Susan
Legal experts ??
Why did both of the articles about Sotomayor neglect to mention her liberal activism ?
Pretty sure that Thomas,Scalia,Roberts, and Alito were constantly referred to as conservative by the MSM.
So we have Anita Hill's lawyer as head of DHS, even though there wasn't a case.
Finding legal experts is going to be a very elusive task for the Obama admin or you. But expert isn't the quality required, just empathy and a liberal outlook.
They have already thrown the Constitution under the bus with the Chrysler "bankruptcy", so I guess institutionalizing this empathy and patronage of the friends will take the place of law and due process.
So sad that the NPG can only represent so few of its readers.

My question is this is she the "best" candidate no matter race, sex, or age? If there is a better more qualified individual then we as citizens are being cheated. It should never be about color or ethinic, if the liberals really want to get over it and let us all be one. No they would rather have unfair unbalanced hiring and appointment to positions based only on race. Come folks that is why this country is in such a mess the media coned the uniformed, unemployed academia to elect the pied piper to support there man of color no matter he didn't have the qualifications or background. Appointment the most qualified no matter what he/she are.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one will ever be able to reach a consensus about who was the best qualified candidate for such an important position.

She is impeccably qualified and based on the large amount of her body of work I've been researching for the last two days, she is neither liberal or activist.

I think this is a good pick.

Teacherlady got fooled........she isn't "liberal"....she isn't "activist"....I would certainly agree that she is bright....but she isn't bright enough to fool Obama and if you think Obama isn't going to choose the absolute most liberal-activist canidate (with good credentials) your asleep at the switch

It's interesting reading these comments and those from yesterday's article calling Judge Sotomayor a "liberal activist". However, I haven't seen any of the posters back up that claim with any evidence.

I'm not claiming to have read all of her opinions, but I've read those that would seem to touch on hot-button issues like guns, abortion and discrimination. In none of those opinions does she take an "activist" position. On the contrary, her decisions have followed judicial precedent. I haven't read one of her decisions in which she established some new principle of law. (And maybe that's the issue that would trouble some people--she hasn't been on the cutting edge of any high-profile legal issues).

ELH.....do you recall the surprise when Sarah Pahlin was selected.....and did you notice who got off the plane in Alaska the following morning....what was it....200 lawyers to "check her out".

Do you think Obama didn't turn loose an Army to "vet" all the possible canidates and there just isn't even a remote chanch that he didn't select the "one" who he thought would support his liberal agenda to the nth degree.

Read all you want but your no where near checking the small details like Obama's army of lawyers....both on the Government payroll and on the campaign payroll.

Remember, Obama is a very bright guy.......but not nearly as bright as the "brain trust" that is behind this jauggernaut that is running our country. they don't overlook a thing.

I can't read 20 years of legal writting but I have complete faith in Obama and his army. She is liberal and she is activist.

Assuming she's a liberal activist because Obama likes her isn't logical. I've spent the last two days reading what I can find of her decisions and writings and I've been quite surprised by how moderate she is. Both her decisions and her writings support this, and it's not like she's been lying about who she is for the last twenty years in the hopes that Obama would get elected and nominate her.

ELH hit the nail on the head. There's no evidence to support anyone's claims that she's liberal or activist. People who are against her because they're against everything Obama are going to try to cherry pick and make her out to be something she isn't, but it won't wash, not with twenty years of legal writings contradicting it.

What if she REALLY IS racist and it isn't known until after she is confirmed and seated? One clue could be her statement:

"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," she said in a 2001 speech.

Regarding "liberal research", it comes to mind the liberal schoolmarm who spent hours researching the U.S. corporate income rate and then posted it as being 6.7% when it is actually 35%. Guess accuracy to liberals is not as important as their message, no matter has distorted.

This is going to be a long one, but I think I'd rather say everything I want to say and then refer back to my arguments as needed than present my arguments in a fragmented fashion. It'll be two posts. I'm sorry.

First, W_W, how many times must I apologize for that error before you let it go? You can be quite mean, especially since you've made your fair share of mistakes too.

Now on to Sotomayor's detractors. Has anybody else noticed that her only serious detractors so far are people with no pollitical power (Limbaugh, Rove, Gingrich)? I'm not sure what that means, but I find it quite intresting.

To stare off, here’s a quote I’d like to share from a certain Supreme Court nominee: “When a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant, I can’t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, you know, this could be your grandfather; this could be your grandmother. When I get a chase about discrimination I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that into account.”

Damning evidence of reverse racism and reverse sexism from Judge Sonia Sotomayor? Now, now, before anyone gets all upset, this quote is actually from then conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006.

So conservatives attempting to predicate your character assassination of Sonia Sotomayor on those exact points, perhaps you should stop.

Newt Gingrich called her a racist yesterday on Twitter and said that she should withdraw and Rush Limbaugh calls her racist routinely. These statements being supported by the now-famous 2001 quote that seems on first reading to imply that being a Latina woman would give Sotomayor better judgment than a white man, the same quote W_W used early this morning.

(Continued from above...again, I apologize.) Here’s the deal, though, guys, she said no such thing. The full context of that quote, which I had to find in a transcript of the original speech because none of our news sources can be bothered to actually give the full story says that a good judge should be aware of his or her formative experiences so that they AVOID being prejudiced by them. “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. Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances an cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences.” In essence she actually said the exact polar opposite of what the “quote” as spoon fed to us implies, said exactly what you would expect conservatives to want to hear. Geeze.

Karl Rove is trying a different tact since the racism one isn't really panning out. He wants to attack Sotomayor’s intelligence even though she graduated second in her class from Princeton and then from Yale Law, saying, “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” This from the guy who just told the Chicago Tribune of his former boss, C- student at best, ex-President Bush, “The myth was that this guy, who was a Yale history grad and a Harvard MBA, was not smart.” So by Rove’s own words Bush must be smart because he graduated from Ivy League schools, but Sotomayor can still be dumb even though she got far better grades…perhaps someone should explain to him that he can’t have it both ways.

Or there’s Mike Huckabee, who called the nomination of Sotomayor, “a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system.” But, of course, he was referring to Maria Sotomayor, whoever that is. Way to burnish your credibility, Governor Huckleberry.

So my conclusion is, well, the same one I had yesterday. Sonia Sotomayor is impeccably qualified and has a rich and diverse experience and the people who are cherry picking what is essentially two quotes—one of which is misused—out of a twenty-year career in an attempt to portray her as things that she is not quite simply do not have a leg to stand on.

As I said, liberals only read and quote liberal crap. Why didn't the schoolmarm run across this and post it, too:

In her 2001 speech, after citing legal thinkers who called on jurists to transcend personal biases, Sotomayor questioned whether judges could in fact escape such prejudices.

“While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law,” Sotomayor said.

“Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

In her most controversial decision, Sotomayor ruled against 18 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, in their lawsuit against New Haven, Conn., after city officials scrapped a promotional test that showed the plaintiffs more eligible for advancement within the fire department. The white firefighters scored much better than their African-American peers on the test.

This was easy to find, too, but schoolmarm overlooked it:

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
Thursday, May 28, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

New Haven, Connecticut deserves what they get from their policies. If the policies get them a less qualified and capable fire department then so be it. You reap what you sow. If their fire department falls sorely short of saving the day that is what they deserve.

The best way to deal with the racist issues in this country is to have the selection committee all be blind and half deaf. Keep the applicant behind a curtain, disguise the voice so it is like a robot voice, and have the selection committee base their decisions only on qualifications and answers to the questions asked.

Race, ethnicity, gender, ancestry etc. have no place in the selection process and must be filtered out completely. There should be no bias period when hiring for any position.
When choosing one person over the other based on background, if you want to become rich are you going to take advice from someone who has never been successful at becoming rich or are you going to get advice from someone who has become rich through their own efforts? If you want to learn to fly an airplane are you going to get your instruction from a plumber or a pilot? When selecting a judge are you going to pick someone who bases their decisions first on race, gender etc and lastly, if at all, on the facts or are you going to pick someone who bases their decision first on the facts and not at all on basis of race, gender, etc.?

If the white firefighters who scored high on the tests were not entitled to the position, doesn't it stand to reason that Ms Sotomayor is similiarly overqualified....shouldn't we be seeking some poor disadvantaged law school drop out who couldn't cut it. After all we don't want to embarass them or make them feel uncomfortable like those black firefighters who didn't pass the test.

Teacherlady....another boo boo......if you think Limbaugh,Rove & Gingrich are lacking in political clout, you truly don't understand the system. Those three have more political markers out than most people could ever dream of.

I have to give you credit.......your usually in error....but never in doubt.

And, I notice you are right up to speed...."Litina". No one has explained that to me yet but I notice the "in" thing for liberals is to switch terms....Obama changed the war on terror....terrorists....even swine flu. So dropping Litinos from the lexicon is really impressive.

Where did that foolishness come from.

By the way, my earlier comment that Obama wanted THE most liberal canidate and she was his first pick is the most damning evidence against her selection still stands. Obama's "machine" concluded they would get their way (and they will) so he didn't choose to compromise...he picked number one liberal....and she's it

There is no "opinion" by Judge Sotomayor in the Ricci case. She, as part of a unanimous panel of 2nd Circuit judges, affirmed the trial judge's decision; then she voted not to rehear the case en banc but to simply let the Supreme Court hear the case. Whatever you may think about that case-- and like most that reach the Supreme Court it's nowhere near as simple as MichaelH and Wright pretend it is-- we do not know the basis for her vote, nor do we even know how the extremely conservative Supreme Court will rule. The principal (but not the only) justification for the trial judge's ruling is that the city's desire to avoid a federal discrimination charge under Title VII is not a discriminatory intent. I'm not sure about that one (the Supreme Court has ruled the other way in redistricting cases). But simply attributing the worst possible motives to Judge Sotomayor because you've already decided you don't like her, or because you reflexively hate liberals, is just sad.

Those quotes do not negate the fact that she by your own admission feels that overcoming prejudices is the responsible thing to do and by the rest of the quote conservatives are abusing that she herself tries to do just that. Her feeling that this may not be entirely possible is just another sign of her own self-awareness. Thinking that anyone can completely overcome the experiences that make them the person they are isn't realistic, and as she says may not always even be in the best interests of justice.

Since Ricci vs. DiStephano is in my opinion the only legitimate ammo against Sotomayor, I've been especially interested in it. I do not feel comfortable commenting on the case itself or its outcome or implications right now. Instead I want to discuss the rulings, Sotomayor's involvement, and the fact that this case could be used against her regardless of the ruling.

First the district court judge ruled against Ricci and threw the case out to begin with. In her 48-page opinion a U.S. District Judge said, "The decision to disregard the test results affected all applicants equally." She also found that those who passed the test were only given an opportunity for promotion, not a guaranteed job.

The case was appealed to a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor (and two white judges, Pooler and Sack) who adopted the district ruling without adding their own analysis. They praised the original judge's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion" and said, "We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration...But it simply does not follow that he [Ricci] has a viable Title VII claim."

In short the appeals court panel--of which Sotomayor was only one member--concluded that city officials acted within the law when they threw out the test results and that based on that there was no case. They were not making a racial statement and were in fact trying not to be activist, that is, trying not to legislate from the bench.

The more I think about this particular case, the more I think it could be used against Sotomayor regardless of the ruling. If they had found in favor of Ricci, they could be called activist while with the standing ruling she can be accused of reverse racism even though, again, she was part of a three-judge panel with two white people.

I'd like to conclude that I think it is really a testiment to Sotomayor's credentials that after combing through a twenty-plus-year career (not to mention her college credentials and personality) the best that the people who oppose Sotomayor have been able to dig up are a few quotes--one of which is misused, one case, and personal attacks. The problem is that they have to contend with the reality of that same career. She has impeccable education, more experience than anyone currently sitting on the Supreme Court, and a history of being a moderate--not a liberal, not an activist--judge.

There is no doubt about Ms. Sotomayor being confirmed and seated as the next Supreme Court Associate Justice. The gutless Republican senators won't dare say a word in opposition for fear of seeing their share of the Latino vote in future elections drop to 5% from the 10% they "enjoy" today. They certainly won't bring in some hallucinating co-worker to testify about finding a hair on the can of Coke Ms. Sotomayor served up.

No, this is just to show that when you vote for a liberal, activist president you are going to get liberal activist judges appointed to an ever more liberal, activist court.

Then when you find you didn't get the job promotion you were most qualified to receive simply because you are a white guy, don't say you weren't told.

When ATF comes and confiscates your firearms, don't say you weren't warned.

When SCOTUS declares your "money" is not property protected by the 5th Amendment takings clause and IRS just simply takes your money accounts, don't say somebody didn't tell you it could happen.

Tell it to schoolmarm.

lbc: Judge Sotomayor was the LEAST liberal of the final four on Obama's short list. She is a bit to the left of the justice she's replacing, but her record is unclear as to whether she's even to the left of Justices Stevens or Ginsburg. And contrary to years of conservative whining, neither of those two are liberals either. The last true liberal on the Supreme Court was Marshall, who retired in the early 90s.

Wright--

"This was easy to find, too, but schoolmarm overlooked it:

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment..."

This statement doesn't mean what you think it means, although in fairness, the CNS.com writer you cite is equally clueless. The 2nd Amendment has never been applied to the States through the 14th Amendment. Neither have the 3rd or 7th Amendments, the grand jury provision of the 5th, or the unreasonable bail provision of the 8th. Every Supreme Court justice, every federal judge, heck, even every 1st year law student knows this. Justice Scalia even affirmed this in his opinion in the D.C. gun case earlier this year. And for the record, Justice Thomas doesn't think the states should have to obey any of the Bill of Rights.

Nice try though.

WW, I've read and disregarded this case. Maloney v. Rice (aka Maloney v. Cuomo) was 1. not truly a second amendment case because the second amendment does not impend a state's rights to ban certain weapons and 2. was also not decided solely by Sotomayor.

The law banning nunchucka and other martial arts weapons in the state of New York is thirty-four years old.

Think that's old? The U.S. Supreme Court found in Presser v. Illinois in 1886 that the second amendment does not apply to states. This precedent was found to still be good law on January 28, 2009, and again on April 20, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, held that the Second Amendment does apply to the states in Nordyke v. King.

The Second Circuit also found that New York has a "rational basis" for prohibiting the possession of nunchaku in general.

Again I am not commenting on the case itself or its outcomes or implications (in fact in this case I feel that not allowing nunchucku in one's home for martial arts practice, especially when the person has not criminal record is silly) but on the fact that this is not an effective argument against Sotomayor when the context and legal history is taken into account.

Your loquaciousness is admirable, but it can all be boiled down to a couple simple facts:

1. When she had the opportunity to vote either way, she voted AGAINST the white guys and Latino with the highest qualifying test scores.

2. When she had the opportunity to vote either way, she voted AGAINST the 2nd Amendment rights of non-criminal U.S. citizens.

Spin it any way you want, but those are the results of her judicial decisions in two important cases. There are other of her decisions which have been reversed by SCOTUS, but won't go into them here.

Yes, when given the opportunity to vote either way she made the decisions she did. As opposed to being activist in Ricci v. Destephano she voted to uphold the ruling of the lower court, which--yes--rules as you put it against the "white guys." As I already pointed out she and the rest of the panel found that the plaintiffs had no case on a legal basis; they did not make a racial statement, they upheld a earlier ruling on the basis of the law.

And, again, since Maloney v. Cuomo is not according to 123 years of judicial precedent a second amendment case. The court found that in 1886 that the second amendment does not apply to states, so what you are implying is that she should have voted to overturn over a century of precedent and about a dozen laws.

Call it spin if you like. I call it facts.

schoolmarm, you of course are free to again express your non-concern for the protection of the rights of "white guys" if that makes your liberal dreams sweeter. There will be a probable 5/4 split decision when the Ricci decision comes down later and maybe the "white guys" will finally win one for The Gipper.

As for the six or so 2nd Amendment rights cases wending their way through the court system(s), the states rights issue may well be eventually controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which held for the citizen and overturned the D.C. gun ban. That certainly set a precedent favoring individual gun rights while still barring possession of certain banned weapons such as fully automatic guns, bazookas, etc. When The Obama sets those Gitmo terrorists free on Main Street, USA even you lily-livered liberals may appreciate that a part of the citizenry is armed and may help protect you. Some of them might even be the "white guys" you so disdain.

W_W, I've never expressed my opinion on the Ricci case because, as I said earlier, I haven't formed them yet. I merely said that based on the law and the precedents the decisions that have been reached are solid.

I also didn't say anything about gun control at all. The case that we were discussing concerned nunchucku and I merely pointed out the long history that was used to reach that particular decision. As far as I know I've never expresed my opinion in any part on the many gun control issues either.

I've never disdained anybody--anybody--on the basis of their race, gender, religion, sexual preference, or anything else as far as I can tell (other than the opinions that they state and their behavior). In fact I try hard not to disparage anyone, which is more than I can say for you.

Assuming my position on issues and attacking me for them is almost as illogical as your repeated belief that our government will just turn loose the Gitmo detainees in the United States, and calling me "schoolmarm" in some weak attempt to put me down is immature. If you'd like to continue a discussion of the issues, I'm game. If you'd like to continue in this fashion, I'm afraid you'll have to do it alone.

What could W.W., MichaelH, Limbaugh, Rove, Huckabee, etc. possibly have in common besides being opposed to liberalism, Ms. Sotomayor, and President Obama?

I'm just sayin' . . . .

(sorry, the devil made me do it)

Trixie your perceptions are shallow......

I would suggest those folks all have love of America in common.

I would suggest they like the United States as it was founded and ordained by the founders.

I would suggest they prefer capitalism to other options

I would suggest they all comprehend the true threat of Islam to the United States

I would suggest they respect gun rights.

They might even all like a good cold beer, a healthy dose of honesty and not have to "touch one for English"

I'd buy in........

Trixie...I am old enough to no longer tilt at windmills so am resigned that Sotomayor will easily be confirmed as the next Associate Justice and think I stated that quite plainly somewhere above. And, yes, she will simply be replacing another liberal justice so the balance of the court will remain the same with Kennedy being the swing vote on all the 5/4 decisions sure to come. Her racially bigoted remarks are troubling and similar remarks made by a male conservative would rightfully be condemned by the media and public. But, that is one of the differences that set liberals apart from those of us that take personal responsibility seriously instead of counting on the government for sustenance at the expense of others. It would not be surprising to see Obama issue Gold EBT cards to those on stamps for 10 or so continuous years. Maybe an inscription such as "Proud Member Since 19xx" would be appropriate. But, there I go again.

As for the schoolmarm not disparaging anyone, she has called me "crazy" on at least two of her posts. Who's counting though, anything to help her get through another progressive day.

I may have said something you said was crazy, I may have said that something you agree with is crazy, but I don't think I've called you names. If I did I apologize, but I don't think I have. Just re-read my posts on this particular topic and I certainly haven't on here.

Shall I trot out the list of names you've called me and other people on here?

I'm out for today. I don't have time or patience for bickering. Maybe I can get in on an intelligent conversation tomorrow.

schoolmarm...be cautious about getting "in on an intelligent conversation" as you usually are over your head. For example, you say her 2nd Amendment ruling was based on "precedent" dating from 1886. For your pending "intelligent conversations" you may want to investigate more modern interpretations based on the theory that the first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) are considered "incorporated" in the various state constitutions. This has resulted in many of the old "precedents" being overturned and rights of the individual being held above reach of the state. Just trying to help, but you don't need to thank me; that would be "crazy."

Wright-- You're still completely wrong on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court began incorporating them piecemeal in the 1920s, and most of them have been incorporated; but a few still have not, including the 2nd, and the Court has not issued an incorporation decision in nearly 40 years. NONE of the incorporation decisions have been overturned since the 1960s. Nor did Heller incorporate the 2nd Amendment, as Scalia pointed out in his opinion-- in fact it couldn't have, as D.C. is not a state and is therefore subject to the entire Bill of Rights. What the states have in their own constitutions is irrelevant to the interpretation of U.S. Constitution; the question the Court asks in these cases is whether or not the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the states to obey parts of the Bill of Rights. As for Judge Sotomayor, or any other Circuit judge ruling that the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states, that would not only defy the Supreme Court, but it would be a classic case of judicial activism. It's the conservative justices who have problems with incorporation. Should the 2nd Amendment be incorporated? That's a tough one, and frankly I'd no problem with the Court doing so. But on this issue, your posts make clear that you really don't understand the issue.

I'm not shallow, I'm cynical and snarky.

I also truly enjoy the thoughtful, intelligent comments I read here on both sides of the issues. No, really, I'm being serious. I learn a lot from your interactions even if I don't always show it.

Have a nice weekend and hugs to all of ya.

LOL, dude, I don't really care about this whole thing one way or the other and I think that really you're all arguing over nothing because she's going to be approved, but I have to say that I think the libs ran circles around the conservatives in this argument. In flat terms of rational arguments and facts, this Sotomayor thing is a done deal unless some huge scary thing surfaces and I think all of you know it.

I didn't realize I'd miss the debates in govt class, but I do...this isn't as structured or as nice, but it's the closest I'll get for a while! Dude, WrightWinger, I don't care what you say, I think teacherlady is super smart and I think that you're way meaner than she is and that she doesn't deserve the things you say.

Earlier this year Justice Sotomayor opined that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States but only to the Federal government. I am astonished that an appeals court justice does not understand that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to ALL citizens with the intent of protecting us from each and every Federal, State and local government entity. Jim Nash, King City.

Mr. Nash-- Judge Sotomayor was 100% correct. As I explained to Wright above (or tried to-- he tends to ignore facts that he doesn't like), this is something learned by every 1st year law student, although not by most of the public. The Bill of Rights, by its terms and as originally drafted, applies ONLY to the national government. Over time, and in a piecemeal fashion, state and local governments have come to be bound by most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights, and only in a roundabout way. Specifically, the 14th Amendment forbids the STATES from taking "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" the Supreme Court has over time, and case-by-case, determined that the "liberty" protected includes provisions in the Bill of Rights that are deemed to be "fundamental." A few of them, including the 2nd Amendment, have never been so determined; therefore, as of now, they have not been "incorporated," and do NOT bind state or local governments.

I tend to agree with you that the 2nd Amendment-- and the rest of the Bill of Rights-- SHOULD be incorporated, but that's not what the Supreme Court has done. Judge Sotomayor was merely stating (correctly) the law, and following clearly established precedent from the Supreme Court. Which is not "astonishing" at all.

MichaelH: I have no control over what you believe. But facts are facts. By all means, ask any lawyer, judge or legal academic with a pulse whether I correctly stated the law. I'll even give you the Wikipedia cite:

"The U.S. Supreme Court... has not ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the state governments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

(The 9th Circuit did rule last month that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, but several other circuits have ruled otherwise. As I stated above, I'd have no problem with the Supreme Court issuing such a ruling; my only point was that it has not yet done so.)

I was responding to Wright and others' mistaken criticisms of Judge Sotomayor regarding application of 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She correctly stated the law, and was criticized for making outrageous, anti-gun statements. Those were, and remain, bogus criticisms.

As for the practical effects, they're actually quite minimal. Your "only politicians in D.C." comment is a poor attempt at something... not sure what. Last time I checked, the federal government had the power to pass laws governing the whole country. Fortunately, FEDERAL laws and regulations must comply with the 2nd Amendment, and the recent Heller decision covering a D.C. law expanded the Court's interpretation of the Amendment. This means "the Feds can't take our guns."

As for the states, every one of them have their own versions of the right to bear arms in their OWN constitutions, irrespective of the federal Constitution. If the 2nd Amendment were to be incorporated, it would simply mean a minimum threshold of the right to bear arms that the states couldn't fall below; and frankly Missouri is already well above that threshold. So yes, I agree that you have been foolish and need to move on.

I have never said Judge Sotomayor has made outrageous anti-gun statements.

The fact that the much more liberal, left-leaning, activist 9th Circuit ruling is the exact opposite of Sotomayor's panel just proves there to be a strong disagreement in the courts not only about the intent of the 2nd Amendment regarding individual rights but also about the question of incorporation in the 14th Amendment's due process clause. As said before, one or both of these issues will be heard and decided by SCOTUS. The District of Columbia v. Heller decision certainly points to a reversal of Judge Sotomayor's stance when the appropriate case(s) reach the high court.

Perhaps to be consistent with her La Raza speech, Ms. Sotomayor should have said her life experience as a female Latina growing up in crime-ridden Queens and seeing the result of gun violence almost daily made her more qualified to interpret the 2nd Amendment than would the life experiences of a white male jurist from a quiet law-abiding neighborhood.

Not precisely, but you were wrong in asserting that she ruled "against 2nd Amendment rights" in the Maloney case; she ruled on the question of incorporation, not the underlying right. And your statements (excluding the one I'm responding to, the 1st paragraph of which is quite thoughtful) regarding incorporation have been largely wrong and/or confused. Most recently, pajimdiver found Judge Sotomayor's statement on incorporation of the 2nd Amendment "astonishing;" I was responding to that.

The 9th Circuit's ruling (which I agree is "activist," although as used by politicians and the press the term is just plain stupid) is troubling insofar as there has not been a ruling on incorporation in 40 years, and Scalia's opinion in Heller appears to reaffirm the opposite result. Judge Sotomayor's position is, in dumbed-down terms, the judicial restraint position, yet somehow she's being depicted as an activist judge because of it. That doesn't work.

I don't know if Heller signals reversal of her position, given what Scalia wrote in his opinion, but you are right that the Court's treatment of the right strengthens the case for it being considered "fundamental" for purposes of incorporation.

As for your comment about the "La Raza speech," have you read the cut & paste statement in context? Her statement was one part commonplace observation about people's backgrounds mattering (mild by comparison to Alito and Thomas in their confirmation hearings), and one part concern that judges place "the law" above such background. She was saying pretty much the opposite of what's been portrayed. But hey, never let the truth get in the way of a personal attack. I remember what was said about Judge Bork, and this is quite similar in its dishonesty.

dsbsh, thank you. You've done a beautiful job of making all the points I tried to.

Agreed on the "beautiful job of making all the points I tried to", no argument there.

Two facts (darn stubborn things) though remain.

1. Three of her five previous rulings reviewed by SCOTUS have been reversed on appeal. Not a good record.

2. Her Ricci ruling will almost certainly be reversed by SCOTUS, probably before her confirmation hearings are over and her 2nd Amendment/14th Amendment ruling will probably be reversed, a case on which she will be recused.

But, she will be confirmed and seated, no doubt about that. Mediocrity will continue to be the norm with The Obama's appointments and nominations.

1. Her reversal record is not any different from most appellate judges. Alito's was 100% when he was confirmed, the 2nd Circuit's, collectively, is higher than hers (approx. 75%), and the SCOTUS tends to reverse close to 75% of all cases it takes (77% this term). Not to mention that reversal rates tell us nothing, as cases where the SCOTUS would likely agree rarely get heard.

2. The SCOTUS didn't take the Maloney case, and appears to be in no hurry to resolve the 2nd/14th Amendment issue anytime soon. I do think the Court will incorporate if it takes one of those cases, but even if it happened now it would have no impact on Judge Sotomayor's status, as she merely followed then-existing SCOTUS precedent. I agree that Ricci will likely be reversed, but it will be 5-4, possibly 6-3. As I noted above, it's actually a far more difficult case than has been portrayed, with the key issue being whether a city's desire to comply with a federal civil rights statute is itself an Equal Protection violation. Plus, will the reversal be due to the fact that she's less qualified, or liberal; or that this is the most conservative SCOTUS since the 1930s? This nominee is, based on her record as a judge, the least liberal of those on Obama's short list.

If a white/male nominee was a member of a private club that had any possible restriction (gender/race/etc) they would never be nominated.

Sotomayor is a longtime member of LaRaza.......an advocacy group that holds many positions I find hateful, disgusting, racially based, and discriminatory. Why has she made it this far. An appeals court judge should be "independent". and damn well free of bad influences....she is not.

Its all politics.

lbc-- First, Justice Alito was a member of such a club in college; it ended up being (IMO correctly) a non-issue in his confirmation. And there are numerous elected and appointed officials (from both major parties) with past and present ties to white-only clubs.

Second, LaRaza is a huge organization, the Hispanic equivalent of the NAACP. I certainly don't agree with all of its positions, but to label the group hateful, disgusting, and discriminatory is overly simplistic; and to attempt to disqualify Judge Sotomayor for this reason is silly. Advocacy organizations focused on particular ethnice groups are always accused of being exclusionary, and are sometimes attacked (more often than not unfairly) as being racist. You are correct, though, that "it's all politics;" Obama had three more liberal candidates on his short list, but he picked one least likely to meet strong opposition, which likely means the Court will remain, for now, arch-conservative.

Here's a link to La Raza's official website. Anyone who's actually interested in the facts can check it out. I can't really find anything I find in any way offensive.

http://www.nclr.org/

As Ibc pointed out, it is "all politics."

Does anyone know if any of the other justices belonged to organizations that were deemed questionable by their detractors after their nomination?

Yes, Alito

"After two days of accusations about the judge's relationship to a Princeton alumni group whose founder reportedly had written racist and elitist comments in the group's magazine, Martha Alito, the nominee's wife who has been sitting steadfastly behind her husband for the last three days, broke into tears."

"The crying gave way about six hours into the questioning. It was set off not by a critic, but by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who apologized to the nominee for having to listen to what he says are baseless accusations and linkages."

'"Let me tell you, this guilt by association is going to drive good men and women away from trying to sit where you're sitting. ... Judge Alito, I am sorry you've had to go through this. I am sorry that you're family has had to listen to this," Graham said.'

Teacherlady-- If you go back 30+ years, you can find all sorts of records, but the issue didn't rear its head, because it was not taboo for judges to belong to such groups.

I followed the Alito and Roberts hearings pretty closely, and there wasn't really that much questioning about the racist organization by the Senators; most of it was in the media and by outside interest groups. Still it was more than necessary. The question should be the nominee's qualifications and views, not whether or not he/she has ever brushed up againt someone you don't like. I had problems with Alito (his take on expansive executive power), but on the racist affiliation issue, at most one could accuse him of bad judgment, if even that was fair. The same is true here, particularly since there's been no substantiation of the accusations about LaRaza ("I heard Rush, Newt, or my cousin Ernie say so" doesn't count.) People in public life are going to join groups and interact with others. Some of those others will do and say bad things. But I think it's ludicrous, for example, to expect a judicial nominee to repudiate his/her association with a pro-life group because a wacko in that group kills a doctor. My further point is that we often hear "if a white male were to have said/done that," but they often have, and it's largely ignored. "What if Alito had said his immigrant and religious background would affect his judgment?" He DID say that! Thomas said something similar. And in both cases it was treated as a positive. Why the difference now? I'm not saying it shouldn't matter; people are human, and part of what makes a good judge is the ability to manage those values in applying the law. We should be honest and fair in asking these questions, and to agree once again, it's all politics.

Time to go now. I've had a horrible flu for the past two days, and it's led me to spend too much time staring at a computer screen (can't lie down, can't go out). But when the kids are logging less time online than me, it's time to stop. :)

DSBSH, when did the 14th amendment become part of the bill of rights? When did Wikipedia become accepted as absolute fact? Just curious since Wikipedia is kind of like hearing something from your cousin Ernie. . . As far as La Raza, or "The Race" if you want it in English goes, it is an group that has in recent memory pulled its convention from Kansas City due to the city having an employee who was a member of the Minutemen group. The Minutemen are a group of individuals who volunteer to protect the border due to the lack of Border Patrol agents. La Raza, or the Race, is against us stopping illegal aliens, those people who take American's jobs.

Good work on the facts. . .

megafrog (great screen name btw): One more time-- I never suggested the 14th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. What I said was that the former's Due Process Clause, specifically the "liberty" it protects, has been the vehicle the SCOTUS has used to make parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. This is standard "incorporation doctrine" taught to every first year law student (not to mention undergraduate American Government courses).

I'm actually not a fan of Wikipedia (I don't let my students cite it as a source), but this time it was a quick reference at my fingertips, and I was stating a well-established legal principle. I apologize for the lapse.

As for LaRaza, we could all point to bad decisions by otherwise decent groups. I'm simply unwilling to discount the merits of an entire group with tens of thousands of members and decades of largely responsible advocacy because I disagree with one or two positions the group takes. And sweeping statements such as "against us stopping illegal aliens, those people who take American's jobs," are an even bigger problem. Immigration policy is complicated; dumbing it down in order to demonize those you don't agree with is lazy and unproductive.

dsbsh........stand in the middle of a LaRAza demonstration in Los Angeles.........listen (if you can understand any of it) and read the signs.........

If you don't think it is "hateful" I question your values.
If you don't think it's discriminatory, you need to punch #1 and get the English version

If you don't find it offensive, we are really on different pages with respect to what is "American". You get the first hint when you find the American flag...UPSIDE DOWN....below a Mexican flag.

This all alone would disqualify the organization from being an appropriate forumn of interest for a Supreme Court Judge.

Somehow I don't believe the activities of a many years later to be Judge, in College, is the equivalent of an Appelate Judge sitting....for 17 years.

Just like Timmy Geitner....whose transgression was similarly explained away.....he was guilty of a FELONY just like Bernie Madorff.....why does one go to jail and the other gets a prestigious job in the administration. For the same reason we overlook LaRaza.

This isn't a matter of disagreeing with someone....it's a matter of right and wrong. George Bush did get one thing right when he said your either with us or against us. If you believe hanging the American flag upside down, beneath a foreign flag, and shouting anti-American slurs is "OK" when it's being done by a "Decent group" you are having a problem drawing the line where it needs to be.

It's not a matter of lazy and unproductive....it's about being an American. At some point you've stepped over the line and your getting close.

You are not a loyal American when you subscribe to those things.

lbc...Holding a reasonably non-violent street demonstration and disparaging the American flag, even burning it, is protected by the Bill of Rights. But, it would seem to a liberal activist empathetic jurist that it is perfectly fine to deny equal employment rights to the most qualified employees because doing so would offend another group of employees, less qualified, but of a different ethnicity. Oh, I forgot...that is just a reflection of her life experiences growing up a Latina female in Queens.

Go figure.

Wright-- There you go again, dumbing down complex legal issues to cheap shot a judge. The job of the judges in this case is to determine if the city's action was unconstitutional, not whether it was "fair" or good policy. The city's lead argument is that leaving the test in place would violate existing federal civil rights laws, which are in part results-based. The plaintiffs' argument is that desire to comply with federal civil rights laws is an inadequate justification under the Equal Protection Clause. Those civil rights laws were written to address a long history of standardized tests and other measurements of "qualifications" that systematically equated "qualified" with "white and male." If that wasn't the case with this test, the city should lose the case. But it's not a simple case, and the SCOTUS will likely be closely divided.

lbc-- I've worked with groups affiliated with La Raza (there are over 300) in the past, and my experiences have been far different from what you describe. But I'm not going to try to defend them, since it's obvious you've already made up your mind based on anecdotes. I don't doubt that some groups affiliated with La Raza have done the offensive things you describe, as have groups affiliated with the Pro-Life Movement, the NAACP, the NRA, PETA, and the Catholic Church. The "you're with us you're against us" mentality is the worst kind of laziness; it lets you ignore the merits in anyone you disagree with; it lets you demonize people who are different from you; and it facilitates bigotry.

The "standardized test" given to the New Haven firemen was not some quirky exam designed by a white supremacist group. No, it was a UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE EXAM and has undoubtedly been used numerous times WITHOUT CHALLENGE to determine all or part of the qualifications of applicants. What made the situation different in this case? Did the black applicants, none of whom met the exam requirements, file an actual complaint or did the City of New Haven just feel threatened and cave in? Why did Judge Sotomayor and the other two on the panel just give the appeal a cursory exam, write a paragraph and metaphorically toss it in the Out Basket? What would have happened to the appeal if one of the other jurists hadn't been outraged by this casual action of the three-judge panel and insisted on an en banc hearing? This hearing resulted in a 7/6 split, but at least kept the appeal active so it would be eligible to be sent to SCOTUS. With Judge Sotomayor's LaRaza comments echoing in the background, why is it unreasonable to at least question her motive in deciding to so casually terminate the seemingly legitimate appeal of the white firemen? It seems a question that should be explored before making a mistake in a lifetime appointment.

Let's get the facts straight. The test was NOT a standard U.S. civil service exam and had NOT been used repeatedly in the past; it was a new test designed for the New Haven Fire Department for this round of promotions, had not been used previously, and resulted in a lower promotion rate for minority applicants than the prior system. The decision not to use the test results was made before any formal complaints were filed, but there were informal complaints and lawsuits had been threatened. And the city did hold a hearing to review the results before making its decision.

That being said, I have read that the private firm hired by the city to write the test specializes in designing such tests and has a pretty good track record of avoiding any test design bias. It may very well be that on the merits the city should lose this case. On the other hand, the trial judge had far more information at his disposal than any of us did, and appellate judges defer to the trial judge on the facts.

I do think it's reasonable to ask questions about the Ricci case, including questions regarding the role her background plays in her decision making. But I don't think it's reasonable to assume she's motivated by race or, as others have done, call her a racist, based on an overly simplified or inaccurate description of this case (i.e., "it was a United States Civil Service Exam") and one out-of-context sentence from a speech. (And I do wonder why no one ever asked Justices Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Souter or Kennedy how being a white male affects their judicial decisions. Why does it matter for Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Thomas, but not them? I guess we white males are the only ones capable of setting aside our own values.)

dsbsh......you really missed it......or your understanding of anecodate is quite different than mine. I stood dead center in the middle of the "incident" I was describing and those folks were committed...sincere....and totally anti American. That's not an anecdote ..thats real life. Now I can't understand why folks would appear on the street to do those kind of things if they didn't have a motive.

I'm sorry if that's the kind of organization LaRaza is...it is bad. They don't get a pass. That is the liberal approach. Timothy Geitner committed a felony...I am disgusted that he got a pass. Explaining away all of these things is what leads down the wrong path just like they are explaining away Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jefferson, and how many more. If thats being a bigot I am misled by Webster's.

Quite explaining away reality...facts...with cheap rheoric.

Are we having fun yet? Taking time to discuss these issues with someone you disagree with suggests you’re a decent person. I mean that sincerely. That being said…

anecdotal: “based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous scientific analysis” (American Heritage)

You personally witnessed an ugly LaRaza affiliated rally. I’ve personally witnessed several events involving LaRaza affiliated organizations which were nothing like your experience. What now? I did not dispute what you described; I even agreed with your assessment. But you’re not only unwilling to extend me the same courtesy, you’re admittedly taking two further steps: (1) basing your opinion of LaRaza—an organization with hundreds of affiliates and thousands of members nationwide—entirely on that single experience; and (2) based on that ‘anecdotal’ evidence, claiming that Judge Sotomayor is unqualified because of her affiliation with LaRaza. I never suggested a “pass” for LaRaza, but neither should they, nor anyone else, be summarily condemned based solely on your personal experience. If so, I hope you’re prepared to condemn hundreds of organizations, including some you support.

Giving a pass is “the liberal approach?” Hogwash. We both know that politically motivated groups turn a blind eye to words and deeds of their allies, and condemn their opponents for the same words and deeds. Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans . . . they all do it. And naming names on the other side is more of that pesky anecdotal evidence. I could name names too—literally hundreds on both side of the aisle who are proven crooks, liars and/or hypocrites. None of them should get a pass, and it’s a failing of the political system that many of them do. But condemning anyone who associates with them and/or shares some of their beliefs is entirely different. Let’s review. You wrote that you saw a rally in LA, and therefore the entire membership and mission of LaRaza is “bad” and “anti-American.” You added that it’s “liberals” who excuse people who commit felonies. Together, this is presented as proof that a sizable portion of the U.S. Hispanic population, and close to 25% of our general population, are bad Americans. Convenient, maybe even rhetorically clever, but it’s just a way to define some “others” as less worthy than you and yours. Their ideas and values don't matter, and they need not be respected. That's intellectually lazy and, yes, it can lead to bigotry. Conservatism at its best stands for treating people as individuals rather than by group identification. I don’t see that here.

dsbsh....you have oversimplified my position....if your "assumptions" were valid, I would agree with your conclusions....they are not.

First of all one experience, while certainly damming, is not conclusive. That particular incident was certainly everything I described. I would also note that subsequently I did not see the national LaRAza office apologize or comment "this really isn't our posture". So, that speaks loudly, also.

The national President of LaRaza has been on TV a number of times and clearly stated their positions and they are FOR complete amnesty. They want and expect full access to welfare, social security, voting, the whole boat load. These are all things I believe are bad for this country and I think it is being proven at this moment as California cannot find any solution to it's financial disaster. The numbers are available...what has been spent on Mexican illegals. (I would quote some but I am away and the numbers are in my office)

Trent Lott was disposed of for merely saying a 100 yr old Senator was a nice guy. That also is not anecdotal and frankly I didn't think it was an inappropriate remark. Even if I disagreed with earlier conduct I would probably be "nice" at someone's 100th birthday.

And, I don't agree that liberals/conservatives are the same when it comes to condemming the other group. I haven't seen anyone own up to Nancy Pelosi and she has been caught repeatedly...on tape.

I guess it boils down to expecting a Supreme to be pretty much "lilly white". LaRaza on it's best day is a pretty extreme group.....right out of it's own President's mouth....it's publilshed literature and it's website. Sotomayor should have avoided it, just like so many white foks avoid the KKK, private clubs and other no nos.

She chose not to which suggests to me that her allegienge to Hispanic prejudice is pretty tight.

I have to tell you a anecdote.....not so long ago in a conversation I made a comment (speaking in AZ) that I didn't know, personally, a hispanic. The friend I was talking to immediately corrected me naming 4 or 5 "hispanic" names from St Joseph that I went to HS with, played sports with, etc. I immediately corrected him...I said they are American. Just like I am not Irish....some of my friends are not Hispanic....we're both American.

LaRaza is Hispanic.

Wright-- Since we were discussing this earlier... the 7th Circuit just refused to incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Two highly respected conservative judges, Easterbrook (wrote the opinion) and Posner, joined the 3-0 decision. This confirms the mainstream status of Judge Sotomayor's position on this issue and-- this will shock you-- makes the 9th Circuit's position look more and more like an outlier. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJqmPBKQmpMw

dsbsh, did you read the actual opinion? I did. Judge Easterbrook held to the decidedly conservative principle of stare decisis as their was old precedent that the second amendment did not apply to the states. "Repeatedly, in decisions that no one thinks fossilized, the Justices have directed trial and appellate judges to implement the Supreme Court’s holdings even if the reasoning in later opinions has undermined their rationale. “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." So the Court relied on this principle and then a series of late 1800s cases where the Supreme Court denied requests to apply the second amendment to states. This is prior to much newer cases which would probably lead to a different conclusion.

So, basically, a panel of the seventh circuit said we're not going out on a limb but we realize that the ninth circuit already has done this. As a result they have set of the classic scenario the Supreme Court likes to see when deciding to take a case ... a split in the circuits.

lbc-- I didn’t oversimplify your position at all; you just did a much better job explaining it this time. LaRaza’s president should have repudiated the behaviors you experienced. I can understand your dislike for the group and your “all or nothing” approach; I just don’t agree with it. Disagreement on policy doesn’t make either side bad or un-American. Sadly, much of the rhetoric concerning immigration policy—on both sides—is over the top. Hispanic American citizens and legal residents are treated like dirt by those too lazy or stupid to differentiate between race and legal status. Did you attend any anti-immigration rallies and experience some of that hate? It was probably quite similar to what you experienced. “We’re all just Americans” is a wonderful sentiment, but for too many Americans it doesn’t work that way; they’re not treated as “real” Americans because of how they look or what they believe. Hispanic and American shouldn’t be mutually exclusive; none of us should have to suppress our heritage or values to be Americans; and I submit we diminish ourselves if we do.

I’m not defending Pelosi, but the lack of “owning up” to her pales before the continued support given to Tom Delay, who belonged in prison with Abramoff. I haven't seen the GOP own up to President Bush, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Gonzales, all of whom lied about matters of national security-- what they knew/didn't know pre-9/11, the run-up to the Iraq War, WMD evidence, domestic surveillance, torture policies, leaks of classified information… The GOP-controlled Congress spent 40 million in taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton's (reprehensible) personal life, but less than 5 million combined investigating all the Bush Administration’s security-related scandals, many of which were on tape. Then there’s the hypocrisy. Claims that those opposing the Iraq War were anti-military or anti-American, made by a long line of administration officials and party hacks who not only didn’t serve, but who did everything in their power to avoid service. Attacks on moral values by those in their 3rd and 4th marriages, or who hire prostitutes, solicit interns, or pay for "services" in airport bathrooms. And look at the current dance in the Senate regarding how to treat judicial nominees: those calling for a filibuster are the same ones who called such action unconstitutional and un-American when Bush doing the nominating. They’re horrified that Sotomayor’s background might affect her decision making, but they praised Alito for admitting that he considers his background. Again, I'm not justifying bad behavior by Democrats; and I’m not saying the GOP is worse; but to claim that this kind of wrongdoing and hypocrisy is somehow the special province of “liberals” doesn’t pass the laugh test.

238er-- You may be right. I read the opinion pretty quickly, but there's a bit more to it than simple deference to the SCOTUS. Easterbrook gives a far more lengthy defense of federalism and its bearing on the 2nd Amendment than he would have if not trying to influence the debate. His discussion of the right's particular relationship to state militias and state government, as opposed to the national government, is also interesting. I still don't think the justices will take up the 9th Circuit case on cert. It is a classic circuit split, but on a question (incorporation) the Court hasn't taken up in decades, plus it's too soon after Heller.

dsbsh.....I certainly agree with much of what you say, but I think there is an imbalance. At this writing there are 15 to 20 Democrats that should be in prison or pending, but for some reason, they get a pass. Chris Dodd...Murtha...Barney Frank, and the whole list of appointees beginning with Geitner.

On the other hand, Trent Lott was thrown under the bus for what I consider a non-event. There was no delay in getting Scooter Libby and he was "set up"...he went to prison for
"lying"....give me a break.

And, I don't really agree that the anti immigration rallys were so horrible. They didn't disrespect the American Flag and sorry....I didn't see any hate. I saw patriotic gestures....flag waving / support the troops / similiar things. Interesting.....a lot of small children. And a lot few people that I attribute to two factors....one, they did not have taxpaid organizers (Alcorn) to put them together and two, most of the people who might have come were usually at work, or taking their kids to Little League.

The participants at the Amnesty rallies didn't ahve jobs....their kids were 1800 miles south and they were passing time before they began dealing drugs, driveby shootings and the other usual stuff that goes on in that part of town.

Big difference.

Actually a lot of folks I know disagree with Bush on many things but not all those you mention. I think the torture thing is horribly overdone. GitMO is horribly overedone. Now the prisioners are getting laptops and a computer instructor.

I was totally opposed to the "investigation" of Clinton. I was also totally in favor of S--- canning him. He was truly a bad person.

We don't have to recite the treatment of Supreme canidates....The treatment of Bork ended that discussion. Nothing so horrible will happen again.

30 years from now the History on Bush will be quite different. He had some very good ideas and some lousy strategy. Most of the deep thinking was Cheney. Bush was about 40 down on the list of Republican canidates but he had the right Daddy. I would have elected Jim Baker. Like Nixon, they will find some very good....and some very bad.

Our political system is really acrewed up. We saw a lot of it with Bush and now we're seeing a lot of it with Obama. I hope we survive