is with libertarians who have the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, might mistake them for Republicans.
I’m sorry, but I really regard that “wise Latina” remark as a silly piece of pandering fiddle-faddle. I don’t really think Sotomayer believes that, deep down. Rather, I think it’s what the audience wanted to hear.
I just cannot get excited about it, and I’m trying. And I can’t seem to get upset, either, about that suggestion that the law is made by judges: there is a level on which the law is made manifest by those who interpret it.
But Ricci does bother me, and it bothers me a lot.
Of course, there is the Dennis the Peasant take on the blogospheric state of high excitement, and it is not without merit:
On a professional level, any CPA would view a lawyer much in the way a cobra regards a mongoose. Given that, the idea that I would be interested in burning bandwidth over President Obama’s choice of Sonia Studebaker—or whatever her name is—for the Supreme Court should appear to all of you as a bit far-fetched. And for those of you who don’t take hints all that well, let me spell it out . . .
This is going to be a Sonia Sotomayer-free zone. Period.
Here are a few of the many reasons for this state of affairs:
1) I ain’t a fuckin’ lawyer, so the idea that I can provide insight as to her qualifications, etc. is pretty much a laugh waiting to happen. OK?
2) You ain’t a fuckin’ lawyer either. So the idea you can provide insight is also a laugh waiting to happen. OK?
3) Even if you are a lawyer, chances are you don’t do much in the area of constitutional law. Just because you’re a fuckin’ lawyer doesn’t mean you know all aspects of the law. So unless you have some kick-ass constitutional law qualficiations, put a sock in it.
4) And besides, if you are a kick-ass constitutional lawyer, what the hell are you doing at my site? Being here pretty much disqualfies you on the grounds that you lack sound judgment.
5) Regurgitating talking points from paid political partisans and journalists (99% of whom are journalists because they were too stupid to get into law school) does not qualify as either educational or interesting.
6) Two weeks ago none of you had the faintest fuckin’ idea of who Sonia Studebaker was.
7) There’s no chance she won’t be confirmed. So, if you’re a Democrat you’re getting huffy for no particular reason, and if you’re a Republican you’ve simply decided that hitting yourself over the head with a 2×4 sounds like a good idea.
8) Yeah, yeah, yeah… She said a Latina woman is better than a white man. Blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof and big fuckin’ deal. It’s not like you haven’t heard that sort of racial/gender/identity bullshit out of the mouth of half the “persons of color” and/or femnist womyn you’ve dealt with over the past 20 years.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Point seven is the only one that makes any sense at all. The rest are really ad hominems.
And really, the idea that the Constitution can only be understood by a select few runs against everything for which this nation is supposed to stand. The failure of the first, second, ninth and tenth amendments to put their respective political debates to bed is not because of any obscurity in their meaning, but on account of the rather blatant refusal of many to accept what they state in quite explicit terms.
Obama get his picks–all over the judiciary. That was the reason NOT to vote for him or sit on one’s hands. Seems that shooting one’s self in the face with a shotgun is still a very bad idea. Some things won’t be healed in four or eight years–or even a lifetime. Or two.
Again, what assurances that I, as an eeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvuuuuuuullllllllll white man, have that Sotomayor will give me a fair and just hearing of my greivances? Justice is portrayed with a blindfold on, not because she’s unaware, but so that she may ignore trivial distractions.