Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   "With the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg."   (townhall.com) divider line 56
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1300 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jul 2009 at 9:09 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-03 12:25:42 AM  
The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning' in refusing to hear Ricci's appeal.

one, not even a liberal Justice.

Along with the fact that this is the 6th the eight of Sotomayor's cases that made it to the USSC to be overturned shows she is unfit for the cout; if it was a male candidate he would have withdrawn his name from nomination by now.

I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.
 
2009-07-03 12:29:29 AM  
Do we have any reasons yet for why the next potential candidate is the 2nd worst choice on earth and is destined to bring about the downfall of America ?

If not, what are we waiting for ?
 
2009-07-03 12:33:38 AM  
mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.
 
2009-07-03 12:35:35 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


oh, snap!
 
2009-07-03 12:36:43 AM  
mfaby: Along with the fact that this is the 6th the eight of Sotomayor's cases that made it to the USSC to be overturned shows she is unfit for the cout;

That's normal. On average the Supreme Court overturns about 75% of the cases they accept. Alito had 100% of his cases that made it before the SCOTUS overturned.

Unlike lower courts, they don't accept all cases, and in general, they only accept a case if they feel they have something important to add to the case. If they think the lower court did a great job, they're very unlikely to even accept the case.
 
2009-07-03 12:43:15 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


Lulz, lulz I say good sir.
 
2009-07-03 12:59:09 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


Sir, I believe you dropped this:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-07-03 08:10:53 AM  
Mordant: Do we have any reasons yet for why the next potential candidate is the 2nd worst choice on earth and is destined to bring about the downfall of America ?

If not, what are we waiting for ?


We libtards want the death stroke to be final this time--no more shilly-shallying around--Freedom has GOT TO GO

!
 
2009-07-03 09:01:08 AM  
OMFG she had a ruling OVERTURNED!!!111!! Wahhh! wahhh!

Funny they don't mention the other judge that was part of the three judge panel that agreed with her. Must just be an oversight.
 
2009-07-03 09:01:10 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


pics.livejournal.com
 
2009-07-03 09:07:02 AM  
That site gave me a popover over a popover.
 
2009-07-03 09:18:03 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


i331.photobucket.com
 
2009-07-03 09:18:59 AM  
mfaby: The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning'


Hard to tell as Sotomayor's basic position was that the lower court had examined the situation and that there was no reason to exercise the same arguments again.


In this case, ironically, she took the conservative position of allowing a municipality to control its own hiring practices.

Whereas, the Conservatives on the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench -- ignoring title XII and basing their decision on empathy for the white fire fighters -- Scalia going so far and to say he can't wait to get rid of civil rights legislation altogether.
 
2009-07-03 09:36:16 AM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


Over and done.
 
2009-07-03 09:45:50 AM  
Is she crazier than Ann Coulter?
 
2009-07-03 09:47:13 AM  
This is hilarious. So many issues get politicized to the point that the lines get blurred some times and people seem to forget their main talking points in favor of shouting LIBRUL! or REPUBTARD!

I thought sotomayor sided with the notion of states rights. Those men had no vested right to a promotion, right? While I agree with the supreme court's final decision, I don't agree that it was their's to make. I thought this kind of legislating from the bench was excactly what conservatives feared most from sotomayor.
 
2009-07-03 09:49:40 AM  
Sotomayor The white female District Court judge who was affirmed by a three-judge panel which included Sotomayor and two white males applied existing precedent to find against Ricci, which existing precedent was replaced by a new standard by a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The foregoing procedural history somehow means that Sotomayor is a crazy anti-white racist.
 
2009-07-03 09:50:47 AM  
Why does anyone give any credibility to anything written by Anne Coulter? She's crazier than Glenn Beck.

And that's saying something.
 
2009-07-03 09:52:08 AM  
If Sotomayor gets shot down, I hope Obama appoints Judge Judy.
 
2009-07-03 09:55:16 AM  
Her legal reasoning was SO flawed that 4 supreme justices ruled in her favor!

/seriously, conservatives have their panties in a wad about a 5-4 ruling against her?
//and it's one out of how many cases again?
 
2009-07-03 09:55:22 AM  
Townhall. For when you're too stupid to be a freeper.
 
2009-07-03 09:57:56 AM  
Subby, next time source the quote so I don't kill brain cells by reading Ann coonting Coulter. I thought it was someone who actually mattered saying that.
 
2009-07-03 10:16:13 AM  
LordPomposity: If Sotomayor gets shot down, I hope Obama appoints Judge Judy.

She won't get shot down - there are too many Democrats (and quite a few Republicans) that would vote in favor of her. Hell, part of the reason why it's dragging out so long is so that they can give the GOP enough rope to hang themselves with. You can be damn sure that the DNC is loving how this issue is reversing all the gains the GOP made with Hispanics over the last decade.
 
2009-07-03 10:16:48 AM  
DarnoKonrad: mfaby: The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning'


Hard to tell as Sotomayor's basic position was that the lower court had examined the situation and that there was no reason to exercise the same arguments again.


In this case, ironically, she took the conservative position of allowing a municipality to control its own hiring practices.

Whereas, the Conservatives on the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench -- ignoring title XII and basing their decision on empathy for the white fire fighters -- Scalia going so far and to say he can't wait to get rid of civil rights legislation altogether.


No offense, but you have one of the dumbest views of what conservatives want a justice to do. Conservatives want the justice to uphold the law, which is what the SC did in this case. They acted on the lettering of Title VII. Conservatives don't mind courts upholding the law. Conservatives do mind adjusting the meaning of laws (see any ruling on "interstate commerce") to change laws.
 
2009-07-03 10:38:15 AM  
While it may be possible for her to be crazier than Ginsburg, it is not probable.

Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS.
 
2009-07-03 10:39:17 AM  
DarnoKonrad: mfaby: The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning'


Hard to tell as Sotomayor's basic position was that the lower court had examined the situation and that there was no reason to exercise the same arguments again.


In this case, ironically, she took the conservative position of allowing a municipality to control its own hiring practices.

Whereas, the Conservatives on the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench -- ignoring title XII and basing their decision on empathy for the white fire fighters -- Scalia going so far and to say he can't wait to get rid of civil rights legislation altogether.


If you're going to pull shiat out of your ass, at least get the law right.

And, as far as ignoring Title VII, the right half of the bench did not. They said that you can't ignore the part of Title VII that prevents disparate treatment, in favor of another part of Title VII that prevents disparate impact.

If you're going to keep posting this bullshiat, at least learn what you're talking about.
 
2009-07-03 10:42:56 AM  
dragonaut: Those men had no vested right to a promotion, right?

Wrong. Once the testing was complete and the results were known, they did.
 
2009-07-03 11:09:37 AM  
MyRandomName: DarnoKonrad: mfaby: The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning'


Hard to tell as Sotomayor's basic position was that the lower court had examined the situation and that there was no reason to exercise the same arguments again.


In this case, ironically, she took the conservative position of allowing a municipality to control its own hiring practices.

Whereas, the Conservatives on the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench -- ignoring title XII and basing their decision on empathy for the white fire fighters -- Scalia going so far and to say he can't wait to get rid of civil rights legislation altogether.

No offense, but you have one of the dumbest views of what conservatives want a justice to do. Conservatives want the justice to uphold the law, which is what the SC did in this case. They acted on the lettering of Title VII. Conservatives don't mind courts upholding the law. Conservatives do mind adjusting the meaning of laws (see any ruling on "interstate commerce") to change laws.


This. And thank you.
 
2009-07-03 11:27:51 AM  
www.strangepolitics.com

The court. It are funny!!1!!11
 
2009-07-03 11:31:37 AM  
MyRandomName: Conservatives do mind adjusting the meaning of laws (see any ruling on "interstate commerce") to change laws.

Yeah, like the California medical marijuana case, where marijuana grown, transported, sold, and consumed purely in California is "interstate commerce" because it affects the marijuana markets in other states?

Face it, the conservatives will legislate from the bench as much as the liberals. For example, Scalia doesn't believe in the doctrine of incorporation at all -- he thinks it's an improper reading of the 14th Amendment, and that the 14th doesn't incorporate any of the Bill of Rights to the states, except the prohibition on deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process (which is explicitly textually mentioned). Yet you can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he'll join in whichever opinion incorporates it to the states, using whatever mental gymnastics he can to justify that.
 
2009-07-03 11:40:39 AM  
Phil Herup: While it may be possible for her to be crazier than Ginsburg, it is not probable.

Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS.


Meh. I'd put her about neck and neck with Scalia for that honor. In my view, they are both mentally disturbed people, and, as Sir Winston once said, "too clever by half".
What I have never gotten is the Thomas bashing. He is a misanthrope and a curmudgeon, and follows his own rather peculiar drummer - but he at least has, and clings to, a consistent legal philosophy, even to the point of supporting medical pot in California on the basis of state's rights (sadly, he was in the minority on that one).
 
2009-07-03 11:45:15 AM  
Sum Dum Gai: MyRandomName: Conservatives do mind adjusting the meaning of laws (see any ruling on "interstate commerce") to change laws.

Yeah, like the California medical marijuana case, where marijuana grown, transported, sold, and consumed purely in California is "interstate commerce" because it affects the marijuana markets in other states?

Face it, the conservatives will legislate from the bench as much as the liberals. For example, Scalia doesn't believe in the doctrine of incorporation at all -- he thinks it's an improper reading of the 14th Amendment, and that the 14th doesn't incorporate any of the Bill of Rights to the states, except the prohibition on deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process (which is explicitly textually mentioned). Yet you can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he'll join in whichever opinion incorporates it to the states, using whatever mental gymnastics he can to justify that.


Alright douchebag...the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the states because it specifically charges the state with the power to keep and maintain militias (National Guard now). So there is no mental gymnastic there. IT is spelled out.
 
2009-07-03 11:57:43 AM  
TDBoedy: Alright douchebag...the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the states because it specifically charges the state with the power to keep and maintain militias (National Guard now). So there is no mental gymnastic there. IT is spelled out.

What you're talking about is the opposite of incorporation. Under that reading of the 2nd Amendment, federal gun bans would be out, but states could regulate however they saw fit.

There's no 2nd Amendment support for incorporation; the 2nd simply prevents the federal government from making any bans. If the court rules on incorporation, it will have to do so on 14th Amendment grounds, that states ALSO have no right to create bans.
 
2009-07-03 12:03:03 PM  
propasaurus: mfaby: I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.

... but enough about Clarence Thomas.


cybernetnews.com
 
2009-07-03 12:06:48 PM  
jso2897: Phil Herup: While it may be possible for her to be crazier than Ginsburg, it is not probable.

Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS.

Meh. I'd put her about neck and neck with Scalia for that honor. In my view, they are both mentally disturbed people, and, as Sir Winston once said, "too clever by half".
What I have never gotten is the Thomas bashing. He is a misanthrope and a curmudgeon, and follows his own rather peculiar drummer - but he at least has, and clings to, a consistent legal philosophy, even to the point of supporting medical pot in California on the basis of state's rights (sadly, he was in the minority on that one).




Thomas does not bother me at all.

What is up with the megalomania so many of these SCOTUS folks get?
 
2009-07-03 12:13:19 PM  
By now it should be obvious that I'm no fan of the gliberals. For not being a fan I'm labeled a conservative and a republican quite often. That's one of the reasons I'm disgusted by the gliberals, they're often wrong and like to jump to erroneous conclusions while being the exact things they claim to hate.

But, to get to my point...

What the fark is that site? I've never been there before. Hell, I even enjoy an occasional trek across the internets to 4chan but that site is even more offensive. I usually don't see ads but they even tried to give me some book. I then read the drivel, I'm not sure what the hell drugs they are on but I want some.

If you haven't read the article then don't. Here's the gist...

Someone said something about blue.
The author thought of the sky.
The author then decided that the Sun was a fish.
Fish breath water.
Water is not jelly.
The SCOTUS judges ride in cars.
Kittens are nice.
Oh look, a butterfly!
Sotomayor sucks.

That sums it up fairly well I think. I'm tempted to block that site at the router.
 
2009-07-03 12:19:13 PM  
Scerpes: ... at least know what you're talking about.

You also have no idea what you're talking about. Did you bother to even read the damn opinion? The court basically said the following: "You can throw away the test results if there's a strong enough chance that you'd be subject to a successful disparate impact suit," and then went on to make an everloving evidentiary determination that such a suit would not have been brought.
 
2009-07-03 12:33:31 PM  
media.salemwebnetwork.com
 
2009-07-03 12:35:01 PM  
mfaby: Along with the fact that this is the 6th the eight of Sotomayor's cases that made it to the USSC to be overturned shows she is unfit for the cout; if it was a male candidate he would have withdrawn his name from nomination by now.

A 75% reversal rate is normal. Compare to Alito, who had a 100% reversal rate and did not withdraw his name from nomination.
 
2009-07-03 12:38:10 PM  
Phil Herup: Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS.

You misspelled "Thomas"
 
2009-07-03 12:42:38 PM  
elchip: Phil Herup: Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS.

You misspelled "Thomas"



tbn0.google.com
 
2009-07-03 12:44:27 PM  
elchip: A 75% reversal rate is normal. Compare to Alito, who had a 100% reversal rate and did not withdraw his name from nomination.

Roberts also had a 100% reversal rate of his judicial opinions, though there was only one case of his that went to the Supreme Court (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), as he had a very short judicial career before his Supreme Court appointment.
 
2009-07-03 12:45:59 PM  
Sum Dum Gai: Roberts also had a 100% reversal rate of his judicial opinions, though there was only one case of his that went to the Supreme Court (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), as he had a very short judicial career before his Supreme Court appointment.

Alito, on the other hand, had a very long career.
 
2009-07-03 01:00:19 PM  
mfaby: Along with the fact that this is the 6th the eight of Sotomayor's cases that made it to the USSC to be overturned shows she is unfit for the cout; if it was a male candidate he would have withdrawn his name from nomination by now.

Thank you. I was wondering who would win the prize for having the least amount of knowledge of how this shiat works. What you did was take your biased, spoonfed 'opinion', find a piece of information you felt looked 'bad', and commenced with the diarrhea of the mouth without even bothering to match your supposedly damning 'evidence' up against similar data for all the other sitting members of the court. Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed now that you've exposed your own ignorance in front of thousands of people?
 
2009-07-03 01:53:38 PM  
Here's a scary thought for all you conservatives out there: When (yes, when, not if) liberal justices once again command a majority in the Supreme Court, you will be the ones whose judicial ideas are "out of synch."
 
2009-07-03 02:01:16 PM  
New Liberal Justice: They ar crazy and going to force post birth abortions on everybody.

New Conservative Justice: OMG they are going to take everyones privacy away.

Everyone STFU GBTW. this is the usual asshattery,.
 
2009-07-03 02:03:18 PM  
JohnBigBootay: Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed now that you've exposed your own ignorance in front of thousands of people?

I think the last decade or so has really hammered the point home that mfaby and his ilk are either incapable of feeling shame or they actually enjoy it.
 
2009-07-03 02:03:18 PM  
Also for the Thomas Bashers.

Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

" This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' "

Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:

" Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.
 
2009-07-03 02:44:20 PM  
mfaby: The truth is that NOT ONE SCJ agreed with Sotomayor's 'reasoning' in refusing to hear Ricci's appeal.

one, not even a liberal Justice.

Along with the fact that this is the 6th the eight of Sotomayor's cases that made it to the USSC to be overturned shows she is unfit for the cout; if it was a male candidate he would have withdrawn his name from nomination by now.

I guess when you appoint people based on their race/gender/politics you don't get the most qualified candidates.


So much stupid packed in to one Weeners off, appellate courts do not have to "hear" appeals. When litigants file an appeal - or a response to an appeal - they also file these things called appellate briefs, which contain all relevant facts and legal arguments. Courts can also choose to hear oral arguments to supplement the briefs, but they usually don't and it is in no way required.

Second off, the reason the appellate court issued such a short opinion was because precedent was clearly on the side of the City of New Haven, and against the firefighters. The fact that the US Supreme Court reversed precedent is not surprising, nor is it surprising that even the dissent relied on a different legal argument than the one that the previous precedent is based on. But when the court Sotomayor sat on heard the appeal the Supreme Court decision had not yet been issued, so that court had to rely on existing precedent.

You don't mean to suggest that Sotomayor should have engaged in judicial activism by attempting to infer that the Supreme Court would reverse precedent, do you?
 
2009-07-03 03:52:53 PM  
FTA"Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There's no question but that abortion clinics have a "disparate impact" on black babies."

That pretty much wrapped it up for me.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report