July 19, 2009
The Sotomayor Verdict

I listened to the Sotomayor hearings, and I came away with conflicting impressions.

For example, she said unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, something her perhaps-future liberal colleagues denied in their dissent of DC v. Heller. This is something that she could not easily go back on later, so that's a good thing. However, she also seemed a bit weak on questions about the finer points of incorporation doctrine (saying she wasn't sure what Presser v. Illinois said). On the other hand, I don't really care about her decision that the Second Amendment is not incorporated, since that's something I believe current doctrine says only the Supreme Court can do (even though I find that doctrine, Selective Incorporation, detestable).

I found her to be generally forthcoming, which is a good thing. I believe she's telling the truth that she looks at what the law says, and attempts to rule based on what it says. However, she also seemed to express approval of consequentialism, at various points, talking about interpreting law based on the effects of the laws, and so on. Unfortunately, the Senators really didn't give me a good feel for her views here, and it's something we can never really know about a judge until they are in that position, and she hasn't been.

I also had trouble with her answer for her "wise Latina" comment, more in her new answer than how I read her comment before, but I've already discussed that.

One thing I liked about her is that she draws (or refuses to draw, depending on how you look at it) interesting and thoughtful distinctions. She was asked whether the government "made mistakes" in passing certain anti-terrorism laws or performing certain actions that the Court has already struck down; she said, she didn't think so, that it wasn't that it made a mistake, it was just that the laws or actions didn't fall within constitutional or statutory limitations.

While one might reasonably call that a "mistake" to fail to fall within those limitations, the emphasis of the Senator was in trying to impugn the acts, and Sotomayor refused to do so. This is a distinction I tried to emphasize in the wake of the Court's striking down a portion of the Military Commissions Act due to its lack of protection for the right of habeas corpus: the law did attempt, and to some degree succeeded, in protecting that right; the Court simply ruled it didn't go far enough to do so. The Court was not saying the Congress was bad or evil or anything like that; it simply said the law in question needed improvement to be constitutional.

That is, there's a world of difference between saying "your law isn't good enough" and "your law demonstrates that you have no respect for the Bill of Rights." The Democrats tried to say the latter, but the Court only said the former, and Sotomayor picked up on it and answered it admirably.

At the end of the day, all things being debated and discussed, the question is whether I believe that she will fall prey to the diabolical evils of consequentialism, or whether she will hold true to the textual principles she upheld in her hearings. And all I can say is that I saw little attempt to obfuscate in the hearings; her record is one of following precedent and statute, and that I would not disqualify her due to my fears about whether she might not do what she said she would do.

I pray she doesn't prove herself to be dishonest, that she really does believe in the ultimate primacy of the law as written and intended, rather than the primacy of the divined "purpose" of the law (as Justice Breyer and President Obama believe) that allows a judge to simply ignore what the law says if so doing would, in their minds, fulfill the law's purpose.

If she believes that and can act upon it, given her obvious keen intellect and broad understanding of the law, then she is qualified, in my opinion, to serve on the Supreme Court, whether I would have chosen her or not; and as I believe that is the job of the Senator -- not to oppose people you are politically opposed to, but to oppose those who are unfit for the job -- were I in the Senate, I would vote to approve Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I realize this opinion isn't going to popular among many conservatives and Republicans. It's a good thing I don't care about that.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at July 19, 2009 03:56 PM | Email This
Comments
1. pudge, for the first and (who knows) maybe the last time, we are in agreement.
I did not and could not expect that the SCOTUS nominee of a Democratic president with a filibuster proof Democratic Senate caucus would bring joy to any Republican's heart, but from the start I felt that based upon her record on the Federal Bench, Sotomayor is the best we could ho

Only time will tell if her SCOTUS record lives up to her previous record and her testimony, so we shall see.

My biggest disappointment was in the hearings themselves and the Republican leadership's emphasis upon the 'wise Latina' quote. There were many other paths to explore which might have brought greater value both in terms of understanding the philosophy of this judicial nominee and to hold her feet to the fire in the future.

All in all, it is time to move on to other serious topics.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 19, 2009 05:18 PM
2. Interesting comments. I largely agree. Any good judge is going to hew to the law.

that said, in defining what the law is, when the words aren't clear in a given situation one resorts to intent.

that brings up consequences and context.

Example: Contract for sale of "one hourse." In 1875 in the middle of what is now Utah in a sale to a pioneer with a covered wagon and no beast of bruden, by a guy with 3000 horses, that means "a horse in good health" and not a lame horse. But if it's 1905 and you're standing outside a glue factory and the seller is a fellow whose hourse just went lame -- well, that's not a breach of contract, is it?
Lots of times the words, particularly constitutional words which are written at a high level of generality in a document to endure for ages, are not dictating a particular result as clearly as we would all like. That's why we have all these appellate courts, btw. So it's fair to say the words AND the intent are part of the process, often.

Indeed, it's kind of hard to even know what many of those words mean ("due process of law", "liberty", "unreasonable", "cruel" without udnerstanding where the document came from, the history of the Revolution, what the founders were intending, and so on. No law respecting an establishment of religion includes a tent city? You might need to know in our culture religion often includes charity and often includes teh church itself as a space for charity and the consequence could be taht cities could ban not only tent cities but asseemblies to hand out frree food and free rape counseling, etc. etc. Leading to the bad consequences of lots of litigation over where do we draw the line out of varous church activities. You can say it's all clear in the constitutional words to begin with, but it's not really clear why the harm from allowing tent cities (harm in the eyes of Woodinville city or whoever it was) isn't enough to justify the intrusion into religious practice, but the harm from allowing a 10 year old kid to die if he doesn't get medicine is enough to justify overriding the parent's religion of letting their kids die. Those are consequences that are relevant. We can all think of many examples and no, it's not a right left thing.

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on July 19, 2009 05:39 PM
3. MikeBS: I would not support a judicial filibuster in the general case. Even if I believed she were what I fear she might be, I would not support a filibuster. And I could not care about "the best we could hope for" or whatever: I evaluate her completely independently of the political circumstances, except for to some degree the general views of the President: if a conservative had appointed her and I thought she were not conservative I might do the President a favor and vote against. Other than that, it's not political for me.

Torturer: you've completely missed my point and I can't care enough to explain it to you.

Posted by: pudge on July 19, 2009 06:11 PM
4. I didn't like the "wise latina" comment either (and I AM latina); Sotomayor doesn't appear to believe that Lady Justice should wear a blindfold. That's trouble for the rest of us. Plus I don't like that she belongs to a radical group whose name translates to "The Race". I'd vote no.

Posted by: Michele on July 19, 2009 06:19 PM
5. @4 Michele on July 19, 2009 06:19 PM,

as an aside, I've never been happy about the relief above the SCOTUS. I'd rather see Lady Justice viewing the scales. Seems we'd get a better result with eyes wide open. Else, how does she know which side is heavier?? :-)

Justice isn't blind, it is informed by the Law, the facts and the issues.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 19, 2009 06:28 PM
6. MikeBS: do you really not understand the concept of blind justice?

Posted by: pudge on July 19, 2009 07:06 PM
7. Apparently he doesn't.

Posted by: Michele on July 19, 2009 07:38 PM
8. Once seated, she can do as she pleases. What recourse is ther against Supreme Court Justices once seated?

I don't trust what she says in confirmation hearings and instead rely on her record.

Posted by: LewWaters on July 19, 2009 08:46 PM
9. LewWaters: most people, especially judges, especially at this level, don't so blatantly misrepresent themselves knowing they'll be found out. I wasn't talking about recourse, but honor and integrity. I think she is not devoid of these things.

If we find out differently, well, as a Senator who voted for her, I'll still feel secure in the knowledge that it wasn't my pick and I still had no positive reason to oppose her.

Posted by: pudge on July 19, 2009 09:07 PM
10. This is something that she could not easily go back on later, so that's a good thing.

Oh, she will "go back" on it when it suits her agenda. And she won't even blink an eye - since she has no scruples she isn't burdened by any.

Fortunately, she isn't bright enough to be truly dangerous - just negligent.

Good job O'bummer - you've lowered the bar once again.

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 19, 2009 10:37 PM
11.
Although we hear how the Republicans "lost" in the election, I would pose the question...did Republican Ideology win ever since November?

Seems like time and again, more liberal ideas or people have withdrawn or been rejected by people in favor of REIN ideology (Republican, Except In Name).

Sotomayor is basically a savvy professional woman, with moderate and maybe even conservative ideas EXCEPT when he positions (wise Latina) are self-serving...thus she will use the courts to help herself or people like her!

A very individualistic thing to do!

Posted by: Transparent Tape on July 20, 2009 12:29 AM
12. I think Pudge is naive in believing her. Many of her answers directly contradict her opinions. She'll be like Ginsburg: lie like a rug in hearings and rule to the far, far left.

Posted by: JB on July 20, 2009 02:17 AM
13. Pudge,

You claim to be a senator as indicated in your post at #9.

You live in Snohomish County according to my recollections.

Your SP photos and music videos indicate that you are a man.

If you are really a male Washington State senator then you are a democrat Washington State senator.

Can you confirm?

Seems at odds with some of your positions.

Or do you mean that you were once batboy for the Washington Senators.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 20, 2009 04:18 AM
14. Pudge,
Good post. You summarized very well. Thanks for the post.

Posted by: tc on July 20, 2009 07:28 AM
15. JB: I think Pudge is naive in believing her.

I didn't say I believed her in everything. I wrote a post last week saying I thought she was being dishonest about her "wise Latina" comments. My belief was specifically limited.


Many of her answers directly contradict her opinions.

Such as? I looked and could find little fault with her judicial opinions. That's the biggest reason I don't oppose her: the decisions I saw, while imperfect, and while I wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusions, did follow the law. For example, in Ricci and in Cuomo, she apparently did follow precedent, even though I think it was bad precedent. In the New York felon voting rights case, while I don't know which side I would have fallen on without more research, her reasoning was well-founded and well-made the very clear point that the letter of the law supported her side.

So if we're going to talk opinions, which is a big part of this, I wouldn't say she is the best judge out there, but I see no reason to disqualigy her.

And make no mistake: I need a reason to disqualify her, according to my philosophy of how the Senate should handle nominations. I don't need to be convinced she would be a good justice to vote for her, I need to be convinced she would be an anti-justice justice to vote against her. And I simply didn't see that.


She'll be like Ginsburg: lie like a rug in hearings and rule to the far, far left.

Perhaps. But I need a positive reason to vote against someone's nomination, rather than a reason to vote FOR that nomination, and I have not been given a reason other than fear of what she MIGHT do once on the bench.

And if that happens, as I noted, then I can live knowing I did my best with what information I had; she has to live with knowing she lied.


Bart Cannon: You claim to be a senator

No, I did not. Everything happens in context, and in the post you are replying to, I said that hypothetically IF I were a Senator, I would vote for her. That is the context of my comment @9: still in that hypothetical. Thankfully, for me and everyone else, I am not a public elected official.

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 07:51 AM
16. I was hoping that 'conflicting impressions' in the first sentence would be followed by an analysis of the Jekyll/Hyde personality and decisions of Sotomayor.

Will the real Sotomayor please stand up? Reports I have been hearing and reading is that Sotomayor said whatever she felt her audience wanted to hear at the hearings and contradicted her written and oral opinions.

In fact, I kind of thought she went past pudge's definition of "lying" and close to the real definition.

Posted by: swatter on July 20, 2009 07:53 AM
17. Bottom line: Sotomayor is a Liberal Democrat. Why would any thinking person/Conservative want such a person on the SCOTUS?

Tell me of one known Liberal Democrat known for Honesty and Wisdom...Nuff Said.

Posted by: Daniel on July 20, 2009 07:58 AM
18. swatter: what contradiction with her written opinions? I've looked. Can you give examples?

Despite asserting it, I am not sure if you can give examples, because I am certain you cannot give examples of any difference between my definition of "lying" and the "real" definition, but you claim that ...

But I seriously would like examples if you have any. Of either one!


Daniel: when did I ever imply I wanted Sotomayor on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 08:10 AM
19. pudge: I did not imply you wanted Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Although, I thought about doing so. However, after close scrutiny of your statements/comments, I decided it was not correct to do so.

Posted by: Daniel on July 20, 2009 08:41 AM
20. Pudge: "Daniel: when did I ever imply I wanted Sotomayor on the Supreme Court?"

When did the thread become all about you?!

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 20, 2009 08:58 AM
21. Alphabet Soup: as the only conservative here who said he would support voting for Sotomayor, and as the person who wrote the original post ... what I said was clearly not unreasonable.

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 09:19 AM
22. I tend to think the President should - in general - be afforded a high degree of deference in his picks for the federal bench. History has shown that it is usually the case - see the nearly unanimous Senate confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former ACLU lawyer, as evidence of deference to a Presidential pick. Although he is required by the Constitution to get the "consent" of the Senate, I think the "advise" portion of the Senate responsibility is likely the more important part of the process. Filtering potential nominees by telegraphing to the President ahead of time the kinds of candidates who will be unacceptable, helps get better nominees. They will never be in complete alignment with an opposing party's views, but will likely be more moderate candidates than may otherwise be the case. In the I tend to feel that if the candidate is qualified for the job, the Senate should probably provide the necessary consent. I tend to agree with Antonin Scalia's views of the Constitution, but recognize that not everyone does. Are they wrong? In my mind, yes. But this kind of debate and variety of opinion is what keeps our country politically vibrant.

I don't want to deny that, in reality, this is ultimately a political process. When perhaps the most qualified person to be appointed in the past half-century - Robert Bork - was shot down, it sparked what is probably a permanent heightening of the worst in partisan politics in confirming judges. Every appointee since has gone out of his/her way to say as little as possible during hearings, and it will never again be prudent for an administration or an appointee to be terribly forthcoming about specific judicial philosophy. Which is unfortunate for the American people.

The absurd hypocrisy of people like Sens. Schumer and Leahy - who opposed wildly qualified people like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but now gripe about Republicans questioning Sotomayor's fitness - is a perfect example of this sort of nonsense. Stupid but predictable. And it is the kind of hypocritical behavior we'll see on both sides of the aisle for decades to come.

Having read about Sotomayor, having seen and heard some of the hearings, and knowing that she was vetted and appointed by a liberal administration, I'm pretty sure she has a judicial philosophy that I find troubling in some key areas. That said, she appears to be a highly qualified candidate. She'll be confirmed. The country will move forward. Down the line, a conservative President will appoint a conservative to the Court. The country will move forward. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

And there is always the Souter posibility - the past having shown that nominees are not always as predictable once on the bench as the administration would like to believe...

Posted by: airfoil on July 20, 2009 09:46 AM
23. From what little I have seen/heard of the hearings, it looks like Ms. Sotomayor has been coached by the Demorats at the least or given the questions beforehand at the worst. She stumbles and hems & haws over the Republican questions but doesn't have that problem with the Demorat questions. Once or twice she seems to start the answer before the question is fully asked. Seems pretty obvious to me what's going on that way.

As an aside, by benefit if the hearings, it is plain to see that Frankin is a moron and not very serious about his responsibility. It also shows the importance that the Demorats put on the hearings by giving that stooge a seat there.

Posted by: G Jiggy on July 20, 2009 09:59 AM
24. She's a racist. Anyone who thinks that color, sex, etc. are relevant before the law, should be disbarred. Why are those on the left always working to set back the progress made in this country?

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 20, 2009 11:08 AM
25. Pudge, do you have to skew your face up all funny in order to come to the conclusions that you do?

It isn't so much a matter of reasonableness as it is of relevancy. Given your poorly framed and ultimately ambiguous sentence, "If we find out differently, well, as a Senator who voted for her, I'll still feel secure in the knowledge that it wasn't my pick and I still had no positive reason to oppose her." it is entirely relevant to presume that you are claiming to be a Senator (as absurd as that particular notion may be) and ask for clarification like Bart Cannon did. There was nothing in what Daniel said that pointed directly to you (and later confirmed by Daniel himself) so it is a stretch to assume the relevancy of his comment to you.

I don't know if you are intentionally trying to be obtuse, but if so I am happy to report that you are succeeding. I can understand Bart Cannon's confusion. Here's a hint: this is a blog, not a legal brief (I shudder to consider the product you would deliver if it were a legal brief!). It helps to say what you mean (and mean what you say).

More to the point. Apparently you are satisfied that her racism isn't overt enough for you to be disqualifying - bully for you. You are equally unconcerned with her partisan approach to jurisprudence. How nice. You demand that others present evidence of her disqualifying attributes that rises to a standard that you do not enumerate and consequently conveniently dismiss any that may be offered. Again, that's your prerogative.

If she were a surgeon and she cut off your nuts I guess you could also feel secure in the knowledge that it wasn't (your) pick and (you) still had no positive reason to oppose her instead of recognizing that she is a butcher.

Just because she hasn't (yet) had the opportunity to F things up is no reason not to presume that, given her own statements of ideology, she won't. Instead of excellence, in place of suitability, the dhimmis are giving us the least common denominator. You may be comfortable with inflicting that on America - I am not.

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 20, 2009 11:20 AM
26. Alphabet: It isn't so much a matter of reasonableness as it is of relevancy

I concede that if you don't have the same principles and priorities I do, then you will not come to the same conclusions I do. I do not concede, however, that this is an interesting line of criticism.

[I won't bother responding to your criticisms of my responses to Bart and Daniel; my responses to them were sufficient, and you said nothing to detract from them.]


Apparently you are satisfied that her racism isn't overt enough for you to be disqualifying

I see no evidence -- and none has been presented -- that her racial attitudes have influenced her legal opinions.


You are equally unconcerned with her partisan approach to jurisprudence

There hasn't been a single shred of evidence that she has an approach to jurisprudence that is in any way related to political parties. (And no, the fact that Obama nominated her and the Democrats favor her is not such evidence.)


You demand that others present evidence of her disqualifying attributes

Yes. I clearly stated that I believe this to be the proper role of the Senate.


... that rises to a standard that you do not enumerate ...

False. I did quite clearly state that standard, that she really does believe in the ultimate primacy of the law as written and intended, rather than the primacy of the divined "purpose" of the law (as Justice Breyer and President Obama believe) that allows a judge to simply ignore what the law says if so doing would, in their minds, fulfill the law's purpose.

Perhaps she does not believe that. No one was able to show this, however, and so I defer to the executive, as I believe the Senate should do.


... and consequently conveniently dismiss any that may be offered.

False. None has been offered. Simply claiming she has a "partisan approach to jurisprudence" is not evidence.


If she were [your] surgeon ...

... then I would have a completely different standard. She is not my surgeon, she is a nominee of the elected President of the United States to the Supreme Court. There is no comparison here.


Just because she hasn't (yet) had the opportunity to F things up is no reason not to presume that, given her own statements of ideology, she won't.

And just because she's nominated by a liberal is no reason to presume she will judge that way. I require actual evidence.


You may be comfortable with inflicting that on America

Please do not misrepresent what I actually said. Thanks. I was quite clear in saying that my hypothetical vote for her nomination does not in any way imply that I thought she should be the choice for that position. You are holding my actions up to a standard -- that Senators should vote based on whether they want a given nominee on the Court -- that I do recognize as valid.

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 11:38 AM
27. Who cares. Bottom line is she will be a SC Justice for the rest of her life. End of subject; let's move on. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 20, 2009 12:27 PM
28. Duffman: Who cares.

Me.

Bottom line is ...

False.

End of subject

False.


let's move on.

There's nothing to "move on" from. You're being an idiot, Duffman: this is a topic you don't care about, so you pretend that it doesn't matter. If you don't care, then don't comment; instead, you keep commenting about how what other people care about doesn't matter. YOU are the one who needs to move on.

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 12:38 PM
29. How silly.

Posted by: Duffman on July 20, 2009 12:47 PM
30. I've maintained that her confirmation was and is a forgone conclusion and she didn't do or say anything to change that. Still, Republicans should still feel free to vote against her, for no other reason than she's liberal. Being conservative is the only reason Democrats voted against Roberts and Alito, both of whom were more accomplished than she is.

Posted by: Palouse on July 20, 2009 12:49 PM
31. Duffman: "move on."

Palouse: if you believe that Senators should, by the Constitution or tradition or some other principle, vote that way, sure. I do not. "The Democrats do it" is kinda what got the GOP into the mess it's in now. :-)

Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 01:04 PM
32. Glad you finally agree with me. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 20, 2009 01:34 PM
33. I wonder if the Senate will consider the opinion of the public and not confirm Sotomayor. I think we all know that the opinion of the American public is irrelevant to the Slavery Party...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 06:13 PM
34. @33: Did the Bush Administration ever consider "the opinion of the American public"?

Posted by: demo kid on July 21, 2009 12:07 AM
35. Many times, no. And the Left castigated it for that very action. So I assume you'll also castigate this Administration for the same thing?

Or is it a Machiavellian thing with you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 21, 2009 07:22 AM
36. Sotomayor is going to get confirmed because the Republicans screwed up over an eight-year period by getting involved in two wars without getting them both over and done with quickly. The crooks were running the show, and eventually all that lending to people who had no business borrowing money brought the banking system down. That meant no credit for good people.

Because of the Republicans' screw-up, we're going to have to endure at lest four years of the idiot Democrats running the show. Sotomayor is just a consequence of Republicans screwing the ppoch!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 21, 2009 07:35 AM
37. I pray she doesn't prove herself to be dishonest

No need for prayin'. Looking beyond the obvious to decide a question of significant weight based on the arcane is plain foolish.

Sotomayor proved herself a racist on the issue of her professed superiority to white men, it was patently dishonest, everyone including Pudge and our panel of liberal knot-heads know it, and to pray against Sotomayor's openly professed unapologetic convictions is dumb.

It's one thing to bend over backwards in an effort to be fair, and quite another to place an appearance of fairness above common sense just to be "nice".
Sotomayor has proved herself dishonest, she will continue to be dishonest and you can confidently put money on it.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 21, 2009 10:47 AM
38. It's NEVER dumb to 'Pray'...and don't you forget it Bubba.

Posted by: Duffman on July 21, 2009 10:55 AM
39. Sotomayor is going to get confirmed because...of the color of her skin, dispite the fact she is a racist. Welcome to the new America.

Posted by: Denni on July 21, 2009 11:13 AM
40. Her testimony has been a study in deception and outright dishonesty. It's a classic "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" situation.

Garbage in - garbage out...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 21, 2009 11:14 AM
41. 'Sotomayor is going to get confirmed because...'

She's honest, she's qualified, she's experienced, the time is right, the Nation wants her and dog-gone-it WE LIKE HER. Move along 'lil doggies...nothing more to see here...just move along. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 21, 2009 11:19 AM
42. Everyone with any sense can see that Sotomayor will be confirmed. Everyone with any sense can also recognize that Sotomayor is patently dishonest, experienced at practicing her blatant dishonesty, unacceptable to the majority of Americans, and decidely unlikable. That has nothing to do with the importance of the confirmation and our American discourse.

A cynical (but smart) school would say that Republicans should have used Sotomayor's hearings to welcome her to national prominence as a Hispanic, make hay out of the comparison with Miguel Estrada, and kiss up to the Hispanic electorate.

Another (more apt) one insists that it is of paramount importance to make certain that the public record is clear about what her justice-ship will mean for America. What good is welcoming Hispanics and courting their vote, if the substance behind their artifice seriously damages our Republic? The discussion and its outcomes for our national conversation are more important than her justice ship.

The ONLY reason Sotomayor was deceptive and dishonest was to satisfy the left, and the agenda of the left is to destroy America. This proves that she is a politician first and judge last. Losing one's perspective by selectively considering the portion of her resume where she can defend herself with legal-speak while disregarding the immediate glaring instances of her deceit is dumb (among many other worse things). It assumes that her competence to converse in legalese and navigate the fine points of specific legal arguments trumps her blatantly lacking objectivity as a person to be a judge. Her skill at avoiding reference to case law where her obvious racist attitudes affected her rulings is sufficient for Pudge. But . . . Pudge is . . . well . . . Pudge is Pudge.

In "Ricci" Sotomayor unambiguously proved herself a racist, and those who smear over or minimize Ricci are simply partisan liberal morons.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 21, 2009 12:11 PM
43. Amused@42
Disagree. It is your "sense" that is distorted by the alternative reality field of right wing radio/TV. They are living in an alt universe where the public and facts don't matter, only their viewpoints. The facts are that Sotomayor is not racist. The facts are the general population approve of her. The facts are that even some Republican senators are going to vote for her. The facts are that there is no proof of racism present in her decisions from the bench. You have been drinking the kool-aid of the alt-universe. Why don't you come back to reality land before you end up in Jonestown.

Posted by: tc on July 21, 2009 12:56 PM
44. Haha...was wondering how long it would take.

Posted by: Duffman on July 21, 2009 01:15 PM
45. 'The Sotomayor Verdict' has the connotation and/or implication of 'trial'; I think a more proper synonym would have been 'finding' or 'ruling'...but, alas it's YOUR blog as you have aptly demonstrated. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 21, 2009 01:50 PM
46. Tc,

Thanks for the challenge (?) and the opportunity.
My reasoning universe is definitely alternate to yours and I am quite comfortable whose opinions are based in reason and whose are distorted beyond recognition by partisanship. You openly defend racism, and I do not.

The simple and unambiguous fact is that Sotomayor said that she would make a better decision than white men because of her race. That is as pure a definitively unadulterated racist statement as a human can make. Having done nothing to dispel reasonable concerns, she only made things worse for herself with her responses on this account last week. Her Liberal defenders only counter-arguments are based on parsing, false word games and silly tactics.

Sotomayor's decision in the "Ricci" case was based purely and unambiguously on the race of the parties of interest and it found that they were not entitled to fair and equal treatment under our U.S. Constitution. That is as pure a definitively unadulterated racist court decision as a human can make. Ms. Sotomayor did nothing to dispel reasonable concerns that she will make such racist anti-constitutional decisions in the future.

Your assertions are baseless, humorously obtuse, and confident by half; the half that assumes saying something is the equal to proving it. The quality of mindless obduracy and blind obedience to liberal orthodoxy in your comments is particularly intriguing. I am always amused by people who hate God but worship shallow men and defunct ideas on the sole basis that they have no facts or logical reasoning to support them.

Your love for an empty shiftless messiah like Obama will be rewarded in kind with the same honesty he applies as he elevates Sotomayor to our semi-sacred court. Sotomayor will reward you with decisions that make no sense but don't matter because she is harnessed between men of vastly superior intellect whose superiority is not based on gender or race but scholarship and disciplined reason.

Nice try but Obama is going down and your silly hopes and fantasies with him.

Thanks very much

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 21, 2009 03:01 PM
47. Amused @46
To take a line from Pudge, you are lying. Where did I state that I defend racism? I did no such thing.

The fact is you equate a couple of quotes (out of context) as equating that Sotomayor is a racist. You disregard the numerous years of court decisions in her record, several in which, if she had a bias, it would be demonstrated.

The "Ricci" case that you want to contend demonstrates Sotomayor's racism does no such thing. All it demonstrates is that she is not an activist judge and was basing decision on established precedent instead of overturning precedent. Was the law bad? You bet you, but it wasn't up to Sotomayor's court to overturn the law. That job was left to the activist Supreme Court who did not abide by precedent, but revised the precedent and by some made it harder on businesses instead of easier. Now businesses have to not only consider the consequences of not following a law, they must also not consider whether the law itself is adequate. The real culprit in Ricci case was the city itself that wrote a poor law for implementing the equal opportunity standards.

The bottom line is what court decisions that she made demonstrate that she is a racist? I already covered Ricci. What other evidence from her actual court records do you have?

Posted by: tc on July 21, 2009 03:42 PM
48. Yea Amused by Liberal Morons, Sodomayor can't be lying because only she knows the intent of her words. Don't you realize it doesn't matter what her words means prima facie. It only matters what she [b]intended[/b], and you can't prove her intent beyond what she is now saying she meant. So you can't prove she is lying. You can only be confidently consoled in the knowledge that if it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, it most assuredly is a sodomayer...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 21, 2009 04:55 PM
49. tc,

Thanks for the response.

You wrote, "The fact is you equate a couple of quotes (out of context) as equating that Sotomayor is a racist. You disregard the numerous years of court decisions in her record, several in which, if she had a bias, it would be demonstrated."

I am accurately paraphrasing Sotomayor's statements. Sotomayor made these statements in seven separate and different contexts and in each they meant precisely the same thing; that she believed she would make better decisions than white men solely on the basis of her (and their) race. This is simple manifest racism.

You claim that I "disregard the numerous years of court decisions in her record."

Simply untrue. While many of the cases are irrelevant to this issue and don't address, excuse, or satisfy reasonable concerns over her racist statements, I do regard the Ricci case as probative of her racism. You assert that all Ricci demonstrates is that Sotomayor is not an activist judge and was basing decisions on established precedent instead of overturning precedent claiming " it wasn't up to Sotomayor's court to overturn the law." Who is drinking the cool aid? This is a silly falsehood used by liberals to evade the essential facts.

Tc . . . of course it was!! Sotomayor's job as an appellant court judge was to interpret and uphold the Constitution. That was her job; nothing more and nothing less.

You, following your liberal idiot buddies don't understand Stare Decisis. As a doctrine, Stare Decisis (precedent) is not an arbitrary limitation, a trapdoor to obscurity or a limit to common sense, but a standard used to encourage consistency and confidence in the courts integrity. More important than anything else precedent must never interfere with constitutionality.

The law in Ricci itself was not settled on the specific issue until recently when the Supreme Court ruled in the matter and found against Sotomayor. Either way, while a "trial judge" must follow precedent or be over-ruled, an appellate court judge must always follow their interpretation of the Constitution no matter what precedent says. Following the U.S. Constitution regardless of precedent is an appellant judge's job. If and/or when they are over-ruled, they will be evaluated on that basis, and I am merely evaluating her on that basis; nothing more, nothing less. Sotomayor's opinion was over-ruled because it was racist. You are defending her racism and I am not.

This (of course) is the very point of confirmation hearings. To find out of a nominee will follow the Constitution or their own prejudices. Sotomayor followed her own racist prejudices rather than the Constitution.

Your comment that, "The real culprit in the Ricci case was the city itself that wrote a poor law for implementing the equal opportunity standards," had merit. In "Ricci," when Sotomayor ruled for the city of New Haven and against the appellants, she proved that she does not believe that we are all equal under our Constitution regardless of our racial identity. Sotomayor THUS proved herself unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. You are the brain-washed one who defends racism.

The actual bottom line (as you say) is: No other evidence is necessary to prove that she is a racist. I didn't consider her record as a tennis player either.

Next time why not try arguments instead of baseless liberals emotional appeals and nonsense distorted by the alternative reality field of left wing media TV rumor and rank stupidity.

Thanks very much

Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 21, 2009 07:05 PM
50. Sotomayor is an overweight, osteoporitic, diabetic latina.

Not an insult or an unfair racial profile.

Just her medical profile.

Draw your own conclusions about the likely length of her term in the stressful highest court.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2009 01:44 AM
51. At #50,

Maybe sooner than later "Lex naturalis" will be the final arbiter in the saga of Sotomayor eh?

Those who support her are shameless fools.

Obama is going down hard.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 22, 2009 07:17 AM
52. Absolute rubbish!

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 07:26 AM
53. @51
Obama is going down hard
What the heck does this mean or have to do with the discussion?

Posted by: tc on July 22, 2009 07:29 AM
54. Gee whiz . . . what could Obama's political fortune possibly have to do with his appointment of a racist judge to the SCOTUS?

This is a reel toughy.

Gotta hand it to you tc, you make stupidity into an art form.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 22, 2009 08:30 AM
55. "Gotta hand it to you tc, you make stupidity into an art form."

...and then duffman returns it to klown status...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 22, 2009 09:26 AM
56. Such an understanding, open-minded and fair-thinking person you seem. You're representing the conservative ideology impeccably. Not a wonder you'all are in such sad shape. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 09:33 AM
57. Interesting vote on some nationwide right to carry w/ concealed weapon permit, overriding state laws.

isn't this a conflict with federalism?

it would be interesting to hear the conservative viewpoint on this legislation.

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on July 22, 2009 10:00 AM
58. @54
So you assume that Obama's political fortunes ride on a single Supreme Court nominee, and you assume that this nominee will either (a) not get confirmed, or (b) if confirmed, fail miserably on the bench?

This is definitely amusing. As in the last election and other past elections, James Carville's infamous line "its the economy, stupid" will probably have worlds more to dictate Obama's political fortune than a single supreme court nominee. You are free to feel otherwise. The proof will be in the pudding. We have the 2010 mid-term elections and then the 2012 election to judge the results of your statement.

Posted by: tc on July 22, 2009 10:28 AM
59. "Not a wonder you'all are in such sad shape."

It's "y'all" dumbazz, and I'm doing fine, thank you. Just because the voting public is in an advanced state of stupid doesn't mean that they are right. And just because the party that most closely represents my voting habits has been ignored by those self-same dummies doesn't mean that my fortunes, personal or political are wilted.

My point in commenting about the SCOTUS nomination in general and sodomayer in particular is that liberals never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Of all the American population they could have put up to 1. represent the American people vis-�-vis an associate justice and 2. further their leftist agenda they chose a hack. Not distinguished, not notable, not even passionate. Simply a hack.

Not only will she not represent the finer ideals of America but she won't do much to advance liberalism. By way of comparison look at either Roberts or Alito. They are faithful to #1 and in doing so they advance #2. Both of them are "win-win" for America.

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot libs!

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 22, 2009 10:46 AM
60. How very prescient of you. You obviously know the way it all comes down before it even starts. What a fricken joke...you're obviously in wonderland.

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 11:00 AM
61. it doesn't take a weatherman...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 22, 2009 11:06 AM
62. At #58, whenever losing the argument, change the subject. tc, you are a boring simpleton.

Thanks just the same

Posted by: Amused by Liberal Bozo's on July 22, 2009 11:27 AM
63. "Graham's announcement brought the total number of Republicans publicly backing Sotomayor to five, and underscored the divisions in GOP ranks over voting on Obama's first high court pick, who is virtually certain to be confirmed in early August."

Yep, even Graham is going her way. Lo ciento mucho amigos! :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 12:03 PM
64. It is interesting (though not surprising) that liberals would defend the indefensible concerning Sotomayor's obvious racism and liberal dishonesty.
The Liberal ideology itself is a lie.

Because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, Republicans will vote for her especially now that they have seen to it that it is clear what she is and that she is Obama's beast and not theirs.

Everything she does and says from here on out will be tinged with the racist overtones of her expressed world view, and ALL of her opinions will be regarded with justifiable suspicion. No matter what he does, Sotomayor's racism and dishonesty will rub off on Obama.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 22, 2009 12:13 PM
65. Next: health care, cap and trade...step right up.

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 01:04 PM
66. Quite right muffman,

Thanks for bringing it up. Next Obama's idiotic anti-American health care plan will fail and after that, cap and trade. If the moron Democrats had elected Hillary, the liberal fantasy would have a chance because at least she understands incremental-ism.

As it is, Obama is going for socialism heavy and the abrogation of our Constitution and individual freedom along with it in one fell swoop. Obama is over-reaching and he will not go much further. Obama is going down, teleprompter, Mom jeans and all. Good thing you didn't vote for the slug.

I didn't think you had the good sense to recognize it.

Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 22, 2009 01:20 PM
67. I will thank you for the (albeit off-handed) compliment about my candidate, Mrs Clinton and bid you adieu on this subject. Until we meet again...enjoy the ride. I know it's bumpy but hang on you'll be fine...America will survive.

Posted by: Duffman on July 22, 2009 01:25 PM
68. Amused @ 51,

Thanks for the latin based credibility pat.

I feel a little smarter now.

Sincerely. No. Really. Sincerely.

I will use the latin phrase "Lex Naturalis" later today if it seems natural at some point.

Thank you.

I am not being facetious.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2009 03:12 PM
69. Bart,

Welcome.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 23, 2009 08:04 AM
70. Obama won. He gets to pick.

It is stupid for Republicans to automatically vote against his nominations the way the Dems automatically voted against Bush's. (eg. Obama against Roberts)

Besides, in the unlikely case that the confirmation were to fail, he would just pick someone worse. How would you like Lawrence Tribe, for example?

Posted by: AML on July 23, 2009 10:38 PM
71. AML: It is stupid for Republicans to automatically vote against his nominations the way the Dems automatically voted against Bush's. (eg. Obama against Roberts)

Exactly right. But it's certainly reasonable to see how Republicans would do that. The Democrats borked Bork and tried to do the same to Thomas. The Republicans said, well, that was an anomaly, and they passed Ginsburg and Breyer through. The Democrats turned around and tried to bork Alito, and many of them voted against Roberts.

Republicans have never, that I know of, voted en masse against a Democratic nominee that was supported by the Democrats. The Democrats obviously can't say the same thing about a Republican nominee supported by the Republicans.

But after getting screwed by the Democrats so much in this matter, it's easy to see how they might do it this time.


Besides, in the unlikely case that the confirmation were to fail, he would just pick someone worse. How would you like Lawrence Tribe, for example?

You may not be talking to me, but this is absolutely irrelevant to me. I do not in any way base my position on whether Sotomayor should be confirmed based on any such calculations. I only evaluate Sotomayor on her own, and whether she is unfit for the job. I've decided that I don't think she is unfit.


Amused: Sotomayor proved herself a racist ...

False. Perhaps you do not know what "proof" means? And your attacks against me are pathetic: instead of addressing my points you just attack me, and offer question-begging assertions.


Sotomayor's decision in the "Ricci" case was based purely and unambiguously on the race of the parties of interest

Obviously false. You can believe that she had this motive, but there's nothing unambiguous about it, because there's no such implication in the decision itself, or in her statements about it. Perhaps you don't know what "unambiguous" means?


Duffman: you're an idiot. You keep babbling about how we shouldn't talk about things that interest us, just because they interest you. Seek help.


Torturer: Interesting vote on some nationwide right to carry w/ concealed weapon permit, overriding state laws. isn't this a conflict with federalism?

You really think that when the Second Amendment says we have an individual right to bear arms, and the 14th Amendment says our privileges as U.S. citizens must be respected by the states, that codifying that right in statute conflicts with federalism? Wow.

Posted by: pudge on July 24, 2009 09:07 AM
72. OK, so she thinks the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right.

How many here think she'll protect that right at all, much less with anywhere near the fervor that she'll protect the "right" to abortion?

Posted by: krome on July 24, 2009 11:25 AM
73. krome: why wouldn't she? Do you see anything in her record or statements suggesting she won't?

Posted by: pudge on July 24, 2009 11:39 AM
74. 'Duffman: you're an idiot. You keep babbling about how we shouldn't talk about things that interest us, just because they interest you. Seek help.'

Why are you lying?

Posted by: Duffman on July 24, 2009 12:17 PM
75. I did not misrepresent your comments up to and including @41.

Then there's your nonsensical claim that "'The Sotomayor Verdict' has the connotation and/or implication of 'trial'" as if she was not on an informal "trial" before the American people. She was. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT that you explicitly stated you do not care about, yet you keep commenting on.

Posted by: pudge on July 24, 2009 12:28 PM
76. I am not an idiot...so why are you lying.

Posted by: Duffman on July 24, 2009 12:35 PM
77. At # 71 Pudge writes, "Amused: Sotomayor proved herself a racist ...False. Perhaps you do not know what "proof" means? And your attacks against me are pathetic: instead of addressing my points you just attack me, and offer question-begging assertions.

Pudge if you consider those attacks, you are wrapped too tight for your own good. I am not in the least bit hesitant to take you on anywhere any time.

Often you make good contributions and I have complimented you on them. All too often you demonstrate the petulant habits of a pseudo-intellectual twerp who read the "Formal Fallacies" section of a critical thinking text once and hasn't the ability to put it in proper context. Over and over you simply rejoin with "False" or "liar" but often (not always) fail to back it up with any sensible reasoning. Several times you have attacked me without cause and I took it in stride because this is just a blog and I don't give a fu*k what you think of me.
I accept the fact that your deep insecurities make you incapable of admitting when you are wrong, but this is embarrassing even for you.

Clearly (not perhaps) you have no idea what "proof" means. Merely saying that her decisions were better than a white man's decisions on the basis of race is "racism," and makes Sotomayor a racist. I have read your niggling pained analysis and it is stupid. Maybe you care to embarrass yourself again?

Otherwise why not try your simple-minded pretense of certitude on liberals who are dim-witted enough to buy into it and act respectfully with the adults who are basically on your side of things? BTW address me as Amused Sir from here on in or not at all Pudgy. Care to meet in person and talk it over further, fine, you know my address. Give me a ring.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 24, 2009 09:37 PM
78. Amused: Pudge if you consider those attacks

What do you mean, "consider"? Surely you cannot deny the fact. You made a series of ad hominem attacks. Whether I am "wrapped too tight" has no bearing on this fact. Please, at least try to be logical.

I know it's hard for you, as demonstrated by the rest of your post: as if to prove my point, most of what you say here has nothing to do with the topic, and there's only one other sentence of any subtance whatsoever, and it's the only one I'll respond to:

Merely saying that her decisions were better than a white man's decisions on the basis of race is "racism," and makes Sotomayor a racist.

Except that she didn't say that. She explicitly said it was not merely on the basis of race, but on the basis of her experiences as a Latina. That's not the same thing. It's certainly a very bad thing to say, but it's not what you say she said. You are clearly misrepresenting her.

So congratulations. Your post was entirely filled with fallacies, from beginning to end, whether it's ad hominem (the bulk of the post), non sequitur, or straw man.

You've set a new record for pointlessness.

Posted by: pudge on July 24, 2009 10:46 PM
79. Pudge,

Lower your neurosis long enough to read (and reason through) the following:

"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Sonia Sotomayor stated:
"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.

To repeat my comment, "Merely saying that her decisions were better than a white man's decisions on the basis of race is "racism," and makes Sotomayor a racist." You countered this by stating that that "she didn't say that, and that she explicitly said it was not merely on the basis of race, but on the basis of her experiences as a Latina." Precisely put Pudge.

Pudge, Sotomayor's use of "the basis of her experiences as a Latina" in this instance was her expressed belief that race is the primary determinant of her traits and capacities and that those racial differences produce her declared inherent superiority as a "Latina woman* [sic]." *Redundant

Quad erat demonstradum

BTW when you rejoin people with "False" and make no counter-argument, that is a variant of the "question begging" fallacy or "petitio principii." Your circular smugness presumes that whatever you were responding to was false merely because you said it was. Instead you merely asked another snarky question and changed the subject to focus on your personal insecurities (emotional appeal-argumentum ad misericordiam). It is clear that you are overly sensitive about making mistakes and being wrong. Perhaps you would do better of you thought things through more carefully and weren't so eager to assume that you understand whatever you conclude (dicto simpliciter-hasty generalization).

Thanks and have a nice day

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 25, 2009 09:03 AM
80. Amused: Sotomayor's use of "the basis of her experiences as a Latina" in this instance was her expressed belief that race is the primary determinant of her traits and capacities

False. She did NOT express that belief. You are inferring that she meant that, but she did not express it ... not in any quote you've provided, anyway. If you have any actual evidence to back up that she "expressed" this belief, feel free to provide it. I won't hold my breath.


BTW when you rejoin people with "False" and make no counter-argument, that is a variant of the "question begging" fallacy or "petitio principii."

No, in fact, it's not: when I do that, it is in response to a claim that is merely assertion. So it's not a counter-argument, it's a counter-assertion; if you have a problem with a lack of argument, look then to the own original statement I am replying to ...


Your circular smugness presumes that whatever you were responding to was false merely because you said it was.

Exactly my point, yes. It's a perfectly valid response to someone who made an unsupported assertion. If you don't give me a valid argument to support your assertions, a simple "False" is a perfectly reasonable reply. I am not going to invent an argument to argue against.


you merely asked another snarky question and changed the subject to focus on your personal insecurities

False.


It is clear that you are overly sensitive about making mistakes and being wrong.

False.

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 09:43 AM
81. Pudge,

Fine, since as you claim, that when Sotomayor stated that,
"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,"
she didn't use "the basis of her experiences as a Latina," what did she use?

What precisely (pray tell) do you infer that Sotomayor meant?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 25, 2009 10:42 AM
82. Amused: you claim ... that when Sotomayor stated that .... she didn't use "the basis of her experiences as a Latina"

False. I claimed no such thing.

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 11:04 AM
83. At #71 you posed my comment that " Your circular smugness presumes that whatever you were responding to was false merely because you said it was, and you responded

"Exactly my point, yes. It's a perfectly valid response to someone who made an unsupported assertion. If you don't give me a valid argument to support your assertions, a simple "False" is a perfectly reasonable reply. I am not going to invent an argument to argue against."

Your assumption that a claim has no basis is nothing more than an assumption, and merely failing to agree with your presumed warrant is not the same as claiming no warrant exists. In this instance you made-up a claim based on your invention of my supposed belief and responded by as you put it "inventing an argument to argue against." Intelligent men assume that a statement was made for a reason and if they disagree, they state the reasons why. Blow-hards like yourself say "False" as though you know everything. It is amusing but not very smart on your part.

A claim need not be explicitly supported to invalidate your circular response. If I stated that "Pudge is a man," I need not explicitly support my claim in order to establish 'a priori' that it is a supported claim. "I don't agree, Pudge is a weasal because . . . " is the response of a reasonably intelligent man. When you merely reply "Obviously false" to such claims, you are behaving stupidly.

Any fool (Rizzo) can play that game.
Continue and be wrong as usual.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 25, 2009 11:24 AM
84. Amused: Your assumption that a claim has no basis ...

I made no such assumption. I made an assertion. And it's obvious fact: you said "Sotomayor proved herself a racist" but you didn't actually, in that post, offer any evidence for it.

In subsequent posts you tried -- and, as demonstrated -- failed to offer any such evidence. But since you did TRY to offer the evidence, I rebutted it: I did more than simply respond to you in the negative, because you offered something to actually respond to.


Intelligent men assume that a statement was made for a reason and if they disagree, they state the reasons why.

And now you're blaming me for your error. That's kinda sad, innit?

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 11:48 AM
85. Amused - you know what they say about trying to argue with the intellectually challenged - "Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

pudge "argues" like a liberal - cowardly and passive aggressive. His constant moving of the goal posts is dishonest and unseemly.

No wonder he gets no respect - from either side...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 25, 2009 03:26 PM
86. Alphabet, it's no wonder you like Amused, you argue like him: no argument, no substance, just personal attack and vitriol.

I defy you to give a single example of me moving the goalposts. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 03:29 PM
87. Why don't you go ahead and hold your breath - you appear to like it and it would be the single smartest contribution to the discussion you're provided thus far...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 25, 2009 04:02 PM
88. Pudge,

Sotomayor's own statement was her expressed belief that "her experiences as a Latina" established her declared inherent superiority as a "Latina woman."

Your tactics are stupid and counter intuitive and your reluctance to engage in debate honestly and rationally on this and many other issues are reason why I stated at one point that Pudge is . . . well . . . Pudge is Pudge (stupid).

Since your reasoning ability matches the quality of your music, I will mostly snicker at it and regard your comments with the same academic weight I do those of Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives), and on the off day when you actually contribute something worthy of notice, I will henceforth assume that you are only [once again] plagiarizing the works of someone else.

Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Blowhards on July 25, 2009 04:09 PM
89. Pudge,

Sotomayor's own statement was her expressed belief that "her experiences as a Latina" established her declared inherent superiority as a "Latina woman."

Your tactics are stupid and counter intuitive and your reluctance to engage in debate honestly and rationally on this and many other issues are reason why I stated at one point that Pudge is . . . well . . . Pudge is Pudge (stupid).

Since your reasoning ability matches the quality of your music, I will mostly snicker at it and regard your comments with the same academic weight I do those of Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives), and on the off day when you actually contribute something worthy of notice, I will henceforth assume that you are only [once again] plagiarizing the works of someone else.

Thanks

Posted by: Amused by Blowhards on July 25, 2009 04:11 PM
90. Alphabet: shrug. I called your bluff.

Amused: Sotomayor's own statement was her expressed belief that "her experiences as a Latina" established her declared inherent superiority as a "Latina woman."

So? You are seriously confused. YOU SAID that she based it on race. I SAID, no, she based it on her EXPERIENCES that are RELATED to her race. Now you're just agreeing with me, and then saying it like you're somehow proving something to me that I haven't said all along.


Your tactics are stupid and counter intuitive

False.


your reluctance to engage in debate honestly and rationally on this and many other issues ...

... doesn't exist. What does exist is the fact that you keep losing arguments and then personally attacking me to deflect attention from it.

You're a sad little man.

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 04:33 PM
91. Pudge: False

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 25, 2009 04:37 PM
92. Soup,

Where Sotomayor stated that "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 .. . Pudge insists that Sotomayor " was NOT expressing a belief." Therefore Sotomayor is not a racist.

Brilliant eh?
Makes as much sense as his insistence that "arbitrary by definition is the absence of rationale."

Pudge is a pseudo intellectual dumb shit who can dish it out but can't take it.

Posted by: Amused by Blowhards on July 25, 2009 05:17 PM
93. Amused: Where Sotomayor stated that "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 .. . Pudge insists that Sotomayor " was NOT expressing a belief." Therefore Sotomayor is not a racist.

You're lying. I said no such thing.

Keep it up and you'll be banned from my posts like Jensen is.

Posted by: pudge on July 25, 2009 07:52 PM
94. Alphabet, your lying and off-topic and fallacious comment has been removed, and any future posts from you will be removed for the indefinite future. You offer nothing of value. Good bye.

Posted by: pudge on July 26, 2009 02:12 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?