The Rational Hysterics

I wish the Republicans would just state what is definitely true, which is that if a white Republican male had said the same thing she did reversed, then they would be chastised to the point of humiliation by the media and by everybody at the confirmation hearings. They should then go on to say that they don't think that she is truly racist, but that she made a mistake that should not be repeated if she wants to be a supreme court justice.

..........................................The Republicans are desparate for anything or anybody to attack to try to get themselves out of the deep cavern that they are in. They must attack Sotomayor because she differs from their philosophy so they will dig to find anything they can find to throw at her in attempts to punch at Obama. The Republicans are finding it almost impossible to recover from the damage done by the Bush Whacking Regime that we endured for eight years.....America will not forget the Bush Blunders.

That's it???? "Too darn human"??? Nice try. That, Ms. Lithwick, is the lamest attempt at political rehabilitation I've seen today. When you are sworn to the Supreme Court, you take an oath that you will set aside that "too darn human" tendency and focus on reading the law without bias. If Clarence Thomas had uttered anything like this, Democrat heads would be spinning and spewing pea soup.

paulejb, I find your reasoning and criticism of Sotomayor to be seriously flawed. You have listed and complained about quotes of Sotomayor that are clearly taken out of context. You took these quotes on face value without attempting to learn the context, despite me giving you links to the full context. You have erroneously used statistics to argue that Sotomayor is a worse judge than she really is. The flaws in all this could be recognized by anyone with some basic common sense. You have not said anything that hasn't been said by conservative pundits. You need to learn to think for yourself and make sure you know what you are talking about before talking about politic issues like this.

Most importantly, you claimed that Sotomayor views the constitution as a list of suggestions. Outside of the quotes taken out of context, you have failed miserably to support this claim. I have clearly stated that I only am interested in how Sotomayor would rule as a Supreme Court justice and thus am primarily interested in her prior rulings. You have not mentioned a single ruling showing Sotomayor making a decision on something other than the Constitution.

In short, I think your claims and concerns about Sotomayor are completely unsupported. I think you are acting like a fool. Stop buying all the BS the conservative pundits feed you and think for yourself. I could debate you further, but I don't see what it would accomplish.

In response to paulejb regarding Ricci v. Destefano:

So the big controversy here is that Sotomayor concurred with a decision expressed in a single paragraph? Okay, Cabreras is definitely correct that there are some legal issues that could have and perhaps should have been mentioned in the opinion Sotomayor concurred with. Also, a decision like this being expressed in a single paragraph seems to be pretty bad. Perhaps this brings Sotomayor's competency as a judge into question, though one would need to use several decisions of Sotomayor's to support this. However, I don't see how Sotomayor's decision was incorrect or how this is an example of Sotomayor failing to rule based solely on Constitution and the law. Let's revisit your claim:

"That is why it is too bad that she views the Constitution as a list of suggestions that can be disregarded on her whim."

Now, is there a court case where Sotomayor improperly made a decision based on something other than what the law or Constitution say? Is there a court case demonstrating Sotomayor regarding "the Constitution as a list of suggestions"? If so, please tell us which court case and explain why. Otherwise, your claim is unsupported beyond the quotes you mentioned. To be honest, all I care about is how she rules as a judge and whether she is a good judge or not.

I am a moderate conservative and I am appalled at the racism shown here. There is one particular Aryan loving, Catholic hating, Nazi wannabe who should have his tirades removed from this forum. It is difficult to believe that someone from the KKK would bother to read left leaning Newsweek, but he is attracted to race-baiting here. Fortunately, most people are ignoring him.

Judge Sotomayer will not have half the tough time at her confirmation as Samuel Alito did during his confirmation. He suffered through three days of mean spirited questioning. Yes, the liberals are nasty, too. Judge Sotomayer should be questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee because this is a life-time post. As a Supreme Court Justice, she may have a huge impact on many American lives. I believe that she will be an improvement over Justice Souter. She is not going to change the ideology of the Court. We conservatives should pray that Justice Kennedy remains healthy. He is the swingman.

Lithwick creates some consternation in that ,as with FOX and CNNs parade of toothy blondes, she becomes a rather attractive woman with a dumbbell attached. The dependable subject of ridicule among law professionals,she becomes the ''McLaw'' of legal matters no differant than her pal over at NPR/PBS,Nina Totenburg, who gives law profs ulcers,or has them reaching for a bottle of single malt. This species of leftist legal eagles [ or mudhens], offers simply too much hypocrisy when weighed against their earlier and quite recent tirades against Bush USSC picks. Oh, Sotomayor will go, and will live to embarass dimwits like Leahy and Schumer, but then, like myself many moons past,Americans will not have to take anything she has to say on any subject seriously again. It is not such a long drop from a John Kenneth Galbraith to a Shemp Howard now is it Dahlia?

It seems to me that there are parts of the constitution that are just vague enough to where the courts have to use their best judgement to determine the intent of the original framers. Maybe that is where the whole "empathy" thing comes into play. I still don't understand how the commerce clause enables Congress to do some of the things that they do. A lot of people like to use the analogy that a judge is supposed to only call balls and strikes but sometimes things are not that straight forward.

I retired after spending a life- teaching in an inner city high school located in a 'hood so dangerous that it was nicknamed "the killing Fields."For years, I read autobiographical essays written by my students for their college portfolios, students like Sonia Sotomayor. Neither Ellis Cose, the white guys in the media, nor the GOP (Grand Old Privileged white Guys) cannot understand my day-to-day experiences. Nor can they understand the personal truths my students wrote in their portfolio essays. In the same line, the Grand Old Priveleged White guys also have no idea of the life or obstacles that Sonia Sotomayor had to overcome.
As far as I am concerned, when Sotomayor made her famous oft-quoted remark about privileged white guys, never was the truth more told. It's the truth that Privileged White America and the Privileged White GOP can neither face nor understand.

P.S. For the record, I happen to be a white guy,

CHECKOUT GOD COMES TO NW POST AT 6:12 PM. DO YOU THINK IT'S A LITTLE FISHY THAT GOD KNEW NOTSOQUIET HAD THE DAY OFF? WAS THIS A SLIP UP BUY A DUAL IDENTITY GEEK ZOMBIE? BYE AGAIN.:

I'M NOT BACK. I CAN'T MESS WITH NOT SO ON MY WORK COMPUTER. BYE