Sonia Sotomayor Obama’s Supreme Court Pick

BREAKING:  “President Barack Obama will name his nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter at 10:15 am ET on Monday, an adviser told NBC News.”

UPDATECNN reports, “President Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, two sources told CNN today. Obama’s nominee will replace retiring Justice David Souter, who announced this month he would step down when the court’s current session ends this summer.”

She sits on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and graduated Yale Law in 1979, thus keeping the streak of private school grads with appellate experience alive.  She would, however, be arguably the first Hispanic Justice.  (Some claim Benjamin Cardozo, appointed by Herbert Hoover and of Portuguese descent, holds that distinction.)

She’s liberal enough to spark a fight in the Senate but, given the size of the Democratic majority and the fact that she’s been previously confirmed to the Court of Appeals, she’ll be confirmed barring some significant and previously undisclosed scandal.

And, yes, MSNBC apparently doesn’t know today’s Tuesday.  Long weekends sometimes have that effect.

UPDATEIlya Somin‘s take:

My general sense is that she is very liberal, and thus likely to take what I consider to be mistaken positions on many major constitutional law issues. I am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part based on their ethnic or racial origins.

[…]

On the plus side, Sotomayor does meet the minimal professional qualifications for nomination to the Supreme Court. Her ten years of service on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ensures that. At the same time, her record is far less impressive than that of most other recent nominees, such as Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Each of these was a far more prominent and better-respected jurist than Sotomayor, and Breyer and Ginsburg were leaders in the development of their respective fields of law. Sotomayor also seems far less impressive than Diane Wood and Elena Kagan, reputedly her top rivals for this nomination. The current nominee’s qualifications are likely better than Harriet Miers’ were; but Miers’ nomination failed in large part because of her relatively weak resume. Among the current justices, probably only David Souter and Clarence Thomas had professional qualifications similar to or worse than Sotomayor’s. That said, Supreme Court appointments are almost never purely merit based. Sotomayor joins a long line of nominees who were chosen in part because of political, ethnic, or gender considerations. It would probably be wrong to oppose her on that ground alone.

Indeed.  Certainly, Republican appointees Sandra Day O’Connor and Thomas were appointed largely because of gender and race and ahead of more objectively qualified conservative candidates.  It’s a president’s call to make, with the Senate’s role merely to safeguard against unqualified cronies or the morally unfit.

Stuart Taylor observes, “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.” While doubtless true, we’ve held white men to different standards than women and minorities on these things for decades.   I’m not thrilled with that fact but it’s not without some justification.   After all, Jeff Foxworthy can say things about rural whites that would be objectionable coming from Chris Rock.

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere, Law and the Courts, , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. hcantrall says:

    Did you mean Tuesday? Matt Lauer just broke the news on the Today show that it’s Sonia Sotomayor.

  2. G.A.Phillips says:

    So did FOX.

  3. G.A.Phillips says:

    Hey both The Bush’s did it, err, I mean liked her so she should be all good.

  4. Derrick says:

    Very good pick. Seems extremely qualified, despite Rosen’s smear job, and hopefully provides a more forceful voice on the court than Souter. It will be interesting to see how Republicans respond to this pick. They will obviously have to tread some extremely thin ice in the way that they go about this.

  5. floyd says:

    Very good pick indeed, and by her own words better than any white male by virtue of her gender and ethnicity. At least we know that she will be even handed and not racist or sexist![lol]

  6. Dave Schuler says:

    And, yes, MSNBC apparently doesn’t know today’s Tuesday. Long weekends sometimes have that effect.

    I’m amazed that all of the layers of editors that they have and bloggers don’t didn’t catch the flub.

  7. anjin-san says:

    I am waiting for Bit to tell us she is Lenin’s great-granddaughter…

  8. G.A.Phillips says:

    Very good pick.

    lol

    Seems extremely qualified

    lol,

    despite Rosen’s smear job, and hopefully provides a more forceful voice on the court than Souter.

    lol

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

    lol

    They will obviously have to tread some extremely thin ice in the way that they go about this.

    lol!

  9. G.A.Phillips says:

    She looks like the Oracle, I wonder if she makes cookies?

  10. Grewgills says:

    am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    to add a little context

    Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

    However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

  11. rodney dill says:

    She looks like the Oracle, I wonder if she makes cookies?

    If the little Asian guy that defends her doesn’t have his papers they’ll pass on her for hiring an illegal immigrant.

  12. Our Paul says:

    Not unexpected pick, but the fun and games have already begun. Brother Chris is rather bland in his analysis, but then, most of the heavy hitters are still sharpening their spikes.

    Over at Eugene Volokh’s shop, where Federalists dwell, no less than four different legal beagles have comments. Ilya Somin, a genuine time traveler to centuries of yore has picked out a 36 oz Louisville slugger and in a lengthy post clearly is angling for the job of clean up hitter.

    Among the barking dogs, Connie Hair leads the pack. Her braying include such wonders as:

    It should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama would continue playing identity politics by nominating an Hispanic woman. Sotomayor, 54, is also of the most radical liberal activist judges he could have nominated.(My Italics, OP)

    Her post is well worth a read, as it contains all the good talking points that GOP has put together and distributed to its minions. Instapundit limits himself to a quote from the for mentioned Ilya Somin, and refers us that fountain of knowledge, the Pajama Media.

    Jack Balkin has a more charitable view on the pick than the barking dogs, but then he and Eugene Volokh have never quite agreed on this strict constructionist business.

    President Obama as usual has the last word, slapping the white glove squarely across Jeffrey Rosen’s face. The New York Times web site headline reads: Obama Picks Sotomayor, Citing Intellect.

    All references to baseball are a tribute to Chief Judge Roberts, who calls them as he sees them, just like an umpire behind the plate…

  13. Eric Florack says:

    I am waiting for Bit to tell us she is Lenin’s great-granddaughter…

    Well, she certainly meets with Obama’s worldview, which is troublesome enough, of itself. But I’ve also pointed out by means of her own words in another thread how she’s racist and sexist, uttering phrases that any white male would get banished for…. and believing them… a point Floyd mentions, here.

    That aside, this appointment is the epitome of group politics. Totally unsiurprising based on what we’ve seen from Obama.

  14. Wayne says:

    GrewGills
    Thanks for the context. It sounds like she a racist and sexist to me. I agree that different experience give different perspectives. However a judge especially a Supreme Court Justice should look at the facts, the laws on the books and the Constitution when making a decision not what color someone is or what they Justice thinks the laws should be from their personal perspective. .

  15. Eric Florack says:

    However a judge especially a Supreme Court Justice should look at the facts, the laws on the books and the Constitution when making a decision not what color someone is or what they Justice thinks the laws should be from their personal perspective. .

    Indeed. I consider frightening that the big asset, according to Obama is that she’ll do exactly the opposite. Whatever happened to the concept of blind justice?

  16. G.A.Phillips says:

    If the little Asian guy that defends her doesn’t have his papers they’ll pass on her for hiring an illegal immigrant.

    Well I think both the oracle and seraph were illegal immi..err..I mean programs, but they were the good guys, but then again liberal reality sure seems like one of the back doors they hid out in.

    That would make Obama the One.

    The teleprompter the Architect.

    And Joe Biden is the Born again agent Smith?

    This getting weird.

    DO you suppose then that when you get a black cat deja vu that means that one of the One’s appointees dint pay their taxes?

  17. Triumph says:

    Certainly, Republican appointees Sandra Day O’Connor and Thomas were appointed largely because of gender and race and ahead of more objectively qualified conservative candidates.

    Please, cut the Bush-bashing. While it is true that Reagan nominated O’Connor because she was a broad, GHW Bush said Thomas was the most qualified person in America to be a Supreme Court judge.

    And I think that history has proven that Thomas is a first class legal mind, demonstrating independence and a keen judicial intellect judging from his performance on the bench.

  18. After all, Jeff Foxworthy can say things about rural whites that would be objectionable coming from Chris Rock.

    Listening to Chris Rock on XM 149 and XM 150, perhaps we have a different working definition of the word objectionable.

  19. James Joyner says:

    Listening to Chris Rock on XM 149 and XM 150, perhaps we have a different working definition of the word objectionable.

    Heh. I like his bit about living next door to a dentist. But his act does seem to have gotten more blue of late, rather the opposite of what one might expect with maturation.

  20. sam says:

    @Wayne:

    It sounds like she a racist and sexist to me.

    Tuff mammary, Wayne. She’s our racist and sexist, and there’s more of us than there are of you.

  21. sam says:

    Golly, what does this do to your narraritive, guys:

    In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002) Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration’s implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires organizations receiving U.S. funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”. Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds”.

    According to Ted Olson:

    Does that mean she’s pro-life? No. It means she had read Rust v. Sullivan, the 1991 Supreme Court’s decision that said Congress could prohibit federal funds for “programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

    Imagine that, observing precedent.

  22. An Interested Party says:

    re: G.A.Phillips May 26, 2009 10:15

    In among all your lol’s, you forget to write this: “Sonia Sotomayor is going to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” LOL

    Equally amusing is all this moaning and groaning that Sotomayor was picked because she is a Hispanic woman…I don’t recall all these complaints with the quota picks of Sandra Day O’ Connor and Clarence Thomas…

  23. Eric Florack says:

    Golly, what does this do to your narraritive, guys:

    A reasonable question, the answer to which is ‘not much at all’. It’s been noted that she’s tilted substantially left, more recently.
    Indeed, if we base such judgements on her more recent opinions, Obama seems to ahve picked the one person who could do somehting I thought impossible, heretofore… come down to the left of Souter.

  24. G.A.Phillips says:

    In among all your lol’s, you forget to write this: “Sonia Sotomayor is going to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” LOL

    Yes a very sad day if it happens, another weapon of mass destruction abortionist with great power.

  25. Steve Verdon says:

    Grewgills,

    I really don’t see how the added context helps. If I wrote, “that a wise old white man is more likely to be right than a wise old latina,” than tried to slut up the statment with a long winded qualification…it really doesn’t change that the initial statement was rather bad.

    Yes its rather trivial that people with different backgrounds would arrive at different conclusions, but to then go on and imply superiority of one group over another is not what I’d like to see in any judge.

  26. Davebo says:

    At the same time, her record is far less impressive than that of most other recent nominees, such as Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

    Yes, Roberts whopping two years on the bench is much more impressive!

  27. floyd says:

    “”Tuff mammary, Wayne. She’s our racist and sexist, and there’s more of us than there are of you.””
    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Sammy;
    Geesh… and you vote?

    I guess, since the statists are in power, we should just cancel the next election? …

    Nah! let’s have another election and see if we can convince just a couple million Democrats that liberty is worth more than the few hand-outs that come with the humiliation of being slaves of the state.
    Individual liberty IS the common good, in spite of the “prose” of the Neo-Marxists,who insist otherwise.

  28. Grewgills says:

    I really don’t see how the added context helps.

    I was not advocating one way or another, I just wanted to provide context so that people could judge the statement within that context.
    The original snippet provided did not even provide the context of the full sentence.

    a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Is not the same as,

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    They may both be objectionable, but they are not the same.

  29. Wayne says:

    Sam
    What, you don’t believe in minority rights or care about their concerns?

  30. An Interested Party says:

    re: floyd May 26, 2009 16:05

    I’m not sorry at all to break this to you, but if you start referring to your political enemies, perhaps including the president and his party’s representatives in Congress, as well as the people who voted for them, as “Neo-Marxists”, then you’ve already lost the argument…

  31. sam says:

    @floyd

    Sammy;
    Geesh… and you vote?

    Ah, for Christ’s sake, lighten up. SCOTUS just overturned Missouri vs. Jackson, at the behest of, gasp, the Obama administration:

    The Court had signaled in late March that it was considering overruling the Jackson decision, a decision designed to assure that the right to a lawyer is not lost during police questioning of a suspect they are holding, resulting in a confession to the crime. The Court ruled there that, once a suspect has claimed the right to a lawyer, any later waiver of that right during questioning would be invalid, unless the suspect initiated communcation with the officers. Among others calling for it to be overruled was U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued it was no longer necessary to protect the rights of those in police custody. [Source]

    That, I think, reflects Obama’s basic pragmatism and prudence. So, I wouldn’t expect Sotomayor to be some liberal bomb-thrower. Here’s Orin Kerr’s take on her over at Eugene’s place:

    [H]er resume hints at someone who is sort of like a liberal mirror image of Samuel Alito: the humble kid who goes to Princeton and Yale Law, becomes a prosecutor, and then gets appointed at a young age to the federal bench and puts in 15 years as a respected (if not particularly high profile) federal judge. In some ways, that makes Sotomayor a pretty conservative pick: Her resume is the kind of very accomplished resume that Supreme Court picks have tended to have in the last two decades or so.

    And if you go over to Volokh, check out David Bernstein’s praise of her dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani.

  32. floyd says:

    Aip;
    I am sure your advice is aimed at helping me defeat my “enemies” in the next election.[lol]

    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?!?

  33. An Interested Party says:

    re: floyd | May 26, 2009 | 06:21 pm

    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…

  34. floyd says:

    Aip;
    Perhaps I will, at some point, come to realize that only you, and of course those who agree with you, have a solid grasp on reality. Especially since I have now been so profoundly discredited by your realism. I doubt it will be any time soon though![lol]
    Your “advice” notwithstanding, I am not seeking a “willing audience”. What fun would that be?
    Besides, without my grain of irritation , how could you produce such pearls of wisdom for all to admire?
    BTW; The oyster reference was intended to “channel” Lewis Carrol.

  35. Pug says:

    …liberty is worth more than the few hand-outs that come with the humiliation of being slaves of the state.

    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.

  36. An Interested Party says:

    Spare me, Floyd…I never claimed that I or those who agree with me are the only people who have a grasp on reality, so you can throw away that strawman…the only irritation in this conversation is your own at the “Neo-Marxists”…appropriate that you should mention Carroll as your comments are about as silly as something from Alice in Wonderland…meanwhile, isn’t it a shame when some of Sotomayor’s comments that are offending some people around here are put in their proper context

  37. floyd says:

    Aip,
    So…. which would you choose to follow,the carpenter or the walrus? [lol]
    You are right of course Carrol meant to be silly, to children.

  38. An Interested Party says:

    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…

  39. Our Paul says:

    Ah, Derrick (May 26, 2009 | 08:06 am), my friend, you have missed the central point. When it comes to the art of judging, one has to go to that Supreme Court Judge Roberts, who famously said that he was nothing more than an umpire; the strike zone is the Constitution, and he would call them as he saw them.

    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.

  40. Dave Schuler says:

    believed in the concept of the “Unitarian Presidency”

    which presumably means being like John Adams?

  41. floyd says:

    “”Well no wonder you mention him, as you do the same thing for adults…””
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    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]

  42. Our Paul says:

    First, an answer to Dave Schuler (May 26, 2009 | 08:55 pm) pithy question in regards to the Unitarian Presidency, to wit:

    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.

  43. James Joyner says:

    Our Paul: Methinks Dave was joking about your use of “Unitarian,” a religious tradition, rather than “Unitary,” the word you were looking for.

  44. Our Paul says:

    Good grief James, could it be that I have been stabbed by my own quill? Reduced to a collective chuckle in the collective throats of the OTB writing clan? Forever labeled a Dunderhead for failing to grasp Dave’s subtleties? My oh so subtle baseball analogies for naught? Mother of God, what a cruel ending this is…

    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…

  45. An Interested Party says:

    re: floyd at May 26, 2009 23:34

    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… 🙂