Sotomayor.....No Surprise

[PoliticalChic]

1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
Sotomayor case in point.

2. This week, we saw proof:

"Politifact, Jake Tapper call out Justice Sotomayor for glaring falsehoods during vaccine mandate hearing, nets ignore​

3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Judicial intellect

During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology. And, “…firemen where meant to be hired due to the vagrancies…” She meant vacancies. One more? “Questions of policy are within the providence of Congress…” Clearly, province, not providence- unless she was speaking of the Rhode Island legislature.


b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor



c.“The 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… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085


But she certainly serves Democrat purposes.

 

[Pete7469]

"Judge" Sodomizer is a leftist apparatchik. She is an abysmal member of the SCOTUS, much as obozo's hobbit selection elena kagan. If McConnel has any credibility AT ALL, it's because he blocked that sociopath lunatic merrick garland from taking the place of the Honorable and Esteemed Scalia on the court.

That actually may be the Mr. Turtle's only significant "achievement".

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
Sotomayor case in point.

2. This week, we saw proof:

"Politifact, Jake Tapper call out Justice Sotomayor for glaring falsehoods during vaccine mandate hearing, nets ignore​

3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Judicial intellect

During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology. And, “…firemen where meant to be hired due to the vagrancies…” She meant vacancies. One more? “Questions of policy are within the providence of Congress…” Clearly, province, not providence- unless she was speaking of the Rhode Island legislature.


b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor



c.“The 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… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085


But she certainly serves Democrat purposes.

Didn't she say that identified as a Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Judge" Sodomizer is a leftist apparatchik. She is an abysmal member of the SCOTUS, much as obozo's hobbit selection elena kagan. If McConnel has any credibility AT ALL, it's because he blocked that sociopath lunatic merrick garland from taking the place of the Honorable and Esteemed Scalia on the court.

That actually may be the Mr. Turtle's only significant "achievement".

.

Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Judicial temperament in the Democrat nominee.....

a. Championed racial supremacy, claiming many times that someone of her background, a “ wise Latina" judge will make better decisions than, say, a white male judge.


b. Judge Sotomayor does not feel that she may be able to put aside personal sympathies or prejudices. This, form a Berkeley speech in 2002, published by La Raza: “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.”

c. Judge Sotomayor feels that she has the right to ignore some facts: “…….Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. .. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” (ibid.)



d.” …according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.

The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments. Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.

"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."

Lawyers tag nominee as ‘terror on the bench’





I've said many times that Democrats/Progressives/Liberals should never....NEVER...be allowed to occupy any seat of power.

Turns out I'm right again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?

And because she opposed free speech, a hallmark of Democrat belief.



"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia









“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Didn't she say that identified as a Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?

I thought she identified as a Mongoloid. But a Mongoloid has more brains....................Sorry to the Mongoloids libturdshere

 

[Oddball]

1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
Sotomayor case in point.

2. This week, we saw proof:

"Politifact, Jake Tapper call out Justice Sotomayor for glaring falsehoods during vaccine mandate hearing, nets ignore​

3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Judicial intellect

During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology. And, “…firemen where meant to be hired due to the vagrancies…” She meant vacancies. One more? “Questions of policy are within the providence of Congress…” Clearly, province, not providence- unless she was speaking of the Rhode Island legislature.


b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor



c.“The 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… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085


But she certainly serves Democrat purposes.

All three of the leftist tools on USSC said what have to be the most stupid things ever uttered in that courtroom.

 

[Pete7469]

Didn't she say that identified as a Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?

It didn't stop there....It described itself as "wise".

"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," Sodomizer said in a speech at 2001 at the Insane Asylum of California, Berkeley, law school. It made similar statements at other such asinine events.

 

[Pete7469]

Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?

That and Kagan is part of the oppressed "A Sexual" hobbit community. Thank God it hasn't found a source of the proper proteins to reproduce.

Imagine that fuckin horror.


.

 

[Donald H]

3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Her personal corruption is much more an important factor than any of your reasons. She is highly dependable on making decisions based on her leftist political persuasion.

As is true of all the them deciding based on politics, with a 'possible' exception of Roberts, who appears to go renegade from time to time.

However, keeping in mind that Roberts hasn't really decided contrary to the rightist political agenda when his position counted. Well, hardly ever, except when outward appearances would have sunk his credibility boat.

You need to be reminded Chicy, that what appears to you as being important, is of little or no interest to others.

She's going to decide with the 'free choice' side on the abortion issue, regardless of whether she gets the grammar and spelling completely right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Her personal corruption is much more an important factor than any of your reasons. She is highly dependable on making decisions based on her leftist political persuasion.

As is true of all the them deciding based on politics, with a 'possible' exception of Roberts, who appears to go renegade from time to time.

However, keeping in mind that Roberts hasn't really decided contrary to the rightist political agenda when his position counted. Well, hardly ever, except when outward appearances would have sunk his credibility boat.

You need to be reminded Chicy, that what appears to you as being important, is of little or no interest to others.

She's going to decide with the 'free choice' side on the abortion issue, regardless of whether she gets the grammar and spelling completely right.

Mind your manners, commie-boy, and restrict your feeble opinions to Canada.....just don't plan on emmigrating.


"Why do so many more Canadians (45,000) immigrate to the USA each year than people from the USA (7,500) immigrate to Canada? Are there more opportunities, economic or otherwise, in America?"
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-more-Canadians-45-000-immigrate-to-the-USA-each-year-than-people-from-the-USA-7-500-immigrate-to-Canada-Are-there-more-opportunities-economic-or-otherwise-in-America


Just stay away.

Or....at least, downwind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Democrats hate America and American values, which is why they nominate Progressives rather than patriots
One can be a patriot, or a Progresssive.....but never both....
Let me explain why:

The Constitution was a distillation of the views of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. Progressivism is from the views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.
Now, let's quote 'progressives,' also known as totalitarians.

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



b. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler's dangerous statism - The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions



c. Jim Cramer, one of the Left's apparatchiks, say what Democrats believe, encourage.....but blames it on the other side.
“government has a right to force you to obey and has always exercised it especially under GOP”



Anyone think to question what the GOP has forced any to obey about?

Masks?

Injections?

Taxation?





Guess were Democrat Sotomayor stands as far as incorporating European views.

"Although the use of ‘foreign law’ in judicial consideration has been popular in recent decades, there are many who see marked differences between European civil law, and Anglo-American concepts known as common law. Although space does not allow a full discussion here, their import is very different. “ Judge Sonia Sotomayor says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution ..."

http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_197002132.html?keyword=topstory

BTW, for Democrats reading along.......the Constitution is written in English.

 

[daveman]

Justice Sotomayor, tell me you've never read the Constitution without saying you've never read the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
Sotomayor case in point.

2. This week, we saw proof:

"Politifact, Jake Tapper call out Justice Sotomayor for glaring falsehoods during vaccine mandate hearing, nets ignore​

3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Judicial intellect

During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology. And, “…firemen where meant to be hired due to the vagrancies…” She meant vacancies. One more? “Questions of policy are within the providence of Congress…” Clearly, province, not providence- unless she was speaking of the Rhode Island legislature.


b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor



c.“The 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… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085


But she certainly serves Democrat purposes.

She should be impeached for lying while on the bench.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Didn't she say that identified as a Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?

It's just too bad that she is an actual woman, though, isn't it?

Imagine how truly qualified she would be if she were a Latino man in a dress, instead.

 

[Pete7469]

She should be impeached for lying while on the bench.

I'm thinking of some more elevated adventures....

 

[Pete7469]

It's just too bad that she is an actual woman, though, isn't it?

Imagine how truly qualified she would be if she were a Latino man in a dress, instead.

That's just the thing, we can't tell!!!

 

[Hellokitty]

Whenever liberals make fun of MTG we need to reply that makes Sotomayor the MTG of the Supreme Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Every racist/dunce who votes Democrat votes to support anti-white racism.
While it was a major issue in the recent election...... more evidence that Biden didn't win......it was a determining factor in Obama's nomination of Sotomayor.


She wrote the anti-white decision in the Ricci case.

"Sotomayor's mystery case, Ricci v. DeStefano.​

https://slate.com › news-and-politics › 2009/05 › sotom...
May 26, 2009 — Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of ...



Sotomayor said it was just fine for the city to toss the exam results becasue whites did better than black applicants.



BTW......
Ricci decision: all nine Supreme Court Justices criticized her decision, saying that summary judgment was inappropriate, and should have been judged on the facts.

"All nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone." None adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination. This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."
One moment, please...


“Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed,…”
Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

Including the Ricci case, that would be 66%.



As I said, when Democrats nominate a Supreme Court Justice, it isn't because they are wise or have integrity.