I've got two quibbles to quib on the President's Supreme Court nominee. Today he addressed the lesser of the two:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.
Obama also defended his nominee, saying her message was on target even if her exact wording was not.
OK, I'm game. How would you restate that to make it acceptable? A female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white Bichon Frise judge? A female Hispanic judge would often make a better Curanto en Hoyo than a white male judge? Switch the words around and tell me what point she was trying to make with those words. What was this "on target" message? Put it in the exact wording that would make it right.
Yeah, I didn't think you could.
Anyway, that's not the biggest problem I have with her. My problem is with the idea that legislation is done in the courts.
She's knows she shouldn't say it on tape, and she doesn't advocate it, and she knows it's wrong, but well never mind all that, court of appeals is where policy is made. Though she knows that it's wrong, wink-wink. No, judge Sotomayor, you're wrong, wink-wink.
In other whoops-picked-the-wrong-word news, Phil Spector's lawyer insists that "well if she didn't want to die in the driveway, she shouldn't have ticked me off" can be taken two ways. (btw- 19 to life? I don't think we're looking at a guy who can make it till Christmas)