As usual, Dr. Coburn is the man.

My personal opinion has always been that far better qualified potential nominees exist among other existing lawyers and law professors. However, it was President George H. W. Bush that first nominated her for U.S. District Court Judge, so I'm unclear why so many of the Republican members of the Senate oppose her now, but supported her once before. Her nomination won't create any ideological change for the court, but far better nominees could have been found with a good search.

Grahamnesty could not stop the nomination from moving out of committee but, it speaks of his standing with other conservatives. This woman is not qualified for a life time appointment to the SCOTUS because of her views and opinions in previous cases before her. The fact that Grahamnesty is such a poor judge of her liberal, "internationalist" views is appalling. What happens if Obamalala gets another appointment and the nominee is not quite as liberal but, also leans in the direction of the "living breathing Constitution" what then? Decisions by the SCOTUS affect our everyday lives for years and for Grahamnesty not to stand up for conservatives in SC(not to mention the rest of us), is something I hope the voters there deal with.

"However, it was President George H. W. Bush that first nominated her for U.S. District Court Judge..."

Damn! Bush's fault AGAIN! Is there no END to the wreckage the man can cause?

/sarc rant

Paul - I'm sure, considering your experience in hiring and firing folks, that you find some who are perfectly capable of handling their job and a bit more... but who are manifestly not capable of handling much more.

Or to put it another way, simply because someone can drive a garbage truck over a route doesn't make them capable of overseeing the entire waste pickup division.

Sotomayor may well be a very capable district court judge. But she's being sold as someone who is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court - and the things which seem to stick in mind regarding her qualifications are her gender... and her ethnicity.

Of course, that's what the media obsesses on - so that's not too surprising... is it?

JLawson

I'm surprised at your comment above.I disagree with most of your views but respect your intelligence and intellectual honesty. I could certainly understand you're reluctance about her from a philosophical point. But to argue that her qualifications are her gender and ethnicity is just plain silly.

I don't know how you felt about Clarence Thomas when he was nominated. But her qualifications upon nomination far far outshine his when he was \nominated. How do you differentiate between the two?

!3 traitors approve of SODAMORON 13 traitors who deserve to be removed from office and bannished to the farthists star in the universe

"But to argue that her qualifications are her gender and ethnicity is just plain silly."

Nope - Paul - I'm not arguing that, read it again. That seems to ME to be what the MEDIA is selling. Her actual qualifications? Hell if we know - she's 'wise', and she's a woman - what the hell else do we need?

Maybe she'll be fine - but I'd feel a lot better if that wasn't what the media sees to be her most important qualities.

Coburn nailed it!

Time for voters to take a close look at people like Sessions and vote him out next time. there is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

Was Hugo Black the last racist on the Supreme Court? Now we are going to have another.

Not to nitpick, but isn't the phrase "Latina woman" redundant? And why didn't she see the redundancy in it even after repeating it numerous times on the lecture circuit?

Why do We need Her on the court? The borders are already wide open?

Oh thats right, silly Me. There not legal citizens yet.

Oyster, do you really think that most non-Spanish speaking Americans could tell you the difference between Latina and Latino?

Well, duh, Hyper - the 'o' is male, the 'a' is female.

Most news readers, however, probably need the clue.

#13

UMMMM? Who cares?

JL--that was sort of my point. And anyway, it's not redundant because she's saying she's a woman from a Latin background, but to say that with Latin inflection, to an English speaking audience, the redundancy is difficult to avoid. And who cares?! She's obviously aware of it, as she's a bright person.

914, in some places people take pride in understanding more than one language--whereas you think it's totally awesome to have only a marginal grasp of one. High-five!