President Obama to announce Supreme Court pick at 9:15am

[ChumpDumper]

It proves she's racist against all races!

[Winehole23]

solid info

wonder how yoni, wc and the rush honks will try to spin this

They'll just ignore it and keep griping about Ricci.

[Bender]

my complaint is mostly regarding obama. His picking of a hispanic was a good move for him... makes himself look good to a huge base, and the repubs look bad to that same huge base... when they about his pick.

regarding the judge herself, she seems middle of the road in terms of some things I care about, so... could be worse.

[Blake]

my complaint is mostly regarding obama. His picking of a hispanic was a good move for him...

McCain's picking of Palin was a good move for America......right?

[MannyIsGod]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself?

[Yonivore]

link

I can't find a credible source to confirm this story.

Even the great cesspool of BDS sufferers, DemocratUnderground.com, says Capitol Hill Blue isn't to be believed...even though many of the posters really, really, really, wanted to believe it was.

[Winehole23]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself?

I thought it was more of an observation. Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

If you're for the principled opposition, this is a disappointing turn of events

[Bender]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself?

yep. not sure about sotomayer yet, since I'm not an expert in the field (like others here ). It looks like (at least for gun rights and stuff) "could be better, could be worse...").

I'm just not entrenched in the obama camp. the rest of you can sing his praises until the end of time... won't change my opinion.

of course, I haven't liked any president for quite a while...

edit:

I thought it was more of an observation. Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

bingo. (didn't see WH's post before I typed mine).

[PixelPusher]

Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

principled opposition != she's dumb, she's racist, she's an affirmative action puppet, she doesn't save enough money in her bank savings account, she likes puerto rican food...

[Winehole23]

principled opposition != she's dumb, she's racist, she's an affirmative action puppet, she doesn't save enough money in her bank savings account, she likes puerto rican food...

Intended as cliche, not analysis. Sessions and Cornyn managed to strike appropriately Senatorial poses, not that they will be much emulated.

[Marcus Bryant]

I can't find a credible source to confirm this story.

Even the great cesspool of BDS sufferers, DemocratUnderground.com, says Capitol Hill Blue isn't to be believed...even though many of the posters really, really, really, wanted to believe it was.

That's rather amusing, considering how you treat the penny ante blogs you plagiarize as the Gospel Truth.

[Yonivore]

That's rather amusing, considering how you treat the penny ante blogs you plagiarize as the Gospel Truth.

Really? Give me an example of when I've done that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Really? Give me an example of when I've done that.

Post #291.

[Yonivore]

Post #291.

Ackarman did those things.

[LnGrrrR]

It's one thing to have questions about decisions that are tough ones to make. Obama's pick is a bad one, simply because there is no excuse for the overt abuse of her power.

It's plain as day she is an activist judge. Justice is suppose to be blind to emotion, and be based on facts. Anyone who thinks she is a good pick placed agenda above integrity.

How do you live with yourselves?

How is she an activist judge? You saw her case record... in how many cases is she advocating for overturning a law?

[LnGrrrR]

Coming back inside, I was able to quickly find this:


Too many wrong decisions. Not gray, but flat out wrong.

Link: Inside Sotomayor's Judicial Record; Friday, May 29, 2009

You're a putz. FWDT already noted in another thread that the average SCOTUS turnover was around 75% IIRC.

So what, you expect a nominee who's never had a case overturned by SCOTUS? What are you LOOKING for?

Let's see your criteria for a judge. You already tried to make the fact that she got overturned unanimously a criteria against her and got owned all over the thread.

Cmon, give us the criteria.

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, what about the Pappas case?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../01/sotomayor/

[Yonivore]

Yoni, what about the Pappas case?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../01/sotomayor/

I've never accused her of "disregarding the law" in favor of racism. She'd be an imbecile -- certainly unworthy of nomination -- if that were true.

What I'm accusing her of, as is the dissenting judge Cabranes, and the Obama DOJ with their amicus brief, is not considering the clear and present cons utional issue that had never been taken up by the court; and of failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

I think she did this because of a mindset that whites cannot be discriminated against. I think this is wrong and I think it belies racist thinking.

In short, it never occurred to her -- and she either ignored or resisted the Cabranes dissent -- that by failing to certify the unbiased, race-neutral firefighter's exam, resulting in the failure to promote a mostly white group of men who passed the test (in deference to a group of black men, none of whom passed the test), is racist.

It was Cabranes opinion, and the Obama DOJ's, that a core cons utional question was present and that certain statutory questions were not answered. It was also Cabranes opinion that by summarily finding for the defense and, completely incorporating the lower court's ruling, the 2nd Circuit had introduced some pretty shoddy jurisprudence into case law.

Yeah, I think she was either lazy or let her prejudices rule the day...that day.

[ChumpDumper]

So she's not activist enough for you. We get it.

[LnGrrrR]

I've never accused her of "disregarding the law" in favor of racism. She'd be an imbecile -- certainly unworthy of nomination -- if that were true.

What I'm accusing her of, as is the dissenting judge Cabranes, and the Obama DOJ with their amicus brief, is not considering the clear and present cons utional issue that had never been taken up by the court; and of failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

I think she did this because of a mindset that whites cannot be discriminated against. I think this is wrong and I think it belies racist thinking.

In short, it never occurred to her -- and she either ignored or resisted the Cabranes dissent -- that by failing to certify the unbiased, race-neutral firefighter's exam, resulting in the failure to promote a mostly white group of men who passed the test (in deference to a group of black men, none of whom passed the test), is racist.

It was Cabranes opinion, and the Obama DOJ's, that a core cons utional question was present and that certain statutory questions were not answered. It was also Cabranes opinion that by summarily finding for the defense and, completely incorporating the lower court's ruling, the 2nd Circuit had introduced some pretty shoddy jurisprudence into case law.

Yeah, I think she was either lazy or let her prejudices rule the day...that day.

Ok, I can see your point now. I respectfully disagree but at least you clearly spelled it out.

[Yonivore]

Ok, I can see your point now. I respectfully disagree but at least you clearly spelled it out.

No problem. Reasonable people do, on occasion, disagree.