Any thoughts on the pick? I don't know anything about her - do any of you?

_________________

Seems like a pretty smart pick.

What I'm seeing is she was first appointed by George HW Bush, then by Clinton to her current position. She's considered a moderate liberal.

The hope is that she will be considered a good bi-partisan choice.

First right-wing radio host calling her some variant on "fiesty Latina" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Republicans would be idiots to do anything against this pick. Most importantly, they're not going to get someone they like. They don't have the popular support OR the votes to do anything other than give a token response.

Second, with Hispanics bailing from the GOP left and right, it would be stupid for them to oppose the pick.

Seems like a safe choice, but I like safe choices in the middle of a recession with two wars and all the other shit going on.

I like alot about this pick. The only thing of concern is her ruling in the case currently being considered by the SC.

The New Haven case, for those not familiar has been getting alot of attention. briefly:

~Tests were given to determine eligibility for promotion in the FD.
~Results came back and VERY few minorities had qualified.
~New Haven chose to throw out the results of the test and promote nobody at that time pending a restructuring of the promoting process.
~That decision was challenged on the basis of reverse discrimination.
~Sotomayor ruled that New Haven was acting within their rights.

I think rulings like this one are extremely problematic and divisive to society generally. We cannot ever achieve color/race blindness while government continues to not be color/race blind.

That's my only beef and it will be interesting to see how she responds to that question in hearings. If she cops out that would be a very bad sign.

Seems like an excellent ruling, I'm encouraged. We can't ignore inequalities while promoting equality. I'd hope for someone slightly more liberal rather than moderate but we'll see how this turns out.

It's funny watching Fox News try to figure out how to vilify her without looking like they're doing it. So far I've seen one tack: praise her experience, education, and her family's story, then start talking about how a bunch of unnamed "former clerks" call her arrogant and domineering, and then mention something she said 8 years ago at a dinner about how she thinks Latina women make better judges than white males.

Looks like poor Faux News is going to have to dig extra deep to find enough dirt to bury this woman.

_________________

Ahh, so that's what one of our state legislators was watching.

I don't know all the details, but from what I've read the exam was supposed to be "race-neutral" (I really think they mean "culturally neutral") and when the percentage of test takers who passed were lopsided in favor of whites, the city threw out the test with the intent of restructuring it. I think they did so originally to avoid any accusations from minorities of racial prejudice, but it turned around and bit them in the ass and they got the accusations from whites instead.

It's interesting to note that the lawsuit has never actually been tried. It was thrown out by the District Court where it was initially supposed to be held, and the Appeals Court upheld that decision. So it's not that the firefighters don't have some grounds for a lawsuit, but I get the impression from these articles that the law doesn't allow for it.

_________________

That's pretty much my understanding of the case as well. That the law is clear on the side of New Haven.

Yea it's pretty much another episode of the oppressed white male.

And if the bar for best-qualified gets lowered in the process? I don't see what could have been in the qualification exam that would favor one ethnicity over another. A lackluster candidate is a lackluster candidate.

Her second amendment stance frightens me.

Other than that, I have no problems with her.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

She has made some public statements that are dumb.

Tests with disparate impact can imply racism and the state should be abel to redo their tool if they choose.

Otherwise, the whole thing is "meh".

Judges do make policy.

Every public figure has, at one point or another, said something stupid.

_________________

Show me a person that never says anything controversial and I'll show you a boring follower, not a leader or a thinker. Those latter qualities are necessary, but certainly not sufficient, for the job.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Yeah, I really don't like her 2nd Amendment stance.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96716.html

Interesting take on the situation.

I don't know what her stance on the 2nd Amendment is, but if krby doesn't like it, I probably love it!

lol fribur

I really haven't read much about it, other than she found previous precedent to allow a city to choose to ban a specific type of weapon, based on the notion that the 2nd Amendment is limits only the power of the federal government.

Funny, because most of the people making the loudest stink about this are the same ones who often argue that more decisions should be left for states to decide.

That's a crock of shit.

Snarky, I'll have to try to find it online, but that Gerson piece is pretty much a total paraphrase of a Republican talking points list sent out on Wednesday morning.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Surcam: I'm not sure I buy the argument either, but as I understand it, the precedent was set by a higher court and she followed it. Again, the same people up in arms are the ones who tell us that empathy is a bad thing and that they won't vote for "activist judges."

I am in the middle of some things here so I am paraphrasing. Her decision on a recent case involving a handgun stated that owing a firearm is not a fundamental right.

if that's true, that's fantastic.

....we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one Fribur.

Let's just say that if they try to take guns away from the general populace, it will not be peaceful.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

i think i get what fribur is saying and i don't disagree with it. the problem is his wording. yes, we do have a right to have guns. however, we do not have an obligation to have guns. we are not endowed with an infallible claim to whatever guns we can afford, we are able to purchase the guns that we are legally qualified for.

but that just gets down to the "shall issue" vs "may issue" argument gay liberals like me love so much. may issue is the way it should be. that militia needs to be well regulated.

_________________

OK Frib, how do you feel about her ruling in Doninger v. Niehoff?

I would think that, if asking a directed question, you would want to provide some sort of context and/or linkage. If you asked me about a random court case, I probably wouldn't have the time to spend doing original research from scratch.

I mean, presumably, you already know the "correct" answer to your question, so its a topic you already have some base knowledge of that Frib could use as a starting point.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It's hard to cut and paste Doninger v. Niehoff into Google?

You totally killed my happy buzz from the North Korea thread, Bearne. Jerk.

That is the case where they ruled against the student for a blog post (not made on school property or utilizing any school equipment) that expressed disgust in a ruling for the faculty canceling an annual event that they had planned and then due to the student's blog post, where the student called the faculty a "douche bag", would not allow the student to run for student council office. They said that the student's First Amendment rights were not violated.

I'm not even in favor of excessive gun control, and I don't disagree with that. How do you define "a fundamental right?" I absolutely support the notion that there should exist SOME qualifications to the right to own a weapon, given the degree of responsibility that a person assumes by having one.

I'm guessing she voted to uphold the lower court's ruling, then? Based on what?

krby, sorry, spent the afternoon getting repeatedly interrupted for statuses on a project by people sitting in the same damn room as me. it was a day of grumpiness.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

All you have to do is look at the 2nd Amendment and it's clear we do have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

it should be repealed.

A task which would be made much easier if we didn't have an armed populace don't you agree?

A school isn't exactly congress, so I guess I don't get how the first amendment rights would apply?

Technology is only going to become both greater, more accessible, and more compact. We're going to need to get used to the idea that killing people is extraordinarily easy, and increasingly so. If the idea behind getting rid of the Second Amendment is to limit or make it harder for people to kill, that's about as half-measure an ideal as I can imagine. Eventually you're going to need to start limiting the sale or possession of various materials as home-made killing devices become more easily accessible and high-tech.

I'll give you the oft used adage Fribur... if you make guns illegal, the only people who possess guns will be criminals.

In many (most) cases, this will be the only crime that person has ever committed. Do you want to make people who own firearms for self/home defense criminals?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Guns help cull the population.

I don't remember saying no one can own guns; only that the "right to bear arms" should be repealed.

Personally, I believe that the "ability" to own firearms will slowly erode away if the second amendment is repealed.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I'm sure there is some cute explanation for this, but I guess I don't get it. That's like saying the right to free speech should be repealed, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to express themselves.

You have, way, way too much confidence in our government.

_________________

By that logic, any president since the mid-'60s could've rolled the tanks on Berkeley, as students' right to free speech obviously aren't important -- certainly not as important as those of politicians.
Indeed. But Frib's just a true believer in Washington's power to solve all our problems by taking away some individual rights for a promise of a better society in the future.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

This logic fails.

I have no problem with the government being allowed to restrict dangerous objects in our society, especially items specifically designed to kill human beings. I think guns should be far, far more restricted than they currently are, and I think the second amendment slows down our progress toward what I believe is a better society. I am not, however, against the use of all guns for all purposes, as I have no problems with things like hunting.

It should be obvious how this is different than free speech, so I will not bother with that one. As for this:



This can be shown to be a fallacy. There are a variety of other types of weapons that ARE currently illegal in most of the country, and yet homes aren't being regularly invaded by grenades or bazookas. The choice to make guns an exception is arbitrary and based on an amendment that is outdated in today's world. Guns protect you from government intrusion? hah-- you are pretty naive if you think you can stop the government with a pistol.

Am I suggesting we "take away rights?" Absolutely. I don't think gun ownership should ever be a "fundamental right" in our society. The others are fine, and I'll stand up for them at any time. This one, I think they got wrong.

and P.S. -- the "founding fathers" were not perfect beings, and the Constitution and it's amendments is not a perfect document. "omg but it's in the Bill of Rights" is not going to work with me.

I don't really expect many of you to agree with me. Have fun with this one!

Damn Fribur, you must be exhausted. That's the most substantive post you've written in months.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Pointless barbs are silly. I make long posts when I feel it is appropriate. Most regulars here probably know my basic stances on most topics, so I don't see the need to rehash it over and over again.

In this particular case, we haven't done gun control in a very long time (over a year?) so I figure it's ok for me to restate my basic stance.

The vast majority of firearms, produced and purchased, are only ever fired at paper and nascent hamburgers. If the desire is to curb violent crime there are other more preferable means, as it's really a societal ill. It has little to do with the available means.

Our crime rates are different than those in Europe, because we are different people than Europeans. It's quite obvious from the minute you step off the plane.

Speculate. Why are we "different" than Europeans, in your mind?

Automatic weapons and explosives protect you from the government, which is why the 2nd amendment needs expanded.

I think Iraq proves how well an armed society can frustrate the US Government.

lol!

Fribur, I think you are overlooking some important facts regarding weapons. Bazookas and grenades aren't being used for home invasions partly because they defeat the purpose of a home invasion. When you want to rob a place, or to rape a home's inhabitants, you do not begin by destroying everything of value or killing your potential victim. Another part of why they aren't used is that unlike rifles and handguns, those weapons have never been in ready supply to the average person. Less supply, less practical, more difficult to use and them being more difficult to conceal and carry are also important factors as to why they aren't used.

These problems do not extend to rifles and handguns nearly as much. They are already in ready supply, and even if you were to ban their sale and transfer tomorrow, it does nothing to the already existing supply of them.

As to our not being able to protect ourselves from government intrusion, you are right, but only on an individual basis. But that's not why we need guns. They aren't there for us to shoot at FBI agents or the police when they want to search our homes when we don't want them to. They're for the event that government has become oppressive and needs to be overthrown. If you are honestly of the opinion that an armed populace is incapable of putting an end to an oppressive regime, you are mistaken. It takes less than 600 well-placed bullets to effectively end the government. Less than that to dramatically change the way the government functions. That's not to say that the American people would actually do so, but we are certainly capable of it with our current armaments.

I simply disagree. Your point about less supply = less availability is exactly the kind of point I would be making about guns. Your point about being able to overthrow the government-- well I simply think it's false, and a product of videogaming minds. Orme's point that somehow Iraqi society is what we would prefer to have here in the US? That's just funny.

I think Orme was being sarcastic, though I'm not positive.

The video game mentality did not contribute to the deaths of Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield or Kennedy, nor did it influence the words of people like Thomas Jefferson. Men with guns did. I don't see how it is unrealistic to think that the American people could do the same to the government as a whole if necessary. It's not like they're untouchable, that's been shown time and time again.

Actually, let me amend the above statement. I don't see how it is any more unrealistic to believe that the American people could overthrow the government than for the government to successfully disarm the populace.

Prohibition fails. It always has. Look at the Prohibition, look at the war on drugs. Both failed miserably. Whether the 2nd Amendment were to be removed or not does not change the fact that a large segment of the American population is armed, and there is no reason to believe that they are going to simply give those arms back when it is something that many hold as one of the most important fundamental rights of our civilization, on the back of which all other rights are enforced.

That's not to say that gun laws don't need to be revamped. They absolutely do. Gun show loophools and private sale loopholes need to be closed immediately as they provide an easy avenue for literally anyone to acquire a firearm. Waiting periods are important. Anyone who needs a gun *right now* probably shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Don't doubt for a minute that the government fears an armed populace. That's the brilliance of the founding fathers. They understood, that at some point, revolution, or the threat thereof, is a foundation of honest government. They don't have to stop an F-16, they only have to have the threat of blood spilled. No matter how sophisticated your military, it's all but impossible to subdue a rebellious populace over large space.

Hell, even the Romans had to build roads and expand their reach slowly and even then, required significant manpower.