Liberal Law Professor: Sotomayor Either Perjuring Herself or Unqualified

He's not addressing her Wise Latina denials, but rather her claim that judging involves nothing but application of the law to facts. She says this, of course, to denigrate the role her racialist ideology might play in her decision-making; if it's nothing but facts and already-settled law, then there's little room for mischief.

She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever.

For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy.

On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc.

So, yeah, she's lying. Or else she's so stupid she doesn't even realize she's making a choice about judicial philosophy at all -- like man of the stupid and liberal (BIRM) she is entirely unaware that there is any other philosophy than the one she believes in, to the point where she denies it's a philosophy or choice at all and believes it to be simply the natural and inevitable order of things.*

But it's not as untrue as her claim that she meant anything other than what she seemed to mean in when she said a wise Latina, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not come to a better conclusion than a white man.

But I'll take it.

Oh, and she also lies about what she said previously about international law "informing" US constitutional law.

Andy McCarthy also confesses that Sotomayor is changing her story so much that "it's not the easiest thing for a simple white guy — at least this one — to keep up with a wise Latina."

A wise Latina, she previously said, would "choose to see" different facts than a non-Latina. This wise Latina is giving full proof to that as she "chooses to see" an awful lot of "facts" about her judicial philosophy and her previous statements that others plainly don't.

* See Peart, Neil, et al., "Freewill."

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 PM



Comments

1 If a tree falls in the forest......

Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at July 14, 2009 09:33 PM (mgsCs)

2 How could a wise Latina woman possibly be unqualified. You, sir, must be a racist, bigoted white man.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at July 14, 2009 09:34 PM (UOM48)

3 "it's not a lie if nobody I recognize calls you on it"

/BHO

Posted by: Frank G at July 14, 2009 09:35 PM (Aaspy)

4 Wow, Obama found someone more dishonest than Bill Clinton and less qualified than David Souter.

Home run.

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 09:35 PM (fpywm)

5 The country's in the very best of hands.......

Posted by: Techie at July 14, 2009 09:36 PM (cxW4X)

6 Can't we have both?

Posted by: dogfish at July 14, 2009 09:36 PM (sGaoh)

7 Borrowed from Insty,

“One of the things we hope to learn during confirmation hearings is a nominee’s approach to the constitutional protection of liberty. But in her exchange with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) about the second amendment and its potential application to the states, Sonia Sotomayor revealed remarkably little about her understanding of how the Supreme Court protects liberty under the fourteenth amendment. For example, more than once she said a right was ‘fundamental’ if it was ‘incorporated’ into the fourteenth amendment. But this gets it backwards. The Supreme Court incorporates a right BECAUSE it finds it to be fundamental. When asked how she understands the criteria by which the court concludes that a right is fundamental, she did not give a substantive response. Then, when Hatch asked her about the difference between nineteenth century precedent involving the privileges or immunities clause and the twentieth century cases involving the due process clause, she said she did not recall the cases well enough to address the difference.”

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 09:37 PM (fpywm)

8 Bender described it best. "We're boned".

Posted by: Dick Nixon at July 14, 2009 09:38 PM (VH3n3)

9 On a shallow note, why, oh, why can't women like the Wise Latina and teh Hillary invest in a little "touch up" around the eyelids? I'm not talking Pelosi-scary, just something to help them look "rested." Just sayin'.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at July 14, 2009 09:38 PM (UOM48)

10
Tom Arnold had an interesting take on Sotomayormccheese.

By interesting I mean dumb and illogical. He pretty much said she didn't say anything wrong, and if she did, so what, 'cuz the White men have it coming.

Then Tom Arnold went on to say Sarah Palin's op-ed today was dumb and incoherent.

Posted by: Tweets at July 14, 2009 09:39 PM (2kQhn)

11 7, Specifically, from Randy Barnett at Instapundit.

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 09:39 PM (fpywm)

12 Screw the Establishment!

Posted by: New hippy at July 14, 2009 09:43 PM (FWPgR)

13 10 Tom Arnold??The guy who used to bang Roseanne Barr???(Christ I did not need that image right now....or ever.)

Posted by: steevy at July 14, 2009 09:43 PM (zaQDT)

14 Hell NO We Wont Go...
Communist.

Posted by: New hippy at July 14, 2009 09:46 PM (FWPgR)

15 I hope it's not the same Tom Arnold that was married to Roseanne. If it is, why do we care what he said?

Forgive my ignorance, but we have a lot of brain-dead celebrities spouting ignorant crap, so I have to ask.

Posted by: african chick at July 14, 2009 09:47 PM (5Wjck)

16 10 Tom Arnold had an interesting take on Sotomayormccheese.at July 14, 2009 09:39 PM (2kQhn)

Thank you but I'm with holding my judgment until Britney Spears weighs-in on this appointment. She, being a slutty alcoholic pill head, has a richness of experience I can only dream about.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at July 14, 2009 09:47 PM (H7Rlw)

17 I heard a few clips of Sister Sonya on the radio today- it's clear she's telling committee members what they want to hear, not what she believes

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.''Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!''Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.'I won't!' said Alice.'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Posted by: Jones at July 14, 2009 09:47 PM (KOkrW)

18
Hannity had him on. I don't know why.


Posted by: Tweets at July 14, 2009 09:48 PM (2kQhn)

19 Ordinarily, my response to a liberal woman's claim to greater wisdom based solely on her gender would be, "Show me your tits!" But since I strongly suspect Sonya is none other than Manuel Noriega in hose and lipstick, I'll refrain from any overt references to said man boobs...

Posted by: CoolCzech at July 14, 2009 09:48 PM (teBup)

20 Peart .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at July 14, 2009 09:48 PM (vKdhq)

21 Hey, y'all smell that? I think there's an ONT near ...

Posted by: somejoe at July 14, 2009 09:51 PM (yP5sH)

22 Time to sheeve this govt NOW.
So mote it be.

Posted by: New hippy at July 14, 2009 09:53 PM (FWPgR)

23 A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation,"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said Monday.

Weasel Zippers has link. Sorry, family time.

Posted by: momma at July 14, 2009 09:55 PM (penCf)

24 Ace, does the word perjury even exist in a liberal's world?

Posted by: 12 IMF at July 14, 2009 09:56 PM (n2vBd)

25 Of course she's lying. As if we need a liberal law professor to say it.Mainstream legal thought in this country's been nothing but a huge game of competitive sophism, with contending factions twistingprecedence and what had been understood as straightforward language,for over a century now. The only question is whether it was ever any different, or if it began immediately during and after the founding.

Posted by: MlR at July 14, 2009 09:58 PM (op9m5)

26 Has anyone thanked the 52% yet?

This chick is a racist radical who is also dumber than a bag of hammers and meaner than Rosie protecting her food dish.

Texas, what the frick are you waiting for?

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 09:58 PM (fpywm)

27 Sotomayormccheese
OOooh, how deliciously nasty, combining the Mickey-D fromage-iness with the oh-so-un-PC pronounciation "mayor" instead of "my-oar". The pretentious deserve to be kicked hard, the liars kicked even harder, and the Democrats, combining the essence of both... yeeeouch!

Posted by: sherlock at July 14, 2009 09:58 PM (L4jPh)

28

I myself am totally confident that Sotormayer can judiciate in the highest court of the land despite her racial, sexual, ethnic, ideological, identity biases.



SKITTLES !!!!! UNICORNS !!!!

Posted by: Blazer at July 14, 2009 09:59 PM (AoS9J)

29 21Hey, y'all smell that? I think there's an ONT near ...
ETA 15 minutes. Just trying not to stomp on Ace's thread.

Posted by: genghis at July 14, 2009 10:00 PM (1XErj)

30 I think she'll get confirmed but a lot of americans are going to realize she was a terrible nominee. That reflects badly on Obama. Already less than half support her.

Posted by: Village Idiot at July 14, 2009 10:01 PM (bzBZ0)

31 It's really sad that this singularly unimpressive unqualified woman is going to be on the Court.

I'd
rather have the smartest liberal Obama could fine. Part of it is for political
reasons (we'd get better commercials out of it) but also, it's the fucking
Supreme Court. The votes would be the same but you should have the smartest people you can muster serving there.

This is an embarrassment.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 14, 2009 10:02 PM (iTt2X)

32
Imagine Obama's second choice...

Posted by: Tweets things that make you go hmmm at July 14, 2009 10:06 PM (2kQhn)

33 speaking of Texas, and kind of OT but anyone see that show on NGC about the death penalty which sotomeyer is against because its racist btw according to her..
you texas guys are fucking cold! kill a dude and stick his rotting corpse in a cardboard box!!! am i sick in the head because it makes me laugh?

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:06 PM (VPD0X)

34 We are the ones we have been waiting for.
New hipsters, lets take the ball and run forward offense against the MAN.
We have to do this.
Or die.
Lets crush em with their own words. Think 60's or so...

Posted by: New hippy at July 14, 2009 10:08 PM (FWPgR)

35 ETA 15 minutes. Just trying not to stomp on Ace's thread.

I doubt that he'd notice. It's not as if he actually reads his own blog.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur, Crypto- at July 14, 2009 10:08 PM (9Lm5R)

36 Egads. Sockpuppet fail.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur, Crypto-idiot who can't control his crypto-sockpuppet at July 14, 2009 10:10 PM (9Lm5R)

37 Posted by: CoolCzech at July 14, 2009 09:48 PM (teBup)

Thanks bro. Now I won't eat anything for a few days. My diet thanks you. My love of cheap chinese buffets curses you.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at July 14, 2009 10:12 PM (VH3n3)

38 HELLO ACE!!!!
I need to respond to something you said here:

For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution
is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no
Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is
also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of
authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy.

This is not quite right Ace!!!

Look at Article X (that's ten for val-u-rite vodka fans) of the constitution.
It says,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

If the constition is silent on a matter, it doesn't mean the feds have power to write any kind of law! It means the law should be the domain of the STATES!

Of course this only applies if you believe in what the constitution actually says. You can adopt the living breathing theory of the constitution which means anything goes yahoo!

Posted by: Village Idiot at July 14, 2009 10:13 PM (bzBZ0)

39 But lying is the new American Way, don't you get it? Just before you hear the last gasp of America, allowing the sheeplehistorytards to grant Obama/Gore their New World Order.

This isn't a game, people...

Posted by: Coastie at July 14, 2009 10:13 PM (0KgXX)

40 This chick is a racist radical who is also dumber than a bag of hammers and meaner than Rosie protecting her food dish.



Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 09:58 PM (fpywm)

I resent that. Make fun of Rosie all you want but leave me out of this.

Posted by: A Bag Of Hammers at July 14, 2009 10:13 PM (apFko)

41 Ace, you know your morons well; they're getting off on this pointless drivel. Just so you and the 'brains brains' crowd have some perspective, the reality is that yer e-leet libruls and pro-gressives regard Sotomayor as a strong technical lawyer with disappointingly centrist leanings. The moron side of the planet could not hope to do any better than this nominee. Moreover, if you'll do a head count, you'll observe that there are only 7 Rs on the Senate Judiciary Committee, versus 12 Ds. This is, as they say, entirely an exercise in Kabuki theater, as this nominee is going to get through with at least 12 votes, maybe as many as 15 [Graham, Cornyn because he's shit scared of the hispanic vote and possibly Hatch], and at the full Senate level a whole wacko more of Rs will use numbers to take cover to pander to their own hispanic voters, to put her at 80 plus votes.

But hey, if you want to amuse yourself with a bottle of ripple thinking your allstar team of mental giants is doing a fabulous job, pass the bottle and have at it.

Posted by: diderot's dog at July 14, 2009 10:14 PM (wJWLX)

42 31,

Exactly. The dumbing down continues and spreads.

Shouldn't a SCOTUS nominee dazzle us with brilliance and have a command of the Law and the Constitution that few can rival?

Shouldn't the nominee make you think the Nation will be in the best of hands?

Roberts and Alito were totally badass.

None of the people out there singing her praises would ever hire her for important work for themselves. Would you want her leading your defense team?



Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 10:14 PM (fpywm)

43
I asked earlier if anyone in the Boston area remembers the crafty joo-lawyer Arthur Miller and his show, Miller's Court.


Posted by: Tweets things that make you go hmmm at July 14, 2009 10:15 PM (2kQhn)

44 Would you want her leading your defense team?
I wouldn't want her judging a pie-eating contest.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 14, 2009 10:17 PM (FWbHu)

45 Those R's who didn't/don't feel this is a battle worth fighting should be ________. (Help me out morons.) If they can't defeat this nomination, then WTF?

Posted by: The Hammer at July 14, 2009 10:17 PM (YBTwf)

46 If you have to lie to get across a greater truth, then it isn't really a lie at all because your intentions are all that matters.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at July 14, 2009 10:18 PM (H7Rlw)

47

yeah, imagine how awful it would be for the GOP if the hispanics voted against them!!!

oh wait, the hispanics already do vote against them.


Posted by: Tweets things that make you go hmmm at July 14, 2009 10:18 PM (2kQhn)

48 Posted by: diderot's dog at July 14, 2009 10:14 PM (wJWLX)

Wow, the old trolls are coming out of the woodwork for this one.

That can't be the original dd though, there's actually a paragraph break separating some of the spew.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 14, 2009 10:19 PM (iTt2X)

49 Everything I said was true except the stuff that was not.

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 10:19 PM (fpywm)

50
oh noes we better be nice to Obama and vote for all his shit or else we're gonna lose 90% of the black vote!!!

Posted by: Republicans in Congress at July 14, 2009 10:20 PM (2kQhn)

51 <engage, ignore? engage, ignore?>

<or laugh later as his comments are edited>

Posted by: Dave C at July 14, 2009 10:20 PM (apFko)

52 #41...Posted by: diderot's dog at July 14, 2009 10:14 PM (wJWLX)
So, by your logic, R's should not oppose anything B to the O throws at them since we're always going to be outnumbered.
Remind me to never be in a situation where my life is dependant on your courage.

Posted by: The Hammer at July 14, 2009 10:21 PM (YBTwf)

53
we better watch our p's 'n q's or else the Democrats will remind everyone about 'macaca'!!!

Posted by: Republicans in Congress at July 14, 2009 10:21 PM (2kQhn)

54 Obama and Sotomayor are giving us brown-to-black folks a bad reputation as idiots. At least we have people like Justice Thomas and Thomas Sowell to balance things out.

What I used to tell people when they were making a big fuss about Obama being the first black president is that he could ruin it for minorities in the future because if he seriously sucked (which he does - and that is an understatement), people would be like, hell no, I ain't voting for a black guy again. (A lot of the people who voted for him because of his skin color, that is.)

Posted by: african chick at July 14, 2009 10:22 PM (5Wjck)

55 48,

It also didn't have that cocaine/LSD stream of consciousness feel to it.

I guess better meds administered in a clinical setting can do some good.

Posted by: eman at July 14, 2009 10:22 PM (fpywm)

56 O/T: While Pixy is fixing things, for those who already read the health bill, why not take a look at the video on zero hedge: Ratigan and Ritholz Discuss Goldman

Posted by: muffy at July 14, 2009 10:22 PM (zplc6)

57
Bush/Cheney!

Torture!

Waterboarding!

Abu Graib!

Halliburton!

Enron!

Jack Abramoff!

Mark Foley!

Elliot Spitzer!

oh wait, that one is ours

Posted by: Democrats in Congress at July 14, 2009 10:23 PM (2kQhn)

58 41



Gottdam, can a brutha at least get a spellcheck and a paragraph break or two to at least seperate the drivel from the.... well drivel ?

Posted by: Blazer at July 14, 2009 10:24 PM (AoS9J)

59 Will someone please explain to idiot dd that if none of those Rs on the committee vote to advance her to a senate vote that it kills her nomination
12 to 7 means jack shit

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:25 PM (VPD0X)

60 I hate it when DD makes a little sense, makes my brain hurt, however, those pro-gressives who regard Sotomayor as a strong technical lawyer with disappointingly centrist leanings are the same people who complain about NPR being a facist right wing radio network.

Posted by: John Galt at July 14, 2009 10:25 PM (Ylv1H)

61 54 Did you know that do to bambi's pitch tonight, all black pitchers contracts are being reveiwed?

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:27 PM (VPD0X)

62 Actually, I think that for the nomination to make it out of committee at least one Republican must vote for her...

Could be wrong, though.

Posted by: Popcorn at July 14, 2009 10:27 PM (Tha0W)

63 judging involves nothing but application of the law to facts.

Ummm, yea right. BTDT, got the T-shirt, and it sucked.

Posted by: Dred Scott at July 14, 2009 10:28 PM (AEpYi)

64 Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?

More, please.

Shovel it on!

Posted by: Little Sarah the Quit Bull at July 14, 2009 10:29 PM (i31Zq)

65 Popcorn, you are right.

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:29 PM (VPD0X)

66 RAAAACIST!

Posted by: John Galt at July 14, 2009 10:30 PM (Ylv1H)

67 Methinks the Wise Latina is going to make Bader Ginsburg look like a piker.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 14, 2009 10:30 PM (/2hGD)

68 Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?
look at her appeal record, it sucks, therefore, if it walks like a duck.....

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:31 PM (VPD0X)

69 For me, it's much more simple.
It's her tone.
From almost the moment she opened her mouth she had that easily recognizable tone which said that she is very self-satisfied. If it were the libs making fun of Muffy and Biff and their filthy money they would purse their lips or speak from their noses. With her, it's the dragging on ofevery word in every sentence.
That is a woman who is in love with the sound of her own voice.

Posted by: jmflynny at July 14, 2009 10:32 PM (Pc4pq)

70 64
Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?
I would never do that to Miguel Estrada.

Posted by: Dave C at July 14, 2009 10:32 PM (apFko)

71 It is time to call Ace out on his double standard. He is much quicker to ban a right winger for a racist comment than he is to bust a lefty troll for the same behavior.

Posted by: John Galt at July 14, 2009 10:33 PM (Ylv1H)

72 calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?

How about not very inspired? Lacking in originality? SCOTUS doesn't get too many cases suited to a grinder's mentality. That sort of junk is handled in lower courts.

Idiot? Probably not. I suspect her IQ is well under 130 though.

Essentially, she's the John McCain of SCOTUS appointments - "I've been around long enough, its my turn now, even though I'm pretty mediocre on all counts."


Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2009 10:34 PM (AEpYi)

73
wow I just did a quick glance of the some the shit Schumer said about why they torpedoed Miguel Estrada.

It's so obvious why the Dems did it: to keep Estrada, a hispanic, from advancing to the Supreme Court. They knew they could never allow Bush to appoint the first hispanic. Bastards.


Posted by: Tweets at July 14, 2009 10:34 PM (2kQhn)

74 64 Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?
Why would anyone on the right -- far or otherwise -- denigrate Miguel Estrada?

Posted by: AmishDude at July 14, 2009 10:35 PM (FWbHu)

75 Off topic- but the American League wins again. Damn.

Posted by: RKG at July 14, 2009 10:35 PM (Lsz2a)

76 64 Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?More, please.Shovel it on!
Posted by: Little Sarah the Quit Bull at July 14, 2009 10:29 PM (i31Zq)


I think you'll find AofSHQ a wonderful place to espouse/promote the virtues of identity politics.

Posted by: The Hammer at July 14, 2009 10:37 PM (YBTwf)

77 Why would anyone on the right -- far or otherwise -- denigrate Miguel Estrada?

Because he never could act and what did he ever do after CHIPS?

Posted by: RKG at July 14, 2009 10:38 PM (Lsz2a)

78 #31 "I'd rather have the smartest liberal Obama could find"
I wouldn't. A smart, persuasiveliberal mightsway Kennedy on some casesandswing a closelydivided court the wrong way. There's very little chance of that happening with this dim bulb.
As far as embarassment -- given who we electedas ourPresident and what has transpired since, this appointment barely registerson my embarass-o-meter.

Posted by: JPS at July 14, 2009 10:38 PM (V5inu)

79 Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?



Hold on jurist ? I thought she was a judge? She would have never passed the vetting process to sit on a jury with her biases.

Posted by: Blazer at July 14, 2009 10:39 PM (AoS9J)

80 Why would anyone on the right -- far or otherwise -- denigrate Miguel Estrada?
That what he gets for starring in CHIPS, i hated that show
but many e-mail pranks were sent with his photo were sent so I guess bonus points are due

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:39 PM (VPD0X)

81 '* See Peart, Neil, et al., "Freewill."'

Well played, sir. I hie me to youtube...

Posted by: Bugs at July 14, 2009 10:39 PM (uBQIJ)

82 So what's the penalty for lying before congress anyway?

Posted by: Iblis at July 14, 2009 10:40 PM (hipFZ)

83 damn you rkg and your ninja-fast typing

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 14, 2009 10:40 PM (VPD0X)

84 82 So what's the penalty for lying before congress anyway?
Posted by: Iblis at July 14, 2009 10:40 PM (hipFZ)
Confirmation

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at July 14, 2009 10:41 PM (H7Rlw)

85 She's been reversed seven times by SCOTUS thus far.

Souter and Alito were reversed a similar number of times, and neither of them has proven to be particularly inspired SCOTUS jurists.

If she got something wrong seven times in the past badly enough that it went to SCOTUS and was reversed, who's going to fix her fuckups as a SCOTUS judge?

There is no appeal past SCOTUS. When a SCOTUS judge gets it wrong, it stays wrong...for quite a while usually.

IMO, if you've been reversed more than once or twice, you're not SCOTUS material.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2009 10:43 PM (AEpYi)

86 If you have to lie to get across a greater truth, then it isn't really
a lie at all because your intentions are all that matters.

Or as Rush says about the liberal view on justice:

"The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters."

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 14, 2009 10:43 PM (/2hGD)

87 >So what's the penalty for lying before congress anyway?
re-election, promotions, cmte chairmanships, beautiful manors in Ireland, nice properties in the islands...

Posted by: Jones at July 14, 2009 10:48 PM (KOkrW)

88
I got impeached and look at me!

Posted by: Rep. Alcee Hastings at July 14, 2009 10:50 PM (2kQhn)

89 #13...
Ever see that Leibovitz photoof Tom and Rosie rolling around in mud?


*You're welcome.

Posted by: jmflynny at July 14, 2009 10:51 PM (Pc4pq)

90 Because he never could act and what did he ever do after CHIPS?
Posted by: RKG at July 14, 2009 10:38 PM (Lsz2a)

However I did get to retire early after all the work I did on him.

Posted by: His Dentis at July 14, 2009 10:52 PM (1tvww)

91 Ace,

Great post at such an odd time. Thanks.

Posted by: Iskandar at July 14, 2009 10:54 PM (SB5kV)

92 It is impossible to defeat Sotomayor unless there is a reason for some Democrats to vote against her. The racism angle may excite the general public but it won't stop a single Democrat from voting to pander to a politically viable minority. Only if it costs them will Democrats consider not voting for her and her racism doesn't cost enough.

Republicans need to bring out that she's a anti second amendment activist. And that might cost a lot of votes in Montana, Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia and elsewhere. It is only by threatening Democrats that you can get them to acknowledge the Constitution. Everything else is political theater meant to protect GOP Senators, not to defeat Sotomayor.

She's a gun grabber. Can a Democrat from New Mexico or Alaska risk having that as the central theme in their next campaign. It is the only hope we have.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 14, 2009 10:57 PM (/Pt4f)

93 jmnflynny @ 89:

What. On. Earth. Please don't do that again.

Posted by: african chick at July 14, 2009 10:59 PM (5Wjck)

94 Will the Supreme Court even matter once Mullah Obama turns America over to sharia law?

Posted by: kbdabear at July 14, 2009 11:02 PM (0Lv+U)

95

How does someone so miserably unqualified get picked by the true genius, first black guy at Harvard something or other, first Black President?

See, being black and being hispanic, well, this makes you smarter than a white guy, and way smarter than a white conservative, but we know white conservative women are fucking morons, so let's not even talk about them.

Nice Rush ref Ace...Neil seems to have forgotten his rational roots for the most part.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. Ted Koppel at July 14, 2009 11:05 PM (CHf6r)

96 The Dems keep harping that the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 on the Ricci case so it was close. What they don't say is all nine judges said theappeals court was wrong. The 5-4 related to a disagreement on whetherto rule definitively or refer the case back to the lower courts.

Posted by: davod at July 14, 2009 11:09 PM (GUZAT)

97 I have a request. I'd like to say that the author of thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/sotomayor-cfj is lying, but I want to make sure that what he claims is an inaccurate representation of the ad. Could someone watch the video and provide an accurate transcript? It's only a few seconds.

After I get that I'll make a post about him designed to show to those searching for his name that he's a liar (assuming, of course, that his description doesn't match the video).

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom at July 14, 2009 11:24 PM (CmcMj)

98 AZ Sen Kyle on Mark Levin show. Levin asks Kyle, in light of the BS she threw out at the hearing (paraphrasing), does he believe her? The SOB couldn't answer with a simple "No". THEY ARE ALL A BUNCH OF PC ASSHOLES WHO DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT US. He spit out a bunch of shit - "Do I believe she believes what she said?" type of nonsense.

Anyone who thinks these idiots care about America, as opposed to keeping themselves in power, is fooling themselves.

Posted by: JS at July 14, 2009 11:24 PM (MfgGU)

99 #83, sorry joe I may type fast but do admire your wit!

Posted by: RKG at July 14, 2009 11:28 PM (Lsz2a)

100 Lindsay Graham cleaned Soto's clock today, though. She couldn't keep up with him. It took her almost ten seconds to answer the question, "Are we at war?"
Best part, though, was when Graham brought up the Wise Latina remark. He couldn't find the quote in his papers and he asked her to say it out loud. She sort of looked at someone else we couldn't see on camera as if to ask, "Is he serious?" They both kind of laughed it off, but I wish Graham and pushed her to repeat the comment.

Posted by: jaleach at July 14, 2009 11:31 PM (gHrZU)

101 She sounds like a genuine idiot.

On the other hand, this is the perfect moment to thank, really thank, all the Laura Ingrahams, and Michelle Malkins, and El-Rushbo's, etc, out there who contributed so much to convincing people that voting for McCain was the worstest thing they could ever do. Ever. I hope they all feel proud that they proved their Conservative bonafides, and trashed McCain good. All in the name of being "fare and balanced" of course. Which Liberals strongly believe in...

Great job. Not one had the balls to call Barry a racist, but Sonya?

Oops. Too late...

Posted by: JS at July 14, 2009 11:38 PM (MfgGU)

102 How does someone so miserably unqualified get picked by the true
genius, first black guy at Harvard something or other, first Black
President?

Even though it's obvious to everyone that Obama set a trap for the far right with his pick of Sotomayor....they walked right into it anyway.

Then again, if they could control their baser urges, they'd still be in power.

Posted by: Little Sarah the Quit Bull at July 14, 2009 11:45 PM (i31Zq)

103 Why discuss? Short of a "meltdown", she's confirmed.
A complete waste of time. Sad as that may be.

Posted by: Derak at July 14, 2009 11:58 PM (w+BTI)

104 Even though it's obvious to everyone that Obama set a trap for the far
right with his pick of Sotomayor....they walked right into it anyway.

Picking a bumbling racist as a Supreme Court nominee is not a 'trap', it's just another example of shocking incompetence and sheer stupidity by President Net Spending Cut which we get to add to an already lengthy list. And it's only been six months. Why, it's almost as if experience matters in executive positions!

Posted by: Waterhouse at July 15, 2009 12:01 AM (Watsu)

105 Picking a bumbling racist as a Supreme Court nominee...

Excellent.

More, please.

Posted by: Little Sarah the Quit Bull at July 15, 2009 12:06 AM (i31Zq)

106 Then again, if they could control their baser urges, they'd still be in power.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at July 15, 2009 12:11 AM (/2hGD)

107
"They both kind of laughed it off, but I wish Graham and pushed her to repeat the comment."
Apparently, she’s said it more than once. Perhaps Sotomayor was confused as to, specifically, which version she was being asked to repeat.
Alternatively, perhaps she is/was under the impression that remarks she makes to her people are not fair topics for the general population to discuss.
I watched the recommended section of the Sotomayor hearing at HotAir.
I’m not sure that Sotomayor was evading questions. In some cases she seemed to only marginally understand the concepts and information presented to her. I wonder about her grasp and command of English; I recall that she used the word "future" when she likely meant "past" (in English, these words mean different things), and made a few other errors.Not language errors that I would expect a senior Federal Circuit Judge to make, and certainly not due to neves/
Also, many of her responses were of the standard Liberal-Socialist-Marxist BS form, but they weren’t the evasive form, more of the form expected by professors and grad-students (i.e., people who affect your grades).
Perhaps Harvard, Yale, Princeton, . . . areno longer what they once calimed to be.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 15, 2009 12:15 AM (X6CSM)

108 Nice RUSH reference Boss. I love those guys, under appreciated ; however in the Great White North.

Posted by: mr. Chumpo at July 15, 2009 12:42 AM (dDysH)

109 Yeah, JS. Blame those who didn't see fit to vote for a fucking RINO shitbag who didn't have the balls to support his own VP nominee.


Posted by: 1991 at July 15, 2009 06:05 AM (8tl6j)

110 She plays a great game of dodgeball...I unfortunately see confirmation ahead.

Posted by: billygoat at July 15, 2009 06:42 AM (DrB2V)

111 We've won the argument. That's why their nominees feel they must pretend to be judicial conservatives.To secure a nomination, aSotomayor will dishonestlyclaim she doesn't believe in foreign law, but you never see an Alito claiming to believe in "emanating penumbras".

Posted by: Judge Wapner at July 15, 2009 07:01 AM (Hh13R)

112 Arelen specter on morning Joe. Joe: "Senator, did Harry Reid lie to you?" Apparently Specter was supposed to keep his position as a republican as a democrat. He then said "I don't mind, I've been in the last seat or something to that effect at the table and look at the effect I had on Bork. He said "stay tuned" he will be talking and that is what is important. Joe asked how his reelection campaign is shaping up and he basically said "hmm, good".

Posted by: muffy at July 15, 2009 07:53 AM (zplc6)

113 Ahahahahaha!
From the AP:
It’s a good thing Sonia Sotomayor speaks Sotomayoran.
After week upon week in which plenty of other people on the planet interpreted Sotomayor’s past comments, the Supreme Court nominee at last got a chance to deconstruct her own words Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
“I didn’t intend to suggest …” she explained.
“What I was speaking about …” she offered.
“As I have tried to explain …” she parsed.
“I wasn’t talking about …” she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
“I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat,” she averred.
“It was bad,” she said. Of her own words.

Posted by: Jay at July 15, 2009 08:04 AM (/ZX77)

114 A very interesting comment from someone on CNBC who essentially said they are not only vetting her but the prez's speeches as well and sending the message that they want someone more main stream the next time??? Then the person went on to say she will be confirmed. It was a confusing odd conversation to watch and they all laughed at the republicans for bringing up Estrada saying Americans don't know who he is.

Posted by: muffy at July 15, 2009 08:27 AM (zplc6)

115 man of the stupid and liberal (BIRM) she is entirely

Okay, I must not be smart enough to be a Moron. What does this "BIRM" mean?

From the context, it is likely to be something insulting and/or denigrating, but I can't figure this out...

Posted by: Drumwaster at July 15, 2009 08:31 AM (DHt8f)

116 Drumwaster - BIRM = "But I Repeat Myself."

Posted by: Scott Crawford at July 15, 2009 08:34 AM (a9iVV)

117 Jan Crawford Greenburg has the best take on the Estrada thing of anyone in the MSM. Check out her blog where she blasts Soso and the Dem leadership for their lies about Estrada.

I have always like this woman (probably because she is a redheaded babe with green eyes). If you haven’t read her book about Supreme Conflict yet you should give it a read. It will open your eyes to some of the really stupid things that go on in these appointments.

Check out her blog (sorry it IS part of ABC news)

Posted by: Vic at July 15, 2009 08:35 AM (5ynkO)

118 Sotomayor has publicly gifted the world her acknowledged absolute absence of integrity.

Her opponents supposedly argue to allow her into the SCOTUS because Obama's other intended nominees are so much worse. How, because they actually have scruples, though they be contrary?

Posted by: maverick muse at July 15, 2009 08:37 AM (F1b/5)

119 Thank you, Scott. I will remember.

And I'm so glad to see that Libruls no longer think "treating different ethnicities differently, specifically because of their ethnicity", is Racism.

Of course, being a wise Caucasian male, my innate Caucasian-ness would make me better qualified to judge these things than anyone with darker skin than I. (I'll be waiting for my SCOTUS nomination letter over at the dessert tray...)

(Of course, I'm part AmerIndian, so any criticism of me would be, ipso facto, proof of racism on their part.)

Gosh this is fun!

Posted by: Drumwaster at July 15, 2009 08:53 AM (DHt8f)

120 109

Exactly. Barry is/ was so obviously bad that the vote was truly one of the lesser of two evils. I can't stand McCain, but you seriously prefer Barry over him?

That sounds great, but now that the FIRST radical SCOTUS justice is in place, you may want to re-think the cute, "purist" position...

Oh yeah. Too late!

Posted by: JS at July 15, 2009 09:06 AM (MfgGU)

121 Liberal Law Professor: Sotomayor Either Perjuring Herself or Unqualified
I guess that means he's a conservative now.
A racist, fascist, war-loving, gun-clinging, Bible-thumping, election-stealing, Constitution-shredding, climate-change-denying, stock-car-race-watching, reproductive-choice-taking-awaying, hypocritical troglodyte of a conservative.

Posted by: FireHorse at July 15, 2009 09:27 AM (jMk+v)

122 We have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.

Posted by: John McCain at July 15, 2009 09:41 AM (c2P97)

123 the vote was truly one of the lesser of two evils

When you pick the lesser of two evils, you are guaranteed to not only get evil, but less.

Hope and Change Express, all aboard!

(PS: FUCK John McCain. He may have been a very brave man several decades ago, and I appreciate and respect his service, but what has he done in the last twenty years to make him worthy of ANYONE'S vote utterly escapes me. I think we would have had a better chance at keeping the White House with Laura Bush running instead of McCain.)

(And, yes, I held my nose and cast my vote - not FOR McCain, but AGAINST Barry. However, I live in California, so it was a wasted effort, no matter what.)

Posted by: Drumwaster at July 15, 2009 09:54 AM (DHt8f)

124 This is an incorrect interpretation of what the Constitution authorizes ---
"For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy."
The correct answer should be ---
"For example, when faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, since the Constitution does not delegate the power for this law to the Congress, it is by definition unconstitutional. Lacking a constitutional sourced of authority, a judge has no alternative but to strike down the unconstitutional law."

Unfortunately, the Congress and their enablers in the Courts haveignored the Constitutional limits on gov't power so that the original quote is viewed as allowable.

Posted by: Mark E at July 15, 2009 10:05 AM (w5RwR)

125 Jan Crawford Greenburg is a superb reporter on the activities of SCOTUS. Now can she just hire a few guns to take down Nina Totenberg(NPR) and Linda Greenhouse(NYT) because these two establishment whores run the whole fucking SCOTUS reporting show for the world.

Why couldn't Ted Kennedy date these women?

Posted by: WTF Capital Investments at July 15, 2009 11:29 AM (GtYrq)

126 Holy shit. Greenburg lights a forest fire.

If Trent Lott had been majority leader, Estrada would have been
confirmed. And odds are, it would be Miguel Estrada, not Sotomayor, who
would be the first Hispanic Justice on the Supreme Court.

There are a whole bunch of hypotheticals in that piece.

Posted by: WTF Capital Investments at July 15, 2009 11:33 AM (GtYrq)

127 Sotomayor favors internbational law. That alone disqualifies her. As usual Durbin wins the racist of the year award. I love it when he opens his mouth.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 15, 2009 11:59 AM (B8gqF)

128 Either Perjuring Herself or Unqualified

Perjuring Herself and Unqualified

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2009 12:20 PM (AEpYi)

129 Ace, that's my favorite line from "Freewill."
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
So true, so true....

Posted by: Jeff Lebowski at July 15, 2009 12:47 PM (jPQyl)

130 Per #38 and #124, if it's not addressed in the constitution, it's a state or individual matter, and any law concerning the issue is unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment specifically granting the federal government the power to regulate the issue.
To suggest that anything not specifically addressed by the constitution is wide open to federal regulation violates the limited government part of the constitution. Cut back on the Gila venom and valu-rite, Ace.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at July 15, 2009 02:19 PM (ltwze)

131 "Is the far right really jumping in with both feet and calling one of the brightest Hispanic jurists an idiot?
I would never do that to Miguel Estrada.

Indeed, not only that, but I'd never do it even to Jose Cabranes, fellow Puerto Rican Clinton 2nd Circuit appointee who called Sotomayor on her unethical bullshit in trying to hide the ball in Ricci.

"...when faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is
absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say that under the 9th
and 10th Amendments, since the Constitution does not delegate the power
for this law to the Congress, it is by definition unconstitutional."

Not all legal questions about federal action are about statutes passed by Congress. For example, can a treaty regulate matters Congress could not regulate by statute, since the Constitution grants the Senate the power to ratify treaties, and the Supremacy Clause makes treaties, like federal statutes and the Constitution itself, the supreme law of the land? Can Congress then adopt implemeting legislation pursuant to the terms of that ratified treaty? The answer simply is not to be found one way or another in the text of the Constitution itself.

As another example, what do you make of the fact that the vesting clauses of Articles II and III do not contain the phrase "herein granted" that's in the legislative vesting clause of Article I? Does that not necessarily imply that there is more to "the Executive Power of the United States" and "the Judicial Power of the United States" than the powers expressly granted to the President and the federal courts, unlike detailed list of Congress's powers in Art. I, section 8?

Oh, and since you're invoking the Tenth Amendment, what about the Ninth Amendment? Doesn't its language almost REQUIRE courts to look for unenumerated rights? As someone who likes to think of myself as an originalist, a textualist, a federalist and a committed adherent of separation of powers, I've always thought the Ninth potentially problematic. But it's there: one can't be intellectually honest in trying to enforce the entire document and yet ignore it.

Posted by: Dave J. at July 15, 2009 04:12 PM (jNE9Q)

132 Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

Posted by: royalmewigs at July 15, 2009 11:07 PM (/e8MS)

133 Well this was the overwhelming reason I held my nose and voted for McCain - not much of a chance he'd nominate Alito/Roberts types but a chance. Just given the age of the justices Obama probably will replace another liberal or two with radical liberals like this one.
The only real hope in such a situation is that A)none of the conservative justices or the one swing justice retire.
In which case in the long run it may backfire - even the liberal supreme court cases weren't impressed by her "reasoning" and by liberal folks account she has a temper, rubs people the wrong way etc. and that might if lucky both alienate other justices and show the public that if you elect Democrats you get the 9th Circuit for the US Supreme Court.
It might backfire on liberals long term

Posted by: odooley at July 16, 2009 03:42 AM (eGxtL)

134 Sorry, but your post is based on a bizarrely incorrect premise. Sotomayor is not a left-winger in any way, shape, or form. Why do you think that? I don't believe you've looked into it on your own, I believe you're just repeating what you've been told.

Sotomayor is a dead-center, always-votes-with-precedent, completely unobjectionable and non-radical choice. If you think she's a left-wing "Living Constitutionalist," you don't literally don't know what you're talking about. There are few federal appellate justices in the entire country who have voted with the mainstream majority more often, and who are less "activist", than Sotomayor. You are definitely going to want to check your facts.

I challenge you to back up anything you've said here. And no, quoting blog posts and/or Jeff Sessions doesn't count.

Posted by: Joseph Lochner at July 16, 2009 01:00 PM (8RYt8)

135 Pfft. She's going to be confirmed whether you asswipes like it or not. Face the facts: You got thumped in the last election, and no one gives a shit what you say or think any more.

Posted by: Bitter Scribe at July 17, 2009 03:36 PM (iUWuv)

136 power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Car power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Pure sine wave inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Modified sine wave power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then power inverter with chargerThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then solar controllerThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then solar inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Dc power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Watt power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then 12V power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then soalr charger controller They turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then Grid tied power inverterThey turned to the crowd who were fleeing scattered, and then

Posted by: power inverter at October 13, 2010 10:30 AM (atacM)

137 If you are planning on storing info in the cloud, you should make sure that the company is SSAE 16 certified prior to making your selection

Posted by: classic short ugg at November 02, 2010 01:17 AM (xUY3t)

138 I am not sure what you want at Christmas ,but for me ,I want new UGG boots no matter if it is replica,I fascinated by it,thank you for sharing www.apparelsaler.com

Posted by: UGG BOOTS FANS at November 24, 2010 08:52 AM (xe8dW)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0349 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0193 seconds, 146 records returned.
Page size 88 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat