Pity the poor downtrodden white conservative male.

It would be so much more dignified if they just got up on their soap box and jumped up and down - you know, the way Rush Limbaugh did at the CPAC convention.

That's just fine. Let the Republican party show its racist ass for all to see. They could only get 1/3rd of the Hispanic voters in 2008. If they keep this up, they'll be lucky to get 1/4th in 2010.

Nothingmuch has it exactly right. Steve Benen's got a great post on the subject this morning also.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/conservative-reaction-to-sotomayor-will-frustrate-efforts-to-remake-gop/

The point being: Obama could have gone with any number of white men or women that would have made it more difficult for winguts to scream "reverse racism!" and so forth. He didn't. He went right for the jugular with both middle fingers extended, naming the one person guaranteed to throw the right wing into paroxysms of outrage, thereby backing them further and further into their corner of irrelevance. You think hispanics don't like to vote for the GOP now? Just wait till 2010. The Sotomayor pick is political leadership of a very high order.

http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

???

not to be outdone on the downright nasty, hypocritical racism front, Cato's Ilya Shapiro - given bandwidth by CNN.com - claims that Sotomayor was clearly "not a merit pick" and "would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hhispanic."

He goes on to claim that in her years on the bench she has never excelled or had a noteworthy case or been a notable judicial intellectual. He compares her disfavorably in that regard to Scalia. He claims she is not as bright as Kagan (likely true, but had Kagen been nominated, Ilya would be complaining of her lack of judicial experience) or Judge Wood (a questionable claim - I've seen mixed reviews of both of them).

But he cant find any examples other than Scalia. . . perhaps because Alito, Thomas, Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and frankly many many other recent justices and nominees (Doug Ginsburg comes to mind) also were not particularly noteworthy on the bench. Indeed, the best way to be noteworthy on the bench is to be political, self-aggrandizing or controversial (like Scalia).

It only matters, however, when it is (a) the nominee of a Democratic president and (b) when it is a woman, minority or both.

If this is the best Cato has got, the Right does, indeed, need a new intellectual infrastructure. And if any of this gets traction, the US doesn't deserve to be self-governing.

Pity the poor downtrodden white conservative male.

Ah, yes, "the Jew of liberal facism"...

A creature like Goldfarb has always been a scoundrel, so anywhere you find him is a refuge for same.

What's hilarious about Goldfarb's drivel is that we've just experienced 8 years of catastrophic "leadership" from perhaps the biggest "recipient of preferential treatment for most of his life" legacy-student frat-boy white affirmative action beneficiary this country has ever seen.

Kind of relates to the previous post. We'd stop knocking down straw men if the Right could come up with reasoned, intelligent (or even intelligible) arguments instead of the drivel that they give us.

The belief behind all of these comments is that only a white man can be truly impartial, which is more racist than anything Sotamayor has ever written or said.
Unless the particular minority was nominated by a Republican, in which case "empathy" and personal background are all great.

Speaking as a white male, I can assure everyone that my race and gender, and my experience as part of the group that has dominated American culture for generations, has no impact whatsoever on my expectation that I will always get whatever I want even at the expense of people who are not white and people who are not male. If you can't understand I am entitled to always getting my way, then perhaps you are not a real American.

(My comment is sarcasm. I'm delighted at the Sotomayor nomination.)

I'm sure you're all scrambling to defend her position on the New Haven Fire Dept. case:

blank-slate racism.

Sonia Sotomayor WAS an affirmative action pick.

That doesn't make it a bad pick.

But you need to face reality.

There is a pretty high bar that you need to clear to be considered for the Supreme Court. None of the people reading this post come close to clearing that bar.

There are probably dozens of white guys who clear the bar. There are probably dozens of people who aren't white guys who clear that bar.

Several dozen people out of 300 million is not a large group to choose from.

Obama picked someone who is qualified. He took many things into account. He picked someone who was confirmed by the Senate already, fairly young and in fairly good health.

History will look at this pick as a good one or a bad one depending on how she does on the Court.

Right now, Sotomayor appears as qualified as anyone. The fact that one of the many criteria was that the candidate was a woman is a minor point. But it still is a fact.

The Republicans are doing what they best know how to do - whine. Sotomayor will be confirmed. That is almost certain. As for me, I am already sick of this subject and wish that we could all just move-on.

Michael Goldfarb, after scrutinizing Sotomayor's efforts as an undergrad in 1974, suggested this morning that Sotomayor "has been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life."

That a Republican who supported George W. "Bootstraps" Bush for eight years could write that without suffering an aneurysm from the pent up irony is really something. Either conservatives really are the most unselfconscious people on earth, or this guy is just a particularly dishonest, douchebag hack. In this case, I'll go with douchebag hack.

Waaaah! Why don't you only post long policy discussions on this blog instead of political posts? What do you think this is, a politics blog? Isn't this called "Policy Animal"? It's not? Well, I'm gonna whine about it anyway! Waah!

The real problem is conservatives fear court chambers will start to smell like a burrito. They just won't say it........

It's tempting to react with shock at the falsehoods told by these people, but if one thinks of the right-wing noise as being basically driven by the need for funding, one is less surprised by it. There's a host of think tanks and consultants out there, all of them needing to fund their expensive offices and way of life. So the points they make are calculated to arouse the maximum hysteria among the donor base. That is why the points are so predictable and monotonous, also why they often have no relation to truth. The game is just to keep pushing the reliable paranoia buttons, so that the checks keep coming in. They'll do this even though they recognize there's little chance of blocking Sotomayor's nomination.

If by affirmative action one means, "Yes we can," then there is no controversy! If, however, affirmative action is served up as a negative by people of privilege, their souls will be seen by all as nothing more than schrill old white men yelling loudly at the changed world around them! -Kevo

Let's be clear about the meaning of identity politics.

The choice of an ethnic candidate contains an intrinsic political innoculation: senators will vote against them at their peril for fear of alienating the ethnic constituency, regardless of the objective merits of the candidate.

This has the bottom line effect of chilling the debate, subduing or silencing discussion of critical issues that are key to a justice's reasoning like the New Haven reverse-racism case I posted above.

One of the wingnut commenters said that we shouldn't be forced to pronounce her name properly.
Really, let them follow this route and amplify their comments. Then watch them lose the hispanic vote for the rest of my life. Nothing would make me happier.
As a white man, I find this victimhood complex among white conservatives pretty pathetic. The very thing they supposedly despise when it comes from racial minorities.

I think the crazies are about to get a lot crazier. We're reaping the harvest of a generation of affirmative action. School 25-30 years ago took affirmative action to open higher ed opportunities to folks who heretofore had barriers put in their path. And what do we see? Some of them study hard, graudate summa from Princeton and win the Pyne prize, go to Yale Law and become an editor of the law review. They enjoy great careers capping it off on the Supreme Court [or they go to Columbia, Harvard and the White House].

It is the great American success story and it's not just for white ethnics anymore. What the crazies are going crazy about is the fact that affirmative action worked. African Americans and Hispanics given the same opportunities can succeed the same (and in spectacular cases can succeed spectacularly) as any other Americans.

Which means that Americans are willing to accept the simple fact that America peope of color are, you know, American. And that's what's driving the crazies crazy.

Neil -

As I have explained at great length here on several occasions and will not repeat, your argument (and to an even greater degree the argument of those like Ilya Shapiro to which I linked) is premised on there being some narrow objective set of criteria to be "qualified" to be a Justice. To summarize my point, I do not think the number so few as to be in the dozens; more likely in the hundreds, who have some minimal mix of qualifications to be a legit Supreme Court contender. Once you are in that cloud, however, of basic ability and background, the "tie breaker" has to be on something else. And lets be honest, for most every President for generations that "something" has been politics. Shared judicial politics, domestic electoral politics, confirmation politics, pressures re the balance of the court ideologically, demographically, geographically etc. That does not make this an "affirmative action hire."

Ellen -

You have no idea what you are talking about. You want a judge that follows the law? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - one of those statutes you want judges following the letter of - expressly and as it has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court prohibits job testing or other screening criteria that has "disparate impact" on a protected class. If all men pass a test that all women fail, for example, there is a legal presumption that the test may be slanted and the burden shifts to the employer to prove the test is both fair and narrowly job related. What Sotomayor (to be fair, a panel of three judges of which she was one) did was the height of conservative adjudication: she followed the law as it exists, and by simply affirming the lower court without comment they were as anti-activist as you can get.

Even the likely reason is very conservative. It is well known in the law that bad facts - facts that are extreme or unusual or particularly emotional - often make bad law. They result in strongly worded opinions that are broadly applicable even though the fact pattern cannot readily be generalized to other cases. If the 2nd Circuit panel thought that was what they were faced with, saying as little as possible - resisting the chance of making bad law due to the extreme facts - it was a very smart, self-aware, ego-less, conservative course of action.

your complaint is what, exactly, other than that your old white dude lost in November so the nominee is a center-left judge instead of a rabid Regency grad?

This has the bottom line effect of chilling the debate, subduing or silencing discussion of critical issues that are key to a justice's reasoning like the New Haven reverse-racism case I posted above.

When you subjectively and ignorantly characterize the decision as "reverse-racism", then you're not ready for serious discussion. So far no evidence that you even read the decision or know the facts of the case(aside from what your rightwing brain trust has told you to say).
Just more whining from the poor downtrodden whites who have been historically discriminated against, harassed and murdered since the founding of this country. Not.

"Kind of relates to the previous post. We'd stop knocking down straw men if the Right could come up with reasoned, intelligent (or even intelligible) arguments instead of the drivel that they give us."

Posted by: Chocolate Thunder

You have your chance now, Thunder! Please b

less us with your reasoned, intelligent argument on the merits of the New Haven reverse-racism case.

To so-called "conservatives", the purpose of the Supreme Court -- and indeed of government -- is to establish, protect and expand the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. Given that, they may well have good reason to believe that Sotomayor is an inappropriate person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Her record shows, for example, that she might be less willing than the "conservative" Supreme Court justices to blatantly violate her oath of office and make a cynical, dishonest, purely partisan ruling to prevent legitimately cast ballots from being counted and thereby install the Republican loser of a presidential election as the President.

That right there brands her as unqualified in the eyes of "conservatives".

e,

It's been done. In this comment thread, no less. Learn to read or please refrain from removing all of our doubt that you are a fool.

less us with your reasoned, intelligent argument on the merits of the New Haven reverse-racism case.

First you would need to provide a reasoned, intelligent criticism of the case, and so far you haven't come close. Parroting wingnut "reverse-racism" talking points doesn't qualify.
You might want to check the comment by z. above re disparate impact, and educate yourself on federal anti-discrimination law. So far you've demonstrated no knowledge of the topic whatsoever.
Now's your chance, wow us with your insights and prove you're not just another ignorant wingnut tool!

Seems as if the problem is Title VII. So our firemen who demonstrated greater capability/judgement at their critical task have no redress? It's not even worthy of comment by a judge?

'This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed."'.

Move on. There's nothing to see here.

Republicans are something else.

They spend every waking moment that minorities need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, not look for handouts, put their nose to the grindstone, and not depend on government to help them.

Then, when they see a successful minority, they almost always say that the minority in question benefitted from affirmative action, isn't that great really, and isn't as good as the white male around the corner. The only time they don't seem to say that is when the minority in question spends their free time slagging other minorities (Bill Cosby) or espousing wingnut Southern Strategy dogwhistle politics (Michael Steele.... to a point).

Minorities literally cannot win to these people. If you stay poor and downtrodden you are a dreg on society, if you work hard and become successful you are a dreg on society.

At this point, it seems quite clear this "bootstrap" talk is merely a distraction for the system they want, where chummy, successful white men give each other good jobs, drink martinis over lunch, and keep the doors to the country club locked for everyone else.

That's just fine. Let the Republican party show its racist ass for all to see. They could only get 1/3rd of the Hispanic voters in 2008. If they keep this up, they'll be lucky to get 1/4th in 2010.

If the Republican Party is hellbent on drenching itself with gasoline and lighting a match, I'm not about to stop them. If pulling a Thích Quảng �ức is their way of making a statement, let them make it. Far be it from me to stifle the GOP's right to free speech. There will be consequences: they'll be slaughtered in 2010, and the 2012 election will be Johnson v. Goldwater all over again. Palin/Whoever will win a smattering of southern states; Obama/Biden will sweep up the rest. Should be fun. I'm stocking up on the popcorn already.

The repugnicans are so envious. In their minds white male right wing, racist southerners should only be allowed to the Supreme Court.

Dear Neanderthal Republicans,

Thank you for doing exactly what we thought you would do. And thank you for, as Mark McKinnon has put it, helping the GOP run off a cliff.

You know what you're doing is going to further kill your party with Hispanics, but you just have to pander to your racist righties. We really thank you for it.

Sincerely,

Democrats

You don't want a genuine debate.

You can't handle a genuine debate.

Let's be clear about the meaning of identity politics.

The choice of an ethnic and/or female candidate contains an intrinsic political innoculation: senators will vote against them at their peril for fear of alienating the ethnic/female constituency, regardless of the objective merits of the candidate.

This has the bottom line effect of chilling the debate, subduing or silencing discussion of critical issues that are key to a justice's reasoning like the New Haven case I posted above.

It's long since emerged that when critics of affirmative action say it leads (unspecified) people to withhold even warranted recognition of its beneficiaries' achievements, & that that's a bad thing, they're actually making less an argument than a threat. The unspecified people doing this bad thing turn out to be the critics themselves: they themselves don't hesitate to publicly denigrate the competence women & nonwhite people, without the least warrant, whenever & to the extent that it serves their purposes. It's charming.

Hey, they have a point, ya know.

If President Obama doesn't pick a white male, how do we know he carefully weighed all the best candidates for the job?

Think about it.

.

This has the bottom line effect of chilling the debate... -ellen

Please, show us one example of a 'chilled debate.' There are actually right-wing pundits arguing we shouldn't pronounce her name as she does because that would be un-American.

Does that sound like 'chilled debate?' Sigh.

You can't handle a genuine debate. -ellen

Oooo, can you type that one again, but with a Jack Nicholson font?

bwahahahaha! This is so precious:

Seems as if the problem is Title VII. So our firemen who demonstrated greater capability/judgement at their critical task have no redress? It's not even worthy of comment by a judge?

Print this one and frame it. One of those Kinsley slips. Yes folks, exposing the fraud that is right-wing argument once and for all, here you have our own beloved wingnut Ellen, arguing that when a statute, passed by an elected branch of government, interferes with white dominance, why of course those unelected judges should ignore what the law says legislate from the bench. Feel free to use Ellen's post to rebut any wingnut who ever argues about liberal activist judges.

Ellen, you are fucking awesome. you just gave me the best laugh I've had all day.

ellen,

I disagree, in that Sotomayor's nomination will hardly squelch debate. Quite the opposite --- nothing will stop Republicans from highlighting Sotomayor's ethnicity and attempting to exploit it.

But she is not an 'affirmative action' hire --- she is eminently qualified and earned this, no question about it.

If Republicans can't 'win', maybe they should align their politics with a) the law & Constitution and b) with the broad consensus that the country's moved beyond identity politics.

Agree with the comment above that the nomination of Sotomayor is the right choice, a brilliant political move, and may function as a sharp stick in the eye at least in the sense that it defies powerless Republicans who hoped to sink her nomination before it was even arrived at.

Ellen, I think the simple point others are making is that in the New Haven Firefighters case, the District Court and the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court judges followed the law. Throwing out the test does not mean that there would be no way for any white males (or anyone else) to get a future promotion - it just would not be predicated on that specific test. The case ruling was whether New Haven broke any laws or violated the constitution by their actions - which both courts ruled "no". Any other decision would have been "activist legislating from the bench", no?

my initial post was #5 on this thread, we're now around #40.

my initial post contained Judge Cabrane's rebuke of the decision's failure to address the issue in light of its gravity, along with the Slate writer's acknowledgement that Sotamayer had indeed "punted" the issue.

yet all you 'genuine debaters' persist in tiptoing around that as if it's a stinking corpse.

ellen wrote: "... like the New Haven case I posted above."

Your comments make it abundantly clear that you don't have the first clue about "the New Haven case".

You are merely repeatedly referring to it because you have been told by the so-called "conservative" media that you should flog it as a talking point. Which you obediently do, like the mental slave of Rush Limbaugh that you are.

It never ceases to amaze me when so-called "conservatives" show up here apparently imagining that their robotic regurgitation of vapid, bumper-sticker inanities cut-and-pasted from "Right-Wing Talking Points For Dummies" will impress everyone.

Like the circus clown whose one shtick is to repeatedly trip over his own feet and fall flat on his face, their ignorance is both comical and sad.

It never ceases to amaze me when so-called "conservatives" show up here apparently imagining that their robotic regurgitation of vapid, bumper-sticker inanities cut-and-pasted from "Right-Wing Talking Points For Dummies" will impress everyone.

It never ceases to amaze me how you keep falling for the same guy under different names.

please, please, please tell me that y'all will be her prep team for the confirmation hearing.

(btw, this was written by one of your stout-hearted confederates, not me:

"It never ceases to amaze me how you keep falling for the same guy under different names.

Ellen")

The choice of an ethnic and/or female candidate contains an intrinsic political innoculation: senators will vote against them at their peril for fear of alienating the ethnic/female constituency, regardless of the objective merits of the candidate. -- ellen, @ 12:55

Those senators of whom you speak would have voted against *any* candidate, regardless of his/her objective merits, simply on the (very un-objective) basis of the nominee being an Obama pick.

It's true that, as things stand, they'll have a harder job of it; they'll have to swallow their bigotry and pretend they're voting on merit, since their objections will be scrutinised with more attention than they would have been had the pick been a white male. But then... Nobody but your party had ever been stupid enough to think that Obama would just roll over and make it easier for you to cut his throat. So stop whining that the game hadn't been rigged in your favour and fight with what you have. Which, apparently, is nothing, since you seem to have misunderstood the Ricci case entirely (thanks, Zeitgeist, for explaining it so clearly; I admit I have bee wondering about that one myself, ever since I first heard of it -- long before the Sotomayor's nomination).

So our firemen who demonstrated greater capability/judgement at their critical task

That's the problem, moron. The test they took did not "demonstrate greater capability/judgment at their critical task." The test itself was flawed, fatally so, having nothing to do with the tasks that those firefighters were being tested for.

"It's not even worthy of comment by a judge?"

Correct; it's not.

"please, please, please tell me that y'all will be her prep team for the confirmation hearing."

ROFL.... Dear heart, this is a blog comments section. This has as little to do with political reality as the mindless drivel you've been spewing.

"yet all you 'genuine debaters' persist in tiptoing around that as if it's a stinking corpse."

Dear heart, since you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the issues involved with the case, much less the reasoning behind the decision, forgive us if we don't take your drivel seriously. When you're ready to address zeitgeist's informed comment above, we might take you seriously. Until then, we'll just be laughing at you.

I thought you said you were done with the "dear heart" stuff?

my initial post contained Judge Cabrane's rebuke of the decision's failure to address the issue in light of its gravity

...which you'd no doubt to be quick to label "judicial activism!" if a judge disregarded the law to gore one of your own oxen.

It never ceases to amaze me how you keep falling for the same guy under different names.

Thanks for admitting that, no matter how clever you think you are, you're just another garden-variety idiot conservative troll.

Can't help it - just have to give Ellen more info, in the hopes she reads the judges' opinions (not just cutting and pasting someone else's opinions from news articles). Ellen, just to note that Judge Cabranes is not dissenting on the courts decision regarding the case, but on the procedural decision to deny rehearing "en banc". See page 10 in the .pdf for Cabranes' final statement (an feel free to read the rest at your leisure)- "I respectfully dissent from that decision, without expressing a view on the merits of the questions presented by this appeal..."
Getting informed and getting to the source to formulate your own opinions is hard work (OK the internet makes it ALOT easier!).
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/doc/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/hilite/

I was just hoping someone would address what a liberal judge and a liberal writer raised as a legitimate issue.

Silly me.

thanks, Maureen.

I thought you might actually be looking for information in good faith (that Marueen and I provided) instead of just trolling and enjoying seeing your own repetitive posts.

Silly me.

I was just hoping someone would address what a liberal judge and a liberal writer raised as a legitimate issue.

Just because what you call a liberal judge and a liberal writer raised the issue doesn't make it legitimate. And the issue has been addressed; just, as usual when that happens, the argument turns out not in your favor.

The fact that the "liberal writer" works for Slate and isn't named Dahlia Lithwich gives it even less gravitas, dumbass.

not to switch sides, but I gotta repreesnt for Emily. I believe the Slate writer not named Dahlia Lithwick was Emily Bazelton, daughter of a judge and, while not as good as Dahlia in my view, really a very good legal reporter as well. the catch is that her job is to cause debate, to be provacative. and she pointed out that the panel did what most panels dont: remain silent on a big issue. she noted that may provide some hook for questions - which seems obvious, although her column surely was somewhat self-fulfilling (see, e.g., ellen, passim).

just because Bazelton notes this may raise questions, it is not the same as saying there are no good answers. Ellen seems to draw that false conclusion, despite several of us providing answers. having read many of Bazelton's columns, I have trouble believing she would side with Ellen on this one, but as a columnist i'm sure she enjoyed the extra attention and hits people like ellen drive to her column.

The question: Can Obama hack it? Did he know it would be like this? I can only assume he did considering his own personal history but he has largely proved a wimp so far.

They are hugely outnumbered yet we have to hear them due to the MSM's support for all things republican.

Turley had the only honest, without an agenda, criticism of Sontemayor...that she lacks intellectual depth for a SC Justice based on previous judgments and that he expected more from Obama as he has a great chance to get other more qualified liberals on the court right now. But like all the others that is just his professional opinion...the difference is he has no axe to grind...but the anger directed at him for expressing that opinion I think comes from the resentment toward the biased right dips wonking on and on who do have an agenda to demean anything relating to Obama.

Consider that Obama avoids conflict with republicans, and this Latino woman choice ties their hands in so many ways that perhaps a more liberal and qualified pick would not...like Wood for instance.

I'm so sick of dems making decisions based on appeasing republicans, when they are the clear majority with support from the majority of citizens. No filibuster rule in the senate would eliminate all of this political blackmail keeping the majority from governing.

Perhaps the dems want the filibuster to avoid changing America for the better making the dem leadership and the publican leadership both ranking members of the "Money Party" who want things to remain in the Money's interest.

Put away your sticks and stones, children. Talk about queasiness in the witness of sausage-making.

From the dissent:

"At its core, the case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying exam, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that exam yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not of another? In a path-breaking opinion, which is nevertheless unpublished (?), the District Court answered this question in the affirmative, dismissing the case on summary judgement.

A panel of this court (appeals) affirmed in a single paragraph. Three days prior to filing this opinion, the panel withdrew its summary and filed a Per Curiam opinion adopting in toto the resoning of the District Court, thereby making the District Court opinion the law of the Circuit."

The dissent goes on to state that the use of Per Curiam opinion to adopt District Court opinion is typical only in open-and-shut type cases, and abnormal "in cases that are indisputably complex and far from well-settled".

"If a municipal employer claims that a race-baced action was undertaken in order to comply with Title VII, what showing must the employer make to substantiate that claim? Presented with an opportunity to address en banc questions of such exceptional importance, a majority of this court chose to avoid doing so."

(btw, the majority stated that based on precedent they didn't have to "prove" anything about the exam itself, one way or another)

What does this rubber-stamping tell us about Judge Sotomayer's attitude toward clearly racist quotas, and whether to be upfront about it or sweep it under the rug?

There is absolutely no question what it tells us.

(I find the obfuscation running throughout this thread to be beneath contempt.

Thanks again, Maureen.)

Over and out.

...there's nothing wrong with appreciating the diversity that Sonia Sotomayor would bring to the Supreme Court
Didn't I notice a sign in the Supreme Court human resources dept. that stipulated WHITE MALES NEED NOT APPLY?

Your lib fancies himself a "champion" of minorities, which in a way is sort of racist, since a champion is always higher in position than the persons he champions.

I thought you said you were done with the "dear heart" stuff?

ROFL.... Dear heart, when I'm faced with stupidity of such magnitude, I revert. What can I say? I'm only human.

"I was just hoping someone would address what a liberal judge and a liberal writer raised as a legitimate issue."

LOL... We did, dear. You just didn't like the answer so you've been playing silly games ever since, all the while ignoring the very real points raised over and over again. But then, that's pretty much what we expect from trolls like you.

"Silly me."

How about that -- we actually agree on something.

"Didn't I notice a sign in the Supreme Court human resources dept. that stipulated WHITE MALES NEED NOT APPLY?"

Why no, you didn't. But it's typical of you that you would pretend otherwise.

"Your lib fancies himself a "champion" of minorities"

Why no, he doesn't, which is why you can't be bothered to even try to defend such a silly accusation.

"which in a way is sort of racist, since a champion is always higher in position than the persons he champions."

ROFL.... Omigod.... This is priceless. I think I'm going to frame this one.

"Turley had the only honest, without an agenda, criticism of Sontemayor...that she lacks intellectual depth for a SC Justice based on previous judgments"

With all due respect to both you and Turley, you're both wrong -- you in assuming that Turley had no agenda and Turley in proclaiming that she lacks the intellectual depth to be a Supreme Court Justice, a criticism that is self-evidently false.

I thought I was done but I'm not, as I'm now truly pissed off.

Majority: Prior to reaching its conclusion, the District Court assessed whether the exam results demonstrated a statistically disproportionate adverse racial impact under the EEOC guidelines and whether the City had presented evidence to support its belief that less discriminatory alternatives to this particular test existed. The analysis shows that contrary to the dissent's suggestion, the District Court did not rubber stamp the City-proffered non-discriminatory reason for not certifying the exam results."

And the Majority goes on to say that "I hardly think the City has to PROVE" that the test was somehow discriminatory, based on precedents.

So lemme get this straight.

The City says the exam results will not be certified because other less discriminatory qualifiers are available. But the City is not required to show the court how the initial exam was discriminatory, based on precedents?

THIS IS BULLSHIT, FOLKS. IT SMELLS REAL, REAL BAD.

"Put away your sticks and stones, children."

ROFL... Oh, the irony...

"I find the obfuscation running throughout this thread to be beneath contempt."

LOL.... And, once again, the irony, coming from this supremely dishonest poster.

It will get better when you leave, dear. Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

"I thought I was done but I'm not, as I'm now truly pissed off."

ROFL.... Oh noes!!!! Ellen is truly pissed off!!!! Whaever shall we do? She's going to start writing in ALL CAPS any minute now and then the shit will REALLY hit the fan!!!!

What's hilarious is how dear little ellen thinks that she has somehow discovered a smoking gun, when it's quite clear that she understands nothing about the law in this case nor about this opinion. Instead, she keeps throwing up cherry-picked excerpts, hoping that somehow, something will stick, and ignoring all of the counter-arguments raised above. Alas for dear little ellen, she is doomed to disappointment. Nice try, dear.

"What does this rubber-stamping tell us about Judge Sotomayer's attitude toward clearly racist quotas, and whether to be upfront about it or sweep it under the rug?"

Nothing, but then you already knew that and were just playing silly games. You are funny, though, so you're at least good for amusement, if nothing else.

But is there any evidence that Judge Sotomayor's actual legal opinions on matters of race and gender vary from those of the white dude she would replace on the Court, David Souter? In short, no --

Exactly.

And why this isn't spurring progs to oppose her is disturbing.

It's almost as if you knuckleheads are so brainwashed into reflexively supporting everything the wingnuts oppose, that you're now totally blind to your own principals. The wingnuts are playing you, and you don't even see it.

PaulB,

I need not remind you that a confirmation hearing takes place in a political arena, not a legal one.

It's indeed hilarious if you find the aroma this case emits pleasing.

"I need not remind you that a confirmation hearing takes place in a political arena, not a legal one."

Yes, dear, an arena far removed from this blog comments section. Did you have a point to make? I'm well aware of the politics of this matter, which is just one of the reasons I'm so amused by the silly games you're playing.

"It's indeed hilarious if you find the aroma this case emits pleasing."

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, it really would help if you would learn to read what people actually write. You should try it someday.

except for a certain alleged neocon who has been saying on several threads for a week now that Sotomayor was my least fave of the short- and medium-listers. :)

of the medium-listers Karlan, Sullivan and Minow were my picks (and as you know of the short-listers I favored Kagen).

THIS IS BULLSHIT, FOLKS.

You'd be better off labeling your posts on top, "ellen."

But rest assured, the "Posted by: ellen" is all the label we need to know it's bullshit.

What's hilarious is how dear little ellen thinks that she has somehow discovered a smoking gun, when it's quite clear that she understands nothing about the law in this case nor about this opinion.

"ellen" understands that the GOP has issues its talking points, and he/she/it is here to repeat them.

I need not remind you that a confirmation hearing takes place in a political arena, not a legal one.

Which is why the GOP case against Sotomayor consists of political arguments -- and dishonest ones at that, thank you very much "ellen" -- and not legal ones.

"Which is why the GOP case against Sotomayor consists of political arguments -- and dishonest ones at that, thank you very much "ellen" -- and not legal ones."

Yup. They tried to make some inroads with the absurd claim that 80% of Sotomayor's opinions had been reversed by the Supreme Court, but that claim evaporated when exposed to the light of day, since it was actually 50% (3 out of 6), it was less than 1% of Sotomayor's total opinions, and she actually has a better than average track record, since the Supreme Court reverses roughly 3/4 of the cases it picks.

All they have is faux outrage, cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, and bullshit. Dear little ellen's tirades on this thread are classic examples of all three.

yes, she will be confirmed.

legally: yes, precedent holds.

politically: this is stinky, and will be perceived by a majority as such.

who said: let men not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

on to 2010: it all adds up in the voters' minds.