So, pretty much as expected, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Republicans, of course, are overjoyed to have an actual person to express their rage (in the same way that dogs express their anal glands, only not as pretty) over. They’re calling her a “Harriet Miers” pick, and Pat Buchanan says she’s “not very bright” (I suspect the actual quote was more like “dumb spic”). This, despite the fact that she graduated Summa Cum Laude (and #2 in her class) from Princeton, and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979 (where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal).
She worked as an Assistant DA in New York City (I think she was the one between Jill Hennessey and Angie Harmon – which conjures up an interesting image in my brain), and was nominated to the U.S. District Court by that bleeding heart liberal, George H. W. Bush, and then by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals (and was under consideration for the Supreme Court in 2005, when dubya eventually picked Sammy Alito).
She’s no Clarence Thomas, that’s for sure.
But never mind all that. The reason I’m backing Sonia is because her brother the doctor, Juan, lives here. And when she visits, she takes his kids out for a bite to eat and a movie a Carousel Mall. Case closed. I just hope I can manage to avoid hearing most of the hate and venom that’s going to be spewed forth over the next few months. It’s so tiresome. You really can’t get a more middle of the road pick. Republicans want another Fat Tony Scalia, but tough shit. Personally, I want another Ruth Bader Ginsburg (or Maxine Waters).
I just had a chance to catch yesterday’s Rachel Maddow Show. She started out by making a really stupid comparison of SCOTUS to a whiskey sour or something. This was ostensibly to explain to us what role an ideological mixture plays in the Court and for the country (presumably because we’re all idiots or something).
I also watched the Marc Maron/Colin Firth (I don’t actually know who he is, but I gather he’s famous) interview yesterday, and was shamed into ordering a couple pounds of Fair Trade coffee. Sure, it’s more than twice as expensive (not counting the $7 shipping) as what I buy locally, but it helps assuage my liberal guilt. And if an apparently famous person tells me I should do something, I try and do it. Hopefully the coffee at least won’t suck.
Speaking of famous people, Brooke Shields has announced that she lost her virginity at 22 (and regrets not doing it sooner). Really? Is this information we’re supposed to feel entitled to (or care about)? Brooke, please. No offense, but unless you have video, I don’t really care. And, as long as we’re sharing, I regret not losing mine when I was in third grade. I’m not quite sure I actually had all the details down at that time (I pretty much had my side of things worked out though), but I sure did lust after our student teacher, Miss Le Freight :hubba: (talk about summa cum loudly). It’s a shame that hot teachers having sex with minors wasn’t fashionable back in my day.
I wondered how long it would take to get the Syracuse connection in there.
I was hoping for a teenage ideological Lefty female lesbian Latina wunderkind appointee but I think she will be OK. I see that the repug playbook is to take anything that has beset one of their noms and throw it at her whether it is applicable or not. She’s a woman? Harriet Meirs! She’s a minority? Clarence Thomas. I hope they vetted her NetFlix account. I sure hope that they got nuttin’ on her but just in case, I like my idea. Just go further Left at every opportunity.
Or 49erKat.
I accidently turned on “Gunny Bob” one of the many local fascist yakkers on my way home from work. Hysterically called her “this hateful racist angry woman”. I hoped he’d piss his pants and electrocute his misogynistic right-wing ass on air. The feigned vitriol takes my breath away.
JB calls JD.
From the Weekly Standard, via DKos:
Reasons that gay marriage is very bad:
# The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage … is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined. […]
This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.
# Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry … but, more important, whom one may not marry … A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships. If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill’s daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can’t be fitted into the kinship system.
# Third, marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Sexual intercourse between a married couple is licit; sexual intercourse before marriage, or adulterous sex during marriage, is not … Gay lovers live merrily free of this system … Neither does gay copulation become in any way more permissible, more noble after marriage.
# Marriage usually takes place at the beginning of adulthood; it changes the status of bride and groom from child in the birth family to adult in a new family … A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband’s family; a woman and her wife’s kin. It will be nothing like the new kinship structure that a marriage imposes willy-nilly on two families who would otherwise loathe each other.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/25/735139/-The-Weekly-Standard-On-Opposition-To-Gay-Marriage
The Neocons never cease to amaze and nauseate me.
Jeepers, that hurt my head to read. First, I feel bad about Tommy and Bill breaking up. But, let me get this straight (so to speak). If, let’s say, Joe married Edna, but it didn’t work out and they got a divorce, and then Edna married Harry, and Harry and Edna have a daughter, Jane, Tommy – who is no relation to Jane – isn’t allowed to marry Jane? Other than Tommy being an dirty old man, I don’t think that’s illegal (especially if Tommy is wealthy).
I also had no idea that the most profound aspect of my marriage was the control and protection of the sexuality of the child-bearing sex. Especially since it was pretty certain that there’d be no bearing of children.
“[M]arriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman.” Well, can’t argue with that one. 🙄 I’m pretty sure sex before marriage isn’t illicit, though. Come to think of it, neither is adultery. Not in godless New York State, at least.
And why do Willy’s and Nilly’s families hate each other?
… is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult
Shouldn’t that be up to the woman, since she’s an adult? Oh yeah, I forgot. How dare she control her own sexuality? She’s a WOMAN. They can’t handle anything that important. My bad.
Gay lovers live merrily free of this system …
Hey, not all gay people are merry. That’s an unfortunate stereotype. I know several miserable gay people. And don’t make me drag Morrissey into this.
Marriage usually takes place at the beginning of adulthood
Well, I guess I’m screwed, so to speak. Not that I was making wedding plans or anything, but who knows when Ms. Right might be lurking around the corner with a butterfly net and a bottle of roofies.
And why do Willy’s and Nilly’s families hate each other?
I think it has something to do with Nilly’s willy. Or maybe I’m just tired of watching all those Cialis commercials during Olbermann’s show.
JB calls JD.
Comment by pjsauter — May 27, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
I had to read the article to figure out that you didn’t mean Jim Brown. We’re talking about Syracuse, after all.
And didn’t Jim Brown play lacrosse for Syracuse? I vaguely remember reading something about that in my youth. Maybe that’s why I made the association.
Yes, he did. In fact, Jim Brown is considered by many to be the best lacrosse player of all time. Certainly before Gary Gait came around, at least.
Hey, not all gay people are merry.
David Fisher on Six Feet Under was certainly very rarely merry.
And, I think it’s fair to say, not all merry people are gay. For instance, I went to grad school with someone named Merry, and she isn’t gay.
Funny though. I guess that’s why these Konservative Kristians insist that being gay is a “choice.” They’re clearly quite intrigued by the idea of same-sex fornication, and they equate it with sexual freedom and merriment.
Oh, my! We have at least four little baby woodchucks out there with their mom tonight (the one I saw last night was out with his dad – at least, based on his size, I’m guessing he was the dad and they’re out with mom tonight). They’re so gosh darn cute.
They’re clearly quite intrigued by the idea of same-sex fornication, and they equate it with sexual freedom and merriment.
Comment by pjsauter — May 27, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
It’s a toe-tapping good time! Just ask Larry Craig.
Our babies.
They are quite cute. Do any of them show any weather prognostication abilities?
this is a perfect time to figure out how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?