Yes, I understand that. The point I am making, however, is that the polling numbers among Republicans point to the Sotomayor nomination breaking down into a pretty decent wedge issue against their own Party rather than a “rallying point”.

On any given “morale-building” issue, there always seems to be about 30% of the Republicans who aren’t “on board”. That’s a lot for a Party with a such a strongly top-down organisation and tight messaging.

Considering the source, it’s almost like winning an Academy Award to be called names by you. There is no higher praise.

They like me. They REALLY like me! I’d like to thank all the Little People who made this award possible, starting with with the littlest, Jay.

If you saw me in my daily life and who I spend my time with, you would have a hard time making any claim of racism on my part stick. I go to places where the only other white guys have badges and guns, and they wouldn’t go there without them.

Thank you, Thurgood Marshall! Did you forget about him?

Gad you’re an idiot and your historical knowledge is extremely poor. Oh and your statement is racist to boot.

You laughingly criticize Thomas for no asking questions, but reveal your poor knowledge of Supreme Court history by thanking Thurgood Marshall, a justice who like Thomas, often was silent during oral arguments.

Thomas does write opinions. In fact, he will often write opinions even when siding with the majority. He, like Justice Stevens also writes his own opinions.

The attacks that Thomas just sides (they don’t ‘vote’) with other conservative Justices, in particular Antonin Scalia is nothing but latent racisn, as if a conservative black justice must be nothing but a puppet of like-minded white peers.

Frank, stop pretending that you know anything.

But no, right winger Clarence Thomas was fast to pull up the ladder behind him.

Right winger Clarence Thomas follows the Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas

Who has been paid while barely participating in the proceedings. He doesn’t ask questions, he doesn’t write opinions, and he votes with the other four every time. He is a member of a minority, but whether he is a member of the SCOTUS is open to question.

Thank you, Thurgood Marshall! Did you forget about him?

Still, you were right to question “consultation” for Supreme Court Justices. You’ve just exposed another fissure b/t Bush and his base. Wanna have a say about who goes on the court? Win a f#$($in election!! SaveFarris, Jan. 31, 2006

If you insist!

“No they didn’t bring up legitimate issues Jay so there!” Granted, I added the “so there” but that’s essentially what you said.

You really ought to read all the way to the end of my comments, Jay. There was quite a bit after the part that made it through the tough outer layer of your skull:

No, they didn’t bring up “legitimate issues” Jay. They–and you–brought up 32 words from one speech given 9 years ago, stripped of all context. If you want to know anything about Ms. Sotomayor’s “views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct,” there is an abundant record. Her detractors take pains to ignore it.

I see. If a Republican says it about a Supreme Court nominee, it’s “valid criticism.” If a Democrat says it, it’s a “high tech lynching.”

That about cover it?

Let’s rewind the tape, Jay. Here’s what you wrote that prompted my response:

and they’ve brought up legitimate issues regarding her views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct.

Now have Ms. Sotomayor’s critics brought up anything other than her 32-word quip as “legitimate issues regarding her views on race”? If so, you can win the day right here. Give us a list of the “legitimate issues.” On the other hand, if all you’re giving her critics credit for is this one quote (OK, two if you consider that she said it twice) then all your woofing is for naught. Your “legitimate issue” is a 32-word quote.

No, it just means that you’re bitching about people raising valid concerns about Sotomayors record and possible judicial temperament and writing it off as nothing but cheap politics. “No they didn’t bring up legitimate issues Jay so there!” Granted, I added the “so there” but that’s essentially what you said.

In this instance, you’re calling one group “intellectual lightweights” because you say they’re making a phony charge of racism. At the same time you give Republican shouters a pass for doing even worse.

Wrong. They are two different scenarios. Valid criticism is shouted down by claims of racism because that’s easier to do than to rebut the criticism itself. Newt Gingrich didn’t fend off criticism but criticized her by saying she was racist because of the statement she made in her speech. Is he right? I don’t think he is. But her comment certainly demands to be explained in more detail. As I said though, if a white man had made the same comment about a black person, that would have been the end of it. And no, Samuel Alito’s comments were nothing like that. At all. It’s stupid to compare the two.

You like that word, blubbering. The way you use it, though, it seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. In this sense, it seems to mean: Won’t accept Jay’s word as final and beyond question. If that’s what you were going for, then I am, indeed, blubbering.

Unreal. You sit there and attempt to lecture me about context and then you supply a retort based on something I wrote yet totally taking it out of context.

Then don’t just sit there. Add context. I know it’s not something you’re accustomed to doing, but I believe you can do it!

In this instance, you’re calling one group “intellectual lightweights” because you say they’re making a phony charge of racism. At the same time you give Republican shouters a pass for doing even worse.

Does your logical trickery take work or has it become effortless with repetition?

Okay, Jay.

Sotomayor’s speech is not about how she, herself, is incapable of being impartial as you wrote above:

Her entire speech (and yes I read the entire thing) comes off even worse as she essentially admits that she cannot be impartial in her rulings …

The speech is, rather, about the impossibility of impartiality, period. Now the question of whether it is possible for any human being to be truly objective in any matter is is a philosophical question that has been debated from time immemorial. If you want to jump in an argue that perfect impartiality and objectivity is possible in a judge, then go for it.

But you have to start your “intense scrutiny” a step prior to accusing Sotomayor of making decisions based on her race and gender. To do otherwise, is the behavior of an intellectual lightweight.

It is only after Sotomayor has stated her position on the impossibility of impartiality, that she proceeds to identify some of the factors that may and do influence a judge’s decisions:

Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

So Jay, before freaking out about the last sentence of the graph above, what is your position on the first?

Do you believe that personal experience affects the way judges makes sense of the cases before them?

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

If you choose to sit there and continue blubbering that Republicans are just being big meanies and have not raised valid concerns, be my guest.

…but shouting “racism” is OK when it’s done by Republican leaders? Nice.

Unreal. You sit there and attempt to lecture me about context and then you supply a retort based on something I wrote yet totally taking it out of context.

Nice work.

In much the same way that Sam Alito said he also is a human and has biases.