Skip navigation


The liberals are grinning like a Cheshire cat. A woman, a progressive, an hispanic––so very, very affirmative of Obama! The conservatives are grinding their axeheads into machetes––an intellectual lightweight, a judicial activist, a constitutional neophtye, an hispanic AND a woman––how blatantly affirmative of Obama! But one thing both groups can agree on, if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will have an inevitable impact: the RNC’s immediate pick of a female hispanic cohort for Michael Steele. That GOP––say what you will––those boys have street cred.



  1. I just look at her face and I think “empathy”. What a story behind her! It just says “empathy”. This is the kind of person that can look at the US Constitution and it says “empathy”. The first amendment needs to have more “empathy” (think of the un-empathetic things said in the name of free speech). The second needs more “empathy” (think of the effect of guns on those poor projects in the South Bronx). The ninth and tenth say nothing about “empathy”. We need the rule of law with a kind, tender and smiley face . Maybe, finally the rule of “empathy”. I just love Obama, he feels my pain- affirmative and may I say “empathetic”.

    • Sotomayer is a woman, she is latino and she is “diferent” from the other members on the current Supreme Court in another dramatic way. She has spent more time on the bench than any one of the members of the court. Could it be that having more actual judicial experience would make a nominee both more committed to the Constitution AND more empathetic? Because empathy was not the only litmus test that Obama mentioned. Right?

  2. An experienced empathite. Thats wonderful!

    But since its is baseball season lets look at the Supreme Court like baseball. So the Supremes are like umpires. Here are three possibilities of how our Supremes can call the game:

    Umpire One- “There’s balls and strikes and I call them what they are!”

    Umpire Two- “There’s balls and strikes and I call them like I see them!”

    Umpire Three- “There’s balls and strikes and they ain’t nothing until I call them!”

    Umpire One is my guy for the Supreme Court. He doesn’t exist though. His job is to read the Constitution and the clear understanding of the founders and make a decision on it alone.

    Umpire Two is what all the Supremes are today. Liberal or conservative they make the Constitution to be what they want it to be. Its a dead letter that is used to make us feel well “constitutional” be it Scallia find ing torture or Ginsburg seizing property for private development.

    Umpire Three is the final step. It’s the “rule of man” or of “empathy” or of “hate” or of “name that attitude” there is no fixed standard. It doesn’t have anything to do about law, or manipulating law. It’s just about “fill in blank” or government as they (and whomever they may be at the time) see’s it. That scares me!

    So my question to you is Why do you think that anything other than Umpire One is acceptable? Can we take the Bible and apply Umpire Two and Three to it. Is that not what we are doing already? And why would that be a good thing for civil society?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: