You should quit while you're behind.

I know you think you just stung omooex with the thing about his son, so you'd probably be hurt to see how hard he's laughing at you right now.

It's probably best for you if you don't assume you know anything about strangers you met on the internet.

It appears she did just that in voting to affirm a lower court's summary judgment holding that white firefighters (and one Hispanic applicant ironically)

She did just what? Used her racial background to discriminate against... someone of her own racial background?

Any idea what Title VII says, gandolf? Any idea at all?

Chris "Morpheus" Sinnard, Heru "Neo" Ur, and ad "trinity" noto.

You guys take all the fun out of mocking you when you do it yourselves.

"Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences." - Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

"We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views." - Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the Judiciary Committee's top Republican.

"She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings and preferences." - Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, member of the Judiciary Committee.

"The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences." - Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, member of the Judiciary Committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052601421.html

Upon whose opinion did you base your conclusions about Ricci v. DiStefano?

Hsve you read anything about the case? Can you explain the Title VII "disparate impact" prohibition?

I'm honestly confused at why you've latched onto the word "slavery." Why call it something it's not? Is it really as simple as you wanting to attach the word "slavery" to a black president? Why did you say you find it "hilarious?"

the Ricci case represents naked racial discrimination against a white man

Also a Hispanic man, who joined Ricci in the suit. Good luck fitting that fact into your predetermined conclusion.

Also, you credited me for something Glenn wrote, but I can tell readin' ain't your forté...

You said: I interpret this question not to be asking whether Sotomayor herself is "left-wing," but that her selection would be approved BY THE LEFT.

Update III reads:

What is the basis for the seemingly now-widespread assumption that Sotomayor is some sort of left-wing pick? She was originally appointed to the bench by Bush 41 and her confirmation to the Second Circuit was supported by some of the most right-wing Senators (including Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and similar types). She began her law practice working as a District Attorney, prosecuting criminals. Anyone who wants to characterize her as "left-wing" -- especially radical left-wing or even to the left of Souter -- should be compelled to point to specific judicial rulings or other evidence for that characterization.

So, reading comprehension FAIL.

Oh well, you take up for your little buddy;

Actually, I was making fun of you. Though you do a much better job of it than I do... I'm sick at home, and bored. Mea culpa.

and I'll enjoy the spectacle of the regulars at UT claiming "gender" does not exist, nor "sexuality".

As I enjoy the spectacle of you coming here regularly than almost anyone other than Glenn, but inventing a fake argument with those you call "the regulars" most days.

I was that kid in high school, too.

Not sure what omooex was referring to, but there is a difference between sexual identity and gender identity, and neither of those necessarily have to do with whatever genital plumbing you were born with.

I guess I'm not sure what you're accusing him of... asserting that the actual, physical schlonginator is a "fiction?"

There are, it seems, more things in heaven, earth - and the Castro - than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Heru-ur.

I believe the "left" likes her, and can this be reasonably referred to as "a left-wing pick" for the following reasons:

1. The "left" likes Obama, in general

1. Obama picked her

2. The "right" vehemently opposes her.

It's logic that is dictated by partisan politics.

Logic Fail. Counting to three FAIL.

Just because the right opposes her does not make her "left-wing." The "right" vehemently opposes Obama and can be reasonably counted on to oppose anyone to the left of Antonin Scalia he cares to nominate.

If you want to assert that Judge Sotomayor is "left-wing," specify which of her opinions support this assertion.

When I can't even close tags, I know I'm posting too much. I shall viciously self-censor henceforth.

What I *do* have trouble with is the idea that the different situation of Hispanic females and white males inherently produces *better* judicial decisions out of the former set.

No one, not Judge Sotomayor nor anyone here, said anything about it being "inherent." She said, in that same speech, that she "hoped" a "wise" Latina woman would be able to make better judgments because of her experiences of discrimination, both within her own culture as well as within the broader society.

Your attempt to twist this simple, unremarkable sentiment into the oh-so-fashionable "reverse racism" is as transparent as it is half-assed. Try harder next time.