Obama gets first Supreme Court pick

[Terrestrialrage]

Lets talk about another dumb ass thing she's said:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Sotomayor: ‘Policy is made’ at Appeals Court � - Blogs from CNN.com

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,'

No court anywhere makes laws, they interpret them. Any judge who thinks they make law needs to GET THE FUCK OUT. Furthermore she goes on to laugh after saying it because of her "I'm on tape and I know I shouldn't be saying this" attitude. Bitch slap the Constitution more, please.

[Stiker]

Policy =/= law.

Interpret it however you wish, but decisions made in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are used as precedence in future civil and criminal cases. Even decisions made by judges that don't try to "legislate from the bench" still fall under this umbrella.

[Vajra]

Lets talk about another dumb ass thing she's said:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Sotomayor: ‘Policy is made’ at Appeals Court � - Blogs from CNN.com



No court anywhere makes laws, they interpret them. Any judge who thinks they make law needs to GET THE FUCK OUT. Furthermore she goes on to laugh after saying it because of her "I'm on tape and I know I shouldn't be saying this" attitude. Bitch slap the Constitution more, please.

Shut the fuck up, she quickly corrected herself after she said it you fucking idiot (sometimes you say things that you dont mean to say especially if cameras are on you). I cant believe you idiot Republicans want to dispute her on such stupid petty things.

I doubt Republicans are gonna get any votes in 2012 if they try to run against Barack in his re-election, especially if they keep trying to dispute there being the first Latina Supreme Court Justice. If I were in the Senate I would confirm her ASAP, so that she can have time to have a break/settle into the mindset of being an Associate Justice, rather than having to battle the Senate ALL THE WAY til the first day. Fucking Republicans act to hardass'd so sad.

[Correction]

No court anywhere makes laws, they interpret them. Any judge who thinks they make law needs to GET THE FUCK OUT. Furthermore she goes on to laugh after saying it because of her "I'm on tape and I know I shouldn't be saying this" attitude. Bitch slap the Constitution more, please.

Read the context of the quote better, she's discussing the machinery of the appeals court vs. a district court, not whether or not Judges have the right to make laws and policy.

the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.

It is the function of those arguing before the bench to interpret laws one way or another, and the function of the judges to agree with one interpretation or the other. This isn't the same thing as 'judicial activism' and using the quote to tie her to as much is dumb.

Which won't stop Rush from parroting it over and over. Because people are dumb and gullible and will prefer to believe him over reading the quote and letting their own brains digest what it really means.

[Terrestrialrage]

Shut the fuck up, she quickly corrected herself after she said it you fucking idiot (sometimes you say things that you dont mean to say especially if cameras are on you). I cant believe you idiot Republicans want to dispute her on such stupid petty things.

Oh please, she corrected herself because when you say something that radical as a judge on tape you get crucified. You can defend the nomination all you want but the facts are she has, even if its misinterpreted, shown to be a radical "legislate from the bench" judge as well as a reverse racist. But hey, she's more suited for the job than a white guy of the same calibur because she'll what, empathize more? Those hard ass white guys...

[Correction]

the facts are she has, even if its misinterpreted, shown to be a radical "legislate from the bench" judge as well as a reverse racist.

The facts have shown nothing of the sort, and adding 'even if it is misinterpreted,' shows you know what the facts show and are ignoring it.

IOW: Your stupid is showing.

[Darus Grey]

Nobody can talk unambiguously 100% of the time in every sentence. Good judgment is still what really matters and we don't really know if she has that as her "controversial" cases were procedural or non-controversial in the system she worked in.

Nobody can talk unambiguously in any sentence is more accurate. 99%(made up, but the vast majority) of speech is non-literal.

Just my nit-pick of the day...back to the linguist cave with me.

[quannum]

if only she had 17 years of experience that we could look at .... then we wouldn't have to resort this stupid shit about "omg she said such n such".

[Demosthenes11]

I think it's ironic people still talk about race and sex as advantages/disadvantages.

Let's judge the person not the race or gender. It's pretty backwards to applaud someone based on those things...
My gf talks a lot about this kind of stuff because of the way she is treated. When she does something, people say it's overcoming odds and a woman/asian success story. Fuck that - it's insulting

[Seraph]

I think it's ironic people still talk about race and sex as advantages/disadvantages.

Let's judge the person not the race or gender. It's pretty backwards to applaud someone based on those things...
My gf talks a lot about this kind of stuff because of the way she is treated. When she does something, people say it's overcoming odds and a woman/asian success story. Fuck that - it's insulting

The country has made leaps and bounds towards achieving sexual and racial equality, but anyone who tells you we have achieved it is full of shit for this very reason. The face of racism/sexism has definitely shifted from pure hatred and spite to just being condescending about need and accomplishment.

It's depressing that sex/race are now treated as a 'handicap' to overcome, instead of just being considered inferior. It's progress I suppose, but I still can't help but roll my eyes.

[ZarakiKujata]

if only she had 17 years of experience that we could look at .... then we wouldn't have to resort this stupid shit about "omg she said such n such".

If only she had the most judicial experience out of any justice nominated to the Supreme Court in the last 70 years then we also wouldn't need to talk about reverse racism and butthurt GOP feelings.

[Demosthenes11]

there should be some sort of awesome term for "reverse racism." reverse racism just sounds dumb...ideas!?

[Seraph]

there should be some sort of awesome term for "reverse racism." reverse racism just sounds dumb...ideas!?

Affirmative action?

[Correction]

there should be some sort of awesome term for "reverse racism." reverse racism just sounds dumb...ideas!?

It's like 'opposite marriage,' a political phrase that means nothing. Just saying 'racism' would be sufficient, there's no real thing as 'reverse racism.'

[Xno Kappa]

Depends on what sounds more perfect.

[Kuya]

Lets talk about another dumb ass thing she's said:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Sotomayor: ‘Policy is made’ at Appeals Court � - Blogs from CNN.com



No court anywhere makes laws, they interpret them. Any judge who thinks they make law needs to GET THE FUCK OUT. Furthermore she goes on to laugh after saying it because of her "I'm on tape and I know I shouldn't be saying this" attitude. Bitch slap the Constitution more, please.

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is—court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m—you know.

OK, having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating, its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law, because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so, you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care about the next step,” and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, “We’ll worry about that when we get to it.” Look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that’s the differences.

You can try and take that out of context if you'd like.

You might also want to answer why it was okay for Samuel Alito to demonstrate how empathetic he is, but it's somehow a big deal with this judge.

[quannum]

torture=good
empathy=bad

I get it now

[Olo401]

The Raw Story � Conservative radio host says he hopes Sotomayor menstruation doesn’t affect judgment

If the Republicans wish to save some face during this whole process, disavowing this criminal asshat Liddy would be the place to start.

[Kuya]

So i've just heard that the judiciary committee has confirmed Sotomayor, and she'll be going for a full senate vote next week. Unsurprisingly, most republicans in the committee opposed her confirmation. Which leads one to question, seeing as how the republicans have opposed practically every piece of legislation that has been worked on recently, even when concessions have been made, why exactly do some democrats insist on this bipartisanship rhetoric?

Incidentally, Fortuño did not accept an invitation to, i guess, hispanic party, leading me to question who he is exactly loyal to.

[archibaldcrane]

Which leads one to question, seeing as how the republicans have opposed practically every piece of legislation that has been worked on recently, even when concessions have been made, why exactly do some democrats insist on this bipartisanship rhetoric?

It's a good question, but even the democrats can't seem to get together on the most important legislation they're trying to pass, at all.