Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Pick: Gerson's Sage Advice on Sotomayor



Judge Sonia Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

As Senate Republicans seek to rein in the conservative commentariat regarding the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, they would do well to distribute far and wide Mike Gerson's piece on the subject in today's Washington Post.

Gerson, the former lead speechwriter for President George W. Bush, argues that President Obama, in picking Sotomayor, is seeking to lure Republicans into a "trap."

Wrote Gerson:

The main line of Republican criticism is likely to concern affirmative action -- which might provoke conservative extremists to predictable extremes and confirm an image of Republicans as the party of the male and pale.

Rather than advocate a total avoidance of said trap, however, Gerson makes the case for a robust pushback from Republicans based on the principle that impartiality not empathy should be the guiding force for judging the worthiness of any justice.

"A court should be a place where all are judged impartially, as individuals," wrote Gerson. "The Obama/Sotomayor doctrine of empathy challenges this long-established belief. It is not a minor matter."

Whether you agree with Gerson or not, his argument is a far better blueprint -- from a political perspective -- by which to oppose Sotomayor (and lay down a marker for future Court nominations by Obama) than the route being pursued by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.


The truth is that the confirmation "fight" over Sotomayor is largely over -- barring some sort of major revelation regarding her past.

For Republicans aiming to re-build -- and broaden -- the party then, the task is on planting arguments in the minds of voters that in a year or two years time might sprout.

One of those arguments, as we wrote earlier this week, is that picking a liberal jurist like Sotomayor, fundamentally undermines his image as a post-partisan figure.

Another, as Gerson argued, could be that in nominating Sotomayor, Obama is breaking with the way in which past justices have been judged worthy.

With apologies to George Allen, a football metaphor is apropos.

Trying to disqualify Sotomayor is the equivalent of throwing a Hail Mary pass in the first quarter of a game. What Gerson's argument amounts to is running the ball repeatedly during the first quarter so that the safeties and cornerbacks bite on a play action pass in the fourth quarter.

Watch the Sunday shows -- "Meet the Press" will have Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) while "This Week" will feature National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) -- to see whether the elected leaders of the GOP can find their footing on Sotomayor. It's critical for the party's future that they do so.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 29, 2009; 3:30 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Governors Line: A Waiting Game
Next: Morning Fix: Democrats Hammer GOP on Stimulus

Comments

dognabbit:

She spent at least $15,000 at the dentist recently ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 4, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Want to know anything, Jake, just ask. Gotta tell you in advance though I don't date men of my own race. Sorry.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

longbow65:

Can you let me know what page you found chrisfox8's exact bio in that book? Thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | June 1, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Rest in Peace (RIP) Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh thanks RUSH,CHENEY,NEWT,HANNITY,BECK,O'RIELLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Norm Coleman too thanks for making the Republicans a National discrace!!!!!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 1, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"strive for a fair coexistence with everyone"

Interesting euphemism for Jim Crow, there.

Posted by: nodebris | June 1, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

My prediction is that she not only will be confirmed handily but will do so with little or no "fireworks" from the White Male party.

Posted by: Opa2

==

I'd take the bet if you were betting. Several GOP Senators have code-worded their intent to be obstreperous, promising a "thorough" inquiry, no doubt hair-splitting one the one statement they have to work with.

Every presumption of GOP pragmatism is predicated on the idea that they will act rationally, that they will take note of their numbers, will learn from their mistakes.

There is however no indication anywhere that the Republicans are ready to pull out of their death spiral. For every move toward sanity there is a countermove away from it; first they form a symbolic "listening tour" to try to recapture the center, then they put Sarah Palin, their nuttiest luminary, on the committee.

They won't filibuster her, but they'll make holy fools of themselves trying to score points with the filth.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Judge Sotomayor has great teeth.

Posted by: dognabbit | June 1, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama has set a clever trap for republicans. The more they oppose this lady the more Hispanic votes they will lose in the next election. My prediction is that she not only will be confirmed handily but will do so with little or no "fireworks" from the White Male party.

Posted by: Opa2 | June 1, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Tom Lehrer comes through as always when we need him:

"I wanna go back to the Southland.
That you-all and shut-my-mouth-land
is callin' me to come and nevermore roam...

I wanna talk like Southern gentlemen;
Put my white sheet on again
I ain't seen one good lynchin' in years..."

Yeah, what a loss

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Aren't the battles you've referring to about slavery and civil rights respectively? Fair coexistence??

Posted by: DDAWD

==

Sure sounds like it to me. The South lost its rich heritage when racism lost its respect.

Pơr fellow.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009 12:25 AM | Report abuse

"The southerners you hate so much have had little or no Federal justice since 1865 and lost the battles again in 1965. They do not hate with the intensity that liberals do but strive for a fair coexistence with everyone"

Aren't the battles you've referring to about slavery and civil rights respectively? Fair coexistence??

Posted by: DDAWD | June 1, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

My wife and I spent the day at the Zoo today -- perfect overcast all day, and there's a new Elephant Odyssey exhibit -- if you haven't been lately, I would recommend a visit on your upcoming trip.

Posted by: JakeD | May 31, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | May 31, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

@BB: we don't agree on the details but we do on some important stuff.

I need to add though that having met both Gates and Ballmer, and would be more than happy to have their wealth, I would not change places with either. Gates is a pathologically insecure man so sensitive and pathologically competitive that it's painful. His success is very much a projection of his insecurity and it really has not brought him that much happiness. Ballmer is one those rude abrasive jerks anyone who knows him would be happy to hear had been run over by a bus. I'll never forget him cussing out some poor little shrimpy guy in the hallway in 1989, uncouth and loud and coarse and crude.

Neither had anything to do with writing good software, and their reflexive competitiveness, Ballmer's worse, is a big part of the reason MS hasn't had a real win in six years. They force the release of lousy work, and Ballmer hates programmers.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD - The response is implicit in my statement. I believe in rates of taxation based on income. Once you earn it, it's yours. So, I don't have any problem with wealth accumulation nor do I think it should be taxed. [Note: that does not constitute an endorsement of repealing inheritance taxes.]

Bill Gates earned his (even if I'm a dedicated Mac user; I'm also a devoted Excel fan). Ditto for Sergey of Google fame. Warren Buffet earned his (and for his investors). Heck, George Soros made billions by betting against the British pound in the early '90s. Enjoy your billionz guyz.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 31, 2009 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, longbow, you hit the bullseye.

==

go do your pitiable mewling for attention somewhere else, Jake, we're trying to have a conversation here

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Do you agree that no one should be "allowed" to be a billionaire?

Posted by: JakeD | May 31, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

The southerners you hate so much have had little or no Federal justice since 1865 and lost the battles again in 1965.

==

Don't know where you get the idea I hate southerner because I reject the "reverse discrimination" nonsense, but if you don't see that it's just a crass play at teasing the insecurity of poor southern whites then you're probably pretty open to all kinds of Rovian appeals.

So losing the Civil War was bad for the south (uh, then don't secede, fools) and now you say the Civil Rights Act (1964, not 65, by the way) was a lost battle too? Poor woody woody, can't call a coworker ni66er and still be regarded as a gentleman.

Awww, that must hurt.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, longbow, you hit the bullseye.

Posted by: JakeD | May 31, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

So, I'm all in favor of progressive tax bands. I'm not in the highest band, but doing well enough that I'll probably get hit by any reasonable change in tax policy (one where the budget is roughly balanced). So, I'm perfectly happy with rates being higher at the top. The actual rate is a matter of reasonable debate. I'd say it should be somewhere more than 1/3 and less than 1/2. The actual amount should be enough to pay the bills, something the U.S. hasn't done for awhile.

==

I think we should return to the progressivity of the Eisenhower Era, with adjustments for inflation. I think the tax code should not only seek to balance the budget but actively and openly seek to prevent the corrosive concentration of wealth. I am unsympathetic to the "penalizing success" arguement, I regard that as a shibboleth, since having 10% of a billion dollars restricts comfort and security in no meaningful measure but does restrict the ability to use one's wealth to un-level the field, which I regard as vital the preservation of democracy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow...suffered a heart attack at the age of 40.

==

Didn't Cheney have his first one at 38? Probably been impotent since then, which might go a long way to explaining his preoccupation with torturing people. Lacking healthy outlets ... well.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

He ignored that part of your post, but you hit the bullseye. "chrisfox8" is an atheist AND homosexual. Abused as a child, no doubt.

Posted by: JakeD

==

Wrong again Jake but when were you ever right about anything? Gay and neither proud nor ashamed. Atheist like anyone who can add two and two. That would of course exclude you.

This place is better when you're not here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 10:14 PM | Report abuse

the question should be do you know what the constitution is?

Posted by: silusdogood | May 31, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

longbow:

He ignored that part of your post, but you hit the bullseye. "chrisfox8" is an atheist AND homosexual. Abused as a child, no doubt.

Posted by: JakeD | May 31, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

I did see a chart a while ago on race related hate crimes. I think Texas was the only McCain state in the top ten. Although the table wasn't per capita, so that skews the results towards (against?) the most populous states and larger states tend to be blue - hence the only large McCain state made it up there.

==

IIRC Michigan is a heavy hitter for hate crimes, and I'd wager that the high unemployment has a lot to do with that. But then I'm a flaming lefty and I have this notion that poverty and desperation have a lot to do with crime.

But yeah without a per-capita rating the stats are meaningless. I'm sure Wyoming has few actual hate crimes but it also has few actual people.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"@frluke: Michael Gerson is a former Bush the Lesser speechwriter and part of the group that ginned up the Iraq invasion. Among Bush enablers he has a lot more than most to answer for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson"

Wow...suffered a heart attack at the age of 40.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 31, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"The southerners you hate so much have had little or no Federal justice since 1865 and lost the battles again in 1965. They do not hate with the intensity that liberals do but strive for a fair coexistence with everyone and seek only honesty in representation. Their ideals have not changed a lot since Jefferson. Check the states for hate crimes being committed and the southern states will not be in the top ten if an honest un-biased tally is found.

==

hahahahahahha I'll let someone else track down those stats. I do know that the southern states are the fattest, the poorest, and the least educated. "

I did see a chart a while ago on race related hate crimes. I think Texas was the only McCain state in the top ten. Although the table wasn't per capita, so that skews the results towards (against?) the most populous states and larger states tend to be blue - hence the only large McCain state made it up there.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 31, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

@chrisfox - Thanks for the response. I would say that the worst of the sins committed by the right is the notion that any tax that hits high earners or the wealthy (marginal rates, capital gains, or inheritance) is "bad" and any tax that hits low earners disproportionately (sales or consumption tax) is "good". It's hid behind a lot of rhetoric about growth and fairness, but ultimately it comes down to what hurts me (or my paymasters) is bad, what hurts you (the unwashed masses) is good.

So, I'm all in favor of progressive tax bands. I'm not in the highest band, but doing well enough that I'll probably get hit by any reasonable change in tax policy (one where the budget is roughly balanced). So, I'm perfectly happy with rates being higher at the top. The actual rate is a matter of reasonable debate. I'd say it should be somewhere more than 1/3 and less than 1/2. The actual amount should be enough to pay the bills, something the U.S. hasn't done for awhile.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 31, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

@frluke: Michael Gerson is a former Bush the Lesser speechwriter and part of the group that ginned up the Iraq invasion. Among Bush enablers he has a lot more than most to answer for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Gerson" Come on Chris, he's a right wing red neck preacher. See them on TV every day.

Posted by: frluke | May 31, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"Hopefully Limbaughs ditto heads are not blind sheep."

You've got to be kidding.

Posted by: frluke | May 31, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who wants to know where the incoherent wall-punching that longbow65 comes from, google the "Redneck Manifesto."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

longbo65 wrote:
The southerners you hate so much have had little or no Federal justice since 1865 and lost the battles again in 1965. They do not hate with the intensity that liberals do but strive for a fair coexistence with everyone and seek only honesty in representation. Their ideals have not changed a lot since Jefferson. Check the states for hate crimes being committed and the southern states will not be in the top ten if an honest un-biased tally is found.

==

hahahahahahha I'll let someone else track down those stats. I do know that the southern states are the fattest, the poorest, and the least educated.

You're just paraphrasing the "juicy bits" from "Liberal Fascism" again.

Still smarting from the CIVIL WAR?!? Wow. Well I grew up in the south too, so don't lecture me about "hate," cracker.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

WAGER OF THE WEEK:

Its a safe bet that the US Supreme Court will have a 5/4 female majority before a female is elected to the presidency.

Assuming that President Obama seeks and wins re-election in 2012, he will have four seats to fill, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg's.

He fills each seat with a female nominee and the old, grey haired
male population of both parties will committ hari kari in larger nuumbers than ever seen before.

Can you imagine?


Posted by: dickhealy | May 31, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8,
I read the comments made to you from many people trying to share their belief and even some experiences. You are so hate filled that nothing said will even penetrate below the armor. You want everyone to believe what you say but you really do not believe it your self. Your life would be interesting to follow and learn where you were abused and why you hate so many good people that fail to meet your expectations. Barry Obama has openly broken every campaign promise he made and he will tell you it was only to get elected anyway. That is his idea of honesty. Feel free to continue to back him for the special interest you represent but he is not working in your best interest as a citizen.

The southerners you hate so much have had little or no Federal justice since 1865 and lost the battles again in 1965. They do not hate with the intensity that liberals do but strive for a fair coexistence with everyone and seek only honesty in representation. Their ideals have not changed a lot since Jefferson. Check the states for hate crimes being committed and the southern states will not be in the top ten if an honest un-biased tally is found. Do not bother with a rebuttal because it is just an opinion and you know better than me that I am probably wrong. This is just an observation from a true conservative.

If you are gay or atheist then I totally understand your hatred of others.

Posted by: longbow65 | May 31, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: Agreed with everything. I think the essential point is that it's way past self-interest and the wingnuts are deep into the suicide-cult phase now. They don't care at all what's good for them, certainly not what's good for America, and a lot of them have freedom and totalitarianism interwoven in bizarre ways.

I run a Yahoo group for parrot owners in this part of the country .. at one of our parties I ran into a major wingnut who was starting to become unglued because McCain was clearly going to lose (this was before Palin so he had his moment of angry joy for a few weeks). He was a prison dentist and was getting so wrapped around the axle about Obama leading that he lost a budding relationship with the first woman he had dated since his wife died, and then he lost his job. I eventually had to kick him off the list because he went completely spla knowing that a gay liberal was in reach of his email.

This guy was simplyu deranged at the idea that the wingnuts were going to be out of power. It had nothing to do with anything but hate, hate, hate. These people are sick.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

CF8 posted: "The wingnuts were gathering to protest tax increases .. not on them, but on the wealthy."
________
You see, I question the sincerity of their "tax protests." When the teabaggers were interviewed they said little to nothing about taxes, but a whole lot about their hate of BHO. I'm with Janeane Garofalo (and that female CNN reporter who got trashed for actually interviewing the teabaggers on TV) on this one. When the system is so skewed a Madoff or a Trump can accumulate more wealth than can be spent in a million generations but others are eating food out of trash cans, there's a big problem in our economic system.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 31, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the RNC or the GOP should use this animal as their mascot and or role model animal.

The Blue Wildebeest has a beefy muscular front-heavy appearance with a distinctive robust muzzle, it strides with relatively slender legs and moves gracefully and quietly most of the time, belying the reputation for stampeding in herds; however the stampeding characteristic may sometimes be observed.

The Serengeti herds are purely migratory and abandon the usual plains after the rainy season has ended, in order to seek higher grasses in wetter areas. Grasslands bordering alkaline lakes or pans are particularly choice dry season (winter) habitats. Herds may be mixed gender with a dominant male, female only or bachelor only.

Blue Wildebeest often graze together with other species such as Plains zebras for purposes of mutual protection.

Zebras in particular are beneficial to co-exist with since they mow down highly vegetated areas leaving the wildebeests to eat the newly exposed and more nutritional short grasses, which is what they prefer.

A Blue Wildebeest can attain maximum a speed of up to 64 kilometres per hour (40 mph).

Blue Wildebeests are a favorite prey item to lions and spotted hyenas. They also fall prey to cheetahs, leopards, wild dogs and Nile crocodiles. The latter stalk them at river crossings.

Posted by: opp88 | May 31, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will eventually go even smaller (at 18-20% about now) and more extreme, and will ultimately challenge elected government in some unhinged and unfortunate way. They clearly aren't looking to expand the party beyond the ultraconservative pale and male so their Plan B must be something scary I'd rather not contemplate

==

You're presuming they are logical, and there is plenty of reason to doubt that presumption. I don't think they have any plan that goes further than refusing to back down and admit how thoroughly they've screwed up (and stay out of prison).

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

One point on the tea parties, Chris. An ethical person doesn't just look at a policy and determine if it benefits them before deciding to support it. There are folks who are in principal opposed to "high" taxes. I doubt that I'll ever make $1M/year, but I would vehemently oppose a 90% income tax on those.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade

==

Maybe not on an income of a million, that isn't so much anymore, but I think one of the reasons out politics is so deranged is because we have unelected and unscrupulous people who control enough wealth to manipulate government into serving their interests.

In the Eisenhower era there were top tax rates of 91%. We recall that era as one of the most prosperous of the last century, so please pardon me for adulterating your ethical position with a solid data point.

When we got to the Reagan era the top tax rate went down to 50%, and we don't recall that as a period to puff out our chests over .. in fact it was the presidency that introduced the "downsizing" neologism.

My own feeling is that it should not be possible to become a billionaire in the USA in any legal way. Anyone who needs that much money to feel rewarded is mentally ill and is the last person we want with power. Millionaire, fine, I'm halfway there myself, and it's not that much money. But billions? That's just wrong.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

One point on the tea parties, Chris. An ethical person doesn't just look at a policy and determine if it benefits them before deciding to support it. There are folks who are in principal opposed to "high" taxes. I doubt that I'll ever make $1M/year, but I would vehemently oppose a 90% income tax on those.

@margaretmeyers- Scrivener does engage in name calling, you just have to work to get under his skin. Then you're part of a covert government psyops and a paid government troll.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 31, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Rest easy.

Unless I'm very wrong we are embarking on about 16-20 years of Dem rule at a minimum, sort of like the FDR-Truman 1932-1952 period. Universal health coverage. Sensible Middle East strategy not driven by narrow foreign interests and Big Oil. End to war profiteering. More equitable wealth distribution.

The GOP will eventually go even smaller (at 18-20% about now) and more extreme, and will ultimately challenge elected government in some unhinged and unfortunate way. They clearly aren't looking to expand the party beyond the ultraconservative pale and male so their Plan B must be something scary I'd rather not contemplate (think Jon Voight on "24" perhaps).

The era of BHO (2008-2016...and longer) is here.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 31, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

CF8, for all those wingnuts who claim the compensation inequities are due to market forces, meritocracy, or Darwinism, ask them what would happen if those CEO job openings were posted globally. Actual open competition. You wanna bet the winners would be perfectly qualified folks from places like New Delhi and Hong Kong offering to do a bang-up job for $21,000 without benefits.

Posted by: broadwayjoe

==

That was a Reagan-era argument. Now they've pulled all the stops. Remember the 4/15 tea parties? The wingnuts were gathering to protest tax increases .. not on them, but on the wealthy. Even those chicklet-teeth knucklewalkers knew their own taxes had been lowered.

No, we're about a decade past "acting on one's own self-interest" with these uh people, now it's just red versus blue. They protest tax progressivity because the blue side favors it.

What we really need to do it make them believe that liberals are anti-suicide.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

At one point Disney CEO was making $290,000 per hour. During this tenure he tried and tried hard to eliminate health benefits for Disney workers making $8 per hour. The ratio there is way north of 365:1. While he wasn't able to get rid of health care for those poor sods selling churros and wearing Goofy costumes, the board was most appreciative that he tried.

Disgusting.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 3:37 PM
__________
CF8, for all those wingnuts who claim the compensation inequities are due to market forces, meritocracy, or Darwinism, ask them what would happen if those CEO job openings were posted globally. Actual open competition. You wanna bet the winners would be perfectly qualified folks from places like New Delhi and Hong Kong offering to do a bang-up job for $21,000 without benefits.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 31, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that in the last election, the GOP's Southern Strategy failed everywhere but in the, uh, Deep South. LOL.

Viva Sonia. Viva BHO. Viva Bo.

Posted by: broadwayjoe

==

If you read that guy's posts you'll see that he segues from a decades-ago call by E.J. Dionne for a government role in the marketplace to "Communism never worked." In other words, regulation is Communism. Anyone as simpleminded as that must have been dropped on his head a few times too many as a child.

One would think given what we're going through right now that deregulation would have lost some of its luster for these people. But noooOOOoooo, any regulation is "Communism." And I'm supposed to *respect* these people are having legitimate views that I just oh "happen" to disagree with?!?

Since when has capitalism ever worked without regulation? And taxation?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Meant to say "Disney CEO Michael Eisner."

Never made mistakes like then when I typed with three fingers, now that I type with that clattering sound I'm a complete klutz0id

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe wrote:
(a CEO makes more in one day than the average wage earner makes in a year)

==

At one point Disney CEO was making $290,000 per hour. During this tenure he tried and tried hard to eliminate health benefits for Disney workers making $8 per hour. The ratio there is way north of 365:1. While he wasn't able to get rid of health care for those poor sods selling churros and wearing Goofy costumes, the board was most appreciative that he tried.

Disgusting.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I would agree with you Chrisfox that liberals and conservatives see the world differently, but where I differ with you is that I do not attribute bad motives to people who that different World view. I While I strongly believe President Obama is taking this country in the wrong direction, i don't feel the need to demonize him the way some of you guys demonize Bush/Cheney. Have no doubt Obama is as much as a patriot as I am, and he believes strongly in his policies and comes across to me as a decent chap. You have a tendency to personalize it, it doesn't have to be personal with people who thinks different than you.

Posted by: vbhoomes

==

I give you major honesty kudos for acknowledging Obama's heart being in the right place. But to reduce war crimes and lunacy to mere disagreements is something I am not willing to go along with. Until the Bush administration came to power I would never have used so blunt a word as "evil" to anyone, but now I do; the crimes committed by my nation in Iraq, the ginning up of that war for reasons we may never know, the subhuman cruelty of Sarah Palin killing entire herds of caribou from helicopters for the fun of it .. sorry, but evil is real and its name is Republican.

And the day I stop taking evil personally will be the day I stop breathing.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"You're right, that was hasty, let me try a little harder.

No, I haven't suffered fronm reverse discrimination, and neither have you, and neither has anyone you know. Reverse discrimination is a distraction thrown up as part of the GOP Southern Strategy to play on the insecurity and conceit of poor rural whites who like to think that their own stalled lives are someone else's fault.

It's almost as important a force in the workplace as the contribution of bathroom nightlights to global warming.

Why don't you worry about tax incentives to ship jobs out of America instead of reciting this "reverse discrimination" drivel? You got a pull-ring coming out your chest or something?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 2:18 AM"
__________
What CF8 said.

As you posted, the reverse discrimination line is just part of the Southern Strategy designed to distract Yahoos from REAL issues like corporate greed (a CEO makes more in one day than the average wage earner makes in a year), Ponzi schemes, lack of universal health insurance (the US is the only industrialized country without it), a failed Middle East policy (whatever happened to the old honest broker role?), and global warming (shouldn't Phalin care about all the houses in Alaska built on melting permafrost?).

The problem is that in the last election, the GOP's Southern Strategy failed everywhere but in the, uh, Deep South. LOL.

Viva Sonia. Viva BHO. Viva Bo.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 31, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I would agree with you Chrisfox that liberals and conservatives see the world differently, but where I differ with you is that I do not attribute bad motives to people who that different World view. I While I strongly believe President Obama is taking this country in the wrong direction, i don't feel the need to demonize him the way some of you guys demonize Bush/Cheney. Have no doubt Obama is as much as a patriot as I am, and he believes strongly in his policies and comes across to me as a decent chap. You have a tendency to personalize it, it doesn't have to be personal with people who thinks different than you.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 31, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Your postings and rantings about the GOP leaves me to believe you live in a very simplistic Black/White world. Liberals-Good, Conservatives-Bad. Love, don't hate my friend, lifes short, don't be so angry.

Posted by: vbhoomes

==

Then you're reading what I write through the same cracked and clouded lens that leads you to call Sotomayor a leftist.

First of all spare me the Pollyannish dodge; don't pretend the polarity between red and blue isn't based on two fundamentally irreconcilable views of society. It's not "hate" and to acknowledge its breadth is not explained away as a personality defect of the writer.

If you weren't hanging off the cliff like Deckerd at the end of "Bladerunner" you'd see that I'm no more devoted to some fictitious caricature of liberalism than I am to the GOP. As I have written many times in these pages I view legitimate conservatism, even when I disagree with it wholly, as a necessary foil to a liberalism that tends to give a little too much slack sometimes and tends to throw money at problems in ineffectual ways.

Note the qualifier" LEGITIMATE conservatism, nowhere to be found in our politics now. With the GOP wrapped around axles like torture and free markets and reduced to sneering at the educated as thin-blooded elitists, legitimacy is absent, replaced by a hooting and shouting collection of absurd positions of no value and with no leadership.

For my money the last conservative in America worth a damn was Sen. Barry Goldwater, who in his emeritus years pointed out that government had no business dealing with what we have come to call the "social issues." Who does your side have now? John McCain? Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? These people are rock-apes. They're not serious.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of simpleminded reductionism, where did I say that a choice of crime wasn't the chooser's fault?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox you have a lor of contradictions, on one hand, you hate people who may annoy you and have no tolerance for, but have tolerance and empathy for criminals because were raised in a socio-economic enviroment that was substandard, so its not their fault if they chose a life of crime. Your postings and rantings about the GOP leaves me to believe you live in a very simplistic Black/White world. Liberals-Good, Conservatives-Bad. Love, don't hate my friend, lifes short, don't be so angry.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 31, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

And to think that Gingrich has presidential aspirations for 2012, a hope of rising from the ashes of disgrace and failure to lead the charge against Obama. Great start, Neut, further alienating America's biggest minority.

With party identification in danger of falling behind the Gun Owners and the Socio- er, the Libertarians, the GOP isn't learning from two decisive electoral losses, au contraire mes enfants, they're doubling down on the hand that already lost twice, led by three repellant fat men, including our former Vice President trying to cast his efforts to stay out of prison as a proud defense of his utterly failed administration.

Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Neuter Gingrich, leaders of the GOP. Pilot, copilot, and tailgunner heading groundward on the afterburners.

A smoking hole in the ground.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Not in a million years usadblake. She will be a solid left wing vote on the court.

Posted by: vbhoomes

==

See below re: "left wing"

Your idea of "political center" seems to have gone over the cliff along with the GOP

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Not in a million years usadblake. She will be a solid left wing vote on the court.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 31, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Will Sotomayor turn out to be the GOP's gift, just as Souter was the Democrats gift?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5398


.

Posted by: usadblake | May 31, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Just as I thought. Good night!

Posted by: longbow65

==

You're right, that was hasty, let me try a little harder.

No, I haven't suffered fronm reverse discrimination, and neither have you, and neither has anyone you know. Reverse discrimination is a distraction thrown up as part of the GOP Southern Strategy to play on the insecurity and conceit of poor rural whites who like to think that their own stalled lives are someone else's fault.

It's almost as important a force in the workplace as the contribution of bathroom nightlights to global warming.

Why don't you worry about tax incentives to ship jobs out of America instead of reciting this "reverse discrimination" drivel? You got a pull-ring coming out your chest or something?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Yes I've bêê brainwashed by the liberal media and I wasn't home schơoled so I've completely surrendered my personal sovereignty to Marxists who sêe the enslavement of America so they can fêel gơd about themselves.

And I don't have pack heat in Yellowstone. Yeah I'm a mess. Slêep well

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Just as I thought. Good night!

Posted by: longbow65 | May 31, 2009 1:52 AM | Report abuse

it seems clear you have never been a victim of reverse discrimination.

==

You can put this BS in the same trash can as the "money can think" meme, dude.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Note to self: shut off VPSKEYS before posting

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Communism never worked.

==

Uh, yeah. Taking a totally backward monarchy from the sixtêenth century to the twentieth in a single generation, nope, total failure. Right. Sure. Nope, getting rid of the entire financial sector didn't help anything at all, did it.

Excuse me I think this is my flơor.

(kêeping back to wall, exits slowly)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Chris Fox,
it seems clear you have never been a victim of reverse discrimination. You must live somewhere that does not endorse affinitive action policies where under privileged whites do not share the same status as minorities. I guess you were lucky that had the money and was white.

Posted by: longbow65 | May 31, 2009 1:40 AM | Report abuse

I thought this was fitting and was written during the Clinton administration:

"Washington Post columnist and Brookings Institution senior fellow E.J. Dionne calls it 'The Big Idea.' In a recent article under that title, Dionne wrote, 'Something serious is happening in public life.' An 'important transformation (is) taking hold in the wealthy democracies of Europe and North America,' and the Clinton administration is 'at the forefront.'
"Dionne told IBD [Investor's Business Daily], 'The core purpose is trying to change the trajectory of politics to say, yes, government isn't enough, the market is necessary, but you can't have either progress or social justice without a substantial role for government.'...

Communism never worked. And socialism does not work very well either, unless government is willing to give special dispensation for the capitalist wishes of the moneyed elite. But communism and socialism are not the only ways of controlling a society of worker-serfs. And, these multinational corporations know that they can buy just about anything they want in Washington. Therefore, the federal government is well along on its quest to give us a "Third Way" (or centrist) society.

To keep the best of capitalism in a "Third Way" (or centrist) society, private property must be allowed. Rather than government owning all property and the means of production, as in pure socialism, an alternative is used. In a "Third Way" society, property and business is heavily controlled by government regulation, rather than government ownership. However, in a "Third Way" society, the laws to keep us citizens in line come from the communist model of government -- which means complete government control of everything from womb to tomb. We are to have a semblance of freedom. But the working class people must never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to interfere effectively in either commerce or government. The moneyed elite, however, work under the capitalist system, and capitalist rules, so as to continue generating wealth. The elite get the freedom, the workers get strictly controlled.

Posted by: longbow65 | May 31, 2009 1:32 AM | Report abuse

I have never met a graduate of the school of hard knocks that is not a conservative thinker. I believe it just comes with the territory.

==

Talk about blind men and elephants.

My experience is precisely opposite.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 31, 2009 1:30 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Sotomayor’s life experience is the same fundamental achievement received when people go to college after becoming adults.

They struggle a while to learn what life, freedom and liberty is all about with raising families and working for a living. Later in life they are able to go to college to try and earn a degree when they can afford it. These self made and rounded individuals call themselves moderates and conservatives. They always seem to have a better understanding and realizations of life as opposed to those that learn only what is taught in school and try to force apply it to life as intellectual liberals. Of course that is just a personal observation.

I have never met a graduate of the school of hard knocks that is not a conservative thinker. I believe it just comes with the territory.

Posted by: longbow65 | May 31, 2009 1:21 AM | Report abuse

I would add that even the relatively sane ones were pretty much out to lunch on the whole political continuum thing, referring to even the most centrist Democrats as "hard left." That ridiculous hyperbole has continued to this day, of course.

And it's worth repeating a few quintillion more times that there is no politics in America save among attention-seekers in college that anyone in the rest of the world would call "left wing"; even the farthest-left Democrats in the farthest-left areas of Berkeley are practically Fascists on the global continuum.

"Extreme left wing" means agrarian Communism and peasant collectives, not Sonia Sotomayor.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 11:52 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin wrote:
"There were more rational conservative voices here at one time, but the posters have always tended liberal."

==

My experience of the past decade online is that conservatives have dropped away from message boards and blogs in the same fashion as they have dropped away from the GOP, in order of decreasing sanity and extremity. I wouldn't go so far as to call them ticket-splitters but there were at one time a lot of Republican posters who were basically sane and honest. They weren't reticent to voice their disagreement with some of the GOP's nuttier positions and wrote hopefully of moderates regaining some prominence.

Then came the first of the great GOP purges, with for example essentially sane members like Governor William Weld forced out. Conservative bloggers started to simply drop away, as it became more clear each year that the GOP wasn't just going hard right, but going insane.

Now the remaining GOP posters are pretty much all trolls, just as the GOP is pretty much all crazies.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"Why should that matter? Former KKK members (and one Grand Wizard if he lives long enough) will actually be voting in the Senate."

There are plural former KKK members?? I only know of Byrd.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 30, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny (not the "ha ha" variety, the other one) that the same GOP that makes such hay stoking the hate-flames over illegal immigration and their wage-depressing effect on American workers .. votes in favor of bringing over bargeloads of Indians under the H1-B program to do the same thing.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

The epitome of the GOP's preoccupation with race may be found in the person of Clarence Thomas, a man torn into pieces with self-hatred (not a phrase I use lightly, have had it applied to me for not being on board with the promiscuity and lewdness of the gay culture in past decades).

Thomas is probably going to side with Alitoscalia (a skin disease treated with some sotomayor ointment) and eviscerate the Voting Rights Act. A completely pitiable human being.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I wish Obama would have nominated someone a little bit more moderate

==

Only Cornyn has explicitly repudiated the racist cant coming from the GOP, and hardly anyone outside DC distinguishes Limbaugh and Liddy from elected officials. They so rarely need to.

Cornyn is from Texas, with a huge Latino voting base, and he must be seeing his life flashing before his eyes.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I wish Obama would have nominated someone a little bit more moderate

==

Since Sotomayor is the soul of moderation I believe what you are really saying is that you wish Obama had nominated someone more in the mold of Scalia or Alito, someone reflexively punitive.

Even before American conservativism went entirely into the gutter, punitivity seems to have been its core value. Uninterested for example in getting to the origins of crime, which liberals view as a consequence of poverty, conservatives seek to punish. So the guttered conservatism in vogue now has abandoned any pretense of effectiveness and, astoundingly, centers on the efficacy of torture.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Miguel Perez, columnist...

These church leaders rightfully are speaking out in defense of their illegal immigrant brethren.

They are seeking a path to legalization for the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the United States.

They say they are tired of seeing how society tells these immigrants that they don't count — except for once every 10 years, when they are told they need to be counted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The coalition's leaders argue that the census figures that can be used to empower the immigrant communities are the same statistics that are used by anti-immigrant forces to persecute illegal immigrants.

They argue that the towns that need their immigrant populations to be counted so they can get federal funds are often the same towns using those funds to discriminate against immigrants.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Why should that matter? Former KKK members (and one Grand Wizard if he lives long enough) will actually be voting in the Senate.

Posted by: JakeD

==

Leave it to Jake .. Byrd repudidated his past long ago, while the people who give you your daily marching orders remain racist to the core and have barely shellacked over it, using code words like "porous borders" and "favoritism" to speak to The Base.

But you knew that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

What that tells La Raza is this: Tancredo doesn't know what he's talking about. For starters, La Raza says, that's not the organization's motto or what it's all about.

==

Tom Tancredo's grandmother, whom he visits often, has been in this country for decades and still speaks only Italian. Yet Tancredo is one of the most vicious anti-immigrant voices in the GOP and explicitly nasty about people who speak something other than English.

It's seven miles past the exit for the town of Hypocrisy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"My best friend in grad school was a strong conservative who enjoyed baiting me. I never shed the label "the Liberal" amongst our group of friends. Chatting back and forth with Jake reminds me of those days."

It's more interesting to talk politics with people who disagree with you. (Kind of like my best friend in grad school now)

Nice post, Mark. It's always good to read your posts and this is especially true now with the Sotomayor nomination and the law talk.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 30, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Supreme Court Shoo-In?

by Miguel Perez, columnist.

She meets all the politically correct qualifications the Obama administration is seeking in its first Supreme Court nominee. As a woman, Sonia Sotomayor would help balance the court's lopsided 8-1 gender scale. As a Latina, she would give Hispanics long-overdue representation on our highest court. As a Bronx, N.Y., native and product of a single-parent home, she has the real-life experiences that President Barack Obama considers necessary.

As a sitting federal judge who has been nominated by both Republican and Democratic administrations, she could be a shoo-in when she seeks Senate confirmation. As a child of the projects who got to study at Princeton and Yale and became a successful career woman, she would become a huge role model. As a left-of-center jurist on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, she probably meets all the litmus tests the Democrats deny they will apply when searching to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Why should that matter? Former KKK members (and one Grand Wizard if he lives long enough) will actually be voting in the Senate.

Posted by: JakeD | May 30, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele Asks That Republicans Stop Being Such Racist Dickwads About Sotomayor.

Michael Steele, the actual elected-by-his-peers (barely) leader of the Republican Party, continues to have this problem with fat unelected sociopaths such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich loudly and boorishly pushing the GOP into forever-fringe third-party nutland.

For example, the turds are currently doing the usual fat-white-racist-republican deal of yelling “racist!” at someone who is a different race.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

BIZAARRRRRRRRRR
==========================
eroteme wrote: First of all they call out the rent a mob and label that person as 'racist' for even daring to open up the debate. This usually works because in the public arena, just being called a racist is like being called a Nazi and will lead to you being ostracized.
==========================

EARTH TO MANKIND... UNLESS I MISSED SOMETHING HERE? SOTOMAYOR'S CRITICS, RUSH LIMBAUGH, NEWT GINGRICH, TANCREDO

Republicans, 'racism' & Latino pride Calling La Raza the "Latino KKK'' redefines meaning of political liability.

What that tells La Raza is this: Tancredo doesn't know what he's talking about. For starters, La Raza says, that's not the organization's motto or what it's all about.

"It's not the first time for Mr. Tancredo when he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, told the Talking Points Memo blog. "I don't know what he bases the assertion on, since he didn't provide any facts or evidence to that effect, as to why he calls us the Latino KKK.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

oppo88: In the end,it only really matters how the GOP Senators behave and respond, and so far they have been very measured and responsible. People in the entertainment business want to drive up their ratings, and you don't do that by being sober and boring. I am a conservative to the core of my soul, I wish Obama would have nominated someone a little bit more moderate, but at the end of the day, I strongly believe POTUS has a right to pick whoever they want as long as they are reasonably qualified. Clearly she is well qualified to sit on the bench, so I hope most of the republicans vote for her. Not that they agree with her, just the President has that right. Of course when Obama was a Senator, he didn't think Presidents had that right. Hopefully he's grown since then.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 30, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@mark - Thank you for a brilliantly written post. It was the best written comment I've read on these blogs since becoming a Fixista. I've enjoyed gradually becoming part of a community. There are folks I like and those I don't. The political stance doesn't matter so much to me as the willingness to engage. Also, working the ref enrages me. If you have something to say, then say it. Don't make ungrounded accusations at Chris. Incidentally, he had a great Q&A session that I heard on C-SPAN last night.

My best friend in grad school was a strong conservative who enjoyed baiting me. I never shed the label "the Liberal" amongst our group of friends. Chatting back and forth with Jake reminds me of those days.

If I were to say most missed voice for me, it would be USMC Mike. Haven't heard from him in awhile.

So, have a great night. You helped to make my day a bit brighter.

Cheers to all!!!!
B(uh) B(ye)

Paul

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 30, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

MICHAEL STEELE, RNC LEADER, COMMENTS...

They used to just yell the various racial epithets, but now they have developed this bizarre tactic of instead yelling “racist!” It is, of course, insane. And hapless Michael Steele would like them to stop, because, duh, only 21% of Americans currently identify themselves as Republicans, and as this awful s.h.i.t continues, it’s going to be 15% and then 10% and pretty soon they’ll just be a dumber, fatter version of Le Pen’s racist fringe party in France, just so crazy proud when they have a big year and get 20 seats in Congress.

Steele was guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s talk-radio show today — apparently Bill Bennett has a wingnut talk-radio show, too — and used his patented fake-sounding hip-hop talk to warn Limbaugh & Co. to stop presenting the Republican philosophy (racism) so honestly:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

Yes, that happens when the only people left in your party are mouth-breathing crap-bags whose entire opposition comes down to psychopathic hatred of the colored people with the edumacations.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

HOW DISGRACEFUL CAN YOU GET? JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, (R) SAY'S NO TO OBAMA NOMINEE. BUT, THIS TIME IN THE MOST DISGRACEFUL WAY! COME ON LADIES NOW, YOU APPROVE OF THIS?
===========================
g-bates wrote: Sotomayor is a dangerous woman.
===========================
Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Thanks for your post too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 30, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for your post, Mark, and I don't think it's out of line.

I never saw most of the trolls you refer to but I've seen 37th and he deserves to be stuck in a burlap bag with some bricks.

To clarify my own case: I have a vehement hatred of people who enjoy being annoying. In forums, in the office, on the road. That some people derive enjoyment from being nuisances is an intolerable obscenity in my book, for some reason we accept it, and you can accept it if you want as some expression of glorious human diversity but I've been to countries like Viet Nam where that tendency is nowhere to be found.

I'm not talking about zouk; he's just a sicko, a mental case, and so is scrivener. But the others like JakeD actually boast about having successfully disrupted conversations here and about having endless free time to "pull our chains." They do so from the safety of anonymity, saying things that would get them hospitalized in face to face settings, delighting in being jerks. When I've run message boards I'm unhesitating in banning such people and I'm usually thanked for it.

As for Jake's pretense to civility, I hope nobody is buying it. I think he too has severe emotional problems that compel him to invent fables about his life and education, and his whimpering for attention is pitiable. But he delights in being a nuisance here and I wish others would join me in making his sojourn here as unpleasant as possible so in time he will leave like the others.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I concur mostly with Mark-in-Austin. I enjoy making a few barbs here & there and a little red meat, if things are getting to boring but you have draw the line at vicious verbal insults that do nothing but shut down debate. Yes, some in my party have overplayed a good hand for scoring some political points against Obamas supreme court pick, stick to her rulings and leave out the silly nonsense about her being a racist. Totally self-defeating and just plain stupid for Limbaugh and others to make those attacks.Hopefully Limbaughs ditto heads are not blind sheep.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 30, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"CF8, I winced when I saw your comment to Scrivner50.

S50 has his/her topic. It isn't anyone else's topic, but that doesn't make it wrong. Scrivner50 is also never insulting, and he/she doesn't belittle the other posters. Lay off, and save your vitriol for the trolls who deserve it."

That person deserves it. Scrivner is a disgusting person.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 30, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on, mark_in_austin, that was one insult in response to thousands!

Posted by: JakeD | May 30, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

MinA, we agree on very little, but I am with you on your last post. I always enjoy reading what you right, even when I do disagree.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 30, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

BroadwayJoe, a few of us came to appreciate "Aspergirl" over time. She was typically without humor, angry, and dismissive of any position with which she did not agree. However, she wrote her own stuff and it was tightly constructed. She was capable of changing her viewpoint, but the changes seemed sudden and sharp.

In short, some of us came to think of her as a bright woman with Asperger Syndrome. Taking that possibility into account, one of us [perhaps BB or bsimon or mnteng remembers who] asked her to limit her criticism of the posts of others to the subject matter, because she often appeared intensely personal. She was surprised by that, asked for general confirmation, and really tried to avoid personal attacks thereafter.

Of course, StreetCorner was functionally the worst - left so much vacant space in his copy-pastes that one had to scroll an entire screen to avoid him. Vic [Scriv] has become better about length and I have complimented him for that. He is still convinced that I am part of the Cheney apparatus, of course.

I admit to having sometimes enjoyed KOZ, but not when he stalked drindl and called names.

Do you remember Rufus?
---------------------
There were more rational conservative voices here at one time, but the posters have always tended liberal. There were also more ticket splitters here at one time, so that conversation was sometimes well facilitated.
My favorite conservative voice here was actually a libertarian, "JD", and he just got fed up with the personal insult stuff one day and quit. We had more veterans here, and that added to the mix. There are still some of us, but vbhoomes may be the only career guy who posts regularly.

I think of the folks here whom I do not know in any other capacity in categories, by how well they can stay on the issues or instead, feel compelled to attack other persons they have never met personally and with the vitriol once reserved for contested divorces.

So I always like to hear from you, and BB, and Ddawd, and bsimon, and mnteng, and vbhoomes, and sometimes from JakeD, but not when he calls ChrisFox8 a male prostitute. I like it when drindl posts some link I find interesting, like the Bennett-Barnes discussion, but not when she calls the blog's host a "...right wing toadie." And ChrisFox8 himself seems very bright, but as you pointed out, often takes personal umbrage at those he targets as writing outside the pale of acceptable posts.

I do not think the posters who relish personal attacks understand how they look to others.
And I apologize to all for posting off topic.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 30, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

kkk and neo nazi are,and always were,left wing radicals

==

utter nonsense

Fascism is totalitarianism of the right, the KKK is a right-wing racist organization. You need to get an education.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

S50 has his/her topic. It isn't anyone else's topic, but that doesn't make it wrong. Scrivner50 is also never insulting, and he/she doesn't belittle the other posters. Lay off, and save your vitriol for the trolls who deserve it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers

==

Insults are only one way to offend a forum. Scrivener50 enagages in several others no less offensive: (1) flooding (2) irrelevance (3) hysteria. And if you scroll through his history you'll find insults too. For months now he's been interrupting discussions with wierd microwave mind-control posts so bizarre they'd be rejected on a WTC-thermite site. It gets old. Agreed he's not zouk or Jake but he makes no efort to stay on topic and pastes the same post in one section after another.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

all this talk about racist,and misguided fools who still try to play the blame game.it makes me smile to see how much the leftist with a straight face tell people that republicans were the racist.wake up and look it up,the kkk and neo nazi are,and always were,left wing radicals,and a lot of black americans know this.
with republicans,racial comments by anyone,especially people in power,is unacceptable.the supreme court is no place for an opinionated,racist agenda.the courts are supposed to be blind to color.
i am no fan of republicans,but even less a fan of democrats,who love to lay the blame on whoever they can,to keep from accepting responsibility for their screwups.remember,a i g was not something obambi hussein inherited,nor was the buying out of automakers,and handing over all that tax money so the unions who own him can prosper at taxpayer expence,and i do not care if you are black or white,rich or poor,the crazy spending will cost you.
obama and his party have used the blacks in america to further their agenda,and that is wrong.the black americans,as well as their white brothers will not stand by forever and watch our country be torn down around our ears,and the future of our children sold out forever.

Posted by: silusdogood | May 30, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

CF8, I winced when I saw your comment to Scrivner50.

S50 has his/her topic. It isn't anyone else's topic, but that doesn't make it wrong. Scrivner50 is also never insulting, and he/she doesn't belittle the other posters. Lay off, and save your vitriol for the trolls who deserve it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 30, 2009 6:54 AM
__________
Agreed. Layoff S50. He was/is a legitimate journalist. While--and let me be real clear about this--I don't subscribe to his "agenda," whatever it is--I still have a strange feeling S50 may well have the last laugh at the end of the day.

Viva Sonia!

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 30, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes "One of those arguments, as we wrote earlier this week, is that picking a liberal jurist like Sotomayor, fundamentally undermines [Obama's] image as a post-partisan figure."

Well, yeah it would if Sotomayor was a liberal jurist. But those who have looked at her record (apparently not The Fix) are suggesting she's far more moderate than the left might like (NARAL, for one, has yet to weigh in enthusiastically on her appointment).

Posted by: bowseat93 | May 30, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Has Sotomayor ever actually said or even implied that judges should make decisions bsaed on empathy rather than the law? If not, then Gerson's argument doesn't really hold water.

Posted by: jondnorton | May 30, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

CF8, I winced when I saw your comment to Scrivner50.

S50 has his/her topic. It isn't anyone else's topic, but that doesn't make it wrong. Scrivner50 is also never insulting, and he/she doesn't belittle the other posters. Lay off, and save your vitriol for the trolls who deserve it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 30, 2009 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mark. I'm not quite sure on my personal feelings towards deference. Presumably a politician holds the positions he holds because he feels that is what is best for his constituents. This is also of a larger magnitude than say a Cabinet member who is gone after eight years at most and with much less influence. I don't see myself ever being in a position to vote on a Supreme Court nominee. I'm not sure what I would do.

I'm guessing Thomas is the guy you wouldn't have voted for?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 30, 2009 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Wow... if I can get away with saying that!!!
===================

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Supreme Court Shoo-In?
by Miguel Perez
She meets all the politically correct qualifications the Obama administration is seeking in its first Supreme Court nominee. As a woman, Sonia Sotomayor would help balance the court's lopsided 8-1 gender scale. As a Latina, she would give Hispanics long-overdue representation on our highest court. As a Bronx, N.Y., native and product of a single-parent home, she has the real-life experiences that President Barack Obama considers necessary.

Posted by: opp88 | May 30, 2009 3:25 AM | Report abuse

No, that Bill Bradley's a coach with the San Diego Chargers. Senator Bradley lives in New Jersey I think.

Posted by: JakeD | May 30, 2009 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Breaking: Tom Delay has weighed in on Sotomayor saying that she .. well, you can fill it in yourself.

Repubilicans only have majorities in a few states now, most of them slim, and many of which have substantial Hispanic populations. If it is their secret goal to fail to allow them another postmortem wallow in self-pity, they're doing a great job. They'll have a great wallow in 11/10 and 11/12.

Can't you hear it now?

"We let down the American people because we *weren't conservative enough*"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Are you William Bradley of Palestine, TX?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 30, 2009 1:45 AM | Report abuse

As someone who signed a national letter of intent back in the day, I would suggest that you work on another metaphor ...


>Trying to disqualify Sotomayor is the equivalent of throwing a Hail Mary pass in the first quarter of a game. What Gerson's argument amounts to is running the ball repeatedly during the first quarter so that the safeties and cornerbacks bite on a play action pass in the fourth quarter.

Posted by: williambradley | May 30, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Well, keep changing your line.

You'll figure it out eventually ...

Posted by: williambradley | May 30, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd, I favor deference and think each Prez should get his judicial choices absent competency or integrity issues. I thought Roberts and Alito both deserved unanimous consent. In my lifetime, if I had been a Senator, I would have voted against only one of the current crop - b/c I thought his accuser on a matter of personal integrity was credible.

I would have had a tough time with Bork because he had written the most activist possible attacks on stare decisis and because he wrote that the entire body of American anti-trust law should be repealed. I do not know now whether I would have accepted his assurances that he would honor prior case law and the legislative intent on the anti-trust laws he despised. My vote would have hinged on that - on my assessment of his integrity.

A side point:

Roberts was the best witness I ever saw before a Senate Committee, eclipsing the previous best of RBG. Alito, Souter, Scalia, and Breyer were all very good. I did not watch SDO'C but I suspect she was very good, too. These folks who were top of their class undergrads, top of their class law students, and top of the world lawyers all outclassed the SJC interrogating them. They knew more law. They knew more history. They knew more about the art of Q&A. So it will likely be for SS.

I think Hatch and Leahy have it right - they have almost always voted to confirm and not let their political disagreements stand in the way of deference.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 30, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

I see no contradiction in acknowledging a nominee's technical qualification but rejecting on ideological grounds. Ideology matters, and it is perfectly possible for a technically qualified nominee to be unacceptably extreme.

Republicans remain enraged over the rejection of Robert Bork on ideological grounds; let them rage. Bork would have been an unmitigated disaster on the court because of his ideological extremity; he would have voted against First Amendment protections without a second thought.

Someone like Bork (or Alito, who championed some perfectly disgusting positions at Princeton) is a lot worse than someone like Thomas, ideologically unsuitable but too mediocre a mind to set substantive future policy.

Sotomayor OTOH is a trap for the GOP; technically qualified and ideologically centered, a perfect nominee, but the GOP has, as one poster put it so well, dug the whole, planted the spikes, and leapt onto them unbidden.

Fade to black indeed.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 30, 2009 12:27 AM | Report abuse

"

An even less perilous route for R opponents is to recall that then candidate BHO praised Roberts as qualified and as having integrity, but voted against him on ideological grounds. BHO was wrong to do that and two wrongs do not make a right, but why should he expect the Rs to honor the presidential prerogative when he did not?

An R can say "SS is qualified and has integrity, but I do not agree with her and I am voting against her", citing the Prez for precedent.

I know that BHO did not begin the tit-for-tat of judiciary gamesmanship, but he played that game for all it was worth.

Posted by: mark_in_austin "


What's your personal opinion on Presidential deference?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 29, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

And Republican Fatuous Opportunisticism strikes again.

Can the Republicans count? As in how many Republicans are going to have to mute their attacks on Sotomayor because they really don't want to alienate the Hispanic vote in their district, thereby slitting the throat of their next campaign before it even begins?

The Republicans freely admit that they can't stop this nomination, and many freely admit that it will be poor tactics to try very hard at all. Opposing Sotomayor is bad for running in 2010, and bad for running in 2012.

So Gerson says do it any way to gain some putative positioning that would place the party in an opportunistic position to one up Obama in 2012. Just in case there might come an opportunity to use this Supreme Court omination to advantage in four years, shoot yourself in both feet, both legs, and maybe for good luck shoot yourself right between the eyes.

Fatuous Opportunisticism.

Or, in Haiku:

It is Fatuous
Opportunisticism
Republicans love!

When you know you can't win, don't fold early and wait for a better hand, go all in and increase the bankroll the other guy has for the next hand. UnHuh!

They can't be good at high stakes poker, either.

But Michael Steele says that the time for apologizing, and/or looking back is past.

So like the herds of Cretaceous Dinosaurs that left so many fossils and fossil foot prints in Alberta, Canada, these dinosaurs go trudging off into petrification and extinction, but just in case the opportunity arises they want to pick a losing fight now. And under a flaring sun, in the parched desert of a Disney Fantasy, we hear the haunting clarinet riff as we behold the bleaching bones of what was once the Republican Party.

Fade to black.

Posted by: ceflynline | May 29, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

An even less perilous route for R opponents is to recall that then candidate BHO praised Roberts as qualified and as having integrity, but voted against him on ideological grounds. BHO was wrong to do that and two wrongs do not make a right, but why should he expect the Rs to honor the presidential prerogative when he did not?

An R can say "SS is qualified and has integrity, but I do not agree with her and I am voting against her", citing the Prez for precedent.

I know that BHO did not begin the tit-for-tat of judiciary gamesmanship, but he played that game for all it was worth.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 29, 2009 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Read her dissent in

In re Air Crash Off Long Island, NY on July 17, 1996, 209 F.3d 200 (2000)

It is a text book of judicial restraint in and of itself.
Jake, the cite is for you. Her decisions are not manna from heaven for AAJ [formerly the Trial Lawyers Association], that is for certain. And while she has never had an abortion case, her ragging on Chinese forced abortion as "murder" in a deportation case will come as no comfort to the anti-abortion faction. I expect her to uphold Roe as precedent, but I suspect that she will find no right to a government funded abortion, and in other ways limit Roe.

From reading her cases, I do think she will join RBG on cases of particular interest to women. Like RBG, she has dissented in a school strip search case. Women I trust tell me that their view of that indignity is that it is a far more severe intrusion on the person than the typical male view, like mine. I favor more women on the Court because I think there is room for the different view most women have of the centrality of some issues that are peripheral for most men.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 29, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - Missed the earlier comment, but thanks for the recommendation. I'll look up Ota. Ruths Chris is good, but we've got one close by. Hoping for some local flavor.

I have to remember to hit old town for chilaquiles. They leave my tummy bubbling, but oh... are they good!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 29, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

TO: chrisfox8 @ 7:30 p.m.


Did you not get the memo? "No more lame psy ops."

I think it was signed "Roz Mazer."

That's why the paid trolls here now deal in repartee, droll wit, even some occasional kind words for POTUS, rather than Bush-era juvenile name-calling that is the hallmark of -- get ready for it -- lame psy ops.

Since you have given me an opening, perhaps you may temper your pejorative assessment with an objective reading of THIS:

http://nowpublic.com/world/bush-torture-memos-oked-radiation-weapon-use-americans-too

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 29, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the right (and frankly with the media establishment) is that they have myopic amnesia when it comes to empathetic comments. Here's what Justice Samuel Alito testified to in his 2006 confirmation hearings about his Italian heritage:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background, or because of religion or because of gender and I do take that into account.”

So Justice Alito ADMITS that he TAKES INTO ACCOUNT his heritage but nary a peep from the right? And this isn't racist? Wow .. hypocrisy is tough to beat, boys. I emailed this quote to the lazy good for nothing Milbank but he prefers to just keep cutting and pasting other people's columns rather than do a little work himself. Pass this quote on -- I've only heard it on NPR on 5/28 and it is the best argument against these hypocrites that I've seen.

Posted by: Omyobama | May 29, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone else heard from Sotomayor's EX husband, Kevin Edward Noonan, yet?

Posted by: JakeD"
___

Last I heard, he beat the Judge in a round of golf and won a college scholarship and that girl he caddied with.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else heard from Sotomayor's EX husband, Kevin Edward Noonan, yet?

Posted by: JakeD

==

Not even with a straw to clutch at, Jake clutches at bubbles

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator Levin has seen the documents Cheney claims show that "thousands of Americans' lives were saved" and has said, unequivocally, that Cheney is lying.

Glory. Fireworks. Red sky.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else heard from Sotomayor's EX husband, Kevin Edward Noonan, yet?

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

We don't eat sushi,

Posted by: JakeD

==

Of course you don't, you could never master chopsticks

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade (in case you miss this on the earlier thread):

We don't eat sushi, but I've heard that Nobu is good from friends who do -- our favorite restaurant, though, is Ruth's Chris up the street from there on North Harbor -- I've also heard that Sushi Ota is supposed to be the freshest but expensive. Good luck!

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris, rather than flack for Gerson, why not give some play to your Post colleague, PULITZER PRIZE winner Eugene Robinson, whose take on this today was on-target:

"Each of us carries through life a unique set of experiences. Sotomayor's happen to be the experiences of a brilliant, high-powered Latina -- a Nuyorican who was raised in the projects of the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, edited the Yale Law Journal, worked as a Manhattan prosecutor and a corporate lawyer, and served for 17 years as a federal trial and appellate judge.

Given that kind of sterling résumé -- and given that she has, according to presidential adviser David Axelrod, more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in at least 100 years -- it's understandable that Republican critics would have to grasp at straws."

I hope the SS haters got the "more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in at least 100 years" line. Intellectual lightweight my a$$.

Full column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803627.html?nav=emailpage

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

You don't really have to lure the GOP into traps, nowadays. They dig their own holes, put the sharpened sticks in the bottom, and leap into them, all by themselves. Everyone else just watches in awe.

Posted by: nodebris

==

Isn't it just amazing?

And they STILL think that in the privacy of the voting booth that all Americans outside of NYC and SF are just as nasty and bigoted as they are, and if David Brooks knows anything then it's going to take them another THREE presidential losses to start figuring out that this isn't so.

Even a one-celled animal knows better than to move closer to harm. But not Republicans. I'd almost pity them but ... well.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

At least the White House is admitting her wording was "poor":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/29/wh-calls-sotomayor-wording-poor/

Posted by: JakeD

==

Little crumbs make starvelings happy, I guess. She will be confirmed easily and the GOP leapt right into the trap, and just lost the nation's biggest minority as a voting bloc for the next forty years.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. But I'm sure you 21-percenters got a few licks at the puckering hole.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

At least the White House is admitting her wording was "poor":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/29/wh-calls-sotomayor-wording-poor/

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD

==

You just don't get it, do you, Jake. "Anyone else?" "Let me know." As though all readers are hanging on your every speck of drool. It's safe to say that nobody who reads these comments cares if you live or die and safer still that most everyone, both ideologies included, wishes you would go the hell away.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:26 PM"
_______
CF8, we lived through Hall of Shame trolls 37thandO, AsperGirl, Dianne72, and King of Kook. We'll live through JakeD[emented].
Stay thirsty, my friend.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Fred Barnes is to journalism what a streetwalker is to romance. At one point he was a centrist, then he saw the bread more buttered on the right and fell straight to his knees. What a craven scumsucker that guy is, nice to see he's so far around the bend to be helping Democrats clinch their hold on the levers of power for generations to come.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Where Do You Stand on Government-Enabled GPS Gang-Stalking?

==

Shut the hell up you paranoid freak

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Gerson is offended that anyone would not side with the powerful. Siding with the privileged is so reflexive for the Bushies that they believe it to be logical and impartial. What do you expect from a toady Bush enabler?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD

==

You just don't get it, do you, Jake. "Anyone else?" "Let me know." As though all readers are hanging on your every speck of drool. It's safe to say that nobody who reads these comments cares if you live or die and safer still that most everyone, both ideologies included, wishes you would go the hell away.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

What's the point of offering the GOP "a word to the wise?"

Posted by: nodebris | May 29, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Gerson's advice is way too little too late.

HuffPo's Sam Stein is reporting Hispanic GOP strategists are saying the damage to the GOP among Latinos is already done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/gop-hispanic-strategists_n_209240.html

The racist hateful remarks of Tancredo, Newtron, Beck, Rush, et al. no doubt have been repeated endlessly in the Spanish media, Telemundo and Univision. [I don't count Huckabee because his attacks were directed only at "Maria" Sotomayor, not Sonia.] And the stupid remarks will be revisited in Dem ads during the 2010 elections.

From now on, aside from Spanish versions of Juan Williams, no Hispanic will vote GOP for the next thirty years (except maybe on those trick WV and OH ballots that switch your vote...allegedly).

It makes no difference that GOP Senators have held their fire on Sotomayor because, outside the Beltway, no one draws a distinction between GOP elected officials and the unelected blowhards. The only way for a GOP candidate to escape the taint is to denounce the bigotry publicly. So far, only Cornyn of Texas has done so.

BHO, Gibbs, Rahm, and Axelrod have to be laughing out loud; we can't imagine that they thought the GOP would so totally take the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Viva Sonia. Viva beans, rice, and pigs feet. Viva New York.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Where Do You Stand on Government-Enabled GPS Gang-Stalking?

WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA RESTORE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN A GRASSROOTS AMERICA WHERE OFFICIALLY-SANCTIONED 'VIGILANTE (IN)JUSTICE' RULES?


The questionable legality and constitutionality of covert, warrantless GPS tracking of unjustly targeted persons and their families FINALLY has broken through to the mainstream media:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_police


This is the Achilles heel that can bring down the technological infrastructure of ideological or hate-motivated organized stalking and constitutionally suspect police procedures in conducting investigations of "innocent but targeted" individuals and their families.

Mainstream media: Please follow up on the Yahoo News story referenced above.

Civil libertarians: Urge lawmakers to pass a law that prevents the electronic tracking of any individual without an individual-specific (not general) court warrant -- no more arbitrary, wholesale electronic surveillance and harassment (via federally-funded and equipped citizen vigilante gang stalkers) and no more covert implantation of devices in vehicles or personal property.

This is the issue that the public can understand. Once covert implantation of GPS devices -- or the use of an individual's cell phone as a GPS tracking device -- is definitively made illegal, any official who knowingly allows such surveillance would be an accomplice to a crime. This should be a felony and not a misdemeanor.

Victims of the "extrajudicial targeting and punishment network" spawned or expanded under Bush-Cheney (and now enabled by the inaction of the Obama Administration):

Organize a mass demonstration demanding an end to "covert GPS stalking." Such a demonstration should be aimed at the ACLU -- a demand that these declared civil libertarians address the issue that enables organized stalking of unjustly targeted people and their families.

For more:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 29, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

You don't really have to lure the GOP into traps, nowadays. They dig their own holes, put the sharpened sticks in the bottom, and leap into them, all by themselves. Everyone else just watches in awe.

Posted by: nodebris | May 29, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

so hey jakey, why is it ok for alito and not for her?

"Moreoever, Judge Sotomayor’s statements that her own experiences as a Latina impact how she views her role as a judge mirror similar statements by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who said that “[w]hen I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”


Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Judge Sotomayor conceded today that her now-famous “wise Latina woman” quote was a “poor” word choice, but it is clear from context that Sotomayor’s speech says the opposite of what the ad claims. Indeed, Sotomayor says in no uncertain terms that judges must ensure that their decisions are never compromised by prejudice:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Moreoever, Judge Sotomayor’s statements that her own experiences as a Latina impact how she views her role as a judge mirror similar statements by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who said that “[w]hen I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

The racial attacks on Judge Sotomayor have no basis in reality. Perhaps that explains why even conservative elected officials continue to distance themselves from the right-wing special interest groups’ race-driven smear campaign."

Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"Gerson is up to his old stupidity again. Empathy and sympathy are not the same thing. You can have empathy for everyone in a case, that is, understanding their point of view, not necessarily agreeing with it. It does not in the least imply a lack of impartiality."

The funny thing is that Republicans are critical of Sotomayor for not showing empathy towards the firefighters of New Haven. Who cares that she based on her decision on written law? She should have felt sorry for those firefighters!

Posted by: DDAWD | May 29, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

tailwagger:

Does "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" indicate a lack of impartiality?

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting that Chris has chosen Gerson's column to flog in this post, but not mention Krauthammer or Broder (who say essentially the same thing, though in different ways). Or Brooks for that matter.

Wonder if we'll see a shout out to The Fix in Gerson's next column.

Posted by: mnteng | May 29, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Gerson is up to his old stupidity again. Empathy and sympathy are not the same thing. You can have empathy for everyone in a case, that is, understanding their point of view, not necessarily agreeing with it. It does not in the least imply a lack of impartiality.

Posted by: tailwagger | May 29, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

While Gerson advocates for "impartial application of the law," he misses one important point: sometimes a law, as passed by the legislature and signed by the executive, is unfair.

While judges have a duty to uphold the law, they also have the authority to determine whether or not a law is not compliant with the Constitution. Courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, have invalidated laws as unconstitutional quite regularly, including laws that banned mixed-race marriages, prohibited handguns in Washington DC, forbid abortions, and allowed line-item vetoes.

The Supremes don't just "call balls and strikes." Sometimes they get to change the rules of the game.

Posted by: Gallenod | May 29, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, those noted fair and balanced conservatives who handed an election to GW in an opinion that basically went entirely against the idea of state's rights and also was "limited" to that one case only ....Can we get the hypocrisy out of judicial confirmations once and for all? D's try to block conservative R's, R's try to block liberal D's .... ever thus it will be. This is not 70 years ago when horse trading and deals were made, where the Senate basically rubber stamped judicial appointments and you just "waited your turn" to get your hacks in (metaphorically speaking of baseball not politics) to balance things out.

If R's really wanted to be high minded, they would ask tough but fair questions and then vote *for* the nomination - she is eminently qualified, has the background and is the P's pick. That used to be all that was needed.

Posted by: terrapin31590us | May 29, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is for equal opportunity, until they go into a voting booth...

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 29, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

and this--

'On MSNBC yesterday, Pat Buchanan repeatedly attacked Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an “affirmative action candidate,” echoing right-wing claims that she has “been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life.” On Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes argued “that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.” When Bennett noted that she graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton, which he called “a pretty big deal,” Barnes dismissed it, saying “I guess it is”:

BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.

BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.

BARNES: One wonders.

BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don’t think you get on affirmative action. I don’t know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude’s a pretty big deal.

BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student.

Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The conservative base has gone so overboard in their vitriolic and unconscionable attacks on Sotomayor over her race and gender that the GOP literally has no option in opposing her anymore. All oppo will rightfully be labeled as the unfair whining of a white male party.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | May 29, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

this is what hispanics are hearing from the right:

"Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body."

Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

For the record, it is not a "slathering racist comment" to simply quote Sotomayor's own words to her and ask if she still believes in that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Peggy Noonan in the rightwing WSJ:

“Let’s play grown-up.” When I was a child, that’s what we said when we ran out of things to do like playing potsie or throwing rocks in the vacant lot. You’d go in and take your father’s hat and your mother’s purse and walk around saying, “Would you like tea?” In retrospect we weren’t imitating our parents but parents on TV, who wore pearls and suits. But the point is we amused ourselves trying to be little adults.

And that’s what the GOP should do right now: play grown-up.

The Democrats in the White House have been doing it since January, operating with a certain decorum, a kind of assumption as to their natural stature. Obamaland is very different from the last Democratic administration, Bill Clinton’s. The cliché is true: White House staffs reflect their presidents. Mr. Clinton’s staff was human, colorful, messy, slightly mad. They had pent-up energy after 12 years of Republican rule, and they believed their own propaganda that Republicans were wicked. They were oafish: One dragooned a government helicopter to go play golf. President Obama’s staff is far less entertaining. They’re smooth, impeccable, sophisticated, like the boss. They don’t hate Republicans but think they’re missing a few chips (empathy, logic, How Things Really Work). It is true they don’t know what they don’t know, but what they do know (how to quietly seize and hold power, for instance—they now run the American auto industry), they know pretty well."

Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Too late.

"The main line of Republican criticism is likely to concern affirmative action -- which might provoke conservative extremists to predictable extremes and confirm an image of Republicans as the party of the male and pale."

Pandora's out of the box and the damage has been done. Just look at the slathering racist comments on your own blog, CC. It's much worse other places. Republcans are the white people party -- everybody knows it and this has only confirmed it.

SOTOMAYOR IS NOT A LIBERAL, CILIZZA, YOU RIGHTWING TOADY.

Posted by: drindl | May 29, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The problems with Gerson's arguments are manifold. For starters, Judge Sotomayor is moderate, not liberl. More liberal than Gerson would prefer? sure. But that doesn't make her 'liberal'. The problem with the anti-empathy argument is that President Obama is not the first to use that standard. GHW Bush complimented Justice Thomas' empathy, and Justice Alito made his own case for empathy when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearings. In other words, this is all much ado about nothing. In 17 years of rulings, the primary criticisms of Judge Sotomayor amount to out-of-context quotes from two speeches. There is effectively zero criticism of her record*.

* While the criticism of the Ricci case is one of criticizing her record, most critics seem to miss the point that her decision amounted to Judicial restraint - in respecting precedent. This is usually a characteristic that conservatives admire.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 29, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company