Wednesday, May 27, 2009

My Supreme Court nominee...

Lynda Carter is a woman of Mexican ancestry, which puts her on the list of Qualified Supreme Court Nominees in this day and age of Affirmative Action politics. Among her other qualifications, she stopped a bullet cold, made the Axis fall, changed their minds, and changed the world. She is obviously more qualified than Sotomayor.

As an added bonus, she would be the first Supreme Court justice with an invisible jet. Plus, she could use her golden lasso to compel witnesses to tell the truth, which would be both very useful on the job, as well as making for great television.

Wonder Woman for the Supreme Court!!!

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, we got a 'wonder woman' all right... wonder how big a bigot, wonder how big an ignoranus, wonder how big a socialist,add your own...

Gmac

Anonymous said...

Amusing. So is it Tam's contention that she is unqualified because she is a wet back, a woman, or both? Or is it that some white male has been unjustly robbed of this position? Or is it the large body of rulings that point to... experience? And why would you tee off on this appointment? It doesnt tip the balance of power. Another case of poorly picking fights.

Tam said...

"So is it Tam's contention that she is unqualified..."

So, is it the anonymous coward's contention that I said anybody was (and I quote) "unqualified" for anything?

I mean, I was given the list of qualifications, and I made my own nomination based upon them.

Are you saying, Mr. Punk-Ass Anony-mouse Commenter, that Ms. Carter is either less Hispanic or less of a woman than Ms. Sotomayer? You racist misogynist, you!

Anonymous said...

And yeah, Tam was just being sarcastic and pointing out she was picked in large part due to her demographics. I was just pointing out that the complaints here are in large part due to her demographics. If a white president picked a white man for the seat then everyone would be complaining about the same thing. Oh, well maybe not.

Tam said...

Only a racist sexist bastard would give two shits about which boxes a job candidate checked on the affirmative action paperwork.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, I was hoping my clarification arrived before the response. No, you didn't say she was unqualified. You did't address her qualifications at all. You only stated that as a woman and hispanic she was inferior to Wonder Woman. And my point was crap, why can't we have Superman, or Green Lantern (the white one), Aquaman, Batman, the Flash, Captain Marvel, or even Spiderman?

Anonymous said...

Only a racist sexist bastard would give two shits about which boxes a job candidate checked on the affirmative action paperwork.

But apparently YOU give a shit about those two boxes. If he had nominated a white man then all you could be upset about is his actual qualifications, which apparently would be pretty similar to this womans. You cant be above taking race into account and then get into a tizzy because a qualifed minority is given a shot. But as a white male let me say, if you want to protest either women, or hispanics getting opportunities, dont let me stop you.

Jeff said...

There you go pissing people of again. :)

If you're not careful, they'll stalk you and pop you with a BB gun on the Monon.

George said...

That's not to mention at all the nominee's comments on the true value of appellate courts on determining 'policy' ... as opposed to the role of 'law makers'.

That's a 'qualification'? Not even Canucks would be bold enough to offer such unconstitutional remarks.

Regards.

OA said...

"Or is it the large body of rulings that point to... experience?"

Given how many times her judgments have been thrown out (80% of those appealed), I see nothing that points to experience (i.e. the ability to learn from her mistakes). Hell, even her colleagues at the Second Circuit don't like her.

Everyone knew he was going to go left, at least he went incompetent left. Plus, she looks like a gargoyle. There's t-shirt opportunities there.

Tam said...

"You did't[sic] address her qualifications at all."

I most certainly did address the only two qualifications that the media and the executive branch (but I repeat myself) have presented for Ms. Sotomayer thus far. Based on those two qualifications, my nominee is every bit as up for the gig as Barry's.

OA said...

"But apparently YOU give a shit about those two boxes."

Apparently Sotomayor does, too.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor

I suggest you address the litany of things wrong with Sotomayor's statement before continuing with Tam. After all, Tam didn't just get nominated to the Supreme Court.

Jenny said...

After all, Tam didn't just get nominated to the Supreme CourtMore's the pity.

Turk Turon said...

My nominee is Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote a stirring dissent in a December 2001 case in which the majority found that the Second Amendment was a collective right:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yay, Alex!

Jay G said...

Supreme Court Justice Tam.

The 2A rulings alone would be Pay-Per-View gold...

Anonymous said...

Well, the appellate courts do interpret law, and thus what is legal policy. They do so in far more cases than the Supreme Court does.

As to the number of times her judgements have been thrown out, how many judgements have been appealed? If I had 100,000 cases and of the 10 appealed 8 were overturned, then yeah, thats 80%. However there would be 99,990 cases that stood without taint, and 2 of the most questionable ones that withstood intense criticism.

Here is the rest of the quote that everyone is upset about:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

So yeah, she is saying that she hopes her life would make her more right than the comparable white guy who has not lived through what she has. But again, for all those who stand up for the sheltered white guy. I thank you.

Tam said...

"But again, for all those who stand up for the sheltered white guy.[sic] But again, for all those who stand up for the sheltered white guy."

Actually, I was standing up for blind justice and raw ability.

Thank you, however, for offering an exemplar of the viewpoint of those who judge on the color of one's skin rather than the content of one's character, Anony-mouse.

Anonymous said...

You stand up for raw ability by suggesting that someone who graduated at the top of their class at Princeton could only be successful because of their gender or race? You pointedly don't address her academic qualifications, her time on the bench, her time as a practicing lawyer, or any of that. Blind justice would be interested in those things FIRST. Makes me wonder if you were sick to your stomach when O'Connor was nominated? After all there must have been a ton of men who were as qualified, or more. Make the case that she is NOT qualified by a set of standards not related to her race or gender. As to being an exemplar, well at least I know something about her actual qualifications. I could care less that she is a woman, or a latino. As a white male I am pragmatic enough to thank those who would enhance my opportunities in life by implying that blacks, hispanics, or women are promoted based on affirmative action as opposed to ability. You trivialize her education and judicial experience with the Wonder Woman comparison, because she was the AA pick. Because Barry wanted more than 1 woman on the court. But hey, thats because of the 9 best possible candidates for the job only 1 was a woman, right?

Sigivald said...

As an added bonus, she would be the first Supreme Court justice with an invisible jetNonsense. How do you think Clarence Thomas gets to work every day? He sure doesn't walk.

Kristopher said...

Welcome to the big time Tam.

You're getting enough traffic that your posts now catch the attention of search-term aggregators used by astroturfing socialist a-holes.

NMM1AFan said...

At least Tam has actually read the US Constitution, and understands what it means.

Having a justice like that would go a long way to restoring this country.

Read your blog everyday, and best regards.

Lorimor said...

It's this whole "empathy" thing that raises the red flag with yours truly.

We're a nation of laws, not empathy.

The slouching towards Gomorrah continues.

I'm also mildly amused to see Dear Leader calling for bi-partisan support for his nominee. Of course, he isn't calling for the kind of bi-partisan support he himself showed for Bush nominees Alito and Roberts.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. We are a nation of laws, not empathy. So if we strip out empathy and emotion then I wonder if our laws let us detain people indefinately because of the possibility of future actions. I am fairly certain that the constitution takes a dim view of that kind of thing. I know that various treaties we have signed take a dim view of that sort of thing. Oh and dont those treaties have the force of U.S. law after ratified by the Congress? But we allow emotion to cloud the cold, calculating rule of law when its convienent. The law might REQUIRE that Americans die before action can be taken. Are you willing to abide by the law then? Tom Clancy once wrote "The constitution is not a suicide pact." I don't know where that comes from, but its pretty accurate. How many here would call for the release of GITMO detainees to defend the law? And how many here would call for legal investigations of potential illegal activity in the CIA or old and new WH? Not many I would wager. I'm not actually calling for that myself. I am pointing out that everyone is so gung-ho on the sacredness of the law and its inflexibility when its time for a new justice, but when its time to apply the law to everyone, well thats not as important. I guess we have empathy for those brave souls who risked jail in the defense of this country. So watch all the calls for no empathy, its really empathy that protects Cheney, Bush, Rice, Addington, and many of those who kept you safe the last 7 years.

og said...

Tam, why do you persist in having battles of wits with the unarmed?

OA said...

There's nothing worse than a poly-sci major with a "talking points" e-mail and overly-tight underwear. Well, except maybe for horse smegma cleaning day. They really ought to train up some monkeys for that. Or at least train the horses to goat-suck their peckers...

Tam said...

"You stand up for raw ability by suggesting that someone who graduated at the top of their class at Princeton..." & etc.

Congratulations on being the first to bring that up. Granted, it's a little late in the discussion, and we've already looked at the important blanks on her application, so we might as well get around to at "Education" and "Work History".


"Interesting. We are a nation of laws, not empathy. So if we strip out empathy and emotion then I wonder if our laws let us detain people indefinately [sic] because of the possibility of future actions."

Oh for Christ's sake, do you idiots read your talking points off of cue cards? I'll take non sequitur for $500, Alex.

Look, whether we've never detained anybody or whether every president from Washington to Barry O. has personally butt-raped un-convicted detainees with cattle prods has no bearing whatsoever on:

A) Whether we are a nation of laws or of "empathy", and

B) Judge Sotomayer's job qualifications.

"Tom Clancy once wrote..."

Tom Clancy is a mediocre novelist and an insurance salesman. If he wants to offer Ms. Sotomayer or myself publishing advice or a great rate on a term life policy, he is relevant to the topic at hand, else not so much.

Also, I know they don't have paragraph breaks on NPR, but try throwing a few into your comments, just to break up that wall o' text. It'd make your fifth grade grammar/comp teacher so happy...

Anonymous said...

You didn't actually say anything about the qualifications bit, just noted it should be addressed and moved on.
If you read the above posts you would see someone mention their aversion to "empathy" in the judiciary. If you read for comprehension you would note my point. If you have no need for empathy from this wetback judge then you should also have no empathy for those who probably did break the law.
I personally like Tom Clancy's work, its a good read. The quote was the point however, and you didnt address that either.
And isnt this more fun than just hearing "You are so right Tam" for about 15 posts and then closing down the thread? I also find it amusing to see how many assume I am a liberal.

og said...

Wow. This is one persistent dork. This kind of raw ignorance in the face of actual facts defies description. Must be a chicagoan.

Lorimor said...

Justice is supposed to blind, is it not?

Once judges begin ruling w/empathy as a guideline rather than the rule of law, then all bets are off.

Who knows what will be legal next week? Next month? Next year?

We are a nation of laws, not men.

Nah, the "empathy" bit is another code word for old Leftist mantra, "the Constitution is a living breathing document" jazz.

I'm afraid that in Sotomayor's world, discrimination is bad and no one should practice it, unless of course it's the kind of discrimination that she approves of.

And I believe ol' Slick Willy was the benefactor of empathy as well.

The elites take care of themselves.

Anonymous said...

That much Is true, the elites do.

Don Meaker said...

Alas, Ms Carter's golden lariat doesn't work on lawyers.

Don Meaker said...

Anonymous, My complaint is that when a fellow sued when being shaken down for 800,000 clams, she sided with the crook that misused government authority, not the honest propery owner.

Hope and change.

Anonymous said...

Fair point. Would you post details of the case? I would like to read it.

dave said...

For the record, if Tom Clancy said that, he ripped it off from numerous sources, including Justice Robert Jackson in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949, when Clancy was 2) and Justice Arthur Goldberg in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963). Or perhaps you were thinking of Richard Posner's 2006 book by a similar title. In any event, none of them are Clancy.

Further, the opinion expressed is merely one side of the debate, and one couched in emotion-laden inflammatory terms at that. Predictably, it's being used to advance the position of a stronger government with more power to intrude upon individual rights.

Par for the course, really.

Anonymous said...

I did note that the quote was probably not original Clancy. And a weaker government would be wonderful. However both parties want a stronger government, and both are dismissive of the rule of law. So I guess what you really need is to get an amendment through that establishes a multiple party election system like the British. So parties are inherently weakened. Anyway, I just thought that it was ironic that we have all this angst about a candidate for the Supreme Court. If you took her resume and blanked out the name, it would be good enough to be nominated. But since she was AA many assume that she's not qualified.

Sendarius said...

... AA?

So she's a drunk as well?

WV: exess - poor spelling, but you have to like the sentiment.

Tam said...

I'm pretty much done here, because I'm getting tired of talking in circles just to hear my head roar, but the joke (which you obviously missed) was this:

"But since she was AA many assume that she's not qualified."

Nowhere in this post have I suggested she was "unqualified". What I have mocked was the fact that the two most important 'qualifications' offered for her by the nation's chief executive and parroted by his waterboys in the media were ones to be found on her driver's license and not her resume.

Whether I agree with her politics or not is a whole 'nother post. (Four posts earlier, as a matter of fact.)

Breda said...

I'm still stuck on the fact that someone is quoting Tom Clancy - in reference to The Constitution.

Huh?

Anonymous said...

Don't drag out that "Princeton" crap,anonymous. That's not a point in anyone's favor. There ARE other law schools in the country besides Ivy League ones. So much for diversity.
Sotomayor has the only qualifications that Obama sought: A liberal mindset and brown labia. No others need apply.

Anonymous said...

I attributed the quote to Clancy because thats the last place I can recall having seen it.

And of course, graduating at the very top of your class in a top tier school is not anything to be proud of. According to the wind of opinion here, diversity would be picking a white janitor at the local JP.

Adam said...

Ahh, Anonymous....

Wow. You can't read. You really, really are incapable of parsing text and understanding it.

Doesn't it HURT for your brain to continue in circles, reaching for the same tired argument on every post and completely ignoring what everyone else here has said, including the main recipient of your, ehm, "thoughts"?

We have a problem with her rulings. Yes, but that's a sidenote. Get that through your head (you may need a drill).

What we're addressing here is that the only qualifications presented by the media and, insofar as I can tell, Obama's administration, are those of her race and gender.

What we're concerned with is that it seems a hell of a lot like the left backing her is more interested in her racial and sexual identity than it is in her qualifications.

Got it?

Now, read through all that, breath really deep, and return if your brain hasn't fried and gone back into repeat mode.

Anonymous said...

What we're addressing here is that the only qualifications presented by the media and, insofar as I can tell, Obama's administration, are those of her race and gender.

Well did you actually READ or listen to the introduction Barry gave on this lady? Or are you just parrotting what you have heard second-hand? How about checking out how nervous the liberals who support abortion rights are on this woman? Thats what bothers me, YOU guys havent done any research on this, just grab the headline and run with it. Thats no better than the MSM you deride.

og said...

Anon: We can read. You, on the other hand, clearly cannot. Go clean your room. And put some damned proactive on, you're making us sick.

Anonymous said...

Well said. With genius like that you will surely stop her nomination.

markm said...

Tam, you forgot "make a liar tell the truth." Would that capability in a judge be an advantage, or would it totally wreck our legal system???

As for that "empathy" thing, Sotomayor's only got it towards certain people. Corrupt government official, maybe, honest businessman, no.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/oh-just-great.html