TJones Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 But he put it in quotes! That's authoritative. How can you argue with something in quotes? ...I shouldn't have opened this thread again. Now I need to go take a shower. You needed to hit the shower a long time ago pal. BTW, that wasn't HER quote, that would be the whiteman's that Obama would never nominate. ihop, did you see the youtube video I posted ? She said, "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Hey what do you know, she is an Appeals Judge. ihop, I wil also change the whiteman's quote,"he is smarter than a Latina woman because of the life he has led, and that he believes POLICY is made from the bench." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 ihop, did you see the youtube video I posted ? She said, "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Hey what do you know, she is an Appeals Judge.I thought this was an interesting quote from Antonin Scalia. Why was it okay when Scalia said the following, but not okay when Sotomayor said something along the same lines?This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZO.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought this was an interesting quote from Antonin Scalia. Why was it okay when Scalia said the following, but not okay when Sotomayor said something along the same lines?Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. First, Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, but is not necessarily the sole author of the words. It is not a direct quotation of his words. They are the opinion of the majority of the court, with the exception of Justice Ginsburg who appears to have written a dissent. Second, unlike the Sotomayer quote, the above is in reference to state judges not Federal judges in reference to a state constitution, not the US Constitution, in reference to state law, not federal law. Without any knowlege of Minnesota's state constitution; I have no idea if judges are empowered to make law or not. But clearly the quotation was not meant to apply to federal law. Finally, it appears that the power to make common law in the context of this case was established by a previous court case See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). and the opinion is merely referencing that case. I read serveral of Sotomayor's opinions over the last few days. Generally, the few I've read are sound. However, her overturned rulings were complete smackdowns by the reviewing courts. In my opinion she's qualified; but perhaps has a wobbler here and there. The best possible appointment? Not by a long shot. But Senate confirmation isn't for selection. That's the President's power. Unfortunately for all recent nominees the Senate has forgotten that. I'm about to go on a training ride. Should I shower now or when I get back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Indeed. Justice Souter, who she is to replace if confirmed, often sided with the liberal side of the court, and was appointed by President Bush. A proper judge will not have a predetermined bent. However... any nominee will be labeled as having a bent -real or not- as part of our political process of bickering. No nominee can escape being labeled as too (liberal/conservative) by the opposite side that appointed him or her. It is the thought process that makes a good justice. Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsberg are known to be close personal friends and often consult at length on court opinions. Although they are known as too "conservative" and too "liberal" by the respective opposition. Justice Thomas (I'm paraphrasing) cites Ginsberg as one of his most respected peers in his book. Both have turned out to be excellent justices. It's a bit of a crap shoot, uncomfortable as that may be.Nice!Justice Thomas? An excellent justice? A man, who never asks questions when cases are presented? A man who is just there? "Long dong silver" himself? That justice Thomas? If he had to actually work... he would have quit a long time ago. What a farce that man is. HW Bush just couldn't get it right, could he?Sotomayor finally appears to be a person who can go toe-to-toe with Scalia. I put my bets on her that she could take him in an arm wrestling match... in about 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 You needed to hit the shower a long time ago pal. BTW, that wasn't HER quote, that would be the whiteman's that Obama would never nominate. ihop, did you see the youtube video I posted ? She said, "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Hey what do you know, she is an Appeals Judge. ihop, I wil also change the whiteman's quote,"he is smarter than a Latina woman because of the life he has led, and that he believes POLICY is made from the bench." Yes, I saw it; that's how I was easily able to identify the difference between what she said, and the belief you attributed to her. There's quite a big gap between believing something "is" and believing something "should be," between honestly appraising a situation and espousing a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yes, I saw it; that's how I was easily able to identify the difference between what she said, and the belief you attributed to her. There's quite a big gap between believing something "is" and believing something "should be," between honestly appraising a situation and espousing a belief.well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 It is obvious that she herself has made policy, whilest sitting upon her cat perch, or else she wouldn't know that is where "policy is made" and could make a statement like that. That is what she knows, and that is the danger she possesses to the Supreme Court. I am not saying she is a bad person, and I don't know that there is a better pick out there over her. She has plenty of experience, but it is how she might interpret the constitution to fit her agenda that is troublesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Has no one even touched on the ruling on the FD tests? That is a pretty big deal in my opinion. Throwing out promotions for qualified people because unqualified people didn't pass the test is a bit ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the test is slanted or biased. In fact, they should be biased. Biased to determining QUALIFICATIONS. I certainly don't want someone who is unqualified in that position.I have been meaning to dig in to some of her past cases, but haven't had the time. Historically, how many of those nominated first are ever actually seated? I would venture a guess that he might be floating this very liberal minority woman out there, knowing she is going to get shot down, so he can be seen to make a concession with a slightly less liberal candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would venture a guess that he might be floating this very liberal minority woman out there, knowing she is going to get shot down, so he can be seen to make a concession with a slightly less liberal candidate.Wishful thinking. Whether any of us like it or not, as a political matter the story is over. Her place is secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Has no one even touched on the ruling on the FD tests? That is a pretty big deal in my opinion. Throwing out promotions for qualified people because unqualified people didn't pass the test is a bit ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the test is slanted or biased. In fact, they should be biased. Biased to determining QUALIFICATIONS. I certainly don't want someone who is unqualified in that position.I have been meaning to dig in to some of her past cases, but haven't had the time. Historically, how many of those nominated first are ever actually seated? I would venture a guess that he might be floating this very liberal minority woman out there, knowing she is going to get shot down, so he can be seen to make a concession with a slightly less liberal candidate.The term "Activist Judge" comes to mind. Like I said wilson, she will do what it takes to enhance her agenda. She has been making race based lawsuits since Yale,now she gets to rule on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Soooo, if Obama had picked a whiteman, and said, "he is smarter than a Latina woman because of the life he has led, and that he believes POLICY should be made from the bench." You would be OK with that......right ?Obama never said anything like that. Those were Sotomayor poorly choosen words. Enough to deny her confirmation, probably not. You've never said anything that didn't come out quite like you intended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Obama never said anything like that. Those were Sotomayor poorly choosen words. Enough to deny her confirmation, probably not. You've never said anything that didn't come out quite like you intended? Geez Louise, in the future, don't hit the crackpipe before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 One would think that liberals would use this silly episode as a lesson in how unfair it is to casually brand someone a racist.But somehow I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Geez Louise, in the future, don't hit the crackpipe before posting. Have we run out of arguments today? Oh, and don't call me Louise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Have we run out of arguments today? Oh, and don't call me Louise. Pass that pipe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Pass that pipe! That explains a WHOOOOOLLLLLLLLEEEE lot ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Have we run out of arguments today? Oh, and don't call me Louise. Here's the new argument. Learn how to read a post correctly. LOL! You friggin' goof. I want to change a charge of "racist" to just plain ol' prejudice or biggotry on Sotomayor's part. "Racist" is a little extreme for her comments. It does seem she has a penchant for playing the race card though. BTW, anyone else notice that Nancy Pelosi has fallen out of the limelight since Sotomayor has become a hot topic ? Nice job drawing the attention away Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Here's the new argument. Learn how to read a post correctly. LOL! You friggin' goof. I want to change a charge of "racist" to just plain ol' prejudice or biggotry on Sotomayor's part. "Racist" is a little extreme for her comments. It does seem she has a penchant for playing the race card though. BTW, anyone else notice that Nancy Pelosi has fallen out of the limelight since Sotomayor has become a hot topic ? Nice job drawing the attention away Obama. Good point TJones. I think there is prejudice that is not necessarily meant to be destructive and is mostly just ignorance or inherited. I think there is biggotry that is just hateful but often benign, and I think there is racism which is mean spirited with intent to do harm - financially, socially and/or physically. All shades of ugly, but not all intentionally so. "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been 110 Justices...106 have been white males. The Republic will survive a Puerto Rican female, racist or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been 110 Justices...106 have been white males. The Republic will survive a Puerto Rican female, racist or not.Exactly, this too will pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 She kind of looks like the lady who played the first Oracle in the Matrix trilogy. Or maybe it was the second one.I think we'll all survive just fine. With our awesome 2 party system a bunch of people will whine at every nomination, no matter the administration. She's definitely not an idiot, so even if she has some extreme views she has to know what she'll be able to get away with and what she'll be totally crucified for. The Supreme Court is no place for extremism, and there are other justices to dampen the effect that any one of them can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If it weren't for that fact that traditionally, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans hate each other, I'd be afraid she would use her seat to abolish all illegal immigration laws (not that they are being enforced).lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Hmmmmm, Type 1 diabetes AND Osteoporosis ? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...s_her_foot.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Hmmmmm, Type 1 diabetes AND Osteoporosis ? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...s_her_foot.html Do those yield any fascinating insights into her judicial philosophies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Do those yield any fascinating insights into her judicial philosophies?Lighten up cupcake, it was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Lighten up cupcake, it was a joke.Hah!...which part was the joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Lighten up cupcake, it was a joke.Not cupcake - pancake. Way different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Not cupcake - pancake. Way different.Coffee spew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Not cupcake - pancake. Way different. Pancake without a sense of humor. ihop, do you think Soto actually HAS Osteoporosis ? It was a reference to brittle...........I hate having to explain jokes that go over people's heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Hah, I have a pretty good sense of humor, but cryptic and convoluted references are kind of worthless.And given the level of enmity aimed at Obama by some people, it's difficult to tell what's serious & what's not. So I simply assume the people who make comments like yours are serious(ly insane) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.