19 thoughts on “CLARENCE THOMAS'D”

  • CC says:

    Oh, please! As if Obama et. al. aren't pandering. The woman's got a thin resume by SC standards and has made some incredibly questionable calls, judicially.

    The administration is just trying to secure the Latino vote for the next, I don't know, three generations?

    And the pillorying of Alberto Gonzales didn't hurt the Democrats, did it?

  • Ed says:

    Dear CC,

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

    And trashing the shit out of Gonzales didn't hurt because A) He was a complete idiot, even in the estimation of his own partisans and B) your party consists largely of racists who trash "the Mexicans" to win political points with hillbillies. Is "thin resume" really the best you can do? Enjoy the 85-10 confirmation vote. Also, fuck you.

    Love,
    BO

  • Michael says:

    Oh, my goodness, that felt good. Sorry to shout, I must have been clearing a blockage or something.

    But still, CC, go fuck yourself.

  • J. Dryden says:

    A thin resume? Yeah, because Yale Law (where she was Editor of the Journal), then working in the NYC DA's office, then private practice, then a federal district judgeship, then 10 years on the appeals court just don't add up to much. I mean, it's not as if she received a first-class education at which she excelled, then served successfully on both sides of the advocacy venue of the law, and then sat on the federal bench for over a decade. Oh, wait.

  • CC says:

    It may just prove useful to have a Supreme Court Justice who knows what it's like to have a bone-headed legal decision over-turned by the same Court they sit on (as Sotomayor has).

    She'll be able to "empathize" with attorneys presenting their cases which is of the utmost importance. It's more about people "feel" about the law actually being applied to them and having Justices who get how much an effect it has on people then, say, having a working knowledge of the Constitution and actually interpreting the law.

    Sotomayer has said:

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

    So she's not interested in interpreting rulings based on their Constitutionality, but rather in how her experiences fit over top of them and in light of her gender and Latina-ness. It's simply precious!

  • CC says:

    Plus a little diversity is a good thing! Anyone can clearly see the "grew-up-decedents-of-slaves-in-a-single-parent-household-in-impoverished-coastal-Georgia" in Justice Thomas' votes.

  • Dr. Righteous says:

    I hate to engage CC, but here goes.

    My dear young man, for I assume that is what you are, nowhere in that quotation does she say the things that you attribute to her in your next sentence. That's in the first place.

    In the second, don't you think all those old white guys on the court since forever and a century ago saw things through their own whiteness and maleness? Buy a clue!

    And, all that "empathy" and "feel," which you mock by putting in quotations, is not "precious": It's you, being sexist as hell.

  • Kati says:

    "It’s more about people “feel” about the law actually being applied to them and having Justices who get how much an effect it has on people then, say, having a working knowledge of the Constitution and actually interpreting the law."

    Your comments are so futile and ignorant. When you look in the mirror, remember that you are a racist/sexist dick, NOT an alumni of Yale Law School, nor a celebrated Federal Judge.

    At what point do women and minorities get the respect they deserve? Apparently no amount of schooling or success will ever make people like CC (or the GOP for that matter) happy.

  • CC says:

    Gender, race, and education aside you're talking about the Supreme Court. Justices — like reporters — aren't supposed to be subjective.

    Judges and Justices are there to interpret prior decisions based on Constitutional merits, not some inbred ethos.

  • ElJay says:

    Quote out of context much?

    "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

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

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

    She acknowledged that people's backgrounds have an affect on how they view the world, pointed out that that was true for white men, too, and says she accepts that it is the case for her but hopes that it will be a positive as it brings a different viewpoint to the court. That does not say anything about ignoring constitutionality. The fact is that the constitution is open to interpretation, and that is what the Supreme Court does. Interpret it. Primarily through the view of while males from privileged backgrounds.

  • ElJay says:

    Oh, and if that quote was to long for you, here's one on what she did say about the constitution, during her 1997 confirmation hearings:

    "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

    So suck it.

  • Prose Hack says:

    Dammit! I wanted Marilyn Milian (the judge from People's Court).

    Maybe Obama just confused a Cuban woman from Queens (Milian) with the Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx (Sotomayor).

    It's not to late to call, "do over!"

  • comrade x says:

    Don't you realize that only old, rich white dudes are capable of being totally neutral in racial and gender matters?
    Dude, the GOP bitching and moaning about reverse racism is soooooo played out.

  • jazzbumpa says:

    CC –

    You are an ignorant twit at best. Do you live in a fact-free zone? Judge Sotomayor, besides what Dryden pointed out, has more, and more varied, judicial experience than any sitting justice did at the time of his/her nomination.

    Cite one questionable call, you mendacious ass-whole.

    Thin resume. Jesus H. Christ, you are one shit-brained dupe.

    Return to your regularly scheduled programming – on Fox.

  • CC says:

    The New Haven Firefighters case which is hopefully going up before the Supreme Court prior to her confirmation hearings?

    A one-paragraph response to 1000+ pages of documentation? A response that doesn't even address the legal tenants of the case whatsoever?

    Whatever, folks.

  • Automaton says:

    CC,

    I see no need to reiterate what the rest have said, just a few grammar pointers:

    —-It’s more about people “feel” about the law—-

    That phrase is missing the word "how"

    —-“grew-up-decedents-of-slaves-in-a-single-parent-household-in-impoverished-coastal-Georgia”—-

    The word is spelled "descendants", and this form actually spell-checks for you if you are using Firefox. So next time you see it, you know the red underscore means (it's actually *not* a patriotic embellishment of your text).

    Although typological errors compliment your logic nicely, they aren't making your arguments any more persuasive.

Comments are closed.