>>>>>>>>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/sotomayor-breaks-ankle-on-her-way-to-capitol-hill/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can bet the late night comics are going to have a field day with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it's brilliant - she a woman - she's Hispanic - and now she's *handicapped* - er - physically challenged - er - differently abled. (yeah, that's the ticket)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now if she goes into the hearing and lays a wet one on Dianne Feinstein I think we'll it all covered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who cares about the Ricci case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Splendid that you can all take such pleasure in someone being injured.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh lighten up. He said the comics were going to have fun with it and I joked that now she was not only Latina and a woman (her two most important credentials which she feels make her a wise judge) but was now also handicapped and just being a Lesbian short of the dream appointment. I'd hardly call that Schadenfreude.
>>>>>
>>>>>More a commentary on the identity-politics spoils-system that has become our national life.
>>>>
>>>>If you consider her identity politics "her two most important credentials," you should maybe read this.
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
>>>>
>>>>Of course the fact that she is Hispanic and a woman were in her favor. But she seems to be a qualified candidate apart from that, so it's a little insulting to her to say it's all she has going for her.
>>>
>>>I did not say it was all she had going for her. She is a person of great accomplishment. But she has made a point that her being a Latina gives her special insight and from a political point of view her appointment is an example of identity politics. I have no problem with that but I find her positions on things like the Ricci case disturbing.
>>
>>I did not know she has made a point about special insight. That rubs me a little the wrong way, too. Will not say any more than that without knowing the context.
>>
>>I just read up on the Ricci case. Probably nothing disqualifying there but it seems like it would have been better if the judges' panel of which she was part had put forth more of an opinion. Hiding behind silence is not a trait you want in a Supreme Court justice. I hasten to say I don't know enough about her to characterize her that way, it's just my impression of this case. Do anything for 18 years and there will be something there that doesn't smell quite right. "There is always something," as Robert Penn Warren wrote in "All the King's Men."
>
>As I mentioned in another thread, there are cases where her stance is something I really am concerned about. However, when it comes to that statement of 'special insight,' I think it was a snippet taken out of context. I was very disturbed by it before I researched it, but once again, it is one section of a discussion which, when taken out of context, presents a different meaning.

You're probably right about the "special insight" and I withdraw the remark. But failure to review in the Ricci case is very disturbing. That one is a red flag for me as it shows a lot about underlying philosophy about identity politics and justice that is not blind but rather personal.