The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[fiveouts]

Another good one:

"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."

Source: https://childedlaw.org/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor (43-minute mark)

As politically incorrect as that statement might be to say out loud, it is pretty much 100% correct.  The court of appeals rules on the legality of thousands of cases every year (as opposed to the less than 100 usually seen by the Supreme Court), thereby essentially either codifying, clarifying or destroying thousands of laws in the process.  The laws of this country are almost exclusively under the control of the court of appeals. 

The only real response to this quote should be "no shit." 

[Chuck to Chuck]

She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.

They should be discussed.  As was this quote:

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal.  And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.

People don't have to be perfect to serve.  If they had to, we'd have anarchy.

Perhaps that would be good?

Was this meant to address what I posted?  I'm guessing no.

It was to show that statements from jurists that reflect their mind are not always politically correct.  And that hasn't prevented them from serving.  It should be discussed.  And then, based on this, she should be confirmed (I'm not talking about other stuff that may yet come out).  Same as it went for Rehnquist.

[morpheus]

She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.

They should be discussed.  As was this quote:

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal.  And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.

People don't have to be perfect to serve.  If they had to, we'd have anarchy.

Perhaps that would be good?

Was this meant to address what I posted?  I'm guessing no.

It was to show that statements from jurists that reflect their mind are not always politically correct.  And that hasn't prevented them from serving.  It should be discussed.  And then, based on this, she should be confirmed (I'm not talking about other stuff that may yet come out).  Same as it went for Rehnquist.

Tell Obama that.  After all, he voted "no" on Alito.

[Brownie]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

[Tank]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.

I'd like to hear more about this, too.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Tell Obama that.  After all, he voted "no" on Alito.

I didn't like his Alito vote.  I also didn't like Orin Hatch holding up bench nominations during the Clinton years and creating large case backlogs.

Fact is, times have changed.  Votes of 98-0 (Scalia in 1986) will never be seen anytime soon.  Given the environment, Obama's Alito vote is understandable even if it was wrong.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

[Brownie]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?

[ChuckD]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.

I'd like to hear more about this, too.

http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525

As Chuck noted, the second circuit's decision was consistent with Kelo. Yes, Kelo sucks, but...

Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

[/Chuck being right]

Also, the Agitator article is pretty misleading:

The panel's entire analysis: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."

I mean, technically, that's correct, so long as you ignore the statute of limitations which lapsed a year and a half prior to Didden taking action.

Finally, I thought the Chrysler dealership graft scandal was "today's thing for the right to be mad about"? Are we switching to a half-day cycle? I just want to know so I can keep my list updated.

[morpheus]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.

I'd like to hear more about this, too.

http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525

As Chuck noted, the second circuit's decision was consistent with Kelo. Yes, Kelo sucks, but...

Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

[/Chuck being right]

Also, the Agitator article is pretty misleading:

The panel's entire analysis: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."

I mean, technically, that's correct, so long as you ignore the statute of limitations which lapsed a year and a half prior to Didden taking action.

Finally, I thought the Chrysler dealership graft scandal was "today's thing for the right to be mad about"? Are we switching to a half-day cycle? I just want to know so I can keep my list updated.

Oh, there's enough ANGER to cover multiple subjects.  You should know that.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?

2007 - Sotomayor and colleagues rule contra to Kelo.
2008 - Overturned on appeal at SCOTUS.
2009 - TJ complains that Sotomayor doesn't follow judicial precedent.

If So Soto, a moderate compared to who could have been nominated, causes this much angst, I can't wait for the howls when Obama nominates replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens.  And, if re-elected, possibly even Scalia or Kennedy.

[Brownie]

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?

2007 - Sotomayor and colleagues rule contra to Kelo.
2008 - Overturned on appeal at SCOTUS.
2009 - TJ complains that Sotomayor doesn't follow judicial precedent.

If So Soto, a moderate compared to who could have been nominated, causes this much angst, I can't wait for the howls when Obama nominates replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens.  And, if re-elected, possibly even Scalia or Kennedy.

I want to know more about here. That's all. And I do not like Kelo, and I do not like Didden. Maybe her hands were tied, but the case was a bit different from Kelo.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Sotomayor. If she doesn't sail through, I'll be shocked. I just want there to be some due diligence.

But sure, who gives a fuck about the next Supreme Court Justice? I have no concerns at all.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I'm not necessarily opposed to Sotomayor. If she doesn't sail through, I'll be shocked. I just want there to be some due diligence.

This.

[Philberto]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

[morpheus]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.