Sotomayor lacks a snazzy beard and haircut. Why is this not being discussed?

Elie,

You are a racist idiot.

Bork on the Wise Latina:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/15/judge-bork-on-judge-sotomayor-the-wise-latina-is-not-qualified/

I'm a "wise Latina."

Actually, I'm a white dude who will let others judge my wisdom.

But, you can call me a "wise Latina." Actually, I insist that you do. Because I've learned that that label has benefits.

Also, let's call gay couples "marriage" and, for good measure, let's call "dogs" "cats." I own a cat, but, as a single dude/wise Latina, I have very first-hand experience that it's cooler to say you own a dog. So, you can call my cat a dog. Actually, I insist that you do. Because I've learned that the dog label has benefits.

If you don't call this white dude a "wise Latina" and this wise Latina's cat a dog, you're racist, sexist and speciest.

As a hat tip to Elie, I will now misspell the word "university" as "uniersity."

5: Hell, if this is the way the system is going to be, everyone who's "white" should just take a DNA test, get the results showing that they're technically 5-10% black, Hispanic, or Native American, and then just check the box off self-identifying under one of those groups. Universities, law schools, and employers wouldn't have the guts to challenge anyone checking the box as long as it's not 100% made up, because they'd be horribly afraid of being sued in the event of a "false positive" -- think, someone who's albino and black or biracial, but looks white. If they did erroneously challenge someone's racial identification, the publicity would be an absolutely monstrous and further expose the superficiality of their AA system.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12genes.html for account of ancestry DNA tests.

A terror on the bench? From those clips, she seems like a pretty normal judge to me.

You mean "Wapner's on in five minutes?"

5 & 6 for Supreme Court Justices, President & VP, Managing Partners of PHJW, and Co-Governors of California.

7 - the right wing keeps grasping at straws.

I like waffles.

11 - with syrup?

Something is going on in the ATL office. Lat posting so much? I wonder if he is trying to set an example for Elie or what is happening.

3,

Can you please explain what's wrong with being racist?

"7 - the right wing keeps grasping at straws. "

I hear a few extremist rightwing groups are going to try to get a candidate elected who belonged to a group called "The Race" in college and has elaborated on occasion that his background as a wise white male makes him superior at his job than other ethnic groups.

Barring that, they'll try to get him appointed to a high judicial office.

Any opposition to this from the left is grasping at straws.

I hope all commenters on this blog have the balls to say these things in a face-to-face conversation with colleagues. I say this as a black person that spoke out against race conscious admissions policies while at UC Berkeley. So while I offer no opinion on the perspective Justice, I'll just say that anyone here should set up a venue where we can discuss and say these things without anonymity. Or we can just keep putting money in Lat's pocket; because Lat knows traffic would be next to nil if you had to identify yourself with your comments.

I actually was willing to argue over affirmative action to people's face in law school.

I'd also hope that left would be willing to support their positions and defend stances in a civil manner without merely seeking petty personal retribution towards anybody who disagrees with them--however, I know from personal experience that that's asking too much.

Nine days away from being hulksmashed by the CA Bar Exam... any advice from recent passers?

How about some real analysis of Sotomayor's substantive knowledge? Like this one: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_12-2009_07_18.shtml#1247671867 Shocking that a Supreme Court nominee doesn't even know what a fundamental right is.

If Kash were to date an orthodox Jew, would it be within halachic norms to partake in her ass lobster?

19 - I'd argue that her exchange wasn't exactly clear. She was up there being purposefully vague, as that is what it takes to get nominated to the Court post-Bork. It seems to me that she was trying to say that in a legal sense, a right isn't "fundamental" until the Supreme Court declares that it is fundamental. This in entirely in accord with the level of judicial restraint that she has shown as an appellate judge. I think the vagueness merely comes from her attempting not to get pinned down in the confirmation hearings. The last thing a Supreme Court nominee wants to do is get bogged down in how she determines what constitutes a fundamental right.

18 - I passed in February (second try). Be confident. Cram if it's your style, but make sure you get some rest. Follow Bar/Bri when they tell you how to write the essays - the exam graders need to be able to find what they're looking for, or you're not getting credit for it. Ignore anyone you know there - go back to your room, turn on HGTV/ESPN/whatever and chill out. So much of it is being in the right frame of mind and relaxed. Good luck.

Best take I've read on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?ref=opinion

The denouement:

"It’s the American way that we judge people as individuals, not as groups. And by that standard we can say unequivocally that this particular wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, would far more often than not reach a better conclusion than the individual white males she faced in that Senate hearing room. Even those viewers who watched the Sotomayor show for only a few minutes could see that her America is our future and theirs is the rapidly receding past."

23: Best take? At best, the article is a left-wing hatchet job that say very little about Sotomayor's qualifications, but instead, focuses on ad hominem attacks on Republicans (look at THIS scandal and THAT scandal), ignoring the whole point of Sotomayor's confirmation -- to have the Senate determine whether or not she's fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Whether or not you ultimately think she is fit, her infamous "wise Latina comment" is very relevant. Contrary to what the article said, she wasn't talking about individuals, but groups -- that's the whole point! Even if the comment was self-referential, she coached it in terms of race and in terms of gender -- that's textbook identity politics. And, notice how she didn't mention the one category that both left and right agrees deserves AA -- poorer Americans.

In other words, stop drinking the kool aid, and how about sticking to the point of the proceeding -- to judge whether Sotomayor was qualified or not, rather than reducing the level of discourse to crybaby "but Republicans did X and Y and Z in the past." Democrats have just as many scandals, but you didn't hear Republicans writing similarly off-topic editorials when Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were confirmed.

And lastly, by any objective standard, while Sotomayor probably is qualified to be on SCOTUS, her appearence before the Senate was anything but impressive, so give me a break about this whole line that she as an individual is more impressive or wise than the Republican senators questioning her. If she chose to give a straight answer instead of ducking questions left and right, maybe we'd have a better idea about her wisdom. But instead, she played it defensively, and didn't answer questions, because she knew she had the nomination wrapped up -- far from the "she is the future of America" glowing praise of this liberal talking head.

"It’s the American way that we judge people as individuals, not as groups."

Tell me you support eliminating the check-off category of "race" and "male/female" on all school applications, job applications, etc. and I'll believe that you actually believe that statement (something I don't believe is true with respect to the NYT).

The bar for whether you're qualified for the Supreme Court does not include being a better judge than some politicians questioning you--god help us if she doesn't meet that qualification. As 24 said, though, I'm kind of baffled about someone would have found impressive in her performance, even among those who support her (that's even a knock on her--after what Democrats did to Bork it's been in all nominees' interest to say as little as possible).

No matter how many times the left tries to couch her language in caveats and qualifications that she didn't use, or insist it was merely a sentence taken out of context, the facts just aren't with them. The entire gist of her "wise Latina" speech was defending bias in her decision-making. She had also made similar arguments in other speeches--it wasn't a one-time instance. This is the "context" that liberals refer to when they try to defend the Latina speech:

----
"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."
----

That's the sort of woman who'd say judges make policy. The stuff that the right has cited are not off-hand comments, but go to the core of what this woman believes.

Now, I'm also hesitant to post this because I'm sure a decent amount of people on the left will look at that, agree with it, and just scratch their heads as to what the big deal is. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is this quote wasn't taken out of context, and assertions to the contrary reflect more of what you want to believe than they do Sotomayor's background.

Typo:

----
"(that's **not** even a knock on her--..."
----

I don't blame her for not elaborating in the hearings. It's something her predecessors have avoided doing for a couple decades.

a couple of important things here: first off, nobody asked Sotomayor why it appears she is in danger of exploding. also, where are her eyes? Does she have any? look at those fingers, are they real or do they belong to Ben of the Fantastic 4? finally, in the spirit of goodwill, no one asked what is the matter with judges? more specifically, why are they so dumb and why do they think their crap does not stink like the rest of us? just wondering.

You are all a bunch of anonymous pussies. I read some crazy comments on this blog, and I'm sure none of you clowns would say speak out loud the things you post on this blog.

Ginsburg 96-3
Breyer 87-9

Alito 58-42
Roberts 78-22
Thomas 52-48

Please explain why the majority of Democrats feel no need to vote for Republican nominees, yet Latty boy and ATL staff tell us that Sotomayor deserves the support of every Republican Senator.

"I'm sure none of you clowns would say speak out loud the things you post on this blog."

Why? So you could threaten people who you're incapable of debating civilly?

29 - That's because the "Democratic nominees" are manifestly better and more mainstream judges than the "Republican nominees."

Sheesh, it's very simple. Keep up.

Sonia Sotomayor is the next Supreme Court Justice. The more vociferous the Republican opposition, the more they offend the growing Hispanic community and relegate themselves to being considered a bigoted, regional party by the majority of the electorate. Those who wear white sheets shouldn't so publicly air their dirty laundry.

Is 29 Trig Palin? Man you are a retard.

Maybe you are only 15 and don't remember that Thomas had a few issues during his confirmation. Maybe that had something to do with it.

Roberts obviously had tremendous support given the fact that he is the most right wing "activist" judge in the last 75 years. Alito I will give you, but I think that had more to do with the fact that everyone, righfully so, shit their pants that with the reality that W the moron was going to appoint two justices.

I am still shocked at all the of outcry from the right. By all accounts she is not going to be a strong voice for the left, pretty centrist in her opinions. Oh wait, that's right, republicans are far too stupid to understand that that is a good thing for republicans. Shocking.

32-

In other words--you can't defend what she said or argue with the other side's points, so you're just going to toss a bunch of ad hominem attacks along with a "you'll pay for this!"

I guess that makes you feel better for supporting a racist being nominated to the Supreme Court.

"By all accounts she is not going to be a strong voice for the left, pretty centrist in her opinions."

What color is the sky in your world?

If you want to say she'll be a centrist, fine, though I don't think that's justified, but to say "by all accounts" is just idiotic. There are a number of points many people have been bringing up to show that she's been a pretty big leftist both in her opinions and the beliefs she's espoused about her judicial philosophy. It's cool if you want to defend Sotomayor, but this just belongs in the "making shit up" category.

34 - Trying to defend or argue a single, isolated statement or two made by a judge who is, by otherwise close examination of her judicial decisions and personal record of accomplishments, a well-qualified candidate is a fool's errand. Whether you like it or not, public perception is what it is and the Republicans are only digging their hole deeper in that regard.

"34 - Trying to defend or argue a single, isolated statement or two made"

It's been repeated here many times, but apparently bears repeating again. It was not one or two isolated statements and saying that it was reflects what you want to believe more than Sotomayor's backgrounds.

When she made the "wise Latina," it was the entire gist of her speech. It was the entire gist of a number of her speeches throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.

Don't believe me? Read the transcript. it's on the internet. A longer quote was just provided for you a few posts above this in this very thread, but, apparently, when you see stuff like that, you either metaphorically close your eyes, shut your ears, and yell "LaLaLaLa, I'm not listening!" or do it literally."

The fact someone's well accomplished or well educated (tossing aside how many of those accomplishments came from boosts from affirmative action) has nothing to do with whether or not someone's a racist and only a person completely ignorant of history could make that statement.

"Whether you like it or not, public perception is what it is and the Republicans are only digging their hole deeper in that regard."

So supporting a racist is cool with you as long as the public supports it and it helps Democrats.

Gotcha.

37 - You can't see the forest for the trees. Yes, I know what I believe - that very few of the public have read or will read the transcript and, so, they are left with the perception created by one or two publicly recognized statements and a display by Republican judiciary committee senators that is overtly antagonistic with regard to those statements. It was a short-sighted, but huge mistake on the part of the Republicans.

It's all so overblown...i'd like to be able to claim a third of the accomplishments she's achieved throughout her legal career.

The judiciary committee has repeatedly shown it's age and irrelevance throughout the course of last week.

38 - I'm not convinced the judge is a racist, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the American public is convinced that the Republican judiciary committee members who questioned her repeatedly about her "wise Latina remark" ARE, indeed, racists. Tell me now, how does that help the Republican party or prevent Sotomayor from being confirmed? I'm looking at the big picture here and what I'm seeing is: Sotomayor = win; Republicans = big loss.

"and a display by Republican judiciary committee senators that is overtly antagonistic"

39- I really can't believe we were watching the same hearings. The Republicans barely did anything this time around and focusing on that just amounts to "Yes, Sotomayor is [X], but I really hate Republicans!"

It's interesting to know that when confronted with the possibility of a racist being appointed to the USSC, your thoughts are "does the public support it and does it help Democrats?"

"38 - I'm not convinced the judge is a racist... "

Nah - you're just unwilling to look at the evidence and shut your eyes when it's presented to you.

I am a conservative Republican with all the routine concerns about what the Dems will do to the bench. I listened to the tapes on Politico. I have to say that SS is not bad in terms of temperment. You expect and prepare for such questioning from any U.S. C of A. Every attorney knows the weaknesses in their case and you expect judges to spot them too. I also expect them to express exasperation when I don't answer the question. If you watch Supreme Court oral argument, you get this from Scalia. You also get it from Ginsberg and Breyer. The tone of the questions is not a left or right thing, in my opinion. The issues they focus on might be. Now that I have heard the tapes, her temperment is a big nothing for me.

As for smart, I prefer a smart justice. I cannot tell where SS falls on the intelligence scale. However, again, the comment about SS's focus on the details also is something that I think is just as important. I am before a judge now who is unprepared. She clearly is not reading the pleadings before arguments, etc. It is incredibling frustrating and disturbing and there is nothing you can do about it. Not all judges are off the scale in terms of IQ, but a prepared judge can make up for things through hard work. Also, I think a cadre of smart clerks and well prepared attorneys in each case help ensure that issues get aired.

My bottom line is that Obama won. I wish he had not. Congress was taken over by a bunch of Dems. I wish it was not. Bush packed the courts with people who think like me. Thank God, in my opinion. Obama and his Congress have the right to pack the court with people who think like them. God help me and my pocket book, but that is one of the big spoils of winning an election. SS is "qualified" even though I might not like everything about her judicial frame of mind. If Republicans don't like it, then our party needs to get its act together and stop electing a bunch morons who can't keep their peckers in their pants or else stop setting ourselves out as the morally superior party (I wish my representatives could live up to that standard). My taxes are going to go sky high because of a bunch of tail chasers and nut cases who make the rest of the party look like hypocrits and drive the midde away. All the complaining about what the Dems are doing is misdirected anger at the failings of my beloved party. If we Republicans don't improve, then we better get used to more of this "Dem"ogoguery because we will be stuck with it.

"It's all so overblown...i'd like to be able to claim a third of the accomplishments she's achieved throughout her legal career."

That's nice, but:

1. By and large, it's not her accomplishments the Republicans are attacking

2. The bar for the Supreme Court does not include how her qualifications stand vs. some poster on this website.

42 - You're forgetting that the public, unlike you, didn't watch the hearings. The public gets their news in short clips and sound bytes and tell me - what was it they saw or read about? It's interesting that you assume from my argument that I'm not a Republican. For all you know, I could be bemoaning the demise of my party as a bunch of near-sighted knuckleheads. Whether any of us likes it or not, public perception is everything in politics.

44 - You get it. Hopefully, the powers that be in the Republican party will...and soon. No matter anyone's personal political affiliation, we should all be able to agree that our form of government can't work effectively without a viable, credible opposition to the party in power.

"The public gets their news in short clips and sound bytes and tell me - what was it they saw or read about?"

You mean like:

"GRAHAM: Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed."

Those bastards.

If you're a Republican and you had been paying attention to politics at all over the last few weeks, you'd know Sotomayor hadn't merely made one or two isolated statements (I'd also think you wouldn't fall back on the "for all you know" bit and just say you're a Republican). It's really easy to tell when people have been getting their news from a limited amount of places and though you might like to pat yourself on the back and assume that that sort of thing is merely the failing of rightwingers, it seems to happen on the left an awful lot.

48 - Well, was Graham right or what? I have respect for him for making that statement - it's honest and couched in realism. The others should've followed his lead; Republicans would at least have had a shot at some Hispanic votes then, wouldn't they?

Roberts testified that he believed in the importance of precedent during his confirmation hearing. We all know he was lying unless he meant all the new precedents he was about to set by ignoring centuries of case law on a regular basis. Is lying to Congress better than making a "wise latina" comment? What about his comment that the "little guy will win when they are supposed to win and the big guy will win when they are supposed to"? Do you think in his entire career on the court the little guy will ever win in his mind? Ever?

49: So, you're saying Republicans should have 100% rolled over and played dead during the nomination as opposed to their 85-90% acquiescence already? Geez, you're quite the political adviser. The hell with constitutional duties -- as long as something is inevitable, we don't need any debate or consideration whatsoever. And somehow, I don't think you'd be taking nearly the same charitable tone if the political parties / ideologies were reversed.

Sorry, but there are some of us who don't automatically deify a candidate based on race and gender. Despite your view of things, just because a candidate is of a particular race and gender, doesn't mean that candidate should get a free pass. How about getting votes based on issues as opposed to shameless pandering of groups? Do you honestly think many Hispanic votes were going to be swayed by Republicans acting like a bunch of wusses (which they did anyway) toward Sotomayor? Get real and drop the "but I'm giving (completely self-serving) advice to Republicans" act.

50-

25, here. This is actually why I said earlier I didn't fault Sotomayor for elaborating on her viewpoints, saying as little as possible, and not supporting previous viewpoints of hers in the hearing (though I seriously doubt she's recanted those hearings). She's merely playing a game Supreme Court justices have played for two decades. The hearings have turned into a formality and we've almost reached a point where we initiate justices by setting them up to commit acts of perjury.

As you can probably tell, I find the Roberts vs. Sotomayor comparison to be a non-starter because, to the extent he did something faulty in his hearings, I believe she did also. I also believe Sotomayor's comments (again, it was more than "wise Latina") go more towards how she would act on the bench, but there's no defending not being upfront under oath. As far as Roberts having the little guy lose, not even "most of the time," but every single time in his career, do you have something to back that up?

This site edits out comments with which it disagrees.

I wonder which Bronx Science/Stuyvesant slot at Princeton she took with her "stellar" Cardinal Spellman High School background.

Come 2010, Obama's approvals will be in the low 40s.

We are still in the "afraid to criticize" phase with this guy. Once more folks realize that he is in fact an overeducated idiot, he will be openly ridiculed. Blacks will of course continue to insist that any criticism of Obama equates with racism, even though Obama is in fact white.

32/48 - Hispanics don't want her to be confirmed. Keep spewing those Dem talking points, though.

July 16-17, race "other" (not blacks or whites): 51% NO, 39% YES.

Let's respect Hispanics, k?

The Democrats don't even realize that outside NY, NJ and CA, hispanics are generally conservative.

Go to Texas or Arizona or Florida and ask the hispanics there how they feel about the hispanics in CA, NJ and NY.

For instance, Cubans in South Florida think Cubans in North Bergen, NJ are lowlives.

"Those who wear white sheets shouldn't so publicly air their dirty laundry. "

32: Wow, could you be any more off the deep end? A Nazi reference would have been better because then I could have invoked Godwin's Law, but a KKK reference is close enough to the same idea. Pretty clear you have no rational point to make when all you can do is talk about "OMG, those racist Republicans are being mean to Sotomayor - how dare they even challenge a minority candidate for SCOTUS!" If anything, her confirmation was pathetically tame and issues that many consider serious concerns about her were very brushed over very superficially if at all.

This is just hysterical liberal overreaction for the sake of engendering unjustified hatred against Republicans in minority communities. Posters like 32 would only be satisfied if Republicans completely ignored any potential concerns about a candidate if that candidate happens to be a minority -- give me a break. And, you make it sound like the Dems haven't engaged in much sketchier behavior -- Miguel Estrada is still waiting for his confirmation hearing and if you give it to him now, he'll even forgive those leaked Democratic memos about how vigorously opposed they should be to allowing a *gasp* Hispanic conservative to be appointed to the DC Circuit.

Do any of you realize why the New York State Assembly recently went amok? It was precisely because a hispanic democrat was trying to prevent the gay marriage bill from coming to the floor for a vote. Nobody wants to report this bu that was the genesis of the trouble. And this guy was a purproted democrat.

57 - The times have changed. Republicans have successfully isolated Hispanics in Florida. The party is going to keep isolating minorities if it continues to let bible thumpers and scared white men define it.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1010/florida-hispanics-democratic

Pew's a liberal hack. Mel Martinez. Period.

btw, 60, hispanics are, themselves, "bible thumpers".

56 - Your numbers aren't accurate. On July 14, Rasmussen reported that 61% of Hispanics favored Sotomayor's confirmation and 34% opposed it. Also, where the hell do you find a poll where no one is undecided?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2009/44_oppose_sotomayor_s_confirmation_but_support_grows_after_first_day_of_hearings

63 - Dipshit, 51 + 39 = 90. 10% undecided.

Your numbers are from July 14, mine are from 16-17.

- 56

61 - the numbers of registered voters are from the state.

64 - what is your source?

Has anyone else found that ever since Kash's ass lobster became famous it's hard to not giggle when you're offered lobster?

66 - Sorry. Forgot to include link before. It's http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/july_2009/toplines_sotomayor_july_16_17_2009

67 - How about every time someone says "cash"?

-- Kash's #1 Fan

67 -- Thanks, this comment thread was trending dangerously toward an actual political subject.

Now, can someone please direct me toward a certain ship, and let me know the status of said ship?

Also, do you believe marijuana should be decriminalized?

I look forward to your comments.

31 and 33- 29 here.

You both sound like the types of people who think Chuck Schumer is "moderate". Regardless, of your ad hominem attacks I am willing to bet that neither of you went to a top five law school.

The fact is 90-95% of the faculty at elite law schools are Democrats. Thus, just because you are a "moderate" in this context does not make you a moderate compared to the population at large.

On most issues, Alito and Roberts are far closer to the center of the political spectrum than Breyer or Ginsburg. Moreover, unlike Breyer and Ginsburg prior to ther appointments to the bench, Roberts and Alito had daily interactions with people with different political viewpoints. Ginsburg in a recent interview in the NY Times said that there should be restrictions on abortion and that abortion was legalized to control the population. This is a far cry from the "rare, safe, and legal" that President Clinton espoused.

The fact that Obama (and most Democrats) voted against Roberts and Alito means that the standard for approving Supreme Court nominees has changed. No longer should Obama just get his pick. We shouldn't have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans despite what Lat, HLS, or Yale says.

Wise Latina Woman is getting a free ride compared to what Justice Alito and his family were put through by the democrats; fortunately for her - like majority of liberal middle-aged women she has neither a husband nor a child

71,

Where did you go to school and what's your name?The fact you think it is relevant whether or not someone went to a T5 regarding political views indicates to me that you're a socially retarded law student who has NO future in BigLaw. I went to a T50 and am a partner at a V5, whereas you're a complete loser. Also, your writing is disgusting and if you ever submitted something to me in an office memo that looked like your comment, I would send it around the office for a good laugh and then fire the fuck out of you.

1 - Congratulations on your accomplishment. What a weekend! Wow!

53, I think that the site has some problems after 49 posted. I tried posting three messages, on this thread and other threads and none got through.

Boys and girls,

Just want to say, get ready for the real BHO agenda. The tax hikes in store for this country will dwarf even those of socialist Europe. This was finally confirmed today and made official in most major newspapers and news outlets like Meet the Press. Jimmy Carter era is around the corner; unfortunately for this country, unlike Carter, BHO has enough excuses to stick around for two terms! Just imagine, Jimmy Carter era -- but twice as extreme!
Change we can believe in! Reality we WILL live with

Boys and girls,

Just want to say, get ready for the real BHO agenda. The tax hikes in store for this country will dwarf even those of socialist Europe. This was finally confirmed today and made official in most major newspapers and news outlets like Meet the Press. Jimmy Carter era is around the corner; unfortunately for this country, unlike Carter, BHO has enough excuses to stick around for two terms! Just imagine, Jimmy Carter era -- but twice as extreme!
Change we can believe in! Reality we WILL live with

51, 49 here: "I don't think you'd be taking nearly the same charitable tone if the political parties / ideologies were reversed." Ah, yes, the false dichotomy. It'll likely surprise you to know that I'm also 47. Although your world might consist of only black and white, mine contains gray areas. I'm the independent voter Republicans have lost altogether because I'm feeling a lot like 44 does about the Republican party in general and no, you don't have to listen to my "advice" if you don't wish, but don't expect my vote, either. As far as shameless pandering goes, the Republican party can now be stuck only with the 23%ers it's lead through the nose in the past for votes. Good luck with that.

56 & 57: Just watch what the Hispanic community does when she's confirmed, mkay?

77 were you alive during the Jimmy Carter era? It was a blast.

77, I hate to say it, but I agree. If the Republicans are smart, they will fight like the dickens to get the Senate back in 2010 just to stop the bleeding. Dem control of Congress and White House is plain terrible.

The good thing about Carter -- he was a one-term president. If BO keeps letting Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and others like them run his agenda, then he will be one term as well.

73,

Thank you for bringing this blog back to what it should be. Also, anyone referencing their anonymous selves as the number they were on a blog post is not only a retard, but a narcissist. RETARCISSIST.

73 (not 71 here),

If you are a partner, the fact that you're posting comments here on a Sunday, dropping f* bombs, and threatening to fire someone you don't even know, probably won't impress too many people, even on here. If you want to do something worthwhile, if you are a partner at T-5, why don't you give us the inside scoop on the financial condition of law firms in NY. Should we expect more layoffs in the coming months or is deal flow coming back?

71 used "ad hominem." BTW 73, this indicates 71 isn't even a law student. He's a poly-sci with zero writing skills.

"71 used "ad hominem." BTW 73, this indicates 71 isn't even a law student. He's a poly-sci with zero writing skills."

Not 71, but what the hell are you talking about? Ad hominem is a common term. How the hell does using it indicate anything good or bad about anybody?

83,

I like to drink heavily on Sundays. Your intuition should also tell you the market is rebounding. At our particular firm, we have no plans for layoffs. In fact, we're using this downturn to cement our prestige and gain complete trust amongst associates and talented law students. Lesser frims will look at the recession as a an opportunity to cut their losses whereas we look at it as a way to guarantee our future.
-73

Really 84, WTF are you talking about.
(not 85)

(And, I bet you're completely anti-social mute)

"In fact, we're using this downturn to cement our prestige and gain complete trust amongst associates and talented law students"

I actually was willing to believe you're a partner in the first post, but I have to call bull now. No way in hell you give a shit about associates.

-Not 83, though I am 85

Helooooo Posting on upcoming bar exams??? Anyone??? This is very important, you guys. I've never studied like this before. I've basically ignored the bar until now and figure that as long as I IRAC/CRAC the essays and take a quick glance at the barbri long outlines, i should be good to go. Taking CT/NY. Thoughts?

88,

The fact you're calling bull means you're a hypocrite to your own point. If partners don't give a crap about associates, what makes you think they wouldn't lie to their faces and tell them they do?

-No #

89 -- I don't understand what you're looking for, really. Do you want to hear you're fucked? Even if what you say about essay portion is correct... what about multi state.... do you even know there's multiple choice portion? You can't pass.

"The fact you're calling bull means you're a hypocrite to your own point."

90- I was kinda joking with that.

93 is wrong, went to a TTT school and has no idea what he or she is talking about.

93 = EPIC FAIL.

95 is the one who is wrong and he or she went to a TTT school and also is clueless. And he or she is as fat as MysTTTal

95 hates him or her self.

98 = TTT

73, 82, 86, 90, and 96=Me.

99 = 98 = Me

100TH!!!!= 73

83 = MASSIVE FAIL. HYPOTHETICAL=NO THREAT= IF THEN > LEARN TO READ YOU RETARD.

98 = TTT

Dear ATL/LAT/TAL/LTA/TLA/ALT,

I have a friend who is gay but I am EASILY not gay, how do I tell my parents my friend is gay?

-83

68 - "Other" doesn't equal Hispanic, moron. The overall number of people that wanted her confirmed increased as the confirmation hearings when on. Do you honestly believe that the number of Hispanics that wanted her confirmed plummeted in the two days between surveys, when the overall percentage of people that wanted her confirmed increased? Use a little common sense.

73-71 here

Zero writing skills, eh? I didn't realize I was being graded for grammar here. You claim to be a partner yet you are trolling on a blog geared to law school students and associates. Thus, you are the loser.

In reality, I suspect you are a TTT with a massive inferiority complex and zero friends.

103 -- if you love your parents, you will just off yourself and show mercy on your poor parents

73-You who went to a T-50 school. Thus, you have no right to call anyone else a retard. The LSAT is the closest thing to an IQ test. Obviously, you came up a little short.

When someone compares you to Trig Palin, then what school they went to is relevant.

or maybe 73 is just a "slow reader" ;)

105, 107, and 108 =same person. LSAT = IQ, um no.

Or maybe 73 is the moron partner at Skadden who decided it was a good idea to pay associates to work someplace else for a year.

71, the real and only 73 here, while I agree that certain people are more intelligent than others, the sense of entitlement you portray because of an LSAT score indicates that you have zero business sense and probably aren't willing to work the hours it takes to become a biglaw partner. You clearly don't understand the politics of a biglaw firm, and any score you generate does not matter after you get your first job.

111-not 71
Score correlates with both IQ and more importantly with law school. What law school you go to does matter regardless of how far you go in biglaw. It is not an accident that 8 of the 9 members of SCOTUS went to HYS or many big law firms aren't recruiting at many non-T-14 schools this year.

#94

I am going to shit in your mouth, honkey.

37

73/111 -- you're a pots and a dweeb. "Hard work"... "politics" ha! Probably a pots with no soul by now. You should be nailing your wife or high-end escorts instead of posting on here if you actually have a free second.

112- If IQ correlates with your LSAT score, why is it improvable through Kaplan/Princeton Review classes? IQ= potential for total intelligence which is unchangable. OWNED.

115-You can improve your IQ score as well. In your case, you can go from 80 to maybe 95:)

In all seriousness, you have never taken an IQ test if you believe that.

whats the point of suffering 10+yrs to become a biglaw partner, if all you do is post comments on blogs... I'd rather be poor and carefree

114, pots? EPIC, MASSIVE FAIL. WIFE? RATHER BANG HIGH END STRIPPERS YOU FUCKING MIDWEST RELIGOTARD

Elie,

Read your article on True/Slant. You're about as open-minded as you are a good writer.

P.S. In case you're thinking otherwise, you are not a good writer.

Peace,

WHO SAID IT, Walter Cronkite or Adolf Hitler:

"American people are going to begin to realize they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law, and I think that's going to come to other people as well!"

"It's a fair distance to get there, but we are not ever going to get there unless we keep trying to push ourselves onto the road!"

Hint: He had a mustache.

Kennedies are crooks, swindlers and murderers... and liberals

Is this a bad time to start studying for the NY bar?

I'm a conservative/libertarian who has generally supported Sotomayor as a "not that bad" choice in light of the outcome of the election.

But all that has changed now that I see this quote in the politco article...

“Well counsel, this really begs a lot of questions,”

NO NO NO NO!

It does not "beg[ ] a lot of questions." It might RAISE a lot of questions, it might PROMPT a lot of questions, but it certainly doesn't BEG a lot of questions.

Elie, In regards to your True Slant article, I agree with your comments re: Sen Coburn and the mentality of the Republican party. I did however find your comments a tad disingenuous considering your Above the Law site referenced jokes about “dumb Polacks” You got some of your own “splainin’” to do.

Ironically, the response I received from your site was also “get over it”. You’re a good writer. So is your cohort Kash. I enjoy reading your site. I would, however, appreciate it if you showed the same respect to other immigrant groups as well. As “editor” the buck stops with you.

As a Polish American, I don’t particularly enjoy being referred to as a dumb Polack. I speak three languages. I have a law degree. I even tie my own shoes. As someone who practices immigration law, I can tell you that Polish immigrants face language and other barriers when they come to this country. They have a rich cultural background that includes Copernicus, Chopin and Milosz.

Prejudice isn’t “about what people say. It’s about how people think.” It bothers me a little that the editors at Above the Law thought a Polack comment was OK. (The sad disclaimer that followed it suggests that someone had an inkling it was not).

As for me, I will take ATL’s advice and get over it. Keep fighting the good fight. Just lay off the ethnic slurs.

Just read #28 LOL

I think the Geneva convention only requires my name rank and post #

Adrian Baron... aka Nutmeg lawyer blog
Practicing attorney
I wrote #124

Didn't want to be accused of being a "cat with no name".

124, don't you realize that in Obama United States its perfectly acceptable for historically disadvantaged Harvard alums to be overtly racist?

Our Deal Leader, who grew up in the mean streets of Honolulu, and was raised by white fearing white people to eschew his white heritage in favor of the black father who abandoned him, is omniscient and any criticism of him equates to Jim Crow racism.

Hopefully, when the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and nominate Mitt Romney, we'll be rid of this Communist phony.

Ummmm I just wanted ATL to stop telling Polak jokes. I like Obama. LOL

I just found it a little ironic that the ATL editors tend to chastise others for behavior that they are themselves guilty of.

-Adrian

Ummmm I just wanted ATL to stop telling Polak jokes. I like Obama. LOL

I just found it a little ironic that the ATL editors tend to chastise others for behavior that they are themselves guilty of.

-Adrian

does it matter if you went to a top law school? look at the above the law editors. They don't even practice.