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.
The comment Justice Sotomayor made about working with Justice Scalia is widely reported. It's humor and meant to convey she and Scalia disagreed, often vigorously.
The only reason I am posting this is to underscore the difference between conservatives and liberals/progressives, when it comes to, really listening and understanding what public figures say and what they mean. We conservatives can see her humor directed at how difficult it can be to work with someone who is 180 degrees opposite you in philosophy, maybe even demeanor.
In this case Scalia was/is a well known textualist - the job of the Court is to interpret the constitution's language as written by the founders, to apply that to matters of constitutionality. Is it upheld within the Constitution, or not.
Sotomayor is one of the, the Constitution is a living document and should be interpreted in light of current events, views, societal mores, etc, justices.
That is a quick paraphrasing of the continuing battle over the Court's role. Polar opposites, in any case, even if my paraphrasing is incomplete.
Here's the point. If a conservative candidate had used the baseball bat analogy, how would this be 'reported', tweeted and so forth? We all know, don't we? "Conservative X says he wanted to kill Y with a baseball bat!"
Twitter, Reddit and so on are a perfect fit to the 'now' imperative. But, is it really healthy for society?
Quote:
Sotomayor on Scalia: 'If I Had a Baseball Bat, I Might Have Used It'
Justices are held to a differ standard than, say, presidential candidates because they work so closely together. An argument between Scalia and Sotomayor would basically be one between siblings; no matter how badly they disagree, they still highly respect each other's right to be a part of the Court.
Except in the case of Clarence Thomas, who knows if he's even awake most of the time
Justices are held to a differ standard than, say, presidential candidates because they work so closely together. An argument between Scalia and Sotomayor would basically be one between siblings; no matter how badly they disagree, they still highly respect each other's right to be a part of the Court.
Except in the case of Clarence Thomas, who knows if he's even awake most of the time
Are you insinuating blacks are lazy and sleep all day?
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.
