The GOP and Sotomayor...

[headscratcher4]

An observation. I work for a Washington trade association. Daily we host catered lunches and meetings serviced many by Hispanics. Our office also allows the building maintenance staff, mostly Hispanics, to use the break room for coffee and sodas, etc. We have a news channel playing on cable TV in that break room all day. Most employees ignore it going about their business. For the last three days, the catering and maintenance crews have -- when not working -- been gathered about the TV watching the hearings very closely. I could not help but notice the sour looks and even anger on their faces when GOP Senators go after Judge Sotomayer. They are clearly proud of her. They are also clearly disturbed by what they see on TV...especially her treatment by the GOP. This is one small sample. However, I can see it being repeated whereever televisions are on all across America. Why Kyle, Croynen and other Senators with growing hispanics populations in their state would want to appear so patronizing, dissmissive and even antagonistic toward this clearly capable, competent and intelligent woman is beyond my ability to understand.

[Praktik]

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

[Patrick_R]

Originally Posted by Praktik

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Patrick_R

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

Im not saying it should - I'm saying that the accusations that Sotomayor is at risk of doing so are baseless due to her track record which more than adequately demonstrates she hasn't done so in the past, and that the GOP is actually using sympathy as a tool to discredit her with their trotting in of the firefighters. This should, in my opinion, render the GOP worries on this count completely bankrupt.

You do not engage in the very same behaviour you say is your greatest worry.

[headscratcher4]

I don't know if empathy should enter into the law. Double standards certainly shouldn't. They are decrying Sotomayor because Obama says she has empathy. They are decrying Sotomayor because she didn't have empathy for Ricci. They (the GOP) asked questions of Alito to make sure that America understood his background gave him empathy for the average man...

Second, the premise of the GOP is that abiding by the law, enforcing the law, judging the law is all measured against a standard set by jurists like Scalia. If law was so cut and dry, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court or there would be no 5/4 decisions.

Indeed, wheather you accept Sotomayor's reasoning or not, most legal scholars say she was, in Ricci, going by precsident and that the Supreme Court changed the law in this decision (though, because it was Scalia, I'm certain that no one in the GOP would suggest it was legislating from the Bench).

Anyway, the purpose of my post was not to argue the law...rather it was to describe something I observed...in the very narrow sample that are the Hispanics I viewed watching her on TV, they have been disturbed by the treatment of Sotomayor by many of the GOP Senators. They, I believe, have found it disrespectful of someone they believe deserves respect. And, given a growing Hispanic population in this country, especially in several states represented by such GOP Senators, I was merely wondering/contemplating wheather such displays of disdain and disrespect might lead to further/greater abandonment of the GOP by Hispanics.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

Really? You think it's got nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the reasoning behind her ruling? Yes, unanimously: although the court split on the case, even the dissent rejected outright the reasons Sotomayor gave in her ruling.

But let's not even consider the merits. Let's pretend those issues don't even exist, even as we lambast Republicans for not addressing them. Instead, let's decry politicians (who have a fundamentally different role than judges) for possibly using empathy. And let's use empathy ourselves (those poor downtrodden Hispanic workers who are angry over Sotomayor's treatment) to help tar those dastardly republicans while we're at it.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Really? You think it's got nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the reasoning behind her ruling? Yes, unanimously: although the court split on the case, even the dissent rejected outright the reasons Sotomayor gave in her ruling.

why not deal with those legal questions then?

Ask her about the facts of the case?

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Patrick_R

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

I agree with what others have said--bias is bias, and we do our best to keep it out of how we apply the law. As with science, though, if we pretend that we aren't human and subject to bias, we're more apt to open ourselves up to more biased methodologies.

I think judges who can admit that their personal background does inform who they are, are more likely to deliver less biased opinions. (We really don't want robots for judges.)

At any rate, given the number of purely partisan decisions (including, notably Bush v. Gore), I think it's a charade to claim that they're just umpires calling balls and strikes.

[Patrick_R]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Im not saying it should - I'm saying that the accusations that Sotomayor is at risk of doing so are baseless due to her track record which more than adequately demonstrates she hasn't done so in the past, and that the GOP is actually using sympathy as a tool to discredit her with their trotting in of the firefighters. This should, in my opinion, render the GOP worries on this count completely bankrupt.

You do not engage in the very same behaviour you say is your greatest worry.

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Patrick_R

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

I think that was more about the role of an appeals court compared to the role of the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS has the discretion to change the standard. I suspect Sotomayor would have ruled with the majority in both cases (even though that would mean, as a member of the Supreme Court, she would reverse her own lower court decision).

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Patrick_R

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

Actually I'm not well-read enough on the case to make that claim.

But clearly, the presence the firefighters have garnered on the talk-radio and the conserva-bubble more generally speak to the sympathy conservatives hold for the latest iteration in the Honest White Man Done Wrong by Liberals anthology.

And its this sympathy - which I am not sure is completely unfounded - that the GOP is using in a cynical ploy to discredit Sotomayor. That's out one side of their mouth. Out the other side is all the pablum about Sotomayor's quote about being a "wise latina woman", and how that means she'll use "sympathy" when dealing with illegal immigrants or other undesirables.

Given that her track record demonstrates clearly that she has NOT done so in the past, the bankrupt nature of these claims becomes all the clearer.

There are clear legal principles at play in the Ricci case: that's what should be discussed, not the sympathetic nature of the firefighters.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

Well, no, it isn't. They are politicians, not judges. They are engaged in a fundamentally different activity than judges engage in. Whatever the merits or demerits of their actions, it's absurd to claim that they must be evaluated on the same basis.

Quote:

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

I would prefer it if they did. But they are politicians, not judges. Their careers live and die by empathy.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Well, no, it isn't. They are politicians, not judges. They are engaged in a fundamentally different activity than judges engage in. Whatever the merits or demerits of their actions, it's absurd to claim that they must be evaluated on the same basis.



I would prefer it if they did. But they are politicians, not judges. Their careers live and die by empathy.

I understand they are politicians. At the moment they are deciding whether a judge should be nominated to the supreme court. At times like these, I think they should stick to the legal principles at play and her judicial track record - which gives the lie to the worries about her "latina woman" comment.

I'm not saying politicians should act like judges or umpires, and I'm not expecting them to. In fact, I expect this kind of hypocrisy - and I also think its appropriate to point it out.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Praktik

why not deal with those legal questions then?

Ask her about the facts of the case?

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Praktik

I understand they are politicians. At the moment they are deciding whether a judge should be nominated to the supreme court. At times like these, I think they should stick to the legal principles at play and her judicial track record - which gives the lie to the worries about her "latina woman" comment.

This too is wrong. A judge's judicial track record is indeed quite useful (especially in regards to cases where they are unanimously overruled, as happened in Ricci). But when you are a lower court judge, you are constrained by the opinions of the supreme court. You may find yourself making rulings which follow the guidance of SC rulings which you don't agree with but are nonetheless bound by. But no such constraint acts upon the supreme court. So questions of judicial philosophy and temperament are also quite relevant, because the way one rules as an SC judge can be different than the way one rules as a lower-court judge. Comments which might reveal something about such issues are rather valid grounds for further investigation.

Quote:

I'm not saying politicians should act like judges or umpires, and I'm not expecting them to. In fact, I expect this kind of hypocrisy

But that is exactly my point: it is not hypocrisy, because what they are doing is fundamentally different than what a judge does, and deserves to be evaluated by different standards. You may find that they still fall short of the standards you want to impose on them, but that is not the same thing as hypocrisy. You do not like their behavior, and that is fine: you are entitled to think ill of it. But you are grasping at the nearest excuse to criticize it, even though it's not actually a valid criticism. Surely you can do better than that. Surely if the behavior is truly unwarranted, you can criticize it without reference to hypocrisy.

[headscratcher4]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And let's use empathy ourselves (those poor downtrodden Hispanic workers who are angry over Sotomayor's treatment) to help tar those dastardly republicans while we're at it.

What I was suggesting has nothing to do with empathy. It is that people have political memories. Even if you don't think Sotomayor is a brilliant jurist, she is certainly as quailified for the court as anyone currently sitting there...and, her decisions and view are not particularilly out of the mainstream. All I was observing is that if Hispanics have a political memory, they may remember how they perceived her treatment and that could go against the GOP...they are, after all, the fastest growing segment of our population. It may mean nothing...I just thought it was interesting how closely the hearing was being watched by men and women who, in my office, are sometimes quite overlooked.

Further, I'm not suggesting the republicans are dastardly, just human...meaning that their as apt to overplay their hand, bluster, fluster and grow self-righteous as their democrat counterparts.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tricky

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

And how, exactly, do you know that his lawsuits were without merit?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

Give me a break. Numerous suits? He filed one lawsuit before this. And what's the BS about how he can't seem to keep a job? Just making things up these days to smear a political opponent?

Sotomayor is going to get approved. Dragging a firefighter with a disability through the mud is not necessary. Or enlightened.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

All I was observing is that if Hispanics have a political memory, they may remember how they perceived her treatment and that could go against the GOP

And that means what... that the GOP should just roll over whenever the possibility of identity politics playing against them rears its head? That might save you in one election, but it's hard to make a political career out of backing down from any fight. If republicans were threatening a filibuster, I'd be more inclined to consider that they're overplaying their hand, but just giving her a bit of a grilling during the confirmation hearings? I have a hard time seeing how that's going to really plague them.

[headscratcher4]

Not backing down is one thing. Jeff Sessions lecturing anyone on race, etc. is just comedy.

[Patrick_R]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Actually I'm not well-read enough on the case to make that claim.

But clearly, the presence the firefighters have garnered on the talk-radio and the conserva-bubble more generally speak to the sympathy conservatives hold for the latest iteration in the Honest White Man Done Wrong by Liberals anthology.

And its this sympathy - which I am not sure is completely unfounded - that the GOP is using in a cynical ploy to discredit Sotomayor. That's out one side of their mouth. Out the other side is all the pablum about Sotomayor's quote about being a "wise latina woman", and how that means she'll use "sympathy" when dealing with illegal immigrants or other undesirables.

Given that her track record demonstrates clearly that she has NOT done so in the past, the bankrupt nature of these claims becomes all the clearer.

There are clear legal principles at play in the Ricci case: that's what should be discussed, not the sympathetic nature of the firefighters.

As to talk radio, you're right of course, sympathetic anecdotes are easier to sell than cold hard facts.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Give me a break. Numerous suits? He filed one lawsuit before this. And what's the BS about how he can't seem to keep a job? Just making things up these days to smear a political opponent?

Oops. You're right. Only filed two suits. Threatened others. He did a lot of complaining about discrimination though.

Originally Posted by Brainster

Sotomayor is going to get approved. Dragging a firefighter with a disability through the mud is not necessary. Or enlightened.

It is the GOP's decision to crassly use Frank Ricci as a political tool. No, it is not at all necessary. But like Joe the Plumber, it seems he will happly exchange his reputation for his few minutes of fame and perhaps a few speaking gigs.

Originally Posted by Slate

Ultimately, there are two ways to frame Frank Ricci's penchant for filing employment discrimination complaints: Perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white. If that is so, we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace. I look forward to hearing Republican Sen. John Cornyn's version of that speech next week.
The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Oops. You're right. Only filed two suits. Threatened others. He did a lot of complaining about discrimination though.

No comments about the validity of his complaints, I see.

Quote:

It is the GOP's decision to crassly use Frank Ricci as a political tool. No, it is not at all necessary. But like Joe the Plumber, it seems he will happly exchange his reputation for his few minutes of fame and perhaps a few speaking gigs.

Yeah: he should sit down and shut up. Let his betters speak. And if he doesn't, if he chooses to voice his opinions, then it's his own fault if we destroy him personally.

So far, he only actual reason that you've given to justify attacking him personally is precisely that he is voicing his opinions. Is that really the way you want politics to operate, Tricky? Is that really the standard you want established?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No comments about the validity of his complaints, I see.

We don't really know the validity of his first complaint.

Quote:

That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah: he should sit down and shut up. Let his betters speak. And if he doesn't, if he chooses to voice his opinions, then it's his own fault if we destroy him personally.

Did I say that? I only said it would be a mistake (on the GOP's part) to use him. I am perfectly happy to let the GOP make themselves look foolish.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So far, he only actual reason that you've given to justify attacking him personally is precisely that he is voicing his opinions. Is that really the way you want politics to operate, Tricky? Is that really the standard you want established?

He is not just "voicing his opinions". He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge. It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness. Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tricky

We don't really know the validity of his first complaint.

But you're attacking him as if you did.

Quote:

He is not just "voicing his opinions".

Yes he is. He has been given a platform by others to voice his opinions more widely than most of us get to, but that's still all he's doing.

Quote:

He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge.

Is he? Or is he being called as a witness regarding the case of which he was a part? That may have relevance to Sotomayor's suitability, but is he even being asked to make any judgments about her suitability? Even if he were, that would still just be his opinion. And since your attack has no connection to the actual contents of whatever opinions he might offer, I am still left to conclude that it is the fact of him offering opinions, and not the opinions themselves, which you find objectionable.

Quote:

It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness.

Which has what, precisely, to do with the negative characterization of Ricci that you presented? Nothing, Tricky. Nothing at all.

Quote:

Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

Strawman (and we're not talking about legal standards anyways). Has he made any character attacks against Sotomayor? Not that I'm aware of, and not that you've actually suggested. But you (and others) have made character attacks against Ricci, in your case on the basis of essentially no real evidence. If the Republicans are smart, they won't ask him to criticize Sotomayor, but only to talk about his case, and why he brought suit. That wouldn't constitute any sort of character attack against Sotomayor on his part. And yes, I would prefer that he would be able to do that without getting attacked personally before he even makes a statement. Do you honestly not agree?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

He is not just "voicing his opinions". He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge. It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness. Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

This is a complete strawman. Ricci is not being called to make character attacks against Sotomayor; I doubt he has ever met her. He's not Anita Hill for pete's sake (and I'd be hugely surprised if you defend the questions asked about her character).

This kind of "anybody who's got a beef with Sotomayor must be a bad guy" nonsense is characterizing nobody but you The sensible way for the Democrats to counter Ricci is to simply point out that even the Supreme Court was conflicted on the case and therefore that Sotomayor's concurrence with the ruling denying Ricci's appeal was not unreasonable, even if the Supreme Court decided narrowly that it was wrong.

And, in keeping with the OP, I would remind you that Italians are watching and muttering every time somebody disses Ricci.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And, in keeping with the OP, I would remind you that Italians are watching and muttering every time somebody disses Ricci.

And also grabbing fistfuls of their greasy hair.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The sensible way for the Democrats to counter Ricci is to simply point out that even the Supreme Court was conflicted on the case and therefore that Sotomayor's concurrence with the ruling denying Ricci's appeal was not unreasonable, even if the Supreme Court decided narrowly that it was wrong.

While a large part of the SC sided with the defendant, even the dissent rejected the reasoning given by the lower court. So in reality, the court was unanimous in its rejection of Sotomayor's ruling.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

While a large part of the SC sided with the defendant, even the dissent rejected the reasoning given by the lower court. So in reality, the court was unanimous in its rejection of Sotomayor's ruling.

True, but that's like pointing out that the SC actually ruled 7-2 in Bush V Gore; too hard to explain in sound bites.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Praktik

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

"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."S.S.

Had said Sotomayor said "informed," not "better," she could have saved herself a lot of grief in these hearings even though she actually meant what she said at the time. The women will be confirmed. Then we can sit back and wait for the inevitable VP Biden gaffe.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Cicero

"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."S.S.

Too bad Sotomayor didn't say "inform."

Too bad her record demonstrates her acting completely opposite to the worst fears of people who trot out this quote.

Look at the record: she sided with the law and against sympathetic clients FAR MORE OFTEN. Lou Dobbs even said so last week in a report.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Too bad her record demonstrates her acting completely opposite to the worst fears of people who trot out this quote.

Look at the record: she sided with the law and against sympathetic clients FAR MORE OFTEN. Lou Dobbs even said so last week in a report.

So why equivocate about this comment in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Cicero

So why equivocate about this comment in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Why make a huge deal out of it if the record obviously shows it hasn't biased her decisions?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Why make a huge deal out of it if the record obviously shows it hasn't biased her decisions?

Huge deal? The women didn't go down in flames. She was an easy confirmation. One wonders why she just didn't stick to her comments instead of just saying the things she figured the Republican Senators wanted to hear. Does she really believe her confirmation would be jeopardized had she owned up to the true meaning of her comment?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Cicero

. Does she really believe her confirmation would be jeopardized had she owned up to the true meaning of her comment?

Well this presupposes that the standard Townhall.com interpretation of that comment is the correct one, and since I reject that premise, I'm not sure there's a whole big scary "true meaning" lurking behind her "equivocations".

[Robster, FCD]

I'm quite enjoying watching the GOP consign itself to minority status.

For the GOP senators, this has more to do with being obstructionist than anything, as opposed to racism (excepting Sessions, of course). At least that is my opinion. They feel the need to stand in the way of Obama and offer an image of standing up to Sotomayor in order to hold onto their base. A base which donates money to campaigns and PACs.

The empathy being a bad thing is an interesting tack for the GOP to take, especially after celebrating Alito's immigrant family.

Quote:

When I get a case 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 in to account.

Alito was a practitioner of empathy. So why is it bad for Sotomayor to do the same? Because the GOP believes in standards. Double ones.

[Whiplash]

I wondered why there was no thread about the hearings. I figured it was because everyone found them as boring as I did. She's going to be confirmed. No one is giving her a hard time. Republicans are rolling over for her.

But sure enough, when the thread does start.. what do you know. The republicans are (of course) bending over backwards to destroy her! And it will backfire! What are they thinking? Every hispanic in the world is watching! They see all! They will remember!

Puh-lease... The demagoging here is just so outrageous. And of course, yet another lesson for Republicans. No matter how fair you try to be, you'll never be considered such by the left. You'll never an ounce of respect in return. It's war. Vicious, scorched earth warfare. There is no sense in trying to do anything to appease the other side, ever. It never helps or works at all.

Poor John McCain, who was called a Maverick (by main stream media and many on the left) is the best example of this. He got the most friendly with the left of any previous Republicans. And look how well that worked for him. As soon as election season started, he was suddenly a kooky, old man who was too friendly with Bush.

Of course, I already know what responses to what I'm saying will be. That I'm the one seeing bias, and the left is the most tolerant (laugh) and open group of thinkers ever.

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, whippy.................just wow.

[Whiplash]

Furthermore, is there any reason to believe these every day hispanics you are seeing are all completely and fully aware of all of her positions and beliefs, and are standing by her based on that? Or could it be possible that they are standing around her in a form of solidarity because of her race? You know, the "first hispanic female justice". This has not been unknown to happen in the past. Here in Milwaukee, we have several black officials who have done bad things, repeatedly, but are continually supported and re-elected by their constituents.

I can already sense I'll be called a racist for even considering such a thing. But I mean they are reacting more in a manner of pride. Wanting to support their person as they see it as a personal victory for themselves and their race.

Ken, that's how I feel every day when I read these forums. If you really don't see it, then I don't know what to say. McCain is a poster child for stupd Republican attempts to appease the left. It never works.

[thaiboxerken]

You are such a maverick, whippy. I wish I had you insight.