Author Topic: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court  (Read 37073 times)

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2009, 09:57:56 PM »
I'm just glad that he picked a wise Latino woman....as a white man, I just don't feel that I could be wise enough to be a proper Supreme Court Justice Activist....  ;/
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2009, 11:59:25 AM »
Another Obama appointee who wasn't vetted adequately.

And now he's doing his Orwell thing again: WE are the racists, not Sotomayor.  Ain't buyin' it.

This is a "law professor" who clearly does not understand, or wishes not to understand, the role of the highest court in the land.  That is not only depressing, it's ominous.

Even more ominous is the feckless response by too many in the GOP.  They want "civil debate" when the war whoops have become the music of our time.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

BReilley

  • Just a frog in a pond.
  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2009, 09:20:46 PM »
So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?

Oh, it's not.  But which of the Justices represents the KKK?

slingshot

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,031
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2009, 12:24:08 AM »
Obama does understand the role of the Supreme Court.  If he were on the Court, he'd be an activist judge.  Obama would sail through the nomination process personally as he would answer every question exactly correctly (ie constitutionally).  Then he would do what he wants to as many liberal politicans have done for years.  BHO nominated exactly the kind of judge that fits his own character and what he believes he'd like to shape the court in the future.  He knows the easiest way to make permanent liberal change is through the court/ though liberal interpetation of the Constitution. Gun control... heck, use the courts to make rulings that he would have a great deal of trouble getting passed legislatively.  All you need is a majority of judges and the right case to have them make a revisionist decision.  Few question the integrity of the court, but they queston the integrity of legislators.
It shall be as it was in the past... Not with dreams, but with strength and with courage... Shall a nation be molded to last. (The Plainsman, 1936)

Doggy Daddy

  • Poobah
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,330
  • From the saner side of Las Vegas
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2009, 01:08:07 AM »
Smile of a Cheshire
Eyes twitching as though in flight
Scales of Justice tip


Aw, c'mon!  Ya know if she was conservative, the comedians would be all over her by now...  :rolleyes:

DD
Would you exchange
a walk-on part in a war
for a lead role in a cage?
-P.F.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,818
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2009, 06:01:55 AM »
Obama does understand the role of the Supreme Court.  If he were on the Court, he'd be an activist judge.  Obama would sail through the nomination process personally as he would answer every question exactly correctly (ie constitutionally).  Then he would do what he wants to as many liberal politicans have done for years.  BHO nominated exactly the kind of judge that fits his own character and what he believes he'd like to shape the court in the future.  He knows the easiest way to make permanent liberal change is through the court/ though liberal interpetation of the Constitution. Gun control... heck, use the courts to make rulings that he would have a great deal of trouble getting passed legislatively.  All you need is a majority of judges and the right case to have them make a revisionist decision.  Few question the integrity of the court, but they queston the integrity of legislators.

What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again?  I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.

I'd like to know what the hallmark of a "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution is myself.  For the most part, it obviously does not prohibit leftist policy on the part of the Government...and the Supreme Court can't order spending for a program, which is where most of the left-right debate happens.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2009, 08:21:09 AM »
What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again?  I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.

I'd like to know what the hallmark of a "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution is myself.  For the most part, it obviously does not prohibit leftist policy on the part of the Government...and the Supreme Court can't order spending for a program, which is where most of the left-right debate happens.



A "liberal" will make decisions based on how they affect people and progressive policy, and not just the abstract of the law. 
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Not Fit For Juror, Let Alone Judge
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2009, 05:28:38 PM »



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRkYThkNDUzN2ZhOTUwOTEyMjIyZGQ2MjcxMzBmMDY=

Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror?   [Andy McCarthy]

In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused "for cause" — the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or "peremptory") jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.

And the stress on impartiality does not end once the prospective jurors, after being carefully vetted for any hint of bias or prejudice during voir dire (the selection process), are finally selected to sit as trial jurors. Instead, the admonition to consider the case fairly, impartially, and without bias of any kind is often repeated many times throughout the trial. And even after that, it is standard procedure to drum the obligation into the jurors again right before they retire to deliberate on a verdict. Here is the standard instruction:

Quote
    You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them….  Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.

Now let's forget labels like "racist" for a moment. In our society, "racist" is a radioactive term, whether or not it's applied accurately. I want instead to home in on the premium our law places on impartiality — how noxious it regards the very notion that any important decision might be "influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex." No one is saying that those attitudes don't exist, or even that someone is necessarily a bad person for having such attitudes — sometimes such attitudes are fostered by bitter life experiences that people find themselves unable to get over. But we strive to keep those attitudes out of our law — even to the point of expecting prospective jurors to tell us honestly whether they have such biases so we can make certain they don't get on a jury. Non-biased decision-making, we tell every ordinary citizen called for jury duty, is the most basic obligation of service in the legal system.

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

mejeepnut

  • New Member
  • Posts: 29
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2009, 06:24:53 PM »
and whats your point?obama is not eligable to work for the secret service but.......



MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2009, 05:08:54 AM »
Quote
What makes this a liberal Supreme Court again?  I don't think there's been a center-left Court since Earl Warren was the Chief Justice.

I don't think there's been a right-wing court since Charles Hughes was the Chief Justice. The definitions of what is "right" and "left" wing are subjective anyway.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2009, 04:24:35 PM »
Oh, it's not.  But which of the Justices represents the KKK?

Ironically the KKK hated Catholics as well and now we'll have a court chock full of them.

Obviously taking their marching orders directly from the Pope.

 =D
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2009, 04:53:34 PM »
Oh, it's not.  But which of the Justices represents the KKK?

They have a Senator....Robert Byrd (D-WV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Quote
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[6]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[6] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[6]

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:[9]

“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
  — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [6][10]

Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Strings

  • APS Pimp
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,195
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2009, 06:39:16 PM »
So... the Kluckers have ONE senator, and that equates to La Raza having a Justice?
No Child Should Live In Fear

What was that about a pearl handled revolver and someone from New Orleans again?

Screw it: just autoclave the planet (thanks Birdman)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2009, 08:44:39 PM »
How is La Raza like the Klan? I thought it was more like the NAACP, except for Spanish-Americans?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Jeff B.

  • New Member
  • Posts: 47
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2009, 09:14:01 PM »
A piece by Georgia Representative Charlie Norwoord (my former Representative), this is a pretty good primer on La Raza and its sub organizations.

Jeff B.

Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'
by  Rep. Charlie Norwood

04/07/2006


The nation's television screens many days recently have been filled with scenes of huge crowds carrying the colorful green and red flag of Mexico viewers could well have thought it was a national holiday in Mexico City.

It was instead, downtown Los Angeles, Calif., although the scene was recreated in numerous other cities around the country with substantial Mexican populations. Hordes of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, were protesting the very U.S. immigration laws they were violating with impunity. They found it offensive and a violation of their rights that the U.S. dared to have immigration laws to begin with.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa mounted the podium, but any hopes that he would quiet the crowds and defend the law were soon dashed. Villaraigosa, himself, has spent a lifetime opposing U.S. immigration law.


For law-abiding Americans without knowledge of the dark side of our current illegal immigration crisis, all this is unfathomable. For those who know the truth about the "La Raza" movement, these demonstrations were a prophecy fulfilled.

It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of "La Raza" -- The Race.

There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall "La Raza" movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza -- the Council of "The Race".

To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.

But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.

The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for "housing reform," while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

 
The Mexican flag flew over a crowd of pro-amnesty marchers in New York. Marches like this across the U.S. have been supported by the “La Raza” movement. (Reuters/Seth Wenig) 

Radical 'Reconquista' Agenda

Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

If these morally sickening MEChA quotes were coming from some fringe website, Americans could at least console themselves that it was just a small group of nuts behind it. Nearly every racial and ethnic group has some shady characters and positions in its past and some unbalanced individuals today claiming racial superiority and demanding separatism. But this is coming straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Colorado, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.

MEChA was in fact reported to be one of the main organizers of those street demonstrations we witnessed over the past weeks. That helps explain why those hordes of illegal immigrants weren't asking for amnesty -- they were demanding an end to U.S. law, period. Unlike past waves of immigrants who sought to become responsible members of American society, these protesters reject American society altogether, because they have been taught that America rightfully belongs to them.

MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.

This plan is what is referred to as the "Reconquista" or reconquest, of the Western U.S.

But it won't end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."

As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

MEChA Plants

Members of these radical, anti-American, racist organizations are frequently smoothly polished into public respectability by the National Council of La Raza.

Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and was awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez Award. Now we know why he refuses to condemn a sea of foreign flags in his city. California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is also a former MEChA member. He delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 Annual Convention.

The National Council of La Raza and its allies in public office make no repudiation of the radical MEChA and its positions. In fact, as recently as 2003, La Raza was actively funding MEChA, according to federal tax records.

Imagine Robert Byrd's refusing to disavow the views of the KKK, or if Strom Thurmond had failed to admit segregation was wrong. Imagine Heritage or Brookings Foundation making grants to the American Nazi Party.

Is the National Council of La Raza itself a racist organization? Regardless of the organization's suspect ties, the majority of its members are not. When one examines all the organization's activities, they are commendable non-profit projects, such as education and housing programs.

But even these defensible efforts raise the question of whether education and housing programs funded with federal tax dollars should be used in programs specifically targeted to benefit just one ethnic group.

La Raza defenders usually respond by calling anyone making these allegations "a racist" for having called attention to La Raza's racist links. All the groups and public officials with ties to the La Raza movement can take a big step towards disproving these allegations by simply following the examples of Senators Byrd and Thurmond and repenting of their past ways.

If they are unwilling to admit past misdeeds, they can at least state -- unequivocally -- that they officially oppose the racist and anti-American positions of MEChA, and any other groups that espouse similar views.

Through public appearances, written statements, and on their respective websites, La Raza groups and allies must:

1. Denounce the motto "For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada," as repugnant, racist, and totally incompatible with American society or citizenship.

2. Acknowledge the right of all Americans to live wherever they choose in the U.S. without segregation.

3. Commit to sponsorship of nationwide educational programs to combat racism and anti-Semitism in the Hispanic community.

4. Denounce and sever all ties with MEChA and any other organizations with which they have ever been associated which held to the racist doctrines held by MEChA.

5. Acknowledge the internationally recognized borders of the U.S., the right of the citizens of the U.S. to determine immigration policy through the democratic process, and the right of the U.S. to undertake any and all necessary steps to effectively enforce immigration law and defend its border against unauthorized entry.

6. Repudiate all claims that current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico.

If the National Council of La Raza, other La Raza groups, and local and national political leaders with past ties and associations with the radical elements of the La Raza movement can publicly issue such a statement and live by every one of these principles, they should be welcomed into the American public policy arena, with past sins -- real or imaginary -- forgiven.

If they cannot publicly and fully support these principles, Congress needs to take appropriate steps and immediately bar any group refusing to comply from receiving any future federal funds. Both the House and Senate should strike these groups from testifying before any committees, and the White House should sever all ties. Both political parties should disengage from any further contact with these groups and individuals.

There are plenty of decent, patriotic Hispanic organizations and elected officials to provide Congress with necessary feedback on specific issues confronting Americans of Latino heritage. Any group or individual who can agree with the simple six points should be welcomed into that fold.

If not, the American people will know there's a wolf in their midst, and take the necessary precautions to defend our Republic against an enemy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Norwood, a Republican, represents the 9th District of Georgia.
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits"
Plutarch

jackdanson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 702
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2009, 12:34:48 AM »
Quote
Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[6]

I don't agree with the KKK in any way whatsoever, but I almost want to join simply so I can get a badass title.

I want to be the "Night Hawk".  muwahaha

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,818
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2009, 04:25:13 AM »
Micro, I agree.  It has mostly been a predictable constitutionalist court.   The constitution does not forbid leftism, and I think that's where most of the bum rap comes from.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #67 on: June 02, 2009, 08:27:50 AM »
Okay these topics were redundant so I merged 'em.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #68 on: June 02, 2009, 10:38:04 AM »
Micro, I agree.  It has mostly been a predictable constitutionalist court.   T

How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #69 on: June 02, 2009, 03:21:53 PM »
How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?

He's a lawyer.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
« Reply #70 on: June 02, 2009, 06:01:38 PM »
Ironically the KKK hated Catholics as well and now we'll have a court chock full of them.

Obviously taking their marching orders directly from the Pope.

 =D

I HATE when that happens!
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #71 on: June 02, 2009, 09:34:18 PM »
What if the real intent is to make the Court irrelevant?

Many think we have a rogue Executive and a rogue Congress; is a rogue SCOTUS far behind?
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #72 on: June 02, 2009, 10:33:59 PM »
What if the real intent is to make the Court irrelevant?

Many think we have a rogue Executive and a rogue Congress; is a rogue SCOTUS far behind?

We've had a rogue SCOTUS for decades.  Sotomayor's record shows she would make it even more tyrannical.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2009, 12:13:19 AM »
Maybe my point wasn't clear.  I'm saying that SCOTUS will be perceived as rogue; in other words, people will no longer give a fig what the Court rules any more than they will trust the results of ACORN-infected elections.

That will be the "point of inflection" in America, the complete rending of the social compact.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,818
Re: Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2009, 05:21:08 AM »
How do you manage to agree while holding the reverse of what I said?

How was my response "the reverse" of what you said?  I was agreeing that it hasn't been a right wing court. 

Similarly, I was maintaining my position that it hasn't been a left wing court.

It's mostly just narrowly ruled on constitutional grounds, and been fairly predictable (except for its reversal of commerce clause jurisprudence and text in the 90's).  What it has not done is give expansive rulings that make all sets of facts amenable to predictable outcomes in the future.

I'd like some examples of the rogue Supreme Court post Warren.  Where are all these rogue decisions?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."