Jackson Jambalaya

Actually, it's you that got it wrong, Kingfish.

She, like anyone else that is prospective of such a position, must own their words. She must answer for what she has said and/or written. Expecting anything less demeans the value of such a lofty position a seat on the United States Supreme Court holds.

Frankly, the Obama administration admits she was rather unknown with VERY FEW remarkable cases before her. Therefore, attempting to derive her position from her rulings would be difficult at best. She deserves to be grilled, and grilled about things she's said and/or written, just like any other nominee.

When she is described as empathetic, and has stated that ethnicity and gender renders her more able to better decide cases... one must pause and probe that. For, being "empathetic" is rarely describing a person that is sensitive to all things, but rather a certain subset.

Your comments about empathy I agree with as that has no place in adjudicating a case before the Court. It is also true they learned after Bork not to submit nominees with extensive paper trails as well.

If I may enjoy a bit of conspiracy-type commentary:

I think this administration is much more saavy than to simply offer up someone with no "real" background but who does have some questionable bias-related comments associated to her. Knowing full well that she will have to be grilled, since there isn't a tremendous amount to derive from written opinions she's given, is it possible that she is being used as some sort of scape-goat to polarize the Latino vote further against the Republican Party because they will be the blame for her not getting the confirmation?

The thing is...she WILL get the nomination. The Republicans will only make themselves look...you fill in the blank.

So, you are confirming my conspiracy theory?

So what if she gets the nomination. Some of us Repubs don't totally hate her anyway. Now if we were looking at Wood, Kagan, Granholm, I'd be ticked. Or God forbid Napolitano (don't even get me started because as a "domestic terrorist" I hate her ass) But Sotomayor, so far has not set off any huge alarm. However I will always look at a judge's history of being overturned, that's usually pretty telling.

But we'll wait, and watch. And slaughter her later if need be. But not now.

With the Senate slanted toward the Left to the degree that it currently is, there is little doubt that she will be confirmed with room to spare. Thus, there is no reason to throw crap up against the wall to see if anything sticks. Unless there is a new revelation that is really heavy, Repubs should question her thoroughly and be ready to witness her confirmation. The good news is that she wont change the trajectory of the Court, as she is replacing another reliable liberal in Souter. This should be an early warning to the GOP about the importance of retaking Senate seats in 2010 and 2012.

Kingfish,

You are such a Hack! Get over yourself.

Re the 60% "overturned" figure - remember that is only out of the 5 cases of hers in which cert was granted for the SCt. to consider the case - she would have presumably participated in hundreds of cases which were never reviewed at all, and thus "affirmed."

What no meation of La Raza?

No wonder the GOP left me standing on the corner all alone with mouth pieces like him taking over front and center.

La Raza? They should be thrilled. This was affirmative action in all its glory.

She has more judicial experience than anybody else on the Court, and this is still affirmative action? Figures. A law firm said the same thing about her status at Yale in '78... She almost got Yale to throw out their recruiters, but they issued a formal apology so she let them go.

Here's the thing fellas... When someone comes in with minimal experience as a judge (e.g. Clarence Thomas) you can claim affirmative action, and it sounds racist but isn't. But when a candidate's obviously among the most qualified in the country and you still cry affirmative action...what you're really asking or is reverse affirmative action. An unjust preference for whites. Who already make up 8/9th of the Court.

Oh, re her status at Yale... She got there after graduating Princeton summa cum laude and winning the university's highest undergraduate award, the Pyne Prize, on her way out... So you can't really say she got into Yale Law School because of affirmative action.

Unless you're the sort of racist who would say the same thing about her Supreme Court nomination...

Refreshing read KF, thanks.

Alright, touchy subject here but.. For your information, I was saying affirmative action before she was even officially chosen by obama, due to everyone on his short list being a woman. GENDER affirmative action. Even as a woman, I hate to see that. What ever happened to just looking for the "best man" for the job?, plain and simple. Do I think her ethnicity gave her an edge? Um, probably didn't hurt. Wanna see racism? See the ONLY reason obama was able to pull the original party nomination with ZERO executive experience-- skin color.

So to me, affirmative action IS racism. And yes, she has a load of experience. I've even given her credit for that. Have also said I DON'T hate her and think obama could have done worse. Was fully aware of her credentials as I spent four hours one morning reading up on her. I just didn't see the point of looking at only women for the new seat (was only one man on the list I think and he, was black..) Anyway, just pick the best flippin PERSON for a job and leave gender and race out of it. But I say AGAIN, I'm not 'totally' hating his choice here.

And for the record, if I found out the only reason I was chosen for a job was because they sure could use a white female, I'd tell them they could keep it.

Hack?

How so?

KF, you're not a hack. Your points were well taken with this conservative as I hate seeing the Republican party look like they are whiners and complainers who make excuses, don't do their homework,get the facts wrong and then wonder why they didn't get an " A" and their classmates think they aren't smart!
IF you want judges with good legal minds who KNOW what the law is, are well qualified and make good judicial rulings on existing law rather than creating law, THAT'S what you need to look at.
IF you bother to look at the cases overturned, she followed EXISTING law that got overturned. Excuse me, but isn't that what we conservatives want? Judicial conservatism?
Looking at her rulings,my bet is the liberals are going to get a " Souter" on this one...and she's Catholic which should be of concern to the pro-choice crowd.
Have we lost our minds completely? This is the very best we could hope to get given the political realities! Kill this nomination and conservatives will likely get someone far more liberal.
PLEASE Conservatives...do your own homework on the FACTS rather than listen to the paid talking media darlings who earn their keep by being inflammatory just to be inflammatory!

9:21
You don't want that standard for conservatives so be careful of hanging your hat on " owning words". Because that gets to be sentences or part sentences that can be taken out of context...that gets to be views that have changed over time...that gets to be words misspoken. It seems fair to ask for explanation until you face the reality that those challenging the words never are willing to accept the explanations given. That's just the reality. So, it becomes a rather pointless waste of time.
Remember,too,that the tactic you use successfully today will give license to that tactic being used against you tomorrow!
And,why is it that too many Republicans can't see that Obama's success was in no small part due to the public's fatigue with constant devisiveness? That the public is tired of all the arguing for argument's sake so nothing gets done? How was THAT missed? We've become the party of mean spirited, argumentative naysayers who are against everything and FOR very little of concrete substance!

Good points 1132: The GOP has almost become the party of professional againsters...

Thank you 12:26...the polling percentages should be a hint... the GOP has GOT to stop " preaching to the choir" if they want to be more than a minority party! It's conservatives who aren't blindly loyal partisans,independents and libertarians we need...not the extreme right...we GOT the extreme right...where else do they have to go? Revolution, I guess, but that's about it and not likely in modern times to do more than result in chaos.
HELLO out there...Bill Clinton and BUSH and Obama WON by campaigning as CENTRIST!!!! Did you MISS THAT????
If 25-30% totals make you happy, and if you'd rather be right and fail than go to center and succeed, keep it up!