The Glade 4.0

Sotomayor sworn in.

Sad day all around.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Glad she's in.

Great...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Why?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Because she's a highly qualified judge? Because she's an appointee that the right did everything in their power to try and smear, and failed. Because it pisses people off. All kinds of reasons to be happy she was sworn in, including the fact that she's the first Hispanic to sit on the court.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So a judge who says that the SCotUS can de-facto author statute is qualified? How so? Explain, please.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The liberal platform is all about consolidating power in the hands of the ruling elite. If we get enough liberal judges who can de-facto author statute on the Supreme Court, then we can mitigate the damage in the event that the uneducated masses of retarded Christians successfully rally to elect another Republican president.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

We've had this discussion. I'm not sure I'm interesting in trying to convince you of how wrong you are, why you're being misleading, and how you are taking her quote out of context. I will leave you to stew in the idea that she's there, just waiting to usher in the homosexual agenda, or something. Just waiting.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

[youtube]ug-qUvI6WFo[/youtube]

Yes, it's so misleading. Don't place the race card anymore, either. It's quite offensive, especially considering I was nearly engaged to a woman of Colombian descent. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the idiocy.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It is misleading. She was accurately answering a question - courts *do* make policy. It *is* the way the world works. That doesn't qualify as an endorsement of such behavior on her part, nor does it function as a statement of how she would judge. Her record does not back up your accusation, and her answers during her confirmation also don't back up your accusation.

Dammit. I thought I was going to let you just stew in your hate on this one. My bad.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It's misleading because she's not accurately answering the question, because if that were the case, it would blow your entire position out of the water.

You simply can't stand the fact that people have objections to her being confirmed that don't have to do with race. You are uncomfortable talking about discussing the actual issue, because if you can't distill the topic down to something like racism (which you are imminently excel at being) you don't have anything useful to say. How do you substantiate that her record does or does not back up such a statement when such an item is completely intangible to begin with?

Courts do *not* make policy. Policy makers make policy. It *is* the way the world works.

Dammit, I thought I was going to let you just stew in your ignorance on this one. My bad.

See, fiat declarations an argument do not make.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

She appears to be quite qualified and level headed and I believe having additional diversity on the SCOTUS is a good thing.

Rafael, there is nothing wrong with her comments on that video. If anything, she's being more honest and forthright than most. It's unfortunately that you can't see it for what it is.

That wouldn't fit the frame, Aizle. Rafael was *told* that her comments meant she thought judges should make law, and he believed that lie because he wanted it to be true. You can't convince him otherwise. The frame must be maintained, and anything outside of it does not constitute reality for him.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What's unfortunate is that you're applauding concession of the status quo as "honest and forthright" action.

Afterall, since corporate lobbyist exert significant influence over Congress, calling them "policy makers" in a half-hearted tone of concession should be honest and forthright as well, correct?

No, instead of being an instrument to spearhead change where the courts might actually perform the function intended, she falls back on ethnicity, maintains the status quo, and is applauded by people obsessed with race. People so obsessed, they draw unnecessary attention and drive wedges where they profess to want peace.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I wasn't *told* that by anyone you presumption twit. I listend to it and deciphered it from what was clearly stated. Let's not forget, you are the person who read this section of The Constitution:



And thought it meant that anyone who wasn't alive when Constitution was ratified has been ineligible as President. I call into question your ability to read and understand things written or spoken in English.

Now go away. Aizle and I are trying to actually discuss something, and while I don't speak for him, I wouldn't appreciate you sidling up to me all buddy-buddy like with your **** caked hands trying to slap me a high five and call ourselves "brethren" or whatever ridiculous term you use in your head.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If you could spout Glenn Beck's talking points any faster, you could do work as an auctioneer.

A person's life experiences contribute in a meaningful way to the work they do. That includes their ethnic heritage, as Sam Alito pointed out during his confirmation hearings so eloquently.

The reaction to her comments were just more conservative hair-on-fire panic. She had more federal bench time than anyone currently on the court before they joined.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'm honestly confused with what you're getting all riled up for on that particular clip. What she's describing is the very core of how the court system works. Congress creates the laws, and then as she describes they "percolate" through the court system, being tweaked and refined through rulings and precidence. I don't really see anything wrong with that process, and it's one that has been in effect since the beginning of the court system, so it's not like it's some new liberal revisionist agenda or something.

It's not about a revisionist agenda, it's about rulings setting precedent that has nothing to do with the intent of the law.

Go to any district or municipal court over things like city ordanace; the way they function is not how the Federal government functions, not supposed to anyway.

Monte, go away.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

So certainly a bad judge can set precedence poorly. But that is why we have the whole appeal process, so that one rogue judge with an agenda doesn't cripple the system. But similarly the judges need to have the power to set precedence to do the rest of their functions.

But their only function is to assert the Constitutionality of policy (the USSC anyway). That's a very far cry from calling it "making policy". That doesn't even approach such a declaration.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

For what it is worth, at a basic level I agree that her description, while badly worded, was more about how the current system works, and less about flaunting legislative power.

My primary objection to her is her court history and some of the decisions she has made, based primarily on this "experience", or racial prejudice she has. Much like your comment that having "diversity" on the USSC is a good thing, I disagree with this sentiment, as I feel that the in order for justice to truly be fair, it must be "blind" and objective, whereas the very notion of "racial experiences" introduces subjective criteria.

In an ideal setting, if the law fails to maintain and even and fair outcome and requires subjective "tweaking" to work, the law should be voided (the purpose of the high courts) and either redone in a more fair manner or abandoned.

Ladas - which decisions, specifically, are you referring to? And can you show how, in the text of her decisions, she does what you claim?


Rafael - you first. Door's that way.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I concur with this.

The questions that arise then are:
1) Was she the most qualified to do the job, or did the "diversity" metric overrule qualifications.
2) Does her "level-headedness" simultaneously demonstrate an adherence to Constitutional principles, rather than social activist principles? If not, what other qualification does she have that overrides Constitutionality?



Her attitude and phrasing are the issue, as her point cannot be clearly garnered vis. whether she supports that m.o. or not. I have less problems with that video than her racism and genderism.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well, I think you'll find differing answers to that. I'm sure some will say she's unqualified *because* she's a Latina. That her heritage and success somehow combine into proof that her whole life was a story of affirmative action.

She is at *least* as qualified as any other member of the Supreme Court. I find her diversity to be icing on the cake.



She has a record of ruling on settled law, fairly and accurately. Her judicial record is one of fealty to the law, not to a political agenda.

Now, she may not hold the same opinions you do on constitutional principles and questions, but that does not disqualify her for the role. No, you didn't argue that, I'm speaking more in the general than the specific.



Her attitude is entirely a subjective call, born of a clip from a question she fielded at a panel discussion. In other words, you're taking this sliver of a moment from her life, and asking if that disqualifies her for the highest court in the land. She isn't a racist, nor is she a sexist, and people that claim that are being terribly misleading and unfair to her. they are taking one sentence out of an entire, long statement, and ignoring the context in which it was written. There is nothing in her history, her judicial work, or her body of opinions that supports such a claim.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I didn't ask if she's as qualified as other members of the Supreme Court (which hasn't been demonstrated either way and is thus unproven), I asked if she was the best qualified candidate. That hasn't been proven either, nor even addressed.



I didn't examine her case history item by item, so admittedly I'm ignorant on this matter: what evidence do you have to support this claim?



Quite correct, it does not. Whether she adheres her beliefs to the Constitution is a valid question, and only partially subjective.



Of course it's subjective, which is why I said her point "cannot be clearly garnered."



Anecdotal evidence from speeches of hers and her judicial opinions refutes this claim.

She has stated that a "latina" would come to a "better" opinion. This is indicative of both race and gender bias, as "latina" is a descriptor for both race and gender lines, and "better" is a qualitative measure indicating superiority.

Furthermore, as supported by the law, her decisions in affirmative action cases have been shown incorrect, and in the eyes of the courts, they thereby affirm racism. While this is in some ways an appeal to authority, the court system lives on appeals to authority, and so I feel a valid concern since she is now at the head of the court system itself.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine