instead of a baby, call it "freedom of choice" if that is what makes you sleep at night. I really don't care who wants to marry who, I for one think marriage should be purely spiritually and the government has no place in it. Government is to big!

Give up our freedom? No longer the land of the free? I haven't felt any of that.
You haven't flown anywhere and seen your manicure kit and makeup bottles thrown into a bin because you might overwhelm the flight crew or build an explosive in the plane's bathroom? You haven't seen old people in wheelchairs made to stand up and/or painfully take off (and have to put back on) their shoes because the heels might be packed with explosives? No terrorists were ever arrested, but tons and tons of passengers were inconvenienced and even shamed. Meanwhile, the door between the cockpit and passengers sits blithely open during a flight.

You haven't flown anywhere and seen your manicure kit and makeup bottles thrown into a bin because you might overwhelm the flight crew or build an explosive in the plane's bathroom? You haven't seen old people in wheelchairs made to stand up and/or painfully take off (and have to put back on) their shoes because the heels might be packed with explosives? No terrorists were ever arrested, but tons and tons of passengers were inconvenienced and even shamed. Meanwhile, the door between the cockpit and passengers sits blithely open during a flight.

Said perfectly!

Nitpick???? Big difference between those two terms -- independence of thought and independence of judgment and how they relate.

I stand corrected Wondergirl, feel better? Forgive me for typing from memory instead of copying and pasting my thoughts.

"It's about a new politics – a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts" --Barack Obama

Obama is no better or worse than Bush... they are liars plain and simple. They will sell the future of your children, grand children, and great grand children to get what they want!

You haven't flown anywhere and seen your manicure kit and makeup bottles thrown into a bin because you might overwhelm the flight crew or build an explosive in the plane's bathroom? You haven't seen old people in wheelchairs made to stand up and/or painfully take off (and have to put back on) their shoes because the heels might be packed with explosives? No terrorists were ever arrested, but tons and tons of passengers were inconvenienced and even shamed. Meanwhile, the door between the cockpit and passengers sits blithely open during a flight.

Oh yes I have. I've flown a good bit. I know why we have to take precautions, I know the guidelines for what you can carry on the plane, and I've never had anything thrown out. Since 9/11 we have had to be more careful about assuming that everyone that gets on a plane is just there for the transportation. I would rather be inconvenienced and be safe. Imagine what a supposedly wheel chair bound passenger could smuggle on board.
I don't see this as a lack of freedom, just a necessary evil.

I can't speak to the cock pit door being wide open. I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it. At least we know now that if someone did get to the cock pit, their choice of weapon would be severely limited.

"It's about a new politics – a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts" --Barack Obama

Obama is no better or worse than Bush....they are liars plane and simple. They will sell the future of your children, grand children, and great grand children to get what they want!

That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in quite a while. Seems like you hate this country. Why don't you just leave.

That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in quite a while. Seems like you hate this country. Why don't you just leave.

I love this country, I have hundreds of ancestors who died fighting for this country starting with the Revolutionary War! I have ancestors who's signatures are on the Declaration of Independence! I dislike the way it is being governed and I dislike the snakes in Washington flushing our country down the toilet!

That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in quite a while. Seems like you hate this country. Why don't you just leave.

Why is that ignorant? Do you really believe all the propaganda you are fed?

I love this country, I have hundreds of ancestors who died fighting for this country starting with the Revolutionary War! I have ancestors who's signatures are on the Declaration of Independence! I dislike the way it is being governed and I dislike the snakes in Washington flushing our country down the toilet!

Correction, you don't hate this country, you just hate living in this country under present day
Conditions.

Why is that ignorant? Do you really believe all the propaganda you are fed?

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.
The truth is our rights are taken away slowly and usually under the guise of safety or for the good of all that most people don't even notice.

Then where did Solomon get off making such a wise decision? He had to have had empathy in order to make a fair decision. Empathy doesn't mean for only one of the parties. It should be for both, and yes, it is very much involved in making fair decisions.



Where was Sotomayor's EMPATHY in the Ricci v DeStefano case?


Sotomayor's mystery case, Ricci v. DeStefano. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/)






In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."


The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?





Could she not empathize with the dyslexic firefighter who had to study harder than the others to pass a written test? Or could she only have sympathy for the minority applicants that could not pass that same test?



This along with her "latina woman " quote shows that she does not have the impartiality to be on the SCOTUS. In addition, her lack of an opinion on the constitutional claims in the case either indicates laziness of thought, or a complete disregard for the constitutional merits of the case.







G&P

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose

The truth is our rights are taken away slowly and usually under the guise of safety or for the good of all that most people don't even notice.

It's not a guise. Why so cynical? You have something against safety precautions?

It's not a guise. Why so cynical? You have something against safety precautions?

When it takes freedoms away... yes I do

When it takes freedoms away....yes I doYou must have been pissed about the Patriot Act.

If anything (stretch your mind a little!), Sotomayor was a thank-you.

Yep. It's not that she's qualified for the position (which she may actually be... I don't know). Obama just had a political debt to pay, so he nominated her.

Thanks for making my point, WG.

Elliot

Not this one.

Baloney. Psychologists, psychiatrists and counselors are among the most insecure people I have met, and I say this as a long standing patient.

Elliot

Poor Elliott. He will be horrified at what happened to his thread. (Sorry, ET!)

Not a problem.

Now, back to that Sotomayor girl. Isn't she somethin'!!!

Yep. I just can't tell what.

Irrelavent? Does it not show that a Republican is also "is enamored with the personal narrative and group identity politics"? Yes I think it does.

No it doesn't. The whole point of why Joe the Plumber became as famous as he has is because he's the "regular joe", the "everyman" that is getting screwed by Obama's identity politics and elitism. He is, in fact, the symbol of anti-identity-politics and anti-elitism.

As usual, NK, you misinterpret the facts.

Elliot

You mean like your opposition to Sotomayor? Why do you think you are on a different plane of existence?

We haven't had to smear Sotomayor, NK. She's doing just fine on her own with her own words.

Elliot

Joe the Plumber became as famous as he has is because he's the "regular joe", the "everyman" that is getting screwed by Obama's identity politics and elitism. He is, in fact, the symbol of anti-identity-politics and anti-elitism.
And in the end he was none of those was he.

Hello El:

Nahhh, El. You're not just a guy. You're a JEW. I don't know why, but JEWS are endowed with the ability and empathy to understand the law better than any other group. That's just so. You know it, and I know it.

So, if JEWS can do it, why not another group?

I do not take that as factual. I don't even think it is true in MOST cases.

What I believe Jews have an ability to do is to read and interpret the law in an advantageous manner. It comes from our Talmudic backgrounds (as a culture, not necessarily individually). Because we are culturally good at legal interpretation within the Talmud, we are also good at interpretation within the secular US legal system. That's why we make such good lawyers as a culture. We can interpret and argue the law to our advantage. We are superior LEGAL minds. But that doesn't necessarily equate to a higher level of empathy than any other group. Nor do I believe that it should.

The Oath of the Supreme Court Justice is:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


Similarly, the Bible says

Deutoronomy 16:18 Appoint yourselves judges and police for your tribes in all your settlements that God your Lord is giving you, and make sure that they administer honest judgment for the people.
16:19 Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous.
16:20 Pursue perfect honesty, so that you will live and occupy the land that God your Lord is giving you.

Both in Biblical culture and in secular law, we are told NOT to be "empathetic" in our approach to judgement, and so it has become part of us.


You're a historian. You're going to tell me that JEWS know more about the law because of something that happened in our background. Kind of like we're good with money, because that's what we were relegated to... So, if JEWS can be good with money because of something that JEWS experienced, why can't Latinos be good or better at something than a member of a group who HASN'T experienced the same stuff they have??

Excon

They can. But they have to have experienced it culturally for it to be true. Can you show me anything in Latino (or Latina) culture that points to greater empathy than other cultures? I can't.

Can you tell me how having a different set of cultural and life experiences than 85% of those around you makes you better at understanding those 85%? I can't.

Furthermore, given the specific PROHIBITION against empathy within the judicial system, can you tell me how such empathy, if it exists, makes her more qualified to become a Justice of the Supreme Court rather than less?

Simply put, her experience as a Latina makes her better at understanding the Latina experience. Her experience as an Hispanic makes her better at understanding the Hispanic experience.

Culturally, she is probably very tough, hard working, willing to get her hands dirty to get the job done, and very dedicated to family. She probably has an affinity toward education. Those are typical cultural mores of Latinas and she is probably good in those areas. But what does any of that have to do with empathy toward others who are not Hispanic, and what does empathy in general have to do with being qualified to sit on the SCOTUS bench, given the oath to NOT evince such empathy in the performance of her duties?

Elliot

I hate the "regular joe" or "everyman" tag that gets put on us. That dude is nothing like me. I saw him on Bill Mahr apparently his regular job wasn't as exciting as it use to be so now he is reporting for some website or something.

Hello again, c:

I wasn't being intentionally offensive and I wasn't hurling stones either. I BELIEVE what I said in my post.

What limited knowledge I have about my own history pails in comparison to Elliot. What I DO know, is that in ancient days, the handling of money was considered distasteful. It was left to the underclass to deal with - the JEWS. In those days money was called "filthy lucre" - having to do with the devil, no doubt.

Nonetheless, the JEWS learned their craft well. The banking industry was started by and is to this day run by the Jews.

The JEWS were relegated to the handling of diamonds too. Today, if you want a diamond in the US, it came through a JEW.

Wouldn't a JEW be a better person to interpret banking laws or diamond industry decisions??? He WOULD, indeed.

Therefore, a person with Sotomayor's background IS better suited to deal with certain decisions than old white men would be. It cannot be denied, although the right thinks it can, even when their own guy, Samuel Alito said virtually the same stuff, and the righty's didn't bat an eye.

excon

Some historical corrections.

The handling of money wasn't "distasteful". It's just that the lending of money wasn't done because it was illegal under religious law for Christians and Muslims to charge other Christians and Muslims interest for lending money. The risk-reward analysis didn't work in favor of lending money when there was nothing to be gained by taking the risk.

However, Jews were under no prohibition of charging interest from Christians and Muslims, and so they became the "money lenders". And ended up taking a lot of flak for it... remember Shakespear's lines about borrowers and lenders, or the "Shylock" characters in the plays of the era? Or for that matter, the thousands of pogroms caused by borrowers who didn't want to pay back the Jews?

But it wasn't about it being too menial. It was about religious prohibitions against charging interest.

Elliot

Hey righties, you got to find another fault. That one statement has been beat to death. As I said once before, what else you got?

That one statement says it all, Cosyk. She said it. End of story.

I spent over $17,000 and three years of grad school learning about empathy. Just because one has empathy doesn't mean one will cave, but it does mean one can get inside someone else's skin and imagine how that person feels--not a bad ability nowadays. So a Justice has empathy? Why is this a problem? I'm guessing at least the females on the SC have had empathy. Maybe it's not a guy thing.

It is a problem because it VIOLATES THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. It is a problem because justice is SUPPOSED to be blind. It is a problem because it violates the ethical requirement of the judge to not see under the person's skin, but rather simply to interpret and apply the LAW.

It is a problem because it goes against the very duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS Justice.

It is a problem because it violates the ethical requirement of the judge to not see under the person's skin, but rather simply to interpret and apply the LAW.... It is a problem because it goes against the very duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS Justice.Hello El:

I can see you missed my Jewish posts a few pages back. You oughta check 'em out. I'll bet you'll have something to say...

excon

Hello El:

I can see you missed my Jewish posts a few pages back. You oughta check 'em out. I'll bet you'll have something to say...

excon

No he did respond to them on the last page!

No he did respond to em on the last page!!Hey Skell:

So he did. You know, we got to stop arguing so fast. I can't keep up.

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/if-only-362769-13.html#post1787913

What do you Sotomayor supporters have to say about this case?

Did you choose to ignore it because it really shines a light on to her as a judge and not as some individual to fulfill a demographic quota?





G&P