Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

Dungheap said:
Of all the criticisms of Sotomayer, this is the stupidest.

The very nature of any appellate court is to establish policy since a decision of any appellate court on any issue anywhere will apply not only to the litigants before the court whose case is being decided, but will also be applied by lower courts in the future to cases brought and defended by others.

Appellate courts set policy. Trial courts generally do not. These are simple statements of fact.
Click to expand...


Correction, this is the stupidest criticism of Sotomayer:

The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the "feelings" of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.—
Click to expand...


Apparently, Mike Huckabee believes all Hispanic women are named "Maria."


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Huck_comes_out_firing__at_Maria_Sotomayor.html
 
o Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.

o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."

o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."

o Obama has declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

o Abolishing the death penalty;

o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
It is the appellate courts job to ensure that the trial court followed all laws and procedures and that the defendant had a fair and impartial trial, NOT to set policy. Setting policy is the job of lawmakers, not judges. I'm sure this is hard for you liberals to accept, but that's the way that it is.
Click to expand...


Look, it's stupid. You are on notice. If you want to sound like an idiot feel free to keep repeating it.

In fact, if you think it is a good criticism please state it first in any discussion you have regarding this pick so that people who know what they are talking about will instantly know to disregard whatever it is you are saying. It'll save us all a lot of time.
 
Dungheap said:
Look, it's stupid. You are on notice. If you want to sound like an idiot feel free to keep repeating it.

In fact, if you think it is a good criticism please state it first in any discussion you have regarding this pick so that people who know what they are talking about will instantly know to disregard whatever it is you are saying. It'll save us all a lot of time.
Click to expand...

stop being a moron. you're on notice that you're fucking retarded also. you could also save us time by inhaling a bucket of bleach.
 
To save you and I the time and effort, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Though I would note that the idea that the Supreme Court should simply "applies the 'law'" is pretty foolish in that it assumes that "the law" is 100% crystal clear in the first instance and that the application of "the law" to the facts of a particular case is purely a simple mechanical process. Neither of those things is true. At all.
 
I should probably actually back that up to as early as Sanford v. Scott, post civil war era.

Dungheap said:
To save you and I the time and effort, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Though I would note that the idea that the Supreme Court should simply "applies the 'law'" is pretty foolish in that it assumes that "the law" is 100% crystal clear in the first instance and that the application of "the law" to the facts of a particular case is purely a simple mechanical process. Neither of those things is true. At all.
Click to expand...

k. i'll agree to disagree.
 
darla is a nazi fascist....anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint is a lemming and is guilty of parroting talking points, god forbid someone have truthful criticism of anyone from the left side of the spectrum and i firmly believe if darla had the power, she would shoot all those who dont' agree with her or send them to "education" camps

she gives the left a bad name
 
This judge was nominated to the bench by Bush the Better, and then to the Court of Appeals by William the Philanderer. Both of those men were just inches from the center on the left and right. Hatch and a few other republicans have already confirmed her TWICE and will again.
 
Politically, this nomination is genius. The republicans will look like they are attempting to stop the nomination of the first Hispanic Justice on the Court. Even if some of them have legitimate philosophical differences with her. This is a win win for Obama. Hell, I bet a small part of him almost wants them to really drag this out and delay her confirmation.
 
Socrtease said:
Politically, this nomination is genius. The republicans will look like they are attempting to stop the nomination of the first Hispanic Justice on the Court. Even if some of them have legitimate philosophical differences with her. This is a win win for Obama. Hell, I bet a small part of him almost wants them to really drag this out and delay her confirmation.
Click to expand...

definitely a very savvy move by Obama.
 
Yurt said:
darla is a nazi fascist....anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint is a lemming and is guilty of parroting talking points, god forbid someone have truthful criticism of anyone from the left side of the spectrum and i firmly believe if darla had the power, she would shoot all those who dont' agree with her or send them to "education" camps

she gives the left a bad name
Click to expand...

That's a spurious accusation!

I don't believe in guns, and I dislike gunfire. It's loud, and really, far too quick for most of you.

I would use the simplest among you to settle the great "Is waterboarding torture" debate, by repeatedly waterboarding you using different methods, and recording your reactions. You'd live through that...well, most of you.

Then we'd get started on stress positions...

The brighter among you would be given chores.
 
Socrtease said:
This judge was nominated to the bench by Bush the Better, and then to the Court of Appeals by William the Philanderer. Both of those men were just inches from the center on the left and right. Hatch and a few other republicans have already confirmed her TWICE and will again.
Click to expand...

Yeah they are going to look really dumb, hypocritical, and off-the-wall, opposing this. Of course, that doesn't hold em back!
 
Dungheap said:
To save you and I the time and effort, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Though I would note that the idea that the Supreme Court should simply "applies the 'law'" is pretty foolish in that it assumes that "the law" is 100% crystal clear in the first instance and that the application of "the law" to the facts of a particular case is purely a simple mechanical process. Neither of those things is true. At all.
Click to expand...

I had to come back to this after having time to listen to the video clip of her 'setting policy' statement. A rather poor choice of words, but as she qualified those remarks, an actually decent point. I may actually like this woman being on the bench.
 
Socrtease said:
Politically, this nomination is genius. The republicans will look like they are attempting to stop the nomination of the first Hispanic Justice on the Court. Even if some of them have legitimate philosophical differences with her. This is a win win for Obama. Hell, I bet a small part of him almost wants them to really drag this out and delay her confirmation.
Click to expand...

Excellent and highly insightful points, Soc. I might add a thought or two, though, if you, please.

Though making up only 9 percent of the electorate this past November, Hispanics voted overwhelming for Obama, giving him a crushing 67 to 31 percent victory over John McCain.

Meanwhile, making up 53 percent of the electorate, women voted for Obama 56 to 43 percent over McCain.

Not only does Sotomayor's nomination reinforce Obama's support among these groups, if confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the High Court. Given the running narrative of Obama's presidency played up both by the press and the Administration itself, Sotomayor's nomination compliments the carefully crafted and readily cultivated imagery of historic and groundbreaking change that surrounds the President.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played, indeed.
 
Socrtease said:
And did you hear she is in the back pocket of ZOG?
Click to expand...

Dammit, Soc! There ya go again!

We were just about to call off the team, but clearly you do need a visit from the MIY after all. And we're sending their mothers along with some nice cheese blintzes, lox and latkes for good measure!

By the way, do you have any bagels, or do they need to swing by the deli on their way over?

Instead of waterboarding, prepare yourself for motsa ball soup-boarding! Oy vey!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top