Not really that into Sotomayor
The Republicans are just stupid, the only ones left are soaking up extra doses of whatever gas leaks into their filthy, evil dungeon club house. So to quickly dispense with their objections I will simply say that nobody but us Irish Philadelphians could possibly be right about anything, because only we make sense. It's not racism, it's humanity. We enjoy the right to a perspective, and if from that perspective we do a pretty good job, then we accidentally and fortunately got born here with the right to express it.
So we're not supposed to be proud of our heritage and home town? Kiss my junk.
I don't like her because I don't like insurance companies, and she's all into them. They're companies, with no civic responsibility. Just a fiduciary responsibility to earn money on their investors' dollars. Insurance results in me and my family requiring the backing of a financial services firm to get a stupid X-ray. If they didn't have to pay fourteen mailroom clerks, an X-ray would be something a guy would do on the back of his truck. People end up living in forest fires punctuated by development.
Everything else sounds pretty neutral, and I'm otherwise comforted by this sane choice from this sane Administration, which I am also otherwise happy to capitalize.
Advertisement
"I don't like her because I don't like insurance companies, and she's all into them. "
Could you explain that?
June 2, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My real introduction to the judge came from the Philadelphia Inquirer piece pointing out her stance on business (friendly) and insurers in particular (very friendly), as opposed to the typical 'with the little guy' routine we expect of Democratic leanings.
June 3, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
got a link or clue so I can search for the article?
June 3, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
would this be it?
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Justice_Sotomayor_the_insurance_companies_friend.html
Sounds like she reads for the letter of the contract, which by the time something gets to the Appeals level would generally favor the insurance company since companies hire expensive lawyers to read fine print carefully.
Anything in particular in any of the cases stand out for you?
June 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's the one. But I'm not prosecuting her. I figure anybody above the 80% percentile should be able to do a good job at thinking work, assuming they're honest and unconflicted. And I'm not here to lay out all the details, I'm really only interested in the interruptive in-process sort of discussion I can illustrate with my punditry.
I'm not a journalist, just sharing opinions. Since two people would describe the same event differently, I'm not going to get hung up on individual events. I'm usually looking for the forest.
I might get scholarly and detail my references sometimes, but I don't have your discipline. I feel successful when I stay on topic or at least return to it. Thanks for the comments though. I'll take that 'letter of the law' thing, appropriate in the case of contracts, and apply it to her perspective credentials as promoted by Obama and say I don't think this anecdotal bias appears to support his 'in my shoes' thing about how regular people see things and are affected by them.
June 4, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink