Do enjoy all that great literature while you can...after the Neo-Marxists throw you into the reeducation camp, you won't be allowed to read such things again... :-)

First, one quick comment on your more recent post, Sonia Sotomayor and the Politics of Race, and then there is only one way out.

Andre, my sword, the double edge one. Lay a tarpaulin on the floor, and leave enough room for a quick fall…

which presumably means being like John Adams?

That John Adams was a singular and influential figure in the creation of our Democracy nobody will deny. Adams was a thinker, not an ideologue with rigid constructs. He was after all a strong proponent of a system of checks and balance in the governing entities.

Only a courageous person would take an intellectual walk on the thin ice that Adams would approve the political theory Unitarian President as voiced by today’s admixture of Libertarian/Conservative proponents. One has but the ask the following question:

Would John Adams approve of an Island Prison, totally under Presidential control, that excludes Judicial oversight, and where abuse and torture of prisoners, as directed by the President takes place?

Perhaps I misread Adams, but I doubt he would agree with the gang of four who felt this was a real expression of the American ideal of Democracy.

Next, a bow and my applause to An Interested Party (May 26, 2009 | 07:32 pm) who in an elegant fashion pointed out that context in any quote is essential. I gave a link to her full speech(above comment), friend Interested Party links to Kerry Howley blogging at Reason (Libertarian/Center Right), who extends the quote to place it in context. A rare instance where intellectual honesty trumps ideology!

And for all who did not receive the RNC talking points memo on Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination to SCOTUS, it can be found here. Toe the line guys, why waste the time to think independently.

Aip;
Accolades appreciated! Thanks;
Let me make a couple of things clear.
1] I hold no particular malice toward Sonia, she seems amicable enough and may do alright as an associate justice, much to the chagrin of those who put her in place. Historically there does not seem to be a positive or consistent link between the appointer and the appointee anyway.
Only time will tell.
2] The Lewis Carroll point was that if you are an oyster you get eaten regardless of which choice you make. The Wise oyster was not gullible and chose not to follow either one!
Now, just where are these adults who take themselves too serious for children's stories?
Here's another just for fun!..
Shel Silverstein wrote...

"Homemade Boat"

"This boat we just built is just fine
And don't you go saying it's NOT!
The sides and the back are divine!
It's the BOTTOM I guess we FORGOT!"

Just for kids, or great political commentary??
You decide, being the adult and all![lol]

believed in the concept of the “Unitarian Presidency”

which presumably means being like John Adams?

Would the fact that he was a strong conservative, believed in the concept of the “Unitarian Presidency”, was allied and strongly supported by the Federalist Society, was a Trident mass devotee who favored the wahhabi strains of Catholicism influence his decisions? Of course not said all the folks that voted for his confirmation. It certainly will, said Obama who voted against his confirmation.

Jeffrey Tobin, examining Judge Roberts records this:

“Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical…
...

His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’ record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."

Now then, it is known that Sonia Sotomayor confirmation to the to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was vigorously blocked and contested by conservative Republicans in the Senate 10 years ago. Then, it was not her qualifications, but the fact that the guardians of the conservative portals feared that from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Sister Sonia might jump to SCOTUS.

And why is this women so feared by the Hard Right, you ask Derrick?

Well, she is the mirror image of the umpire that neither Roberts nor Alito will ever be. Cousin Sonia’s strike zone is not framed by the Constitution as visualized by the umpire, but by the height of the batter, the crouch he assumes, and indeed what happens as the batter uncoils to swat the ball. Certainly a more nuanced position than Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will ever assume.

I admire your tolerance Derrick when you say:

“It will be interesting to see how Republicans respond to this pick.”

Well, the first thing you do is selectively quote from a speech, making sure that the whole speech is never referenced so that an impartial observer can place the quote in context. The next thing you do is find somebody who would make a comment like this:

“Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.”(from James Joyner opening post, OP)

And then you sit back and watch the chorus chant: “she is a sexist, and she is a racist”, all together now, one more time!!!

Indeed, for those whose minds have not been corrupted by certitude, Sister Sonia’s full speech can be found here. Nuanced, carefully scripted, it quotes her teachers, and raises questions. You ain’t going to find this kind of speech when Roberts addresses the Federation Society!

I for one love it! A President who taught Constitutional Law for ten years at a prestigious Law School appoints his first Supreme Court Justice, a women, from Puerto Rico, a Catholic Divorce, who graduated with honors from Princeton, who was an Editor of the Law Review at Yale, served as a Prosecutor in the Manhattan DA office, spent time in practice as a lawyer, and the best that the sweet peas on the Hard Right can come up with is that this women's intellect is wanting, and that she is a sexist and a racist.

Go for it guys, shout it from the roof tops, the shield you raise impenetrable. Conservatives have an unenviable record opposing racism and sexism, they ought to flaunt it.

You are right of course Carrol meant to be silly, to children.

Well no wonder you mention him, as you do the same thing for adults...

Quit feeling sorry for yourself, Floyd. You are not a slave and you know it.

Your name calling is very unattractive. It makes you look like somebody way out there on the fringe.

I'm not providing any advice at all but, rather, pointing out that your silly labels aren't helping you win any arguments...indeed, the terms you use are probably only believed by people who have a tenuous grasp of reality...have you thought about publishing your delusions on, say, WorldNetDaily? I'm sure you'd find a willing audience there...

What term should be used to describe Neo-Marxists?
Perhaps "Democrat" would get the idea across without offending the Neo-Marxists who now control the party?
What then should we call those decent people who have been duped and presently call themselves Democrats???
Perhaps "Neo-Republicans" when they have a proper epiphany?!?