The "debate" about Sonia Sotomayor disgusts me

In the 110th Congress, 59 senators and 174 representatives were also lawyers. You'd think that our national body of lawmakers, especially those who are also lawyers, might know something about the law, about judges and about courts of appeal. Apparently you'd never get these dolts to actually ADMIT it, though, because it might cramp their style when they have to tell the big lies about the other party's judicial nominees.

If Republicans want to paint Sonia Sotomayor as a liberal and/or activist judge, let them show the cases in detail that might suggest this. Let them also step aside after slinging their mud so that others might talk about the rest of Sotomayor's decisions that the Republicans weren't able to spin to their advantage so that we could actually have a reasoned debate on the topic.

Let every Republican who praised Alito's humble upbringing and said it would make him a better justice who understood the "real world" stand up after videotape of their remarks about Alito are played and say why this same standard shouldn't apply to a latina who had better grades than Alito and more years on the federal bench than he had when he was nominated. If even one elected official has the balls to do that, I might admire their ability to lie as much as I despise their willingness to do so.

I shouldn't even bother to be upset about it. No big scandals have turned up so far, so it looks like her nomination is likely to be confirmed. Still, it's galling to see the same people who huffed and puffed and cried "Politics!" about any suggestion that Democrats might not support Alito turn around and threaten filibusters and focus on irrelevant minutiae when a qualified, experienced, intelligent judge is nominated by a president who scares them as much as W scared sane people.

Stupid people shouldn't buy cool toys

Ah, our wonderfully litigious society... it's so much more satisfying for people to sue rather than taking responsibility for their own mistakes. Now some mouth-breathing moron has filed suit against Apple because it's possible to turn up the iPod loud enough to damage your hearing. (see the Cnet news story here) Mind you, he's not claiming the iPod increases the volume on its own, or that listening to Mozart at low volumes will suddenly destroy your hearing just because you're using an iPod. He's claiming that if YOU turn up the volume all the way, the iPod gives you the ability to damage your own hearing.

Now, I've had stereo equipment you could do this kind of damage with for years. I've not been dumb enough to do it, or perhaps I've just not been devious enough to decide to sue Linn for making speakers that don't automatically shut off at some "danger level." Then I guess I could file another suit against musical talent who have the nerve to make music that sounds good at high volumes (and of course I'd name all the record companies in that suit just to add some deep pockets to the mix.) Then, hopefully, someone would SHOOT me for being a greedy, irresponsible sack of shit who's a burden to society.

There's a REASON for the concept of torts in the legal system... there are cases in which EvilBigCompany does something irresponsible or even malicious and deserves to get sued. There are cases when Danny Drunk runs over a pedestrian and deserves to get sued (though usually his insurance company ends up taking the brunt of that.) If I can't figure out that sticking a screwdriver into a live light socket is a bad idea (especially when instructions tell me "turn off the breaker" or "call a professional electrician") then I deserve a 120-volt shock, not a check for a million dollars.

Someone's going to say "We need tort reform!" Well, if tort reform were enacted by honest, responsible people with only the best interests of society in mind that would be great. Unfortunately, it would be enacted by trial lawyers and politicians, so my cynical semi-Libertarian side says that would probably end up being a bad thing. Can't we just have IQ tests for jurors?