Sotomayor Confirmation

[Keller]

This should be interesting political theatre.

My prediction is that she is confirmed with 65 votes.

The highlight so far was Lindsey Grahm saying, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to be confirmed."

[TheEschaton]

She's a LATINA, meltdown inc!

[Valthissa]

I would expect her to get more than 75 votes. The usual routine (regardless of party) is political theatre for the faithful and then (because the nominee is actually qualified) vote to confirm.


C/Valth

[Gan]

One heckler removed so far. He was bounced as he was screaming "What about the unborn!?!".

Someone know the whereabouts of TheE today?

[AnticorRifling]

One heckler removed so far. He was bounced as he was screaming "What about the unborn!?!".

Someone know the whereabouts of TheE today? He sent me a PM that said BRB Abortion protest.

[Gan]

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

I hope that a white guy can get confirmed by stating that ""I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black or latino woman who hasn't lived that life." over and over again...

[Androidpk]

But that would be racist!

[AnticorRifling]

I can't watch it here at work, is that really what she's doing? If so please tell me someone is going to man up and call her on it!

[Parkbandit]

I can't watch it here at work, is that really what she's doing? If so please tell me someone is going to man up and call her on it!

She's used that phrase in multiple speeches over the past 8 years. The Republicans won't make a big deal out of it because they are afraid that the Democrats will call them a racist for bringing it up.

[Mabus]

She is highly qualified, and will be confirmed.

I was rather impressed with Franken's speaking. I know he is intelligent and quite a capable public speaker, but he was also very humble and touched on several points I agree with.

[ClydeR]

Has Sotomayor even said a word yet? This thing is boring!

[Daniel]

I hope that a white guy can get confirmed by stating that ""I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black or latino woman who hasn't lived that life." over and over again...

How is this different from the first few dozen, at least?

[Daniel]

She's used that phrase in multiple speeches over the past 8 years. The Republicans won't make a big deal out of it because they are afraid that the Democrats will call them a racist for bringing it up.

Multiple = one.

Republican math.

[AnticorRifling]

You know we don't care about math or school systems duh.

[Keller]

Multiple = one.

Republican math.

You might want to fact check and edit before PB posts a jpeg and tells you about his collection of crayons.

[Daniel]

You might want to fact check and edit before PB posts a jpeg and tells you about his collection of crayons.

That's half the fun?

[Keller]

Live Blogging of Day Two of Sotomayor Hearings: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/sotomayor_confirmatin_hearings.php#more

[Parkbandit]

Multiple = one.

Republican math.

As Keller so civilly alluded to, you might want to check your sources on that. It's a phrase that she has used repeatedly in speeches... and only now believes she phrased it improperly when called upon it.

[4a6c1]

My prediction is that she is confirmed with 65 votes.



:no:

sad face

[Keller]

As Keller so civilly alluded to, you might want to check your sources on that. It's a phrase that she has used repeatedly in speeches... and only now believes she phrased it improperly when called upon it.

You know I :love: your crayon threats!

[EasternBrand]

As Keller so civilly alluded to, you might want to check your sources on that. It's a phrase that she has used repeatedly in speeches... and only now believes she phrased it improperly when called upon it.

The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, suggests the phrase was said once, and the entire lecture was later published.

'But with President Barack Obama's nomination of Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter, Washington has become transfixed by "32"--the number of words in a startling passage from the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture that Sotomayor delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001 and published the following spring in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

The sentence that set off a furious round of spin by supporters and of criticism by opponents of Sotomayor's nomination reads as follows: "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."'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp

[Parkbandit]

The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, suggests the phrase was said once, and the entire lecture was later published.

'But with President Barack Obama's nomination of Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter, Washington has become transfixed by "32"--the number of words in a startling passage from the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture that Sotomayor delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001 and published the following spring in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

The sentence that set off a furious round of spin by supporters and of criticism by opponents of Sotomayor's nomination reads as follows: "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."'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp

It's a recurring theme in many of her speeches, prior to being nominated. While the Weekly Standard may be correct that this exact phrase you have quoted here was only used once, she has said the jist of that statement on more than one occasion.

[Latrinsorm]

Good backpedal on several fronts: avoiding acknowledgment of the initial error, changing the point of contention from objective (a phrase) to subjective (the gist), and still leaving the onus of empirical verification on other people. Kudos!

[Parkbandit]

Good backpedal on several fronts: avoiding acknowledgment of the initial error, changing the point of contention from objective (a phrase) to subjective (the gist), and still leaving the onus of empirical verification on other people. Kudos!

First of all, I acknowledged Daniel's error as did Keller. If you need me to quote those posts to you, I can.. but I was hoping that since this is only a 2 page thread that you could actually do the "research" on that. Secondly, EasternBrand claimed that Sotomayor only said the specific phrase of “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” .. which is probably true. I'm trying to think of another instance where anyone used a 32 word phrase exactly the same way on multiple occasions.

Third, I was under the assumption that even dumb people such as yourself could successfully use Google to find these other occurrences. I see now that I may have hoped for too much on your part.. so I give you these quotes (which I found in .04 seconds.. it was the second result). I do hope CNN is a good enough reference for you as well:

–In a 1999 speech: "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In a 2002 speech to the Princeton club: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In 2004, in a speech on women judges at Seton Hall Law School: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

I hope that in some small way, I have alleviated all of your concerns, fears and questions Latrinsorm. I know how upset it makes you and I for one do not want to aggravate your condition any further.

Have a fantastic day.

[radamanthys]

First of all, I acknowledged Daniel's error as did Keller. If you need me to quote those posts to you, I can.. but I was hoping that since this is only a 2 page thread that you could actually do the "research" on that. Secondly, EasternBrand claimed that Sotomayor only said the specific phrase of “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” .. which is probably true. I'm trying to think of another instance where anyone used a 32 word phrase exactly the same way on multiple occasions.

Third, I was under the assumption that even dumb people such as yourself could successfully use Google to find these other occurrences. I see now that I may have hoped for too much on your part.. so I give you these quotes (which I found in .04 seconds.. it was the second result). I do hope CNN is a good enough reference for you as well:

–In a 1999 speech: "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In a 2002 speech to the Princeton club: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In 2004, in a speech on women judges at Seton Hall Law School: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

I hope that in some small way, I have alleviated all of your concerns, fears and questions Latrinsorm. I know how upset it makes you and I for one do not want to aggravate your condition any further.

Have a fantastic day.

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo41/morgan_has_issues/Icons/22257989976p204194.jpg

[Mabus]

PB is correct.

Even during the hearing today it was brought up that she used the phrase on multiple occasions (specifically at the hearing a Berkley and a Seton Hall speech were referenced, as well as a law review magazine that was not named).

I'd rep you for proving them wrong, but can't currently until I spread the love around.

Here is a hug instead.
:hug2:

I find that referenced statement, and a few others, troubling. I also disagree with her judicial philosophy. But as I previously stated I feel she is highly qualified for the position, and do believe she should be confirmed.

I would not be surprised to see a 75+ Senate vote.

[Ravenstorm]

Let's play 'Who said this?' Ready?


Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Give up? Samuel Alito! Imagine that, a straight, white, male basically saying the same thing as Sotomayor. And you know who voted in favor of his confirmation? Sessions! But I bet you already knew that.

[Parkbandit]

And you know who voted in favor of his confirmation? Sessions! But I bet you already knew that.

Oh, oh! Wait! Let me guess, all the crazy ass liberal Democrats pounced on that and voted against him?

But I bet you already knew that.

[Mabus]

Let's play 'Who said this?' Ready?


When I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Judge Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled. I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He's a smart guy, there's no indication that he is not a man of good character. But, when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless


The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. … The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong.

Give up?

I have been waiting for some comment from the WH before using those, but there you have it.

The president that awaits his SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed voted against both nominees he had a chance to vote for in his short Senate career.

Alito I can almost understand, but Roberts? Pretty much called him a racist there, now didn't he?

Chief Justice Roberts is eminently qualified and a man of strong character. The only reason to vote against Roberts would be political opportunism, but that should not be surprising given the person quoted.

[Androidpk]

I'm more concerned about her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, I think the outcome of that was completely absurd. I'm also slightly troubled by her response to the 2nd amendment.

[Ravenstorm]

I suppose this would be a rebuttal of my post if I were in any way trying to defend someone here. I'm not, even by implications. Instead I'm merely taking some amusement in pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of politicians, some of whom are being parroted and defended by people on this board. They're objecting to a nearly identical comment where someone that wasn't a latin woman was praised for it.

Oh? And for whoever it was and anyone else considering it, don't bother with the negative rep. I really don't give a shit. And honestly, if you can't make a post to say something and can't even sign your comment, it just makes you look impotent. I don't know who you are and I don't care, but you're just proving how lame you are. Grow a pair already.

Back to topic. Politicians? Just about all liars and hypocrites, especially on a federal level. That goes for both parties. So jumping to their defense when the internet now pretty much guarantees there will be a record of their hypocrisy is futile.

Sad really. Pity we can't just start over like a game of Risk with new leaders and parties.

Edited to add: And yes, that includes Obama.

[Parkbandit]

I suppose this would be a rebuttal of my post if I were in any way trying to defend someone here. I'm not, even by implications. Instead I'm merely taking some amusement in pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of politicians, some of whom are being parroted and defended by people on this board. They're objecting to a nearly identical comment where someone that wasn't a latin woman was praised for it.

Oh? And for whoever it was and anyone else considering it, don't bother with the negative rep. I really don't give a shit. And honestly, if you can't make a post to say something and can't even sign your comment, it just makes you look impotent. I don't know who you are and I don't care, but you're just proving how lame you are. Grow a pair already.

Back to topic. Politicians? Just about all liars and hypocrites, especially on a federal level. That goes for both parties. So jumping to their defense when the internet now pretty much guarantees there will be a record of their hypocrisy is futile.

Sad really. Pity we can't just start over like a game of Risk with new leaders and parties.

Edited to add: And yes, that includes Obama.

You could have said "Damn, you got me" and been done with it.

Let's be honest.. you've been excusing Democrats and blaming Republicans for as long as I have read your posts. Take your post for instance.. instead of posting about the hypocrisy of the Democrats, you posted about the hypocrisy of the Republicans.

You will excuse me if I don't quite believe your "Oh, I wasn't pointing at any party in particular" bullshit.

[Ravenstorm]

Let's be honest.. you've been excusing Democrats and blaming Republicans for as long as I have read your posts. Take your post for instance.. instead of posting about the hypocrisy of the Democrats, you posted about the hypocrisy of the Republicans.

I realize not being particularly partisan is an alien concept to you but do try to wrap your head around it. You are correct in that I've been blaming republicans for years. Maybe it's because - I don't know - they controlled the country for years? Funny how that happens: control = blame. I've also been voting Democrat for years because they, as a rule, are more in line with what I believe. But I in no way excuse or justify their hypocrisy and lies. And when they screw up I'll be down on them just as much.

And let me correct you... I didn't post about the hypocrisy of the Republicans. The point of my post was aimed at the posters here jumping on that particular bandwagon and your hypocrisy. And that point has been made quite well I believe.

[Mikalmas]

Oh, oh! Wait! Let me guess, all the crazy ass liberal Democrats pounced on that and voted against him?

But I bet you already knew that.

Um, what does the "crazy ass liberal Democrats" have to do with the fact that one of your boys said just about the same thing regarding ethnic background that Sotomayor has said?

The hypocrisy around here amazes me. You conservatives scream about Democrats "blaming bush," exalting that we should all just move on, yet every single chance you get, you do the same thing.

[Parkbandit]

I realize not being particularly partisan is an alien concept to you but do try to wrap your head around it.

Damn, you've worked hard for it.

Grats!

http://www.theeaglesoars.com/blog/uploaded_images/hypocrite_award-719767.jpg

[4a6c1]

I'll be an optimist until I die...in the meantime heres the good that comes out of this.

Sotomayor answered plainly, "Yes sir," and added, "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA."

Also, she is Catholic and might vote for a reversal of Roe v. Wade.


:bouncy:

[Parkbandit]

I'll be an optimist until I die...in the meantime heres the good that comes out of this.

Sotomayor answered plainly, "Yes sir," and added, "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA."

Also, she is Catholic and might vote for a reversal of Roe v. Wade.


:bouncy:

:rofl:

That's not being an optimist, that's just being naive. Much like when Obama stated that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut and people believed him.

[4a6c1]

:no:

i hate you

dont bust my bubbles

[Back]

Um, what does the "crazy ass liberal Democrats" have to do with the fact that one of your boys said just about the same thing regarding ethnic background that Sotomayor has said?

The hypocrisy around here amazes me. You conservatives scream about Democrats "blaming bush," exalting that we should all just move on, yet every single chance you get, you do the same thing.

Welcome to America.

[Gan]

First of all, I acknowledged Daniel's error as did Keller. If you need me to quote those posts to you, I can.. but I was hoping that since this is only a 2 page thread that you could actually do the "research" on that. Secondly, EasternBrand claimed that Sotomayor only said the specific phrase of “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” .. which is probably true. I'm trying to think of another instance where anyone used a 32 word phrase exactly the same way on multiple occasions.

Third, I was under the assumption that even dumb people such as yourself could successfully use Google to find these other occurrences. I see now that I may have hoped for too much on your part.. so I give you these quotes (which I found in .04 seconds.. it was the second result). I do hope CNN is a good enough reference for you as well:

–In a 1999 speech: "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In a 2002 speech to the Princeton club: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

–In 2004, in a speech on women judges at Seton Hall Law School: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

I hope that in some small way, I have alleviated all of your concerns, fears and questions Latrinsorm. I know how upset it makes you and I for one do not want to aggravate your condition any further.

Have a fantastic day.

LOL

Gotta love that Republican Math....

[Back]

Daily show is tearing this up.

[Hulkein]

John Stewart is a loser.

[AnticorRifling]

Sotomayor answered plainly, "Yes sir," and added, "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA."



No sir I'm not racist afterall our president is black. That's the dumbest fucking answer to a question about firearms. Never mind the fact the NRA doesn't want to win the fight, they want the fight to go on as long as possible so they have a position. The NRA makes me want to shoot people in the face.

[Parkbandit]

No sir I'm not racist afterall our president is black. That's the dumbest fucking answer to a question about firearms. Never mind the fact the NRA doesn't want to win the fight, they want the fight to go on as long as possible so they have a position. The NRA makes me want to shoot people in the face.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing. BUT HER GODSON IS A MEMBER OF THE NRA! Oh, and she also has friends that hunt!

Well that is comforting...

[Fallen]

John Stewart is a loser.

It is like watching a democratic Fox News, but with decent punch lines.

[AnticorRifling]

I like John Stewart.

[Tsa`ah]

It is like watching a democratic Fox News, but with decent punch lines.

Except JS takes shots at the Dems high and low.

[Daniel]

It is like watching a democratic Fox News, but with decent punch lines.

Yea...except one is a comedy show and one is a "serious" news organization that many people turn to for their political updates.

[Bhuryn]

Yea...except one is a comedy show and one is a "serious" news organization that many people turn to for their political updates.

What? I've never found Fox news funny.

[Parkbandit]

Yea...except one is a comedy show and one is a "serious" news organization that many people turn to for their political updates.

I love all the liberal bashing the ONE news organization that slants towards conservatism... Of course these are the same idiots who believe that the NBC's, CBS's, ABC's, NYT's, etc.. are the "real" news.

[Fallen]

Yea...except one is a comedy show and one is a "serious" news organization that many people turn to for their political updates.

I'm sure a healthy amount of people in this country get their news solely from John Steward.

[Daniel]

I'm sure a healthy amount of people in this country get their news solely from John Steward.

Based on what assumption? What do you think Jon Stewart's demographic is?

[radamanthys]

I'm sure a healthy amount of people in this country get their news solely from John Steward.

A significant portion of college students fall into that category.

[Daniel]

I love all the liberal bashing the ONE news organization that slants towards conservatism... Of course these are the same idiots who believe that the NBC's, CBS's, ABC's, NYT's, etc.. are the "real" news.

Okay.

[AnticorRifling]

I get most of my news from here. Generally if it's not important enough for one of you guys that follows happenings to post then I don't care. How fucked up is that?

[Hulkein]

I love all the liberal bashing the ONE news organization that slants towards conservatism... Of course these are the same idiots who believe that the NBC's, CBS's, ABC's, NYT's, etc.. are the "real" news.

+1

[AnticorRifling]

Where is Kenye to shout that Sotomayor doesn't care about white people?

[Lumi]

It is like watching a democratic Fox News, but with decent punch lines.

Also, it's a COMEDY show, not the actual NEWS. Shocking that we'd hold the latter to any kind of standard; sad that the former is doing a better job, even while being funny at the same time.

Conservatives love to rip on Stewart, but at least he occasionally rips on both sides of the aisle. One side just makes it alot easier.

[Fallen]

Also, it's a COMEDY show, not the actual NEWS. Shocking that we'd hold the latter to any kind of standard; sad that the former is doing a better job, even while being funny at the same time.

Conservatives love to rip on Stewart, but at least he occasionally rips on both sides of the aisle. One side just makes it alot easier.

I'm not a fan of any biased news reporting, be it Fox News or The Daily Show. The fact that it is a comedy show makes it no less of a liberal news vehicle IMO. It is damn hard to find news that isn't slanted one way or another. I can stomach NPR on occasion, but they're fairly liberal as well. Fox News is a joke. Apparently the channel I most prefer, WTOP is conservative, but I don't see how. They barely touch on most major stories.

[Mabus]

Conservatives love to rip on Stewart, but at least he occasionally rips on both sides of the aisle.
I was really disappointed with his Barney frank interview the other night. He knew Frank was lying (you could see it in Stewart's face) but he let him off the hook. I have seen him really go after guests, but he took a pass on ripping into Frank, and I just shook my head at it.

[Lumi]

I'm not a fan of any biased news reporting, be it Fox News or The Daily Show. The fact that it is a comedy show makes it no less of a liberal news vehicle IMO. It is damn hard to find news that isn't slanted one way or another. I can stomach NPR on occasion, but they're fairly liberal as well. Fox News is a joke. Apparently the channel I most prefer, WTOP is conservative, but I don't see how. They barely touch on most major stories.

So you consider TDS to be "reporting"? Do you also hold it against SNL or MadTV when they rip humor from the headlines?

What about the interviews on TDS? He has plenty of conservative guests on, and he treats them with respect, he doesn't stifle them or try to railroad them into saying what he wants them to say. That's more than can be said for a number of other "news" shows and organizations these days.

[Fallen]

So you consider TDS to be "reporting"? Do you also hold it against SNL or MadTV when they rip humor from the headlines?

Is the bulk of TDS dedicated to reviewing the day's news? Is the bulk of SNL or MadTV?

[Lumi]

I was really disappointed with his Barney frank interview the other night. He knew Frank was lying (you could see it in Stewart's face) but he let him off the hook. I have seen him really go after guests, but he took a pass on ripping into Frank, and I just shook my head at it.

Just mentioning, the interview was condensed. The full interview's on the main page of the website.

(I wish they'd show us BEFORE the interview starts that it's abridged, so we could avoid watching the broadcasted parts twice :P)


Is the bulk of TDS dedicated to reviewing the day's news? Is the bulk of SNL or MadTV?

Is TDS a comedy show or a news show? Are SNL or MadTV?

His primary duty is comedy.

[Parkbandit]

Is TDS a comedy show or a news show? Are SNL or MadTV?

His primary duty is comedy.

You do realize that TDS is comedy which is mostly about politics, right? Yes, they are all comedy shows.. It's what they are making fun of that sets them apart

[Lumi]

You do realize that TDS is comedy which is mostly about politics, right? Yes, they are all comedy shows.. It's what they are making fun of that sets them apart

Yes, I realize that, I just don't see how that's really material to the discussion. The standards we hold TDS to are somehow based on those we hold actual news shows to, because they use the news to create the majority of their comedy? In that case, why don't we bash news shows for not being funny enough?

[Mabus]

In that case, why don't we bash news shows for not being funny enough?
In a way, we do.

People often change the channel if they do not find the news informative and entertaining, and even to pick specific personalities (possibly even based on looks or vocal tonal quality). Look at the explosion of CGI graphics in news media, the interactive data walls, the call ins, and the tie-ins with online polls; they do show an increasing trend toward turning news into more entertainment, then just being the "Walter Cronkite" type news of the past.

It has lead to the "bubble-headed bleach blond" newscasters, and the sensationalism that currently passes for "news", but is really just entertainment and affirmation of currently held beliefs.

[Latrinsorm]

I was really disappointed with his Barney frank interview the other night. He knew Frank was lying (you could see it in Stewart's face) but he let him off the hook. I have seen him really go after guests, but he took a pass on ripping into Frank, and I just shook my head at it.Stewart gave the quote that clearly demonstrated he was lying, what more do you want? I don't ever remember him actually laying into someone that he was currently interviewing.

[Mabus]

Stewart gave the quote that clearly demonstrated he was lying, what more do you want? I don't ever remember him actually laying into someone that he was currently interviewing.
Barney Frank straight up lied about his involvement in pushing for low income home ownership. There are plenty of C-SPAN committee hearings where you can see this demonstrated.

Then you have missed some really good "laying into"'s on the show. Douglas Feith and Jim Kramer come to mind, but there have been a few more.

He was either ill prepared, or cut Frank some slack.

[Lumi]

Barney Frank straight up lied about his involvement in pushing for low income home ownership. There are plenty of C-SPAN committee hearings where you can see this demonstrated.

Then you have missed some really good "laying into"'s on the show. Douglas Feith and Jim Kramer come to mind, but there have been a few more.

He was either ill prepared, or cut Frank some slack.

He didn't "lay into" Jim Kramer any worse than anyone else he's disagreed with. What he did with Jim Kramer was crucify him with his own words, which was only easy because he had tons of material to pull from.

[Parkbandit]

He didn't "lay into" Jim Kramer any worse than anyone else he's disagreed with. What he did with Jim Kramer was crucify him with his own words, which was only easy because he had tons of material to pull from.

He has far more on Barney Frank.. and let him off the hook.

[Latrinsorm]

Jim Cramer was different because he clearly prepared for him more than any other guest, and he was only different in kind rather than in intensity. Rather than play a clip of Barney Frank, Jon gave a direct quote. Rep. Frank bumble-blathered an explanation the same way Cramer did. I'm looking at the Feith interview now, and to offer some of my father's wisdom, you don't know yelling, Mabus. An offhand comparison to the tobacco companies is the closest thing I found, everything else is "the administration" this and "errors aren't lies" that. In what way is the interview different?

[Parkbandit]

Jim Cramer was different because he clearly prepared for him more than any other guest, and he was only different in kind rather than in intensity. Rather than play a clip of Barney Frank, Jon gave a direct quote. Rep. Frank bumble-blathered an explanation the same way Cramer did.

Right here is where it was different. Cramer was called out on the floor, repeatedly.. with fantastic clips of Cramer being an idiot. After Frank bumble-blathered an explanation.. it was dropped.

Personally, I don't give a shit because unlike some on this message board.. I don't get my political news from Jon Stewart. I view him as pure entertainment.

[Parkbandit]

QQ

http://childstoryhour.com/images/coloring/Qq.jpg

I hope that answers any lingering questions you may still have WB.

[Warriorbird]

Sotomayor Confirmation 07-15-2009 09:13 PM You are so stupid it hurts. -PB

Not neg rep!

At least I'm not the one whining about poor Jim Cramer on a message board.

[Mabus]

I'm looking at the Feith interview now, and to offer some of my father's wisdom, you don't know yelling, Mabus.
I do not believe I said "yelling".

The Feith interview Stewart stuck to facts, and would not let him stray. Stewart consistently kept at him about deception, and the lead up to the war.


I'm saying that the facts were not presented to the American people, because in making the prosecution they seemed to downplay the negative side. Anything that went towards not making the case was brushed aside. Anything that would take away the momentum.
-Jon Stewart


Maybe the disconnect is the written record within the government differs so greatly. All respect, I think I remember pretty clearly the general tenor of what the government was saying to the people in the run-up to the war. It was, the president specifically, the risk of going in, we have two choices: to do nothing. The risk of doing nothing is far greater than the risk of going in. but the risks of going in were never quantified publicly the way they were privately. In fact, the opposite. They undersold them.
-Jon Stewart

I would have liked to have seen him go after Frank, pretty much calling bullshit on him, when Frank gave his purposefully misleading answers.

That's all I was saying.

[TheEschaton]

It wasn't dropped - the rest of the interview was cut to the end so it could fit on TV.

As for this quote:


I can stomach NPR on occasion, but they're fairly liberal as well. Fox News is a joke.

How is NPR "fairly liberal"? This is like saying reality is fairly liberal. When I do a new story on, say, how common Iraqis are suffering more now than ever, have no running water or electricity, insufficient nutrition, etc, etc, how is this liberal?

Because it doesn't toe a political line that you've deemed correct? Because otherwise, it's reporting what's actually happening.

-TheE-

[Keller]

Not neg rep!

At least I'm not the one whining about poor Jim Cramer on a message board.

He's not whining about Cramer.

He's explaining that TDS treated Cramer and Frank differently.

I'm all for antagonizing old men, but at least be right when you do it.

[TheEschaton]

The problem with all these things is that the law is structured to preserve the power of the powerful, in most cases. Landlord-tenant law, K law, property law, tax, all of it.

Justice, as a concept, is something that sides with the person who is right, or morally justified, or however you want to put it, a position that is wealth-neutral (IE, being rich does not make one right).

Thus, you have this conflict, more often than I'm comfortable with, between actual, substantive justice, and upholding the law. Judges are faced with it every day.

The legal positivists say the law is the law and the law is right by virtue of being the law, the natural lawyers say that there are fundamental principles of justice that a present law may conflict with, and, if they do, those laws are wrong. These are, mainly, the two camps within which judges, as well as everyone else, fall in.

This is a tricky area for judges. The very foundation of a legally-ordered society depends on obeying laws, but their very task is to decide which laws are "actual laws" (ie in terms of comporting to justice), and which are not. It''s not a job I want anyone on this forum to have, fwiw.

-TheE-

[Gan]

It wasn't dropped - the rest of the interview was cut to the end so it could fit on TV.

As for this quote:



How is NPR "fairly liberal"? This is like saying reality is fairly liberal. When I do a new story on, say, how common Iraqis are suffering more now than ever, have no running water or electricity, insufficient nutrition, etc, etc, how is this liberal?

Because it doesn't toe a political line that you've deemed correct? Because otherwise, it's reporting what's actually happening.

-TheE-

NPR is my usualy news venue for pre and post work drive time listening media. I've heard it referred to as 'liberal slanted' many times by other media types and by my more conservative minded friends.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
Interesting article discussing thoughts about NPR and the politics of its broadcasting.

[TheEschaton]

At best, NPR reports the story you don't hear on mainstream media because it is A) too boring and factual for mainstream media, and B) it doesn't line up with what we're being told.

This makes NPR, if anything, scientific/historical, not liberal. Maybe apolitical.

Unless, of course, you want to claim science and history is liberal too.

Come to think of it, all that science showing homosexuality is a part of nature IS pretty damn liberal.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And your article is trying to refute the claim that "NPR is public radio", which it seems to define as "the opinion of the jackass on the street", and makes a big deal of all the "elite" sources of news, such as....government officials....think tanks....professors....and so on, so forth. Personally, I don't think it would be news if it was "public" in the sense that any idiot could and was sought out for their view on the news. I mean, have you seen the Comments section on any news website, or CNN's insanely idiotic iReporter bullshit?

As to bias, the very article you linked says the following:


Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Similar studies have been done about CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and FoxNews, showing the first four to be relatively neutral, MSNBC left-leaning, and FoxNews staunchly conservative. I mean, hell, the "liberal" they had on Hannity and Colmes was....Alan Colmes. Come on.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Not neg rep!

At least I'm not the one whining about poor Jim Cramer on a message board.

Actually, had you read the portion of the thread, you would have realized it had zero to do with Jim Cramer and everything to do with Jon Stewart.

But hey.. it's not like you to not read anything and just jump to your own stupid conclusions.. is it.

[Warriorbird]

No... that portion was you trying to pin 'Evil Librul!' on Stewart because he didn't go after Barney Frank!

Oh my gosh! Jon Stewart is liberal! Who would've known?

Did you know that Glenn Beck is conservative? I mean... we could post a lot about that given that the field's open or you could just QQ as advised.

[Parkbandit]

No... that portion was you trying to pin 'Evil Librul!' on Stewart because he didn't go after Barney Frank!

Oh my gosh! Jon Stewart is liberal! Who would've known?

Did you know that Glenn Beck is conservative? I mean... we could post a lot about that given that the field's open or you could just QQ as advised.

We've already established that you didn't read the thread WB.. no need to continue proving us right.

[Gan]

I mean... we could post a lot about that given that the field's open or you could just QQ as advised.

Is this where Backlash would ask you why you hate America so much? I mean, if the shoe was on the other foot and all... Oh wait, we've already seen your QQ when Bush was in office.

[Fallen]

...you guys are arguing that NPR is not at all liberal in orientation? REALLY? They are not heavy-handed by any means, but to deny that the station is left leaning is really stretching it. Do they push a liberal agenda? You could argue that they do, or that they do not. There is no chance you could say they push a conservative agenda. Heh, that should tell you something right there. Are their personalities more democratic, or republican in leaning? Democratic. Are their guests usually democratic or repulican in leaning? Democratic.

I'm not trying to call them the Fox News of the radio waves, I am simply pointing out that they have a liberal leaning.

[MrTastyHead]

I see NPR as being more rational and informative than liberal. Oh, wait...I guess that is more of a liberal thing.

[Parkbandit]

I see NPR as being more rational and informative than liberal. Oh, wait...I guess that is more of a liberal thing.

On the Bizzaro home world it is. In reality, it's quite the opposite.

[Fallen]

I enjoy most of NPRs programming, especially later at night when they do the BBC world news. It is nice to hear a non-American centered news organization put in their take on things. I can do without Kojo and Diane Reems. I know people like their morning shows of Wait Wait Don't Tell me and Prairie Home Companion, but they've never done anything for me. Car talk is also useless to me. I do like Radio lab, and will listen when they focus on technology on tuesdays.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure there's many 'conservatives' that project rationality. McCain/Palin sure didn't.

I think the most unbiased news source regarding America is the BBC.

[AnticorRifling]

I enjoy most of NPRs programming, especially later at night when they do the BBC world news. It is nice to hear a non-American centered news organization put in their take on things. I can do without Kojo and Diane Reems. I know people like their morning shows of Wait Wait Don't Tell me and Prairie Home Companion, but they've never done anything for me. Car talk is also useless to me. I do like Radio lab, and will listen when they focus on technology on tuesdays.
Wait Wait is where it's at. You sir, are a commie.

[Fallen]

I'm not sure there's many 'conservatives' that project rationality. McCain/Palin sure didn't.

I think the most unbiased news source regarding America is the BBC.

Yah. The BBC rocks.

[MrTastyHead]

Car Talk is an awesome show. Commie.

[ClydeR]

You know that the left is getting worried about their nominee when they start comparing the nominee to mythical wizards.


Rowling's use of the term "half-blood" to vividly evoke the damaging effects of racial prejudice in the life of some of her key characters must be highlighted, especially this week. This is the same week where the American people have been treated to the unseemly spectacle of conservative politicians using "racism" as a club to beat up Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic American woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court. These attacks on her, as illustrated but not limited to Senator Sessions' remarks, illustrate that her questioners have no insight into their own racial formation, and deformation, in a white-dominant American society.

I highly recommend that several of these Senators go see the Harry Potter film--and better yet, read the books where the racial prejudice by some in the wizarding community is horribly illustrated. "Generations of purebloods, wizards all--more than you can say, I don't doubt...a filthy, dirt-veined Muggle," says a Wizard racist whose negative attitudes toward racial pluralism have fatal and near fatal consequences for both Wizards and Muggles alike in the film and in the book.

More... (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2009/07/harry_potter_wizards_and_racism.html)

[TheEschaton]

This is why blogs are the worst thing to ever happen.

[ClydeR]

That guy testifying now was the original inspiration for Law and Order, which is one of the best shows on the teevee.

[EasternBrand]

That guy testifying now was the original inspiration for Law and Order, which is one of the best shows on the teevee.

Irrefutable proof that ClydeR is a powerful woman.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219880/

[ClydeR]

The NRA announced its opposition to Sotomayor earlier today.


"We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land," said a joint statement by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA executive vice president, and Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Reform.

More... (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/sotomayor.hearing/)

[Parkbandit]

The NRA announced its opposition to Sotomayor earlier today.

BUT WHAT ABOUT HER GODSON'S MEMBERSHIP!!!111oneone

[Gan]

Thought you knew, Mexicans prefer knives. Or at least thats what I've been told.

:whistle:

[Back]

So now that the failed tactic on her confirmation has been completely devastated we now turn to socialized health care. Mien Gott!!!!

[4a6c1]

LaPierre always brings me back to my senses.

[Parkbandit]

So now that the failed tactic on her confirmation has been completely devastated we now turn to socialized health care. Mien Gott!!!!

Bets on it passing?

I'm going to say it won't pass by their next recess. There are too many Democrats seeking re-election that not even Obama can help them if they vote for this in it's current form.

[Daniel]

Thought you knew, Mexicans prefer knives. Or at least thats what I've been told.

:whistle:

She's not Mexican...

[Mikalmas]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html

[Parkbandit]

Huge surprise...

Really.

[Mabus]

Huge surprise...

Really.
I am rather disappointed (but not overly surprised) by the low GOP support for her confirmation.

1) She was well qualified.
2) She seems center-left (rather then leftist).
3) She dismissed "empathy" as a judicial philosophy.
4) She is replacing someone that likely would vote the same.
5) She is Hispanic and a woman; two of the groups the GOP should consider if it wants a future.

[Clove]

Based on what assumption? What do you think Jon Stewart's demographic is?


Multiple = one.

Republican math.You're the last person who should be talking about assumptions in this thread :D

[4a6c1]

http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sotomayer-blingee.gif

[Clove]

Give up? Samuel Alito! Imagine that, a straight, white, male basically saying the same thing as Sotomayor. And you know who voted in favor of his confirmation? Sessions! But I bet you already knew that.I'm really having a difficult time considering Alito's statements symantically equivalent to Sotomayor's. Alito observes that he draws on his ethnic background when he considers cases relevant to it, and Sotomayor alludes that her ethnicity makes her judgement superior. Which seems more racist to you?

Latinas are hawt by the way.

[Clove]

PB is correct.Quoted for posterity.

[Keller]

My prediction is that she is confirmed with 65 votes.


3 votes off.

[ClydeR]

I am rather disappointed (but not overly surprised) by the low GOP support for her confirmation.

Republican presidents are better at choosing nominees for the courts. As you can see from the first chart below, the nominees chosen by Republican presidents have tended to get move votes than the nominees chosen by Democrat presidents.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/judges.jpg

Republican's superior judge choosing power becomes even more obvious in the next chart when you tally up the cumulative number of Senate votes for all of the Republican nominated judges on the court and compare it to the number of Senate votes for the Democrat nominated judges.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/judges2.jpg

Numbers don't lie to people.