that I need to hear.

It will be another "I'm so sorry you're so offended" speech. And it will probably be Obama's fault.

"By the way, ever heard of the Taliban. How about Al Quaeda in Iraq. They are the ones that kill women for leaving the house without their brother "

Indeed. THank goodness we live in a country where women can walk freely ... unless it is to a gyno clinic where abortions might be performed. THen, apparently, it is fair game to shoot them. Because that's being pro-life.

Amen.

You misunderstand.

The AP headline is "Abortion foes fear backlash to Tiller slaying." There will be a backlash: people in the middle of the abortion debate will more likely see "pro-life" stance as hypocritical and hollow. (And, of course, your assurance that Tiller's killer will likely be put to death only underscores the irony).

It's yours, radical right. Welcome to it.

The hysteria, fear-mongering and demonizing of anyone who dared question your theocratic fantasy created the monster who murdered a man in a church.

It's your backlash.

You are one sick f*ck.

I did not hear that, given the full context of her speech.

There is nothing to celebrate - in and of itself - in "whiteness."

Which doesn't mean "white people" shouldn't feel cultural, familial or ancestral pride.

The definition of "whiteness" has changed over time. I am "white" by any census form I would fill out today, but 4 generations ago, my Greek great-grandfather was not considered "white." Four generations before him, my great-great etc Irish grandparents were not "white" either. I can cherish my Irish heritage, or my Greek roots, or my good stalwart Yorkshire forbears who settled her 150 years before the US was born. But I'm not celebrating "whiteness."

"Whiteness" is an absence of any definition, other than "not-black, etc". Who wants to throw a party for that?

John Kerry is a Catholic, as is Rudy Giuliani. So are Joan Walsh and Stephen Colbert. And so are Bill Donohue and Al Roker.

Imagine all 6 of them sitting n the Supreme Court. (Or, add Jenna Jameson to the mix if you like. She's a practicing Catholic. Or how about Bill Maher and Robert Novak?). And imagine the range of experiences, perspectives and opinions each would have on any issue that came to their attention. Do you sense a faith-based consensus, a natural servitude to Rome, a slavish devotion to religious dogma over any secular philosophy?

The word "Catholic" means "broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests." That certainly seems true in my fantasy list of Justices, s well as the 6 actual Justices currently (or soon-to-be) serving.

Really?

I quoted Alito expressing an identical sentiment during a symposium on Italian American culture. He made similar statements during his own confirmation hearings. I'll say further that Alito cited his status as a parent giving him special insight to cases concerning children (because he could *empathize* with the victims).

So, a "white man" did say "it" as late as 2006. (Though clearly you and I disagree on what "it" is. Oy).

Secondly, I don't think all Republicans are without principle (though the party as a brand seems perfectly comfortable with inviting that assumption). I do say that convicted felon G Gordon Liddy, hypocritical drug addict Rush Limbaugh, and borderline personality Karl Rove are inarguably unprincipled.

Ummm ... no. I had it right the first time. You lost me at "principled."

Considering that for most of this nation's history 100% of the SCOTUS, 100% of the Chief Executives, and 100% of the Legislature have been Protestant, this s progress.

As I said before, pick 6 Catholics at random and you're likely to get 6 different opinions.

And it's still not fact that Sotomayor is Catholic.

You don't seriously think any of this will impact Sotomayor's confirmation, do you?

Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator John Cornyn, and several other GOP lawmakers, have stated publicly "This is silly." There are 12 Democrats to 5 Republicans on the relevant committee. There are 59 Democratic Senators (and all but guaranteed 60 by the time of the hearings), and plenty of Republican Senators who will support her confirmation (after all, many of them have already voted her into her seat on the Court of Appeals). It is estimated she will get at *least* 70 votes.

What this noise is about is energizing the ever-shrinking GOP base. It will probably help with fundraising for the next couple of weeks, but it will cost GOP votes.

Nor is it a sane position. Look, it's clear where you get this nonsense from, but let's hope you are educable. I'm assuming from your comments you haven' met that many CEOs of either gender, as the stereotypes you present can be found more commonly in movies than real life. And, of course, you provide no actual examples to back up your claims.

I'll help you: 2 quick examples of male sportscasters who tried too hard, and were miserable failures: Dennis Miller, and Rush Limbaugh.

Of *course* you think Sotomayor's speech is a mess. It consisted of a big, overarching idea (our individual experiences influence our judgements, but we all must strive for Justice even when dealing with people and issues outside the realm of our experience), supported by facts. It was composed in logically ordered paragraphs, made up of grammatically correct sentences, and strung together by transitions.

The speech was lacking in folksy "you betcha"s and "don'tcha know"s, and repetitive "and also too in addition"s. There were no references to "guys and gals" and there was not one single use of the word "Maverick" or any of its derivatives ("Mavericky," "Maverickness" etc).

It must be like reading a foreign language. But to us native speakers, the speech makes more sense.

is disgusting. (I'm tempted to send him a carton of red-dyed Tampax. But I won't).

That at least one right-winger will suggest Sotomayor placed the ad????