“um…you do know that Freddie’s dead”

good gravy, woman … I live in the UK – he’s practically a SAINT here.

it’s just wrong because it’s not like Freddie Mercury was someone in the background like the drummer – he was the face and the voice for Queen. They can replace him, but they should call themselves something other than Queen.

(and, yes, I feel much the same way about replacing Michael Hutchens from INXS)

but you are absolutely right – FM was definitely one-of-a-kind

For example, here’s John “Torture Memo” Yoo – “Liberals have missed their chance to put on the court an intellectual leader who will bring about a progressive revolution in the law.

————————————————————————

UsinUK – …replacing Freddie Mercury is just…so…wrong.

um…you do know that Freddie’s dead…right? So Adam wouldn’t exactly be ‘replacing’ Mercury, not that he could anyway since FM was, IMHO, one-of-a-kind.

Actually, if you read the rest of the quote (which, by the way, was about racism and sexism specifically, not wisdom generally), then you’d see that she doesn’t think that at all.

The rest of the quote:
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

A PERFECT example of the facts judges choose to see: Ginsburg’s dissents in Gonzalez v. Carhart (a great read, by the way) and especially Ledbetter (”In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” and “”Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores.”)

A few years ago, there was a fantastic ad where an umpire is about to go call a game, but leaves his glasses at a restaurant table … he says “I call it like I see it” to which the waitress replies “but you have to see it to call it”. Sotomayer and Ginsburg are both saying that you HAVE to see the issue to call it – something which the Roberts court doesn’t seem particularly adept at.

“I’m tired of these Democrats acting like they won the election. Somebody needs to stand up and say, “When you win the election, you pick the nominees. Until then, shut up! Just shut up! Just go away! Bury yourselves in your rat holes and don’t come out until you win an election. When you win an election, you can put all these socialist wackos, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, all over the court, but until then, SHUT UP! You are really irritating me.”

- Rush Limbaugh