his experience section of his resume is shorter than a blade of grass is wide.

With Heck and others, the rules change to benefit their side. Like Obama flippflopping.

"Whatever it dishonestly takes to win"

blech.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Quotas are unconstitutional, Steve. You should know that by now. As for affirmative action, I think it's nearing the end of its utility as a government program and certainly unconstitutional in certain forms. As for diversity hiring, or in college admissions, it has to meet a certain standard, but I do believe that racial diversity and opportunity yields certain benefits to society, including on college campuses.

I somewhat agree.

But

I don't agree (most liklely) with the benefits of certain circumstances.

And I do think the downside is worse than whatever benefit it created.

That means resentment and the feeling of entitlement and victimhood.

Your point about Robert Byrd is useless.

Useless?? Which one? The one where you guys tell me what Sotomayor's words might have really meant or the fact he's more qualified by the Heck scale to be POTUS than Obama?

Your point about what Obama said is a lie.

What, that he feels the original intent isn't the better yardstick by which to rule on the constitutiion?

Accusing me of "spin" every time I say something factually accurate should be embarrassing for you, but isn't.

Should be embarrassing for you to sugar coat the gaffes of your candidates. But it isn't.

And no, I don't have specific identity goals for the Supreme Court. But I wouldn't think having only one woman is ideal. If I were in Obama's shoes I would have selected from a list of qualified women.

So you do have identity goals just not "specific" correct?

Cripe.

WSS

<H1 style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 16px; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: 21px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, verdana, sans-serif" align=center>Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide</H1>If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge's bench is "where policy is made," what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter - that a "wise Latina" would make a better judge than a white male - has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor's comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of "you read, you decide" I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor's speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn't as damaging as the Judge's "wise Latina" comment - it's worse. <H1 style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 16px; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: 21px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, verdana, sans-serif" align=center>"Our Gender and National Origins May and
Will Make a Difference in Our Judging"</H1>Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

• "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."
• "Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
• "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Haha. Believe me, that's not the case.

True enough.

You're not open minded enough to learn.

It's that most of the time I'm not arguing what I believe in here, but against what I believe to be misinformation.

Mosty bickering for it's own sake.

Quotas are unconstitutional

Seriously so what?

At one point in history it was unconstitutional for the king to confiscate your propery for his troops and such.

It seems to me and should seem to any fair minded observer that it is now OK for the "state" to confiscate your property.

That decision truly surprised me.

Affirmitive action and quotas (slavery gay marriage prohibition etc etc) could be ruled upon either way with one new judge one way or the other.

And Americans are free to want changes are they not?

BTW I guess I'm fine with some of what I see as end runs around the constitution.

Lets just not be Pollyanna ish about the outdated old relic.

WSS

(go ahead, ask me! ask me! GGG)

******************************

Well, good for us! We have had some nice influence on you, after all !

for the benefit of Palestinian extremists over in the Middle East right now.

Almost makes one wonder if, to a degree, Otrauma is anti-Semite.

See? (I wonder when Heck will get tired of making himself sick with

spinning in his high chair)

Your point about Robert Byrd is useless.

Your point about what Obama said is a lie.

Accusing me of "spin" every time I say something factually accurate should be embarrassing for you, but isn't.

And no, I don't have specific identity goals for the Supreme Court. But I wouldn't think having only one woman is ideal. If I were in Obama's shoes I would have selected from a list of qualified women.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

No, Steve. I'm not bickering for bickering's sake. I'm saying that if your belief is that the Supreme Court should be all about who is the most qualified then you'd have to be against the Thomas pick, as he was hardly the most qualified individual when his nomination came up. You can be for one or the other, but it doesn't make sense to be for both.

Again Heck (and this is really boring) I didn't say that.I said one bothers me less.

I gave you a great example but just don't feel like typing it again for you to ignore.

The reality is that when choosing a nominee there are going to be lots of "qualified" people, and often that's going to be a subjective measure. Some may favor real world experience; some may favor more experience as a judge; some may favor people who have tried cases before the Supremes, or weight that higher. So this idea that there's going to be one person who clearly stands above all and that's the person you should pick no matter what their race or gender isn't the reality of what happens.

Thomas was qualified.

Your girl is qualified.

Then there's the issue of judicial philosophy.

No shit.

As for your question, it doesn't make much sense. Every nominee swears an oath to apply the law fairly. It's not like you're going to get one who says, "Nope, not going to apply the law honestly or fairly. Not me."

Pretty much what Obama has said. They're gonna cut some groupls a little slack annd fu*k over others.

Just to even the playing field.

This idea that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment means she's not going to apply the law fairly, or hasn't in the past, is just nonsense. And when pressed to show where she has applied the law unfairly, you haven't been able to show a single instance where she's put some personal vendetta against whites into her decision. Clearly, all the evidence points to someone who follows the law.

Spin.

Hey I guess Robert Byrd (who is more qualified than Barak Obama to be president under the Heck rules) said he'd refuse to fight next to a N*****."

Probably what he meant was he felt he had more to offer the armend forces thanks to his experiences.

As for the idea that it's best for a government in a pluralistic society to be at least somewhat representative of the population,

So are you for or against quotas set asides and affirmitive action? ~question~ it seems it's "for" from the below answer.

I think when choosing from a host of qualified people it's okay to use race and gender as considerations in hiring in order to achieve some measure of balance, rather than simply having all white men.

So yuu are upset it isn't half female.

Or there are too few evangelist Christioan?

Too many Catholics and Jews.

Right?

Does having all white men mean you're going to have a dysfunctional Supreme Court, or do I think that should be illegal? Of course not. But I don't think it's the ideal scenario either.

See above.

WSS

Sotomayor is a liberal, a radical, and even in her JUDICIAL decisions, she favors Hispanics,

and is a member, per the ABA's own info, of La Raza. She is wrong for the court.

I am now going to post a new thread on another Hispanic, who was outstanding,

who graduated with big Honors, who was as American as apple pie, he was

ridiculed, railed against, and summarily blocked by Dems.

Why? Politics. He was a Bush appointee to the Appeals Court, and would have been

a top nominee for the Supreme Court.

You love Sotomayor for her politics. Let's see if you approve of how BUSH's nominee was treated.

The reality is that when choosing a nominee there are going to be lots of "qualified" people, and often that's going to be a subjective measure. Some may favor real world experience; some may favor more experience as a judge; some may favor people who have tried cases before the Supremes, or weight that higher. So this idea that there's going to be one person who clearly stands above all and that's the person you should pick no matter what their race or gender isn't the reality of what happens.

Then there's the issue of judicial philosophy.

As for your question, it doesn't make much sense. Every nominee swears an oath to apply the law fairly. It's not like you're going to get one who says, "Nope, not going to apply the law honestly or fairly. Not me."

This idea that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment means she's not going to apply the law fairly, or hasn't in the past, is just nonsense. And when pressed to show where she has applied the law unfairly, you haven't been able to show a single instance where she's put some personal vendetta against whites into her decision. Clearly, all the evidence points to someone who follows the law.

As for the idea that it's best for a government in a pluralistic society to be at least somewhat representative of the population, I think when choosing from a host of qualified people it's okay to use race and gender as considerations in hiring in order to achieve some measure of balance, rather than simply having all white men.

Does having all white men mean you're going to have a dysfunctional Supreme Court, or do I think that should be illegal? Of course not. But I don't think it's the ideal scenario either.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

An answer to what?

Steve, you keep pushing this like it's a conspiracy. You try to change the subject by asking another question rather than speak to the original point.

Heck go read your own words.

You've fought like hell to make the whole thing about what you see as conflicts in the rather moderate opinions I either state or you assign to me.

Really nothing more.

As for the sensible questions I can discern, I do believe I've answered them.

And I don't.

What would you like me to answer?

We'll go back later.

As for your point about race-based hiring, you've got to be kidding. We're talking about race-based hiring and affirmative action, not the type of race-based hiring as in "We're looking for a Latino man to play the lead in West Side Story."

Yes Heck we are. That's a great example of where race based hiring is perfectly acceptable.

Or hiring a woman at Hooters or an ethnic type for an ethnic restaurant, or a gym teacher or scoutmaster.....

I could have played Malcolm X but....

But I don't think that is a worthy factor in who gets to be a firefighter or a doctor.

I'll even give you an exception.

(and that may be against my better judgement as you tend to go wild if anybody tries to get all rational with you )

I think there are examples in which a black police officer might be more effective.

And you stated you were for using race as a consideration in the Thomas appointment, even though he was less qualified. Even after you said that you wouldn't mind if all nine Justices were white men, because it's all about who is the most qualified. Or something.

Bingo. "Or something." You really don't know but just want to bicker because it's me.

And we have two definitions of "qualified" I see.

I was on jury duty and told that I was required to keep an open mind no matter how the evidence shook out.

I tried very hard to do that though it was really obvious the guy did it.

Had I felt or said that the guy's race made me think he should go down for it OR that I'd be more lenient because of that I'd have been disqualified.

So if all 9 white men (or Christians blacks or women) promised (and actually meant) to apply the law honestly and fairly why would I care? What is your problem with it? ~that's a question~

So we're talking about using race as a consideration when there were white applicants with more qualifications, or higher test scores, or to create a diverse student body, etc.

We're talking about all that. Heck.

You're trying to find something in what I say to gripe about and steer the entire conversation that way.

Anyone who can read knows it though those who share your particular political ideology won't admit it ouit loud.

What the hell are you talking about?

You know what we're talking about and that type of question is really getting threadbare.

WSS

"Cal, Really"

??? LOL ???

As in, Heck bemoans a lack of substantive conversations, etc...

then has nothing to offer when at his insistance, his bluff is called,

and he has no answer to the contrary of any substance, so he bails,

and says Steve is looking like an ass?

The butt of the joke is:

"Cal, Really".... lol.

So much for Heck wanting to have serious conversation...

Heck translation:

"I can't find fault with Cal's post, so I will ignore it. And, if pressed, I'll just say

he didn't post anything relevant.

Then, I'll go back to criticizing Steve and putting him down, while

I pretend that Cal's post doesn't exist, or at least, has no merit, for no reason

other than I spin in my high chair and stuff happens. Really..."

Steve, you keep pushing this like it's a conspiracy. You try to change the subject by asking another question rather than speak to the original point.

As for the sensible questions I can discern, I do believe I've answered them.

What would you like me to answer?

As for your point about race-based hiring, you've got to be kidding. We're talking about race-based hiring and affirmative action, not the type of race-based hiring as in "We're looking for a Latino man to play the lead in West Side Story."

And you stated you were for using race as a consideration in the Thomas appointment, even though he was less qualified. Even after you said that you wouldn't mind if all nine Justices were white men, because it's all about who is the most qualified. Or something.

So we're talking about using race as a consideration when there were white applicants with more qualifications, or higher test scores, or to create a diverse student body, etc.

What the hell are you talking about?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

As for this: "Ahhh beaten as usual Heck resorts to base insults" I can only laugh once again.

It's only a few posts ago when you started your response with, "Again, puss that you are..."

But of course I had a list of shit you refuse to answer.

Obviously, suggesting that you might have been drinking is far, far worse, and if there's something you can't stand it's base insults.

Actually bring em on.

'Tis all ya got anyway.

As for your other statement, you can't be for race-based hiring [in certain situations] and the laws that cover that to be colorblind at the same time.

Sure you can Heck.

Can you think of ANY situation in the working world in which race and sex might be a consideration?

C'mon I know you can.

Now can you admit that is NOT within the US judicial system?

See the brackets?

That's the part you deliberately left out to make a phony poing.

Now how about an answer....

WSS

***************************

You didn't read it, then. Of course I discussed the Ricci case. I appraised it in detail of how I would have

decided, and tested it with the racial factors reversed, and my decision holds true.

Sotomayor, by her own history and past activities and decisions, is a racist, a bigot, a hypocrite, and

not very smart. Her decision to favor the dyslexic Hispanic and condone the discrimination of the white firefighters

was atrocious, corrupt and mean-spirited, if not just very ignorant, in my appraisal. I'm still waiting for a legit reply.

Various justices have given opinions in dicta over the years, but one really has to go back to U.S. v. Miller to get some guidance, and all it really did was establish that the state could classify weapons as ordinary militia weapons and those that go beyond ordinary...sawed off shotguns was at the basis of this ruling.