NDNdancer
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 292
- Location
- On the Edge
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
She's certainly not as competent as, say, Harriet Miers.
*chokes* now that was funny! :rofl
She's certainly not as competent as, say, Harriet Miers.
She's certainly not as competent as, say, Harriet Miers.
It's not supposed to be.
It's supposed to be a panel of the most profound jurists the nation can produce to interpret the laws in terms of the Constitution as the people who wrote that Constitution intended for it to be applied.
"Diversity" isn't a job requirement.
If we were talking about the Latina equivalent of Antonin Scalia or John Roberts, you'd have a point.You're right, it's not. My point is that whining about a president appointing someone other than a white male (when presidents often DO appoint white males) is silly. If white males were underrepresented on the courts and there was an unwritten rule that presidents always must appoint someone other than white males, then you might have a point. But even in a completely color-blind, gender-blind society, you should expect someone other than a white male to be appointed from time to time.
If we were talking about the Latina equivalent of Antonin Scalia or John Roberts, you'd have a point.
celticlord said:The biggest problem with the appointment is that she's the Latina equivalent of David Souter, and that even Dear Leader admits that her principal credential is that she is the Latina equivalent of David Souter.
celticlord said:Nothing wrong with non-white males, or even non-white non-males on the Supreme Court. There's a lot wrong with nondescripts on the Supreme Court whose justification for being there is that they are non-white non-males.
Dear Leader's own words:
Short version: she's a latina and race/gender matter more than knowing the law.
Because her "life's journey" wouldn't make a damn bit of difference any other way.
And every thing it could mean has not a damn thing to do with the construction of the law. One might just as well argue that she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she's a Yankees fan (actually, this alone should be a disqualification...now if she were a Red Sox fan that would be a different matter altogether :mrgreenThere is absolutely nothing in there about race or gender. You are amplifying it.
"Life's journey" could mean several things.
Where's the evidence that says the President picked Sotomayor because of race and gender?
Just because you think she was not the best doesn't disqualify the idea. Hell there's always a better candidate for President in many people's eyes, but we get what we get, and people are not killing themselves over it.
You're right, it's not. My point is that whining about a president appointing someone other than a white male (when presidents often DO appoint white males) is silly. If white males were underrepresented on the courts and there was an unwritten rule that presidents always must appoint someone other than white males, then you might have a point. But even in a completely color-blind, gender-blind society, you should expect someone other than a white male to be appointed from time to time.
With Democrats controlling the Senate 59 to 40, derailing the nomination will be hard, barring an unexpected revelation.
"A liberal is leaving, and a liberal will take that place. Now when a conservative justice steps down under Obama’s watch, that will be political Armageddon"...Charlie Cook
I can just see her getting into Scalia's fat face over... oh say... closing down a recount vote to ensure that the Repub won. I'm not crazy about a few of her decisions but, she should add a good dash of spunk to SCOTUS. Should be good for some good stories.
How is that anything but another RNC maneuver to waste time and money?Nobody expects the nomination to be derailed (well, maybe a few naifs), but the project is now to make sure everyone knows what's in the package, a bigoted liberal, which is, naturally, a redundant statement.
I can just see her getting into Scalia's fat face over... oh say... closing down a recount vote to ensure that the Repub won. I'm not crazy about a few of her decisions but, she should add a good dash of spunk to SCOTUS. Should be good for some good stories.
Fat or not, she would be scary if she got up in your face. She is ugly enough to scare the crap out of a turd.Scalia's fat face?
v.
I think it's a tie.