tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821345570811107481.post2457449404807036131..comments2024-03-17T00:13:44.599-07:00Comments on Marty Nemko: The Case Against Sotomayor--Part 3Marty Nemkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14850388752934193821noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821345570811107481.post-76955921092593274432009-05-31T08:58:19.139-07:002009-05-31T08:58:19.139-07:00One regular commenter to this blog who chooses to ...One regular commenter to this blog who chooses to remain anonymous writes in a distinctive style and I usually won't publish his/her comments. To me, they represent the worst in blogger comments. Oh, I'm sure the person is intelligent, likely a retired professor or some such, but his/her goal is not to shed light but to be annoying, try to find some possible tiny flaw (legitimate or merely claimed as in his most recent submission to me) in my writing or research, no matter how irrelevant to the issue at hand, and further claim that it makes me, as a person, less than worthy. As readers of this blog know, I routinely post comments that disagree with mine, even strongly disagree but I think all of us bloggers need to feel okay about not posting the comments of even intelligent commenters that deflect the argument from its substance.<br /><br />I might also remind that commenter and perhaps others that I write this blog without compensation and with no aspirations of personal gain. I am already extremely fully employed, content with my career, and do so merely do be an engaged citizen. I not only receive no recompense, I suffer the demeaning slings and arrows of this commenter--who knows perhaps it's two or three similar people. I can't be sure. I'd ask as recompense, your circumspection when deciding what comments to submit.Marty Nemkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14850388752934193821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7821345570811107481.post-67703578311997534622009-05-29T14:11:51.095-07:002009-05-29T14:11:51.095-07:00Apparently she did not say that; it's what an MSN...Apparently she did not say that; it's what an MSNBC commentator said she said. <br /><br />A transcript of the original remark shows what she said is different; she's distinguishing beteen the apellate and district courts. <br /><br />"all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases."<br /><br />There is much more of an issue with some of her theories on race and gender (for me) after reading the Denver Post column.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com