Obama gets his first shot at the Supreme Court

[Mokele]

He also went with a candidate who has more experience than any nominee in the past 70 years.

 

That makes all the whining about 'preferences' moot.

[Sisyphus]

so he went for a woman and racial minority.

 

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.

 

Example?

[SH3RL0CK]

Here is an example:

 

G. W. Bush appointed a white male to replace Justice O'Conner...there didn't seem to be any great outcry about that.

[john5746]

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.

 

It's called politics and it can be ugly at times. If your an atheist or homosexual, you better cover it up if you want to be elected. If you are a certain color, then you may need to move somewhere else to be elected.

 

As long as the appointee appears to be qualified, I don't see that big an issue. I would HOPE a very qualified woman could be found to fill that position, otherwise some serious work needs to be done. If a weak candidate is selected, then that does deservice to the position, the candidate and the demographic they represent - really to everyone.

 

It will be nice when the demographics of the person becomes unimportant. With a more diverse bench, hopefully this will happen.

[ecoli]

Here is an example:

 

G. W. Bush appointed a white male to replace Justice O'Conner...there didn't seem to be any great outcry about that.

However, Gov. David Paterson replaced Hilldawg's senate position with another woman. And is there any surprise that Roland Burris is a black man, as Obama's replacement?

 

Ok, so this is anecdotal, but maybe its a real trend?

[jackson33]

so he went for a woman and racial minority.

 

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.

 

 

It doesn't work that way, was not intended to and many SC Justice's have replaced other than their own demographic OR political affiliation. The same will be when (if confirmed) she is replaced.

 

In the US, it is expected the President (elected by a majority of the 50 States) should make appointments from candidates that fit his/her judicial preferences, in this case a law graduate himself. I actually am not the least bit surprised nor am I disappointed. However the second step is Congressional Confirmation or approval of the nominee, which will be approved, IMO.

 

Judge Sotomayor has not only an admirable educational record, on par or better than Obama and unlike Obama has a very, very long track record and might add a very interesting 'American Dream' story. Aside from this, I'll accept her apparent honesty as a good trait to add to the SC, not that those there now, are not.

 

I've review about 30 of her 150 2nd District Cases and on the surface (not knowing the particulars) find nothing inconsistent in her written opinions, inconsistent with the law. On the New Haven 'Firefighters', I haven't seen the actual test behind the arguments, but would suggest any test can be manipulated to its results. As for being an activist judge, IMO she is no more so than most and most simply take local laws/conditions into making a conclusion, which is consistent with the Judicial System. That is the acceptance of say a NYC court and that of Des Moines Iowa on any particular law are going to be different. That is why we have State Judicial Systems in the first place. I believe as a SC Justice, she will accept the territory as the Constitution and the US as a whole. Frankly, I do not think she will vote or state opinions, that Obama will approve of, certainly not consistently. In moving up through the Judicial System, she has demonstated a consistency to the Constitution and in particular to the laws that are relevant to the step she had been placed into....

[SH3RL0CK]

However, Gov. David Paterson replaced Hilldawg's senate position with another woman. And is there any surprise that Roland Burris is a black man, as Obama's replacement?

 

Ok, so this is anecdotal, but maybe its a real trend?

 

I'll grant that in certain districts, it is nearly impossible to get elected if you are (or are not) of a certain race, religion, etc. This is primarily because people want to vote for people like themselves; or at the very least vote for people who "speak their language."

 

When it comes down to national appointments, the same political impulses exist, but these are mostly cancelled out by the fact that these districts are overwhelmed by the districts which are more demographically balanced and by the fact that these unbalanced districts somewhat tend to cancel each other out.

 

Still, some bias exists and I suppose it is inevitable on some level (I personally think everyone has a bias). And sometimes these biases work in ways which can harm or benefit individuals. For example, I seriously doubt that Justice Thomas would have been confirmed by the Senate had he not been a black man. Politics can be a strange thing sometimes.

Edited May 26, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
to clarify

[CDarwin]

However, Gov. David Paterson replaced Hilldawg's senate position with another woman. And is there any surprise that Roland Burris is a black man, as Obama's replacement?

 

Ok, so this is anecdotal, but maybe its a real trend?

 

I'll be a lot more worried about that after the demographics of the United States government begins to vaguely resemble the demographics of the United States population. And there is something legitimately to be said for a diversity of experiences, especially on the bench. In this case, appointing a minority might be less about correcting inequality than an entirely appropriate consideration of judicial diversity.

 

Really, I don't see anything to complain about in Sotomayor.

Edited May 26, 2009 by CDarwin

[SH3RL0CK]

I'll be a lot more worried about that after the demographics of the United States government begins to vaguely resemble the demographics of the United States population. And there is something legitimately to be said for a diversity of experiences, especially on the bench. In this case, appointing a minority might be less about correcting inequality than an entirely appropriate consideration of judicial diversity.

 

Really, I don't see anything to complain about in Sotomayor.

 

You have a valid point, IMO, but one thing to keep in mind is that as the majority elects the candidate (and when people vote for others similar to themselves) this tends to elect only the individuals most like the typical (or majority) voter. In other words; with 10 voters (6 green and 4 blue) and two candidates green and blue, the green candidate will win office. With 100 districts just like this will produce 100 office-holders who are green despite 40% of the population being blue. Minorities should therefore be greatly under-represented if people only vote for those "like" themselves...I hope I am not being confusing here...

 

As such, I think it is impressive that there are as many "minorities" in office as currently exist. This makes me think that, for at least most identifiable voting blocks, while race, religion, etc. are important to voters; other factors are much more important. Refreshing to think people get elected on the basis of their values, character and ideas.

[The Bear's Key]

so he went for a woman and racial minority.

 

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.

Curious, when is the correct time to appoint a qualified minority or woman, then?

 

And perhaps the outcome you mentioned is all blown up by propaganda TV/radio/literature, and not reality.

 

Sisyphus might've been wondering that by asking for an example. Then SH3RL0CK presented a good example of where no such outcry happened before -- contrary to the implications of your complaint.

[bascule]

so he went for a woman and racial minority.

 

I'd make a snide remark but I think there is substance to the argument that Obama shows favoritism to minorities. However that's not an argument I'm going to defend myself.

 

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.

 

I don't think anyone is going to be calling Obama racist for appointing whiteys.

[Pangloss]

The Center for Inquiry issued a press release today raising the question of whether she supports separation of church and state, and asking the Senate to do "due diligence" on the subject, based on what they perceive to be a tenuous balance in the court in this area.

 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/cfi_offers_cautious_support_for_supreme_court_nominee/

[iNow]

Interesting, but TBH that looks like a form letter they put out. Reading it, they themselves imply that they have zero reason to believe that this "wall of separation" concept will be a problem at all for Sotomayor. It looks more like they just want any candidate to be properly vetted in this regard, and hers is the name which happened to be nominated.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So, I did a brief sampling of the AM radio stations today, and I must say that practically all of them were apoplectic about the choice of Sotomayor. It was sad, really. People listen to that garbage, and consider themselves "informed."

 

 

Anyway, even that blowhard Rush Limbaugh made a comment about her being "racist," but he was quick to "soften" it by saying that she and Obama were "reverse racists." Well, that sure helps.

 

Yes, this is the same Limbaugh of "Barack the magic negro" fame.

 

 

Their comments are based on this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

 

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

 

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

 

That comment has caused a shit storm amid the conservative talking heads in our nation.

 

 

 

Another source of attack is the following (same source as above):

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

 

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

 

 

I think she's quite right. As a general rule, the laws really mean nothing at all until they ultimately get interpreted by the judicial system. Folks who supported guys like Justice Robers and Alito should already be well informed about that exact point. It seems to me that if they were not, they would not protest so fiercely nominations such as Sotomayor's.

 

Anyway, the opposition seems to lack any real ammunition against her. They will claim that she is only being nominated due to some affirmative action mentality, but that also doesn't hold any water. I don't know of any summa cum laude scholars from Princeton, or Juris Doctorates from Yale, or editor of the Yale law journal... who were only given those labels due to their being born hispanic, black, female, or whatever.

 

 

Here is what the White House has put out regarding Judge Sotomayor: http://www.whitehouse.gov/Sotomayor/

Edited May 27, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Wow. Yeah, I don't see any ammo there either. There's clearly no experience argument, and the racism angle is a bit silly. It is popular, especially in entertainment, to trump up the wisdom of minorities, but people generally understand that as humor more than anything else. The way I figure it, all people are shaped by their experiences, and some of those experiences are as minorities in repressive environments (to varying degrees). That seems to be what she's reflecting in that quote. At most one might accuse her of over-generalizing, but it's not as if she says that white men cannot be great judges.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here:

 

I think she's quite right. As a general rule, the laws really mean nothing at all until they ultimately get interpreted by the judicial system. Folks who supported guys like Justice Robers and Alito should already be well informed about that exact point. It seems to me that if they were not, they would not protest so fiercely nominations such as Sotomayor's.

 

Are you advocating judicial activism, or just saying that she's reflecting the reality of the situation in the sense that judgments are often what makes a policy take effect?

[iNow]

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

 

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

 

I think she's quite right. As a general rule, the laws really mean nothing at all until they ultimately get interpreted by the judicial system. Folks who supported guys like Justice Robers and Alito should already be well informed about that exact point. It seems to me that if they were not, they would not protest so fiercely nominations such as Sotomayor's.

 

Are you advocating judicial activism, or just saying that she's reflecting the reality of the situation in the sense that judgments are often what makes a policy take effect?

 

 

 

Well, first off, I don't tend to think in terms of "judicial activism." It's never really entered my vocabulary, and I've always seen it as code for "liberal baby killing judge." Just strikes me as silly. It's impossible to do such a job without bringing to it your own interpretations. It's called a "judge" for good reason, as "judgments" must be made.

 

Here's an interesting historical tidbit on exactly that:

 

 

http://www.uslaw.com/library/Media_&_Entertainment_Law/Justice_Jackson_Umpiring_Judging.php?item=420328

On Thursday, December 13, 1951, Justice Robert H. Jackson spoke at the New York County Lawyers' Association's annual dinner.

 

<...>

 

Justice Jackson also paid tribute to the Judges Hand that evening by drawing the analogy between an excellent judge and a baseball umpire. As Jackson put it,

the test of an independent judiciary is a simple one: the one you would apply in choosing an umpire for a baseball game. What do you ask of him? You do not ask that he shall never make a mistake or always agree with you, or always support the home team. You want an umpire who calls them as he sees them. And that is what the profession has admired in the Hands.

 

 

Some, like Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearings in 2005 have argued for a more mechanical view of this concept, but many (lawyers, judges, and authors) claim that Justice Roberts knows better than to suggest there is ever any such thing as this robotic, rule-enforcer view of judges and umpires such as the one he implied during his hearings.

 

 

Bruce Weber, reporter for the NYTimes, wrote a book called As They See Em: A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires. In that work, he confronts Justice Roberts suggestion/implication head on:

 

The author explains that during two-plus years of attending umpire school and then interviewing almost 200 umpires and other baseball people,

[m]ore than one major league umpire spoke to me of calling balls and strikes as a kind of political enterprise, an activity requiring will and conscience and a point of view.

 

"It's like the Constitution," [current Major League Baseball umpire] Gary Cederstrom said to me. "The strike zone is a living, breathing document."

 

Basically, anyone who argues that a judge does not bring their own interpretations with them to the bench is both misrepresenting reality and also likely trying to make some baseless attack. In short, it's an entirely silly argument to make... for ANYONE to make... yet we hear that argument all of the time from partisan ideologues who wish to attack SCOTUS nominations.

 

 

Let me clarify my intended point from my previous post, though, as that is what you asked me about above. Remember the context. Sotomayor was trying to encourage a group of students to work for the appeals courts as clerks. She was trying to sell them on the idea and encourage their involvement. So, she "flashed it up" a bit and said, "a court of appeals is where policy is made."

 

Now, I interpret it this way. Law makers draft the laws. Those laws have an impact on society. The laws, as a general rule, will have some sort of nuance which wasn't planned... wasn't expected. It will have some gray area where it doesn't seem to apply. When these gray areas and uncertainties arise, the person impacted by the law brings it to the courts for resolution. Their case travels upward to the court of appeals, where ultimately a final decision gets made on whether or not in their particular circumstances the law applies, and whether it is inline with other laws, policies, and protections.

 

It is precisely that decision, whether or not the law applies in a given circumstance, to which Sotomayor was referring. In that very real sense, the judges decide the limits and scope of the law and policy. Hence her comment, "a court of appeals is where policy is made."

 

I don't see any problem with this. I really don't read into it that she wants to sodomize aborted babies with her liberal pinko strap on, and I struggle to understand why so many conservative AM radio cultures are going ape shit over it. I just see it as a valid comment, one which is purely understandable when taken in context, and one that she made while trying to "sell" the idea of students becoming clerks for the courts.

 

 

And yeah, that whole accusing her of being racist thing just boggles my mind due to its sheer idiocy, especially coming from the likes of Limbaugh. It's a very clear case of strawman, and people are misquoting her left and right. "Sotomayor says it's not possible for white male judges to do a good job, tonight at 11:00."

 

No you frakkin wingnut, that's NOT what she said at all! I'm so sick of the idiocy in our country, sometimes.

I hope that clarifies my intended meaning.

[GutZ]

Who cares what race, sex, etc a person is. It's ridiculous that you appoint someone based on anything else but their ability to do the job.

 

Part of the job though is to give fair an equal representation of all the minority groups and sexes and races, whatever else you have out there.

 

If you are a white male, than you go out and find out about the other groups of people views are, and It's their job to see if it's relevant.

 

We need to hold the fire to the feet of people NOT doing their job instead of doing the above. Hiring a minority in this case wont insure that those people get represented anyway. That person is still surrounded by the majority...in order stay they obviously have to please those people to or they can't keep the position.

 

You can't even imagine how backward and screwed up the political system has become. it's band aid upon band aid.

 

I don't feel bad for my apathetic view of politics.

[iNow]

What are you talking about? Are you saying that she is unable to do her job? Are you saying she was only appointed due to being a minority? It sure sounds like it, and I thought members here (including me) pretty handily addressed those exact criticisms already on the previous page. Did you not read my posts, or the posts of others?

Edited May 27, 2009 by iNow

[john5746]

 

And yeah, that whole accusing her of being racist thing just boggles my mind due to its sheer idiocy, especially coming from the likes of Limbaugh. It's a very clear case of strawman, and people are misquoting her left and right. "Sotomayor says it's not possible for white male judges to do a good job, tonight at 11:00."

 

I happen to agree with her overall opinion that diversity will bring a diversity of opinions and should result in better decisions for a diverse population. However, I would expect someone with her education to be able to express her opinions more clearly and to apologize if she misspoke. Replace white with black in her comment and you can see the problem more clearly. This should not rule her out, but it is something for her to explain.

[GutZ]

Inow: I am just saying in general. The fact that it's even being discussed as a potential issue. The whole representation issue to me...I don't how it even evolved to the point where we even should be discussing it.

 

It's what is, and I am not faulting anyone for discussing it, I am sure everyone feel the say I do to some degree. It seems that it should be inherent in the system that all people are represented to a degree and if not someone isn't doing their job. It shouldn't matter what group a person belongs too.

 

Say this judge makes a decision based that effects a specific group, it will automatically be seen as a result of what group the judge belongs too.

 

I just think this whole thing should be an non-issue, even though it never will be because someone will always bring up "x" difference about someone.

 

Ironically my very post goes again what I am trying to eliminate...

 

it's endless. The only thing the government should care about is efficiency...and the debate of what is considered efficient is our job. Irrelevant difference between people shouldn't be one of them. It's the focus that bothers me.

Edited May 27, 2009 by GutZ

[CDarwin]

Wow. Yeah, I don't see any ammo there either. There's clearly no experience argument, and the racism angle is a bit silly. It is popular, especially in entertainment, to trump up the wisdom of minorities, but people generally understand that as humor more than anything else. The way I figure it, all people are shaped by their experiences, and some of those experiences are as minorities in repressive environments (to varying degrees). That seems to be what she's reflecting in that quote. At most one might accuse her of over-generalizing, but it's not as if she says that white men cannot be great judges.

 

I don't know, maybe members of minorities really do have a superior experience. I think about myself, a middle class WAS former P, and a male. The entire culture and mass media which surrounds me is geared, essentially, toward me. My experience at home, at school, and what I see around me are all essentially consistent. I very rarely have to stretch myself. An Hispanic woman from a working class family might well have very different experiences which she has to reconcile. Minorities traverse multiple cultures. Surely that builds, at least, flexibility and a broader understanding.

[The Bear's Key]

However, I would expect someone with her education to be able to express her opinions more clearly...

I thought the same: considering the political atmosphere nowadays, a little more tact in her choice of words. She could have phrased like this...

 

I would hope that if a Latina woman had lived through a rich diversity of experiences among people with backgrounds of opposing extremes: poor and rich, high education and insufficient schooling, but a white male hadn't, that she would more often than not reach a better conclusion than him, and vice versa

 

However, she has nothing to apologize for. Read on.

 

Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant...I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

 

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

 

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

 

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

 

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

 

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

 

 

The above is from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

 

Where is Rush Limbaugh's attacks for that one?

Edited May 28, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammatical errors/phrasing

[jackson33]

The Bear's Key;

Where is Rush Limbaugh's attacks for that one?

 

Rush Limbaugh and in general Conservatives are calling the New Haven Case, reverse discrimination. As a Conservative myself, I strongly disagree. The case was dismissed (not heard) on relevance (jurisdiction) by a 3 member panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Sotomayor was one member. In short saying the City, in deciding not to accept any of the test results of all applicant, could not be discriminatory, with the inference IMO, that the City has this right under 'rights of an employer'. The US SC has heard the Case, arguments going along these lines...IMO. Continuing in my opinion, but alleged by the New Haven side; If the test were to be accepted, promoting 8-10 or 13 (12 White- 1 Latino) they would have opened themselves to suits, not only from the firefighters but in City Wide promotions. I also feel the US SC will validate the 2nd CC, not overturn as most are saying...

 

Solution; It's my understanding longevity (seniority) on the job, in most cases is a factor, even deciding factor in many promotions, along with some testing. Apparently in NH this was not used....

 

Ms. Sotomayor was 1 of 2 of a 3 member court voting not to hear. I am using the 3rd members dissent (wanted to hear) to make my own points, agreeing with his observations, disagreeing with his conclusions.

 

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7801:media-uncritically-repeat-claim-that-new-haven-firefighters-case-shows-sotomayor-is-an-activist&catid=88888972:analysis&Itemid=88889782

 

 

At the heart of the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is the assertion that there was no Supreme Court or circuit law to guide this district court, or future district courts faced with similar claims. I disagree. The district court correctly observed that this case was unusual. Nonetheless, the district court also recognized that there was controlling authority in our decisions--among them, Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) and Bushey v. N.Y. State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S. Ct. 803, 83 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1985). These cases clearly establish for the circuit that a public employer, faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability under Title VII, does not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause by taking facially neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability.

 

Insofar as the dissent suggests that the plaintiffs produced evidence of a racial classification or the imposition of a quota, I think it entirely mistaken. Although the City acted out of a concern that certifying the exam results would have an adverse impact on minority candidates--and although, as the panel noted in its decision, the result was understandably frustrating for applicants who passed the test--the City's response, to decline to certify any of the exams, was facially race-neutral. The City did not classify or confer any actual benefit on applicants on the basis of race. The dissent's citations to Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1995), and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 706, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989), are therefore inapposite. See Hayden, 180 F.3d at 49 (distinguishing those cases as "concerned with select affirmative action tools, such as quota systems, set-aside programs, and differential scoring cutoffs, which utilize express racial classifications and which prevent non-minorities from competing for specific slots or contracts.").

[SH3RL0CK]

Where is Rush Limbaugh's attacks for that one?

 

You should realize that Rush, like virtually all media, isn't interested in facts, fairness nor politeness. The media (liberal and conservative both) are interested in money; and to get money they each have their "shtick" to attract and audience and the advertising revenue that accompanies said audience. As such, Rush will only be attacking those on the left, never those on the right. There are liberal media people who do the same; attacking only those on the right of the political spectrum, never those on the left.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schtick

 

schtick (shtĭk)

n. Variant of shtick.

 

shtick also schtick or shtik (shtĭk)

n. Slang

 

1. A characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention: waiters in tropical attire are part of the restaurant's shtick.

2. An entertainment routine or gimmick.

 

[Yiddish shtik, piece, routine, from Middle High German stücke, piece, from Old High German stukki, crust, fragment.]

 

Rush's "shtick" or gimmick is obvious, as are those of those on the left (but hey, maybe they really do believe everything they say).

[iNow]

This morning, President Obama covered some of these issues in his address.

 

 

_Zhlm9ya8fQ

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the video link. When I saw this yesterday it struck me as a tactical mistake, but I'm having mixed feelings about it now.

 

Since Republicans don't have the votes, the fight now is over mind share and perceptions -- what can be made to stick to the wall. Sometimes denials actually add more smoke, which gives the perception that there is a fire behind it.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure his advisers, who are undoubtedly much smarter and more experienced in these matters than I am, have looked hard at that angle. This response also has the advantage of being consistent with Obama's policy of being more communicative and responsive to the people. It may be that they know they're going to win this and want to ensure that all questions are answered squarely.

 

One thing is for sure: In the pantheon of political battles, Supreme Court nominations are never dull!