Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From her mouth: Youtube - "Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made"
Just the fact that she is stupid enough to publicly admit the role of activism in the courts should be enough to disqualify her... She publicly admits what liberals don't want to talk about, as it's one of their "legislative weapons" around that pesky constitution.
You are not well-enough informed to comment on this. If you actually see it in context, you would know that she was talking about how our court system works. Individual courts make rulings based on law. Sometimes those rulings differ from court to court. That's why appellate and supreme courts have to take appeals. They "set policy" by the appeals that they take in order to resolve conflicting rulings.
That's what she's talking about. but if you want to have a club to attack a nominee, and you don't particularly care if you look like a moron doing it, you will through this out-of-context quote around as if you knew what you were talking about.
So what kind of person are you? One interested in the facts, or one that just wants a club to bash her with?
Sotomayor has stated that the Courts are where policy is made.
I want her nomination to fail. If she is confirmed, I want her rulings along those lines, to fail by being outvoted by the justices who know that it's Congress's job to make policy, not the Courts'.
So, yes, I want her to fail, too. How could I not?
Limbaugh is right, as usual. And the screamers who mindlessly oppose him, are wrong, again as usual.
...but I especially can't stand progressives who think that the SC should change law and not interpret it.
This is such a totally meaningless statement. Do you even think very much when you write it?
How much "interpretation" equals "change?" Can you find an example (besides Bush v Gore) where the SC changed laws - besides ruling that they are unconstitutional, which is their job?
yep, but notice for the last 8 years all they could say was how patriotic they were for dissenting. They are nothing but hypocritical whores and nothing more.
There's intelligent dissent (like opposing wars of choice based on made-up intelligence) and there's moronic dissent (like "birthers" and opposing Sonia Sotomayor for stupid and false reasons).
Learn the difference, because it will help you in life.
so using the n-word or other racial slurs is no longer considered racist?
Not necessarily. When blacks use it, it generally is not racist. Why is that so hard to understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
