How dare they ask detailed questions to someone who is about to be appointed to a lifelong position of power? It has to be sexism!

Quote:"I don't like people talking about my private life,"

Well, then maybe the Supreme Court wasn't for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/...reme-court

Pre-approved questions, double standards.....c'mon, really?

If anything, she should be grateful that her work in the New Haven race-quotas case didn't get even more publicity than it did.

Clarence Thomas and his wife are still whining about the pubic hair he left on Anita Hill's Coke can all those years ago. Maybe the Supreme Court wasn't for him.

(03-10-2011 02:00 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Clarence Thomas and his wife are still whining about the pubic hair he left on Anita Hill's Coke can all those years ago. Maybe the Supreme Court wasn't for him.

I haven't heard Clarence talk about it, and his wife is a private citizen. As to the pubic hair, it was an allegation, not a question. One that was answered in the negative. She isn't saying she doesn't like people making up lies and asking about them as if they are facts... it is implied she's saying her "personal" life should be off limits. Now, I admit there should be limits to those inquiries and she may have been referring to that (I don't like talking about certain aspects of MY personal life either)... nobody on here should be acting as if a judges personal life is completely off limits.

The thing is, these people claim the power to overrule the President, the House, the Senate, all 50 state governments, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines... yet we're all supposed to speak about them in hushed tones, as if they were gods come down from Olympus, rather than 9 more politicians like all the rest (but basically with lifetime tenure).

(03-10-2011 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-10-2011 02:00 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Clarence Thomas and his wife are still whining about the pubic hair he left on Anita Hill's Coke can all those years ago. Maybe the Supreme Court wasn't for him.

I haven't heard Clarence talk about it, and his wife is a private citizen. As to the pubic hair, it was an allegation, not a question. One that was answered in the negative. She isn't saying she doesn't like people making up lies and asking about them as if they are facts... she's saying her "personal" life should be off limits. Now, I admit there should be limits to those inquiries and she may have been referring to that (I don't like talking about certain aspects of MY personal life either)... nobody on here should be acting as if a judges personal life is completely off limits.

Does the term "high tech lynching" ring a bell? Although I concede the point to Hambone

I meant recently. At the time, it was using the forum of a confirmation hearing to conduct a he said-she said trial. I think that is inappropriate. If you have an allegation, make it in the courts. His wife said something about it recently, suposedly reaching out to Anita Hill for some reason... which is what I thought you were referring to

also, since you posted, though I thought it was initially clear that I wasn't sure the context fit the actual claim... I had edited the comment about Sotomayor saying it is implied she is complaining about... I haven't personally heard her do so. It could well have been a "I don't like it, but there it is"... admitting that just because she made the quote, doesn't mean she's expecting a double standard. I'd have to read more/hear it in context/.