• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Opposition to what?
Click to expand...
"Opposition to what?" what?

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.
Click to expand...

EnglishCensored.jpg
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q]YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made[/ame]
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Don't care what she said. She's only one of nine.

Besides, my comment was about "bench legislation" in general. For example, Roe v Wade was not legislating from the bench. It upheld the unenumerated constitutional right to privacy.

I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.
Click to expand...

Roe vs. Wade was completely legislating from the bench.
 
Family Guy said:
Do you ever not twist the truth when speaking of people you oppose politically?

She admitted that the quote that you cite was a mistake, that she regretted saying it and that she was wrong so why the "hellh0und" are you quoting her out of context without the complete story?

We all know why you did it - your transparency is crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Because when you watch her say it, then watch her laugh, the watch her facetiously apologize you know it's what she really thinks and she didn't say it accidentally she just accidentally said it on tape.
 
WI Crippler said:
Is there any reason to believe she was appointed based soley on this criteria? If it is shown she has judicial competence, what does it matter, her race, or gender?

I await RightinNYC's comments. He knows better than anybody here, most of this judicial stuff.
Click to expand...

She can't have judicial competence when it's clear she doesn't understand her job though she does understand that she should at least aim to hide the fact that her goal is to make policy.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Don't you believe that privacy is an unenumerated constitutional right?
Click to expand...

In the absence of a "compelling state interest", yes, but Pro-Life argues that there is in fact such a "compelling state interest".
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Don't care what she said. She's only one of nine.

Besides, my comment was about "bench legislation" in general. For example, Roe v Wade was not legislating from the bench. It upheld the unenumerated constitutional right to privacy.

I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.
Click to expand...

Please, enlighten us to what other "rights" you wish to wave your magic wand and magically "invent" by using the big fancy word of unenumerated. Why not just be forthright and honest and say "**** I made up because that's what I want to be in there so therefore it is".

Damn straight, when's the Judge going to come in that finally actually advocates the unquestionable existance of the unenumerated right of me being made supreme ruler of the U.S. and also my right to recieve a government stipend of $100,000 a month. I love me some unenumerated rights.
 
Zyphlin said:
Please, enlighten us to what other "rights" you wish to wave your magic wand and magically "invent" by using the big fancy word of unenumerated. Why not just be forthright and honest and say "**** I made up because that's what I want to be in there so therefore it is".

Damn straight, when's the Judge going to come in that finally actually advocates the unquestionable existance of the unenumerated right of me being made supreme ruler of the U.S. and also my right to recieve a government stipend of $100,000 a month. I love me some unenumerated rights.
Click to expand...

...public dueling....
 
Jerry said:
It's the Supreme Court, not Congress.

Their genders and races are completely irrelevant. Only their ability to interpret maters.
Click to expand...

Oh, so who creates the laws needs to represent the US as a whole, but those who enforce those laws do not?

Sorry, Jerry, but the thought of MEN MEN MEN deciding what I am allowed to do with my own body makes me sick.
 
aps said:
Oh, so who creates the laws needs to represent the US as a whole, but those who enforce those laws do not?

Sorry, Jerry, but the thought of MEN MEN MEN deciding what I am allowed to do with my own body makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, DAMN those MEN who gave you the right to serve in the armed forces, to vote, to abort...DAMN THEM!!!!
 
talloulou said:
Because when you watch her say it, then watch her laugh, the watch her facetiously apologize you know it's what she really thinks and she didn't say it accidentally she just accidentally said it on tape.
Click to expand...
I see, so you do not accept her apology and her rescinding of her own remarks? You know from watching a You Tube video her true intent despite her apologizing.

Do you think that perhaps you're being partisan in your opposition, just a tad? Not accepting someone's admission of an error is incredible to me and some might say shows a true lack of character.

I guess you're the one human on this planet who has never regretted saying something and apologized for it....:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
Please, enlighten us to what other "rights" you wish to wave your magic wand and magically "invent" by using the big fancy word of unenumerated. Why not just be forthright and honest and say "**** I made up because that's what I want to be in there so therefore it is".
Click to expand...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment
Click to expand...

I made nothing up. You obviously have problems with the 9th amendment.
 
talloulou said:
Because when you watch her say it, then watch her laugh, the watch her facetiously apologize you know it's what she really thinks and she didn't say it accidentally she just accidentally said it on tape.
Click to expand...

What happened to rational talloulou? Is she gone for the next 4 years?
 
Family Guy said:
I see, so you do not accept her apology and her rescinding of her own remarks? You know from watching a You Tube video her true intent despite her apologizing.

Do you think that perhaps you're being partisan in your opposition, just a tad? Not accepting someone's admission of an error is incredible to me and some might say shows a true lack of character.

I guess you're the one human on this planet who has never regretted saying something and apologized for it....:roll:
Click to expand...

I bet your kids get away with anything.
 
At first blush, I am very surprised that he has put forward the name of a former prosecutor and corporate lawyer.

I'll have to read up on her performance and history to for a firm opinion.

Since it is David Souter she is replacing, there is little increased damage she can do to the Court unless she is a rabid Leftist.
 
talloulou said:
She can't have judicial competence when it's clear she doesn't understand her job though she does understand that she should at least aim to hide the fact that her goal is to make policy.
Click to expand...
Your entire premise / line of reasoning is flawed and you're basically posting purely partisan comments to appease yourself and others who don't like having a new liberal jurist appointed.

To act as if you know that she believes it's a judge's priority to make policy is complete 100% pure BS....IMHO....
 
Jerry said:
I wouldn't advise personally attacking a mod.
Click to expand...

If I call someone's argument irrational, that's attacking a mod? Really? Okay. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom