BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Of course you don't have to care about it there which makes it even more hypocritical that you take joy in it being an issue here.

Thomas was also obviously unqualified. He should have been rejected.

LOL

I won't even ask why...

And yes, the Republicans don't enjoy the benefit of the doubt that the Democrats do regarding minorities. That's the price they pay for 40 years of  being the Party of White Resentment.

Predictable

2)If you really were disgusted by the bullying and patriotism-mongering by the Republicans in 2002, then I applaud you.

I am and always have been.

But the fact is that identity politics is alive and well, for better or worse. Of course the Democrats will play the Latino card in order to corner the Republicans and paint them as Anti-Hispanic.
It shouldn't be like that, but then again in a perfect world we shouldn't have a racist creep like Sessions judging her or any other judicial nominee for that matter.

Fair enough but I wouldn't take joy in it like you are (just as I didn't take joy in the fact that calling Dems unpatriotic was popular for awhile).

1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

2)Thomas WAS unqualified. The American Bar Association said so.

3)If there is some joy in all that, it is coming from seing the Republicans squirm in their seats like the Democrats did for the last twenty years. You know, like when you see a movie villain gets his comeuppance.

[Keystone Phil]

1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

Uh, what?

I'm not jumping up and down in joy because I'm tired of people trying to force me into supporting someone because their selection is racially/ethnically historic and you find it amusing that we're in this bind.

You're being a hypocrite because you expect this to be an issue here and want to guilt anyone that doesn't support this woman but don't care to see it our way even though you live in a homogenous country.

2)Thomas WAS unqualified. The American Bar Association said so.

And why is that?

[paul718]

Does anyone think Ricci v. DeStefano might derail her candidacy?  I haven't read the opinion yet, but at face value I hate it.

[blagohair.com]

Phil, come on you really think Thomas was qualified?  The only reason he was picked was because Bush had to pick an AA to replace Marshall and an ultra-conservative because you guys were pissed his first pick was a moderate like Souter and the only black guy he could find who fit that description was Thomas.

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

Uh, what?

I'm not jumping up and down in joy because I'm tired of people trying to force me into supporting someone because their selection is racially/ethnically historic and you find it amusing that we're in this bind.

You're being a hypocrite because you expect this to be an issue here and want to guilt anyone that doesn't support this woman but don't care to see it our way even though you live in a homogenous country.

The racial/ethic angle would be reprehensible IF Sotomayor was unqualified. Since that obviously isn't the case here, it's an added political bonus for Obama and the Democrats. And they should be sued for political malpractice if they don't take advantage of the situation.

In case you don't know, I'm not in a position to guilt anybody into voting for her confirmation. I'm just a guy with a PC, commenting the latest political developments.
If you oppose her because of her judicial philosophy then fine. I'm not going to call you a bigot or anything else. You are entitled to have your opinion. 

And pardon me if I find amusing the situation in which the Republicans are, but their predicament is entirely self-inflicted. How can I not be amused when I see Huckabee rushing so much to blast Obama's choice, that he got her name wrong in his statement (''Maria Sotomayor''). 

And I really don't understand what do you want to say about Thomas. The guy is a living example of tokenism, not surpased until last fall when the world learned of Sarah Palin. 

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, come on you really think Thomas was qualified?  The only reason he was picked was because Bush had to pick an AA to replace Marshall and an ultra-conservative because you guys were pissed his first pick was a moderate like Souter and the only black guy he could find who fit that description was Thomas.

I didn't see one reason why he wasn't qualified in that post.

The racial/ethic angle would be reprehensible IF Sotomayor was unqualified. Since that obviously isn't the case here, it's an added political bonus for Obama and the Democrats. And they should be sued for political malpractice if they don't take advantage of the situation.

So we're supposed to be guilted into supporting her based on race anyway? Sorry but some of us don't like that.

And pardon me if I find amusing the situation in which the Republicans are, but their predicament is entirely self-inflicted. How can I not be amused when I see Huckabee rushing so much to blast Obama's choice, that he got her name wrong in his statement (''Maria Sotomayor'').

And we come back to the handwringing as the issue. Why is this self inflicted? Because we're not bowing at her feet because she's a minority?
 

And I really don't understand what do you want to say about Thomas. The guy is a living example of tokenism, not surpased until last fall when the world learned of Sarah Palin. 

Haha, wow. Still no reasons why Thomas was unqualified. And this has to be the first time I ever heard that Thomas was not up for the job. I know the left despises him but he's always been hailed as an intelligent jurist.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

And the Republican's predicament is self-inflicted because they let the Tancredo wing of the party define their image regarding imigration.

[Keystone Phil]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

I'm sorry but saying that the Bar said he was unqualified isn't going to cut it. Can you give their reasons, please?

And the Republican's predicament is self-inflicted because they let the Tancredo wing of the party define their image regarding imigration.

I'm certainly not in the Tancredo wing but I guess supporting the rule of law instead of caving to whatever is politically popular with the new swing bloc of voters is just insane.

[Tender Branson]

The ABA never said that Thomas was unqualified - the official vote was split.  Democrats' main reason for opposing Thomas is the fact that he is a black Republican and not because he is a conservative.  Democrats cannot stand the idea of a black Republican, as evidenced by their vicious attacks on Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, and (likely to come) the GOP candidate in Colorado and J.C. Watts should he choose to run again.

[Lunar]

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

Thurgood Marshall would like a word with you.

I'm going to quit using the word "first" since I always get in trouble.

And he's dead so I don't care.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

I'm sorry but saying that the Bar said he was unqualified isn't going to cut it. Can you give their reasons, please?

They don't make public neither the way their members vote, not the reasons for doing so.

[Keystone Phil]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

I'm sorry but saying that the Bar said he was unqualified isn't going to cut it. Can you give their reasons, please?

They don't make public neither the way their members vote, not the reasons for doing so.

Ok so forgive me for not jumping at that wonderful bit of "evidence" as to why he's not qualified.

Also, Vander claims the vote was split. Whose telling the truth?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Judge for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/us/bar-association-splits-on-fitness-of-thomas-for-the-supreme-court.html

[Keystone Phil]

Judge for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/us/bar-association-splits-on-fitness-of-thomas-for-the-supreme-court.html

Again, they didn't rule that he is unqualified.

[Nym90]

I'm still trying to dig up Jmfcst's thread about how Bush should choose Alberto Gonzales for the Court because it would be political suicide for Dems to oppose the first Hispanic nominee. I think it might have been on the old Forum (it was at a time when there wasn't a vacancy). In any event, will be interesting to see if he feels likewise with Sotomayor and the GOP.

[Nym90]

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

    o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

    o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

    o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

    o Abolishing the death penalty;

    o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

I wish.

I assume when they mean "could" they are referring to the future possibility of one of the conservative justices dying (I doubt any of the 5 will retire under an Obama presidency). Were there any cases in which Souter was actually the swing vote and to the right of Kennedy? Would be interesting to dig up some.

[Rowan]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

Speaking of the devil...

Glenn Beck shows his class once again via his Twitter account:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-can-messiah-obama-heal-sotomayors-diabetes.php

''Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask? What is protocal (sic) on miracle healings?''

[blagohair.com]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

Speaking of the devil...

Glenn Beck shows his class once again via his Twitter account:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-can-messiah-obama-heal-sotomayors-diabetes.php

''Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask? What is protocal (sic) on miracle healings?''

Beck is such a prick.  But his inability to spell is amusing

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

Speaking of the devil...

Glenn Beck shows his class once again via his Twitter account:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-can-messiah-obama-heal-sotomayors-diabetes.php

''Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask? What is protocal (sic) on miracle healings?''

Beck is such a prick.  But his inability to spell is amusing

I'm starting to think that Coburn in 2012 and Blubb are imitating him in the spelling aspect, as a form of flattery.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm still trying to dig up Jmfcst's thread about how Bush should choose Alberto Gonzales for the Court because it would be political suicide for Dems to oppose the first Hispanic nominee. I think it might have been on the old Forum (it was at a time when there wasn't a vacancy). In any event, will be interesting to see if he feels likewise with Sotomayor and the GOP.

I think that would have been Estrada

[Nym90]

I'm still trying to dig up Jmfcst's thread about how Bush should choose Alberto Gonzales for the Court because it would be political suicide for Dems to oppose the first Hispanic nominee. I think it might have been on the old Forum (it was at a time when there wasn't a vacancy). In any event, will be interesting to see if he feels likewise with Sotomayor and the GOP.

I think that would have been Estrada

Ah yes, ok, that's right. Thanks. My memory is failing me in my old age. Though I guess the fact that I still remember random threads from about 7 years ago ain't too shabby to begin with.

[Keystone Phil]

Speaking of Sotomayor's diabetes...

Can anyone tell me why anyone ought to care about this? I saw on the CNN ticker that diabetes groups are praising her appointment. Uh...what exactly are they saying? "We are glad a Supreme Court Justice will finally have to use an insulin pump. That is all."

[Iosif]

Speaking of Sotomayor's diabetes...

Can anyone tell me why anyone ought to care about this? I saw on the CNN ticker that diabetes groups are praising her appointment. Uh...what exactly are they saying? "We are glad a Supreme Court Justice will finally have to use an insulin pump. That is all."

Or that this appointment is a sign that diabetes is no longer an obstacle to success...

Of all the things to moan about...

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Boogie Down represent!