irony and hypocrisy don't work on conservatives..

they don't have a shame gene...

lol...

It's acceptable for a conservative to say that he will be guided by empathy and compassion, because everyone knows he doesn't really mean it. In contrast, a liberal could very well mean what he or she is saying. That's unacceptable.

it came from Samuel Alito

Oh dear, you just know this statement is going to come back and bite Alito when he rules in favor of his paisano, Frank Ricci (see Hilzoy post below).

If anybody asks Sotomayor about this in her confirmation hearing, methinks she should ask back: would Dred Scott have been decided the same way if, for example, the Missouri Chief Justice who sent the issue to the Supreme Court had been a freed slave instead of a slave owner? If Roger Taney had been a manumitted slave himself?

Best defense is a good offense.

And she should nail what empathy actually means, by quoting a former Confederate and former slave owner, James Harlan, in his great dissent from Plessy: "But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."

THAT's what empathy means.

I was once married to a Republicaaner.

The word "empathy" always made him laugh.

Look, this was a guy saying those things. Not a damned touchy-feely bitch that probably is unreliable (OK, hormonally insane-there, I said it!) several days each month. C'mon, either she's still a bleeder or forgets to take her estrogen. Do you want that type of person deciding whether two guys can marry and destroy our Christian civilization? Hmmmm?? And really, she's Carmen Miranda minus the fruit. Next thing you know SCOTUS clerks will have to provide all their research in biligual form. Is that fair to the other eight justices, you know, the normal ones? I think not! Plus, her office quarters probably are rated for what, 5-6 people according to DC fire codes? Do you think she won't be packing 3 generations of people in their on the sly? C'mom, they all do it. Probably be 15-20 people camped out, cooking burritos over sterno stoves, sacrificing goats, neglecting to shower. OH. MY. GOD!!!!

If our surprisingly strident right-wing friends care to explain why this sentiment is a disqualifier for a Latina nominee, but a strength for an Italian male nominee, I'd sure appreciate it.
—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0)

Elementary my dear Stephen, because we hope that no one has a memory, and if they do that no one cares anyway (public apathy and passivity are some of our BEST friends), and if they do care, then we will say that the particulars are "so different" that any comparisons are 'ridiculous', and if they aren't, then we make them APPEAR so anyway, and if we can't, then we ignore it all together, and if we can't, then we will call it 'race baiting' or 'class warfare' or any other codeword that means "we've had our ass kicked and have to resort to tried and true labeling and outright lies" because...they work and Dems are stupid so they can't refute or deny, since that just makes them look guilty. Because with us patriotic, America loving, heartbeat of the USA Republicans, the first casualty of politics is truth, and the last will be our power and wealth, both current and future. That's why. You Democrats don't have the stomach for playing the game the way it's supposed to be played, that is... to win. Yea, you got some power now, not that you have much since we water down and stall just about anything we want to, and you idiots couldn't stick together if your country depended on it (which it does), but just wait till we re-activate our connections over at Diebold, heh, heh, heh! Later, loser Dems.

Good work, theAmericanist.

Hey someone pass me the regulations on who qualifies as a white male and if Italians fall under that category.

IOKIYAR (Its OK if you are a Republican) Believe it!

In their struggle to simplify the world and push those pesky shades of gray toward black or white, conservatives seem to have settled upon certain truths. Among them are: (1) liberals can never be trusted and can do no good; (2) conservatives who think like me can always be trusted and do no wrong.

Consider that the right was preparing talking points and planning their attack before a nominee was announced.

The only way they could do that is to have decided in advance that Obama (the most liberal terrorist fist-jabber since man rode dinosaurs) would automatically announce the most unqualified, liberal member of a minority he could find, whose bleeding heart would ignore the law in order to redistribute wealth, take away your guns, and basically undermine the moral fabric of America at every turn.

If you're not one of them, you just can't be trusted.

Dang if the Republican party leadership isn't clawing the walls trying to stay in the room! Too bad for them we've rearranged the furniture so much, if they successfully get to stay they won't know where to sit! -Kevo

Well, yes, Alito said that, but it was long, long ago, and things were different then. We were a kinder, gentler One Nation Under God.

Now we are a Nation At War, and evil doer foreigners hate our freedoms. What kind of a name is So-toe-my-oar, anyhow?

Thx for pointing out that the whole nomination process is nothing but marketing, which is why progressives gain nothing by Obama nominating a Souter clone, and instead should be fighting this nomination from the Left.

And speaking of fighting Obama from the Left, he apparently lied about the unreleased torture photos containing no new information and being no more sensational than the previous photos, and the real reason he is suppressing the photos is because they contain evidence of rape and other horrific sexual abuse.

Yes, thank you, theAmericanist, for posting Harlen's dissent in Plessy. Interestingly, that this was used, yesterday, on Hardball by a right winger. She said Plessy was bad law. However, she and many right wingers use the "color blind" aspect, as well as the words of Martin Luther Kings's desire for a color blind society to argue against the continuation of affirmative action laws. When John Carlson in Seattle brought the African-American fellow from the Board of Regents of California to overturn Washington State's AA program in the university system, they both used those "color blind" words. I have even seen those words used in sports blogs by those who want to stop The Rooney Rule which requires that minorities be considered in the hiring of coaches. Again, as the NCAA wants to adopt The Rooney Rule, the right wing "color-blind" posters decry any form of affirmative action. Similar to writings of Pat Buchanan who has written that "Geez, AA has worked; those non-Republican voters now have a middle class, ergo, we don't need affirmative action, any more, as we are, now, oolor blind".

One of the ickiest facts about the Supreme Court is that it was run for so many years by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who AGREED with the Plessy decision.

To me, the weird thing about it is that from a policy wonk intellectual point of view, Plessy is less defensible than Dred Scott.

Plessy after all is based on the truly peculiar idea that the Constitution allows that various public systems (education, transportation) could be sorta cloned because they would somehow turn out equal, which is fact-challenged to the point of hallucination. I dunno how they managed to make it up as Constitutional law. It's as tortured as choosing Bush in 2000 instead of ordering that every damn vote in Florida be recounted -- by people from Minnesota, perhaps. (If nothing else, it would have trained 'em for 2009.)

But there is a genuinely originalist argument that Dred Scott was decided pretty much as the Founders had intended -- slavery is thoroughly protected in the unamended Constitution, states were clearly owed more deference in the pre-Civil War Federal system, and the Founders quite deliberately refused to be explicit about the deal with the devil they made, enshrining slavery and states' rights in a document that starts "We, the People." It's hard to construct an argument based on the Constitution in the 1850s that all a slave needed to do was escape to Ohio to be free -- after all, that's what the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted to prevent (which, not incidentally, obliterates the idea that the Civil War was about states' rights, since it over-rode the laws of free states). Lincoln understood this; it was the premise of his House Divided speech.

I've always thought somebody should have asked Scalia, et al, in THEIR confirmation hearings to explain how an 'originalist' could possibly have decided Dred Scott the other way.

This sorta backward perspective on the Court only takes you so far, but it's important to reveal the utter intellectual bankruptcy of 'conservative' jurisprudence and philosophy: they don't actually want judges who decide cases based on the intent of the legislators (cuz that's what Sotomayor did, to which they are now objecting), their notion of 'original interpretation' is a crock into which they pour whatever shit seems useful at the moment, they don't really believe even in the 'arguments' they make against Democratic nominees (as the contrast between Alito and Sotomayor proves).

Hell, they're not even anti-immigrant in any consistent way, since Alito is immigrant stock while Sotomayor's family has been born US citizens for generations.

As "Dred Scott" was heard in the Federal Court in St Louis, how apt Shrub referred to this case during his debate at nearby Washington University. Sending a coded message to the Fundies on the right, while the media scratched their collective heads in a WTF moment.

berttleclock: And many years ago Carlson lived across the hall from my girlfriend in the UW dorms. Creepy guy.

Not that anyone here really seems to want to hear a real conservative perspective, as opposed to a straw man (straw person?), but I'll bite:

1. I don't think Sotomayer's comments are a disqualifier, but I think they are a legitimate cause for concern and scrutiny for exactly the reasons you point out. I object to the efforts of her supporters to reframe these kinds of legitimate concerns as mere wingnuttery. That's intellectually dishonest.

2. Personally, I find Alito's comments even more disconcerting than Sotomayer's. One *expects* this kind of thinking and language from a Democratic Supreme Court nominee, and elections have consequences; that a Republican nominee feels the need to stake out the same kind of position shows just how far the political discourse has shifted towards identity politics and away from the principle of justice being blind.

3. There is also a huge difference between statements made pre-nomination, which can fairly be assumed to reflect a nominee's real views, and what a nominee says during hearings. As far back as I can recall, it has been obvious to me that every nominee says exactly what they feel they need to say to be confirmed. It's just human nature, given the stakes. Alito speaking here is throwing a bone to try to decrease the opposition coming from the left; my strong suspicion is that Sotomayer would emphasize her commitment to following the law to try to defuse the opposition from the right. None of this should be taken too seriously, and Sotomayer will say exactly what she needs to say to ensure that she is confirmed at a minimum of political cost.

4. It seems obvious to me that Sotomayer's ethnicity and gender were central to her becoming the nominee; while I don't believe the talking points that she is in any way dumb, she is also no Elena Kagan. (As a conservative, I am relieved by this -- I fear Kagan, but not Sotomater -- I think that should give Sotomayer backers some pause) Does this not suggest that ethnicity trumped merit, to at least a certain extent? Given the centrality of race and gender to the selection, is it any wonder that people opposing her might be more sensitive to such issues?

5. Point 4 does not imply that Sotomayer is not a good judge; I also think that Alito is no John Roberts. But Bush nominated the more impressive candidate first.

6. I'm sure I'll be flamed ruthlessly, but for those of you who are actually interested in dialogue, keep in mind that I believe that Sotomayer will be, and should be, confirmed. I just disagree with the attempts to reframe any legitimate inquiry or scrutiny of Sotomayer as being out of bounds in advance.

Republicans engaging in Orwellian doublethink? You don't say...

Ah...from the article I cited, it seems that as much as they've used 1984 as an operations manual, the Republicans didn't learn one crucial lesson (emphasis added):

For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes.

That second part trips them up, but that's incompetence for you.

Gregg, at the time of the Alitonomination fight, did you express your concerns? Oh, no, that's right: it's different because he said it at a different time WHEN WE ALL KNOW THEY LIE ANYWAY.
Impressive reasoning.

I just disagree with the attempts to reframe any legitimate inquiry or scrutiny of Sotomayer as being out of bounds in advance.

Battle straw much? Show me where Steve, or any prominent left leaning blogger or commentator argues that any inquiry of Sotomayer is out of bounds in advance.

that a Republican nominee feels the need to stake out the same kind of position shows just how far the political discourse has shifted towards identity politics and away from the principle of justice being blind.

Or it could simply be that both Sotomayor and Alito are stating not some radical endorsement of identity politics but a simple, common sense fact -- that one's life experience makes one wise, and wisdom, though hardly monolithic, is a quality we expect in judges. I reject your premise.

Oh, and Greg9999, we'll leave aside your offensive opening gambit of asserting that no one here "really seems to want to hear a real conservative perspective," but I'd point out that suggesting that those who don't buy into your frames aren't "actually interested in dialogue" while a classic Republican debate tactic, isn't exactly, ah, intellectually honest.

Actually, I love hearing the conservative perspective. It's ever so reassuring to see how poorly grounded in facts or logic that perspective is -- but then, what do you expect from a faith-based belief system that fails miserably when applied to the real world?

There's a big difference: Alito was talking about his ancestors, not Sotomayor's.

Or it could simply be that both Sotomayor and Alito are stating not some radical endorsement of identity politics but a simple, common sense fact -- that one's life experience makes one wise, and wisdom, though hardly monolithic, is a quality we expect in judges.

Werd.

"1. I don't think Sotomayer's comments are a disqualifier, but I think they are a legitimate cause for concern and scrutiny for exactly the reasons you point out. I object to the efforts of her supporters to reframe these kinds of legitimate concerns as mere wingnuttery. That's intellectually dishonest."

It is only intellectually dishonest if it really isn't mere wingnuttery, which it is. The Sotomayer comment in question was quite blatantly taken out of context. If put back in context, it clearly becomes commentary that judges should strive to be impartial but can't possibly avoid being influenced by their backgrounds. This is self-evidently true and not the least bit controversial.

"2. Personally, I find Alito's comments even more disconcerting than Sotomayer's. One *expects* this kind of thinking and language from a Democratic Supreme Court nominee, and elections have consequences; that a Republican nominee feels the need to stake out the same kind of position shows just how far the political discourse has shifted towards identity politics and away from the principle of justice being blind."

The thing is, justice has never been blind. That has always been an unattainable ideal to strive for (with differing rates of success; compare 'Brown vs Board of Education' to 'Dread Scot' for example) instead of the reality we live in. The reason Alito's comment should be more disconcerting than Sotomayer's is because Sotomayer is honestly acknowledging the issue and dealing with it head-on. Alito was dishonestly representing his biases as something other than what they really are.

"3. There is also a huge difference between statements made pre-nomination, which can fairly be assumed to reflect a nominee's real views, and what a nominee says during hearings. As far back as I can recall, it has been obvious to me that every nominee says exactly what they feel they need to say to be confirmed. It's just human nature, given the stakes. Alito speaking here is throwing a bone to try to decrease the opposition coming from the left; my strong suspicion is that Sotomayer would emphasize her commitment to following the law to try to defuse the opposition from the right. None of this should be taken too seriously, and Sotomayer will say exactly what she needs to say to ensure that she is confirmed at a minimum of political cost."

It is still possible to be honest during a job interview even while presenting yourself in the best possible light. Now, Alito was flat-out lying, as his judicial record before and since makes clear. I'm going to wait until Sotomayer actually goes through the process rather than make any assumptions on her honesty.

"4. It seems obvious to me that Sotomayer's ethnicity and gender were central to her becoming the nominee; while I don't believe the talking points that she is in any way dumb, she is also no Elena Kagan. (As a conservative, I am relieved by this -- I fear Kagan, but not Sotomater -- I think that should give Sotomayer backers some pause) Does this not suggest that ethnicity trumped merit, to at least a certain extent? Given the centrality of race and gender to the selection, is it any wonder that people opposing her might be more sensitive to such issues?"

Two points. First, why would her backers care whether or not you "fear" her (whatever that means)? Not everybody looks at this kind of thing strictly as a partisan political game. In fact, some of us care more about the country than about winning the debate. Sotomayer is qualified and reliable in every way that matters, period.

Second, race and gender never trump qualifications. If someone isn't qualified, they don't get the position regardless of race or gender. If you could argue that she's not qualified, which you've already admitted you can't and won't, then you would have a point. But by being "sensitive" to the "issue" that she isn't a white man regardless of her qualifications, you are bringing up a completely irrelevant matter. That being the case, the only reason for you to bring it up is if race/gender/whatever *is* personally relevant to *you*. And if it is, then the burden is on you to explain why we shouldn't have a Latina on the Supreme Court.

"5. Point 4 does not imply that Sotomayer is not a good judge; I also think that Alito is no John Roberts. But Bush nominated the more impressive candidate first."

Huh?

"6. I'm sure I'll be flamed ruthlessly, but for those of you who are actually interested in dialogue, keep in mind that I believe that Sotomayer will be, and should be, confirmed. I just disagree with the attempts to reframe any legitimate inquiry or scrutiny of Sotomayer as being out of bounds in advance."

*eye roll*

First, please drop the martyr-complex expectation about being flamed. It makes you look insecure, which suggests that you think you're doing something you shouldn't be doing.

Second, we're reacting to the GOP's attacks after the fact, not in advance. So far, all these "legitimate" lines of "inquiry" have been based on anonymous smears, out-of-context quotes, and out-right racism. The GOP even started compiling attacks against Obama's nominee *before he actually nominated anyone*. These are not "legitimate" forms of scrutiny, they are base lies and smears.

LOL -- that's not a conservative perspective. It's an attitude flopping around like a fish on the dock, hoping to fall back in the water.... with the hook still planted.

1) It's perfectly legit for somebody to hear or read that a judge made some remarks that sound off, out of context. But it's no longer legit to complain or read into these remarks, IN context. She said nothing remarkable about the relationship between who she is, and what she does.

2) What on earth is 'disconcerting' about Judge Alito saying "It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, 'You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother..."????

Greg, that was the most pitiful attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time (and I've read some of Shortstop's). You're not gonna get flamed for being conservative (are you? prove it), you're gonna get flamed for being EMPTY.

Look, the 'conservative' judicial philosophy -- argued rather eloquently by Alito, in fact -- is that the law may be stupid, cruel, unfair and vile, but it IS the law, and that's how judges should rule. But I don't know any conservative who insists that upholding the law like that precludes recognizing that it can be stupid, cruel, unfair and vile: which is what Alito said -- and what he meant.

A genuinely conservative case against Sotomayor would have to acknowledge that she has consistently upheld the law, and the role of the legislature in writing it, AND the Constitution in limiting what the legislature can do, IN ORDER to attack her for how she did all those things.

To illustrate the case you didn't make:

A) if she's an activist judge who ignores the legislature, why did she decide Ricci the way she did?

B) If she re-writes the Constitution to suit her preconceptions, why did she uphold the First Amendment rights of a racist?

Damn. They told me positive reinforcement would work on all but the most sociopathi...oh. Oh.

Oh, well. I've got plenty of pearls left, and there really aren't that many swine in the world, when I think of it.

As I wrote elsewhere and just the ticket for here:
Conservatives are such frequent hypocrites and demagogues that quoting them from when the other ox was being gored, is a fruitful way to expose them.

If our surprisingly strident right-wing friends care to explain why this sentiment is a disqualifier for a Latina nominee, but a strength for an Italian male nominee, I'd sure appreciate it.

Simple answers to simple questions: IOKIYAR

Actually, Shortstop, your "pearls" are just glass marbles, but far be it from me to keep a conservative from being a conservative and continuing to mistake your faith that they are pearls for reality that they aren't.

However, I have heard you can roll glass marbles around in the palm of your hand just like you can steel ball bearings. Not the same sound, though... pity.

Actually, Shortstop, your "pearls" are just glass marbles, but far be it from me to keep a conservative from being a conservative and continuing to mistake your faith that they are pearls for reality that they aren't.

Oh. That's disappointing. Sorry, theAmericanist, TC says we shouldn't compliment you when you make a good post. I still think your comment at 8:11 a.m. was great, but the liberals make the rules around here and as a dedicated winger, I just have to follow them.

TC seems to think Shortstop is a conservative. That's odd -- me, I think she's simply abusive without any substance at all.

Look, my own 'tude is to try to ADD value to a discussion -- information, wit, even a (mostly) calculated nastiness to see if provocation can generate something useful. In my experience, that's the best way to GET value from one -- smack somebody with a ballpeen hammer, maybe they will hit you back with a 2x4: and that way, you can figure out how to construct a better understanding.

But folks like Shortstop are predictable, and predictably abusive.

Obviously, I don't much care what folks think of me 'round here, which includes ALL of Shortstop's opinions, including when she lurches uncontrollably into recognizing some of us know what we're talking about. It seems obviously insincere to form an opinion of somebody's capacity for thinking, only to change it when they happen to agree with you.

So more than what anybody thinks of me, or her, or anybody else, the key is to THINK.

As demonstrated by Greg's silly excuse for a 'conservative' case against Sotomayor, most of y'all don't think: you're like those schools of fish where everybody is swimming in one direction, until click! -- you're all swimming the other way.

and that way, you can figure out how to construct a better understanding.

And yet, you never seem to. Your conversations go one way, always, all the time, in every instance. What are the odds that you've never been able to find a single individual who can show you something? You've got the most extraordinarily terrible luck, old man -- surrounded by inferior intellects everywhere you step, your whole life long.

It seems obviously insincere to form an opinion of somebody's capacity for thinking, only to change it when they happen to agree with you.

It would be, yes, if that were what had happened in this thread. No one here has ever said we didn't think you know how to think, despite your intense love affair with this strawman and your insistence on pretending that everyone criticizes you for your brain rather than how you choose to use it. You do have the ability...you've just got so much other...stuff...going on that's more important to you than honest dialogue. And the bad junk wins out over the desire to actually communicate every time...almost.

So, at the risk of my fringe-right ass offending TC's progressive sensibilities again, I've just got to compliment you again on good your post of 8:11. See if you can figure out what about that post inspires my admiration. I'll give you a hint: it's not only what you said in it.

"I'll give you a hint:"

"folks like Shortstop are predictable, and predictably abusive."

If you had something useful to say about Sotomayor....

...let's say, someone who is an immigrant

No, let's say someone who is an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Is your loyalty to your race stronger than your duty to be a judge and your patriotic feeling to the United States? Are you corrupt when it comes to your own race? Are you a Hispanic racist who gives preference to you own race in court decisions? Are you contemptuous of rule of law when your own race is involved?

If you had something useful to say about Sotomayor....

I did, yes, in other threads, and in this one I graciously complimented you on your own first comment. You responded by...well, it's all there to see. Oh, did you want that to all go away now that I've called you on it?

a (mostly) calculated nastiness...smack somebody with a ballpeen hammer

predictably abusive

You can't keep trying to be both a bully and a victim, tA. It's unseemly and it makes people snicker at you.

Although you've convinced yourself that the constant stream of abuse you issue is all in the service of a higher discernment, the reactions from scores of people here (forget everywhere else for a moment -- the number's too high) ought to have shown any but the most determined-not-to-see that no one else is buying that self-serving explanation. It ain't just me pointing out you're a royal asshole just for the sake of being an asshole, as much as you'd like to pretend it, guy. You get this everywhere. And yet, you persist in believing that everyone else is stoopid and no one understands your particular genius.

Say, did I mention I loved the post you made just after 8:00 eastern this morning?

That's different.

I think Greg9999 has a line on how CreekIan thinks Ms. Sotomayor should pronunciate her name.

Shortstop: if you've ever had anything useful to say, it has escaped my notice.

even a (mostly) calculated nastiness to see if provocation can generate something useful

I wish I could remember the word for that kind of thing...

Since we've again established that most everything that doesn't come out of your own mouth, and certainly anything you prefer not to hear, escapes your notice, theAmericanist, I'm in pretty good, and exceptionally crowded, company.

Oh, and what you said at 8:11 a.m.

Well, clearly Shortstop spends a lot more time thinking about me and what I say than I do 'bout her, and what she says -- but then, I actually HAVE something to say, as even she seems to notice, now and again.

Look, this ain't complex: SB posted a comparison between what Alito had said about how he thinks about discrimination-type cases, as a judge: "gee, that could have been my grandmother...", and Sotomayor's commonplace observation that who she is has something to do with what she does.

Since this had gotten all wrapped up in confusion about the word 'empathy', I noted another commonplace argument -- that if the Dred Scott case had been argued before Justices who had been freed slaves, instead of slaveowners, it might have come out differently.

I also noted a pretty fair example of SCOTUS empathy -- Justice Harlan's dissent from Plessy, a former slaveowner making a definitive statement about civil rights in the Constitution.

And since I added that slight value to this thread, Shortstop, et al, have had literally nothing to say that wasn't about personalities. About what anybody actually SAID, she got nothing -- it's all who said what.

This is typical, I find: as a rule, I will note that when somebody says something stoopid, that denotes how that person thinks, which in turn tends to resonate in pretty much everything they say. F'r instance, the nature of Shortstop's abusiveness isn't really ideological or philosophical, much less utilitarian -- that she keeps huffing about something I said this morning (because, after all, it was tA that said it: that's the significance, don'cha know) is entirely consistent with her knuckleheaditude -- it's not about ideas, much less principles, it's all about who is on which side, personalities rather than principles, concepts, or what works to persuade.

I don't CARE who says what. I wanna know what's being said.

What I do 'round here is more like a stress test -- if somebody says something stoopid, e.g., "I am a citizen of the world (to pick an example) ", and I whack 'em for it (cuz there ain't no such thing), it's how they react that tells me if I have something to learn.

One thing I might learn, f'r instance, is that I was wrong: maybe there IS such a thing as a world citizen, in some meaningful way. (No, there isn't. I was right.) But I've been wrong, now and again. Still, it's not like it's hard to find folks making factual errors in threads like this; so dissing 'em ain't the point.

Because -- even then, I may learn something about what compels somebody to say something so stoopid. Often, it's the genuinely unexamined premise, what people take for granted, that's so revealing. You don't get at that with Shortstop's abuse, but you do with mine -- at least, I do: YMMV.

Greg's post is a good example. He thought he was making a conservative argument against Sotomayor, but there wasn't much that was conservative and nothing remotely resembling an argument in it. Evidently he'd never thought about a conservative argument against a nomination beyond, um, being against it.... cuz why?

Shortstop does much the same, although in a different way: she attacks folks who think more than she does, and says some truly amazing things (hinting about all she knows about folks, personally, and in lots of different venues)... but even if you watch for it, you won't see much if any new information, insight, or anything like analysis constructing her posts.

It's basically just personal attacks, with no value added.

Pointing that out ain't trolling.

As a wise women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a male who hasn't lived that life.

As a wise black women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic male who hasn't lived that life.

As a wise yellow women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a red male who hasn't lived that life.

As a wise polka-dot women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a psychedelic male who hasn't lived that life.

As a wise heterosexual women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a homosexual male who hasn't lived that life.

As a wise oil and coal-burning women, the richness of my experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a light-carbon-footprint male who hasn't lived that life.