...but I know that I'd likely vote against a client if his or her attorney wore provocative clothing in court while arguing a case. Not only would I be distracted from the arguments made while my mind tried to wrap around the "why" an attorney would wear something like that, but my gut feeling would be that whatever the attorney has to say would be negated by the fact that she looks like an airhead based on her choice of clothing. Why do you think they bring defendents into court for trial dressed in conservative attire? It's to influence the jury! The same practice should apply to attorneys. This feminist is on the side of the complaining judges and, if I were the client, you'd better believe I'd be telling my attorney to ask for a postponement or recess and go get herself some suitable clothes before the trial began!

What are they thinking??????????

...that all Obama supporters are using, just as Buchanan is using the same talking points the other side is using. The "not so smart" issue is disturbing, but so is the comment about her having more extensive judicial experience than the current justices had when they went on the Court. In fact, SHE HAS MORE EXTENSIVE AND VARIED JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE then the others have NOW, even though they've been on the court for some time!

My point is, stop repeating word for word those talking points and write something original---and that advice should apply to both sides.

For instance, even though I heard the same thing over and over and over again about the firefighters ruling (both ends of it), the comments about legislating from the bench (both sides), the unintelligent vs. the top or second-highest graduate of her Princeton class, and the Latino woman possibly being able to rule differently (OF COURSE SHE WILL---THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES!) the only NEW thing I heard yesterday was from Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley. He actually read 30 or so of her decisions and, unfortunately, wasn't overly impressed with what they said.

So, my ear will be tuned to further comments from Turley as someone who does his homework. Not that it will make much of a difference because Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. Which also says to me that when the next liberal judge retires (and it's likely SHE will) there will not be another woman nominated. Which will result in a single female Supreme Court Justice serving, and I find that unacceptable. Especially if that single one has a tainted history on choice and not a person likely to make waves with out-of-the-ordinary opinions and rulings.

But, she's an improvement over Clarence Thomas and if she's really the bully on the bench "they" say she is, maybe she will take on bullyboy Scalia on occasion!

Elephantman's comments were more than annoying. They showed he has little knowledge of how medical specialities have evolved. Let's start with the fact that Dr. George Tiller was 67 when he was murdered Sunday. That means he probably has been practicing medicine for almost 40 years. And that also means that during medical school he could only opt for being a general practitioner or pursuing a speciality. Pursing a speciality wouldn't have made him a better doctor. It would only have made more knowledge in a certain area (i.e., pediatrics, dermatologist, podiatry, etc.) and only in the medical knowledge that existed in that day and age.

My whole family was treated by a general practitioner and when I married and became pregnant, that same GP delivered my three children. But when we moved to a smaller city the trend was clearly for medical school graduates to pursue a more lucrative specialty. Thus, the kids went to one doctor while my husband I went to another. It was a major pain in the neck and just plain silly.

Within a few years, the local medical school instituted a Family Practice speciality and we immediately switched to one of the first graduates of that program. What a relief! The kids could get their shots from the same doctor who performed my annual exam and treated my husband's rash.

The point I'm making is that, although it has a different name now, Family Practitioner is the new name for the old "family doctor" who was a General Practitioner.

Just as there were no Gerontologists around my community when my mother first showed signs of dementia, it was a Family Practitioner whose general practice had evolved partially into one treating diseases of the elderly who provided me with help and advice on how to proceed with her treatment. So, too, have other practices evolved.

Dr. Tiller wasn't an "abortion doctor" when he first became a doctor.....because abortion was illegal in those days! His general practice clearly was one that evolved to serve a need for good reproductive health for women in Kansas. It was no different than the doctor described above whose semi-speciality was in treating the elderly. Happens all the time and they don't just say "today I'm going to become a specialist" in this or that. They pursue continuing education programs. They, in fact, become specialists in certain aspects of certain medical areas.

To infer he was a quack who lacked proper medical training because he chose to become a general practitioner is insulting not only to his memory, but to all of the thousands of doctors who have graduated in the last 30 years in the field of Family Practice speciality, to the people who opted for these types of doctors for their family's health treatment, and to the doctors who practice good medicine even though they didn't have access to schools offering Family Practice specialities because of the timeframe or, more importantly, because of the few programs available when they entered medical school.

Elephantman and others of his ilk need to stop throwing out ridiculous statements and, instead, need to do some research and educate themselves.