God help us if Obama seriously considers Deval Patrick, MA governor. He was the CEO of Ameriquest, one of the most egregious predatory mortgage lenders. But it would not surprise me, as all the other criminals involved in bankrupting our economy at OUR expense and THEIR gain are getting jobs at Treasury or the Fed, or being called heroes by colleagues in the Senate.

It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

Nominee could be a mulatto-asian touch-typist. Or a Latino-German pro-acrylic knitter. But what I'm generally hearing is, "Not some old white guy." Which, subby is correct, should have nothing to do with it.

I am so glad that knowledge of constitutional law is off the table. That crap gets annoying.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nominee could be a mulatto-asian touch-typist. Or a Latino-German pro-acrylic knitter. But what I'm generally hearing is, "Not some old white guy." Which, subby is correct, should have nothing to do with it.

I'm subby. I couldn't give a shiat if she's the first thunderball playing transvestite from Cook County born on a Tuesday in September, so long as they know their shiat.

I'm just annoyed that instead of focusing on the real implications of a vacancy, especially someone like Souter who was expected to play out one way and turned out the other, they focus on something that the Court has ruled should have no bearing on job qualification.

makes sense to me, it's how The One got elected.

El Chode: Benevolent Misanthrope: Nominee could be a mulatto-asian touch-typist. Or a Latino-German pro-acrylic knitter. But what I'm generally hearing is, "Not some old white guy." Which, subby is correct, should have nothing to do with it.

I'm subby. I couldn't give a shiat if she's the first thunderball playing transvestite from Cook County born on a Tuesday in September, so long as they know their shiat.

I'm just annoyed that instead of focusing on the real implications of a vacancy, especially someone like Souter who was expected to play out one way and turned out the other, they focus on something that the Court has ruled should have no bearing on job qualification.

That's what I was saying too - While I would like a younger appointment, just to ensure a less-right-wing voice on the court for a while, the age, gender or race of the next justice is irrelevant. Explain the 2nd and 6th amendments to me. Then I'll think about it.

Doublek111: makes sense to me, it's how The One got elected.

Though I'm no fan of Him, I think that takes a lot away from the post. I'd hate to see everything he does be judged in terms of his race, whether success or failure.

Since whoever gets picked is going to be blocked anyway, does it really matter ?

Benevolent Misanthrope: That's what I was saying too - While I would like a younger appointment, just to ensure a less-right-wing voice on the court for a while, the age, gender or race of the next justice is irrelevant. Explain the 2nd and 6th amendments to me. Then I'll think about it.

The only difference I hope to see is that it'd be someone who'd be against Kelo. I still maintain 2005 was a bad year.

I also hope it's someone against federal intervention in the gay marriage debate. Then we could maybe talk about the 9th. No one shows love for the 9th.

El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

And that's all for the better. I mean, if it's a Hispanic woman, she'll be too dangerously unbalanced to work for 5 days out of the month, and she'll always be coming to work late. And sombreros with black robes? Please.

Hillary, on the other hand, would be an absolute riot of an appointment. But I'm not a good person to suggest SCOTUS nominees, 'cos I'd pick people strictly for the laughs:

How about a black female pro-lifer? That'd be fun.

Or a lifelong Republican, millionaire white guy who is anti-affirmative action, pro-choice, pro-union and pro-gun. The lulz would be phenomenal.

The next judge better have a vagina so help me, jeebus. Or heads will roll!

/not really
//but my boss seems to feel that way

I'm intrigued by Leah Ward Sears.

dahmers love zombie [TotalFark] Quote 2009-05-01 11:39:49 PM


Or a lifelong Republican, millionaire white guy who is anti-affirmative action, pro-choice, pro-union and pro-gun. The lulz would be phenomenal.


I love it.

dahmers love zombie: El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

And that's all for the better. I mean, if it's a Hispanic woman, she'll be too dangerously unbalanced to work for 5 days out of the month, and she'll always be coming to work late. And sombreros with black robes? Please.

Hillary, on the other hand, would be an absolute riot of an appointment. But I'm not a good person to suggest SCOTUS nominees, 'cos I'd pick people strictly for the laughs:

How about a black female pro-lifer? That'd be fun.

Or a lifelong Republican, millionaire white guy who is anti-affirmative action, pro-choice, pro-union and pro-gun. The lulz would be phenomenal.

I say that he appoints Hillary now, then Palin once Stevens or Ginsburg goes.

Souter was not a "Liberal"

He was a moderate. Since when does -"to the left of Attila the Hun" mean "Liberal"?

He will probably pick a guy as equally nuanced as the guy who is leaving, and all this pseudo-intellectual speculative circle-jerking will be for naught.

Action Replay Nick: He will probably pick a guy as equally nuanced as the guy who is leaving, and all this pseudo-intellectual speculative circle-jerking will be for naught.

You know what, you're right. Let's discuss who should replace Paula on American Idol.

El Chode: Action Replay Nick: He will probably pick a guy as equally nuanced as the guy who is leaving, and all this pseudo-intellectual speculative circle-jerking will be for naught.

You know what, you're right. Let's discuss who should replace Paula on American Idol.

That would also be a very inane discussion.

This topic was interesting yesterday. Thinking about it any more until the first nominee is picked is pretty much a waste of brain cells.

Because People in power are Stupid: He was a moderate. Since when does -"to the left of Attila the Hun" mean "Liberal"?

I'm intrigued. Please list for me some occasions upon which Justice Souter made a principled dissenting stand, to the ideological right of the majority.

Name, let's say, five. No, ten. No, make it three.

Action Replay Nick: This topic was interesting yesterday. Thinking about it any more until the first nominee is picked is pretty much a waste of brain cells.

It's either think about this or study more for my Con Law final.

I choose procrastination, like a good American.

FTA:

President Barack Obama pledged Friday to name a Supreme Court justice who combines "empathy and understanding" with an impeccable legal background to succeed liberal David Souter, whose abrupt retirement announcement set off speculation the next justice could be a woman, a Hispanic or both.

Set off speculation amongst whom? Is there anyone who really thinks that only women or Hispanic people can have "empathy and understanding"?

mkfreeberg: Because People in power are Stupid: He was a moderate. Since when does -"to the left of Attila the Hun" mean "Liberal"?

I'm intrigued. Please list for me some occasions upon which Justice Souter made a principled dissenting stand, to the ideological right of the majority.

Name, let's say, five. No, ten. No, make it three.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any situations where he has made any such principled dissenting stand from the right (though it's entirely possible he has - I'm not familiar with every dissent he's written in the past 20 years). But, that's a meaningless inquiry. No one's disputing that Souter is to the left of most of the Justices on the current Court. However, being on the left flank of the Rehnquist/Roberts courts does not mean that he was a "Liberal" justice.

KaponoFor3: Set off speculation amongst whom?

And there's the nut of the FARK in TFA. It's pure crapola thrown out there by the author.

BKITU: And there's the nut of the FARK in TFA. It's pure crapola thrown out there by the author.

Race baiting probably drives more traffic.

Why is subby a bigoted piece of shiat? Because he believes no latino women have a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism.

eddiesocket: Why is subby a bigoted piece of shiat? Because he believes no latino women have a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism.

Speaking of loaded statements...

Because People in power are Stupid: Souter was not a "Liberal"

He was a moderate. Since when does -"to the left of Attila the Hun" mean "Liberal"?

Uuuuuh, since the days you were either with us or against us?

Benevolent Misanthrope: El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

Nominee could be a mulatto-asian touch-typist. Or a Latino-German pro-acrylic knitter. But what I'm generally hearing is, "Not some old white guy." Which, subby is correct, should have nothing to do with it.

I'd like the new Supreme Court justice to be someone with a solid grasp of Constitutional law, a lengthy background as a stable jurist, a real and demonstrated ability to make rulings based on facts and law rather than public opinion, and a history of not being overturned on a regular basis by appellate courts.

If that means it's some old white guy, then so be it.

El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

Huh?

...possibly by naming a minority - a second black or the court's first Hispanic - or a second woman...

...

Some of the names that have been circulating outside the White House include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago have also been mentioned.

TFA: The nation's first black president, Obama made no mention of using race or gender as a consideration.

But the important thing is to get the narrative rolling now so that if they candidate is something other than an old white man we can get the bigoted horse-hockey going quickly.

(If, on the other hand, it is an old white man, he will be the "most liberal justice ever appointed to the Supreme Court", but the narrative there is already well-established.)

Take your pick

El Chode: eddiesocket: Why is subby a bigoted piece of shiat? Because he believes no latino women have a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism.

Speaking of loaded statements...

Really? How so? Subby (and apparently you) believes that if you decide to pick a latino woman as a Justice then you're somehow excluding someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism. As if there aren't dozens of qualified people in every race and both genders.

I'm thinking the new Justice is going to be a left of center academic, probably a constitutional law professor. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone from Chicago University or Harvard.

/No, not Bill Ayers.

Rob Anybody: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago have also been mentioned.

Castillo isn't the only one.

The point is that it's the byline and not even the subject of the article. Wardlaw is the person they probably had in mind.

eddiesocket: El Chode: eddiesocket: Why is subby a bigoted piece of shiat? Because he believes no latino women have a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism.

Speaking of loaded statements...

Really? How so? Subby (and apparently you) believes that if you decide to pick a latino woman as a Justice then you're somehow excluding someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism. As if there aren't dozens of qualified people in every race and both genders.

Dozens. Literally dozens.

eddiesocket: Really? How so? Subby (and apparently you) believes that if you decide to pick a latino woman as a Justice then you're somehow excluding someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism. As if there aren't dozens of qualified people in every race and both genders.

Because that is the essence of a loaded statement. I make no accusations towards any race, and you posit an entire theory on my own presuppositions towards an entire race from it.

Gyrfalcon: Benevolent Misanthrope: El Chode: It's just funny how the byline is "nominee could be Hispanic, Woman" and then it's never mentioned again in the article.

Nominee could be a mulatto-asian touch-typist. Or a Latino-German pro-acrylic knitter. But what I'm generally hearing is, "Not some old white guy." Which, subby is correct, should have nothing to do with it.

I'd like the new Supreme Court justice to be someone with a solid grasp of Constitutional law, a lengthy background as a stable jurist, a real and demonstrated ability to make rulings based on facts and law rather than public opinion, and a history of not being overturned on a regular basis by appellate courts.

If that means it's some old white guy, then so be it.

Don't you think there's more than one person with those qualifications?

El Chode: eddiesocket: Really? How so? Subby (and apparently you) believes that if you decide to pick a latino woman as a Justice then you're somehow excluding someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and federalism. As if there aren't dozens of qualified people in every race and both genders.

Because that is the essence of a loaded statement. I make no accusations towards any race, and you posit an entire theory on my own presuppositions towards an entire race from it.

I was talking to subby, not you. And there's no other possible interpretation.

El_Perro: But, that's a meaningless inquiry. No one's disputing that Souter is to the left of most of the Justices on the current Court. However, being on the left flank of the Rehnquist/Roberts courts does not mean that he was a "Liberal" justice.

Atilla the Hun hasn't been serving on the Supreme Court, so your question was irrelevant to begin with.

Point is -- Souter's been liberal back to day one, and never in any distinguished way. His contribution has been to be 25% of the liberal "flank." Period, end of story.

Also, the whole thing about THIS seat being for BLACK people, and THAT seat being for WOMEN, et cetera, et cetera. The concept enjoys absolutely no, or very little, popular support...which is as it should be. And yet the folks in charge keep on doin' it that way.

Sadly, we've reached a point where if you bother to read the Constitution, you're unacceptably hardcore conservative. You'd have to admit we have a right to own guns, because it's spelled out in the Constitution that way, but we don't have a right to kill babies, because that's not in the Constitution anywhere. That's completely unacceptable. And yet, that's exactly what a decent reading of the Constitution concludes. So to be "moderate" you have to confirm justices that pretty much pull "rights" straight out of their asses.

eddiesocket: I was talking to subby, not you. And there's no other possible interpretation.

This is why I don't argue with liters. I am the subby. I've made that clear. Multiple times. And if you read a racial implication into that statement, the only bigot here is you.

I say it's dumb to base the qualification of a justice on their genitalia and skin color, and you somehow turn that into a statement into "no hispanics have knowledge of constitutional law or federalism".

The only stereotype proven here is that liters are retarded.

Remove all Republicans: KaponoFor3: Set off speculation amongst whom? Is there anyone who really thinks that only women or Hispanic people can have "empathy and understanding"?

No, but we recognize that female Hispanics in this country need someone to look up to and a Supreme Court justice is one example.

I see...so a reason to appoint a judge is to have a role model? That makes Scalia even worse for italians.

mkfreeberg: Also, the whole thing about THIS seat being for BLACK people, and THAT seat being for WOMEN, et cetera, et cetera. The concept enjoys absolutely no, or very little, popular support...which is as it should be. And yet the folks in charge keep on doin' it that way.

And yet, there's seven white men. Hmm...You wouldn't be talking out of your ass, would you?

mkfreeberg: El_Perro: But, that's a meaningless inquiry. No one's disputing that Souter is to the left of most of the Justices on the current Court. However, being on the left flank of the Rehnquist/Roberts courts does not mean that he was a "Liberal" justice.

Atilla the Hun hasn't been serving on the Supreme Court, so your question was irrelevant to begin with.

Point is -- Souter's been liberal back to day one, and never in any distinguished way. His contribution has been to be 25% of the liberal "flank." Period, end of story.

Also, the whole thing about THIS seat being for BLACK people, and THAT seat being for WOMEN, et cetera, et cetera. The concept enjoys absolutely no, or very little, popular support...which is as it should be. And yet the folks in charge keep on doin' it that way.

Sadly, we've reached a point where if you bother to read the Constitution, you're unacceptably hardcore conservative. You'd have to admit we have a right to own guns, because it's spelled out in the Constitution that way, but we don't have a right to kill babies, because that's not in the Constitution anywhere. That's completely unacceptable. And yet, that's exactly what a decent reading of the Constitution concludes. So to be "moderate" you have to confirm justices that pretty much pull "rights" straight out of their asses.

Don't pretend it doesn't affect the conservative wing of the court as well. Because we've inexorably linked privacy rights to the right to abortion, with it being a litmus test for conservatives, George W. Bush appointed two incredibly anti-privacy justices, which is strongly against the spirit of the constitution, with an emphasis on the sixth amendment.

mkfreeberg: Sadly, we've reached a point where if you bother to read the Constitution, you're unacceptably hardcore conservative.

If you aren't a troll, then you're the worst person on Fark.

El Chode: I'm just annoyed that instead of focusing on the real implications of a vacancy, especially someone like Souter who was expected to play out one way and turned out the other, they focus on something that the Court has ruled should have no bearing on job qualification.

FTA:
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," said the president."

"While Obama ticked off many criteria, spokesman Robert Gibbs emphasized only one in a later briefing: a broad background in life outside campus classrooms and judges' chambers."

"The nation's first black president, Obama made no mention of using race or gender as a consideration."

"In his remarks, Obama said he intended to seek "somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity."

"At the same time, he said, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. ..... I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

I think it's fair to say that submitter's (El Chode's) headline is completely and totally FULL OF SH*T. I understand the need to come up with a headline that will get greenlit, but come on.

Then again, I'm tired, just got home and had a long day, so maybe I missed something in the article. And if that's the case, I'll apologize, but that headline has me seriously heated.

I just hope the next one's hot. Give us something nice to look at while we get screwed over.

FTFA: President Barack Obama pledged Friday to name a Supreme Court justice who combines "empathy and understanding" with an impeccable legal background to succeed liberal David Souter, whose abrupt retirement announcement set off speculation the next justice could be a woman, a Hispanic or both.

Empathy, understanding, impeccable backgroung = Woman and/or Hispanic?
What?

El Morro: I think it's fair to say that submitter's (El Chode's) headline is completely and totally FULL OF SH*T. I understand the need to come up with a headline that will get greenlit, but come on.

It's a commentary on the AP writer, not Obama. That's the point. Obama says he's not considering race, and yet somehow it's the byline of the entire article.

I just hope whoever he nominates is a white male. They are severely underrepresented on the SCOTUS.

/don't really care
//just looking forward to the epic douchebaggery from both sides
///slashies, that's who should get nominated

What kind of a moron thinks that being a woman or being a minority are arbitrary and solely physical?

Newsflash: woman and minorities have life experiences and difficulties that rich white country-club types tend not to face.

Only the willfully ignorant could possibly say that a white person would bring the same things to the table as an Hispanic person.