Well, now that I come to think of it, I suppose it was.

But his comments about Sotomayor really surprised me.  First, he seemed to know he'd catch flak for what he said, but his focus on her not being "blazingly brilliant" just took me back.  First of all, I don't think we need "blazingly brilliant" for the Supreme Court, we need the right mixture of intelligence, fairness, experience, etc.  Second, I can't, for the life of me, understand why her intelligence even comes into question when she graduated tops at Princeton and Yale.

I don't remember very well when Ginsburg and O'Connor were nominated, so I don't know if this happened before, but I'm finding this whole thing of how she's being treated pretty disturbing.  I have no idea is it has to do with being Latina.  I do think it has to do with being female.  

It shocks me a little that more people aren't fed up with the fact that women continue to have to always start from a position of, "well, is she really smart enough?  Does she really have what it takes?"   Any moment now..."Sotomayor, who has never married...?"

"Privacy and Information:  Sotomayor has encountered a wide variety of privacy and access-to-information issues in her time on the Second Circuit, including cases involving the Freedom of Information Act and employer searches of employee workspaces.

In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to "unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making."  Thus, in Tigue v. DOJ, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002), the panel denied a tax attorney's request for a memorandum written by a Deputy U.S. Attorney outlining the office's opinions and policies regarding tax investigations, notwithstanding that the memorandum had been cited in a publicly released report.   And in Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005), while acknowledging that FOIA exemptions should be construed "narrowly, resolving all doubts in favor of disclosure," her opinion denied a reporter's request for an FBI memorandum regarding local FBI agents accused of lying.  She reasoned that the "unwarranted invasion of privacy" for the individuals whose names would be released outweighed the public interest in disclosing a government employee's identity.

In a case involving privacy issues, Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (2001), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a public employer's search of an employee's computer after the employee was accused of being late, coming to the office infrequently, and spending his free time discussing personal computers with his coworkers.  Although she agreed that the employee had a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer," Sotomayor also cautioned that "workplace conditions can be such that an employee's expectation of privacy...is diminished."  Here, she explained, the search was permissible because it could have revealed employee misconduct."

What do you think?
The search of an employee's computer was permissible because it "could have revealed" employee misconduct... Say what?

FWright said:

"She obviously wasn't my first choice, for reasons I reported three weeks ago..."

Gossiped, Jeffrey.  The word is gossiped, not reported.

You've done this before BTD.

The charge of racist or sexist is a very serious charge BTD -- I can think of few charges worse than that.  If you are going to call the man a racist, you need much more proof than just your accusation, noting one data point, and saying "you make the call."

Damnit, you did exactly what you just complained about Turley doing, except with a worse charge, calling Turley a racist when all he did was call her stupid.

In brief, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court held that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is . . . not immunized by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech."

What this childish girl (hopefully) learned is that while she certainly has the freedom of speech to post whatever she wants online, with that freedom comes responsibility. That's where many people miss the point - just because you may have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean there won't be consequences for saying it. And you if choose to exercise your right to freedom of speech, then you must be willing to accept those consequences .

The first:
"Open government advocates might be uncomfortable with her involvement in Tigue v. DOJ and Wood v. FBI. Both cases narrowly construed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The second:
"In the Second Circuit has ruled against high school student Avery Doninger who contested her punishment for posting an objectionable message on an Internet site about Lewis Mills High School. When she objected to the cancellation of a school event in vulgar terms, school officials barred her from running for Senior Class secretary. In Doninger v. Niehoff, the Second Circuit upheld the right of school officials to punish students for out-of-school speech in a major blow to both the first amendment and student rights

While federal courts routinely state that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), they honor that rule primarily in the breach. There has been a steady reduction of student rights from mandatory drug testing to school searches to punishment for writings in newspapers and out-of-school activities. Circuit judges Sotomayor, Livingston, and district judge Preska (sitting by designation) followed this troubling trend."

Ooh, a scrappy gurl who has an opinion?  An angry girlie?  That's scary.  Fine for Scalia to be like that.  But a gurrrl?  Yikes.

Sam Alito as a source?