By bestest buddy, Barack, sent me a personal e-mail to say, "I am proud to announce my nominee for the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor." ...yadda, yadda... and that she "would show fidelity to our Constitution."
It was a very nice letter and gave me the warm fuzzies.
My question is, "What Constitution? They threw that old rag away years ago. I believe I heard that Dubbya used it for toilet paper. Save a tree, and all that. Is there any chance of this Judge Sotomayor restoring it, or something vaguely reminicient?" It's a sentimental thing. I was never much for rules, but sometimes I like knowing that we have some, and what they are.
Hit the "thumbs-up" button if you would love to see a reply.
Comments (3)
Don't be coy, guys. Tell me how you really feel.
How can Sotomayor show fidelity to a Constitution that no longer exists? To a never-ending game of CalvinBall?
It is clear that Sotomayor - by any reasonable definition of the words - is both a racist and a sexist. She is an anti-white racist and an anti-male sexist. There is no room in America - let alone the Supreme Court - for admitted bigots.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is greeted by Sen. Arlen Specter before a meeting on Capitol Hill Thursday. (Getty)
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.
Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.
A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."
In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.
The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.
Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words. After details of the 1994 speech circulated before the questionnaire's release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emerged from his private meeting with Sotomayor and expressed new concerns about the nominee's "identity politics."
I have no opinion either way yet on Sotomayor.
However, I would like to mention one detail.
This ranting about the phrase "wise Latina woman" is petty and pointless. I would like to know about her other qualifications.
For one thing, the comments are a decade or more old. If she parked her car in front of a fire hydrant or my driveway, I would expect her to get a ticket. The law is the law. Coming back a decade later and harassing her about it is petty.
For another, it's not the same thing at all. If a three-year-old guy hits a twenty-year-old guy, that's not a big deal. It may be rude, but he's not going to do any real damage. If a twenty-year-old guy hits a three-year-old guy, he could really do some damage. It's not the same thing at all. Both actions are socially unacceptable, and the little guy should be told that such behavior is no good. Still, it's hard to get excited about it. While the kid's mother should be concerned, the big guy should be embarrassed to complain.