What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sotomayor.....No Surprise

ClaireH

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,947
Reaction score
4,665
Points
1,938
Location
Midwest US
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.
You have provided excellent evidence for your case PC; keep up the good work! I was not familiar with these court actions revealing Sotomayor’s reversals following appeals and inappropriate summaries. Thanks for posting informative pieces to inform the vast number of readers. There are always a lot more “guests” on USMB reading than registered posters online. A great platform to spread knowledge!
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You have provided excellent evidence for your case PC; keep up the good work! I was not familiar with these court actions revealing Sotomayor’s reversals following appeals and inappropriate summaries. Thanks for posting informative pieces to inform the vast number of readers. There are always a lot more “guests” on USMB reading than registered posters online. A great platform to spread knowledge!



You are one of the few who recognizes that 5 to 10 times more folks read threads than post in them.

Thank you for those gracious comments: and both of us have to keep on keepin' on!
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
7. Does integrity or honesty play any role in Democrat nominations???


Not a chance.


Speaking of which......



Were some of Sotomayor's actions unethical, bordering on illegal?

"Now Sotomayor was a prosecutor up until 1984 and started in April of that year with Pavia & Hartcourt, according to the questionnaire. That means she had her private law firm, likely a home office based on her modest description of the practice, that overlapped both her prosecutor's position and her associate's position at Pavia & Hartcourt. So the question here is not whether she had permission to have that private firm, as I suspect she must have, but rather, why she called it "Sotomayor & Associates"?

Did she have any associates
when she was advertising herself in that manner? My guess is no, given that this was a side business that she says was devoted to consulting for family and friends. And if she had no associates, then it is a no-no to tell the world that you do. That's misleading.

From the American Bar Association comes this all-inclusive statement that such conduct is prohibited in every state:

Are there any Associates (or "Law Groups") in the House?



There are several state bar opinions that address a lawyer's use of terms in a firm name that carry with them the implication that there is more than one lawyer in the firm. Examples of such terms include "X and associates" or "The X law group". Citations to these opinions, along with digests of them as they appear in the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct follow.

All State bar opinions are in agreement that a lawyer may not use the term, "and Associates" if there are in fact no associates in the firm. See, South Carolina Opinion 05-19 (2005) (A lawyer seeking to open a governmental affairs and lobbying firm consisting of the lawyer and two nonlawyer employees may not name the firm "John Doe and Associates, P.A." The name violates Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a) because it misleadingly implies that the firm has more than one lawyer.), Ohio Opinion 95-1 (1995) (A lawyer who is in solo practice may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name to indicate that the lawyer shares space with other lawyers, acts as co-counsel with other lawyers, or has non-lawyer employees. A lawyer who is the sole shareholder in a professional corporation may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name when the lawyer in fact has no employees.)

In New York, the conduct would fall under DR 2-102, which bars misleading advertising on a letterhead. [See Comment 2] If in fact Sotomayor had no associates at her firm, it would appear she overstepped the bounds of self-promotion by making her firm seem bigger than it was.
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/06/did-sotomayor-violate-ny-ethics-rules.html




Of course, as we have learned.....laws only apply to Republicans.

General Flynn

Roger Stone

Scooter Libby

Papadopolous, Page, .......Trump

Dinesh D'souza.....

Any charges or investigations of Julie Swetnick ???? Blasey Ford????Kevin Clinesmith?????


How about this:
Clapper lied when asked, under oath, by Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon-Democrat) " On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded: “No, sir.” When Wyden followed up by asking, “It does not?” Clapper said: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail." James Clapper's Tip for Avoiding Lies: Don't Do Talking Points | emptywheel
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. I hope that my view that the Democrat Party is a European creation, not one based on American history and heritate, and that everything the Democrats have a hand in turns to.....mud.

This thread is an exposition focusing on one particular impediment the Democrats put on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor.

It should be noted that no Democrat has risen to support this outlier.



But to go further, a far greater mistake is the "Supreme" Court itself.
This is what I've always said:
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."




The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and if you accept that it is due to a lack of understanding.
Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.



“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
9. What is the correct function of the Supreme Court.

As viewed correctly, by the Founders and described by the Great Scalia, it is to match questions of laws with the words of the Constitution.
To say either 'aye,' it matches, or 'nay,' it does not.

The document is written in English, hence no 'interpretation' is required.
The theft of power by the court and its accomplice, the federal government, should be considered illegal.


A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



The function of the Supreme Court according to the European Party, the Democrats, is to fulfill their totalitaran oppression of the American people.
Hence....Sotomayor and Kagan.



1641739264632.png
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY

10 "Supreme misinformation! Liberal SCOTUS justices pummeled over false vaccine mandate statements​



Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer all made jaw-dropping oral arguments during the session that were rife with incorrect facts and liberal bias.

Leading the pack was Sotomayor, who declared that “Omicron is as deadly as Delta … we have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.” That statement is not even close to being accurate, according to experts who are now saying Omicron is a mild form of the virus that replicates in the throat, not the lungs.

“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition,” Sotomayor contended, “and many on ventilators.” The actual number of children ill and hospitalized from COVID according to the Department of Health and Human Services is 3,342 as of Friday."




All three liars are Democrat partisans.


Any penalty?????
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
8. I hope that my view that the Democrat Party is a European creation, not one based on American history and heritate, and that everything the Democrats have a hand in turns to.....mud.

This thread is an exposition focusing on one particular impediment the Democrats put on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor.

It should be noted that no Democrat has risen to support this outlier.



But to go further, a far greater mistake is the "Supreme" Court itself.
This is what I've always said:
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."




The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and if you accept that it is due to a lack of understanding.
Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.



“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
Sotomayor is what happens when you view skin color and genitals as being more important than qualifications.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Sotomayor is what happens when you view skin color and genitals as being more important than qualifications.



And in this case we see what Democrats demand in their voters and their nominees......'Yes men' or 'Yes women."
No deviations allowed....up to and including lying.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
And in this case we see what Democrats demand in their voters and their nominees......'Yes men' or 'Yes women."
No deviations allowed....up to and including lying.
Integrity is meaningless. Honesty is meaningless. The Constitution is meaningless.

All that matters is the agenda. Everything else must be discarded.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
12,479
Reaction score
4,031
Points
208
Integrity is meaningless. Honesty is meaningless. The Constitution is meaningless.

All that matters is the agenda. Everything else must be discarded.
The only meaningful point to make about 9 politically corrupt justices is the fact that none of them will deviate from their politics to make a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law.

And of course Sotomayor is as corrupt and steadfast in that respect as any of them. Our Chicy needs to understand that before she starts ranting about Sotomayor's grammar and spelling.

You're dead right!
All that matters is the agenda. Everything else must be discarded.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The only meaningful point to make about 9 politically corrupt justices is the fact that none of them will deviate from their politics to make a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law.

And of course Sotomayor is as corrupt and steadfast in that respect as any of them. Our Chicy needs to understand that before she starts ranting about Sotomayor's grammar and spelling.

You're dead right!


"... a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law."

No, you dunce, the only correct course for a Supreme Court Justice must be based on the actual language of the US Constitution.



Edification here:
1641828815555.png




Stick to Canadian Communism, your only area of expertise.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,145
Reaction score
37,106
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
Didn't she say that identified as a Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?
I was going to say, for Democrats the only significant qualification is “brown vagina”.
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
26,475
Reaction score
12,421
Points
1,090
Location
The Real World
Whenever liberals make fun of MTG we need to reply that makes Sotomayor the MTG of the Supreme Court.
Then we've got the Hobbit of the SCOTUS "justice" Kagan who belongs in an asylum....

Or maybe a barn.

Still not sure what to make of that fucking creature.



.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY

"The Morning Briefing: Confirmed—The Supreme Court's Lib Justices Are Paste-Eaters​


Whether Breyer and Sotomayor are lying activists, idiots, or a combination of both, it is clear that American leftists are steadfast in their resolve to use this bat flu as an excuse to continue their efforts to turn the United States into the new East Berlin. Yes, they want to be able to play fast and loose with election laws in the name of COVID, but this is bigger than that. They really would like to see our freedoms shrink as federal power grows. These are the kinds of people who miss the Soviet Union."
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1641836173840.png





Guess which party picked her as their perfect Supreme Courtr Justice?
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
16,359
Reaction score
26,115
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
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.

It turns out Sotomayor is as dumb as we were afraid she was.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,625
Reaction score
57,078
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1. The powers usurped by the Supreme Court are found nowhere in the Constitution.
Their function, as it is of writers of laws and of the President, is to verify that any law is directly related to words written in the Constitution.....

....nothing more.



2. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


3.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf


The law is not what the Court says it is......it is what the Constitution says it is.

They don't teach that in government school, do they.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top