We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 28. 2009
Your Wall of Bacon brekky above brought to you by Mr. Free Market. Too bad he doesn't deliver, because I could go for some blood sausage, bacon, and runny eggs right about now.
Judicial empathy for whom?
Sotomayor is a racist. neoneo. Could be, but it's the "right kind of racism."
Sotomayor's "struggle." Private schools all the way. Nice.
More evidence on the politics of the Chrysler dealerships
There is only one current head of state who served in uniform in WW2
Check out some things you may have missed at the new, improved NAS site
Do you know who the Ladies of Arlington are?
The world is run by crazy people.
When a pol has nothing to lose. Betsy on Dr. Tom Coburn
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I'm a dyed in the wool conservative/Libertarian. I can honestly say that despite having the "benefit" of being white and male, I "struggled" to get to where I am (middle management at a small firm). The reason? Honesty, hard work, diligence...all the things that other successful people rarely apply. Yes, it's true - many successful people are lazy tards who benefit from a good sense of humor, good golf game, and keeping their friends close, thereby moving up the ladder.
Yet I attended private schools because my divorced mother, and the man she remarried, worked very hard to send their 6 kids to private schools. It was considered to be the BEST way of getting us what we needed to move forward in society. And yes, we struggled....not necessarily with grades, but with the privilege that was often provided to others attending the school(s). That is, in order to attend, we went without other things that our fellow schoolmates took for granted - cars from the parents, nice vacations, good clothes. I bought my first car on my own, paid for my soccer camps myself, worked a job, wore my brother's hand me downs, etc.
Just because you attend a private school doesn't mean you haven't struggled.
I believe the attacks that are slowly being brought to bear on Sotomayor are misplaced and ill-advised. She is not reactionary...she is not an activist judge. Alienating her is a bad idea because she WILL be approved. Alienating will force her to the dark side. Meanwhile, she has shown a tendency to rule fairly and honestly, for the most part.
The best means of keeping her moderate, and keeping her on task, is to focus on her struggles, and her hard work, and her fairness. She will appreciate the benefits afforded her by an opposition that welcomes her to some degree, rather than one that offends her sensibilities.
I am not interested in seeing dirt dug up on someone where little exists that is worthy of note. This reaction by the Right is purely driven by justifiable dislike of BARRY, but this call is a good one. And we should be willing to accept that even an idiot will occasionally make a good call.
Take off the rose colored commie glasses for a minute.
This president has called media people out by name who disagree with him.
He's gone back on every campaign promise to run a fair and open office.
His DHS head is calling patriots dangerous, the constitution a dangerous document.
He's in the process of shutting down profitable car dealerships that didn't give money to him.
He's not playing fair, he doesn't care about fair, and he isn't fair minded. He's appointed a racist activist judge with a fake life story, and you bought it hook line and sinker from the same press that can't call a spade a spade. Do you really trust what any news organization has to say about the man and his decisions?
All I have to say to you is: Work Makes You Free. Get used to it.
WTF are you talking about?
Most of that stuff about a "fake life" and "activism" are made up, not vice versa. Or they are at least stretches of the truth.
And if you spend any time on Maggie's Farm, and have seen my posts, you'd be hard pressed to call me a liberal/commie - if anything, I most likely make you look like Abbie Hoffman.
Sotomayor is NOT a bad choice.
I agree with you about how Obama alienates and derides the opposition, if he's not outright ignoring them entirely. But I believe in giving due where it is earned, and Sotomayor has earned it.
"This reaction by the Right is purely driven by justifiable dislike of BARRY, but this call is a good one. "
Agreed it's about a dislike of Obama...and all that he represents, including the appointments he makes, which is a reflection of who he is .
Since the mid-1960's, after L.B.J.'s Great Society was implemented the white middle class has been brow-beat, scolded, ridiculed and in general told what was or was not okay to think, say and even how to act...in order to please the liberal masses.
An article comes to mind about something Maureen Dowed had commented on in one of her blathering, having to do with Barack's Dumbo ears. Later, while a conference (Obama still trying to secure the Democratic nomination ) Barry spotted her and made a point of approaching her table in order to deliver a lecture about -his ears was off limits..he was teased about them in grade school and he will not stand for any more ink about his ears. Of course she caved, as if freedom of the press meant nothing. ( Remember political cartoons of LBJ and his big ears?) That event was about the pinnacle of arrogant Political Correctness ...as far as I was concerned. The writing was on the wall !
I would be happy to compare my hard luck background to that of La Raza Sotomayor any time. ( you'ed cry). Is she more qualified or wiser than me ? What a crock of baloney, more of the same of the last 40+ years ..' sit down and don't dare question my appointments or mention my ears.
Sotomayor is NOT a good choice to hold an lifetime seat on the highest Court of the country. She should be soundly Borked along with the next one and the next one , until someone is nominated that is qualified for the Supreme Court and is not racist.
The best means of keeping her moderate, and keeping her on task, is to focus on her struggles, and her hard work, and her fairness.
That is ridiculous, muddle-headed thinking. It is not about her sense or fairness not yours or mine. The role of a judge is to apply the law.
It seems as if you have taken the ice cold shower of realism along with the rest of this. This should be apparent to you.
She has stated she believes in legislating (making policy) from the bench. The YouTube video from Duke is unambiguous. That is what elected officials are supposed to do. They are "accountable" to the voters.
The Constitution is being used as toilet paper today. No where does the Constitution make judges an instrument of social justice.
If people don't wake up, we will not have a Constitution to protect us from the government anymore. It seems as if so many need remedial education when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I do miss my black pudding and English dry cure bacon when in America.
Catholic parish schools (parochial schools) like the one Ms Sotomayor attended in NYC are NOT exclusive, and are not the equivalent of private schools.
I know b/c I attended both a Catholic private school and a normal parish school during elementary - HUGE differences in both quality and cost!
In those days in particular, most parish schools had Sisters, Fathers and Brothers teaching, used existing Church facilities - were very low-overhead. And cost very little, and found ways to accommodate any student who wanted to go and was willing to work hard and follow the rules.
I applaud her mother for doing whatever she could to send her daughter to Catholic school, and completely object to the idea that a parochial school is like going to "private school"! Where I live now, parish school is about less than 1/6 the cost of private school.
The Right will alienate a whole lot of parochial school grads - who are NOT anything more than middle class if that - with this particular attack!
Not to mention as the poster above notes, if your parents want to sacrifice to send you to a religious or other private school, that doesn't necessarily mean you are especially privileged.
I, too, went to a Catholic (private) institution. I am offended every time I see someone suggest that she was somehow "privileged" to attend a private school.
My mom worked 2 jobs, and my stepfather worked as well, to send 6 kids to a Catholic school. We were not privileged, we worked hard, and we struggled. I am fully acquainted with Sotomayor's story and I am on the same page.
As a Conservative/Libertarian, these attacks on Sotomayor will only serve to further push the Republicans toward irrelevancy. I would love to rejoin the party...but it is the mindlessness of these kinds of attacks that keep me away.
I met one of the Arlington Ladies a few years back when my Father in Law, a retired Navy Captain, was buried.
It is an impressive thing to be buried in Arlington. When his casket left the chaple with naval escort all the miltary personell walking in the area stopped at attention till the hearse was loaded.
At the gravesite, the "arlington lady" representing the Chief of Naval Operations, made a short presenation just as the article notes. An extremely touching gesture indeed.
Sonia's attendance of a Catholic school says nothing favorable for her but fopr her mother it does.
I don't think she's Catholic so being a divocee is about the nearest thing to a religious experience that she may be credited with.
That she is appointed to the court by a Muhammadan bastard almost might be one.
Don't forget, Bush I also appointed her to a court.
I attended a Catholic school. I disagree that it's just a credit to her mother. Anyone who has attended one cannot deny - whether they are lapsed or not - the wonderful impact it has on developing your world view.
I am a religious person, but while I define myself with my Catholicism, I do not adhere to all its principles. So I am "lapsed" in a sense. But I will never turn my back on the background it provided. I sense a similar feeling from Sotomayor.
You cannot define yourself as Latina and completely turn your back on your religion. I can say that with great confidence.
I know lots of folks who are lapsed who went to Catholic school.
The point is as children yall don't usually have the choice.
Going to Catholic school doesn't make yall religous but
Sonia may appreciate yall's empathy to her own faithlessness.
When we were kids, we actually DID have a choice. Surprisingly, though I doubt you believe it, my mother asked many times if I wanted to switch to the public schools.
I don't know if Sotomayor's mother did the same, I would not be surprised if she did, however. There were always financial troubles which led to a moment of questioning on whether the money was "well spent".
For every lapsed Catholic who went to a Catholic school, I'll raise you the fact that many more either returned to the faith, or remained in the faith.
Using the lapsed portion as guidance as to whether it is indicative of the value of the school and its teachings is irrelevant and the suggestion which is inferred by your statement is offensive. While I am "lapsed" of a sort, I know many others who I went to school with who are not.
My "empathy" for Sotomayor is meaningless. My respect for her achievements are not meaningless. I'd like to see half the people who are on comment boards trashing her achieve what she has.
The anonymity of the comments station means that people can hide behind a veil and throw rocks. This is not courage, nor is it achievement. She had the guts, and the brains, to make something of her life.
You may not always agree with it (though if you read her rulings, I think you'd find yourself in agreement more than not - after all, she did pass a First Amendment ruling on hate speech that probably helps some people on this board keep their jobs), but her ability has allowed her to reach a station in life most of us simply dream of.
Imposing yall's experience genericlly upon Missy Sonia is a liberal tactic.
It's similar as to Missy Marianne asserting Mudboy MUST know how to swim because he spent time in Hawaii.
Yall's raised fact is similarly nonsensical.
Fact is, Sonia is a divorcee which precludes any claim to Catholic religion.
Given yall's confession, yall ain't either.
Me thinks, yall are a son of the fascist centrists who float this blog, who wishes he could accomplish so much as a racist, trash talking misandrist.
Sotomayor says she attends church on 'special occasions' ...
I'm thinking that she's probably a ..
With regard to the "Catholic Schools of the 1940-1965 era:
1.They cost money to attend--somebody had to find the dollars.
2.They did have smaller class to teacher ratio
3.They were more rigorous.
4. They did turn out more hostile females than private schools!
With regard to Sotomayor's mom and dad--that is where we should really look:
1. What was daddy's profession (the picture looks like a young professional couple of the time).
2. How did daddy die?
3. Let us not forget that mommy got her nursing school education during those early years--those gals were smart (chemistry, biology, anatomy, calculus, etc.) So, how and where did mommy get a nursing school education in the 1940's?
My guess is there is more money in that family background than anyone wants you know!
And so what if there is more money?
To begin with - it's not money that makes the person - and even if there was more money than they've suggested, if you've been to the area where she grew up you'd be hard pressed to say "she had it easy".
What is illuminating to me are the comments here, which range from the outright ridiculous to the utterly absurd.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many of the people who I have long associated and aligned myself with are simply closing their minds entirely as a means of dealing with Barry and his band of merry pirates.
This is the utterly WRONG way to work the situation. Barry can be defeated, and defeated easily, if we open our minds and while not working WITH or FOR him...accepting when something good is done. But being well advised to castigate him when he (as he does so frequently) muck up the works.
We have seen him put us on a path to Fascism with his "porkulus" and his use of the Judiciary to twist arms in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies.
This is where our anger and effort should be applied.
Seeking to find a "story" behind Sotomayor, in the hopes of sinking what is a mostly assured approval, is only making the neo-conservatives look outlandish and foolish....not to mention outright stupid.
Nobody has lived a perfect life. Nobody has the perfect story to tell. But it's pretty clear she's hardly demonic, and the vast majority of her rulings run the gamut of moderate right to moderate left.
She's hardly threatening.
Her statement, giggling about how she shouldn't say that judges make policy, is indicative of nothing. Judges DO make policy in a sense because they define it. Judicial rulings have much greater impact than the actual laws they are asked to rule on.
What the beef yall have with yoself.
Dyed in the wool conservative/libertarians are neo-conservatives.
neo-conservatives, while welcome in Libertarian circles, generally exclude themselves.
Libertarians have a fairly broad tent. As a socially progressive, but fiscally conservative individual, I am nowhere near neo-conservative.
While I find some aspects of neo-conservative thought intriguing and useful, most of it is inspired by thoughts of a time past which never were, but have always been hoped to return to.
My beef is with the large hate-mongering community within the conservative tent which will lash out at anything it considers threatening or unfamiliar.
Perfect. Libertarian. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "hate monger". uh huh.
You just don't get it, and won't until you wake up in another man's country. It will be too late for you.
Rick- You are already on the list man. You subscribe to the "alternative media" by coming here. NSA is already tapping your ass. Good luck with your openmindedness towards racist latina judges. I am sure they'll pull these comments of yours to show how fair you treated her.
(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information
sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and
issues that differ radically from those presented in mass
media products and outlets.
"Anyone who disagrees with you is a "hate monger". "
Where do you get that from what Rick posted? "Anyone"? Really? He states "the large hate-mongering community within the conservative tent ". That's not anyone. It's just those specific people. Personally, I don't see it as being that large, it's just blown out of proportion by the media, though I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Where is someone wrong by saying that they have a beef with hate-mongers. Do none exist in conservative land? Only liberals hate? But it's ok to hate them, right? Because they disagree with us.
Rick states "My beef is with the large hate-mongering community within the conservative tent which will lash out at anything it considers threatening or unfamiliar"
So the reason he came out of the closet as a Sotomayor fan is because he thinks anyone who is reacting to her is a hate monger. Are you dense man?
That post does not contain any reference to Sotomayor. Speaking more to Roger's point.
Dyed in the wool conservatives are never liberterian but I appreciate yall's attempt to coin a new dinosaur.
Help me out and tell me that a social liberal supports the right to life.
Giggling about making policy from the bench, but 'shame on me, i'm not 'spose to say things like that' --is extreeeemly illuminating.
So, who are these people who have told her she "must not say things like that"?
Soon to be dusted off:
This is the sort of thing that the Communists used to consolidate the Revolutuion in its first few years of power.
It is what ruined and drove Ayn Rand's small biz family out of Russia.
"Sotomayor is NOT a good choice to hold an lifetime seat on the highest Court of the country. She should be soundly Borked along with the next one and the next one " - uh, maybe not a good idea...unless we find something outrageous in her background (outrageous to the political middle, not the right) this will just backfire.
"Agreed it's about a dislike of Obama...and all that he represents, including the appointments he makes, which is a reflection of who he is " - This is the selling point.
GOP doesn't have the votes to do anything but raise a stink. The best that can be done is to emphasise the nominating of someone with such a "touchy-feely" approach to the law as yet another chink in Obambi's armor. But for God's sake, they need to stay off of the ad hominem attacks.
Maybe his next appointment will be from the Klan, you know to even things out.
Stomayor is a member of an organization that many Americans consider racist called the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). La Raza means "The Race" and the NCLR makes it clear that the group considers Hispanics to be a race. The NCLR seeks to promote political agendas they consider to be advantageous to their "race" regardless of the negative impacts on other ethnic groups or existing principles and laws in the United States.
I make the best full English breakfast on the planet. And a mean bacon sarnie. Just sayin'.
I'd enjoy sitting at that table. But, forgive, what's a 'sarnie'?
Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Fox News the other night that intelligent conservatives [that's us grown-ups, guys] should not feel intimidated by the Democrat pre-emptive accusations that anyone who criticizes Sotomayor is racist and gender-hostile. There are questions about Sotomayor which should properly be raised during the 'vetting' process in Congress. Primarily they concern her past judicial decisions, and the odd concept which she shares with Obama that judges should be 'empathic' to certain individuals being tried. Now I'm not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but some things seem glaringly obvious to me, nonetheless.
You don't need to be empathic, Sonia and Barry. That's not your job. The American judicial system is designed with an impressive simplicity and neatness. The accused has an 'ombudsman' who is supposedly sympathetic to his side of the story and presents it to the court as clearly as possible. That's his defense lawyer.
The accuser also has an 'ombudsman,' to tell his side of the argument. That's the prosecutor, who is sympathetic to his position and marshals the best arguments available to present the other side of the story. That leaves one job for the judge --*one* -- to be objective and neutral and decide who presents the best arguments. See how neat that is, Barry? That's why it has worked so well for so long. Using his own experiences and prejudices to be 'empathic' to one side or the other is a betrayal of the judge's principal purpose, and really clutters up the decision making process, producing bad outcomes and decisions that will be reversed on appeal.
Of course, 'empathy' is liberal-code for activism -- which has already produced years of bad decisions which are difficult to undo.
I feel I must apologize to Barrister, whom I respect greatly, and those other members of maggies and readers of maggies whose knowledge of the law I also greatly respect, for these simplistic thoughts. But I sure hope that Rahm Emanuel's and James Carville's pre-emptive accusations don't scare us folks on the right side of the aisle from raising these questions. They need to be raised. And conservatives and centrists are the only ones out here to do the job.
Ah, the Arlington Ladies.
I see that somebody else noted that the USNS Gen Hoyt Vandenberg USAF was sent to a watery grave this week to become coral, and then looked into who Hoyt Vandenberg was, and found out his wife founded the Ladies.
At least I think that's how the story popped up. That's how I found it a couple days ago.
I have a problem with liars--excuse me if that makes me a racist! But, you need to know I will no longer--never--ever be forced into submission by some left wing nut doing a job for the liberal mafia, a job intended to interrupt conversation, and the concomitant search for truth and fact. Sorry, the way to the heart of a human being is to examine the "personas" they apply to themselves. To examine the stories they tell about themselves, and of course their actions. If I want to ask who paid the bills and she is proposed to be the person responsible for determining fact from fiction--I gotta know if she understands the difference. Can you please tell me more about her "real family background"?
It amazing to me how smart people turn their thinking into a
Rush Dumbaugh line of thinking!Lately this site is an example of just that.A whole bunch ya's sound just like the democraps when they were hatin dubya.
I stiil appreciate intellect and "roundness?" which usually is
Ya'll have a good'un!
Thank you for the statement of sentiment, RL. But, how do you stand on the issue, that of "judicial activism"?
Does it violate the intent of the Constitution, or doesn't it?