General Discussion

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)

39. Take Moreno

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:39 PM

Jan 2012

I'm all in favor of someone sticking to his guns, and good for him.

But it's a hard argument to say he's more qualified than Sotomayor - it's speculation to say he was ahead of her in line as opposed to sharing space with her on a short list - but even if he *was* "ahead" of her in any line, that does not translate to him being more qualified than her.

I can understand your frustration at not getting who you wanted, but I think you are unfairly disparaging two very solid justices through your claim that these alternatives were "much more qualified" (your words) than them.

It seems like Wood and Moreno would also have been perfectly well-qualified to sit on the Court. But it's not like Kagan doesn't have overwhelmingly impressive credentials, as well.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Obama Loses: The Courts [View all] WilliamPitt Jan 2012 OP

This is the best reason to not be complacent. hifiguy Jan 2012 #1

Thanks for this, Will. CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2012 #2

Yep. That's proven reality. 2000. SCOTUS. Bush. Cheney. Rove. Zorra Jan 2012 #3

A really good reason to ensure a second term for Pres. Obama and holding the Senate. nt Cognitive_Resonance Jan 2012 #4

If he wins, based on his actions can you promise that he will not shift the Court more to the right? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #5

Has he with his 2 previous nominees to the SCOTUS? FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #6

I can certainly promise WilliamPitt Jan 2012 #7

He is going to get the nomination. He's going to win. It's a sure thing. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #36

For real? Scootaloo Jan 2012 #8

People who rely upon logic are not "demonizing Obama." In a democracy, the people have a right AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #9

Sure you have that right Scootaloo Jan 2012 #13

"Fauxgressives" = Namecalling. I'm now selecting the ignore button. Bye. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #14

The problem is the lack of logic in your question -- not that it "relies on logic." BzaDem Jan 2012 #17

Thank you for your suggestion, but the Supreme Court is full. He does not have any current nominees AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #23

Have you actually read many of their Supreme Court opinions? BzaDem Jan 2012 #24

Interesting that you read case law. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #29

Sotomayor and Kagan Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #11

Who are the more qualified candidates you refer to? jsmirman Jan 2012 #16

Just two I can name right now Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #35

Take Moreno jsmirman Jan 2012 #39

That is patently absurd. BzaDem Jan 2012 #18

We are pretty close to being unprotected by the courts already jsmirman Jan 2012 #21

No argument there. BzaDem Jan 2012 #25

I know jsmirman Jan 2012 #27

why is Sotomayor so hated? DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #22

The funny thing is that I would not be surprised if Sotomayor ended up being known to history as the BzaDem Jan 2012 #26

Ha jsmirman Jan 2012 #28

i can promise a true shit stain from president newt romney spanone Jan 2012 #33

And if Obama wins? Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #10

what is your issue with Elena Kagan? donheld Jan 2012 #15

Here. Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #31

Sotomayor and Kagan may turn out to be more liberal than any liberal justice in decades. BzaDem Jan 2012 #19

I say stick to the economic issues Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #32

"The man who moved the Court further to the right in his first term" BzaDem Jan 2012 #38

Ms. Lithwick makes a really good point re: federal appellate courts pinto Jan 2012 #12

K&R. Thanks for posting this, Will! highplainsdem Jan 2012 #20

Interesting MFrohike Jan 2012 #30

This is the advantage of purchasing both parties. woo me with science Jan 2012 #34

Too true. And how strange that some are not only not enraged, they are cheerleaders. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #37

Slow and painful or quick and painful SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #40