She should no more be forced to quit this club than men should be allowed to join fraternal clubs to the exclusion of women.

Tony, are you sure you phrased that the way you intended?

At one level it's ridiculous. At another level there is the principle that one set of rules applies to victim groups and another set of rules applies to victimizer groups. This is the principle behind reverse discrimination policies. Sotomayor has been forced to reject the legitimacy of this principle in her own case. There is some value in that.

If only the Republican Party would take a principled, coherent stand against reverse discrimination. If only....

But why don't they? The elites of this country, Republican and Democrat, do not believe that Hispanics and African-Americans can prosper in any color-blind competition. Social peace demands set-asides. Social peace is valuable to them and costs them nothing because of the educational and social privileges they and their children enjoy. Others - who can be demonized if they object - can be made to pay the cost.

Yes, Craig, I'm pretty sure. Men can join male clubs, women can join female clubs, and sometimes they join clubs with both sexes. She should not be forced to quit the club, but men should be allowed to have their schools, country clubs, moose clubs, and whatever else.

Tony - I believe the correct phrasing would be "She should no more be forced to quit this club than men should not be allowed to join fraternal clubs to the exclusion of women."

I'm telling you not to make cheap "grammar Nazi" points, but only because your phrasing actually makes the opposite point than the one you apparently were trying to make. I'm fairly certain.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is always worthwhile.

Craig is right about the grammar. Tony is right in his intended substance.

JM: This is the wrong way to point out her hypocrisy. It was enough to note her membership. But the GOP should have applauded it rather than demand that she be "consistent." It is always better to act right than to act consistently. In this case, the GOP acted wrongly and inconsistently. Which side in this abandoned its principles? It was not future Justice Sotomayor. She lost something she wanted, but she comes out smelling like a rose. The GOP looks petty and mean. If anyone won this round, it was Sotomayor.

For anyone concerned about Sotomayor's membership in the Belizean Grove, this should be too little, too late. Either the organization is sexist or it is not. Either Sotomayor should be criticized for being a member, or she should not. The fact that she quit in the face of criticism means very little.

Is Belizean Grove the Bohemian Grove for women? Answered my own question, it even notes that it is on wikipedia. Should all the men now have to quit Bohemian Grove to be fair? I must say the location of the female grove sounds much less pleasant than the redwood forrest our elite men frolic though in the summer. Mabye the urban jungle is more appealing to the women. Also on the female grove are executives from Victoria's secret and Goldman sachs...WOW, no wonder letterman takes cheep shots, the truth is stranger and funnier than fiction right now. The only thing that would top this off would be if Sessions was a member of Bohemian Grove, but I can not document this. Its almost midsummer, I think if we want a taste of high society we need to dawn our robes and creamate our cares. If you have never heard Nixon's description of this place....check it out, its in the middle of his discussion of an episode of All in the Family that glorified homosexuality and is probably the funniest thing I have ever heard. It really left me with a soft spot for Nixon.

I think this is much ado.... This was never going to provide the explosive material that would detonate her nomination. Then again, Republicans have been pointing out Liberal hypocrisy for decades now, and it hasn't found much traction. So sure, keep firing away on it, no harm is done thereby, but don't expect much of anything to come of it.

I usually never avail myself of a hypocrisy accusation, preferring to engage on the merits, or not at all. But maybe the overall cumulative impact of all these liberals saying one thing, and doing another, on issue after issue, IS having some kind of impact. Look at the issue of global warming, which is losing support right across the country, despite the extent to which it is being pushed. So maybe exposing Democrats pushing green while guzzling gas and exuding carbon emissions is worth the while.

I agree completely with what you said at the end Dan, but I think in order to do that you have to be able to tell the people why it is being done and depending on what you believe green activism leads pretty far down the rabbit hole.

The American Bar Association's judicial code says that a judge's extrajudicial activities "must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination." It adds, "An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be eligible for admission."

What part of this do liberals not understand? Are the words too big for you? Do you not understand that the mean old GOP did not make up this rule, nor did they force Sotomayor to join her club?

You will have a hard time blaming it on President Bush, but I expect you will try to make a connection. Libs always do.

Sotomayor should be exempt from this rule because? She's just special? She's a Special Friend of Barack Obama?

Or could it be her financial genius? "after a career that has spanned 25 years, Ms Sotomayor's bank account holds $31,985. Her credit cards debts are $15,823, and she has $15,000 in unpaid dental bills. That leaves her with $1,162. "

I'm sure she is a lovely person and a brilliant jurist and she will make a 'special' Supreme Court Justice.