• 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

An activist judge is one whose decisions you disagree with

versus a judge with solid credentials and impecable decision making abilities is one whose decision you agree with you.

YOU = THE COLLECTIVE UNIVERSAL YOU
 
talloulou said:
She's emotional and crazy. I'm not happy.
Click to expand...

Besides a couple questionable decision that I noted what are the "crazy" aspects of her jdgeness ? I don't know much about her and it appears that not many of us on the board do wither so if you have examples of her craziness please share!!!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So now you're running downstream against all the Democrat salmon who claimed Bush was an idiot? I mean, you're saying that this broad went to Yale, so she must be smart.
Click to expand...
Yeah, real apples and apples! Bush only went to Yale because his daddy and granddaddy went there not on his own merits.

Sotomayer on the other hand earned the right to go there coming from the exact opposite type of childhood as the caveman aka George W. Bush.

Bush is a MORON - always was and will be.

Sotomayer has brilliant credentials and has earned every success she's achieved.

Does anyone actually believe that Bush is a self-made man? :rofl:rofl
 
Obama goes out of his way to pick a moderate judge and immediately gets crapped on. I don't know why he bothers.
 
If no one has already posted it, here she is talking about legislating from the bench.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q]YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made[/ame]
 
talloulou said:
I have every right to complain as long and as loud as I want.
Click to expand...

But he said this was his kind of nominee BEFORE the election!


talloulou said:
It seemed apparent during the election we were hellbent in driving off a cliff. I preferred having a Dem do that than a Republican. If we were gonna adopt some socialist policies either way then we might as well have a guy with socialist leanings in charge.

My party deserved to loose.
Click to expand...

Can't really argue with that too much.
 
WillRockwell said:
Obama goes out of his way to pick a moderate judge and immediately gets crapped on. I don't know why he bothers.
Click to expand...
If she's moderate to you, then you need to recheck the definition of "Moderate".
 
MrVicchio said:
If she's moderate to you, then you need to recheck the definition of "Moderate".
Click to expand...

In what of her rulings do you see her as being not moderate?
 
Redress said:
In what of her rulings do you see her as being not moderate?
Click to expand...

New Haven comes to mind, her comments about the appeals court being where policy is made is another, and then there is the whole race/sex mindset that throws up MORE red flags.
 
MrVicchio said:
New Haven comes to mind, her comments about the appeals court being where policy is made is another, and then there is the whole race/sex mindset that throws up MORE red flags.
Click to expand...

oh did New Haven come to your mind? Please cite the activism in that case, as you haven't bothered to post a link.
 
MrVicchio said:
New Haven comes to mind, her comments about the appeals court being where policy is made is another, and then there is the whole race/sex mindset that throws up MORE red flags.
Click to expand...

So one actual ruling our of how many? You are aware that she has ruled on the side of conservative issues, right?
 
WillRockwell said:
oh did New Haven come to your mind? Please cite the activism in that case, as you haven't bothered to post a link.
Click to expand...




your kidding right? they refused to even address it correctly. go on, read what the 1 dissentin judge, a liberal, stated:


MCDONALD, C. J., dissenting. I disagree with themajority opinion and would construe General Statutes§ 38a-334 to require the defendant, whose municipaltruck the plaintiff was operating, to afford the plaintiffuninsured and underinsured motorist protection.Section 38a-334 (a) requires such coverage for privatepassenger motor vehicles, as defined in General Stat-utes § 38a-363 (e), including ‘‘motor vehicles with acommercial registration, as defined in section 14-1. . . .’’ General Statutes § 14-1 (a) (12) defines ‘‘ ‘[c]om-mercial registration’ ’’ to mean ‘‘the type of registrationrequired for any motor vehicle designed or used totransport merchandise, freight or persons in connectionwith any business enterprise, unless a more specifictype of registration is authorized and issued for suchclass of vehicle . . . .’’ Common experience teachesus that the defendant’s Ford Yankee coach F-350, whichwasequippedwitha FordAmbulancePreparationPack-age, was designed to carry persons and loads in connec-tion with business enterprises, and it therefore fallsunder the statutory definition. Because ‘‘no part of alegislative enactment is to be treated as insignificantor unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purposebehind every sentence, clause or phrase . . . [so that]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
no word [or phrase] in a statute is to be treated assuperfluous’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) Statev. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771–72, 695 A.2d 525 (1997);we should consider every word in the statute, includingthe word ‘‘designed’’ found in § 14-1 (a) (12).The type of registration ‘‘required for’’ the vehicle atissue here was the one that was in fact issued by thecommissioner of motor vehicles, a municipal numberplate as provided by General Statutes § 14-12 (k).1Iwould conclude that the exception contained in § 14-1(a) (12), which exempts from the general definitionof ‘‘commercial registration’’ a more specific type ofregistration that is authorized and issued by the com-missioner for such class of vehicle, does not apply toa truck with a municipal number plate. I do so becausemunicipal plates are authorized and issued to all classesof municipal motor vehicles, including sedans, stationwagons, and trucks of all kinds. I would interpret theexception contained in § 14-1 (a) (12) to refer only to‘‘class[es] of vehicle’’ for which the commissionerauthorized and issued a specific type of registrationsuch as those found in General Statutes § 14-25a (cer-tain construction equipment); General Statutes § 14-25b(special mobile equipment); and General Statutes § 14-26 (motor or service buses, taxicabs, school buses,motor vehicles in livery service and school buses usedin part in livery service).The majority’s construction of § 38a-334 leads to aresult where the plaintiff would have been coveredwhile driving ‘‘a private passenger motor vehicle’’ suchas a sedan, station wagon or a light pickup truck ownedby the defendant, but he is not covered here becausethe municipal vehicle was a heavier truck. We shouldnot conclude that the legislature intended such a result.Our interpretation should be consistent with the pri-mary intent of uninsured and underinsured motoristcoverage legislation. ‘‘We must avoid a constructionthat fails to attain a rational and sensible result thatbears directly on the purpose the legislature sought toachieve.’’ Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 713, 595A.2d 297 (1991). That intent, we have recognized, is tomake uninsured and underinsured motorist protectionavailable to the broadest number of accident victims.See Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245,250–51, 449 A.2d 157 (1982) (‘‘it is the intent of thelegislature to provide broad coverage to victims of unin-sured motorists’’).This decision exempts every heavy municipal truckfrom required coverage and deprives a great numberof accident victims of that coverage.Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1General Statutes § 14-12 (k) provides in relevant part: ‘‘[T]he commis-sioner shall issue to a municipality, as defined in section 7-245, or a regionalsolid waste authority comprised of several municipalities, upon receipt ofan application by the municipality or regional solid waste authority, a generaldistinguishing number plate for use on a motor vehicle owned or leased by
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
such municipality or regional solid waste authority.’’
 
Didn't think it would take long.

Seems according to sources here as well as various news etc sites that she has a lil problem with thinking she is a legislator.
IOW an Activist Judge...figures.
 
WI Crippler said:
Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court - White House- msnbc.com

I don't know much about her, but according to the article she is experienced enough for the role. They also bring up an interesting tidbit....



Thoughts?
Click to expand...

President Obama is no dummy.

Good for him. He will get to have his cake and eat it too.

The more I read about Sotomayer, there's a lot of potential for backfire if the Republican's get too zealous in their objections. You put these quotes of her's in context and there's not much there to object to.

I don't know if I'm buying centrist, but she's not far-left or 'activist' at all.

Lawyers who argued in front of her and lost are bound to be critical of the questions she asked from the bench. Those who have gotten favorable decisions from her are saying she's just tough on attorneys.

I laugh when I hear the right mention "activist judge" -- read some of Scalia's decisions.:roll:
 
Triad said:
Didn't think it would take long.

Seems according to sources here as well as various news etc sites that she has a lil problem with thinking she is a legislator.
IOW an Activist Judge...figures.
Click to expand...

A quote taken out of context.

Do her decisions or written opinions reflect that at all?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What context was it "taken out of"?
Click to expand...

Why did you avoid the question?

So far you have come up with one ruling out of hundreds you disagree with. Do you have any others? Surely Rush told you about more than one...
 
Family Guy said:
Yeah, real apples and apples! Bush only went to Yale because his daddy and granddaddy went there not on his own merits.
Click to expand...

So what does gay marriage and fruit have to do with all this?

Family Guy said:
Sotomayer on the other hand earned the right to go there coming from the exact opposite type of childhood as the caveman aka George W. Bush.

Bush is a MORON - always was and will be.
Click to expand...

So are you trying to say that Yale is a corrupt institution that's willing to bestow diplomas on well-connected alumni regardless of what abilities they show in the class room?

If you're not, explain your position in light of the fact that Bush got a diploma - from Yale.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
new haven.
Click to expand...

New Haven is exactly what I would say !!

Also she is a Yankees fan and God knows that Yankeefans are not moderate as a matter of not rational and some people say that they have questionable family lineage !!! lol
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Obama goes out of his way to pick a moderate judge and immediately gets crapped on. I don't know why he bothers.
Click to expand...

Well President Obama failed to get the approval for his choice from the RNC chairman Herr Drug Addict or from Shaun The VANE One so what did you expect !!!
 
Family Guy said:
Please tell me how you know how bright she is? What about going to Princeton and then Yale Law (all on scholarships) and being the Editor of the Yale Law Journal certanly supports your contention that she is "not incredibly bright" because we all know that you're just average if you go to Princeton and Yale (below average if your last name is Bush :lol: ).

Why not simply state that as a loyal member of the party of NO you're simply doing what all loyal party members do in 2009 (say no to anything that Obama does no matter what it is)?

To suggest that you know how bright she is and what she thinks about being a Supreme is just.....
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews said she graduated number #1 in her class at Princeton. Family Guy, she's the dumbest person to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court--even dumber than.....Harriett Myers.

On a separate note, the fact that Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley (George Washington Law Center) said he read 30 of her opinions and found they lack depth kind of frightened me. I trust that guy's judgment (he is on Keith Olbermann on a regular basis). So I am not feeling the love I felt earlier today.
 
talloulou said:
Because I voted for Obama so clearly I'm NOT a loyal party member. Next.
Click to expand...

You have more regrets on that vote than anyone else on here who voted for him and was not a liberal. Look at your posts. Next.
 
aps said:
Oh Jesus Christ. You all and your "legislating from the bench." It drives me insane because it is so ridiculous, and it tells me you have NO understanding what it means to be a judge.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with a judges decisions than it's ""legislating from the bench." but if you agree with the judges decisions then the judge has the wisdom of Solomon !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom