BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, my...Jeffrey Toobin just suggested a name I didn't even think of - Midge Rendell (Ed's wife)

That would be interesting. I know Specter would definitely vote for her.

[Keystone Phil]

I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing and got depressed. God forbid you oppose someone of the same background of a group you're trying to win over politically.  

This is exactly why this business is seen as a joke by so many. Then again, a lot of the same people will say that they don't like appointments based on background but they'll feel uneasy seeing the situation you described unfold. Nothing like another dose of white guilt for society.

[Keystone Phil]

If the only reasons they oppose her are ideology and pure obstructionism, then you have every reason to feel depressed.

No, troll, I'm depressed that people like yourself try to guilt Republicans into supporting her because she's a woman and Hispanic.

I've made clear that I don't support holding up any nomination because of ideological differences. That doesn't mean I'll just roll over and accept her because it's historic.

As Vander said, there was no outrage by the Dems when other historic nominees were held up.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

They didn't feel enough guilt when they decided to side with Anita Hill...

Again, no outrage over Gonzales either. If we want to play this game about getting on board with historic nominations, just realize that it goes both ways. It's such a shame that this stuff defines politics. It's no wonder why some of us want out...

[Keystone Phil]

Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And if some minority nominee was hilariously unqualified, you'd still be saying that the GOP will suffer among minority groups and you'd love it. Why would we suffer? Well, because we're the party of fat, old, white men opposing a poor minority and too many people are totally concerned with that aspect of the debate.

No comment from you concerning Thomas' nomination. I'm sure you would have hailed that as historic, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...what does that have to do with guilting someone to support someone else because of their ethnic/gender background?

And actually some of us were very disgusted with bullying Democrats about their supposed lack of patriotism. I've made that very clear in the past so get a clue before you post your usual nonsense.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

I won't even ask why...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Predictable

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am and always have been.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why is that?

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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."

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

Of all the things to moan about...

I'm not moaning about it and I don't know of anyone that ever said or implied that diabetes is an obstacle to success.

[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."

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

Of all the things to moan about...

I'm not moaning about it and I don't know of anyone that ever said or implied that diabetes is an obstacle to success.

It was an obstacle because it prevented her from becoming a policeman or PI, as mentioned in Obama's speech today.

Will diabetics suddenly be able to become police officers or PI's? Was there ever an obstacle for those with diabetes in the judiciary?

Come on, guys. If Obama nominated someone who is flat footed, we would be able to say he or she overcame a great obstacle because flat footed people can't serve in the military. It's completely irrelevant.

[Keystone Phil]

Benjamin Cardozo

Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!

Ok, enough already. Seriously.

[Keystone Phil]

LMAO!!!

Part II

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/conservative-whispers-to-hill-reporter-concern-about-the-impact-diet-will-have-on-her-jurisprude.php#more

Makes as much sense as hailing her for being a diabetic. 

[Keystone Phil]

it's fun to watch the Republican Party turn to White Nationalism-lite; something I projected a while back

And let me reassure you that no one else made such a ridiculous projection either...