|
|
Register | Netphoria's Amazon.com Link | Members List |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-26-2009, 05:18 PM | #1 |
Netphoria's George Will
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,109
|
So that Supreme Court nominee thinks
the Supreme Court justices should serve as policy makers.
She should be immediately blocked from the nomination process for such beliefs. |
|
05-26-2009, 05:51 PM | #2 |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
I haven't seen anything that suggested this. All of the news results have simply praised her and Obama's brilliance in picking her, except for the Huffington post which said that the GOP can't afford to stand against her because they'll be portrayed as racist.
|
|
05-26-2009, 06:18 PM | #3 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
|
|
05-26-2009, 06:22 PM | #4 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
|
|
05-26-2009, 06:27 PM | #5 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
she's just stating the defacto state of affairs, she then in the very next breath, explicitly says she is not advocating nor endorsing legislating from the bench. it's just the way it is: trial courts try the cases before them, appeal courts by their nature (since they are above the trial courts) are setting a policy (not law, but policy) by setting precedents that governs the courts below them.
why don't you get some better news sources, sppunk? Last edited by Debaser : 05-26-2009 at 10:29 PM. |
|
05-26-2009, 06:29 PM | #6 |
Pledge
Posts: 185
|
I bet she is member of la raza. Its ok to have a member of racist organization in position of power...talk about double standards...
|
|
05-26-2009, 07:30 PM | #7 | |
Netphoria's George Will
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,109
|
Quote:
|
|
|
05-26-2009, 07:42 PM | #8 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
is this about legislating from the bench again
|
|
05-26-2009, 07:59 PM | #9 |
Netphoria's George Will
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,109
|
I'm sure she's a fine candidate. I just get queasy when judges who have the view of courts as policy makers are put in such powerful positions.
Debaser, I haven't really read much of anything on this chick yet - I'll do that when the judges here in PA put out their prospectus on her in a few days. I kinda actually made this thread just because no one was discussing our new SCOTUS justice yet. |
|
05-26-2009, 08:50 PM | #10 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
scotus
prospectus wtf |
|
05-26-2009, 09:27 PM | #11 |
Immortal
Posts: 25,684
|
ahh you just trying to start shit sp
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:22 PM | #12 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:23 PM | #13 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
I rule from my balls.
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:26 PM | #14 |
Apocalyptic Poster
Location: down in an alley, having had enough of it all
Posts: 2,619
|
well this is the south and all i hear is people whining about her being a mexican.
and sence when is it normal to disrupt tv to say there has been a new appointment ot the sc?
__________________
sunshine is days away i won't be saved i know all the words |
|
05-26-2009, 10:26 PM | #15 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
source? if your statement is based on the same source as the youtube clip above (which is what all the popular rightwinger sites are basing it on), then you are experiencing a failure in comprehension. or letting yourself be misled.
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:27 PM | #16 | |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
Quote:
actually she was born in the bronx so she's fucking american god damn |
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:27 PM | #17 |
Apocalyptic Poster
Location: down in an alley, having had enough of it all
Posts: 2,619
|
and from the looks of her you dont have to worry about her sexually harrasing anyone
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:28 PM | #18 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
is that supposed to be an ugly joke?
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:29 PM | #19 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
aren't ugly people most likely to sexually harass
|
|
05-26-2009, 10:33 PM | #20 |
Apocalyptic Poster
Location: down in an alley, having had enough of it all
Posts: 2,619
|
ok she is puerto rican/ american fuck me.
and yeah it was an ugly joke, i'm just saying she is no clarence thomas |
|
05-26-2009, 11:38 PM | #21 | ||
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
05-27-2009, 12:05 AM | #22 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
why
|
|
05-27-2009, 01:30 AM | #23 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
A.L.:
The context is that Sotomayor was explaining the differences between clerking at the District Court level and clerking at the Court of Appeals level. Her point, which is unquestionably true as a descriptive matter, is that judicial decision making at the Court of Appeals level is more about setting policy, whereas judging at the District Court level is a more about deciding individual cases and disputes. And the reason for this is obvious. Decisions at the Court of Appeals level don't just determine the fates of individual litigants; they serve as controlling precedent for all District Court judges within that circuit. Thus any decision by a Court of Appeals becomes the policy of that circuit, at least until it's overruled by the Supreme Court (which is rare). There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Cases get appealed to the Circuit Court level for one reason: because the answer to the question being litigated is not clear. When the law is clear, no one bothers to appeal (because it's really expensive). A Court of Appeals grapples with the difficult questions, the gray areas in the law, and ultimately issues rulings one way or the other. These rulings then become the policy of that particular circuit, serving as controlling precedent in future cases. This is just as true in the ultra-conservative Fourth Circuit as it is the more liberal Ninth Circuit. But in Simplistic Republican World, none of this actually happens. Good conservative judges don't "make policy," they simply enforce the law. The law is apparently always clear. Indeed it's a wonder that lawyers even bother to appeal cases in the Fourth Circuit. After all, they should know that the conservative jurists in that circuit will simply "enforce the law" (because they wouldn't dream of "making policy"), so the outcome should be very predictable. Undoubtedly conservatives will point to Sotomayor's reaction to her own words as evidence that she was letting slip some secret about how liberal judges actually operate. But the obvious truth is that she was merely anticipating that some clown like Orrin Hatch might someday twist her worlds to mean something they don't. She was talking about how all judges operate at the Court of Appeals level. If you're not thinking about the policy implications (i.e., the precedential effect) of your rulings, you're not doing your job. |
|
05-27-2009, 02:28 AM | #24 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: kicksville
Posts: 7,031
|
Quote:
it sounds to me like policy making is inherent in its function. |
|
|
05-27-2009, 03:51 AM | #25 |
Banned
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
|
this is gonna be another really dumb argument with Corganist about what the supreme court is supposed to be
don't you already know what he's gonna say, it's basically the "simplistic republican land" explanation that debaser already quoted and I maintain that judges are "legislating from the bench" when they forward a leftist agenda and "ruling on the basis of law" when they forward a rightist agenda. It's completely political and totally asinine. the people who rail on about this are always conservatives, it's just another method of winning the words game with a political buzz-phrase that sounds really bad but doesn't mean a fucking thing. |
|
05-27-2009, 09:00 AM | #26 | |||
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
05-27-2009, 09:06 AM | #27 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
05-27-2009, 09:10 AM | #28 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
Come on. Just because you don't understand the difference between "legislating from the bench" and "ruling on the basis of law" doesn't mean that the terms are without meaning. |
|
|
05-27-2009, 11:42 AM | #29 | |||
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your entire response so far seems to be one huge strawman, arguing against a line of thinking that nobody advocates. |
|||
|
05-27-2009, 11:57 AM | #30 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: kicksville
Posts: 7,031
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Judicial elections, campaign contributions, and recusal | BlueStar | General Chat Archive | 8 | 05-22-2017 06:20 PM |
Monthly dean_r_koontz appreciation / positive comments thread | Warsaw | General Chat Archive | 10 | 12-06-2007 07:32 AM |
Judges for sale - what happened to fair and impartial? | BlueStar | General Chat Archive | 3 | 12-14-2006 11:40 AM |
U.S. Supreme Court hears racial integration cases today | BlueStar | General Chat Archive | 68 | 12-06-2006 01:01 AM |
The next Supreme Court vacancy and the new Senate | BlueStar | General Chat Archive | 16 | 11-15-2006 09:58 PM |