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.
If you ascribe a direct quote to someone and they never said it, it was a lie. It is particularly wrong to do so in a misleading way. If you accurately summarize the content of someone's statement, then yes, perfectly fine and dandy.
I honestly don't know how some people are capable of getting out of bed and tying their shoes in the morning if they don't understand basics like this.
Bless your heart. All you have here is ad hominem.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 02-24-2020 at 09:25 AM..
You quoted Sotomayor opining that upholding the immigration rule change was "putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration." That was a lie.
Not a lie. Here is what she said:
"Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument. They upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay."
Ergo, her thumb on the scale for the Trump Admin comment, which won the stay, because the public charge restriction on immigration has been a federal law since 1882.
"Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument. They upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay."
Ergo, thumb on the scale for the Trump Admin, which won the stay.
She is discussing stay applications in general at that point, not this particular case.
If SJWs didn't want restrictions on public charge immigrants, they should have changed federal immigration law in place since 1882 to reflect their wishes. They did not. So there you go.
The justices are permitted to agree or disagree with their colleagues. Expressing concern does not equate to whining.
Why are you so bothered?
Her central thesis is that the other justices are disagreeing with her are being partisan hacks that are not weighing the merits of the case. A fairly unprofessional claim for the court members.
It's the same type of argument I hear around this forum quite frequently, the accusation of bias because someone has an opposing viewpoint.
Since she is a supreme court justice, her statements carry more weight and thus it's not unreasonable to be bothered by her claims while if it were our neighbor "Cindy" complaining about the court we would not care.
As for the use of the word "whining" I agree with you, I guess I'd probably call it unprofessional instead.
She really is a piece of work. And not quite as "wise" of a Latina as she thinks she is.
Funny, she says that the 5 are going out of their way to support the government position in these cases. But does that mean that the 4 leftists are going out of their way to be against the government position in these cases, as they are always in the dissent and would love nothing more to gain a 5th vote to deny the government in each of these cases?
So, yes, she does appear to be whining that she's not getting her way.
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.
