Peggy Noonan's take on the politics of Sotomayor's nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354585930464037.html

The Wall Street Journal, page A13, 29 (30?) May 2009.

Joe Gwinn

On May 30, 10:09*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan's take on the politics of Sotomayor's nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354585930464037.html

The Wall Street Journal, page A13, 29 (30?) May 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I would agree that it is an important opportunity for serious debate.

But if history (and recent behavior) are any indications, the
Republicans will blow it....again.

Perhaps they should send their national representative...Rush...so at
least it is entertaining.

As one person recently said, every time a Republican arrives the band
now plays "Send in the Clowns".

TMT

The Wall Street Journal, page A13, 29 (30?) May 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I would agree that it is an important opportunity for serious debate.

But if history (and recent behavior) are any indications, the
Republicans will blow it....again.

Perhaps they should send their national representative...Rush...so at
least it is entertaining.

As one person recently said, every time a Republican arrives the band
now plays "Send in the Clowns".

TMT

As we just witnessed over the last eight years, republicans as a group are
people who are simply incompetent. You can find little or nothing that they
actually do well. Basically, everything they touched they damaged or
destroyed, and now they are about to play their part in the process of
choosing a new Supreme Court justice. So you know what is going to happen.
They are going to **** things up. There is really no reason why Ms.
Sotomayor shouldn't be nominated to the court and she probably will, barring
some really weird thing that is unforeseen. What will happen is the
republicans will again showcase all their shortcomings. They will not really
try to vet this person for the job. They will use the occasion to politic,
to pander to the radicals, and make a show of the process. They will not do
the job one would expect a rational, cohesive, opposition party to do. They
will do the opposite. Just like what you would expect a bunch of partisan,
blundering, incompetent boobs to do.

Hawke

On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On May 30, 10:09*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan's take on the politics of Sotomayor's nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354585930464037.html

The Wall Street Journal, page A13, 29 (30?) May 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I would agree that it is an important opportunity for serious debate.

But if history (and recent behavior) are any indications, the
Republicans will blow it....again.

Perhaps they should send their national representative...Rush...so at
least it is entertaining.

As one person recently said, every time a Republican arrives the band
now plays "Send in the Clowns".

TMT

=====
I just sent the following email off to my Kansas representatives
and senators. Feel free to use any, all or none of it.

----- start of email -----
To:
Senator Brownback
Senator Roberts
CC:
President Obama
Representative Moran
Representative Tiahrt

Subject: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor confirmation hearings

These hearings will largely determine if the Republicans are to
continue to be known as the "The Grand OLD Party," or re-branded
as the "The Grand NO Party," and regulated to a footnote in the
history books with the Whigs and Federalists.

The SCOTUS has been allowed to degenerate into a "Gerontocracy,"
composed of a bunch of wrinkled white guys, increasingly isolated
from society, living in an age which has long since passed, if it
ever existed at all, other than in their gated communities,
country clubs, and imaginations.

Judge Sotomayor made an astute, and entirely accurate,
observation when she suggested in 2001 that a "wise Latina woman"
could reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male
could.

This is particularly true when the white male is in his dotage,
and/or is in the final stage of his life, and comes from the
background of privilege and entitlement consequential to
inherited wealth.

I suggest that we need far more diversity on the SCOTUS, not
less, and that the "wise women" and "wise men" of our society
should be sought out, not excluded.

I also suggest that something must be done to limit tenure and
mandate physical/mental health evaluations of the sitting
justices, to insure proper functioning of the court and to meet
the current requirements of society.

While there is always the possibility that adverse information
may be discovered during the confirmation process, it appears
from the record that Judge Sotomayor has consistently ruled in
accordance with the law, and on the case before her. If you
don't like the results, then change the law, or file a different
case for adjudication, don't blame the judge.

--- end of email ----


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).