Sonia Sotomayor's Greenwich Village condo

aboutready... I try to be offensive with a gentle hand... i think ericho's inability to listen to reason may have put me off the edge.... I actually regret the oral sex reference :), you know the "mouth twirl," "bobbing for apples," aka blowjob...... etc etc etc... :)

$500 psf is about 2001 (pre 9/11) prices for a nicer two bedroom coop. less for cookie cutter or needing lots of work. and we'll get there, if not tomorrow, then sometime down the road. but i think we'll go further. ho-hum at $350psf? w67th, want the over? dinner at Aureole one day on the loser? how about 11/10 as our target date?

sure... how about dinner on me, win or lose... :)

your on, and the next meal's on me.

btw, i didn't mean "prime" locations, i meant chelsea, gramercy, UES, UWS, tribeca. just not premium locations or amenities. although places like the gotham and the st. tropez had amenities and were cheap, but not premium locations in the slightet.

"nyc10022, got to disagree, but it's just personal. i was a bit of a slacker, the hubby was phi beta kappa, summa cum laude (not my earlier example, btw, met him after college), i'm smarter but he's definitely nicer. i'm the underachiever, he's quite successful."

AR, what are we disagreeing on?

I see that Rhino still hasn't learned how to read. Do you ever get tired of looking like a total fool?
I wasn't talking about legacies or parents buying there childrens' way in. The point is that most Ivy Leaguers that I know would never have been able to get in if they grew up in middle class or lower middle class households. They aren't smarter, they just received better training to get in. Where I went to high school, no one ever heard of SAT prep courses. The higher income people I work with now, who grew up in those kinds of households, send their high school children to college campuses for entire summers to train to take the SAT.

didn't you say, 10022, that the real brainiacs weren't the most successful? those 4.0 strivers? that's my point here, albeit with a very limited data source. :)

LIC, you keep ignoring my post. no, at the top ivies you don't just have high-income kids. i knew immigrant kids whose parents owned delis, who received not only room and board but extra spending money from the school. and we didn't care, 95% of us, who had money or not. and i know, because i didn't have money, and i was freely accepted by those who did, and those who did not (with a couple of nasty exceptions). the top levels of higher education have been the only equalizers in this society in the last 20 years. to diminish that is naive.

Whoa, I must be dumb.

1. I go to Princeton. My parents did too, as did my brother.
2. I guess I'm affirmative action. I'm black.
3. I had tutors, I had private SAT Prep classes brought into my home.
4. I grew up in an estate in Greenwich and " I'm privileged"!

Yay, I'm dumb!

"I see that Rhino still hasn't learned how to read. Do you ever get tired of looking like a total fool?
I wasn't talking about legacies or parents buying there childrens' way in. The point is that most Ivy Leaguers that I know would never have been able to get in if they grew up in middle class or lower middle class households. They aren't smarter, they just received better training to get in. Where I went to high school, no one ever heard of SAT prep courses. The higher income people I work with now, who grew up in those kinds of households, send their high school children to college campuses for entire summers to train to take the SAT."

Jealously rears its ugly head again....

"most Ivy Leaguers that I know would never have been able to get in if they grew up in middle class or lower middle class households"

Sorry dopie. I could not have imagined you'd be making such a ridiculous point. What kind of asshole would presume to be able to determine from casual contact that without SAT prep someone could not have got into their Ivy league college? I guess I have my answer!

Most Ivy leaguers come from middle class backgrounds. Over 1/2 of the undergrads at Harvard receive financial aid. Don't presume you understand what goes on.... Its a wall you are peering over with jealousy.

"didn't you say, 10022, that the real brainiacs weren't the most successful? those 4.0 strivers? that's my point here, albeit with a very limited data source. :)"

Nope, I said in some ways the opposite... mainly that the braniacs were not the 4.0s. Check the thread again.

Of course, I'm talking about a school where you maybe get one 4.0 a year, phi beta kappa is more like 3.8. I'm separating the top 10% or 20% at an ivy from the top 1%... I found that the absolute top was not the smartest (who often learned they didn't have to work THAT hard).... and the top ones were more crazy workers than blowaway smart in many cases.

"Most Ivy leaguers come from middle class backgrounds. Over 1/2 of the undergrads at Harvard receive financial aid. Don't presume you understand what goes on.... Its a wall you are peering over with jealousy."

Agreed. Yale was 60% financial aid.

Largest feeder school for Yale, MIT, Harvard my year was... Stuyvesant High School, a school of first and second generation immigrants from the outer boroughs (which used to mean not much $$$).

This from Rhino, the poster who makes up more facts and throws around more false data than anyone on this board.

aboutready, maybe you are an exception, but the large majority of Ivy Leaguers are exactly as I described.

"This from Rhino, the poster who makes up more facts and throws around more false data than anyone on this board."

I love it! Dude just said this about me on the other thread!

Somebody is clearly jealous about something.

One more time.... more than half on financial aid.

BTW, SAT prep for Stuyvesant High School kids was generally buying that $20 book.

LIC, i went to school with them. as did my husband, the west virginia public school product. you are not correct. some are horrible assholes, but some kids at SUNY/Binghampton are also. the worst assholes i've ever met came from schools like Bucknell. I knew kids of far more privilege at lesser schools who had chips so big on their shoulders i was amazed they reamined upright.

According to the NY Times from one year ago, two-thirds of Harvard students come from families making $130,000 or more, and only one-fifth from families making $60,000 or less.

Agreed on bucknell. And, yes, some massive SUNY retards as well. There are all kinds everywhere.

But LIC has to stop getting his info on ivy grads from WB shows.

I was born lower middle class (might be generous there), and I got to the Ivies, and, yes, I found some assholes, but there was MUCH more of us than there was of "them". I probably only saw it because I wanted to be "them" a bit.

But the Ivies are us.

And, don't forget they're almost all 25% or more Jewish (I think Dartmouth was the exception). Penn and Brown 30% I think. Add in Asians and latino and black, and you've probably got 40% at most of these schools, maybe 50%. You're not talking uppity wasps with privilege here. And, of the remaining white kids, plenty of iowa farm boys and such.

Just 'aint the group the wackos think it is.

I also believe more than half of Yale was public high school.

aboutready, I didn't say they were a-holes. I didn't even say that they aren't nice people. I'm saying that they are not as smart as they think they are, and that their attending an Ivy League school had as much to do with having well-off families as anything else.

and you're going to extrapolate from one year of harvard-only statistics when you talk about the dislike you have for ivy-league grads? and actually i would bet that i could do a fair amount of statistical analyses that show that $130k (and they would have been much more intellectually honest if they had continued the breakdown further up the chain) could easily be a two-income family of very modest means depending on location. poverty level, no. but you're talking about "privilege" and tutors. you don't get tutors on $130K in an urban environment unless the family is ready to eat rice and beans.

we're busy calling a guy an idiot for buying a family apartment at less than $1m on a $200k salary on another thread. in certain areas last year $130K wasn't a huge amount, in other areas it was living high on the hog. Harvard of course draws nationally, but also gets many from urban areas.

"According to the NY Times from one year ago, two-thirds of Harvard students come from families making $130,000 or more, and only one-fifth from families making $60,000 or less."

Produce the link you stupid piece of shit.

Anything I've ever said about the out of whack price to rent ratios of 2004-2007 Manhattan, I have posted a graph to back it up. You post nothing. You ignore the links I post and then accuse me of making things up.

Listen, there is no bigger idiot than the buy who bought the top in real estate, not in a prime area of Manhattan, but in a shithole neighborhood that developers tried to reinvent with a bunch of luxury condos. Stop looking over the East River at Manhattan, and stop making up shit about Ivy league schools when you have five or so first hand graduates here contradicting you.

"send their high school children to college campuses for entire summers to train to take the SAT."

Funny thing is, all the kids I know who did those programs did NOT get in to those schools.

In the end, its clear LIC doesn't know what he's talking about, he might know one or two folks he seems to be jealous of, and he's stereotyping badly.

He is simply incorrect... but his anger at the world isn't going to let him listen to anything we say.

$130k was the bottom 67th percentile. And $130k in most parts of the country is pretty well-off. Did I really just have to explain that to you?

And the NY Times article stated how the numbers at Harvard were better than they had been traditionally, so in prior years there were even less students from middle-class or lower middle-class families.

Kids don't spend the whole summer studying for the SAT at those programs either. The guy is a joke.

... and he did the same thing on another post. Completely off topic, not relevant to the thread, he says...

"You are so clearly jealous of people who are happy owning their homes."

Thread had nothing to do with buying/owning, etc. I think its just clear who is pissed at the world today.

So, I don't know how much good the truth is going to do him.

He's pissed at something, and needed to take it out on someone... and it just happened to be Rhiuno on this thread.

Where is the link to the article shit for brains?

Why is a LICC resident / SUNY Buttfuck grad talking so much about Manhattan real estate and Ivy league schools?

I don't want Sonia on the USSC. She'd be a great judge in the HPD part of the Housing Ct.

i paid less to go to my ivy than i would have paid to go to the university of washington.

130k doesn't go far when tuition room and board is over $50k. those kids are on financial aid, and many of the top ivies got rid of student loans over the last few years (hopefully they can continue this) so that their graduates can come out without the albatross of huge debt on their shoulders.

$130K is not the "privilege" of which you speak. it's just a fairly decent living for a family of four in most parts of the country, although it might be getting better now that home prices have fallen so far.

yo dwell, funny.

> i paid less to go to my ivy than i would have paid to go to the university of washington.

I know, with all the awesome aid they are giving now, ivies can be cheaper than SUNY.

I would have LOVED the current policies when I was in school. Mucho loans for some time.

Thanks, AR, but, seriously, she'd a perfect fit for the housing court, where she can enforce her policy via judicial decision.

At least she was honest & showed her true feelings when she said appellate courts make policy & she said it with that "c'mon, we all know it's true" tone of voice.

"Why is a LICC resident / SUNY Buttfuck grad talking so much about Manhattan real estate and Ivy league schools?"

Check the other threads this evening... somebody is a little insecure about their station in life tonight.

actually, 10022, i started in 1981. before the price run up the effect was even better for the lower to middle class.

dwell, i've had experiences in her court (as a legal assistant, admittedly) and i'e been among numerous attorneys over the years who i respect who think she's less than stellar. and i don't use that lightly, i'm not a smear person. i can't tell you how many sotomayor stories i've heard over the last fifteen years. probably only about 10, but you usually don't hear any stories about judges, particularly ones that call competence into question. plenty of people hate certain judges, but often said hated judges are respected. and, of course, the Federal courts are a whole different ball game than the states. but she's federal. the state's judges can make things uncertain and interesting! may you always live in federal litigation times.

Yes, AR, that's what I mean: Appearing before Fed judges & magistrates is like attending a tea party compared to state ct. I think she lacks the judicial temperament for the USSC. But, due to pcness, she'll probly be approved. Gender & ethnicity (the correct ones, the favored ones) trump competency because that's the world we live in.

parts of this thread are really vile in the not usual/almost fun streeteasy way. all i will add is that i went to the same high school as sotomayor and not many kids from there get to go on to ivy league educations and such prestigious careers. the bronx is not so easy to claw your way out of people. just for getting the hell out of there she is smart in a way that very few of you ever will be. she could probably also kick most of your asses as they teach us that in the bronx fairly early as well.

and I went to the same NJ high school as the current president of Estonia.

And you're still a stoner even now, from the sound of things.

and i repeat i bet this 54 year old lady could kick your ass

My roots are in the Bronx: Parents, Grandparents: Tremont, Jerome, Macombs, Dewitt Clinton, the Roosevelt Houses, High Bridge & many more.

"not many [kids] from there get to go on to ivy league "That's true, no one from my family did.

"just for getting the hell out of there she is smart"
Lots of people got outta the Bronx. Yes, I'll agree she's smart.

"NYU is a top 10 business school, so yes it is an Ivy on the GRADUATE level."

Nope. Ivy's are Ivy's. Cal Tech and Stanford aren't Ivy's, either. Has nothing to do with where their B-School places on "somebody's" Top 10 list. And 4th Ave still isn't PS. ;) (i.e. same type of thing: just because a bunch of nimrods want to change something, don't make it happen - it ain't a f'ing democracy).

I went to public schools and have 2 Ivy degrees, close to full scholarship, if you include the "work study" package, over full scholarship. Went to what was at the time the one non-selected admission HS that gave both Bronx Science and Stuyvesant a run for their money in a lot of categories that you wouldn't expect (number of Westinghouse finalists and such). And I still wanna know when we're going to bench race those SAT scores (adjusted for the scoring change).

but back to the original post: I hope after the crash, they make the lower West Village a "redevelopment area" and give its designated developer, Al Sharpton, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. Then when she wants to sell the condo, he can demand half of her sales proceeds and when she balks, condemn it the next day and move some homeless family into it.

jasonkyle, just a spot of fun on the ivies comments, and i got of a pretty shitty sitch myself. really shitty, actually.

all that you said may be true, but does that equate a good SC judge? and i'd bet she couldn't kick my 46 year old ass.

aboutready, you are showing how out of touch you are. The $130k number was the bottom 2/3rd at Harvard. Fully two-thirds of the students are from families making higher than that. And how many households in this country make that much 10%? Maybe 12%? Your saying that $130k is just "decent" for most of the country is telling.
What is the big deal? Kids from wealthier families will have a much easier time getting into Ivy League schools. So what if that means the graduates are not some higher form of intelligence over other people who went to other good schools?

oh aboutready my post was not directed at you. :) i just wanted to point out that outer borough children like myself learn things along the way that might be just as valuable as her ivy-ness. you know things like hot wiring a car. jumping turnstiles. etc. or maybe that was just me. any of this may or may not qualify her but i am sure it make her bag of tricks a bit more interesting than say john roberts.

We still have not seen a link to this NYT story. I remember reading actually - it was from last year, so it should not be hard to find. I don't remember this 2/3 stat.

It COULD be true - I went to Berkeley, and even there, state school (albeit the "best" per US News), a disproportionate amount of the students were upper middle class and upper class. However, Berkeley does NOT have legacy admissions. Few if any of the top state schools do - not Michigan, etc. So its not a function of legacy admits. Only a small percentage of ivy admits are legacies, so it CANT be. Its the simple fact that upper middle class and upper class kids lived in better school districts, or could afford to go to private school, and were much more likely to have well-educated parents, and therefore had better test scores, etc.

I think the more important point is LICC is a dope. He made a baseless statement. Remember this began with him saying that he knows that the handful of Ivy league acquaintances that he knows could not have gotten in without SAT prep courses.

Rhino can't seem to post any comment without making things up. This is the guy who made up historical rent ratios going back decades and when I provided actual real data from the 1990s that showed he was clueless, his head exploded because he couldn't handle it.

You are so full of shit. I am the guy who posted a chart with annotated sources going back to 1980. You are the guy who basically said 'I remember back when a one bed cost this and you could rent it for that'. Meanwhile, the numbers you posted were completely off. Again, where is your actual real data? Here is the link again, you poor, sad paid the top in a shit hood, son of a mutherless goat.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ix8hvo7npJM/SfegvNHT4oI/AAAAAAAAACM/biHZ07x6p0M/s1600-h/CitiesPricetoRent.jpg

http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/financial_aid/index.html

It says that families with incomes up to $200k can receive financial aid.
Are you trying to say that it is not easier for children from wealthy families to get into Ivies?

Where is your supposed price to rent "data" you piece of shit?

i'm saying that it is needs-blind admission. the ivies can't be blamed for all societal ills. it's extremely difficult to get into amherst and williams, also, but there if you are poor you will feel really poor, because the financial aid will not be available. the ivies have consistently made a conscious effort to locate and admit people of less-advantaged backgrounds, and have given those people the opportunity to excell in a generous environment. to deny the social progressiveness of those schools, particularly HYP, is simply foolishness.

and if you make less than $60k, you don't pay a cent.

LICC is pushing the ingenious point that advantages come with advantages. Its the fact he claims knowledge of who could get in to school or not after the fact that is obnoxious and presumptuous. Also that he claims to have price to rent data refuting mine and refuses to produce it.

i know rhino. i'm making the point that the ivies help people overcome disadvantages.

and JK, my brother taught me how to hotwire a car years ago, but with all these new ignition systems and the like i haven't kept the skill honed. i'm afraid i never had the agility to jump turnstiles, and where i'm from we pushed cows over for fun (i didn't but that's because i thought it was mean, not from any desire to obey the man).

Oh please, the demographics of the student bodies speaks for itself. I'm not saying the schools aren't making some efforts to help the disadvantaged. I am saying that it is much easier for children of upper income families to be accepted and attend Ivies, and that because of this many Ivy grads think they are smarter than they are.

You're right, LIC, that would never happen at Stanford or MIT. and i'm sure it's unheard of at Duke, UChicago, Amherst and the like. Why don't you try comparing their admissions statistics with those of HYP? i think a little bit of research may be appropriate, but i'd hate to give you any hard facts that might interfere with your prejudices.

For the record jumping the turnstile and other rites of urban passage were once not confined to the "outer boroughs". In the 1970s and earlier it was totally possible to learn and rely on these skills and others like them and live in Manhattan (including some of the now most "desirable" neighborhoods).

I have the same opinion about the other schools you mentioned.

I think the good students at all these schools are very smart, but I think there are equally intelligent students at lots of other schools as well, and that growing up in the right income demographic is as much a factor at getting into Ivy and Ivy-level schools as a person's natural intelligence. I don't know why this is such a touchy topic for you.

However, the ivy (and Stanford etc) kids ARE in fact smarter on average, dummy. They have higher grades and SAT and ACT and AP tests to prove it. All the things any college measures "smart" by. They are not INHERENTLY smarter, but being born upper middle or upper class in the US gets you better k-12 schooling, and also means your parents are more likely to have been college educated themselves - and better educated parents (particulary ones who have a lot of books in the house - this is actually far and away the #1 correlation, BTW) have "smarter" kids by the above measures at ALL income levels.

So being wealthy per se does not help you get into an ivy - and in fact, outside of the 10-15% of legacy admits, it actually HURTS you in and of itself. As in, a poor white kid with a 2200 SAT and in the top 5% of his high school class and a hard luck story stands a better chance of getting in to any of these schools than a kid from Hillsborough, CA or Greenwich CT with ith a 2200 SAT and in the top 5% of his high school class and a good luck story.

And both of these kids are in fact smarter than you LICcomment.

Perhaps because i was a disadvantaged youth who was pulled up out of the dung heap by a very generous ivy league institution? and because you are perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype? the public and private education in this society certainly is of generally little to no assistance in fostering any social mobility. that's not true at the college level. and since economic factors are not an issue at the top ivies, they have huge numbers of applications from the less advantaged. and they accept far more than almost any other schools. and they give them far better aid. so i'd say you're wrong.

College admissions measures are not the same as intelligence. jason, your second paragraph is completely off. Like I said, just look at the demographics of the student body.
You are both just making lots of conclusory statements with no real information supporting it.
It's too bad if my statements strike a blow to your ego, but the fact that your intelligence and natural abilities are not automatically higher and better than others who didn't attend the same type of school as you is not really an insult.

> and I went to the same NJ high school as the current president of Estonia.

So, you're not the only one from your high school with trouble reading and writing English.

> Nope. Ivy's are Ivy's. Cal Tech and Stanford aren't Ivy's, either.

To be fair, the Ivies work in tandem with the "Ivy Plus" schools. So, in terms of matching up things like curriculum and alumni things, they equate MIT and Stanford.

And thats it. No Harvard of the South. No "asked to be in ivies, but didn't join". No other "pseudo ivies".

Ivies, MIT, Stanford consider themselves in the same league, thats it...

Not to mention, NYU is a second tier business school at best. Possible third (if you include top 4 as a tier, which many recruiters will only look at).

> Went to what was at the time the one non-selected admission HS that gave both Bronx Science and
> Stuyvesant a run for their money in a lot of categories that you wouldn't expect (number of
> Westinghouse finalists and such).

Midwood?

I think they had like one year, but when you add up the history, nobody comes even close.

Midwood has also been seriously declining as of late... and is partially select-admission (where most of the top students come through).

"College admissions measures are not the same as intelligence. jason, your second paragraph is completely off. "

You really are stupid. i said "They have higher grades and SAT and ACT and AP tests to prove it. All the things any college measures "smart" by.."

Notice i put in "quotes." Or did they not teach you that at podunk U.? There is no other objective measure by which to say how "smart" kids are than to see what percentage were in the top 10% of their HS class, and what the average test scores are. Period. And by that measure, the ivies and the other top twenty five schools have kids who are "smarter' than the rest of college kids, on average.

> It says that families with incomes up to $200k can receive financial aid

Yes, if they have 3 kids in college, each paying $50k.

Use your brain.

Are four b-schools a tier? I think there are seven that have some affiliation....HBS, Wharton, Stanford, U Chicago, Northwestern, MIT...and maybe Tuck?

"I think the good students at all these schools are very smart, but I think there are equally intelligent students at lots of other schools as well"

Agree, they're just a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch smaller percentage. Top kids vs. top kids, there is still likely an edge (though smaller), the difference is the huge middle. HUGE differences.

And that can make all the difference, especially when you start getting to later years in school (at least the good ones) and have 5 folks in your seminar.

Yes, there are always "exceptions".

But, the best thing you can to to make smart kids smarter is to put them with other smart kids.

"growing up in the right income demographic is as much a factor at getting into Ivy and Ivy-level schools as a person's natural intelligence"

WAIT, NOW I GET IT!

LIC, had you gone to a better school, maybe you would have learned a little something about correlation versus causation.

Thats your huge mistake here.

Clearly LICC felt disadvantage...but clearly from his posts on this board, he is in [Ivy] league with the rest of us.

- Double Ivy (neither parent college educated)

nyc1022 and jason, if you two are Ivy grads, then you are making my point. Your reasoning, analytical and comprehension skills are mediocre at best.

WOW, we slammed LIC so hard he's only got personal insults left.

Well, at least he knows he lost the facts/logic argument.

(both parents cuny)

"Are four b-schools a tier? I think there are seven that have some affiliation....HBS, Wharton, Stanford, U Chicago, Northwestern, MIT...and maybe Tuck?"

Thats the one I'd decide to break or not. There are folks in several industries that say "go to these 4 or don't go at all".... HBS/Wharton/Stanford/Kellog.

MIT and Chicago are not top tier, even look at the admissions standards... and Tuck was considered its own thing (bad for finance, for instance, but some consulting firms seemed to dig it).

Of my MIT/Chicago friends, they have definitely not had the same opportunities as the big 4 ones.

I'm just pointing out observations, it's not personal.
nyc10022 still did nothing but make conclusory statements with nothing substantive backing them. I guess that is how he "slams" people. He is good at congratulating himself, I'll give him that.

"Midwood?

I think they had like one year, but when you add up the history, nobody comes even close.

Midwood has also been seriously declining as of late... and is partially select-admission (where most of the top students come through)."

Nope. Look at Cardozo for like the whole decade of the '70's.

"To be fair, the Ivies work in tandem with the "Ivy Plus" schools. So, in terms of matching up things like curriculum and alumni things, they equate MIT and Stanford."

I think you already know I agree (chose to go to Cornell even though I got accepted to Princeton and MIT due to my selected major. Didn't apply to any other Ivy's/pluses).

LICC - you and Alpine are the idiots of this board. No one has ever jumped to your aid or has done anything but rail you. Does that tell you anything about the strength of your logic and arguments? Is there anything dumber than buying an apartment LICC at the peak? If I had done something that stupid, I wouldn't show myself on these boards. Buying the top is bad. Buying the top in a shithole hood...essentially getting bent over buy developers...developers so stupid that many are now near bust...Its like being fooled by the biggest fools. How does it feel? Is that the decision process of an Ivy League intellect? You are the ass here.

This thread would have been more fun if it had been hijacked by a discussion about Colonial Colleges. For example, AlpineNJ's alma mater, Rutgers.

And who supports rhino beside nyc10022, another person with absolutely no respect on this blog?

Hmmm. LIC wants to talk credibility! ROFTL.

Dude, we've all read your posts, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The best part is, LIC can't even count.

Jason said to LIC... "You really are stupid." and there you are trying to argue with jasonkyle.

Wow, dude, you don't even know when everyone thinks you are a moron!

90 comments on this page, only 2 mention Sotomayor, 1 of which is a pathetic baseless smear "i'm not a smear person. i can't tell you how many sotomayor stories i've heard over the last fifteen years. probably only about 10, but you usually don't hear any stories about judges, particularly ones that call competence into question. "

not a baseless smear in the slightest. the husband has been practicing law in the city for 14 years, at top firms. my info comes from him and other attorneys i know, as well as personal experience.

this is way out of control. there will forever be a difference in opinion on sotomayor and her intelligence because we all seem to use different metrics to assess her. honestly, doesn't it really just come down to your political views and your opinion on her prior rulings?

that being said, i went to prep school, procrastinated and went to fordham business undergrad. (graduated near top of my class and am currently working on GMATs). a lot of my friends went to ivies. i can hold my own against them and forever find cases of the successful underdog - city college or community school grads who become immensely successful materially. that being said, there are absolutely brilliant ivy grads also (needless to say). there are public figures who represent both cases (i.e. ian schrager - city college kid, dr. mehmet oz - all ivy). Both successful in their own right, both incredibly intelligent.

bottom line, the correlation between intelligence or "smart-ness" and the caliber of the school from which one graduated from is pretty weak. it's like judging the value of a stock purely on P/E ratio - it's silly. you need to assess the whole picture in order to fully comprehend the person's potential.

No, it is a baseless smear and w`hat is your goal?
This woman is chosen to be our next Supreme Court Justice. Even Laura Bush is pleased.
If you had evidence, you'd say it. But you can't because there is none. And Obama and the Senate agree, she's the best candidate.

She's smart. Book smart, academic smart, street smart ---- smart all around.
It's Clarence Thomas who's the dimwit. And almost mute, to boot.

poorishlady, compared to clarence she's a goddess.

leeminors, i happen to agree with most of her positions. i'm very liberal, and who knows how she's going to fall on the issues, but generally she'll probably fall my way (although choice?). i still think she doesn't have much in the way of conviction, she hasn't been a particularly well regarded judge (by many), and obama is taking, once again, the low road rather than the high road.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I really think people have to look at property rights as a litmus test for Supremes much more closely than they are doing, and she is the poster child in my mind for dinging someone solely on that issue.

"she doesn't have much in the way of conviction, she hasn't been a particularly well regarded judge (by many), and obama is taking, once again, the low road rather than the high road.

So, you, who are a liberal activist, stay at home mother of one, dog sitter, and very active blogger, have heard from people your working husband knows that she isn't particularly well regarded (by many that you can't name and the news sources don't even know this and report this, and you can't and won't even given one specific example but you did hear stories). And you think Obama is doing a bad job, taking the low road.

Laughable.

This woman came from nothing, is a graduate of top schools, was nominated by her judgeship by a Republican President, has a 17 year history, now nominated for United States Supreme Court by the President of the United States, supported by the U.S. Senate, even Laura Bush is a fan. But not you. And not your husband's "friends"

@jasonkyle - shout out to a fellow Spellmanite!...Although I've never proved my toughness by jumping over turnstiles (illegal no?) or hot wiring a car, I have been 130 feet below the North Atlantic while SCUBA Diving on a wreck. ;-)

@jason10006 - loved your synopsis re: the "wise latina" quote. Nice to see someone realizes that quote has been blown way out of context.

@aboutready - there are always people who won't like your work. You may know of some lawyers who didn't like Judge Sotomayor's rulings. However I wouldn't be surprised that if she had ruled in their favor, they would have liked her rulings (and her) better. There are plenty of people going on record to state that they think she's a good judge--and some of them did not win favorable rulings!

@other posters- Ivy League vs. non-Ivy League - as someone who's worked and studied with both, my main criteria is common sense! You can be brilliant but if you don't have common sense you are nothing. I won't even share my personal horror stories but the history of LTCM (Nobel Prize winners!) comes easily to mind.

For the record, I was two years behind Judge Sotomayor at Cardinal Spellman High School. She was considered wicked smart at Spellman (valedictorian) and obviously did extremely well at Princeton (summa cum laude) and Yale (Law Review). She has a combination of great legal experience, common sense and book smarts--even Laura Bush is excited about her nomination-- as am I.

I have never said that she isn't smart. I have said that within the legal community she isn't considered a stellar judge. Laura Bush? Well, she hasn't always shown the best judgment, has she? And, it doesn't have to do with her rulings. Or her politics. This is not agenda based. It is the desire for a top quality judge.

Examples? Of her jurisprudence? How silly. And how silly that an opinion can't be expressed without personal attack. Clarence Thomas made it onto the court, as did a bunch of other lesser judges.

btw, i'm hardly alone in my opinion. and there are others (Brad DeLong, for one) for whom I have great respect as intellectuals who are excited about her nomination.

leeminors, the personal tone of your response is not attractive. piss off.

An endorsement by (Republican) Laura Bush is huge--especially after some of the asinine quotes from Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. If the Laura Bush endorsement wasn't big, it wouldn't be getting media attention.

that wasn't my point. and i'll certainly agree to the asinine qualities of Newt and Rush, regarding this issue and all others. i truly like Laura Bush, but i'm not sure i'd personally be that impressed by her endorsing anyone. but, as you say, it is a media event.

From what I have heard from people that have argued before the 2nd Circuit is that while she is not at the intellectual level of Scalia, Roberts or Ginsberg, she is very smart, she is always well-prepared and knowledgeable about the facts of the case before her, she is a very active questioner (to the point where it seems like she just wants to hear herself speak), becomes very engaged in the arguments and likes to cut through to the main points. I think some people mistake a direct style with a lack of intellect.
I think that of all the people Obama might have been expected to choose, she is not as liberal as others. She likely will vote with the Ginsberg/Breyer/Stevens side much more often than not, but she probably will be more moderate left than far left. However, it is hard to predict how nominees will eventually rule once they are on the bench.

hey aboutready... leeminors... 30yrs... just passing through... don't mind me...... just gonna grab that bag of potato chips and I'll be on my way out.... (whistling softly).....