Sonia Sotomayor's Greenwich Village condo

I just don't get the issue that people have with Sotomayor. Is she not liberal enough for the liberals, is she not a judicial activist, that they have to resort to Swift Boating one of their own? The cricisisms are like that scene in Ferris Bueler - I don't practice law but my husband's colleagues for 14 years heard that Sotomayor didn't rule their way in one case blah blah. These judges have to have substance when they rule, but there's no standard on this forum apparently for the unsubstantiated haters.

potato chips? I don't get it.

She's not liberal enough for the liberals, hence the problem. They wanted Obama to be an ultra-liberal, but he's smarter than that and that frustrates so many people after the 8 years of Bush.

potato chips. almost as good as swine and wine.

LIC, absolutely true that it is very difficult to predict how nominees will rule. some very conservative district court judges have become very different creatures when given the task of interpreting the constitution.

And it may be petty of me, but your point is my point. I'd really like to see someone of the intellectual level of Ginsberg appointed. This is the supreme court, after all, and it is a lifetime appointment.

It's not whether or not she's liberal to me. She treats people in her courtroom horribly, and for no other reason than she can do so. She plays alpha judge, and engages in counterproductive baiting. Some may call that being direct, I have other words for it. She has ruled in my husband's favor. Nonetheless, he felt, and others I have spoken with agree, that being in her courtroom is one of the worst experiences of his career.

Also, as much as I like and respect Ginsberg, she is basically ignored by the rest of the court, and they also at least respect her. How well do you think Sotomayor is going to do playing ball with Scalia and the other big boys?

The Ivy League and the High Court
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/ivy/?hp

Well, I was hoping to come here at the end of a long day and see some actual substantive criticism of Sotomayor, who, after all, has been a federal judge since 1992 and therefore has a 17 year career of public rulings to pick apart.

Instead of a single criticism of a ruling, we know that the husband of a poster whose prior best self defense was "piss off," heard that "She treats people in her courtroom horribly," and she "engages in counterproductive baiting."

Worse, she is belittled in a way that a white man wouldn't be, "How well do you think Sotomayor is going to do playing ball with Scalia and the other big boys?"

This thread had much potential but is a disappointment. Over 200 comments and not a single picture, floor plan, full description or any inside scoop related to the condo.

HDLC.. can you pass me the cheetos... thxs. man.

leeminors, i am female, obviously, and not a woman basher in the slightest. and if you'd spent any time on the threads here you'd know i'm not racist in the slightest.

the reality is a political one. it is more difficult for a woman, and she is not a stellar candidate. my husband has LOVED her rulings. he has always won in her court. that does not make her a stellar candidate for the Supreme Court.

And you're wrong, for many men i'd ask EXACTLY the same question, how well do you think they'd do playing ball with Scalia and the other big boys?

and to you, do you have some particular reason that you'd think she'd make a good supreme court justice? some ruling that shines? or is it just your opinion? kind of like this is just my opinion? I don't have a particular issue with her rulings. but the supreme court is MUCH more than that.

w67th, could you move on to air-popped popcorn? these snack desires of yours are making me crave.

HDLC, be a man/woman/whatever, find a floorplan, find a description, find a scoop (as long as it's not ice cream).

The building is sort of triangular shaped and I seem to remember it winning some architectural award for creative use of an odd shaped lot. The location is sort of odd because it's just West of the oddly split up intersection of Sixth Ave, Houston and Bedford, and feels a bit more like a Houston St extension than the Bedford St West of 7th Ave. The "A" line are 1 bedrooms and the "B" line are 2 bedrooms; she owns 5B which she bought for $360,000 from the Sponsor in 1998 and took 90% financing from Chase (an 80/10 loan), which she has since refied and taken additional loans for a current total indebtedness of $533,581 which is about 3 times her salary of $179,500.

Well I just hope Sonia's apartment looks nothing like the 1 BR railroad that's now available for rent at 3 Bedford because if she has over 500K in paper out on THAT, then I would consider it to be the most scandalous thing I've read thus far about our prospective Justice.

OK 30yrs, I missed your post as I was writing. That building doesn't look like much from the outside. Maybe the creative part is better represented in the interior of the "B" lines. Sonia probably used the money from her time as a law partner chasing down Fendi knockoffs to pay off those student loans. You won't get rich being a federal judge.

LICComment ----- You suggest she's not at the intellectual level of Scalia or Roberts??? Good god. You are misinformed, dear heart Both of those reactionary gents Scalia and Roberts worship at the shrine of the status quo are of the hardened and the fossilized. They haven't the suppleness to be intellectual ....... It's easy to fall down and suck male member of status quo male member.
It stuck in my craw that you dissed Sonia as regards intellect in contrast to two puke-inducing white boys. (Read the recent NEW YORKER piece by J. Toobin about the Roberts and Obama.)

Forgive my typos. I was a bit overwrought at the notion of "intellectual" linked with Roberts and Scalia.

poorishlady, very very funny. I do declare, i find i have the vapors.

sadly scalia is smart, but in a very nasty sort of way. and not intellectual.

Hey poor (aptly named),

Scalia is intellectual. You may disagree w/ his point of view, but that does not diminish his intellect.

The "old, white (dead) men" rant is getting stale.

dwell, i don't find scalia particularly intellectual. brilliant, yes. but he has very little flexibility of thought, something i think is necessary for all true "intellectuals."

who meets your standards?

Kagan, Wood. Going forward.

ar: intellectual, brilliant, however you want to say it, but certainly not a fossilized dolt as poor implied.

IMO, if ya make it to the SCOTUS, ya have to have some intellect, some brilliance.

IMO, Sottomayor opened her mouth too much about making the judiciary making policy & implying her ethnicity endows her with greater wisdom than that of others. I don't think she possess the requisite judicial temperament for the SCOTUS. Sonia on the SCOTUS would make a great Norman Lear 1970s sitcom: she could be the female George Jefferson of the bench.

Now that we cleared up Sonia's real estate matters, we are looking more closely at her personal life. Please provide any additional details after reading this article about her sex life: http://tinyurl.com/m5cca5

dwell, absolutely. we need gravitas, saddly lacking. and not ethnicity for it's own sake, just as i'd hope we wouldn't have choice based solely on gender.

If it turns out that she is just some run of the mill, boring ass heterosexual, I am going to be so pissed. It's just BULLSHIT, if Obama can't fill our quota, than fuck him! Why would we have wasted so much money getting him elected.

columbus, you fatuous pig. i don't give a rats' ass about her personal life, and you have more than once linked to a site that is nasty. go the fuck away.

Sex
life
I look at sonia
& think of gertrude stein
I love you alice b toklas

p09, i can't tell you how often i'm pissed that people are just their run of the mill whatever the fuck they are.

I left this note
just to say
couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone's sexual pref
and it was delicious

wc williams

@aboutready: we are not saying that she is a lesbian to be derogatory. We have no problem with it and think that it is great and she should just be comfortable being who she is. We'd like her to be open and public about it. It is nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. Its 11 years since Ellen DeGeneres came out, what is the big deal? While we oppose her as a Supreme Court justice, we think she makes a great West Village lesbian, so welcome to the party.

that's great that you have no problem with it. why does she need to prove to anyone that she's comfortable being who she is? why does she need to be public about it? what the hell does ellen degeneres have to do with it? we have the right to be stupid; why doesn't she have the right to privacy?

@columbiacounty: every Supreme Court nominee since Oliver Wendell Holmes has brought their spouse to the press conference where the President makes the announcement. Sonia left her girlfriend at home with the cats. . .how humiliating! We favor normalizing lesbianism. That was a big day for Sonia and she should not have hidden her life.

I hate this outing shit. Ellen, like many others, was comfortable doing it, others are not. Not everyone wants to bear their sexuality on their sleeve. Freedom of choice. Go do something useful instead of being an annoying gnat. Go work in a soup kitchen.

ar and poorish - you two are obviously too politically biased to be objective. You don't consider Roberts to be highly intellectual? I don't agree with Ginsberg's opinions but I can objectively respect her intelligence. Your opinions are too tainted to take seriously if you can't give people due respect if you disagree with them.

i agree with dwell absolutely. if i want to dress up in whatever clothing using large sexual devices instead of a "personal" relationship what the hell difference is it to you. and who has a rats ass clue who the spouses or partners of the justices are. really.

"if i want to dress up in whatever clothing using large sexual devices"

ar: I'm gettin exciiiited!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the ironic narcissistic blind spot of people like columbo: they think they are right & they don't care who they hurt as they press their views.

hey, columbo, if you want to help gay & lesbian people, do it in a useful way & stop deluding yourself by outing those who do not wish to be outed.

LIC, could you PLEASE get your negativity fucking straight. I never said anything about Roberts.

poorish did. The point holds for Scalia too.

Scalia & Ginsburg are the smarty pants on the court. Scalia has a wicked way with words, just wicked. It almost hurts that he's on the other side.

10023 YES, which is why we need our own Scalia. Ginsburg is just as smart, but she's not the powerhouse.

She's smart, but that man can write. I had to be careful reading some of his opinions, almost made me switch sides. The most dishonest and unintellectual thing about him is his absolute failure to recognize that his views are 100% formed by his upbringing and his personal inclination and NOTHING to do with the Constitution. He is just so intellectually capable that he is able to reconcile the Constitution with his personal POV.

I don't know if Kagan is it, AR. There are some brilliant legal minds out there in the pipeline. Akhil Amar is a tremendous intellect. And would fill another ethnic seat :)

One of Scalia's most noted writings is his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. He basically went into a rant against gays and their lifestyle since he said that legalizing sodomy would lead to incest and polygamy.

Yep, who hasn't read it? It's so wrong but so good. Almost persuaded me before I caught myself. I'm a big Posner fan, but he's too old.

I think Kagan would be far better than Sotomayor. Don't know about Amar, send me some links, if you would. Wood would be a much better addition than sotomayor. another position seems certain soon. do you really need to be all things to all people right now? although i am all for filling moe than one seat with one person, if feasible.

nyc10023, good call on Amar. Had a fantastic class w/ him once. I always hoped he'd get a nod.

AR: There are way too many. All good.

Yeah, what law school student wishes he/she can't write & think like Amar? He makes it so obvious. Kinda like Scalia (but I already told you he's evil).

If it's true she is a closeted lesbian, I think it's a bad idea. I'm against "closeted" people of any stripe in such positions because it always ends up being a distraction or scandal. I'd feel the same way if it were some straight male WASP who was secretly screwing porn stars. In both cases you'd probably end up with them stopping seeing anyone, and I don't want anyone on the high court who isn't "getting any".

"The most dishonest and unintellectual thing about him is his absolute failure to recognize that his views are 100% formed by his upbringing and his personal inclination and NOTHING to do with the Constitution."

good point 10023, but on another level, are we ever able to escape the ramifications of our upbringings & inclinations? I don't think we ever completely escape these things, even when we try to do so. And, in our efforts to escape them, do we not inversely affirm them?

Sorry, watched too many Ingmar Bergman movies last wknd. But, betcha dat's what Bergman would say, but in swedish.

I think Kagan is closeted too? I'm all about having 2 women on the court, but there are better candidates. I'd forgotten how much I liked Amar.

Dwell: we can, we can! We are creatures of (some) free will. Though Scalia will cunningly frame it as bending the Constitution to suit the mood of the day, as he did with O'Connor. Too tired and dumb right now to think of a good counter-argument.

I think that it's possible to be of a persuasion other than a complete product or complete disaffirmation of one's upbringing.

30yrs, who gives a rats ass? her being a lesbian is irrelevant, and it doesn't seem so closeted does it? and do i need to tell the world i'm hetero and active? give me an f'ng break. i'm ancient, but you're pushing up the pyramids.

I agree 10023, but, I am dumb tired too. Buona notte.

AR: 10 years ago, her being lesbian would have been relevant, and I think it's relevant today. Only because there are laws that still discriminate against lesbians. How could one be impartial? And she cannot be closeted for the same reason. It's irrelevant that you're hetero because that is not a status that receives unequal treatment under the law.

I suppose you could say that to some extent about all judges - i.e. how could they be impartial if they are X, Y, or Z? But given the current legal issues (gay marriage, don't ask, don't tell, blablabla), I think it's less easy for Sotomayor to claim impartiality if she is a lesbian.

As to Scalia, he was probably a masterful high school debater. The key skill there is the ability to take a position and find ways to argue it. Would I want him as my lawyer? absofuckinglutely. Do I think those same skills make him a brilliant judge? No, because the approach is, or should be, different.

A conservative I've always respected is William Safire. Although that may be because I discovered his "On Language" columns before his editorials.

So someone who doesn't fall into any protected categories at all is somehow less biased?

what is wrong with us? who you choose to sleep with and what you choose to do with them in the privacy of your home is your own damn business. i am not a lesbian but think it is wrong to discriminate against them. so, if i am a lesbian, and i hold that point of view, it is suddenly suspect? can't a person have sex in peace? where do we draw the line here? do i need to reveal favorite positions because of fear of discriminating against others who favor different positions. this is nuts.

yes, cc, and can't we just pick SOMEONE WHO CAN BE AN F'NG GOOD JUDGE ON THE SUPREME COURT? if we can't have sex in peace, i have some issue with the gov't. although i'd guess that the gov't would say that you might have sex in peace depending where you are, but they still want to monitor you.

"30yrs, who gives a rats ass? her being a lesbian is irrelevant, and it doesn't seem so closeted does it? and do i need to tell the world i'm hetero and active? give me an f'ng break. i'm ancient, but you're pushing up the pyramids."

McGreevey, Spitzer, Craig,

not sure that these are analagous situations. mcgreevey was having an affair behind his wife's back, I think. and spitzer....if the judge is unmarried and having consensual sex with an adult, what of it?

This country is amazingly prudish and anything regarding sex is scandalous. If she becomes a Supreme and goes out on ONE DATE with a woman (and especially if there's any possibility they had sex) the "moral majority" will be making a big enough deal about it that it will become very difficult for her to do her job effectively. Remember all the time spent ov er a pubic hair on a can of Coke with Thomas?

must confess that i didn't follow the pubic hair on the coke can story or perhaps i have blocked it.

Mmmm, let me think. Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage... following MA and ME and CT and VT and NH. Dick Cheney (who has a gay daughter) states that he believes in same-sex marriage (although individual states should decide). I think most Americans believe what someone does in their own bedroom is their own business (as long as it's legal, thank you). I'm one of them. I'm more concerned with how well you do your job. Since as we all know, not doing your job well can lead to the collapse of the world's financial system and other disasters.

Sotomayor Confirmed by Senate, 68-31

thanks goodness

I'm pretty happy for New York

how does your dentist feel?

I don't know about this being good for New York or for anyone. This woman is too liberal and feels that race matters. Maybe some things will work out, but this isn't a true fair jurist.

oh christ. how often can that comment be misinterpreted?

columbiacounty, good question I actually kind of wonder about what the doctors to the Senators and Supreme Court Justices know that the rest of us don't.

she'll probably rent it out.

It isn't appropriate to be making fun of a Supreme Court Justice.

Since this popped up again, I have to say that as respected as Ginsberg is, her dissent in Ricci was intellectually embarrassing.

For the record:

I know Justice Sotomayor--not well, but I used to live on her block and we have several good friends in common. She is exceptionally smart, hard-working, personable, and qualified for this job. The idea that she lacks 'intellectual heft' is just absurd. Who says she isn't an intellectual? Actually, she is. But more than that, she's a brilliant lawyer and a high quality judge.

Will she make a good justice? I have no idea, and it is really impossible to know. Bill Brennan, probably the greatest justice of the 20th century, said that there was no job that prepared you for the work of the court. He himself was a relatively undistinguished state court judge in New Jersey before being elevated to the court. He was also appointed by a moderate Republican but turned out to be the court's greatest liberal. So we don't know. But based on her resume, her background, and her personality, she is eminently qualified.

I am surprised people are so comfortable making racist slurs against Sotomayor and the President. These are some of the most accomplished and clearly intelligent public servants we have. You certainly are entitled to dislike them and to disagree with them. But to question their intelligence in the face of all evidence just reveals racism and ignorance.

happyrenter, no problems until that last paragraph. how dare you accuse someone of racism and ignorance because they do not care for her as a supreme court justice, due to many factors? i guess anyone who had any issues with Thomas was a racist as well? what an argument that is, you don't care for a latina so you must be racist.

i'm all for minorities and women on the court, i just didn't care for this one. and i'm hardly alone in that opinion.

Did you actually read the comment:

"You certainly are entitled to dislike them and to disagree with them."

in other words: I do NOT "accuse someone of racism or ignorance because they do not care for her as a supreme court justice, due to many factors." i think it is perfectly fine to dislike her or think she would make a lousy judge, and you are entitled to that viewpoint.

please don't attack me for something i didn't say.

sorry hr, but i'm the one who initally wrote that i felt she lacked intellectual heft. and i wrote of other factors that made me feel she would be less suited than some. btw, i certainly put her in a very different category than Thomas, it's just that i think the supreme court is a vitally important body and deserves the very, very best.

aboutready,

listen, i don't know what your criteria are for the 'very best,' and it is possible that you simply have major ideological issues with Sotomayor. of course that's fine. i am not inside her head, and neither are you, so we have no way of knowing for sure what her weather she's an intellectual heavyweight or middleweight. all we have to go on is the evidence. and all the evidence i have seen is that she is at the very top intellectual level.

as for my concern about racism, is it not interesting that the only two justices who have their intelligence questioned are the two non-white justices? no one has ever accused anthony kennedy of being a genius, but i don't here his intelligence besmirched. john roberts was a hugely successful lawyer, but is he an intellectual? i have seen no evidence to suggest that he is. as for clarence thomas, my problems with him have nothing to do with his brainpower, which i assume is sufficient for a supreme court justice (although his experience was insufficient at the time of his appointment). my problem is with his judicial behavior and constitutional approach--same as my problems scalia, roberts, and alito. and, for that matter, there is not ONE true liberal on the supreme court right now. It's a shame.

the only reason i mentioned thomas was because of the controversy that surrounded his appointment. i have major issues with scalia, alito, et al. ideologically. ironically, i have few major issues with Sotomayor idealogically. and none in terms of race. the need for someone who can hold his/her own with scalia was paramount to me, and maybe i'll be positively surprised.

as i've written before, a good amount of my opinion has been formed from conversations with people i respect who have had experience with her, and i have been in her courtroom as well. many judges become very different creatures when appointed to the supreme court. time will tell.

scalia is a loudmouth, but not particularly dangerous. he has had very little luck over the years bringing judges to his positions. roberts is far more dangerous.

as for holding their own, stephen breyer and john paul stevens and ruth ginsburg are all easily scalia's intellectual and judicial equals. time will tell about sotomayor. but whether or not she makes a great judge, i can assure you that her intelligence will not be a problem.

hr, you obviously are biased because you know her and because of your liberal views. I am very pleased with Obama's selection of Sotomayor. Of all the people you would expect to be on Obama's short list, she seems to be a moderate liberal with pragmatic views. She seems very intelligent and she certainly has excellent qualifications. But what "evidence" do you see that she is an intellectual heavyweight on par with Roberts? Her 19 years of rulings all seem to stay within the lines of her cases, she hasn't published anything that displays her intellectual views on the law, government, politics, etc. During her hearings she stuck to a limited script. She did not answer any question in any way that shed light on her legal analysis or views. She basically explained past court precedent to answer every substantive legal question, without giving her opinion about any of those precedents.

Happy Wenta said: "I know Justice Sotomayor...Will she make a good justice? I have no idea, and it is really impossible to know. Bill Brennan, probably the greatest justice of the 20th century, said ..."

LOL. Bill Brennan. In many years of following the court, I don't ever recall him being referred to as anything other than "William Brennan". But then, since you "know Justice Sotomayor", perhaps you are on a first name basis with other justices, as well?

Do you and Tony Scalia go on annual summer fishing trips to Maine?

Is Sammy Alito in your fantasy baseball league?

How about Ruthy "Sugartits" Ginsburg? An old flame, perhaps?

Gosh, this leaves me w little room to point out the most blatantly false, self-denying statement you've made in reply to your comment above:

"I do NOT "accuse someone of racism or ignorance ...please don't attack me for something i didn't say."

Actual quote: "I am surprised people are so comfortable making racist slurs against Sotomayor and the President."

LOL. What a boob...

1 - you are racist
2 - homophobe
3 - sexist
4 - legitimately concerned over the "wise latina" remarks and similar
5 - republican
6 - you appeared before her in court and either lost or had a hard time

Those are the reasons why any given person could be against Sotomayor.

Saying she's not intellectual enough is just a disguise for one of the above. Might as well come clean.

"Saying she's not intellectual enough is just a disguise for one of the above. Might as well come clean"

What about the fact that her peers rated her temperment as subpar for a supreme court justice? Intelligence isnt the only measure of performance.

Why are you spiteful?

Why is hating someone's prejudice against white male's spiteful? This woman flat-out told us that a "Wise Latina" would make better choices than a white male. Her whole career (like that of Injustice Ginsberg, I might add) has been focused on introducing gender and race based preferences into what is supposed to be color-blind decision making. She juked and jived and back-pedaled mightily (essentially saying, "Why, I have NOTHING but admiration for white males, despite my 20 yrs of comments to the contrary!") and the Senate pretended they believed her.

These are facts. You can argue they will have a postive or negative influence on American society, i.e., you can assert they are good facts or deleterious facts. But they are facts nonetheless.
"Spite" has nothing to do with it. In fact, your comment couldn't be more 180 degrees diametrically opposed to the truth, because in fact it is the gender-based and race-based advocates who are largely spiteful. A person who is genuinely interested in justice tries to reach some settlement, some resolution, because he or she is principally satisfied with the status quo and is confident with his ability to compete on a level playing field. But a person who genuinely feels themselves inferior is never satisfied no matter how much White Males concede to them, despite his or her Wise comemnts to the contrary. They are less interested in bringing themselves up than in bringing Da Man down to their level. THAT is spite...

p.s. I love how Fred Reed described Injustice Sotomayor: "Another brown female who doesn't know how her car works, blathering on about white males"...

That is TRULY racist and inciting hate. Ironically exactly why we need her there.

Sorry guy, Hitler orchestrated the biggest mass murders in history. This comparison is inappropriate. No one here is promoting murder, genocide, death of entire races.

"This comparison is inappropriate. No one here is promoting murder, genocide, death of entire races."

Au Contraire, it's entirely appropriate to compare Hitler's public statements before von Hindenburg's death, that is, before he held any real power, to Sotomayor's statements during her days on the federal bench (in which she did actually hold significant power). Nothing in Mein Kampf, for example, speaks of genocide. In fact, it basically says that one group of people (Wise Germans) will always make better decisions than another group of people (people of Jewish descent). This differs in no significant way from saying that a group of people, in this case Wise Latinas, will always make better decisions than another group of people (white males). Either has a distinct totalitarian bent, and history has shown that people who make such statements, and who ultimately come to a position where they have no check on their power, will ultimately abuse such power.

In short, absent the other 8 justices on the court, I have a sinking feeling that Mzzzzzzzzz. Sotomayor would turn out to be a totalitarian in the Stalinist, Maoist, or Obamaist tradition...

Comparing the Supreme Court justice to Hitler is such nasty politics. I don't particularly care for her statements on the Wise Latina and am concerned about the implications. But I'm not fearful she's going to be Hitler. dredbart is correct, I don't care if she's growing the moustache and waiving her hand in the salute. We just don't minimize the Holocaust and World War 2 by comparing non-violent people with Hitler. It's offensive to the memories of all who were murdered. Please reconsider.

? are you nuts:

columbiacounty
2 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse

how does your dentist feel?

Dwayne,

Evidently you know as little about Hitler as you do about Sotomayor. Have you actually read Mein Kampf?

You describe it thus: "In fact, it basically says that one group of people (Wise Germans) will always make better decisions than another group of people (people of Jewish descent). This differs in no significant way from saying that a group of people, in this case Wise Latinas, will always make better decisions than another group of people (white males)."

Of course, Sotomayor never said what you claim she said (note your insertion of the word 'always'). But here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf:

The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth%u2026 Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism.

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? If you cut even cautiously into such an abscess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light - a kike!

These are equivalent to Sotomayor saying that she would hope that a "Wise Latina" (in other words, not any Latina, but a wise one), could in some circumstances make a better decision because of her experiences? That makes her the equivalent of Hitler?

Moreover, you ask:

"What about the fact that her peers rated her temperment as subpar for a supreme court justice? "

I assume you are referring to the random comments from some lawyers who appeared before her and didn't like being questioned aggressively. I there something else? SInce all of her judicial colleagues, not to mention the ABA, endorsed her and spoke glowingly about her work, I'm not really sure what to make of your statement. Her 'peers' are appeals court judges. not one of them has questioned her 'temperament'.

Why don't you learn something before you talk.

As for your butchering of my quote to, again, make it look like I said something I didn't, well, that's just par for the course with you.

LICC,

A couple points:

My liberal views do not 'bias' me in favor of Sotomayor. The dispose me to her--although, in fact, I don't consider her much of a liberal. She's a moderate. But in any case, the fact that I think she is more often right then wrong is a legitimate view, not a bias.

The second part of your post is more interesting:

But what "evidence" do you see that she is an intellectual heavyweight on par with Roberts? Her 19 years of rulings all seem to stay within the lines of her cases, she hasn't published anything that displays her intellectual views on the law, government, politics, etc. During her hearings she stuck to a limited script. She did not answer any question in any way that shed light on her legal analysis or views. She basically explained past court precedent to answer every substantive legal question, without giving her opinion about any of those precedents.

There are a few ways to respond. First, what evidence do you possess that John Roberts is an intellectual heavyweight. If he is the standard, I don't think she has anything to worry about. Roberts does not have an extensive publication history. He was a mid-level and then high-level political appointee in several Republican administrations. He was an enormously successful litigator. And he spent a few short years as a judge. I happen to believe that he is quite brilliant, but is there any more 'evidence' in his background to show that he is an 'intellectual heavyweight' than there is in Sonia Sotomayor's?

Second, you refer to the fact that her rulings 'stay within the lines' of her cases. Well, yes. That's her job. It's not like she had another option.

Third, you critique her performance at the nomination hearings where she supposedly didn't answer the questions sufficiently. Have you ever watched John Roberts' hearing. He's quite the charmer but it's not like he seriously answered legal questions.

Sotomayor rose to the very top of the legal/judicial profession after graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, from Yale Law School, and being identified by some of the leading men of the previous generation (Morgenthau, Moynihan) as one of the top young lawyers around. Based on her choice of field, she has demonstrated the highest level of achievement. There is really nothing more we could ask of her. Obama could have chosen a professional legal scholar--Pamela Karlan, say. I would like him to make a choice like that at some point. But given that every current justice was previously a judge, it is hard to criticize Sotomayor for being a judge, or to claim that being an excellent judge is not sufficient evidence of intellectual heft to warrant an appointment to the supreme court.

Happy Wenta said: "I assume you are referring to the random comments from some lawyers who appeared before her and didn't like being questioned aggressively. I there something else? Since ***ALL*** (emphasis mine) of her judicial colleagues, not to mention the ABA, endorsed her and spoke glowingly about her work ... not one of them has questioned her 'temperament'.

Why don't you learn something before you talk."

LOL. You just make it too easy, sometimes. I was actually referring to Sotomayor's entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of judges and lawyers who work with them.

Here are some of the comments regarding Sotomayor:

- "She is a terror on the bench."
- "She can be difficult."
- "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."
-"She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."
- "She abuses lawyers."
- "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."
-"She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

Personally, I'm happy about the appointment of Sotomayor. I was afraid Obama would appoint a genius of liberal thought, a counterweight to Scalia, who would lead more opinions that his peers. Or a very effective but low-key justice, a balance to Roberts or Alito. But instead, he appointed a Clarence Thomas - someone who will be regarded as a lightweight by her peers, will author few opinions, and ask few questions (not initially, but I predict that after her peers snicker at a emotional outbursts similar to those described above, Sotomayor will clam up for the next 20 yrs on the court).

The other reason I like her appointment is that she's a diabetic, and they usually don't live much past the early 70's. Clarence Thomas was 43 when nominated, and might have reasonably been expected to serve 40-45 yrs on the court. Sotomayor will likely last 20, at most. But maybe such a Wise Latina can outsmart even disease?

"Dwayne,

Evidently you know as little about Hitler as you do about Sotomayor. Have you actually read Mein Kampf?"

Yessiree. And your quotes above prove my point: None of them directly advocate violence, rather, they assert the primacy of Germans relative to Jews. You've left out the quotes that assert how wise and lovely Germans are. Taken together, they conclude Germans are wise and Jews are not. Sort of like someone saying a wise person of one culture would ***ALWAYS*** make better decisions than a person of another culture or gender. As proof that she said that comment, remember that she has spent much of the last month running away from it. ("What I meant wuz, I LUV white males!!").

about 1 hour ago
ignore this person "We just don't minimize the Holocaust and World War 2 by comparing non-violent people with Hitler. It's offensive to the memories of all who were murdered. Please reconsider."

This is one canard I'm not going to sustain. Firstly, having lost relatives in WWII,
-
Your kind of hatred doesn't distinguish if your relatives were victims of the same thing that you preach today. And if you lost your relatives in the Holocaust or fighting for the Allied forces, it doesn't mean you aren't a bad person today.

happyrenter, you bias quite clearly is affecting your views here. I didn't criticize Sotomayor. I think she is very intelligent and a good choice. I pointed out that you do not have this "evidence" of her brilliance relative to the Supreme Court. Many people do well in school and in their jobs. If you are familiar with Circuit Court opinions, judges vary in how they draft their opinions. Some stay strictly within the lines of their cases while others expand more on descriptions and analysis of legal policy. One of the things that hurt Bork was the opposition to a lot of the dicta and analysis that came from his opinions.
I never said that you were able to tell if Roberts was an intellectual heavyweight before his nomination. I think you are just assuming that Sotomayor is intellectually brilliant because she is more consistent with your views than conservative justices.