Sonia Sotomayor's Greenwich Village condo

"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."

Waaaaaagh! Shall I get you a towel to cry on? What a child. Someone is a "bad person" if they disagree with you? Mentally, you are a minor.

Translation: Buying an apartment is like your family being exterminated by the Nazis. Brokers are stormtroupers. Sonya Sotomayor has personally machine gunned down thousands and has overseen the gas chambers. Square footage calculations are used to figure out how many people to fit into a concentration camp. If you don't like it, tough, the Holocaust is real and is happening every day in New York City. Try going to Disney and see how the real estate market is in Florida or Southern California.

Can someone please eliminate Dwayne_Pipe now and for good?

LOL. Let's try to figure out which broker with multiple ID's tomtone is.

Can someone please eliminate self-interested broke-whores from StreetEasy now and for good?

"Brokers are stormtroupers."

Oh please. In every account I've ever read, Stormtroopers were ruthless, cunning sorts driven by ideology more than self-interest. Real estate brokers are hapless boobs solely interested in how much of OTHER people's real estate investment they can leach off the next transaction; better to compare them with the little squiggly things that crawl out when you over-turn a rock.

I don't care your opinions on real estate or brokers. I'm not a buyer or a seller right now and I'm definitley not a broker. But how dare you treat the Holocaust lightly.

You are a real jerk Dwayne

How does real estate have to do with Sotomayor or Nazis?

"But how dare you treat the Holocaust lightly."

Oh, stuff it Wshana. No one is treating anything lightly. I'll bet I have more relatives who've died in WWII than you and all the non-observant members of your Temple. And I'll bet I've read more about it, toured more of the camps than you have, and lived in Europe which has given me a unique perspective on the matter. But every time someone tries to relate recent history to topical events, some spoiled american princess who likely has never been abroad except for her shopping trips to Milano starts wailing and nashing her teeth. Save it. Those of us who have lived a little closer to this regard you and your type as silly and uniformed about the topic you are bleating on about, and it does not impede our willingness to comment on the topic. Not even ONE. LITTLE. BIT.

"You are a real jerk Dwayne"

Nanny nanny boo boo...are you gonna cwy? At least you can learn from Dwayne. I predicted the real estate crash when 95% of people on boards like this said "its just gonna keep goin' up and up FOREVER!". But what about ME? What could I possibly learn from twits like you? Other than having you serve as a negative example.

You don't DESERVE Dwayne Pipe, and so Dwayne is going to go on a long vacation. Dwayne's cousin will be filling in for Dwayne in his absence.

Dwayne's cousin will be filling in for Dwayne in his absence.

oh good, Admiral will be back

"How does real estate have to do with Sotomayor or Nazis?"

You're joking, right?? The real estate crash has EVERYTHING to do with Nazi's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmcf4Y3lGM

We've talked about Real Estate, Nazi's, Wise Latina's, Liberal judges, Injustice Sotomayor, etc.

Only the consumate latter-day totalitarian shrew nag, Hitlary Clinton, could tie it all together. Take it away, babe:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/lost-in-translation-clinton-says-she-not-bill-is-the-secretary-of-state.html

how is it that such a direct question at the open of this chat has evolved to this?

As to the original question;

"If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed and moves to Washington, D.C., how much do you think she will get for her 999 square foot Greenwich Village condo? The full description of the condo is here:"

If she's using Charlie Rangel's accountant, I'd say zero. :)
(can someone tell me how this man is not going to jail??)

This is one of my favorite discussions for dissecting the supposed intellect of our friend aboutready who can't site a single reason why SHE dislikes this Supreme Court justice (nominee at the time of the thread).

And then aside from intellect, one of streeteasy's most nasty posters (that's aboutready for all those who are confused ... ask her, maybe she won't tell you to fuck off of piss off of call you a piece of shit) tells us how she's heard from others (again, not primary knowledge) how this judge doesn't have judicial temperment. The irony coming from the woman who said this, "i'm just a miserable, jobless, useless piece of human excrement (OK, i'm libelling myself, really just a dilettante), who needs to find some focus." and this rather modest claim, "i do tend to go ballistic every couple of months."

well, it looks like all the bad publicity did the Wise Latina some good because now she's large & in charge! (no pun intended).

How horrible to see for some of us
:)

Sotomayor Puts Stamp on a Day at Court, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: October 9, 2009

WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor may be new, but she is not shy. She quickly established herself this week as a significant force in Supreme Court arguments, asking clipped, pointed and sometimes impatient questions.
Skip to next paragraph
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Justice Sonia Sotomayor , in her court finery for a Supreme Court group portrait on Sept. 29.
Multimedia
Milestones: Sonia SotomayorInteractive Feature
Milestones: Sonia Sotomayor
Related
Times Topics: Sonia Sotomayor

Her predecessor, Justice David H. Souter, was also an active questioner. But his inquiries tended to be elaborate and beautifully calibrated. Justice Sotomayor’s questions sometimes sounded more like a cross-examination.

In the first argument on Monday, in a case about when questioning may resume after a criminal suspect asks for a lawyer, she fired nine questions in a row at Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler of Maryland. The questions methodically cut Mr. Gansler’s argument down to its essence.

“He said, ‘I don’t want to talk to you without a lawyer,’ correct?” Justice Sotomayor said of the suspect.

Mr. Gansler said yes.

“And the state doesn’t provide him with a lawyer, correct?” Justice Sotomayor went on.

“That’s correct,” Mr. Gansler said.

“All right,” Justice Sotomayor said, having cleared away the factual underbrush. “So what gives him an understanding that one will be provided the next time he’s questioned?”

Mr. Gansler did not respond directly, and Justice Sotomayor had made her point: the defendant should not be made to ask for a lawyer a second time when his first effort had yielded nothing.

Justice Sotomayor’s attire was consistent with her businesslike attitude. She had shed the elaborate white judicial collar she wore at her investiture and at a special session of the court in September. Now she wore a plain black robe.

Many of her questions concerned the factual record. “Could I have a clarification of the facts for a moment?” she asked one lawyer. “Are you sure?” she asked another. She admonished a third lawyer for using “buzz words.”

Her style was informal. “Can I ask you something?” she said in introducing one question. The correct answer to that particular query, by the way, ought to be obvious.

O’Connor Looks Back

It is too soon, of course, to gauge how influential Justice Sotomayor will be with her colleagues or even how her influence will be felt. In remarks at William & Mary Law School last weekend, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the court in 2006, said there were many misconceptions about how decisions there get made.

“It isn’t running down next door and twisting an arm or going to lunch,” Justice O’Connor said. “That’s not how it works.” The justices persuade each other, if they do, by the quality of their reasoning, she said.

She added that she felt that the influence of some of the decisions she had left behind was diminishing. “Some have stood the test of time,” Justice O’Connor said. “Others are being dismantled.”

She did not sound pleased about the developments. “What would you feel?” she asked her questioner, Joan Biskupic of USA Today. “I’d be a little bit disappointed. If you think you’ve been helpful, and then it’s dismantled, you think, ‘Oh, dear.’ But life goes on. It’s not always positive.”

Court Diversity

Justice Sotomayor’s chair was empty on Wednesday during an argument in a case about the settlement of a copyright class action. She had disqualified herself, apparently because she had served as the trial judge in a related case.

Justice Sotomayor is the only justice who has served on a trial court. In another respect, she is just like all of her colleagues: they were all federal appeals court judges before they joined the Supreme Court. That is a new phenomenon. Until 2006, there had never been a Supreme Court made up entirely of former federal appeals court judges.

Seven of the nine current justices, moreover, came from appeals courts in the Boston-to-Washington corridor. Justice O’Connor was asked about the lack of geographical diversity on the court, and she answered with a surprising non sequitur.

“I don’t think they should all be of one faith,” she said, “and I don’t think they should all be from one state.”

With the addition of Justice Sotomayor, there are now six Roman Catholics on the court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer are Jewish. Not so long ago, there was casual talk of a “Jewish seat” and a “Catholic seat” on the court.

“Now we have a single ‘Protestant seat,’ ” said Jeffrey A. Segal, who teaches political science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “It belongs to John Paul Stevens, and he is 89.” There have been hints that Justice Stevens is planning to retire at the end of this term.

In a 2003 speech at Brandeis School of Law, Justice Ginsburg said the court had reached the end of an era as far as religion was concerned.

“No one regarded Ginsburg and Breyer as filling a Jewish seat,” she said. “Both of us take pride in and draw strength from our heritage, but our religion simply was not relevant to President Clinton’s appointment.”

bump?

thanks, makes it easier to review.

you honestly set out to abuse someone relentlessly because they didn't appreciate a supreme court candidate's style in the courtroom? and that some people felt she wasn't the best candidate?

like there can't be healthy debate on the issues? what, you think people should blindly accept?

this amazes me. i'm getting stalked by a psycho because i voiced an opinion on an anon board that meant literally nothing and yet he/she thinks i should still be abused.

I thought you were ignoring hfscomm1.

not any more. fucktard.

is nopigs the same as hfscomm?

jim, likely. there are those who swear so. i think the style is a bit different. but maybe a very clever psychopath could keep the styles seperate.

hfscomm1
about 24 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
aboutready
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse
well, you won't be part of the conversation or even group then. no handle or relationship to a handle, no entry. maybe you can come as malraux.

and if you pick a handle, you'll just have to wonder whether we've already met that person.

ABOUTREADY, YOU _REALLY_ THINK YOU ARE MORE CLEVER THAN ME?

aboutready
about 24 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
yes

i can't tell you how much i'd like to meet you. so do come. please.

"so do come"?

Why do you write like some stuck up 1950s boarding school teacher?

why do you act like some nasty fucked up psychopath?

When you call me a psychopath, is that your expert medical opinion or your expert legal opinion?

look inward. i said "act like". not hard to find the behaviors on the net. i could be a total lay person and with a bit of research understand your "needs".

Not hard to find behaviors on the "net" but yet you can't even verify words you've stated when posted verbatim.

you're a nasty, mean-spirited person. piss off.

Why don't you just ignore me?

why don't you just ignore me?

I don't want to ignore you.

I usually don't check out the politics threads, and I don't care if she is a lesbian or not.
But I've got some out of town and overseas guests, and they love SE. As one just said: "It's sooo New York!" (In the best possible way). They are envious of us, and want to move here; just to be in the mix on SE. I'd be curious to know how many of us are native New Yorkers?

Oh, and another will add "Fucktard" to his put-down vocabulary. The best he ever came up with is:"I fart in your general direction!"
And, thems fightin' words, where he comes from.

truth, i'm not a native new yorker. but i have a child who is. so, by extension...

i've been here for most of the last 26 years.

i think liz, ah, cc, maybe falco, ubottom, are native new yorkers. many others, i'm sure.

West 67th at least went to HS here although I'm not sure where he was born. And 30 years grew up in Queens..I'll leave it open to discussion if that counts. Since my own Native New York cred is so impeccable (two generations back!), I'll be generous and say it does.

Isn't it kind of cool that Sonia S. won $8,000 playing poker one day at a casino in ------ I forgot where but someplace Atlantic Seaboard. My brother told me this was no big deal and why was I so impressed .....
She reported it in her taxes ...
Oh, it was mentioned in a recent New Yorker piece on her ....
Now SHE'S a native New Yorker .....

Liz: Yes, your street(easy) cred is undeniable! Aboutready: 26 years, and a child born here -- you've got the goods -- you're in. Alan Hart is one of my favorites. He even gave up his secret ingredient for crabcake breading, to me in true helpful native New Yorker style. I'm a native New Yorker. And now my guests can see that, even if they are not; they can learn a few things here on SE. Almost enough to "pass".

poorishlady: Yes, it is kinda cool.

Sonia S is a total Bronx girl..the real Jenny from the block without the bullshit. "Just Another Girl on The Irt" like me who fortunately did not suffer the fate of the heroine of that movie. Black, white, Latina...all of us take a lot of pride in her accomplishment.

My respect for her as a symbol (not to mention the fact that she will my undying affection for saving baseball) does not detract from respect I have for AR's greater insight into her knowledge, behavior and competency as a jurist. Just because I think she's cool does not mean she was a perfect SC choice and when someone who knows a heck of a lot more about the legal world than my portfolio of absolutely nothing, (and especially someone with whom I generally agree politically) it behooves me to listen and possibly rethink.

And if this is the issue that set off the hfsbomb, what are you her f'ing brother? No, I doubt that because Latino guys from the Bronx would never stoop so low or act so pathetically.

while she wouldn't have been my first choice, i think she will at the end of the day do much better than many, if not most, who are currently on the court. she has achieved much, and is to be admired. the supreme court to me just seems so tenuous right now. under normal circumstances her appointment probably wouldn't have set me off so. but with the court being the way it is these days, i was feeling awfully protective of the position. if it weren't for the judicial system, i'd say give the whole thing back to the republicans and let them try to work and talk their way out of it. but there are an awful lot of judges to be appointed, and to me this is critical. the administration and congress are a mess, the judiciary can't go down the drain as well.

lizyank, you are normally a pleasant and rationale person, so get a grip and some perspective:

AR's greater insight? You are talking about a woman whose legal credentials are no greater than that of your Times Square fortune teller but who seems to have negative opinions on Supreme Court Associate Justices, who spouts off negative opinions on judges of New York's Appellate Division, who believes that the law entitles her to treble monetary damages for her apartment when she wasn't damaged... A woman self acknowledged from a trailer trash background who can't see beyond the negative of any situation. A woman who managed to curse out a dozen people on a discussion about carpeting: see jsmith9005's post about aboutready here: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/17818-80-carpet-rules?last_page=true

As for "if this is the issue that sent off the hfsbomb" ... no, I'm the Justice's brother. Aboutready and her pals have had several theories about what's prompted me or who I am. I've been accused of being Riversider (most aggressively, by the way, by the now banned columbiacounty). Aboutready insisted I was ph41. mimi has had her theories. w67thstreet has called me nopigs who he also said is Agentrachel and UWSismynabe and occasionally eating cat food... This is just the latest. I'm a man, I'm a woman, I'm 15, I'm middle aged and bitter.

Did you know that 9 months ago alanhart criticized aboutready for use of the "word" irregardless?

Form your own independent ideas. Don't assume that an Oregon transplant after 25 years becomes a NYer and you should supplant your own native instincts.

you must be joking. alanhart and i are very good friends. his criticism was in jest. but dear lord if that's some of your "evidence." i'm also friends with liz. you don't get it, do you?? i have relationships outside of this forum with the people who post in this forum. with probably 40 or so of the people who post. you just don't get it.

oregon? get it right, seattle.

but nice try. you really think that after your viscious attacks you can bring people around to your position?

good luck.

If you have relationships with 40 people, why are you so concerned with what I say? Don't they believe in you and your qualities?

ok hfs. let's look at your success rate. let's.

i don't really care. but sometimes it's nice to set the record straight when an asshole is trying to mislead.

come to the event. you'll see how many people know me.

By the way, this person who took a collection of your friendliness, is he or she counted in the 40?

jsmith9005
"
Here's just a sample of your diatribe:

"how the f did you take "a glimpse of their living room" without their consent?"
"how do you have a rats ass clue as to why they don't have floor coverings? "
"you're a tard. "
"btw, you're still a tard. no compassion."
"once again you're absolutely full of shit matt. absolutely. "
"maybe one day you'll have a kid with asthma. happy days!"
"do you get it now? your kid can be a fucking obnoxious loud nightmare "
"Matt, you are such an asshole. such an asshole."
"btw, you're a jerk of the highest order."
"good f'ng lord the assumptions here are crazy. maly, same for you."
"give me a f'ng break"
"and really. what an assholic thing to write"
"

wow, if i had your inability to create original thought i'd off myself.

and if you read the thread, my comments were justified.

unlike your incessant whore comments.

You have no credentials.

How are your comments justified? They are merely the rantings of an underqualified, lazy stay-at-home, entitled hysterical woman who reveals way too much about herself, and worse, way too much about her family.

Explain to us again how you plan to control your daughter from your grave by locking up her inheritance earned by your husband.

oh my god. you are frothing at the mouth, talk about hysterical. you don't get it do you? most people here like me. and the info that i give is generally more than most, but unlike you i think it's just a generosity. life in new york is difficult, i agree and share some info.

and i'll explain to you what i've explained to her. and she agrees. she is very happy with the notion that someone can't possible steal what she has through marriage. despite the fact that she has a remarkably happy marriage in her parents as an example for her life.

Steal through marriage?

When you paid off your husband's tax arrears in order to get married, was that a loan? Is it being repaid by you getting to stay home all day?

yes, 22 years later, it is clear that i had to pay my husband's tax arrears to get married. while at the time i worked, and he didn't.

you don't get it do you? my husband and i are overwhelmingly in love. and in friendship. we decided that it would be best for me to stay at home. my husband is greatly appreciative of my efforts, and realizes that under other circumstances i might like to do something else.

fuck off. you are a nasty piece of shit.

and actually, turd head, i paid it off before we decided on marriage.

But after you were married you paid for his law school?

hfs doesn't understand love and sacrifice and communal goals. sad.

blah, blah, blah. keep repeating the same things over and over again. they'll mean just as much tomorrow as they do today.

blah, blah, blah. you're boring. blah, blah, blah. you're mean. blah, blah, blah. you're a jerk.

One good point- what makes aboutready any expert on the Supreme Court, because she is married to a lawyer? ar is an extreme left winger who would like to see other extreme left wingers on the Court. She has no respect for those who believe in defending the words and principles of the Constitution.

My comments regarding aboutready are nonpartisan.

blah, blah, blah.

blah blah blah

aboutready?

Yes, I very much like and respect aboutready and her posts, which are insightful and helpful ... virtually all the regular posters on SE do. And I'd term her a moderate Democrat, or even a conservative Democrat, based on her posts.

She defends the principles of the Constitution, not simply (and in a linear fashion) its words ... BFD.

Aboutready is a total star of SE -------- and also clearly a vibrant, tough, smart, fun, real NY-er. She's got a ton of range, too. SE would be sadly less of a poppin' thing without her.
And Sonia S. was a great choice ----- good work, Barack!
Hey, and I don't think Cuomo will be a half-bad governor ......... but I digress.
Happy spring heading our way soon-ish, peeps!!!

hfs has some good qualities but is not unlike many of the characters in Scorese's semi-pathetic Shutter Island. Fun watch, but dumb, dumb, dumb .........
And ya gotta love Dicaprio, but one tires of him always trotting out his shittin-in-the-pants scared and upset look that he uses a bit too frequently in too many films .....
Well, time to go party ....

Would it help if aboutready take back her comment about Sonia Sotomayor" as being 'someone without intellectual heft?'

Sunday, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Alan & Poorish I fully agree that Aboutready is truly one of the most valuable Se posters. I love her sense of humor, no bullshit directness and especially her comp threads. I disagree with AR about Sonia but that's it. I wish we just could get rid of the troll.

You can only get rid of me by flushing aboutready too.

Such a conundrum.

No need for a lovefest. We can disagree, but no threats of physical violence, please.

"ar is an extreme left winger who would like to see other extreme left wingers on the Court. She has no respect for those who believe in defending the words and principles of the Constitution."

As a neutral party, I would like to say that in an era where too many ascribe names and stereotypes based on half dissected and incomplete information, I have never seen AR posit an extreme left wing position on this board. I have seen a few of her viewpoints that would make the founding fathers proud -- and I don't believe the founding fathers were extremists, though many considered them to be at the time.

Why should she rescind her comment on SS"s intellectual heft. Though I might deem it questionable, It is an opinion that is not racist, sexist, mean spirited, or even out of line. And given that the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate funding of politicos, you could only wish for a Court with as much intellectual heft as possible to better realize when they are over reaching their Constitutional mandate.

nyc10023
13 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse No need for a lovefest. We can disagree, but no threats of physical violence, please.

You mean like the other day when aboutready suggested that a home health aide throw someone down the stairs in his wheelchair?

Sunday, it was but an opinion. many moderate liberals I respect disagreed with me, although some likely due to political reasons. others agreed. but the bottom line is why on earth should the opinion of an anonymous blogger matter enough to create such a response.

AR, of course I agree that hfs is nuts.

As for your comment being just an opinion, I disagree. If you just stated that someone else is more qualified or has more 'intellectual heft,' then I would agree that it's just an opinion. However, to say that she is 'someone without intellectual heft?', that's something else.

Ok Sunday. I'm not going to go through the entire thread. quite frankly I'm tired of it. but how about the intellectual heft I'd like to see on the supreme court? I've explained my position. enough. and as I wrote she seems to be doing well. there are very few supreme court justices. and they are lifetime appointments. they are absolutely critical.

Sunday, it's pretty easy to judge if someone has "intellectual heft" - sure, Sotomayor may be a diligent, consistent judge who doesn't overstep bounds but she's no Posner or Amar (at Yale). How does one judge? Simply read the text of her opinions & note the other stuff she has written. For sheer intellectual brainpower, just look at both the quantity and quality of stuff that Amar/Posner have produced. I'm not worthy. I don't agree with (can't remember her name w/o googling) name of Hlaw big female leftie's politics, but she's written some cogent interesting stuff as well. And, even I have to admit (though I detest his politics) Scalia's writings. He is total brilliance, but warped.

Which is not to say that Sotomayor can't make a good SC judge. But what are we looking for anyway in an SC judge? My personal bias is towards the heavy-duty intellectual brainpower types of any political stripe. But I'm not sure if that's what is good for the country.

Aboutready, you are the ultimate intellectual. You do nothing with your life, but you know exactly what everyone else should be doing.

Lani whatsherface at Hlaw. Sunday, one wonderful thing among many about the Internet is that you can read a TON of briefs, essays, whatever, by the foremost legal minds. Just read widely and whether or not you are a trained lawyer, you should be able to see who has "heft".

I think it's essential to have at least one liberal, one moderate and one conservative each on the supreme court who is VERY respected intellectually by their peers. it doesn't always happen.

I get very frustrated by Scalia. So much brilliance. I understand and respect conservatives but IMO, he isn't one that has been tempered or shaped by thought so much as his background and he just twists everything wonderfully to support his point of view. Thomas - big lemming. O'Connor - terrible choice for 1st female SC judge. I am not a huge Blackmun fan.

the SC like so many other areas in our society needs and could use some real leadership. that's really what I meant. given Obama's difficulties getting things done, I fear this might have been his only chance to appoint someone who could emerge as the leader of the court down the road. obviously that doesn't just require a massive intelligence, but other qualities as well. I hope history proves me wrong but I don't see SS achieving that position.

nyc10023/ar, I respect people's opinions and their choices. I am only giving MY opinion that a statement made by AR is something that I personally do not consider to be 'just an opinion.' My previous comment tried to clarified that if her statement was worded differently, then I would agree that it was just an opinion.

It is my opinion that AR should apologize for that specific comment. It's just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

how is it not an opinion? daily we get comments regarding Obama and his abilities. daily. nobody asks the commenters, positive or negative, to apologize for a statement regarding his abilities, yet they certainly can't all be correct. i'd like some people to apologize for the things they've said about H. Clinton, also, but i'm not holding my breath.

it obviously was an opinion. others disagree and have other opinions. i don't ask them to apologize because i disagree.

apt 23: It is an opinion that is not racist, sexist, mean spirited, or even out of line.

Just to quote myself....:) In my book, no apology ever needed for a well measured opinion.

apt23: "In my book, no apology ever needed for a well measured opinion."

I don't want to read from a book written by 'someone without intellectual heft.'

Of course that's just my opinion, and I'm not saying that to be 'mean spirited.' I hope you don't fine my opinion to be 'out of line.'

ok sunday, how about this. given the current court composition and worries about political constraints in future nominations, i was disappointed that Obama did not take advantage of his overwhelming victory to nominate someone who i felt had the possibility of becoming the leader of the court at some point in time.

under other circumstances, she would not have been my first choice in some ways, but in other ways i would have welcomed the nomination. in no way have i ever indicated that i doubted her competence for the position.

that's my opinion. it reflects my earlier statement. and i'm entirely willing to concede that i could be wrong. perhaps she will find her own and amaze me. but to insist that i apologize is remarkable given the baseless agenda-driven drivel that so often is found on these threads. btw, just curious, what do you think about Thomas's intellectual heft? what did you think when he was nominated?

AR, I am no insisting that you apologize. It is just my opinion that you should. I clearly stated that you can disagree with me.

You are also missing my point. To say "AR is someone without intellectual heft" is very different than saying "AR has less intellectual heft than Sotomayor".

Sunday, I don't understand your point.

I think that "sarah palin is a lightweight without intellectual heft." and I think " sarah has less intellectual heft than h clinton."

Both those statements are opinions, do you not agree? And I am entitled to that opinion and of course have no need or reason to apologize for holding those opinions, do you not agree?

Jim, you are of course entitle to your opinion.

I don't go around asking people to apologize for everything I disagree with. However, this thread is apparently the trigger that set hfs off. After reading the first page of the thread, I concluded that perhaps that statement was the trigger. If AR apologizing for that statement would help end this war, I thought it was worth suggesting.

Btw, I disagree with your first statement about Sarah Palin; I do agree with the second statement. As for whether I think they are both opinions, I think the second one just an opinion, the first statement is more than 'just' an opinion.

Sunday
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse AR, I am no insisting that you apologize. It is just my opinion that you should. I clearly stated that you can disagree with me.

Sunday, do I need your permission to disagree with aboutready? I mean, shouldn't it be default with an entitled toilet whore?

Sunday
5 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Jim, you are of course entitle to your opinion.
I don't go around asking people to apologize for everything I disagree with. However, this thread is apparently the trigger that set hfs off.

Sunday, really, you believe that (not that I care)? Because I mentioned this thread (among many others that I mentioned) and aboutready believes THIS is the thread, YOU automatically assume that too? When I review this thread, that seems like one of the problems: More than half of aboutready's opinion wasn't even her own, merely what she heard from others who had first hand knowledge. Don't fall in the same trap as a woman - and I know you agree - whose own life experiences are limited to toilet overflows and sitting at home all day.

People often use the 1st Amendment as an excuse to behave like an ass toward each other. I am saying, we should not do that. You can have a debate/disagreement without insulting people and making it personal. Do you have to agree with me? Of course not!

actually Sunday I don't think this was it. although at this point I'm beyond caring.

AR, I thought you mentioned it was. I was just trying to help.

Sunday, you're correct. I did. but I don't think so any longer. thanks for your efforts. I was too obtuse to see where you were heading. only SE can stop it. and they won't . such is life.

Stevens will retire after this term, and I would be surprised if Obama didn't nominate Kagan.

But will she be confirmed?

aboutrready, what do you care? Only your husband is likely to have any involvement in cases. You are a stay at home.

Aboutready doesn't like Sotomayor because Sotomayor came from a modest background, then worked hard at a top school and made something out of herself with her career. Aboutready is self-proclaimed from a trailer trash background. Managed to get to Yale. And then ... NOTHING. Sad. Pitiful. Really. Truly.

How much would Sotomayor be expected to make off of her book and what might she do with the money?

LICComment
about 5 years ago
Posts: 3604
Member since: Dec 2007

Stevens will retire after this term, and I would be surprised if Obama didn't nominate Kagan.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."