Obama's Supreme Court Pick is.........

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgTKPTApZPE]YouTube - Obama's Frontrunners: Diane Wood[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

eye opener




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&feature=related]YouTube - Sonia Sotomayor: Courts make policy full clip[/ame]

 

[del]

i see your point, since she was appointed to the federal bench by george hw bush

Dumb ASS, what is her Ruling record? Being picked by this or that President is not always a clear indicator of what you will do once on the Bench. That whole " Judge for life" thing rules out any worry about the President getting mad at you and firing you.

ok, shithead (trying to make you feel like a real girene by insulting your obvious lack of intellect)
you think george hw bush was going to appoint an obvious liberal to the federal bench
... that you would even ponder that prospect proves my assertion that you have no ability to think for yourself ... hence the long career following the orders of others

hey, fuckroast.
she was appointed at the behest of daniel patrick moynihan who many people consider to have been an obvious liberal.
you might want to do a little research before you shoot off you mouth, ace.

 

[jillian]

And GWB was succcccccch a "liberal", right? I'm sure he did it solely because Moynihan asked. couldn't have been her qualifications and his desire to appoint an hispanic woman with chops.

 

[Agnapostate]

hey, fuckroast.
she was appointed at the behest of daniel patrick moynihan who many people consider to have been an obvious liberal.
you might want to do a little research before you shoot off you mouth, ace.

Since Bust followed the orders of liberals, after all...better luck next time, short round.

 

[del]

And GWB was succcccccch a "liberal", right? I'm sure he did it solely because Moynihan asked. couldn't have been her qualifications and his desire to appoint an hispanic woman with chops.

he did it solely because moynihan asked.
moynihan and d'amato had an agreement at the time to split appointments to the federal bench.

"She had been nominated to the district court in 1992 by the first President Bush, but actually chosen for the seat by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, who had an arrangement with his Republican counterpart, Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato, to share district court judge selections in New York.

In 1997, Republican senators held up her nomination by President Bill Clinton to the appeals court for more than a year, because they believed that as a Hispanic appellate judge she would be a formidable candidate for the Supreme Court."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1

 

[justabubba]

Dumb ASS, what is her Ruling record? Being picked by this or that President is not always a clear indicator of what you will do once on the Bench. That whole " Judge for life" thing rules out any worry about the President getting mad at you and firing you.

ok, shithead (trying to make you feel like a real girene by insulting your obvious lack of intellect)
you think george hw bush was going to appoint an obvious liberal to the federal bench
... that you would even ponder that prospect proves my assertion that you have no ability to think for yourself ... hence the long career following the orders of others

hey, fuckroast.
she was appointed at the behest of daniel patrick moynihan who many people consider to have been an obvious liberal.
you might want to do a little research before you shoot off you mouth, ace.

what is hilarious is that you would exhibit the temerity to criticize another for posting without thinking. that is your entire portfolio
so, get some kid who can read to explain this to you: george hw bush appointed this judge to the federal bench. it was NOT moynihan who made that appointment. here's a clue: he was without the authority to do so
but i thank you for your post ... because i am not laughing WITH you

 

[Agnapostate]

Unfortunately, our friend deldo isn't one with a great fondness for critical thought. Posting imbecility and engaging in intimate relations with his favorite ostrich is right up his alley, though.

 

[jillian]

And GWB was succcccccch a "liberal", right? I'm sure he did it solely because Moynihan asked. couldn't have been her qualifications and his desire to appoint an hispanic woman with chops.

he did it solely because moynihan asked.
moynihan and d'amato had an agreement at the time to split appointments to the federal bench.

"She had been nominated to the district court in 1992 by the first President Bush, but actually chosen for the seat by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, who had an arrangement with his Republican counterpart, Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato, to share district court judge selections in New York.

In 1997, Republican senators held up her nomination by President Bill Clinton to the appeals court for more than a year, because they believed that as a Hispanic appellate judge she would be a formidable candidate for the Supreme Court."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1

That's interesting. Learn something new every day.

Apparently Moynihan and Sen. pothole had a deal to switch off who would pick judges for the court. How refreshing. Can you imagine that happening today?

 

[del]

ok, shithead (trying to make you feel like a real girene by insulting your obvious lack of intellect)
you think george hw bush was going to appoint an obvious liberal to the federal bench
... that you would even ponder that prospect proves my assertion that you have no ability to think for yourself ... hence the long career following the orders of others

hey, fuckroast.
she was appointed at the behest of daniel patrick moynihan who many people consider to have been an obvious liberal.
you might want to do a little research before you shoot off you mouth, ace.

what is hilarious is that you would exhibit the temerity to criticize another for posting without thinking. that is your entire portfolio
so, get some kid who can read to explain this to you: george hw bush appointed this judge to the federal bench. it was NOT moynihan who made that appointment. here's a clue: he was without the authority to do so
but i thank you for your post ... because i am not laughing WITH you

as i previously stated, do some research before you open your ignorant yap.

"She had been nominated to the district court in 1992 by the first President Bush, but actually chosen for the seat by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, who had an arrangement with his Republican counterpart, Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato, to share district court judge selections in New York."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1

thanks for playing.

asshat

 

[del]

hey, fuckroast.
she was appointed at the behest of daniel patrick moynihan who many people consider to have been an obvious liberal.
you might want to do a little research before you shoot off you mouth, ace.

Since Bust followed the orders of liberals, after all...better luck next time, short round.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1



apparently he did, shorteyes.

 

[Ravi]

What's a "far left-wing agenda" other than what the right wingnuts try to pretend it is?

I think it is anyone that doesn't call Obama a "piece of shit president."

 

[jillian]

What's a "far left-wing agenda" other than what the right wingnuts try to pretend it is?

I think it is anyone that doesn't call Obama a "piece of shit president."

I think you might be right. I was kind of taken aback by that myself, especially from someone whose gag reflex wasn't inflamed by baby bush.

 

[WillowTree]

So this judge is one who ruled against the white firemen in Conn. They were given tests, one fireman with dsylexia went to extraordianry lengths to place 6th,, anywho,, since the whites did well the black community sued to get the test thrown out. and won.. none of the whites were promoted.. she's the perfect little left wing lunatic judge,,

 

[GHook93]

As a student of the law, I believe the worst thing a judge can do is to set aside the law and apply their own rules. Judicial activism is an absolute abuse of power
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

Yep forget that justice is blind statue. Yep forget get one of the best dissent in US history by Justice Harlan "the law is colorblind." Yep forget what the laws state themselves!

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Is this superiority talk? Imagine if a white man said this! Just put in white man in place of Latina women and Latino person for white man. Print that and you will see liberal rage on your hands!

Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

I am sorry, but race, creed, color, religion or national origin should NOT make a difference when interpretting and applying the law. I mean would you want a White judge who came down harder on Latinos? So why is it acceptable for a Latino judge who comes down harder on whites?

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Yep the impartiality by the 6th Amendment should be set aside at all costs!

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society

The appellate courts make the law, really? Come on now, no justice should say or YES promote this garbage!
http://abajournal.com/news/2005_sotomayor_speech_may_raise_conservative_eyebrows/

The Washington Post has details. In the taped speech, Sotomayor said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made." Sotomayor then tried to backtrack, saying, “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know. Um, okay. I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it."

Yep discrimination is bad, unless its discrimination against Whites, then it's A-OK! This is an example of judicial reverse racism.
The Case Against Sotomayor

case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

Her colleague state concerns over her smarts, about the amount of talking and bullying on the bench (aka presenting her views in the case - aka judicial activism)!

most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

More of the colleague concerns!

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Ditto

"She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Sotomayor unjustly ended the baseball strike! Of course a liberal will always side with the Unions, who cares if this union represents all millionaires. The players went on strike! How is it unfair labor practices to use scab players? It's NOT! Why not rule its unfair for these players to break their contracts and go on strike? This a judicial activist stance to promote unions (and her base), rather than interpretting the laws. This set stare decis against big business in America, in yet another way the liberal philosophy is driving businesses and jobs overseas (ironically they drive a lot of labor over seasons, hurting the people the liberals and Unions saying they are protecting)

1994 Major League Baseball strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the players voted to return to work if a U.S. District Court judge supported the National Labor Relations Board's unfair labor practices complaint against the owners (which was filed on March 27). By a vote of 26-2, owners supported the use of replacement players. The strike ended when federal judge Sonia Sotomayor issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31. On Sunday, April 2, 1995, the day before the season was scheduled to start, the 232 day long strike was finally over. Judge Sotomayor's decision received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.

I'm sorry, but this woman is highly unfit for the highest court of our land. Obama once against bowed down to his liberal base and picked a highly unqualified Latino woman to take the bench. Look if you are going to hate on Alito and Scalia (which I do) for being Judicial activist and promoting their views over the law (which they do, Scalia only follows his brilliant originalist approach when it fits his scheme, if it doesn't he toss the originalist philosophy out the window), then you must hate on a liberal judicial activist which Sotomayor is! I have no problem with a women, black, Latino etc on the Supreme Court, just silly me I think that person should be the most competent (or at least highly competent), rules based on the law and not her personal feelings or beliefs and does her best to stay impartial!

 

[WillowTree]

As a student of the law, I believe the worst thing a judge can do is to set aside the law and apply their own rules. Judicial activism is an absolute abuse of power
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

Yep forget that justice is blind statute. Yep forget get one of the best dissent in US history by Justice Harlan "the law is colorblind." Yep forget what the laws state themselves!

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Is this superiority talk? Imagine if a white man said this! Just put in white man in place of Latina women and Latino person for white man. Print that and you will see liberal rage on your hands!


I am sorry, but race, creed, color, religion or national origin should NOT make a difference when interpretting and applying the law. I mean would you want a White judge who came down harder on Latinos? So why is it acceptable for a Latino judge who comes down harder on whites?


Yep the impartiality by the 6th Amendment should be set aside at all costs!


The appellate courts make the law, really? Come on now, no justice should say or YES promote this garbage!
2005 Sotomayor Speech May Raise Conservative Eyebrows | ABA Journal - Law News Now


Yep discrimination is bad, unless its discrimination against Whites, then is A-OK! This is an example of judicial reverse racism.
The Case Against Sotomayor


Her colleague state concerns over her smarts, the about of talking and bullying on the bench (aka presenting her views in the case - aka judicial activism)!


More of the colleague concerns!


Ditto

"She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Sotomayor unjustly ended the baseball strike! Of course a liberal will always side with the Unions, who cares if this union represents all millionaires. The players went on strike! How is it unfair labor practices to use scab players? It's NOT! Why not rule its unfair for these players to break their contracts and go on strike? This a judicial activist stance to promote unions (and her base), rather than interpretting the laws. This set stare decis against big business in America, in yet another way the liberal philosophy is driving businesses and jobs overseas (ironically they drive a lot of labor over seasons, hurting the people the liberals and Unions saying they are protecting)

1994 Major League Baseball strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the players voted to return to work if a U.S. District Court judge supported the National Labor Relations Board's unfair labor practices complaint against the owners (which was filed on March 27). By a vote of 26-2, owners supported the use of replacement players. The strike ended when federal judge Sonia Sotomayor issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31. On Sunday, April 2, 1995, the day before the season was scheduled to start, the 232 day long strike was finally over. Judge Sotomayor's decision received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.

I'm sorry, but this woman is highly unfit for the highest court of our land. Obama once against bowed down to his liberal base and picked a highly unqualified Latino woman to take the bench. Look if you are going to hate on Alito and Scalia (which I do) for being Judicial activist and promoting their views over the law (which they do, Scalia only follows his brilliant originalist approach when it fits his scheme, if it doesn't he toss the originalist philosophy out the window), then you must hate on a liberal judicial activist which Sotomayor is! I have no problem with a women, black, Latino etc on the Supreme Court, just silly me I think that person should be the most competent (or at least highly competent), rules based on the law and not her personal feelings or beliefs and does her best to stay impartial!

I read all this.. so,, is she saying it is okay now to be a racist?

 

[GHook93]

Sotomayor


Actually... for this piece of shit President making the choice, it could have been MUCH worse... I don't have any super objections to this woman as a judge

You have to be kidding! A blatant judicial activist, a highly pro-union activist and a judicial reverse racist! Not to mention a far leftist (don't believe the network reports of her as a centralist)! She is a nightmare pick!

 

[GHook93]

No surprise here... Let's all hold hands and say "LIBERAL"...

What should it have been, a right wingnut activist judge like Bush's appointees?

No, neither are good! A judicial activist, whether it being on the right or left, is still an absolute abuse of power!

If you hate on Scalia and Alito for being activist, then hate on leftist also who do the same!

 

[GHook93]

What should it have been, a right wingnut activist judge like Bush's appointees?

Except none of them were and as a Lawyer you know damn well that is true. You are a liar, a fraud and a PARTISAN hack troll.

Scalia and Thomas are two of the most activist judges ever on the bench in terms of ignoring stare decisis and implementing their own philosophical agenda. So please tell it to someone who doesn't know any better.

So screw you... and you calling anyone a partisan hack is really kind of funny.

I will give you Scalia and Alito, but not Thomas! If anything the man applies the law better than anyone on the bench!

 

[DiamondDave]

What's a "far left-wing agenda" other than what the right wingnuts try to pretend it is?

I think it is anyone that doesn't call Obama a "piece of shit president."

I think you might be right. I was kind of taken aback by that myself, especially from someone whose gag reflex wasn't inflamed by baby bush.

I was not inflamed by some of the shit GWB did? Are you serious?

No.. Obama has made about every bullshit wrong move possible as of this point. I stand by my assessment of him until such time that he actually does something worthwhile as a President.

As for what left-wing agenda... thought is was pretty clear what right wing agendas and left-wing agendas were... we've been discussing them on here for a long time now