11 Comments Add your own

• 1. Neftali  |  July 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  Pat must be having a “senior moment.” Either that or he really wants to drive an issue home that really has no merit. Why else would he publish a post from thinkprogress that complains of the exact same thing he posted about yesterday?

  So since Pat is essentially doing a copy/paste. I’ll (for once) follow his lead and do the same.

  Word choice is paramount here. I can’t think of anyone from either side that is opposed to mentioning an upbringing from humble beginnings. The issue falls into establishing gender or ethnicity as credentials or qualifications for the position.

  Now while Alito did mention being discriminated against for his ethnic background, he is careful not to mention specifics. i.e he made no mention of being Italian.

  Now, if Sotomayor mentions that being an Hispanic or a Female somehow gives her special consideration, the line is crossed. Hopefully she is smart enough not to provoke such a subject in her hearings.

• 2. SNuss  |  July 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  I, too, will reprise my previous comments, since Pat seems to be in a repetitive mood.

  The important part of Alito’s comments is this: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.”

  While some cases may remind him of his experiences, he realizes that any personal views MUST, repeat, MUST be kept subservient to the written law.

  If Ms. Sotomayor believes that the judicial branch should be “making policy”, perhaps she should transfer to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the most over-turned rulings of ALL appeals courts, where she should fit right in.

• 3. Pat Cunningham  |  July 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  Snuss points out that Alito said: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.”

  But Snuss seems not to know that Sotomayor, just yesterday, said this: “The task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my circuit court.’’

  So, we end up with both Alito and Sotomayor having expressed some empathy based on their life experiences and their roots — and both having pledged to follow the law in their duties as judges.

  I sense that Snuss thinks we should take Alito at his word, but not Sotomayor at hers.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  July 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  By the way, I was especially amused by this stupid line in Snuss’ Comment No. 1: “Now while Alito did mention being discriminated against for his ethnic background, he is careful not to mention specifics. i.e he made no mention of being Italian.”

  He’s Italian? Gee, I thought he was Norwegian.

  What the hell could Snuss have meant with that ridiculous observation? But then, what the hell does Snuss EVER mean?

• 5. SNuss  |  July 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  Speaking of stupid, Pat, you failed to notice that the comment you disparaged me about was not my own, but that of Neftali.

  Ms. Sotomayer is quoted as saying that the Appeals Court sets policy, so I AM taking her at her word.

  You are truly a fimicolous individual.

• 6. Pat Cunningham  |  July 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

  How stupid of me, indeed, to confuse Neftali with Snuss! I don’t which of them should feel more insulted. My apologies.

• 7. Richard  |  July 15th, 2009 at 10:46 am

  Did anybody catch Senator Patrick Leahy? The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee intentionally misquoted Sotomayor during his opening comments. Leahy said: “You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.’”

  That’s not quite accurate. What Sotomayor actually said was: “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.”

  Is it not great how the left can misrepresent the facts and go unnoticed?

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  July 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am

  Unnoticed? You noticed it, didn’t you? Others have noticed it. What’s this crap about unnoticed?

  You remind me of the genius I once knew who said “the media never tell you about (such and such).” I asked him where he learned about this stuff, and he said he read it in a newspaper.

  It’s vaguely reminiscent of Yogi Berra’s observation that “nobody goes there anymore, because it’s always too crowded.”

  Nobody notices the stuff that Richard notices — except for all the other people who also notice it. Like these folks:
  http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=leahy+misquoted+sonia&cf=all&scoring=d

  And these folks:
  http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=leahy+misquoted+sonia&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

• 9. SNuss  |  July 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  But the Liberal MSM ignored it, Pat. The only Google “news” listings for this are the Washington Examiner, and the National Review blogs. That is hardly mainstream media coverage.
  Now if a Republican had done something like this, it would be front-page news. That must be because the Far-Left is expected to lie and cheat, so it isn’t news.

• 10. Richard  |  July 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  Point well made SNuss.

  Pat, did I miss it in the Rockford Paper? Can you tell me where the mention of it was? Thank You in advance for your help.

• 11. Richard  |  July 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

  All talk and no show again, Pat

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed