Actually, in this case, as usual, the lib'r'ls are bashing themselves — at least the lib Dems like Franken are, in the hearings.

I've enjoyed the writeup about Sotomayor (who's far from a militant flaming activist, just has made a few statements that raise the specter of activism, and is very highly qualified, maybe the best in ages, with her record as a judge) here, which addresses Sotomayor's presenting herself not only as a non-activist but an anti-activist and even possibly more anti-activist than her Republican critiques. It also puts Obama's tee-ball choice (guaranteed to be a hit, approved, in multiple ways in her case) into perspective:

“Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. … She's practically a new Robert Bork! How is it that someone with such extreme-right-wing-out-of-the-mainstream views seems set to win every Democratic vote in the Senate? Simple. She was nominated by a Democratic president, and everyone assumes–correctly, in all likelihood–that this is a better predictor of how she will vote than the pieties she utters during her confirmation hearings.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124775868855652…

I've been to Texas. (Waco, Jerusalem on the Brazos, plus the whole route from Oklahoma City in the Bible Belt down through Dallas to Austin was my main travel route from St. Louis and the Ozarks and Tulsa, also Bible Belt.) This is some real, rare, right-wing activism and extremism, even, in government.

(Note that the liberals in that Journal story included someone wishing more minority and Latino credit.)

“Being bilingual is an advantage “

It's something to be treasured, in fact. I was taught Spanish beginning in fourth grade and have read from linguists like Mario Pei, and while he insisted on assimilation and learning of English (“the country where you have gone and which provides you an opportunity to earn a living”), he never said people should not speak other languages if they can, and he thought for a child ideally it would be to only speak the “old” language inside the home and only English outside it (so the child learns both in the best way possible).

I'm also not racist or “ethnicist.” Neither Alamo nor another critic of ethnicist activism, Superdestroyer, would necessarily be at ease if they met the Hispanic girlfriend I had when I lived in Phoenix (though they would no doubt admire her looks and demeanor).

I was poking fun at Joe Biden.

“DLS, occasionally you make a lot of sense. This might be that thread. The arrogance, though? Ugly! And you drip with it…”

I'm willing to defend myself as well as contribute to a forum with other than fluff. Sorry if you misinterpret that.

DLS, occasionally you make a lot of sense. This might be that thread. The arrogance, though? Ugly! And you drip with it…

Thanks for bringing the tablets down from the mountain. Until then I was totally in the dark.

I'm sure you agree as well that Texas should secede from the union. You got my vote.

Please note that as a judge, she is preoccupied with procedural matters and details, almost exclusively in the case of an appelate court, which approaches always 100% of what the Supreme Court is in the law and in real life. Judging is about “due process.” It's the activists, who have discredited the judiciary, who go beyond that wrongly to sustitute what they want (liberal views and goals or at least wishes) for what is the law itself (and what its creators and ratifiers wanted, which is what counts for definition and construction — that is what the law is intended to express). The judges' role is to review “due process,” not “due substance,” to look at the laws as they are, and to check that legal processes were followed (no errors were made, a subject of appelate court review), never what they believe the law “_should_be_.”

It's _all_ about the “verb,” should _never_ be about the “noun.”

Not totally-Texas, for have you ever been to Austin? [grin]

But if it makes you feel vindicated, Texas is one place where the Religious Right (often over-hyped by its opponents) really does have a disproportionate influence, as I read yesterday while on travel.

[Here. I am not making this stuff up!]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935…

Sotomayor's qualifications seem better than any candidate for years, and I can have a laugh and paraphrase Biden — she's not only a fellow Ivy Leaguer, but she's clean, she speaks English, and acts like one of the guys, so we should vote for her without hesitation — an honorary Older White [Anglo] Male.

As someone with an IQ above room temperature, I won't be among the low tail of the bell curve who will instinctively classify any opposition or reluctance the Republicans may profess to be “racist” [sic]. But then again, I'm not among the exploitable people the Dems are appealing to and expecting to exploit, not with the “racism” lies about the Republicans any more than the occasional hyper-idiocy extremism about “diversity” that even made the late hard-core Dem New Deal Dinosaur Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., disparage “multiculturalism” (and wrote about it — “The Disuniting of America,” not a melting pot that the extremists want but a “tossed salad”).

* * *

“we are not clones (much less robots)…we are human beings and we bring all of who we are to the table”

That applies to the various (and normally multiple) opinions that are issued by the Justices, as well as related notes and dissenting opinions, all of which often bear reading. (Often you'll find the dissenters may have been or you may believe they truly are correct, incidentally.)

There are a lot of voices out there calling for change in the American society… many whom do not belong in the American society to begin with… and when an elected representative (Obama often forgets that), starts playing politics in the American judicial system, there will be an erosion of the morals and values in our society. Some people mistake the white demography as an appropriate target, and somehow responsible for their challenged existence in life. The melting pot is melting down, and eventually there will be more takers than givers, and all the parasites will be on to next foolish nation to open its doors to immigrants in the name of freedom.

Now for those Mexican-Americans who can't read English… cierra la boca.

Now for those Mexican-Americans who can't read English… cierra la boca.

Sotomayor raises eyebrows among the intelligent and moral, but isn't really that bad (and is presenting herself deliberately in these hearings as a “born-again jurist” repenting any activist leanings just to be safe).

It's lesson time — [sigh] –

It's beyond what most lefties can grasp, but Sotomayor can defend expressing her feelings and her “identity” (a word currently abused by lefties fashionably) and appeal to those of us with IQs above room temperature, simply by stating that she is different than other people, and in fact that all people, and all _judges_ as people, are different. People do different things for the same reason, and people do the same thing for different reasons. This is completely separate from judicial activism (illegimate arrogation of legislative power by the judiciary, notably through creative and worse rulings — making law themselves and substituting their wishes and views for what the law really is, and having the gall to state what the law _should_be_) and is simply arising from the fact that people are not identical — they are not clones. Again, people do different things for the same reason, or the same thing for different reasons, because they all are different, they are not identical. Judges will rule the same way (to affirm or to reverse a lower court's decision) for different reason, or rule differently, at times for the same reason, as reported by them. There almost is never a unanimous verdict by the Supreme Court. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Even Ivy League Supreme Court Justices are not all the same. Multiple opinions are issued, sometimes joined, but even then not always fully (additional divergent remarks are often provided by individual Justices). Even with normal verdicts, there can be more than one opinion on each side (affirmation, reversal). People are different. Judges are different. People's individual natures make them different.

That's all Sotomayor or anyone else, rather than babble stupidly about “diversity,” has to say about this.

Sotomayor has discussed her differences (and perhaps admitted her fallibility simply because she's human) because we're _all_ different. Even the almost exclusively Ivy League lawyers that form the Supreme Court are all different, and the Court (with multiple Justices on it) almost never reaches a unanimous verdict, much less always so. Sotoyamor is simply another (Ivy League) lawyer who is not a clone of the other (Ivy League) lawyers who are candidate Justices of the Supreme Court.

That's today's lesson, kids.

Yes, as commented upon previously, I initially supported Judge Sotomayor's nomination, then changed my view based on the belief that her legal thinking was too process driven.

But, whether one supports or opposes Judge Sotomayor should be based on her qualifications and judicial philosophy. To querie into a comment about her wisdom, and thereby deny by implication that Latina wisdom would add a valuable perspective to the Court is, at best, unenlightened and, at worst, cullturally discriminatory.