Glad she's in.

We've had this discussion. I'm not sure I'm interesting in trying to convince you of how wrong you are, why you're being misleading, and how you are taking her quote out of context. I will leave you to stew in the idea that she's there, just waiting to usher in the homosexual agenda, or something. Just waiting.

Why?

That wouldn't fit the frame, Aizle. Rafael was *told* that her comments meant she thought judges should make law, and he believed that lie because he wanted it to be true. You can't convince him otherwise. The frame must be maintained, and anything outside of it does not constitute reality for him.

What's unfortunate is that you're applauding concession of the status quo as "honest and forthright" action.

Afterall, since corporate lobbyist exert significant influence over Congress, calling them "policy makers" in a half-hearted tone of concession should be honest and forthright as well, correct?

No, instead of being an instrument to spearhead change where the courts might actually perform the function intended, she falls back on ethnicity, maintains the status quo, and is applauded by people obsessed with race. People so obsessed, they draw unnecessary attention and drive wedges where they profess to want peace.

I'm honestly confused with what you're getting all riled up for on that particular clip. What she's describing is the very core of how the court system works. Congress creates the laws, and then as she describes they "percolate" through the court system, being tweaked and refined through rulings and precidence. I don't really see anything wrong with that process, and it's one that has been in effect since the beginning of the court system, so it's not like it's some new liberal revisionist agenda or something.

She appears to be quite qualified and level headed and I believe having additional diversity on the SCOTUS is a good thing.

Rafael, there is nothing wrong with her comments on that video. If anything, she's being more honest and forthright than most. It's unfortunately that you can't see it for what it is.

The questions that arise then are:
1) Was she the most qualified to do the job, or did the "diversity" metric overrule qualifications.

2) Does her "level-headedness" simultaneously demonstrate an adherence to Constitutional principles, rather than social activist principles? If not, what other qualification does she have that overrides Constitutionality?

Her attitude and phrasing are the issue, as her point cannot be clearly garnered vis. whether she supports that m.o. or not. I have less problems with that video than her racism and genderism.

Well, I think you'll find differing answers to that. I'm sure some will say she's unqualified *because* she's a Latina. That her heritage and success somehow combine into proof that her whole life was a story of affirmative action.

She is at *least* as qualified as any other member of the Supreme Court. I find her diversity to be icing on the cake.

She has a record of ruling on settled law, fairly and accurately. Her judicial record is one of fealty to the law, not to a political agenda.

Now, she may not hold the same opinions you do on constitutional principles and questions, but that does not disqualify her for the role.

Her attitude is entirely a subjective call, born of a clip from a question she fielded at a panel discussion. In other words, you're taking this sliver of a moment from her life, and asking if that disqualifies her for the highest court in the land.

She isn't a racist, nor is she a sexist, and people that claim that are being terribly misleading and unfair to her. they are taking one sentence out of an entire, long statement, and ignoring the context in which it was written. There is nothing in her history, her judicial work, or her body of opinions that supports such a claim.