Supreme Court Pick Being Pushed By Democrats Thinks Policy Is Made In The Courts

The founders of America designed our system of government so that policy would be created by the representatives of the people/states in Congress, with the President’s approval (subject to Congressional override) needed before any given policy is made into law. The courts were intended to simply apply law created by Congress and approved by the President to a given situation.
But the courts have long since began to make policy on their own. The states were prohibited from making abortion illegal, for instance, not through a vote of Congress but rather through the arbitrary fiat of unelected judges. That’s now how it was intended to work. But it’s how liberals like it to work. Because it’s a lot easier to impose a liberal agenda through rulings of the court than it is to muster the sort of popular support it takes to pass policy through the legislative process.
One judge that certain Democrats are pushing for Obama to appoint to the Supreme Court (ostensibly because she’s of the right skin color, as if that were a legitimate reason to pick someone) is an outspoken proponent of the sort of judiciary policy-making I describe above. I give you 2nd Circuit appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor:

“All of the legal defense funds out there– they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

The sad thing is that even if Obama doesn’t pick Sotomayor, whoever he does pick will probably have the same feelings about the role of the court in policy-making. Even if it’s an unstated agreement.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    And then he grew the government and raised taxes.

    Another lie from little ribby. It was the greedy Dem Congress that raised taxes. Reagan fought them every step of the way, and in fact, during the negotiations over the TEFRA Act of 1986, he extracted a promise from the greedy Dems to cut $2 of spending for every $1 of increased taxes. When the Dems agreed to that, he signed the bill. However, the Dems lied: they increased taxes, but didn’t cut spending.
    Another of little ribby’s lies smacked with the truth.
    BTW, the President doesn’t have the legislative power to “grow the govt”, only Congress can do that.

  • robert108

    Little sparkie: I hate to have to school you on this, but policy is supposed to be decided by elected officials, not by politically appointed judges. Her mistake belief that the Judicial Branch has Executive powers reveals her lust for power over the American people.
    Duh.

  • robert108

    Rob would you have kept schools segregated until the masses decided it was actually unfair and unequal as opposed to the activist judges who accomplished desegregation?

    Historically and factually inaccurate. Most “school segregation” was a matter of population distribution, and not a “civil rights” issue. The Big Lie was that we needed govt intervention to force the Marxist idea of “fairness” on our population, thus the description “forced bussing” to describe the horrific abuse of govt power.
    The recent home finance debacle was the outcome of similar social engineering to produce a “fair” distribution of home ownership.
    To quote Ronald Reagan: “The govt is the problem, not the solution.”

  • robert108

    Still no answer to my questions, little sparkie? Your desperate attempts to distract and change the subject reveal your inability to back up your claims about this woman.
    No amount of meaningless verbiage will rescue you from the laser beam of truth. She’s a leftie fascist, which is why the fascist Obama wants her. More inconvenient truth for you.

  • Gmoney

    Specifically, his grandparents immigrated to this country from England. While they are of Portuguese descent, which I suppose would make him Latin-American, his family did not immigrate to this country from Latin America (i.e. the countries in the Central American region). Still, your point stands and I agree that technically he is Latin American. I don’t think Sotomayor is a good choice for the nomination, and I suppose I was trying to point out that arguing about the validity of her being the first this or that is just stupid. Instead of playing “gotcha” on useless statistics, we should probably be arguing her record, philosophy, and about how ethnicity should have absolutely nothing to do with who is nominated to our highest court.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    At the federal level, it was Chief Justice John Marshall who, in Marbury V. Madison (1803), made explicit the courts’ power of judicial review. In famous language, oft quoted in later cases, Marshall declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” And that duty, he concluded, encompasses the courts’ power to strike down even acts of Congress if they are found to conflict with the Constitution…

    There is no doubt that the Court has gone beyond the literal text of the Constitution in recognizing and securing particular rights. A conspicuous example is the right of privacy or autonomy. Drawing upon the Fifth and 14th Amendments’ guarantee of due process of law, the Court has found such a right and extended it to such interests as the right of contraception, a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, and, in 2003, the right not to be punished by a state for homosexual behavior. While possibly every case that reaches the Court requires some interpretation of the law, these holdings, and particularly the last two, have been especially controversial; in the absence of specific constitutional text declaring a right to privacy, they rest heavily upon judicial reasoning and elucidation.

    Exactly.

    They’ve gone from saying what the law is over to saying what the law should be.

    That’s wrong.

    When you write law from the bench, you’ve made the legislative and executive branches complete surplusage.

    There is no need for the deliberative action of the House and Senate writing law (legis slature) nor of that consolidated proposed law being presented to the President for signature, for veto or pocket veto.

    All that is completely set aside as useless when a majority of five can now completely make new law from whole cloth.

    What we have then is not a Constitutional Republic, with three co-equal branches of government but a Junta of Five.

  • robert108

    I don’t think right and wrong work that way Rob.

    It’s actually a very accurate description of the worth of little sparkie’s blather, in general.

  • robert108

    Still no answer, little sparkie? Your increasingly desperate attempts to distract from you inability to back up your original claim about this totalitarian fascist leftie judge are getting humorous. You have no facts, only lying smear.
    Answer the questions, if you can.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    amused…you forgot amused

  • robert108

    Still can’t answer my questions, little sparkie?
    You must have had some reason, in your little mind, to make your original statement about this fascist judge, so please tell us what it is. Or, maybe you are just a knee-jerk ideologue.

  • 2Hotel9

    I don’t care if she is bright vermilion and covered with chartreuse polka-dots, her record of overturned rulings should be the first warning sign. Her judicial “style” is a plus as far as Democrats/progressives/leftards are concerned.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    To quote Ronald Reagan: “The govt is the problem, not the solution.”

    And then he grew the government and raised taxes.

  • Rezistik

    I should mention that you’re something of a compass for me, Sparkie. As long as you’re bitching about whatever I’m saying, I know I’m right.

    I don’t think right and wrong work that way Rob.

  • http://ureligiousright.blogspot.com/ UNRR

    This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/4/2009, at The Unreligious Right

  • docdave

    Is she related to Helen Thomas?

    You can bank on Obama nominating someone who is an activist jurist who thinks the constitution is outdated and should be replaced with international law.

  • robert108

    …hardworking public servant…

    An unsupported claim. She has lived on the public dime for a long time, and do we have anything to show for it? Show us some evidence for your claim, little aparkie.

  • robert108

    The House of Representatives does not rule the country unilaterally and was never under 100% democrat control between 1981 and 1989. The Senate must vote on spending bills that the President must then sign or veto.

    All spending bills originate in the House, little dino. You have been schooled on this fact repeatedly, and are too dumb to absorb the knowledge.
    In any case, your spew is irrelevant to the subject, which is the deal the greedy Dems made with President Reagan to get him to sign TEFRA. The promised to cut spending in exchange for tax increases, but they lied about that. The greedy Dems increased taxes by lying about cutting spending. President Reagan’s only role in the tax increases by the greedy Dems was to believe they would keep their promise.
    Again, the Dems raised taxes, not President Reagan.
    Another inconvenient truth for you, little dino.

  • robert108

    Have you read my comments above?

    Not getting enough of my attention, little sparkie? You’re such a groupie.

    I have done no “screeching”, little sparkie, so dial back your desperation a little. Still no answers to my questions about this latest leftie totalitarian?
    Pathetic.

  • robert108

    Of course, r108, everyone’s evil, instrumentalist intentions are clearly apprehended by your advanced intellect.

    Bullshit.

    You have nothing but hollow epithets and wishful thinking. Go get a gallon of reality, chug it, and get back to us.

    So, still no answer then?

  • robert108

    let r108 ply all the revisionist history he wants.

    Another lie from you; what I said about how the greedy Dems got TEFRA past President Reagan is true; you can look it up, if you are ignorant on the subject.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    The House of Representatives does not rule the country unilaterally and was never under 100% democrat control between 1981 and 1989. The Senate must vote on spending bills that the President must then sign or veto.

    Someone skipped Schoolhouse Rock.

    I would bring up the $5 trillion in new debt with a republican Congress and President from 2001-2006 but don’t have time to argue with the insane.

  • sfcmac

    @Sparkie:

    EIN VOLK! EIN REICH! EIN OBAMA!

    You’re a good little bot, aren’t ya?

  • captain_sticky

    Imagine waking up next to her?

  • 2Hotel9

    Hehehehehehehehehehehehe!!!!!

    Actually, Echo7Mike, spark is split from the whole program. Kinda like me, rational anarchist. He likes throwing rocks in both directions.

  • robert108

    The Senate was under republican control for the first 6 of 8 reagan years.

    Irrelevant, as the Dem House spent the money. Duh.
    The greedy Dems promised to cut spending in exchange for President Reagan not vetoing their greedy tax increase, but they lied.
    Nothing you lie about can change the facts of history, little dino.

  • Gmoney

    According to Wikipedia, Cardozo’s family origin is Europe.

  • robert108

    One might ask you the same question as you refuse to read other’s comments, yet choose to respond to them.

    I don’t constantly ask if you have read my comments, little sparkie; I respond with questions about your statements, and you can’t answer them. The dearth of factual or logical content in your comments makes it easy to focus the laser beam of truth on the tiny bits that are actually there.

  • robert108

    …and you are screeching about her living off the public dime?

    I simply stated a fact that puts your unsupported claims about her into question. You have yet to produce any proof to support your claims about her. What has she produced for us while on the public dime? Answer the question, little sparkie.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    It was the greedy Dem Congress that raised taxes.

    The Senate was under republican control for the first 6 of 8 reagan years.

  • 2Hotel9

    res, do you support the Democrat Party policy of segregating schools? It is being done in every city controlled by Democrats. Do you or do you not support it. It is your Party, and segregation is your Party’s policy.

    So which is it, cupcake?

  • Rezistik

    Rob would you have kept schools segregated until the masses decided it was actually unfair and unequal as opposed to the activist judges who accomplished desegregation?

  • robert108

    …sensationalist drivel…

    Your stock in trade, little sparkie.

    What has Alito? Scalia? Roberts? What is your point?

    It’s a simple question, little sparkie, but you don’t seem to have an answer to it. You make unsupported claims about her value, then you can’t back them up.

    They don’t do it for the money.

    Did she “serve” for free, then? Like all leftie totalitarians, she did it for the power.

    Duh.

  • 2Hotel9

    Oh, and while we are here, which Party forced school desegregation? And which Party fought tooth&nail; to stop desegregation? And opposed the Civil Rights Amendment?

    Spin us some pretty lies now, res.

  • robert108

    are you taking issue with what I have said about the role of appeals courts in shaping policy or not?

    I’m taking issue with your ignorance and arrogance, little sparkie. Is that the kind of attention you so desperately want?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    Rob conflated the personal opinions of this jurist with facts about the structure and fxn of the judicial branch of the US govt. The simple fact is, and remains, that policy reorientations can and do emerge from the appellate courts. This has nothing to do with the opinion of this or that judge, but is a simple fact related to how our govt fxns.

    I have taken the time to lay out my position here. You offer nothing but insults and distraction and refuse to read the comments of those you are engaging. Continue pissing into the wind all you want, its a free country.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Sorry. That last question should have ended with a “?” and not a “.”.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    And then he grew the government and raised taxes.

    Sure as hell did. Invoking Reagan’s litmus tests and whining about deficits amounts to pur hypocritical garbage. Reagan is the #1 deficit-expanding czar in all US history. Its a fact.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Rob is relying on sensationalist drivel he learned from r108 and da wiz (who both champion me as a contra-indicator) to float his argument.

    you’re something of a compass for me, Sparkie…. as long as you’re bitching about whatever I’m saying, I know I’m right

    Heh. What a weak response. I expect better from Rob. Apparently he has left himself without a good retort, or we would’ve heard it. Personally attacking me doesn’t distract from the facts.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Not getting enough of my attention, little sparkie?

    One might ask you the same question as you refuse to read other’s comments, yet choose to respond to them. Go find the toaster, poptart.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    are you taking issue with what I have said about the role of appeals courts in shaping policy or not?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    Also, I notice that you continually attempt to make this a personal thing by insulting me. That’s fine, but you will have to explain how little old me exerts any control over the facts about how the judicial branch of the US govt works. Insults are just insults. They are plied by people who have no argument or facts to engage in support of their claims.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Still no answer to my questions, little sparkie?

    You are just huffing and puffing and trying to make yourself out to be a laser-wielding victim. Put down the light-saber and step away from the keyboard, Hans Solo.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    She’s being frank about how policy is often shaped by the Supreme Court NOT HEARING cases, which they pick and choose from at will. Its not her ego-maniacal, rogue judge-ness coming through, its a frank fact about what happens when the Supreme Court wields their power negatively, by not hearing cases. Do you think that no novel cases make it to the appeals courts? Only novel cases do. Naturally, some policy emerges. Grow up and learn about how your own government fxns, for fucks sake.

    Give us all a break and read up. Perhaps then it won’t seem like you are just fishing for excuses to slander minority women — when you bring a useful objection to her conduct.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108 (and other, concerned ‘short bus’ riding participants of the blogosphere)

    Can you possibly maintain that no novel problems ever end up in the laps of appellate judges? That, after all, is what they are for — hence ‘Appeals’ court. Can you possibly maintain that all novel problems can be subsumed under pre-extant precedents? How would they be novel? Its a conceptual contradiction. Can you reasonably maintain that the Supreme Court should hear any and all cases that get appealed that high? Its infeasible. Often they decide cases negatively, but not hearing them, or by sending them back to the Appeals courts for review.

    You are taking out the fact that we have a governmental structure to appropriately deal with novel situations on this lonely judge from the second circuit? Because she was frank about the reality of what Appeals Courts do?

    You say, because I feel you have overlooked these issues, that you must be correct. Give yourself and your audience more respect than that. You are conflating opinion and fact. Feel free to differ with me on opinion all you want, but it strikes me that what is under discussion here is simply facts about how our judicial branch of government is structured and intended to fxn. Differing with me on simple facts about government structure and fxn, uncontroversial ones at that, [is a waste of your effing time].

    Keep whining if you want. I just wanted to unmuddy the water for those who might be interested in not making facts a subservient, pliable handmaiden to their ideology, something you often accuse democrats of doing. Buck up, princess. Rogue judges are determined by how many of their decisions end up getting overturned or how many inappropriately engage precedent. If you want to bring some statistics on these fronts, perhaps we can begin to gauge Sotomayor’s degree of ‘rogue’-ness.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    R108 is correct here. The job of the court is merely to hold laws when challenged to the US Constitution and decide given what it says and what previous court precedent has said whether the which is brought before them is constitutional or not. That is it. They are not to invent anything and claim that the constitution infers it. They have done it repeatedly, much to the dishonor of the United States. Partly because on one or more occasions it was warranted and should have been done by congress and the executive as is their place, and many others was something that they should not have done because they were just plain wrong.

    The current mindset of the political class is that the courts will clean up their messes and make the calls for them. They believe that they can pass anything they like and it will stand and be enforceable until the court overturns it. In their minds they have a lead time of several years to get even clearly overtly unconstitutional laws to take hold in the public’s tolerance.

    Once that happens, the motivational power behind getting it undone in the courts can wane and stall out and make it last even longer.

    On top of this they pass laws far faster than the people can follow and challenge leaving it to dedicated interest groups and if no interest group cares, unconstitutional infringements can slip by and pile up. Heck, they pass more laws than the executive branch charged with enforcing them know exist.

    The result is a system where what gets weeded out is only what interest groups bother going after, and what gets passed is whatever congress wants and screw the constitution, and the people at large remain pinned down under the machine gun fire of legislation and unable to do much of anything until election time.

    At which point all we do is change gunners because the political class has no concept of morality, ethics or conscience. If they did, they’d hardly ever violate the constitution because they would know in advance their legislation did that and make appropriate changes or drop it altogether to keep the constitution above all else.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    Gmoney:

    According to Wikipedia, Cardozo’s family origin is Europe.

    And that means what?

    Cardozo was a Portuguese Jew. That means Latin American as Portugal is considered one of the Latin nations.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    the laser beam of truth

    heh. when argumentation and reality fail, resort to star trek metaphors.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    ribby
    the juxtaposition of Reagan and discussions of fiscal responsibility is thoroughly AMUSING. also, in passing, notice how the RNC fixates on budget deficits, but nary says a word about trade deficits. meanwhile, they whine about selling the country off to the chicomms and concurrently advocate buying Chinese plastic crap at Wal(Mao)Mart. they talk out of so many sides of their mouth at once, you wonder where all the extra ventriloquists are hiding.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    Have you read my comments above? You comprehension of the nature and fxn of the judicial branch is absolutely pathetic. I can only refer you to my comments above, as I have addressed your most recent screeching ad nauseum therein.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    rob
    this bloviating about the founders in this context makes you seem like even more of an ass. ultimately your problem is with the supreme court’s negative power to refuse appeals, is it not?

    if you think you are going to see a pro-torture, white man appointed… hee hee hee. you are up a f*cking creek w/no paddle…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Dino2
    r108 is dishonest about almost everything. don’t let it bug you. when you respond to him, it only reinforces his delusions of grandeur. arguing about facts is not a worthwhile thing to do. let r108 ply all the revisionist history he wants. let him never admit that his party is responsible for any errors. it only drives home the absurdity of his claims. it also exposes what a hypocrite he is when he advocates for policy that holds people responsible for their own choices. people are able to read between the lines and responding to him creates the illusion that the facts are in question, the very illusion that r108 is striving to achieve. let him turn the truth into a hideous goblin that never fails to do his bidding. we will all just continue to look on in pity and disgust.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    rob
    this bloviating about the founders in this context makes you seem like even more of an ass.

    I should mention that you’re something of a compass for me, Sparkie. As long as you’re bitching about whatever I’m saying, I know I’m right.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    suite
    what is r108 correct about?

    you are merely reiterating superficial platitudes that a naive bystander may believe about the role of the judicial branch. i have taken time to advance specific claims about why policy necessarily emerges from the appellate courts. if you feel i am incorrect, please just point out where I have made false statements. merely reiterating the popular, and indeed naive, belief that no policy comes from the courts doesn’t amount to an engagement of my argument. you know that and I know that. Upon close inspection, you are agreeing with me but framing it as a disagreement. See here:

    The job of the court is merely to hold laws when challenged to the US Constitution and decide given what it says and what previous court precedent has said whether the which is brought before them is constitutional or not. That is it.

    The boldfaced portion of this comment is exactly correct. What you gloss over in your partisan boosting is the simple fact that deciding how and why novel cases are related to precedent amounts to policy creation when the issue under consideration is novel. Moreover, appellate courts specifically see cases where the relevance of various precedents is not clear — hence ‘appeals’.

    We all know that when the decision amounts to the creation of drastic new policy, either it gets sent to the legislative branch, which it often is, or is sent, on appeal, to the supreme court… where is it either decided upon or send back to the appellate level for revisions.

    But to maintain that the judicial branch never deals with anything novel is asinine. Immigration policy is a good example of this. ‘Refugee’ cases are often appealed to these courts where decisions must be made about the correct application of the term. What amounts to persecution in China? Is being denied the ability to practice Phalong Gong sufficient? Is mandatory sterilization sufficient? These are the sorts of nuanced questions that these judges must deal with and policy orientations necessarily emerge from subsuming novel cases under precedent which may not be as detailed as necessary to resolve the answers clearly.

    A cursory, superficial examination of what goes on may allow you to maintain your line, but it ignores facts.

    This phenomenon is compounded by the Supreme Court’s freedom to hear or not hear any of the cases that arrive on appeal. Should we place this blame on the Supreme Court, as they often shape policy in a negative manner, e.g. by letting lower court decisions stand.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Rob …
    Has a limited understanding of how policy emerges from the appellate courts, obviously. He is taking out a grudge he has with the Supreme Court’s ability to not hear cases, a grudge with the very structure of our government, on this judge from the 2nd circuit who is being frank about the reality on the ground.

    Rob. Can you possibly maintain that no novel problems ever end up in the laps of appellate judges? That, after all, is what they are for — hence ‘Appeals’. Can you possibly maintain that all novel problems can be subsumed under pre-extant precedents? How would they be novel? Its a conceptual contradiction. Can you reasonably maintain that the Supreme Court should hear any and all cases that get appealed that high? Its infeasible. Often they decide cases negatively, but not hearing them, or by sending them back to the Appeals courts for review.

    You are taking out the fact that we have a governmental structure to appropriately deal with novel situations on this lonely judge from the second circuit? Because she was frank about the reality of what Appeals Courts do?

    You say, because I feel you have overlooked these issues, that you must be correct. Give yourself and your audience more respect than that. You are conflating opinion and fact. Feel free to differ with me on opinion all you want, but it strikes me that what is under discussion here is simply facts about how our judicial branch of government is structured and intended to fxn. Differing with me on simple facts about government structure and fxn, uncontroversial ones at that, may not be as reliable a ‘compass’ as you make them out to be.

    Keep whining if you want. I just wanted to unmuddy the water for those who might be interested in not making facts a subservient, pliable handmaiden to their ideology, something you often accuse democrats of doing. Buck up, princess. Rogue judges are determined by how many of their decisions end up getting overturned or how many inappropriately engage precedent. If you want to bring some statistics on these fronts, perhaps we can begin to gauge Sotomayor’s degree of ‘rogue’-ness. Until then, sampling little sound bites that merely betray facts about judicial structure is getting you nowhere.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    I’m done here. I have slapped you with the facts repeatedly. They are a great cudgel, which I recommend you take up in your defense, at least sporadically, if not on a regular basis. Go ahead, try it.

    Get in the last word. Offer us some more childish, tween screeching. It will reassure your pathetic self-aggrandizing ego, but that is all.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Did she “serve” for free, then? Like all leftie totalitarians, she did it for the power.

    Of course, r108, everyone’s evil, instrumentalist intentions are clearly apprehended by your advanced intellect.

    Bullshit.

    You have nothing but hollow epithets and wishful thinking. Go get a gallon of reality, chug it, and get back to us.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    and sticky just thinks she’s ugly. cut right to the ‘rational’ chase sticky, i like it. tart-ass mfer.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    You also fail to note that she explicitly says,

    I am not promoting [this phenomenon] or advocating it

    in the clip. It is not her opinion, but a fact about the structure and intended fxn of our judicial branch.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Someone skipped Schoolhouse Rock.

    That’s putting it lightly.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    What has she produced for us while on the public dime?

    What has Alito? Scalia? Roberts? What is your point? That judges don’t produce much? Do you not value having a judicial branch to enforce your rights despite the fact that it might not ‘produce’ consumables for you? Again, I repeat:

    She was asked to serve her country, and take a serious pay cut to do so…

    That is a fact. Ask any federal judge and see for yourself. They don’t do it for the money.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    this totalitarian fascist leftie judge

    arguments have premises and conclusions. namecalling is not argumentation. i just wanted to clear that up.

    i have put forward an argument, and am perfectly willing to pour over the details. that said, i will not answer to ad hoc namecalling. keep screeching, princess.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Rob
    Moreover, I am confident that partisans who curb their ideology when it comes to discussions of fact, such as Carrick or Lik or Eddie or PP (on occasions) et al., will agree that this sound bite does not evidence the phenomenon you claim it evidences. The simple fact is that some novel policy, like it or not, emerges from the appeals courts in virtue of their only hearing ‘appeals’.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    She has lived on the public dime for a long time, and do we have anything to show for it?

    I beg your pardon? She was asked to serve her country, and take a serious pay cut to do so, and you are screeching about her living off the public dime? Do you expect us to take you seriously? Do you know how much money good lawyers make? Do you know the ethical limits that are placed on one’s income and political life when one becomes a federal judge?

    Get real.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Also, claiming that this longtime, hardworking public servant is being appointed because of her skin color is puerile, racist bullshit. I thought you were above that. Just because Chuck Schumer is using petty identity politics doesn’t mean you should.

    GIGO.

    Sotomayor has already been suggested once, as a counter offer during the Miers review. Moreover, one of my close friends is a 2nd circuit court of appeals judge, appointed by Bush, and he assures me that Sotomayor is a hard-working, honest, and adept jurist.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development