Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

[Westside Steve]

And again, your evidence for me "hating Thomas" is what?

 

It's all right there. All of my posts. Quote me.

 

 

Golly Heck.

You were tossing the word "hate" around like you knew what it meant.

I figured you liked it.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

That was a real sorry answer.

 

It's okay, Steve. I get it. But you should probably stop it with the bitching about how other people only follow the party line.

 

I report. You decide.

 

Though just for shits and giggles, you said when Republicans use affirmative action it's "to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."

 

That's a better reason than most no matter who does it.

 

Let's leave aside that you think African-Americans don't see themselves as Americans for now.

 

Actually Heck I recently saw a poll (I can't post it so feel free to just say I made it up and huff and puff) that had a remarkably high number of black respondents say they thought of themselves first in terms of color.

Lots more than Christians and wayyy more than white.

I don't think even you would pretend that doesn't happen. But who knows, you're loath to admit anything.

 

And shall we notethat you did ust the terms "African Americans" and "Americans" so there must be a line somewhere in even your colorblind head.

 

 

What about when Democrats use affirmative action? What's the reason they use it?

 

Pandering to that voting bloc?

 

Plus we'ere off course on the judicial topic maybe a new header is in order.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm just glad we've confirmed the love you have for the benevolent form of Republican-sponsored race-based hiring.

[Westside Steve]

I'm just glad we've confirmed the love you have for the benevolent form of Republican-sponsored race-based hiring.

 

Good.

Someday you may see that it's more beneficial than the payback method.

 

Baby steps Heck.

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032901.asp

 

just for fun

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What's the payback method?

 

I'm learning so much today.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I ask myself this every day.

 

It is fairly informative, though. Steve is like a window into the Republican base. With cobwebs on it.

 

I mean, the guy just admitted, after many, many posts on his distaste for affirmative action, that affirmative action hires are okay if Republicans do it, especially if the person getting the gig doesn't believe in affirmative action.

 

How can you not love that kind of intellectual pretzel?

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"Ha hah, I"m getting my butt kicked and I don't have

 

a leg to stand on, so I'm going to bail or change the subject,

 

since no one has lowered my chair for me..."

[Westside Steve]

I ask myself this every day.

 

It is fairly informative, though. Steve is like a window into the Republican base. With cobwebs on it.

 

I mean, the guy just admitted, after many, many posts on his distaste for affirmative action, that affirmative action hires are okay if Republicans do it, especially if the person getting the gig doesn't believe in affirmative action.

 

Ray Bolger.

 

How can you not love that kind of intellectual pretzel?

 

Yeah Heck you're so smart. Too bad you can't just give a straight answer and expose your bullshit.

 

Actually you changed the subject so you can drone on about racism again and misrepresent what I say to argue against it.

 

And unfortunately a reasonable bright guy like Dan sits down to eat your dinner of straw man with a side of red herring.

And yes Heck affirmitive action hasn't been all that great for Thomas as it allows mugs like you to belittle the guy and exercixst the exact racism you bray about.

 

 

If you feel guilty I suggest therapy.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

How am I belittling the guy by pointing out his qualifications? Those are facts.

 

Even you agreed that race played a role in his hiring. He wasn't particularly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but got the job because he fit what Bush wanted - a black conservative.

 

So when you say race played a role in his hiring it's okay. When I say it played a role in his hiring it's belittling the man and racist.

 

And when Republicans use race to hire someone it's okay because they know what's best for blacks. When Democrats do it it's a crass political move.

 

You're really having an inconsistent couple of days here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for me avoiding you, what would you like to ask me?

[ballpeen]

Just reading the board confirms my feeling the divides in this country are too deep to ever be repaired.

 

I really think we need to return to the idea of a republic of independent states.

 

The south was right 150 years ago, the states should have a much bigger say in the way things are run and be free to run them the way they want.

 

If not, you end up in the quagmire we find today.

 

The best governing takes place every Tuesday down at your local town hall meeting.

 

Has anybody here ever been to one? I would assume so since we have a board full of political experts.

[Westside Steve]

How am I belittling the guy by pointing out his qualifications? Those are facts.

 

What are facts?

 

Even you agreed that race played a role in his hiring.

 

That's my guess. I did not hear Bush's people promising to find a black man.

And that's the "proof" you would demand of me.

 

He wasn't particularly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice,

 

Yes, Heckm, he was. That's the poison premise I won't let you slip through as fact.

 

but got the job because he fit what Bush wanted - a black conservative.

 

And was attacked by some of your party spokesmen as an uncle Tom.

 

So when you say race played a role in his hiring it's okay. When I say it played a role in his hiring it's belittling the man and racist.

 

Again with the bullshit premise.

There is no set of standards he fell short of. You're confusing it with the Ricci case.

 

And when Republicans use race to hire someone it's okay because they know what's best for blacks. When Democrats do it it's a crass political move.

 

And I didn't say that. I say that a justice should represent the American people regardless of race. You don't.

 

 

 

You're really having an inconsistent couple of days here.

 

Not at all.

Unless you count the stuff you make up.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What are facts? His work history. I posted George Bush describing it in his announcement, and I posted it in detail from college through to the nomination.

 

Those are called "facts."

 

And you can't admit that Thomas lacked the traditional resume because it exposes how inconsistent your opinions are. Except that they're inconsistent even if you assume he was traditionally qualified, which he wasn't.

 

You're still arguing for a race-based hire in one situation where it's Republican and you agree with it, and bemoaning it in the situation where it's Democratic and you don't.

 

How is that not inconsistent with your belief that race-based hiring is a bad idea and you don't support it?

[Westside Steve]

What are facts? His work history. I posted George Bush describing it in his announcement, and I posted it in detail from college through to the nomination.

 

Those are called "facts."

 

The facts are that NONE of those benchmarks make a person qualified or not to serve on the supreme court.

That's why the "facts" mean nothing.

Brady Quinn is better qualified to quarterback a professional team than Ben Roethlisburger.

 

And you can't admit that Thomas lacked the traditional resume because it exposes how inconsistent your opinions are. Except that they're inconsistent even if you assume he was traditionally qualified, which he wasn't.

 

You're still arguing for a race-based hire in one situation where it's Republican and you agree with it, and bemoaning it in the situation where it's Democratic and you don't.

 

 

Well you're wrong and won't admit it.

Oh it's better if I agree with it but I never made that point.

A burglary is BETTER than a burglary AND an ass whipping.

 

 

WSS

[ballpeen]

Heck....Thomas was qualified.

 

Just a few weeks ago the president or his people were saying the candidates didn't need to be a lawyer or have judicial experience.

 

It helps to be a legal mind since your rulings have to follow points of law, but you aren't really ruling on points of law so much as you are deciding if a law or proposed law or issue is constitutional.

 

I don't question this womans qualifications...I simply question her agenda....and trust me, my mind isn't set at this point.

 

I just feel there is a all out attack on the constitution. It isn't a living, breathing document as some claim.

 

If we keep altering it, we might as well just throw the thing out as it will become nowhere near what the founding father envisioned.

 

Just be honest about it....say it isn't worth a damn and needs to be changed, rather than this bit by bit assault.

[heckofajobbrownie]

If you can't see the difference between Roberts' or Ginsberg's and Sotomayor's qualifications to be on the Court versus Thomas' I don't know what to tell you. You're being purposefully stubborn, and just because you underline something it doesn't change the fact that it's not true. The Supreme Court, like all jobs - even more than most jobs, of course - usually requires substantial experience in the higher rungs of the legal system. And Thomas only had one year of experience in that system, and the totality of his experience isn't terribly impressive, at least in terms of a Supreme Court Justice. You're arguing a point that isn't controversial, and one that even his defenders would readily admit.

 

Or how about this: ask Tupa is Thomas had the traditional resume and see what he says. I can guarantee you he'll happily admit that Thomas was traditionally underqualified for the Court and Bush wanted to fill the Marshall seat with another black judge, even if he might contend that Thomas has turned into a capable justice.

 

The better analogy would be that a pitcher in double A isn't as ready to start a major league game as a guy who's pitched in the league for 6 seasons.

 

Of course, what's missing from this discussion is that I don't think Bush was wrong to put another black on the Court to replace Thurgood Marshall. I think it made sense.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Thomas was picked because he was black. He was not the best candidate for the job. He still wouldnt have been in 2004 (and I'm including his 2 decades on the Court). I do think he was qualified for the position, but there is no objective way to say that he was more qualified than any of the sitting justices or Judge Sotomayor.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

Or how about this: ask Tupa is Thomas had the traditional resume and see what he says. I can guarantee you he'll happily admit that Thomas was traditionally underqualified for the Court and Bush wanted to fill the Marshall seat with another black judge, even if he might contend that Thomas has turned into a capable justice.

 

The better analogy would be that a pitcher in double A isn't as ready to start a major league game as a guy who's pitched in the league for 6 seasons.

 

Nah. More like a doctor from Harverd is a better doctor than one from NEOCOM.

 

And as much as we all love Tupa do you personally buy into every position he takes?

If not why annoy th guy now?

 

 

Plus if that's really and truly your criteria what made Robert Bork "unqualified?"

Or Alito and Roberts in the mind of the , uh, president?

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

[ballpeen]

. He was not the best candidate for the job.

 

Not saying he was.....simply saying he was qualified.

 

I doubt you could say this woman is the most qualified.

 

[Guest Aloysius]

Thomas has admitted that he struggled during his first year or two on the job. And I don't know enough to judge whether this is accurate, but some court watchers say that it took four to five years before Thomas started to part ways a bit with Scalia. One of his first clerks was a guy who clerked for Scalia the previous year.

 

A good deal of judicial experience definitely makes the job easier. And Sotomayor's got a ton of it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'll apologize to him for it.

 

And no, we don't share always share the same opinion, but we can generally agree on the obvious facts and realities of the issues.

 

And since he's a legal expert and familiar with the court, I'm happy to let him weigh in on this. Hey, maybe you're right - maybe being a legislative aide, chairman of the EEOC, and being a judge for a year is the traditional Supreme Court resume.

 

Maybe that is as relevant as John Roberts' experience, which included personally arguing 30+ cases before the Supreme Court, or Sotomayor's 17 years on the bench, or Ginsberg's 13.

 

Hey, maybe you're right.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Me: And when Republicans use race to hire someone it's okay because they know what's best for blacks. When Democrats do it it's a crass political move.

 

You: And I didn't say that."

 

Really? You didn't? That's me mischaracterizing you? Well, let's take a look.

 

I asked you if you thought race was clearly a factor in Thomas' hiring. You said:

 

"And I'm sure it was.

I'm sure the Republican party wants to get African Americans to start joining and thinking of themselves as Americans."

Which puzzled me. So I asked you "What about when Democrats use affirmative action? What's the reason they use it?" You said:

 

"Pandering to that voting bloc?"

 

Doesn't look to me like I've mischaracterized you at all.

 

[calfoxwc]

Heck, you either are lying out your high chair wazoo, or you are just ignorant.

 

 

I figure you don't read and comprehend well, because you think Thomas was not

 

qualified. BS.

 

Consider from the following excerpt:

 

"And you had Professor Drew

Days of the Yale Law School who, although he opposed Judge

Thomas, thought he was educationally and intellectually qualified."

 

"And then you had Dean Calabrese of the Yale Law School who was

at Yale in the teaching field, although he did not have Clarence

Thomas as a student when he was at Yale, and all of those individuals

give him pretty high marks in terms of base qualifications."

 

"Well, you would disagree with Dean Calabrese

who said that he at least may not measure up to the Cardozo-

Holmes standard, but Dean Calabrese insisted that he at least

measured up, if not better than, the other recent appointees."

 

Consider this an education, and STOP saying Thomas was not

qualified to be on the Court.

 

You are so partisan you are making a fool of yourself.

 

Just because a leftwing, Marxist, sexist, racist nominee has

outstanding experience, how the heyl do you explain

that she so was ignorant that she ruled against the 2nd Amendment,

contrary to the existing Supreme Court?

 

She isn't very smart or bright, to be so dense as to not take into

consideration the 14th Amendment.

 

Maybe Heck the High Chair boy needs to go potty?

 

Down the virtual hall on the Left.

 

*****************************************

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/j...pt2/907-908.pdf

 

cuit, a very distinguished jurist who knew Judge Thomas for many

years, or they sat on the board of Holy Cross and had some detailed

of the individual and his legal qualifications, read all of his

opinions before coming to testify. And you had Professor Drew

Days of the Yale Law School who, although he opposed Judge

Thomas, thought he was educationally and intellectually qualified.

And then you had Dean Calabrese of the Yale Law School who was

at Yale in the teaching field, although he did not have Clarence

Thomas as a student when he was at Yale, and all of those individuals

give him pretty high marks in terms of base qualifications.

Why should we not accept their approach, Mr. Chambers, as opposed

to your analysis?

Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, first of all, Senator Specter, I listened to

some of that testimony and I am not certain how high a mark they

gave him, but let's make that assumption. But I ask you to look at

the Justices we have listed here in this exhibit, at the litigation experience

or practice of law experience, at the teaching experience,

at the judicial experience they have had, at the status they had obtained

in the legal field, and make a comparison with Judge

Thomas.

I think if one wants to look at the Constitution and talk about

what the standard is as what we have developed to judge candidates

for the bench for, and in that instance I think the ABA said

that Judge Thomas was qualified.

But, if we are trying to develop a Court, or preserve a Court that

has been responsive to the issues that have been brought before it,

that had people who were really exceptional as we collect here in

this exhibit, Judge Thomas doesn't measure up, and that is what

we are presenting with this exhibit.

Senator SPECTER. Well, you would disagree with Dean Calabrese

who said that he at least may not measure up to the Cardozo-

Holmes standard, but Dean Calabrese insisted that he at least

measured up, if not better than, the other recent appointees.

But you would disagree with that as well?

Mr. CHAMBERS. Again, I would call your attention to this exhibit,

and according to this exhibit and looking at the objective standards

we are trying to use in the exhibit, the answer is no.

Senator SPECTER. Well, your exhibit picks seven standards, but

you might pick some others. You might pick a totality. But I would

be interested in the answer to that question as to your agreement

or disagreement with what Dean Calabrese said, that Judge

Thomas is at least as good as the recent appointees.

Mr. CHAMBERS. AS the recent?

Senator SPECTER. Appointees to the Supreme Court of the United

States.

Mr. CHAMBERS. If that is what Dean Calabrese said, I would

think that that is not the way I would evaluate Judge Thomas'

qualifications.

Senator SPECTER. I would like to discuss a number of the areas

with you, but the yellow light is on, so let me instead turn to Mr.

Lucy on one question.

Mr. Lucy went to the Yale article which Judge Thomas wrote,

the Yale Law and Policy Review, and picked out his writings on

Judge Thomas' disagreement on affirmative action. I note there

908

that Judge Thomas has opposed affirmative action most of the

time, except to a very limited extent on preferences in education,

and he has opposed the class preferences because he says that for

the minorities whom they benefit—and this is what you had read—

they foster the view of disability or being in need of handouts, and

for the individuals who are being replaced they promote a feeling

of being replaced by someone who doesn't have as high test scores.

And then he emphasizes the point of increase on racial divisiveness.

Those are in the context of footnote 3 that you cited.

Now, whether or not you agree with his conclusion that affirmative

action is undesirable, when you take his reasons for being opposed

to that, would you not say that there was at least a reasonable

basis for his conclusion?

Mr. LUCY. I think, Senator, if you look at what the serious problems

are that caused the establishment of EEOC itself and some of

the provisions of the law, the question of whether affirmative

action is designed to bring about remedies or designed to prevent

others from being injured, Mr. Thomas placed more emphasis on

the issue of reverse discrimination than on carrying out the mandate

of his agency. And whether or not he had a reasonable basis

for that judgment may well be true. I can't say what was the basis

of his concern.

But the basis of my concern, and for millions of other workers, is

that there be some process by which fairness can be brought to

those who have been disadvantaged by systematic discrimination,

and the charge of EEOC it would seem to me is not only to promote

affirmative action as a remedy for past discrimination, but

also to be fair in providing remedies where it has been established

that there has been injury to groups.

My reading of Mr. Thomas is that it was defensive of (a) the individual

injury to individuals, and a defense against reverse discrimination.

Senator SPECTER. If I just might make one comment in closing,

because my time is up. Not saying that I agree with Judge Thomas,

but I think he does more than focus on reverse discrimination. He

focuses very hard on discrimination. He has said some very powerful

things about believing that discrimination was as bad in 1987

when he made his speech as it was when Chief Justice Taney decided

Dred Scott, but he deals with discrimination on an individual

basis. And when he comes to the group action he finds as a policy

decision these factors which lead him to a contrary conclusion.

Mr. LUCY. Well, Senator, I would only say that these provisions

were not put into the law just sort of willy-nilly. There was a great

deal of discussion, debate, and I am sure thought by those in the

Congress who, in fact, enacted the legislation, and I am sure they

concerned themselves with the possibilities of others being injured

as a result of, not preferential treatment, but really affirmative

action to correct past wrongs.

Again, I think this is much more of an instance of Mr. Thomas

assuming and asserting his judgment as opposed to the intent of

the law to start.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Simon.

May 27, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, funny you should post that. I never said he wasn't "educationally and intellectually qualified". I believe he was, and is.

 

But there's a reason that they speak of his education and his intellect and not his work experience - because what he lacked was a thick resume.

 

And that's what I'm been claiming all along. He didn't have what is generally considered to be the type of experience you want in a Supreme Court Justice, certainly when compared to other potential nominees. That's just a fact.

 

I'm not claiming that Yale Law isn't a premier law school, or that he's not a smart man.

 

But thanks for clearing that up.

[Westside Steve]

I'll apologize to him for it.

 

And no, we don't share always share the same opinion, but we can generally agree on the obvious facts and realities of the issues.

 

So when you're at loggerheads you defer to his superior wisdom?

 

And since he's a legal expert and familiar with the court, I'm happy to let him weigh in on this. Hey, maybe you're right - maybe being a legislative aide, chairman of the EEOC, and being a judge for a year is the traditional Supreme Court resume.

 

I guess he should have spent a few weeks as a community organizer...

 

Maybe that is as relevant as John Roberts' experience, which included personally arguing 30+ cases before the Supreme Court, or Sotomayor's 17 years on the bench, or Ginsberg's 13.

 

Or Robert Bork...

 

Hey, maybe you're right.

 

Well I must be if Obama is qualified to be president huh?

 

And shall we say that the Heck guidelines don't seem to be the ones the president follows who felt Alito and Roberts were unqualified.

 

Would you agree with that?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you're really struggling here, straying off topic, grasping at straws. Now we're back to Obama's qualifications to be president, as if that's germane here.

 

I've already told you that I disagreed with Obama's decision to vote against Alito, and particularly Roberts. But we're not talking about the totality of why someone might vote for or against a nominee. We're having a discussion about why you feel that race-based hires are okay in certain circumstances, when certain people do it, but not in others. And the dividing line seems to be party.

 

You've got a minority hire who was certainly less qualified in terms of his resume, and that's okay with you.

 

You've got a minority hire now who does have the depth of experience traditionally seen on the court, and that type of hire is not okay with you.

 

All why you've consistently pledged that race-based hiring is a pernicious evil that must never be countenanced.

 

So when are race-based hires okay with you?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Will Wilkerson:

 

"So I was hoping for a relatively centrist liberal who sees some merit in libertarian arguments, especially about the protection of economic rights. As far as I can tell, there is nothing especially worrying about Sotomayor. She’s obviously super-qualified. And from what I’ve read, she seems like a highly competent, fairly moderate liberal who sticks pretty close to the law (which nobody really likes when they don’t like the law!) and is perfectly willing to side with Republican-appointed judges when that seems to her the right thing to do. What are people going batshit crazy over? I don’t get it. And I really don’t get why many Republicans have taken this opportunity to reinforce the already widespread impression that they are morally odious morons. God, I hate politics."

 

[ballpeen]

Still on Thomas I see.

 

Complete diversionary tactic.

 

Talk about the bimbo.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The bimbo being ...Sotomayor?

[calfoxwc]

Sotomayor is now being classed as a "monster" by attorneys who have been in her courts.

 

She sucks and should step down now.

 

In fact, due to Obama's failed policies and breaking his oath about defending our Constitution...

 

he should also step down now.