PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Finalists


Davian93
01-31-2017, 12:44 PM
Apparently, its down to Neil Gorsuch (A Scalia clone) and Thomas Hardiman (right wing but slightly less crazy and a gun nut).

Hardiman would be the only non-Ivy league guy on the court if he was picked.

Rumor is that Gorsuch is the favorite of course.

I'd imagine that Trump has brought them both into the Oval Office and dropped a broken pool cue on the ground to let them "try out" for the position though.

Oh, I forgot to add that Gorsuch will be a near-certain filibuster by the Senate Dems if that's the route Trump goes.

Kimon
01-31-2017, 03:50 PM
Apparently, its down to Neil Gorsuch (A Scalia clone) and Thomas Hardiman (right wing but slightly less crazy and a gun nut).

Hardiman would be the only non-Ivy league guy on the court if he was picked.

Rumor is that Gorsuch is the favorite of course.

I'd imagine that Trump has brought them both into the Oval Office and dropped a broken pool cue on the ground to let them "try out" for the position though.

Oh, I forgot to add that Gorsuch will be a near-certain filibuster by the Senate Dems if that's the route Trump goes.

At this point, unless Trump picks someone who flat out declares that he is pro-choice and will defend Roe (which clearly neither of these guys are - it's less blatantly obvious with Hardiman, but he's a catholic who went to Notre Dame and Georgetown), this is going to be filibustered. That was inevitable as a matter of principle because of what happened to Merrick Garland.

fionwe1987
01-31-2017, 04:53 PM
At this point, unless Trump picks someone who flat out declares that he is pro-choice and will defend Roe (which clearly neither of these guys are - it's less blatantly obvious with Hardiman, but he's a catholic who went to Notre Dame and Georgetown), this is going to be filibustered. That was inevitable as a matter of principle because of what happened to Merrick Garland.
The only question is, does McConnel react by taking away the filibuster for the Supreme Court confirmation process as well...

Kimon
01-31-2017, 06:00 PM
The only question is, does McConnel react by taking away the filibuster for the Supreme Court confirmation process as well...

Yup. Collegiality is dead. We are looking very much like two countries that hate each other. This is ugly now, but it will be far far more so if he ever gets a chance to replace Ginsburg.

Southpaw2012
01-31-2017, 06:55 PM
There will be a nuclear option if Dems filibuster. Announcement comes in 6 minutes, and we are 7 minutes away from Dems accusing him of being a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe, etc. etc. Basically the only attacks Dems know how to make nowadays.

Kimon
01-31-2017, 07:00 PM
There will be a nuclear option if Dems filibuster. Announcement comes in 6 minutes, and we are 7 minutes away from Dems accusing him of being a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe, etc. etc. Basically the only attacks Dems know how to make nowadays.

That is hyperbolic. This is quite simple. It is about abortion, and guns, and Citizens United. But especially abortion.

Well, that was hardly a surprise - Gorsuch.

fionwe1987
01-31-2017, 07:05 PM
There will be a nuclear option if Dems filibuster. Announcement comes in 6 minutes, and we are 7 minutes away from Dems accusing him of being a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe, etc. etc. Basically the only attacks Dems know how to make nowadays.

Maybe there's a reason for that....

And yeah. Expect a crazy and entrenched fight here given it is Gorsuch. The Republican's did themselves no favors with the Garland blockade. The Dems now have ample fallback and justification for obstructing him.

Southpaw2012
01-31-2017, 07:18 PM
Maybe there's a reason for that....

And yeah. Expect a crazy and entrenched fight here given it is Gorsuch. The Republican's did themselves no favors with the Garland blockade. The Dems now have ample fallback and justification for obstructing him.

Garland blockade? I think a more proper phrase would be, the Senate used its constitutional power to refuse to take up a vote. It was appropriate, especially in an election year. It would be Justice Garland if Killary became president.

As to my above comment, it didn't take long for the quacks to come out.

https://thinkprogress.org/who-is-neil-gorsuch-17c49a21a17f#.toykryqta

Kimon
01-31-2017, 07:26 PM
Garland blockade? I think a more proper phrase would be, the Senate used its constitutional power to refuse to take up a vote. It was appropriate, especially in an election year. It would be Justice Garland if Killary became president.

As to my above comment, it didn't take long for the quacks to come out.

https://thinkprogress.org/who-is-neil-gorsuch-17c49a21a17f#.toykryqta

You cannot hope to be taken seriously when in the same post you refer to Hillary as Killary, and then try to refer to the other side as quacks.

Scalia died while Obama was president. There was plenty of time to confirm Garland. Their refusal to do so left only two possibilities. Hillary would win and then Garland would be re-nominated, and then the Republicans would filibuster him. Or, Trump would win, and then whomever he would nominate would be filibustered.

Southpaw2012
01-31-2017, 07:54 PM
Scalia died in February 2016. The election was in November 2016. As I said, he died in an election year. There was no reason for the Senate to take up a vote with an election coming up. If the sides were flipped, you can bet your ass the Dems would have done the same thing. Constitutionally, they would have been allowed to do so.

Chuck Schumer has already responded to the pick and, unsurprisingly, has lashed out with the same rhetoric that is common to him. However, the best comment he made was that Judge Gorsuch is ideologically driven. I haven't read many opinions written by Gorsuch, but to call him ideologically driven while remaining silent to Justice Sotomayor, who is one of the most unqualified, and worst justices in modern memory, is unbelievably pathetic.

Davian93
01-31-2017, 08:19 PM
Scalia died in February 2016. The election was in November 2016. As I said, he died in an election year. There was no reason for the Senate to take up a vote with an election coming up. If the sides were flipped, you can bet your ass the Dems would have done the same thing. Constitutionally, they would have been allowed to do so.

Chuck Schumer has already responded to the pick and, unsurprisingly, has lashed out with the same rhetoric that is common to him. However, the best comment he made was that Judge Gorsuch is ideologically driven. I haven't read many opinions written by Gorsuch, but to call him ideologically driven while remaining silent to Justice Sotomayor, who is one of the most unqualified, and worst justices in modern memory, is unbelievably pathetic.

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. "No sense to take up a vote with an election coming up".

I agree though...and since Trump has already filed his candidacy for 2020 (yes, he did...in controvention of all political norms), he is officially running for reelection. As such, we should wait until after the 2020 election and let the people decide on this SCOTUS appointment. Its only fair.

Kimon
01-31-2017, 08:20 PM
Scalia died in February 2016. The election was in November 2016. As I said, he died in an election year. There was no reason for the Senate to take up a vote with an election coming up. If the sides were flipped, you can bet your ass the Dems would have done the same thing. Constitutionally, they would have been allowed to do so.


I disagree, and for a very simple reason. Republican tactic here was unsound. They should have held the hearings, held a vote, and then voted against him. Then a new candidate could have been raised, and they could do the same. But at least then the precedent would have been sound. It would have been if you can't get 60 votes, you can't get your guy through. Instead they refused to even allow a vote. Their decision has forced reciprocity. Every dem will vote against him. The republicans made this a battle about politics, where the qualifications of the nominee are meaningless.

Chuck Schumer has already responded to the pick and, unsurprisingly, has lashed out with the same rhetoric that is common to him. However, the best comment he made was that Judge Gorsuch is ideologically driven. I haven't read many opinions written by Gorsuch, but to call him ideologically driven while remaining silent to Justice Sotomayor, who is one of the most unqualified, and worst justices in modern memory, is unbelievably pathetic.

Hobby Lobby

fionwe1987
02-01-2017, 12:05 AM
Garland blockade? I think a more proper phrase would be, the Senate used its constitutional power to refuse to take up a vote. It was appropriate, especially in an election year. It would be Justice Garland if Killary became president.
I'm not sure what Constitutional provision says "the Senate can refuse to do its job in an election year".

As to my above comment, it didn't take long for the quacks to come out.
As Kimon says, Killary and quack cannot come from the same mouth without the strong reek of hypocrisy.

Scalia died in February 2016. The election was in November 2016. As I said, he died in an election year. There was no reason for the Senate to take up a vote with an election coming up. If the sides were flipped, you can bet your ass the Dems would have done the same thing. Constitutionally, they would have been allowed to do so.
No, I think the Dems would have met the guy and then voted him out if he was flagrantly unfit. The Republicans, of course, could summon up absolutely nong against Garland except that he wasn't for overturning Roe, so they decided to flagrantly violate the spirit of the law and make ridiculous excuses about election years. They richly deserve the filibuster pie that will be fed to them now.

Chuck Schumer has already responded to the pick and, unsurprisingly, has lashed out with the same rhetoric that is common to him. However, the best comment he made was that Judge Gorsuch is ideologically driven. I haven't read many opinions written by Gorsuch, but to call him ideologically driven while remaining silent to Justice Sotomayor, who is one of the most unqualified, and worst justices in modern memory, is unbelievably pathetic.
Funny, I was just reading a somewhat pro-Gorsuch piece in which he was all praises for Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor...

Sotomayor stands as perhaps the most inspired choice Obama ever made. She brings a kind of understanding to the Supreme Court that it has just completely lacked before.

Southpaw2012
02-02-2017, 05:07 PM
I'm not sure what Constitutional provision says "the Senate can refuse to do its job in an election year".


As Kimon says, Killary and quack cannot come from the same mouth without the strong reek of hypocrisy.


No, I think the Dems would have met the guy and then voted him out if he was flagrantly unfit. The Republicans, of course, could summon up absolutely nong against Garland except that he wasn't for overturning Roe, so they decided to flagrantly violate the spirit of the law and make ridiculous excuses about election years. They richly deserve the filibuster pie that will be fed to them now.


Funny, I was just reading a somewhat pro-Gorsuch piece in which he was all praises for Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor...

Sotomayor stands as perhaps the most inspired choice Obama ever made. She brings a kind of understanding to the Supreme Court that it has just completely lacked before.


Sotomayor was the first female hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court. That is one of, if not the biggest reasons Obama chose her. And she has been absolutely awful since then.

Where did you read that Gorsuch was pro-Sotomayor and pro-Kagan? I'm sure he's respectful towards them, as he seems to go out of his way in a few of his opinions to note that those on the opposing side have great points to make. To be honest, I don't think Kagan is that bad of a justice. I disagree with her on just about everything, and it's an abomination that she didn't recuse herself in the NFIB case, but she is a fantastic writer and I respect her. Sotomayor is just bad.

Kimon
02-02-2017, 06:26 PM
Sotomayor was the first female hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court. That is one of, if not the biggest reasons Obama chose her. And she has been absolutely awful since then.

Where did you read that Gorsuch was pro-Sotomayor and pro-Kagan? I'm sure he's respectful towards them, as he seems to go out of his way in a few of his opinions to note that those on the opposing side have great points to make. To be honest, I don't think Kagan is that bad of a justice. I disagree with her on just about everything, and it's an abomination that she didn't recuse herself in the NFIB case, but she is a fantastic writer and I respect her. Sotomayor is just bad.

Can you point to any substantive reason for this animosity, because as is, your hostility, based on the above, seems focused simply on the fact that she is Hispanic. Even if you think that she has benefited from Affirmative Action, she is clearly a good example of why Affirmative Action existed. She excelled at Princeton, graduating summa cum laude, and then again at Yale for her JD, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal. You may well have an issue with her philosophically in terms of how she has ruled occasionally from the bench, but she isn't even particularly liberal. She, for instance, upheld Bush's Pro Life Mexico City Policy while on the Appeals Court.

Obama picked two justices that he thought there would be little legitimate reason for rejection, either in terms of resume, or due to their rulings. And he was right, which is why there were republicans who voted for each. Not many, but some. A decade prior, and both would have been nearly unanimous confirmations. Scalia for instance was confirmed 98-0 by a dem controlled Senate, Ginsburg (96-3) and Kennedy (97-0) confirmed by similar numbers. This used to only be an issue when the nominee was corrupt - like Bork and Thomas. Everyone else, regardless of party went through all but, or entirely, without issue. You could argue that the dem opposition to Alito is the source of some of this poison (many on the right also point to Bork and Thomas obviously, but they both had grave ethical questions surrounding their nominations), but the cause of that opposition was obvious, as it was clear that he was intent on overturning Roe. If Roe was not already decided law, that stance could have been viewed as more legitimate, but it is decided law. Any overturning of Roe thus strikes us both as a clear violation of privacy, and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Both she and Kagan could be presumed to be defenders of Roe, but then Roe is the law of the land, and long enough standing that is should be protected by stare decisis. Gosuch on the other hand has two obvious problems. Not resume obviously, that is sterling. And he seems like a decent guy. Had the republicans confirmed Garland last year, and then Kennedy retired (or had Ginsburg died), there would be less cause to deny Gosuch. But he still has one massive decision based problem - Hobby Lobby is a clear indicator that he would overturn Roe. The other, and inescapable problem is that none of us of the left view this nomination as legitimate as we all view it as stolen from Obama and Garland. This nomination is treated as illegitimate as a direct consequence of that theft. Likewise, that decision to block Garland will necessitate the death of the filibuster, and also the end to any bipartisanship in judicial confirmations.

fionwe1987
02-03-2017, 12:08 PM
The other, and inescapable problem is that none of us of the left view this nomination as legitimate as we all view it as stolen from Obama and Garland. This nomination is treated as illegitimate as a direct consequence of that theft. Likewise, that decision to block Garland will necessitate the death of the filibuster, and also the end to any bipartisanship in judicial confirmations.

Precisely. I was actually partial to the argument that since Obama had submitted his nomination of Garland to the Senate, and Garland had offered himself for both meetings and a confirmation hearing, and the Senate did absolutely nothing officially, Obama could take that as tacit consent and Garland could just show up to work. If I remember the reading of the "advice and consent" requirements, nothing actually says there needs to be a vote, and since the absence of the vote was a Republican decision, Obama could simply have claimed they were so impressed by Garland that their decision to officially do nothing was a mark of their approval.

Frankly, if Obama had seen what was coming, I think he'd have done it. As it is, this ploy by McConnell was a huge boost to Trump's chances in the election, and stands as a vile yet clever political move that succeeded. I don't think the Dems have any obligation to reward such behavior.

Southpaw2012
03-07-2017, 05:00 PM
Can you point to any substantive reason for this animosity, because as is, your hostility, based on the above, seems focused simply on the fact that she is Hispanic. Even if you think that she has benefited from Affirmative Action, she is clearly a good example of why Affirmative Action existed. She excelled at Princeton, graduating summa cum laude, and then again at Yale for her JD, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal. You may well have an issue with her philosophically in terms of how she has ruled occasionally from the bench, but she isn't even particularly liberal. She, for instance, upheld Bush's Pro Life Mexico City Policy while on the Appeals Court.

Obama picked two justices that he thought there would be little legitimate reason for rejection, either in terms of resume, or due to their rulings. And he was right, which is why there were republicans who voted for each. Not many, but some. A decade prior, and both would have been nearly unanimous confirmations. Scalia for instance was confirmed 98-0 by a dem controlled Senate, Ginsburg (96-3) and Kennedy (97-0) confirmed by similar numbers. This used to only be an issue when the nominee was corrupt - like Bork and Thomas. Everyone else, regardless of party went through all but, or entirely, without issue. You could argue that the dem opposition to Alito is the source of some of this poison (many on the right also point to Bork and Thomas obviously, but they both had grave ethical questions surrounding their nominations), but the cause of that opposition was obvious, as it was clear that he was intent on overturning Roe. If Roe was not already decided law, that stance could have been viewed as more legitimate, but it is decided law. Any overturning of Roe thus strikes us both as a clear violation of privacy, and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Both she and Kagan could be presumed to be defenders of Roe, but then Roe is the law of the land, and long enough standing that is should be protected by stare decisis. Gosuch on the other hand has two obvious problems. Not resume obviously, that is sterling. And he seems like a decent guy. Had the republicans confirmed Garland last year, and then Kennedy retired (or had Ginsburg died), there would be less cause to deny Gosuch. But he still has one massive decision based problem - Hobby Lobby is a clear indicator that he would overturn Roe. The other, and inescapable problem is that none of us of the left view this nomination as legitimate as we all view it as stolen from Obama and Garland. This nomination is treated as illegitimate as a direct consequence of that theft. Likewise, that decision to block Garland will necessitate the death of the filibuster, and also the end to any bipartisanship in judicial confirmations.

1. No justice is "bound" by stare decisis, so to say it's "settled" law is false.

2. The argument that Garland's seat was "stolen" is laughable. I'm sure he's a great guy, and clearly intelligent, but he's not the heir to a throne that was suddenly toppled. There was no constitutional duty for the Senate to hold a vote at that time, and it would have been ludicrous for the Republicans to have done so a few months before a national election.

3. No, I don't disagree with Sotomayor due to her ethnicity (that sort of attack doesn't work on me, and Democrats would be wise to learn that it's having a negative impact on their party). I mean, there's a good reason she was reversed 60% of the time while on the circuit court.

Kimon
03-07-2017, 05:16 PM
1. No justice is "bound" by stare decisis, so to say it's "settled" law is false.


Yes and no. Precedence matters, but when a law is unjust, even if settled (like say slavery, or Citizens United), it should be overturned. You would clearly put Roe in that same category. You clearly are not alone in that assessment. Nonetheless, those of us who are Pro Choice believe quite strongly on this issue also, and believe that Roe needs to be defended both for the sake of defending choice, defending privacy, and defending the separation of Church and State (since we see that attack on it as the imposition of particular religious believes on the rest of us), and, moreover, that it is in the best interests of the nation, as forcing mostly unwed and poor women to have unwanted pregnancies against their will only further strains welfare programs, and increases crime (due to more children born into poverty).

If Pro Life voters would at least agree to the pragmatic approach that most of us who are Pro Choice want (since we also want to lessen the need for, just not outlaw, abortions), and increase access to birth control, and contraceptives, there would be far more room for compromise.

2. The argument that Garland's seat was "stolen" is laughable. I'm sure he's a great guy, and clearly intelligent, but he's not the heir to a throne that was suddenly toppled. There was no constitutional duty for the Senate to hold a vote at that time, and it would have been ludicrous for the Republicans to have done so a few months before a national election.

Yes it was. Obama was president, and there was a year left in his term. What the republicans did was no different than if a republican president, like say Trump right now, tried to get through a nominee in the first month of his presidency, but if he had instead a dem Senate, rather than a republican, and was told to pound sand.

That is what happened. The time was immaterial. It was that the republicans controlled the senate, and as with everything else in Congress, had decided that they were going to block everything that he tried to do. The timing did not matter.

3. No, I don't disagree with Sotomayor due to her ethnicity (that sort of attack doesn't work on me, and Democrats would be wise to learn that it's having a negative impact on their party). I mean, there's a good reason she was reversed over 60% of the time while on the circuit court.

Then provide examples.

Davian93
03-07-2017, 09:04 PM
Hey Southpaw, you fucking moronic troll:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/28/the-myth-of-sotomayors-60-percent-supreme-court-reversal-rate

Now go get your fucking shinebox.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/sotomayor-overturned/

Quote: Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That’s a reversal rate of 1.3 percent. 3 reverses out of 232 decisions made. Of 232 decisions, only 5 ever made it to SCOTUS to review...thus you get 60% of her cases reviewed by SCOTUS. Ignoring the 227 cases that never made it there because there was no logical appeal or SCOTUS refused to even look at it as it was established law.

So once again, stop quoting bullshit fake news. How the fuck will you ever be an attorney if you can't do legitimate research? I mean, that's kinda a big part of the profession. You do realize that, right?

Or...you do know and you're just a fucking pathetic loser troll.


BTW, for those not aware, that 60% figure was made popular by the great Rush Limbaugh...I'm guessing when he wasn't on one of his Oxy fueled underage boy sex trips to the Dominican. Or maybe it was...i'm not 100% sure where he broadcasts from these days.

GonzoTheGreat
03-08-2017, 03:40 AM
3. No, I don't disagree with Sotomayor due to her ethnicity (that sort of attack doesn't work on me, and Democrats would be wise to learn that it's having a negative impact on their party). I mean, there's a good reason she was reversed over 60% of the time while on the circuit court.
On top of what Davian said, I would want to see your evidence for the "over 60%". If, as Davian says, the figure is based on 5 cases which SCOTUS decided to actually rule upon, then it was exactly 60%, not over that. If one takes into account the very many cases that SCOTUS decided not to rule upon, then it would have been under 60%. At least, that's how it works with real (ie. left wing) mathematics.

Can you show us how you got the "over 60%" figure, or did you just lie about that?

Southpaw2012
03-08-2017, 11:41 AM
Hey Southpaw, you fucking moronic troll:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/28/the-myth-of-sotomayors-60-percent-supreme-court-reversal-rate

Now go get your fucking shinebox.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/sotomayor-overturned/

Quote: Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. Thatís a reversal rate of 1.3 percent. 3 reverses out of 232 decisions made. Of 232 decisions, only 5 ever made it to SCOTUS to review...thus you get 60% of her cases reviewed by SCOTUS. Ignoring the 227 cases that never made it there because there was no logical appeal or SCOTUS refused to even look at it as it was established law.

So once again, stop quoting bullshit fake news. How the fuck will you ever be an attorney if you can't do legitimate research? I mean, that's kinda a big part of the profession. You do realize that, right?

Or...you do know and you're just a fucking pathetic loser troll.


BTW, for those not aware, that 60% figure was made popular by the great Rush Limbaugh...I'm guessing when he wasn't on one of his Oxy fueled underage boy sex trips to the Dominican. Or maybe it was...i'm not 100% sure where he broadcasts from these days.

lol you mean the information I got from Washington Post? I agree, not a very prominent site, but I am very well aware of the amount of cases she authored that were reversed (the article states exactly what you just listed). I don't just post shit to post, contrary to what the 99% liberal populace on this site claim. It's a true number, and she was wrong in many many other cases that were beyond egregious. The amount of cases actually reversed doesn't change the fact that she's an awful jurist, as is Ginsburg, as was Souter, and as many other justices in the past have been. I was using an example of the times her authored opinions actually went up and were reversed. Want me to research the amount of times she's been wrong on the law? That she's sided with the government to further federal overreach? Let me get back to you after the Bar in a few months, when I may actually have a bit more time (but likely not), and I'll answer.

Davian93
03-08-2017, 11:58 AM
lol you mean the information I got from Washington Post? I agree, not a very prominent site, but I am very well aware of the amount of cases she authored that were reversed (the article states exactly what you just listed). I don't just post shit to post, contrary to what the 99% liberal populace on this site claim. It's a true number, and she was wrong in many many other cases that were beyond egregious. The amount of cases actually reversed doesn't change the fact that she's an awful jurist, as is Ginsburg, as was Souter, and as many other justices in the past have been. I was using an example of the times her authored opinions actually went up and were reversed. Want me to research the amount of times she's been wrong on the law? That she's sided with the government to further federal overreach? Let me get back to you after the Bar in a few months, when I may actually have a bit more time (but likely not), and I'll answer.

By Post, you mean Times, the right wing rag I use to clean up my dog's excrement with.

Or you simply don't know how to read.

Also, 3 overturns out of 232 cases is hardly high...nor is 3 of 5 reviewed (also well below the SCOTUS average overturn rate). But then, you would already know that.

Southpaw2012
03-08-2017, 09:17 PM
By Post, you mean Times, the right wing rag I use to clean up my dog's excrement with.

Or you simply don't know how to read.

Also, 3 overturns out of 232 cases is hardly high...nor is 3 of 5 reviewed (also well below the SCOTUS average overturn rate). But then, you would already know that.


Was it 60% or not? All I said was she was overturned 60% of the time. I don't like her judicial philosophy, period.

And I frankly don't give a damn whether it was the Washington Times, Post, New York Times, etc. etc. They are all shit, though I'm guessing you'd disagree as the media is quite experienced with skewing it's information in a false direction that would appeal to people like you. In other words, another of many reasons we have the Trump phenomenon. If the media reported news, and not opinionated bs they try to cloak behind what they call "facts," the face of this country would look much different.

This anger and annoyance coming from you is quite typical nowadays. Triggered? Going to be burn shit and destroy the businesses you don't own? Not one thing I posted was false, other than misstating Washington Times as the Post. Apparently a little reading comprehension would go along way for you, as you seem to dwell on my point of the percentage of how much she was overturned.

Davian93
03-08-2017, 09:35 PM
Was it 60% or not? All I said was she was overturned 60% of the time. I don't like her judicial philosophy, period.

And I frankly don't give a damn whether it was the Washington Times, Post, New York Times, etc. etc. They are all shit, though I'm guessing you'd disagree as the media is quite experienced with skewing it's information in a false direction that would appeal to people like you. In other words, another of many reasons we have the Trump phenomenon. If the media reported news, and not opinionated bs they try to cloak behind what they call "facts," the face of this country would look much different.

This anger and annoyance coming from you is quite typical nowadays. Triggered? Going to be burn shit and destroy the businesses you don't own? Not one thing I posted was false, other than misstating Washington Times as the Post. Apparently a little reading comprehension would go along way for you, as you seem to dwell on my point of the percentage of how much she was overturned.

Overturning 3 out of 232 cases is not 60% last I checked...but then I wasn't a Maths major so what do I know.

Everything you post is utter bullshit and the worst part is you know it. You're a troll to be blunt. You know damn well just how misleading it is to try and say 60 as if its some big scary number that shows how bad a judge she is...because its completely out of context and meaningles as I've shown and as everyone with half a brain already knew. You knew it too but you pretend to not so you can make your point...whatever that point might be. Its pathetic and disgusting and frankly, I'm sick of it.

The only honest thing you said here was "You don't like her judicial philosophy". Fine, that's fair. Nobody is asking you to like it. But making up BS stats (or in your case parroting BS stats from a fringy discredited source) to try and defend your rationale is just sad.

I didn't like Scalia's viewpoints but I never made up crap to malign him. Same with Alito for that matter. I think their "founders intent" methodology is garbage but that's their right as Justices. Just as its ok for Justices like Sotomayer, Kagan or Stevens (when he was active) to interpret the law from a more activist flexible intent given that our entire system of government was based on the theory that the Founders weren't perfect and it needed to be flexible with the times. Why the Right places all the founders on a pedestal as if they were Gods is beyond me when they were men. Great men in some cases but horribly flawed in many ways despite that.

Ben Franklin: One of the most brilliant men of his generation but also a habitual cheater and terrible father.

Thomas Jefferson: Brilliant legal mind and visionary but also a man that thought it was okay to own other humans as property as much as he tried to claim he was a victim of Southern society who had no choice but to own them.

Alexander Hamilton: Brilliant mind as well who was critically important (more so than many realize) in solidifying our country but who also had very strong dictatorial tendencies that thankfully never got acted upon successfully before he was killed.

etc etc etc.

None of them were these perfect gods that the Right seems to think they were nor should they be worshipped as infallible like Scalia and Alito did and do. I won't even bother with Thomas since he's probably the weakest Justice we've had in 50 years. Like you, he makes a decision and then works backward to try and justify that initial decision.

You don't like Sotomayor so you start reaching for some sort of rationale or logical argument that would justify your hatred of her. And you do what you did in this thread.

Here's a suggestion, overcome your background and upbringing and constant far rightwing talking points and actually try thinking for yourself. For gods sake, do it before its too late and you wake up as a 40 year old and realize you just had your head in the sand for a couple decades.