Sotomayor warmly welcomes Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS family

[RetiredGySgt]

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

You do understand that the world we live in has changed 1000's of % since that was written ?

WTF?

You still have your musket to protect you from the red coats??

You realize that argument applies to computers phones and any modern technology right? If all the 2nd covers is muskets then the first only covers manual printing presses.

 

[easyt65]

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

You do understand that the world we live in has changed 1000's of % since that was written ?

WTF?

You still have your musket to protect you from the red coats??

STFU, LIAR!

 

[Penelope]

Until he makes a decision you do not agree with.

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

They believe in equal and civil rights, don't they??

 

[Penelope]

Until he makes a decision you do not agree with.

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

That did not answer the question, why do we have a Supreme Court and why is there an uneven number of Judges on it.

 

[easyt65]

They believe in equal and civil rights, don't they??

The party that sent a navy sailor to jail for taking a picture of his work station on a submarine but protected a traitor / felon who compromised national security then gave her the DNC nomination?

Ummm, no!

 

[Penelope]

They believe in equal and civil rights, don't they??

The party that sent a navy sailor to jail for taking a picture of his work station on a submarine but protected a traitor / felon who compromised national security then gave her the DNC nomination?

Ummm, no!

I am talking about the whole, not felons till after their sentencing is complete, but I suspect you know that. I am also talking about citizens. You know the law of the land.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

That did not answer the question, why do we have a Supreme Court and why is there an uneven number of Judges on it.

Uneven number to avoid ties. Duh

 

[longknife]

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

That did not answer the question, why do we have a Supreme Court and why is there an uneven number of Judges on it.

We have a Supreme Court, you twit, because it was established in the Constitution. The number of justices were never set but the composition was left up to Congress.

Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863.


Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.


However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.

 

[easyt65]

As long as he follows the Constitution I'll agree with all of his decisions.

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

That did not answer the question, why do we have a Supreme Court and why is there an uneven number of Judges on it.

Uneven number - common sense - so there is no tie.

 

[Flopper]

Sotomayor To Kavanaugh: Welcome To The Supreme Court 'Family'

Isn't this heart warming?

A liberal embraces Kavanaugh?

Who woulda thought?

There is a huge misconception in this country that most judges will always put their political believes ahead of the law. Do judges have political believes and biases? Of course they do but being a good judge means putting aside those biases and ruling based on evidence and the law.

A Justice's ideological preference will predict a large number of that justice's votes. However, over time those preferences tend to have less effect on their votes. This is why we look at justices appointed years ago and are amazed that there votes don't follow there perceived politician ideology.

There is also something else at work. Highly educated people, which most judges tend to be, have conflicting beliefs. For example, they may believe that America needs to control illegal immigration and enforce our laws but they may also hold that we should not deport people just because they are illegally in the country.

 

[Penelope]

and its all left up to interpretation. You mean as long as he agrees with your reasoning and is on the same moral pathway that you are.

As long as the Constitution is followed.

Why in the heck do we have a Supreme Court and an uneven no on it?? Why do you want right wing judges on it?? I have heard a lot of people say they voted for Trump due the judges he puts on the bench.

Conservative judges are Constituyionalists who do not seek to legislate from the bench and are not ruled by liberal socialist conscience / ideology.

That did not answer the question, why do we have a Supreme Court and why is there an uneven number of Judges on it.

Uneven number - common sense - so there is no tie.

So interpretation of the constitution is different for all judges.

 

[Olde Europe]

There is a huge misconception in this country that most judges will always put their political believes ahead of the law. Do judges have political believes and biases? Of course they do but being a good judge means putting aside those biases and ruling based on evidence and the law.

A Justice's ideological preference will predict a large number of that justice's votes. However, over time those preferences tend to have less effect on their votes. This is why we look at justices appointed years ago and are amazed that there votes don't follow there perceived politician ideology.

There is also something else at work. Highly educated people, which most judges tend to be, have conflicting beliefs. For example, they may believe that America needs to control illegal immigration and enforce our laws but they may also hold that we should not deport people just because they are illegally in the country.

Is there a reason why you are always yelling? And yes, in polite circles, all bold-face is considered yelling, just as all-caps. To me, it just shows you are an insecure attention-seeker who doesn't trust his content in itself can garner readers by posting like most everybody else does, that is, using bold-face sparingly and exclusively for emphasis. You may have things of interest to say, but I, for one, won't read any of your posts unless you change that habit.


Otherwise, Justice Sotomayor may hold Kavanaugh in contempt, but, even in case that is so, she has enough class not to let it show, and she'll always respect the Justice, if not the person. That may well be all there is.

 

[harmonica]

she is a racist that never should've been on the SC

 

[Flopper]

There is a huge misconception in this country that most judges will always put their political believes ahead of the law. Do judges have political believes and biases? Of course they do but being a good judge means putting aside those biases and ruling based on evidence and the law.

A Justice's ideological preference will predict a large number of that justice's votes. However, over time those preferences tend to have less effect on their votes. This is why we look at justices appointed years ago and are amazed that there votes don't follow there perceived politician ideology.

There is also something else at work. Highly educated people, which most judges tend to be, have conflicting beliefs. For example, they may believe that America needs to control illegal immigration and enforce our laws but they may also hold that we should not deport people just because they are illegally in the country.

Is there a reason why you are always yelling? And yes, in polite circles, all bold-face is considered yelling, just as all-caps. To me, it just shows you are an insecure attention-seeker who doesn't trust his content in itself can garner readers by posting like most everybody else does, that is, using bold-face sparingly and exclusively for emphasis. You may have things of interest to say, but I, for one, won't read any of your posts unless you change that habit.


Otherwise, Justice Sotomayor may hold Kavanaugh in contempt, but, even in case that is so, she has enough class not to let it show, and she'll always respect the Justice, if not the person. That may well be all there is.

All my posts are bold. I don't do anything special to make them come out that way. Sorry if you find that offensive. Someone worked on my computer to make text larger and clearer so I could read it better. That may have something to do with it.

No two judges could be ideologically more different than Scalia and Ginsburg, yet they were close friends. This is not that uncommon. Judges have to set aside their biases every day. It's part of their job. I suspect that most Supreme Court judges are pretty good at it.

 

[Olde Europe]

All my posts are bold. I don't do anything special to make them come out that way. Sorry if you find that offensive. Someone worked on my computer to make text larger and clearer so I could read it better. That may have something to do with it.

No two judges could be ideologically more different than Scalia and Ginsburg, yet they were close friends. This is not that uncommon. Judges have to set aside their biases every day. It's part of their job. I suspect that most Supreme Court judges are pretty good at it.

Thanks for the explanation. Do please try to figure out a way to change that. I actually find that "style" offensive, and an eyesore.

Yes, Ginsburg and Scalia having been friends is a legend. Why that may not matter is just as obvious: Kavanaugh had shown himself a whiny, hateful clown during the confirmation hearings, and one who had not had the decency to apologize for offensive things he actually, demonstrably did (Renata). He would rather lie about that, and quite obviously so. Any woman not personally offended by that performance is incomprehensible to me - which doesn't mean Sotomayor is, or isn't. The point is, setting biases aside is one thing. Holding a person in contempt for obvious, glaring personality defects is another thing entirely, and that tends to stand in the way of friendship, or respect for that person.

 

[boedicca]

Sotomayor To Kavanaugh: Welcome To The Supreme Court 'Family'

Isn't this heart warming?

A liberal embraces Kavanaugh?

Who woulda thought?

That's how it should be. Once a political contest is over, differences should be set aside so that folks can work together.

 

[Flopper]

All my posts are bold. I don't do anything special to make them come out that way. Sorry if you find that offensive. Someone worked on my computer to make text larger and clearer so I could read it better. That may have something to do with it.

No two judges could be ideologically more different than Scalia and Ginsburg, yet they were close friends. This is not that uncommon. Judges have to set aside their biases every day. It's part of their job. I suspect that most Supreme Court judges are pretty good at it.

Thanks for the explanation. Do please try to figure out a way to change that. I actually find that "style" offensive, and an eyesore.

Yes, Ginsburg and Scalia having been friends is a legend. Why that may not matter is just as obvious: Kavanaugh had shown himself a whiny, hateful clown during the confirmation hearings, and one who had not had the decency to apologize for offensive things he actually, demonstrably did (Renata). He would rather lie about that, and quite obviously so. Any woman not personally offended by that performance is incomprehensible to me - which doesn't mean Sotomayor is, or isn't. The point is, setting biases aside is one thing. Holding a person in contempt for obvious, glaring personality defects is another thing entirely, and that tends to stand in the way of friendship, or respect for that person.

From what I have seen, I don't think much of Kavanaugh but I'll reserve my opinion to see how he performs. I good way of evaluating a justice is to read the majority or dissenting opinions they write.

I'll look into the bold font issue