|
Obama's America begins to take hold; Supreme Court Justice retires (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if The17sss is rabidly against her then i take that as a good sign. |
Haha, no . The funny part here is that she regularly reached decisions in conjunction with two other judges, and in cases where one of those judges was a Republican-appointee, she agreed with them 95% of the time.
But yeah, she was nominated by a Democrat, so she probably legislates from the bench. No record needed. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I enjoy being the little nation out of the 3 anglo ones. We get the best of both (parliament system anyone?, no royal family!) and avoid some of the tier aspects (christianity run wild, soccer hooliganism).
sorry, am at work and cant watch the youtubes. but ill simply retort with that segment from our comedy program CNNNN, full of wonderful yanks and their great geographical knowledge :tongue2 |
it was just your party boy corey whatever-the--his-name-is from melbourne.
why do americans need to know geography outside of the location of new york and california. really, everywhere else is just the boonies. ;)
for real though, those people kill me. even though i don't like him, jay leno used to do some great skits on stupid ass people with some pretty basic questions. although, i suspect every country is full of idiots. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
it was just your party boy corey whatever-the--his-name-is from melbourne. |
oh yeah, what a knuckle!! :stongue: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Haha, no . The funny part here is that she regularly reached decisions in conjunction with two other judges, and in cases where one of those judges was a Republican-appointee, she agreed with them 95% of the time. |
sure, say 25% of the time she was teamed with one or more Republican appointed judges she went along 95% of the time. real signifigant numbers Lebez :rolleyes: you've effectively nick-named her "Sex Panther". those stats mean nothing.
| quote: | | But yeah, she was nominated by a Democrat, so she probably legislates from the bench. No record needed. |
wrong again, her record clearly shows she has no problem legislating from the bench.
...and about this alleged "post racial" Democrat that nominated her - have you ever seen a more racially motivated, deliberate play on identity politics in your life? :wtf: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sure, say 25% of the time she was teamed with one or more Republican appointed judges she went along 95% of the time. |
You're a smart guy, so explain to me how this is insignificant. You've made the 25% figure up - there's been no corroboration of that number. But let's accept it for a second - since 1998, Sotomayor has written 400 majority opinions and has presided over hundreds of additional cases. If she only sat with a conservative in 25% of those cases, that's still a hell of a judicial history to go by.
You can deflect and cloud the issue all you want, but you're going to have to address that correlation at some point if you're going to oppose the nomination for some reason other than knee-jerk anti-liberalism.
| quote: | | wrong again, her record clearly shows she has no problem legislating from the bench. |
Erm, examples? Because from what I've seen her record is fairly unremarkable and void of controversy. The exceptions to her nomination seem to come entirely from remarks she's made in lectures, and not anything related to cases she's presided over. If anything, she's way too middle of the road.
But again, if a Democrat appointed her, she must be the worst kind of judge, right?
| quote: | | ...and about this alleged "post racial" Democrat that nominated her - have you ever seen a more racially motivated, deliberate play on identity politics in your life? :wtf: |
You're the one making this about race - doesn't make a difference to me. Go ahead and oppose the nominee because you think it was an affirmative action pick or whatever and ignore her judicial record. I'm sure it's highly irrelevant anyway. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
But again, if a Democrat appointed her, she must be the worst kind of judge, right? |
You're the only person I've seen say this so far--twice on the same page. Of course the same kind of criticisms were lobbied by your side against Bush nominees Roberts and Alito so maybe this shouldn't come as a surprise.
Meanwhile critics have pointed out that she is on record saying that things like race and gender should be considered in cases, whereas I and others want to make sure that "justice" is applied in a balanced, principled manner without prejudice.
Not to mention that she's quite possibly one of the most unattractive woman I've ever laid eyes on since Medusa turned me to stone when I couldn't whip out my mirror fast enough. But that's just secondary.;) |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You're the only person I've seen say this so far--twice on the same page. Of course the same kind of criticisms were lobbied by your side against Bush nominees Roberts and Alito so maybe this shouldn't come as a surprise. |
I just think it's interesting that no one had a problem with her when Bush 1 nominated her to be a judge in SDNY and when she became an Appeals Court judge, 50% of the Republicans voted for her.
Now, suddenly, she's this uber-liberal, reverse racist who will only rule in favor of issues that help latinos? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I just think it's interesting that no one had a problem with her when Bush 1 nominated her to be a judge in SDNY and when she became an Appeals Court judge, 50% of the Republicans voted for her.
Now, suddenly, she's this uber-liberal, reverse racist who will only rule in favor of issues that help latinos? |
That's politics I guess. One thing I've found in the last few years is that it's really hard to know how a Supreme Court justice is really going to act until they're actually on the bench. O'Connor was a Reagan nominee and wrote several opinions that went very much in the opposite direction of what you'd think Reagan would've expected when he nominated her. So that's positive when they are obedient to no master and can truly be objective. That's all I ask of a SCOTUS justice. Well maybe a little plastic surgery too in her case.;) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well maybe a little plastic surgery too in her case.;) |
hahah - she definitely has that bronx ghetto trash look. although, ginsburg isn't exactly a hot piece of ass either.
i think it's time we stop with the bull and just admit that democrats are going to select judges who subscribe to the theory that the constitution is an evolving document and republicans are going to select judges who think the intent of people from the 18th century still matters today. We should just accept it and stop trying to argue that politicians are going to select jurists who do not subscribe to the same basic judicial philosophy. It's rather insane if you think about it. Why should obama select a judge who doesn't think the way he does? it's a perk of his job that is limited only by the advice and consent of the senate, which necessitates a slight moderation from his philosophy so the nominee can get through the process. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Now, suddenly, she's this uber-liberal, reverse racist who will only rule in favor of issues that help latinos? |
i can't reliably know how liberal she is or would be, and as admittedly a pure political call and not an ideological one, i would refrain from voting against her barring something further damning. however, she is in fact a reverse racist. there can be little question of that. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i can't reliably know how liberal she is or would be, and as admittedly a pure political call and not an ideological one, i would refrain from voting against her barring something further damning. however, she is in fact a reverse racist. there can be little question of that. |
oh my, a reverse racist?? I am too busy working out to research this, ;) but what does that mean... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
oh my, a reverse racist?? I am too busy working out to research this, ;) but what does that mean... |
Not sure if you're joking or not, but terminology aside, I think if you just throw out "reverse" and stick with racism, you are still talking about the same thing. The reverse portion implies that she is favoring minorities over the majority race (where as the traditional term racism connotes the majority race (i.e. whites) committing some act of racism against the minority (blacks, asians, mexicans, jews, etc). In reality, racism is racism and it cuts both ways. If she can drive in reverse, more power to her, but at the end of the day it's still the same principle. |
|
|
|
|
