Sotomayor

[Conan71]

Sotomayor is to undergo the most grueling interview process imagineable?

With the fix in like this, should be a breeze.  Just deflect some questions from Repugs, answer the scripted ones from the Dims and she's a shoo-in.  I truly do appreciate any adversity Judge Sotomayor may have gone through in her life to rise to the position she has, but it's being over-played, over-hyped, and used for over-qualification. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5056488.shtml

"Reid praised Sotomayor's record and said, "You have been an underdog many times in your life, but always ended up being the top dog." Then Reid and Sotomayor promptly left the room to meet privately.

Less than 40 minutes later, the two walked by the crowded Ohio Clock corridor just off the Senate floor. Cameras flashed and reporters shouted after them to find out how the meeting went.

Any answer from Sotomayor? Unfortunately, just a big smile. But she does have to save her voice. One meeting down, nine to go. And that's just on her first day wooing the members who hold her future in their hands. Sotomayor has now officially started what may be one of the most grueling job interview processes imaginable. "

[rwarn17588]

Harry Reid says he's not read any of Judge Sotomayor's opinions and hopes by the time this is all over he won't have to.  I'm sure I've taken this all out of context, right RW and FOTD?  Don't you think it would set a good example of leadership to at least figure out the quality and relevance of her opinions?

What a total moron:

I've got no problems whatsoever with you describing Reid as a moron. He's proven it many times over.

He's not at the moron level of Inhofe, but he's in the same ballpark.

[FOTD]

Sotomayor is to undergo the most grueling interview process imagineable?

With the fix in like this, should be a breeze.  Just deflect some questions from Repugs, answer the scripted ones from the Dims and she's a shoo-in.  I truly do appreciate any adversity Judge Sotomayor may have gone through in her life to rise to the position she has, but it's being over-played, over-hyped, and used for over-qualification. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5056488.shtml

"Reid praised Sotomayor's record and said, "You have been an underdog many times in your life, but always ended up being the top dog." Then Reid and Sotomayor promptly left the room to meet privately.

Less than 40 minutes later, the two walked by the crowded Ohio Clock corridor just off the Senate floor. Cameras flashed and reporters shouted after them to find out how the meeting went.

Any answer from Sotomayor? Unfortunately, just a big smile. But she does have to save her voice. One meeting down, nine to go. And that's just on her first day wooing the members who hold her future in their hands. Sotomayor has now officially started what may be one of the most grueling job interview processes imaginable. "

Fix? You hate women, Conan. It's becoming more and more evident throughout these threads. As stated before, white males have benefitted from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.

[Conan71]

How does Harry Reid saying he has not read one of her opinions and hopes he never has to by the time this is over say that I hate women?  You have the majority leader of the U.S. Senate saying "she's an underdog" and essenitally: "Great back-story!" yet the substance of her work is totally unimportant to him.

Harry the turd's statement smacks of a statement hire.  He could at least lie to us and tell us he's going to read some of her opinions just to make sure Americans are getting a great jurist.

I'd say precisely the same thing if this candidate were white, Episcopalian, and born to wealth or black, Baptist, and straight out of Harlem.

How can we decide someone is a great candidate for SCOTUS simply because of ethnicity, gender, disadvantages early in life, and ignore their life work which is what their qualifications should be?  Just because someone sat on the bench for 50 years prior to being nominated for the court doesn't make them the best candidate either if their judgement is un-sound, can't write a coherent opinion, and their sense of justice is not fair and equal to all.

I've said all along if Judge Sotomayor's work is sound and just and she's truly the best of the field presently available, she should become the next nominee.

Was the previous work of Justices Alito or Roberts of any interest to you?  It was to me.  You take every chance to spear Justice Thomas by making pubic hair comments or mangling his last name.  That simply must mean you hate black people, by your logic.  Or at least black ones given any sort of advancement under a Bush Administration.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Hurray for you hate <blank> people comments FOTD!!  Seriously though, I mean Reid is a lawyer, what do you expect?

It is pretty dumb to say that you never read anything... You can't even make an informed decision.  And I doubt very highly that in the 100 years we might get 1 or 2 of "the best" possible candidates.  The problem with the whole process is the president in charge nominates somebody.  The congress on the opposite side says they are the worst person ever in the history of the world.  Then whoever has the most votes votes them in with a few moderates if you need them.

[USRufnex]

You keep side-stepping my argument.  I said someone with equal or better experience using some sort of subjective yard stick.  Naturally, anyone would hope we'd get the best and brightest.  If that person is Sonia Sotomayor, I'm all for it.  Her claim that being Hispanic and female gives her a better perspective smacks of an arrogance that would be unforgiveable coming from a white male.  The point being made that you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?

This is a statement hire.  Otherwise, why make such an issue out of "first Hispanic" or "first Hispanic female" nominated to SCOTUS.

Oh, fer god's sake.
Look at the Supreme Court.... look really, really hard.
Mostly old white males.  Period. 
Look at the history of the Presidency.  All old white males.

And look at all the crap coming from un-elected Republicans these days.... reverse racist lunacy.

Per usual..... oh poor me!.... white males being discriminated against.... if there's a shortage of white males on the Supreme Court these days... I don't see it.  If there's a shortage of white males on the police and fire depts, I have yet to see it...

First hispanic... and first hispanic female... are important terms.... not unlike the sentiments when Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor....

God forbid her critics EVER take ANYTHING in proper context.... more soundbite politics from the right.

Pathetic.  Truly Pathetic.  From the same people who pissed and moaned a couple of decades ago about Martin Luther King Day.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating.