John Adams

Think rationally for a moment. You know about the Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court held that people imported into the US as slaves--and their descendants whether they were slaves or not--were not legal persons and could not be US citizens and thus could not sue in court? Don't you think that decision would be decided differently if black justices had been on the bench? Isn't it extremely likely that only a group of honkey judges with honkey biases would reach that conclusion? Judges endeavor to be blind and fair, and they all fail in some way in this attempt. The law may be immutable--some ideal immovable rock--but real-life fart-and-pick-their-nose folk interpret and apply it. The introduction of this human element means that all of our laws (including the Constitution) live, breathe, and change. Also, consider that for the majority of the cases before the Supreme Court, the law is not crystal clear with respect to the facts of the case. (If it was, the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court.) This forces the Court to interpret the (immutable) law to the best of its ability, and that's where a lot of bias comes into play.

Here's a less biased view from the WSJ paper, not the blog. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243382609...ogle_wsj_gadgv1

Mommy didn't hug you enough?

That your state system worked as it's written doesn't make it right, or even a good decision. Homosexual civil unions get all the rights in California that marrieds do except the right to say they are "married" under the law? Yeah, that makes a TON of sense! A proud day for you Wacka.

Who'd you do: Ashcroft or Reno?

I love you long time.

The whole issue is really beyond me. "Homos can be married but just can't call yourself married." It's like legislating that you can't be called "Tom" and must be called "Thomas." It's a great example of the right over-legislating people's lives and further proof that the difference between Democrat and Republican is slim.

Are you engaging this troll in conversation? Bored today?

Yeah, she will get the joy of public scrutiny for the next few months but barring a real skeleton (of which so far there are none), she will make it through.

Here are the immediate remarks following the quote that you find so dire. Her point, and it seems valid, is that on issues of race or sex, she would have a different POV that could lend itself to seeing the better result.

Sh*t like what?

And?

She said that she thinks her experiences as a minority make her better-qualified to be a judge than a white man. I would argue with her about that statement but she'd have had to make a lot more statements before (a) I thought she was a racist and (b) I thought she was not qualified.

Good for you. Good for her. Whoopdedoo. She's got the qualifications and checks all of Obama's boxes. I'm thankful that he didn't pick a complete loon, but only an as-expected liberal-minded Justice.

Yup. That's how it works. Roberts was a great choice. Alito was OK. We'll have to see how she pans out. The fact that she thinks her experiences make her more qualified than others doesn't bother me. I am sure she can defend that statement adequately.

Judicial decisions do make policy. They have for a long, long time.

Funny that she didn't say that. Ever wonder how much of a chance a black man had in front of a court in the Founding Father's time? She hopes that she could reach a better conclusion than others. I'd hope that each of the Justices thinks that--it's why they are often (but not always--see Thomas) our most thoughtful judges. President gets to choose the nominee. This nominee is little different than most of the others. That's how it works. Your guy lost. You lose. Get over it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_...upreme_court_22 A sound choice. Presidents get to make the pick and this checks a lot of boxes: she is qualified. She's bright. She's not a far left wacko. It's interesting that Republicans tried to block her federal court of appeals appointment years ago for fear that she would some day be a potential Supreme Court Justice. She's also middle-of-the-road enough (Constitutional tendencies, appointed by W's daddy, former prosecutor) to survive the process. Some snippets from the story linked above.

He will need the best PR person on the planet to mount a comeback. No team will touch him until the public shows any softening. He shouldn't play again and I don't think he will. He did more than fight dogs--see some of the details from the indictment below.

I saw a CNN spot the other day showing some of Vick's rescued pit bulls and the families raising them. The one owner was laughing and saying how her little kids are fine around them. M.O.R.O.N. Without a doubt, owners contribute greatly to behavior but some dogs are just prone to more violence than others. Just like some dogs are natural retrievers. Some dogs are better swimmers. Some are better at herding. Etc. It's naive to think otherwise. If you own a violent breed and have kids, it's on you.

Dogs don't have rights but there are laws against cruelty to animals, because we recognize that causing needless suffering in animals is wrong. Next. Some dogs fight. OTher dogs are bred to fight and are taught to be violent. In comes Mike Vick. IF he'd just had 4 dogs that occasionally fought in the back yard while he was tossing the firsbee around with friends, he wouldn't be in trouble. Vick bred and trained dogs in a way that was both cruel in the rearing of the dogs and in the later fighting and punishment of the dogs. That is wrong. Next. Irrelevant. No one suggested otherwise. Next. A good cat is a dead cat. Next. Responding back to #4, dogs that just run around do get locked up you ninny. Not that it's relevant to Mike Vick. To #5, no one has crucified Vick. He broke the law. He acted despicably. He will never live the life he once had in the palm of his hands, nor should he. If he'd done what he did to people, he'd get the chair. Instead, he did 3 years and gets a life of public scorn. That's the difference between how we punish dog vs. human crimes. Is that hard to comprehend?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/1...306/detail.html Too bad Bill in NYC's guy didn't win!

So? Lots of species have died out at evolutionary dead ends.

Yup. Go Eagles for me. It would simplify my rooting interests and it's not hard to hate the Steelers, Redskins, and Giants.

Fight for balls that are thrown to him. But since he's coming off ACL, I don't think we'll see him until 2010.