When asked about Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications to serve on the highest court in the land, infinitely qualified assessor of legal talent Anita Hill had this to say…
Well, if you look at her outstanding record on the bench, you can look at her outstanding academic record. She has a wide variety of professional experience before she got on to the bench. I think she’s infinitely-qualified to be the nominee and we will see during the confirmation process how well she’s qualified to actually receive the vote of the Senate.
Sounds about right to me. I had good grades and I used to work as a game room attendant at a pizza place. I can’t wait to be CNO. I’m infinitely qualified.
Perhaps. Yet she has far, far more judicial experience than the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush. Roberts had only been a judge for two years when he became head of the supreme court. If you want to find a great example of someone woefully underqualified being put in charge of the store, I think Roberts is your man.
Unless you think two years’ experience on the bench is all you need. In that case, though, it’s hard to see how Sotomayor isn’t qualified.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I didn’t say Roberts was good. But I’m sure he has great “life experience” as well.
I’m not understanding why you would lump Sotomayor’s appointment as *another* example of an unqualified person being appointed. She has 11 years’ experience on the Federal appeals bench, and on top of that six years’ experience as a federal judge. That’s 17 years’ experience by my math. Roberts only had two years’ experience.
It’s hard to see how 17 years’ of experience at a job makes you unqualified for it. But I’m sure you can explain that.
Do you ever take anything at face value?
This whole post was just about how Anita Hill gave a shit answer to a question that makes it look like the only reason Sotomayor is nominated is because of her “life experiences”
fuck.
If Anita Hill had had anything to do with the selection process, you might have a point. But she didn’t, so it’s hard to see how anything she says on the matter is relevant.
Did I say anything about the selection process in the original post? No.
I said Anita Hill, when asked about qualifications, gave a half retarded answer. And by the logic of that retarded answer, taken completely in the context of that moment with no external data involved, all that matters is life experiences, not actual experience for the job at hand.
For fucks sake, learn to take something at face value and out of context and stop trying to act like you’re the authority on whatever topic I decide to post on. Massive Google Search skills don’t make you a intellectual giant.
I certainly don’t pretend to know everything about the topics I write on. On most things, I take little excerpts that I find amusing and try to make fun of it. You might find more humor in the world if you took the stick out of your ass and laughed once in awhile.
Well, when I mentioned that Justics Roberts only had two years experience on the bench when he was appointed head of the freaking Supreme Court, you responded with “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Which could only mean you considered Sotomayor’s nomination a “mistake” on par with Robert’s.
I’m just sayin’.