• 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

Birdzeye said:
I see. You can't come up with any facts to prove me wrong, eh?
Click to expand...


You posted a specious claim. Backing it up should be easy. Why are you struggling with this intellectual endeavor?


And what's so wrong with "feelings?" We use our instincts and feelings all the time to make decisions. My "feelings" were based on an observation. I challenged you to prove my observation wrong, but instead you chose to continue with the snarky meaningless remarks at me.
Click to expand...


What observation? I prefer to use facts and logic over feelings. So when you claim "observation" for your "feelings" I simply asked you for the meat and potatos... Why are you struggling with providing this?


I guess you don't have any argument after all, just bluster.
Click to expand...



Uhm, thus far all i have done is asked you to back up your claims. Thus far you have failed miserably.


:rofl
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standards you are now trying to apply to the Good Reverend? :lol:
Click to expand...

I've provided my assessment of the way things are, based on my observations, and I have challenged you to prove my observations wrong. Instead of rising up to the challenge, you continue to bait and troll and nothing else.

Pffft.
 
Birdzeye said:
I've provided my assessment of the way things are, based on my observations, and I have challenged you to prove my observations wrong. Instead of rising up to the challenge, you continue to bait and troll and nothing else.

Pffft.
Click to expand...




You made a claim, you failed to back up.


Calling you out on this is not "baiting" nor is it "trolling". But by all means report me if you think it is. :2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You made a claim, you failed to back up.


Calling you out on this is not "baiting" nor is it "trolling". But by all means report me if you think it is. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I backed it up; explained my position, and you chose to bash it without any reasoned counter-argument. YOU have failed to meet my challenge.

And thanks for the suggestion. I just may do that.
 
Birdzeye said:
I backed it up;
Click to expand...


Where? What post number? You did no such thing.

explained my position, and you chose to bash it without any reasoned counter-argument. YOU have failed to meet my challenge.
Click to expand...


Incorrect again. You made a claim, failed to back it up, and claimed that you did. Show me where my friend I am waiting.


And thanks for the suggestion. I just may do that.
Click to expand...



Good luck with that. :2wave:
 
This maggot all but threw out the descrimination (reverse) case of the Conneticut fireman, all white using a one paragraph response then shove the lawsuit under the couch. The case is now going to the supreme court.

She is also on camera stating the judges make the laws in America!!!

Another fine choice Obanana.
 
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.

For those commenting on that language she used, if you're not an attorney, I find your argument to be a complete waste of time.
 
aps said:
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.
.
Click to expand...

I would take a guess most judges feel that way. They have the power and they know it, they just haven't got caught on camera saying it.


Truthfully, is she lying? Whether you agree with the statement or not, is it not true that judges have made policy before? It is true. Maybe instead of bitching about her pointing it out, you should look at why that's the case and if you don't like it- do something about it instead of whining about a comment about the fact.
 
aps said:
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.

For those commenting on that language she used, if you're not an attorney, I find your argument to be a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...




Fallacy: Appeal to authority.


Come on aps, I am sure you know plenty idiot lawyers... :lol:
 
aps said:
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.

For those commenting on that language she used, if you're not an attorney, I find your argument to be a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Sotomayor Nomination
"'Judicial activist' is an overused term, but one that fairly applies to Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Across a broad array of cases spanning copyright, tax, and securities law, Judge Sotomayor has evidenced a clear penchant for substituting her policy preferences for clear statutory text and expanding liability against private entities. Her nomination is a disappointment for those who would prefer that Supreme Court justices show respect for the rule of law."
—Jim Copland, director of the Center for Legal Policy
Manhattan Institute CLP Director | James R. Copland
 
aps said:
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.
.
Click to expand...

Obviously SHE knew it was wrong.:doh
 
aps said:
I'm curious. Are there any other attorneys on this message board who disagree with what Sotomayor said regarding making policy? If so, explain to me why her words were NOT correct. Thank you.

For those commenting on that language she used, if you're not an attorney, I find your argument to be a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...



I'm curious about this, too! After listening and watching the tape several times, I wonder why she did an immediate backpedal as soon as she said the "making policy" remark.

I'm no lawyer but isn't she supposed to make a ruling based on her interpretation of the law? If she's trying to make policy, then it might explain some of her actions thus far.

The confirmation hearings will, no doubt, shed some light on the issue!
 
Felicity said:
YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made
Click to expand...

Here is the problem I have with this video -

1) What was shown was only part of her statement, and it was cherry picked for political purposes. It was a dishonest thing to do, as her ENTIRE statement paints a much different picture. Right after the video cuts off is where she finishes her statement, saying that this is not the way she judges a case.

2) The way this video is presented reminds me of something that happened right here at Debate Politics, when one of my own statements was cherry picked. I had said in a post that a certain person in the government, that supported torture, needed to be tortured, and added that I would not torture anybody, even a scumbag like that. A member named Stinger then quoted me, leaving out the last part of my statement, and was telling everybody that I support torture. This video is so dishonestly similar to what happened to me that I believe Stinger made this video. LOL.

3) If you want to know whether she would be an activist judge or not, do not look at dishonestly made videos, but look at the cases themselves, that she has made decisions on.
 
Last edited:
americanwoman said:
I would take a guess most judges feel that way. They have the power and they know it, they just haven't got caught on camera saying it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Many if not most judges understand their desires, needs, wants, and idealisms are irrelevant and thus they are bound and constrained by the current laws that are on the books.
 
danarhea said:
Here is the problem I have with this video -

1) What was shown was only part of her statement, and it was cherry picked for political purposes. It was a dishonest thing to do, as her ENTIRE statement paints a much different picture. Right after the video cuts off is where she finishes her statement, saying that this is not the way she judges a case.

2) The way this video is presented reminds me of something that happened right here at Debate Politics, when one of my own statements was cherry picked. I had said in a post that a certain person in the government, that supported torture, needed to be tortured, and added that I would not torture anybody, even a scumbag like that. A member named Stinger then quoted me, leaving out the last part of my statement, and was telling everybody that I support torture. This video is so dishonestly similar to what happened to me that I believe Stinger made this video. LOL.

3) If you want to know whether she would be an activist judge or not, do not look at dishonestly made videos, but look at the cases themselves, that she has made decisions on.
Click to expand...

That video was as clear as day. Next up is her quoting of Norman Thomas in her college yearbook. :roll::doh
 
talloulou said:
That video was as clear as day. Next up is her quoting of Norman Thomas in her college yearbook. :roll::doh
Click to expand...

The video was cut off before her entire statement was completed.
 
Triad said:
Dunno if you can call them rulings but her position on the CT firefighters
(# Ricci v. DeStefano. In this 2008 case, Sotomayor participated in a one-page decision that allowed the City of New Haven, Connecticut to scrap the results of a promotion test for the city's firefighters because no African-Americans passed the test. In April 2009, the Supreme Court said that it would review the Second Circuit's decision.)

....and her general written/expressed views on what the courts are.
Her social views are questionable as well.


Sonia Sotomayor - Judgepedia
Has various info in one spot.
Click to expand...

Okay, so that's one decision. I haven't read it, but on the surface, I would tend to agree. Bad decision.

Anything, else... Oh, I see... in "general" meaning you agree with talking points put out by the GOP.

Well, bully for you!
 
danarhea said:
Here is the problem I have with this video -

1) What was shown was only part of her statement, and it was cherry picked for political purposes. It was a dishonest thing to do, as her ENTIRE statement paints a much different picture. Right after the video cuts off is where she finishes her statement, saying that this is not the way she judges a case.

2) The way this video is presented reminds me of something that happened right here at Debate Politics, when one of my own statements was cherry picked. I had said in a post that a certain person in the government, that supported torture, needed to be tortured, and added that I would not torture anybody, even a scumbag like that. A member named Stinger then quoted me, leaving out the last part of my statement, and was telling everybody that I support torture. This video is so dishonestly similar to what happened to me that I believe Stinger made this video. LOL.

3) If you want to know whether she would be an activist judge or not, do not look at dishonestly made videos, but look at the cases themselves, that she has made decisions on.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Her comments in the video came across to me as a description of how the judicial system works. Her comment on making "policy" reflected what the appeals court's job is, namely, to interpret the law and rule on its constitutionality. It beats me how anybody can interpret what she said as advocating "judicial activism," aka, making rulings displeasing to conservatives.
 
Birdzeye said:
I agree with you. Her comments in the video came across to me as a description of how the judicial system works. Her comment on making "policy" reflected what the appeals court's job is, namely, to interpret the law and rule on its constitutionality. It beats me how anybody can interpret what she said as advocating "judicial activism," aka, making rulings displeasing to conservatives.
Click to expand...

It BEATS ME how anyone could listen to a woman laugh at her own audacity of admitting the inadmissible and apologize, justify, or excuse in any way the statement that she immediately all but admits there is no excuse for saying literally seconds after saying it.

And no, that is NOT how the judicial system works.
 
danarhea said:
The video was cut off before her entire statement was completed.
Click to expand...

What say you?!!


You mean... They misrepresented her views in order to discredit her?!


Borat says Naughty, naughty...:naughty


I assume that if they had some criticisms of substance they would just put those out.:roll:
 
talloulou said:
It BEATS ME how anyone could listen to a woman laugh at her own audacity of admitting the inadmissible and apologize, justify, or excuse in any way the statement that she immediately all but admits there is no excuse for saying literally seconds after saying it.

And no, that is NOT how the judicial system works.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is. Appeals court decisions, unlike lower trial court decisions, are binding precedent. Other courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow the appellate court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge believes that the case should be decided differently.

So, if an appeals court makes a ruling, the other courts in that circuit have to take that ruling into consideration in future decisions. If that isn't setting "policy," then I don't know what is.
 
Birdzeye said:
So, if an appeals court makes a ruling, the other courts in that circuit have to take that ruling into consideration in future decisions. If that isn't setting "policy," then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

:spin: So then, why her 'oh ****' reaction?

The truth about it all is in her own reaction.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.


Come on aps, I am sure you know plenty idiot lawyers... :lol:
Click to expand...

?? Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.

I apply federal statutes to a set of facts on a daily basis. I see what happens when cases get appealed to the appellate body, who, if you can believe it, make policy based on its interpretation of the statute. Even the dumb lawyers that I work with know this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom