Good for the California Supreme Court

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Paul Krugman is an idiot. And you're borderline just for quoting such a ridiculous statement.

That blacks aren't advanced enough to vote is pretty darn ridiculous, I agree.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That blacks aren't advanced enough to vote is pretty darn ridiculous, I agree.

That a return to "true conservativism" requires re-embracing that idea is equally stupid.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Whoa. I just saw a CB poll on whether Sotomayor's membership in La Raza is disturbing. Goodness gracious.

She's a mainstream pick for a democrat. I don't see anything alarming about her. And by the way, she was first appointed to the federal courts by Bush Sr.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

She's a mainstream pick for a democrat. I don't see anything alarming about her. And by the way, she was first appointed to the federal courts by Bush Sr.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Her nomination was a political sop to keep the peace in a mixed New York Sentorial delegation, as Andy McCarthy explains:

It's at the top of the Left's talking-points that Judge Sotomayor was first put on the bench by a Republican president, George H. W. Bush, in 1991. That's pretty funny when you think about it — the Bush seal of approval is not usually thought an imprimatur by the Left, and it wouldn't likely be much comfort to conservatives given that Sotomayor's district court nomination came around the same time GHWB put Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. But there is even less to it than meets the eye.

The appointment of judges, U.S. attorneys, and other high federal offices filled by presidential appointment has been controlled for eons by the U.S. senators from each state. That is because a nominee must win confirmation by the senate, the rules and customs of which permit a single senator to block consideration of a nominee. For years and years (until Schumer beat D'Amato), the U.S. senate delegation from New York was split — one Republican, one Democrat. In order to keep the peace and, more importantly, to ensure that the senator from the party out of power (i.e., not in the White House) did not use senatorial privileges to block appointments desired by the party in power, there was an arrangement in New York: for every X number of appointments controlled by the party in power, the party out of power (from 1980 through 1992, the Democrats) would get Y number (a smaller number, but at least something, which is better than nothing). I believe in 1991 it was on the order of 2 Democrat appointments for every 5 Republican appointments.

That is how Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Bush-41. She was a selection of Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan. The Republicans agreed to her appointment in order to ensure that Moynihan would not block nominees urged by Republican Sen. Al D'Amato.

It is surely true that Judge Sotomayor is a Bush-41 appointee, and I have no doubt that our regrettably race-and-ethnicity-obsessed Republican Party would point to her appointment by Bush as more proof of how indulgent they are of Hispanic sensibilities. But Sotomayor was not a Republican idea; she was a Republican accommodation.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Her nomination was a political sop to keep the peace in a mixed New York Sentorial delegation, as Andy McCarthy explains:

She's still a pretty mainstream pick and shouldn't be much different than Souter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

She's still a pretty mainstream pick and shouldn't be much different than Souter.

On what basis do you determine that she is a "mainstream" pick? How do you even define that word?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

On what basis do you determine that she is a "mainstream" pick? How do you even define that word?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Is there really anything non-mainstream or radical in her past decisions? It doesn't seem like it. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it's not like there is anything there that would make one gasp and say it was a crazy interpretation or decision. The burden of proof is on you. "Mainstream" to most people means not radical, not unexpected, or not a crazy outlier.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

On what basis do you determine that she is a "mainstream" pick? How do you even define that word?

You and those on the right are the ones suggesting she is "out of the mainstream," so you tell us.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Is there really anything non-mainstream or radical in her past decisions? It doesn't seem like it. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it's not like there is anything there that would make one gasp and say it was a crazy interpretation or decision. The burden of proof is on you. "Mainstream" to most people means not radical, not unexpected, or not a crazy outlier.

That link is broken.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You and those on the right are the ones suggesting she is "out of the mainstream," so you tell us.

Actually, I haven't said anything about her positions at all. It's you two who are insisting she's mainstream, so why don't you defend that position, eh?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

That link is broken.



Actually, I haven't said anything about her positions at all. It's you two who are insisting she's mainstream, so why don't you defend that position, eh?

Try this

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26083