Sotomayor's Bad 1st Amendment Decision Should Disqualify Her

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Agnapostate, May 27, 2009.

  1. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    This was from the beginning at the month before Sotomayor was confirmed as Obama's nominee, but obviously still plays an important role in determining her perspective on First Amendment issues.

    Sotomayor's Bad 1st Amendment Decision Should Disqualify Her - Paul Levinson - Open Salon

    And there's a somewhat opposed view here.
     
  2. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    No one against free speech should be allowed in any office, period.
     
  3. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,832
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    Man, that's whack.
     
  4. Amanda
    Offline

    Amanda Calm as a Hindu cow

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,006
    Sounds like most Libs to me...

    What I agree with is great regardless, what I disagree with is shit regardless. No principles, no weighing the pros and cons, just pure, unadulterated bias. It must be nice to occupy the moral high ground and not have to consider anything other than what you already believe.
     
  5. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Clarence Thomas is the only current justice entirely opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines and student free speech rights. And honestly, the conservative majority (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and the right-leaning Kennedy), should be considered the more troublesome lot, since they were the ones responsible for the majority ruling in Morse v. Frederick (the 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case). That said, I'm honestly surprised that there are people who find such blatant authoritarian suppression of student free speech rights acceptable. I mean, hell, I gave my vice-principal the Nazi salute and the ACLU was still willing to defend me for it.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    That is because your an idiot. Hey thanks for proving it.

    Bad decision in my opinion but legally sound. Students do NOT have the same rights as everyone else. The School personnel must be able to maintain control over the Student Body and be able to address any and all situations.

    In this single case, one could argue that since it was done off school it should be exempted, HOWEVER she was running for a position of some importance with IN the School and basically stated she found the people that would supervise her in those duties to be ignorant. She got what she deserved in the end.
     
  7. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Moron, your dumb ass doesn't know what happened, so don't pretend to.

    I've attempted to address this legal ignorance of yours several times. It is indeed the case that students do not possess the same constitutional rights in school as they (or adults) might possess elsewhere. However, it is indeed a reality that they possess some degree of constitutional rights within school, as established by Tinker v. Des Moines. Please familiarize yourself with case law before spewing nonsense.

    Lemme tell ya, Insurgent...over the past few days, you've posted some of the most legally retarded bullshit I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
    You've tried to repeat some idiocy that adults will get convicted of statutory rape for sexual interactions with persons above the age of consent. You've opined that it's necessary for people who believe that waterboarding is illegal to advocate the prosecution of those involved in SERE training. But this nonsense is by far the worst, IMO.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Sure thing retard.
     
  9. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    :rofl:

    Now, ain't that just classic RetardedGayInsurgent right there? Short and sweet! Majestic eloquence for a man of few words! :clap2:

    Oh wait...I meant "stupid," not sweet. Short and stupid. ;)
     

Share This Page