Cutter guided Sonia Sotomayor through the process, and some of the discussion is good:
[P]utting the first Black woman on the Supreme Court will be celebrated by most Americans... [W]e were about to put the first Black woman on the court. That will be celebrated. The other thing that potentially could happen is some Republicans could overshoot this, and you already see some senators talking about how this is a quota pick or an affirmative action pick....
This person is not going to come off as an affirmative action pick. This person is going to come across as the most qualified person for the court, if you just look at the women on the proverbial short list. They can continue their racist dog whistles on this. But I think most people are not going to have the stomach for it, and it will turn around and bite them just to continue the dog analogy there.
That focuses the problem precisely: Democrats want to inspire a degree of celebration that feels good to their supporters and to tempt their antagonists to cry "affirmative action" in a manner that feels unkind to those who like that subject to be handled with discretion.
I checked to see if the NYT is using that word — the NYT represents the prevalent standard — and I found "White House Chooses Doug Jones to Guide Supreme Court Nominee/Once President Biden picks a nominee, Mr. Jones will introduce her to senators and prepare her for hearings" by Katie Rogers. There's no "sherpa" in the headline at the Times. The word comes up in the article, but it isn't used without acknowledgment of the source of the word:
Mr. Jones... will be a so-called Senate sherpa for the nominee. The nickname is borrowed from mountaineers of Tibetan descent who live across the Himalayas and are known for their ability to navigate travelers across hazardous terrain....
There's no discussion of the problem of using the name of a people as the term for a particular type of worker, and the article goes on to use the word 2 more times.
And I love the use of the word "borrowed" — "[t]he nickname is borrowed" — where the normal political usage of our day is "appropriated." You say "borrowed" when you're asking to get away with it. Try it next time you're caught stealing. I was only borrowing it. I was going to give it back.
I think The Washington Post has abandoned the term. The most recent article with "sherpa" and "court" was from February 2016.
As for the much-kicked-around CNN, they've got "sherpa" in their headline from 2 days ago: "Biden set to pick his Supreme Court nominee's 'sherpa' as the courting of McConnell and other senators begins."
Come on, you half-wokesters, it's time to stop.
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe the sherpa will guide the nominee half-way up Everest during a storm.
Yet Joe Biden blocked the first black woman that could have been nominated. We could have been celebrating since 2003. But instead, Biden played politics...like he is doing now.
Sherpa for native assistant is white culture. Whites own it. If you use it, you're acting white, like if you do mathematics or favor the nuclear family.
Most qualified person should be compared to Richard Epstein, just as an example that's likely to be more qualified and has the body of work to prove it.
How is she better than Epstein, is the question to ask when it comes up.
Yesterday I read a piece about how Joe Biden stopped Judge Janice Rogers Brown from being nominated to SCOTUS. You see, Brown is the wrong type of Black woman.
Joe Biden makes me puke. He’s a hypocrite, senile, corrupt and in the pocket of the Chinese.
What's the name for Afghan assistants that turn on you and shoot you in the back. We should have some of those as well, naming-wise.
"This person is not going to come off as an affirmative action pick."
No, the person will come off as an affirmative action pick because the person will be an affirmative action pick. President Biden himself said so when he said he would only consider a Black woman.
If he had said he would consider many qualified individuals, regardless of race or sex, then nominated a qualified, Black woman, the person would not come off as an affirmative action pick, and still be celebrated.
This should have been easy and uncontroversial.
But as Obama said, never underestimate Biden's ability to fuck things up.
Come on, you half-wokesters, it's time to stop.
Ann with her rules for everybody, haha. Cute...
[W]e were about to put the first Black woman on the court...
This person is not going to come off as an affirmative action pick...
This person is going to come across as the most qualified person for the court...
Huh? What? How the?
Most Qualified? Oh, they mean Most Qualified Black Woman? I thought we tried that in 2003?
Sherpas are in Tibet. Tibet is by China. China owns slaves. And now China owns us. Thanks liberal elites and Wall Street!
Cutter doth protest too much. She's already an AA hire and we don't know who it will be yet. She now has to show that she should be celebrated as the best possible nominee.
It seems to me the person the Democrats really should put in the dock for this situation is Rep Clyburn, who appears to have insisted on a *public* vow from Biden to appoint a black woman to the USSC in return for endorsing him before the South Carolina primary.
There must be a place in our government for Shiren, Chinese scholar-officials. They could procure Shirpas where needed.
Cutter doth protest too much. She's already an AA hire and we don't know who it will be yet.
…and do we know they’ve already been confirmed? Senators have drawers full of letters…
Biden should promise his next SC nominee will use a sherpa of Tibetan descent to navigate the confirmation process.
By the way, whatever happened to Free Tibet? You don't see those bumper stickers on Subarus anymore.
Heavenly Road Chinese song celebrating the conquest of Tibet or possibly the construction of the railroad to it allowing fast movement of troops. Highest railroad in the world. Cars offer oxygen.
Cultural appropriation in song.
@ThatsGoingToLeaveA
Thanks for the typo alert — on "idiocity" for "idiocy." Speaking of coining words!
Assistants whom smoke hashish?
True story. My son had a diminutive south asian GF whose family was from Darjeeling. Lovely young lady, parents are doctors she's a cancer researcher at Harvard. Anyways, when my son moved, you should have seen her squat down, lift and carry heavy boxes and run up and down stairs. I told my wife and daughter she must be part Sherpa. They were both horrified but I thought it was a supreme compliment.
BTW, Sherpas, like Gurkhas are Nepalese, not Tibetan. These are some of the finest people on the planet.
It's not cultural appropriation to call someone a Sherpa, it's stolen valor.
Any other person of other ethnicity or sex considered for the post will just be a Potemkin candidate, just there to give good optics to the process. Traitor Joe has already picked the black, female candidate.
Jim Clyburn would be a perfect pick. He ticks off the Black checkbox and he could fulfil the female checkbox by declaring himself to be a woman. Too bad that he's 81 and won't have that many years on the bench. But think of all the theater with his nomination. "It will be Glorious", as Warf would say.
Expect to hear a lot about the Flores suit as the Supreme Court nominee moves through the process. He'll be the counterweight... Biases, whims, affinities, aspirations. Very difficult to sort such things out and be absolutely fair in the equitable distribution of preferments. Thank God that we have a Supreme Court that was appointed on the basis of biases, whims, affinities and aspirations to guide us through these difficult waters. The Supreme Court is our collective Dutch uncle when it comes to deciding these things
Democrats want to inspire a degree of celebration that feels good to their supporters and to tempt their antagonists to cry "affirmative action" in a manner that feels unkind to those who like that subject to be handled with discretion.
Good point. Those who say the nominee is not competent or not the best will be accused of saying it's an affirmative action pick and then they will be accused of being racist. People get appointed to positions they aren't qualified to hold for many different reasons, but the strategy is to always bring the debate back to race. Appointments based on race or gender may be harder to question and actually easier to put through than appointments where "affirmative action" isn't an issue, because it's always possible to play the racism card.
"Diversity" has been a value in politics for at least a century. Political bosses had to balance Irish, Italians, Jews, WASPs and other groups in their electoral tickets. But there wasn't all the moralizing rhetoric about it. You could celebrate the historic first member of your own group in the legislature or on the bench, but the larger society wasn't going to. I wouldn't mind going back to those days, but that's not going to happen.
Howard, agree with you totally. It's stolen valor. But, what can you expect from a President who's highest achievement is having a chocolate, chocolate chip two-scoop ice cream cone?
“Appropriating the ethnicity of the Other”?
I considered whether the post was a parody of wokeness, but it seems too earnest to be so.
How is use of the term “Sherpa” as metaphor for “a skilled guide in extreme conditions” an “appropriation,” rather than an acknowledgment of a people’s superior and unique capability?
And Nancy Pelosi warns Americans to not criticize China while our athletes are over there, as it will incur the wrath of the ChiComs.
“Do not risk incurring the wrath of the Chinese government…”
---There must be a place in our government for Shiren, Chinese scholar-officials. They could procure Shirpas where needed. [rh]
RH, you made me think of such a one; and the Li Po poem Exile's Letter that addressed him.
Ezra Pound reading his own translation of the poem here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-dMO4iXN84
Its youtube title says part 1 of 2, but it is the complete poem as only Pound could read it.
A tangent, but a good one.
This person is going to come across as the most qualified person for the court, if you just look at the women on the proverbial short list.
That is a pretty big qualifier right there - she will be the best of the best so long as you discount all men and all women not already on the short list (i.e. all non-black women and all non-liberal black women).
Idiocity = Washington D.C.?
“This person is not going to come off as an affirmative action pick. This person is going to come across as the most qualified person for the court....”
These lefties are all practitioners of the Goebbels’ doctrine. It is simply “the big lie” that will come across perpetrated by the leftmediaswine. There is no way that choosing from, what, five percent of the legal profession can yield the most qualified person. Normies are not as stupid as they think we are. OTOH, lefties are at least as deluded and/or corrupt as we think they are to promote this bullshit.
After the rare conservative or moderate black female lawyer, however well qualified, is excluded the pool likely will be far less than five percent of the lawyer population. Hence, affirmative action. Does Cutter really believe that Sotomayor comes across as anything other than an affirmative action choice?
Many predictions about how this "off the short short list” nominee will come off. I don't know about that. Most nominees try to come off as wise umpires who for some reason have never thought much about any legal controversies in all their years in the business. My prediction is that most of the Senators will come off as preening incompetents or superannuated dolts. I've been following these things since Bork and that has been the smart call every single time.
"It's awfully discordant to appropriate the ethnicity of an Other when you're flaunting your racial progressiveness."
Not at all. Strategic use by progs = borrowing, any use by non-prog = appropriation. The real discord is in the idle expectation of foolish consistency. Doesn't fit with reality. Give it up.
"it's time to stop."
Not at all. The sensibilities of nice women are irrelevant to progs, at least as long as they don't have to face an electoral reckoning. So they'll keep at it.
The cry of racism is the last refuge of the neobarbarian. To revise Samuel Johnson's ‘Patriotism is the Last Refuge of the Scoundrel’ statement.
Shorter Althouse: More popcorn!
@tommyesq
You underestimate the producers of this play. The short list won't be all black women. It will be a list of highly qualified, prestigiously credentialed finalists chosen, we will be told, without regard to sex or race.
"I considered whether the post was a parody of wokeness, but it seems too earnest to be so."
I heard that Althouse was writing a play entitled "On the Importance of Not Being Earnest."
"[P]utting the first Black woman on the Supreme Court will be celebrated by most Americans... "
No, it won't. Most Americans no longer care about these "first" anythings. If Biden and his people really believe that picking a black lady is going to have significant emotional resonance for "most" Americans, they really need to get out more.
As for "sherpa," it has one specific meaning in American English: a mountaineer who helps far less competent climbers scale a mountain. Virtually the only occasion Americans ever have to use the word in reference to an actual ethnic group is situations like the present one, where the appropriateness of using the word in the mountaineer-helping sense is being discussed.
A modest proposal: stop saying "stop saying."
We would have already had a WOC on the Supreme Court had Sen. Joe Biden not stomped his large racist foot on top of it.
Too much racism and wokeism today for my brain to partake in. It's all nothing more than a massive whining sound to me at this point. America has turned into a massive whining sound. Collectivism does that to a country.
I really like the term "idiocity", as in:
We live in an idiocity of public health experts
Is it true that Sotomayor is one of the stupidest people ever to wear a judge's robes? Did it take a lot of heavy lifting to get her to her present position? Bush Sr. got her to a District Court, Clinton to a Circuit Court, and Obama to the SC.
Sherpas I guess are famous as incredibly strong and skilled, noble and self-sacrificing people who remain largely anonymous. Identifying oneself as one is not exactly modest. What would that turkey ever have accomplished without me? This is a problem with the whole phenomenon of political staffers becoming famous; Peggy Noonan is a great example.
There is a lack of curiosity about any culture other than the up-to-the-minute modern Western one. Maybe patriarchal Afghans are a bit more sympathetic than very weakly patriarchal Americans, but probably not. The only interesting thing about sherpas is how we can compare ourselves to them.
I must admit: in explaining how to climb all the stairs in our townhouse to the roof deck, I have been known to say you may need a St. Bernard or a sherpa.
“…some Republicans could overshoot this, and you already see some senators talking about how this is a quota pick or an affirmative action pick....”
Really? Has any Republican senator called this an affirmative action pick? Who? I’ve only heard the left claiming the right is doing so. Haven’t heard any senate Republican do so… yet. Commentators have. This is the fight they want. They want to be playing race and arguing race again, and always.
I always assumed 'Sherpa' was a job, not a race or ethnicity.
Just like calling Brad the Judo instructor 'Sensei.'
Not sure how it's offensive...
Btw, I can't wait until we have a left-handed, one-legged, mixed-race, bisexual (but leans lesbian), little person of Lithuanian heritage on the court.
Now THAT will be a day to celebrate, my friends!
I’m already bored with this event. We know that Biden’s nominee will make decisions to advance the Marxist/Progressive agenda every time. And will work to further establish that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely one reference point for the decisions. She will be sold as proof that only Democrats care about black people but will in fact be more proof the Democrats believe black people can be bought off with symbolism. But you can’t eat symbolism or use it to keep your kids from being shot by your neighbors’ gang. Until Democrats give blacks equal opportunity through K-12 education it will all be just more propaganda from the party of slavery and Jim Crow.
Republicans should simply draw out for the American people the reality of who the nominee is and will be on the SC and leave it go at that. Vote against her and move on.
Until today I thought Sherpa was an occupation, like scout, not an ethnicity, and wrote it with lower case. And I've been to Nepal.
. Does Cutter really believe that Sotomayor comes across as anything other than an affirmative action choice?
Sotomayer implied her Latino wisdom is superior to all wisdoms. Easy to extrapolate her wisdom is the best possible wisdom of all the racial wisdoms available.
[P]utting the first Black woman on the Supreme Court will be celebrated by most Americans...
It could have happened in 2006, but the Democrats filibustered Janice Rogers Brown, because she was the "wrong kind of black woman".
So, personally I'll be calling out the racism of Democrats, and asking why it didn't happen 16 years ago
Richard Epstein is a towering legal academic. Trump discriminated against him by only considering young candidates for vacancies, and for his last vacancy only considering young women. Epstein hopes to be 79 when Breyer is scheduled to retire. Epstein is also recently on record saying he would vote to uphold Roe, and predicting Roberts will do the same.
Lurker21 said...
Good point. Those who say the nominee is not competent or not the best will be accused of saying it's an affirmative action pick and then they will be accused of being racist.
No, we will start out by pointing out the reality of "she's an affirmative action pick", and leave it at that.
Because everyone honest knows that "affirmative action pick" == "less than the best person for the job".
People get appointed to positions they aren't qualified to hold for many different reasons
Yep. And then people on the other side point out those appointees failures.
"Diversity" has been a value in politics for at least a century. Political bosses had to balance Irish, Italians, Jews, WASPs and other groups in their electoral tickets. But there wasn't all the moralizing rhetoric about it.
We almost have a winner here.
That's right, in the past the "out" ethnic groups were discriminated against, banded together, worked together, and established enough political power that they had to be given slices of the pie.
What they did not do is form a mass movement on the principle that it's wrong to treat people differently based on their ethnic group.
The US Civil Rights movement was not sold on the position that "this is power politics. We deserve a cut of the pie".
It was sold on the principle "it is wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin."
If the Civil Rights movement was legitimate, then promising to appoint the "first black woman" is wrong.
If Biden's promises is reasonable, then the Civil Rights movement was a lie, a fraud
You can tell me Jim Crow was wrong, or you can tell me it's right to limit a hiring process to someone with the "right "diversity" criteria.
But you can't have both
Readering has to get his little TDS rant into the comments. EVERY president wants to appoint a young candidate. Janice Rogers Brown was younger but not that young back when Joe Biden filibustered her nomination to keep her off the court.
“And I've been to Nepal.”
Smoking black Nepalese until you’re weak in the knees does NOT count.
Michael K, perhaps you were too overwhelmed by her beauty to realize it, but it was commented on at the time how Clinton filled his first vacancy with someone over 60. Clinton, of all people. He was expected to pick the younger Breyer, but after interviewing both he fell for RBG.
Also, how did Biden keep Rogers off the Supreme Court? She could have been promoted from the California Supreme Court, just as Biden is now considering with Kruger. Kaden had no judicial experience when Obama picked her, so I don't accept the Estrada story either.
Media privilege.
This person is not going to come off as an affirmative action pick.
Of course she will. Cutter has to say this, of course, but only the most stupid will agree — them and people paid to sign on to untenable assertions.
This person is going to come across as the most qualified person for the court …
And Cutter walks right into the trap. Once Biden announced that he was only looking towards a narrowly-defined category, whether that category is black females, white Presbyterians, or people who dyed their hair purple while in high school, the more narrowly defined the category the less likely that the “most qualified” is in that category.
It doesn’t help Biden’s case that affirmative action hire Sonia Sotomayor is such a dingbat.
I'm OK with any black woman Biden picks, with the proviso that her name always has an asterisk.*
*Quota Hire
Blogger Readering said...
Also, how did Biden keep Rogers off the Supreme Court?
She was nominated for the DC Circuit along with Estrada. As everyone, including you, know that is the stepping stone to the USSC. Biden filibustered her nomination and did the same to Estrada. The Democrats acknowledged it was to prevent Bush from nominating the first black woman and the first Latino. Try not to seem dull.
Readering said...
Also, how did Biden keep Rogers off the Supreme Court? She could have been promoted from the California Supreme Court, just as Biden is now considering with Kruger. Kaden had no judicial experience when Obama picked her, so I don't accept the Estrada story either.
What is it that you are claiming, Readering?
1: That the Democrats did not filibuster Estrada for being a Hispanic, and did not filibuster Janice Rogers Brown for being a black female? (They let plenty of white male judicial nominees through who were as or more conservative than those two through, so they couldn't have been filibustered for being conservative)
If so, you're flat out lying
2: That sure the Democrats were a bunch of racist pigs who filibustered Bush's minority Appeals Court appointees, but it was "no big deal" because they could have tried appointing them to SCOTUS anyway, despite not having the Appeals Court experience?
Please, do make your position actually clear
I'm saying they did not need to be first appointed to the DC Court of Appeals in order to be appointed to the USSC. Opposition at that highly publicized level would have been much more politically difficult for the Democrats, just as it was with Thomas before Anita Hill, and as it would have been for Barrett but for the timing and the treatment of Garland. And as it will be for Republicans with the nomination of an African-American woman with a sterling background.
It was not a racial/gender thing. The Democrats did the same with Bush Sr's nomination of leading appellate advocate Roberts to the DC Circuit. But Bush Jr renominated him, and then soon after he took his seat nominated him to O'Connor's seat and then almost immediately to Chief. The Republicans did the same to Liu under Obama, a likely first Asian justice. Now he sits on the California Supreme Court with my favorite for the Biden nod, Kruger.
as it will be for Republicans with the nomination of an African-American woman with a sterling background.
Black and female is not necessarily "sterling." Look at Sotomayor as an example of Democrat affirmative action. She does not know the difference between state and federal law.
Readering said...
I'm saying they did not need to be first appointed to the DC Court of Appeals in order to be appointed to the USSC.
The Dems filibustered them because they thought that letting them on the DC Circuit would make them better SCOTUS picks.
just as it was with Thomas before Anita Hill, and as it would have been for Barrett but for the timing and the treatment of Garland
Yet another round of "ignorant, or liar?" Go look up "the Biden rule, 1992". Go look up "Robert Bork". Post Bork, no Senate controlled by one Party has any obligation to advance a nominee from the other Party. What happened with Garland and ACB were both entirely consistent with prior practice as established by the Democrats.
It was not a racial/gender thing.
Yes, it was
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconnell-charles-schumer-nuclear-option-judicial-filibuster-214991/
Leaked internal memos indicated that the Democratic opposition was predicated on the fact that if confirmed, this brilliant young Hispanic conservative would be catapulted onto the short list for a Supreme Court nomination.
Roberts was nominated for DC Circuit in 1992, and the majority Dems refused to proceed with his nomination (gee, kind of like Garland there)
He was never filibustered by the Democrats
What's it like, having such garbage positions that you feel you have to lie to support them?
Because everyone honest knows that "affirmative action pick" == "less than the best person for the job".
"Everyone honest"? Not as many people are honest enough to think it and honest enough to say it as one might think.
You can tell me Jim Crow was wrong, or you can tell me it's right to limit a hiring process to someone with the "right "diversity" criteria.
It's not right to limit the hiring process in advance, but very often the result turns out to be someone with the "right diversity criteria." Biden fumbled in saying that he was limiting his choice to Black women, but that's who he'll pick, the appointment will go through and it will be celebrated by the usual sources. I guess all that shouldn't be, but it is.
When the first English mountain climber meant the first sherpa he probably didn't think much of the little Asian. But now, the person who "sherpas" you through a complicated process is someone you have to respect. Your sherpa may be more competent and worthy than you are yourself. So there is some progress there.
Sherpas are the professional mountain climbers. The climbers they guide are amateurs. If you look at a list of people who have climbed Everest, the people with the most ascents are Sherpas.
If someone needs to be rescued, Sherpas are almost always the rescuers.
Tenzing Norgay climbed Everest on his sixth attempt.
So, it's a dumb way to use the word "Sherpa." You want the nominee to be the Sherpa, not the consultant.
GCGT:
The Democrats controlled the Senate when Kennedy, Southern and Thomas were confirmed after Bork. They had the votes to filibuster other Republican nominees. I don't understand the big deal you make about 51 or 41 votes in this area. I maintain that while few paid much attention to court of appeals nomination battles the general public would not look kindly on qualified USSC nominees being voted down on party line votes.
Michael K, Sotomayor stands up well against 2 centuries of USSC appointments. You just don't like her judicial philosophy. A big reason for her selection was her prior appointment to the District Court by Bush senior. Turns out that didn't help with the GOP of the 21st Century.
I can’t get excited about this either. So “sherpa” is used as a term for a political guide. So what?
But then, I’m not PC/Woke, so I don’t care about the underlying phony issue.
And nothing they claim about the woman not being an affirmative action pick will carry conviction, because she will be an affirmative action pick. In the minds of the Left, having sub-Saharan African Ancestors, dark skin, a vagina and a fixed determination to vote for whatever is popular in Democratic politics are right up there with celebrated legal opinions as qualifications for being a Supreme. Among most of the public, they are not.
Lurker21 said...
Me: Because everyone honest knows that "affirmative action pick" == "less than the best person for the job".
"Everyone honest"? Not as many people are honest enough to think it and honest enough to say it as one might think.
I didn't say they SAY it, I said they KNOW it.
It's not right to limit the hiring process in advance, but very often the result turns out to be someone with the "right diversity criteria." Biden fumbled in saying that he was limiting his choice to Black women, but that's who he'll pick, the appointment will go through and it will be celebrated by the usual sources. I guess all that shouldn't be, but it is
Once you've established that you're going to make a "diversity" hire, everyone know that means you're going to get an inferior employee whose only value is the "diversity" criteria. And the few rare times the person actually was the best person for the job, the fact that you said you were going to give "diversity" points means no one actually believes the person earned it.
Because the whole point of the diversity bullshit is to promote / get hired people who don't deserve it
Readering said...
GCGT:
The Democrats controlled the Senate when Kennedy, Southern and Thomas were confirmed after Bork.
Yep, they went for Kennedy because they didn't want to pay the political cost of rejecting 3 Reagan nominees heading into a Presidential and Senate election where the American people would be given a chance to vote on teh Democrats anti-democratic Court policies.
They went for Souter because he was the best they could get, Saddam had just invaded Kuwait, and they got Bush to dump his "read my lips" pledge instead.
And he turned out to be a hard core lefty.
They confirmed Thomas because their Senate majority was dependent upon southern blacks voting 90%+ for Democrats, and they were afraid that dumping his nomination after the Hill smear failed would have cost them enough votes to cost them their majority
They had the votes to filibuster other Republican nominees.
Until the Democrats started their racist filibusters, no one had ever does the filibuster move as anything other than a short-term tactic to delay confirmation while they could get, or get out, data to torpedo it.
The Dems weren't doing that, they were just using the filibuster to block perfectly valid nominees, just because they didn't like the sex or skin color of the nominees.
Which is why whoever Biden nominates should be grilled about the filibuster against Janice Rogers Brown.
I don't understand the big deal you make about 51 or 41 votes in this area. I maintain that while few paid much attention to court of appeals nomination battles the general public would not look kindly on qualified USSC nominees being voted down on party line votes.
Yes, I understand you have no principles, just a lust for power. And I'm sure you haven't complained about a single GOP filibuster of the Dem vote fraud bill, or any other Dem bill.
Again, what is it like having such shit positions that holding them precludes being principled or honest?
Michael K, Sotomayor stands up well against 2 centuries of USSC appointments. You just don't like her judicial philosophy.
She's the biggest moron on the Court in the last 50 years. She asks questions at argument that indicate she can't understand teh difference between the powers granted the Federal Gov't and the powers reserved for the State.
She's a blithering moron and a political hack, and she hasn't made a single actually wise decision in all her years on the Court
A big reason for her selection was her prior appointment to the District Court by Bush senior. Turns out that didn't help with the GOP of the 21st Century.
"Read my Flips" Bush Senior?
"We want the people of Iraq to rise up and toss out Saddam! oh wait, not THOSE people!" Bush Senior?
No, no endorsement by him carries weight with anyone who lives with his or her head outside of his or her ass.
GTCT: Are you an attorney? Had you reached adulthood by 1991? Trying to evaluate your comments.
Readering said...
GTCT: Are you an attorney? Had you reached adulthood by 1991? Trying to evaluate your comments.
None of your business, and I was political aware long before 1991. Not tell you you how long because I don't release personal information.
Did I watch and follow the Bork and Thomas nominations? Yes I did. Did I understand the legal issues involved, and where teh Democrats were flat out lying about Bork?
Yes I did.
The only "recent" filibusters of judicial nominees compared to Estrada and Brown was the filibuster of LBJ nominating Fortas to be CJ of SCOTUS. The fact that all this lead to the expose of Fortas's corrupt behavior, and has resignation from SCOTUS, marks the several orders of magnitude of difference between Fortas and the GOP PoC that the Demos filibustered from teh crime of being PoC
Are you a attorney Readering? Had you reached adulthood by 1991?
Thanks for answering. What I guessed. I've also answered in my comments.
So, IOW, you understand that you're full of sh!t, I do know what I'm talking about and will be able to call you on all you sh!t, and so you're running away now.
Cool
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा