On to the supreme court

[wdmso]

Next phase of delegitimizing federal institutions attack Justices whom don't bend the knee


a recent Sotomayor dissent in which she wrote that the administration had made a habit of turning to the Supreme Court after losses in lower courts.

"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow." She added that the Supreme Court was "partly to blame" because it "has been all too quick to grant the government's" requests.


Trump Says Sotomayor, Ginsburg Should Recuse Themselves From Cases Involving Him

[Jim in CT]

so when obama
bashed the supreme court during his state of the union ( for their citizens united decision), were you similarly offended?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Classic


Obama stating
with all due deference to separation of powers” then he disagreed with the ruling ..


Trumps attacks against our judicial system daily or
TRUMP. suggesting bias and suggesting they recuse themselves based on a dissenting option. Because he is a victim


Are not remotely the same but please continue to see the actions of others as the same as Trumps while completely ignoring context and past comments about the courts

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Next phase of delegitimizing federal institutions attack Justices whom don't bend the knee

Weak spin.

a recent Sotomayor dissent in which she wrote that the administration had made a habit of turning to the Supreme Court after losses in lower courts.

Ironic that a Supreme Court Justice would criticize the established path to her doing her job.

"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow." She added that the Supreme Court was "partly to blame" because it "has been all too quick to grant the government's" requests.

More irony that a Progressive Justice, appointed on political grounds as all are now appointed, and who adjudicates via the notion that she can decide by applying her view of social justice (which is why she was nominated) rather than the meaning of constitutional text, that she blames the Court for being political.

Trump Says Sotomayor, Ginsburg Should Recuse Themselves From Cases Involving Him

You and Trump have a disagreement--as you would say "no surprise."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Next phase of delegitimizing federal institutions attack Justices whom don't bend the knee


a recent Sotomayor dissent in which she wrote that the administration had made a habit of turning to the Supreme Court after losses in lower courts.

"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow." She added that the Supreme Court was "partly to blame" because it "has been all too quick to grant the government's" requests.


Trump Says Sotomayor, Ginsburg Should Recuse Themselves From Cases Involving Him

The reason for higher courts, is to correct mistakes of lower courts. If anyone know this is should be Sotomayor, who was routinely overruled, usually unanimously so, when people appealed her idiotic decisions.

Her publicly stated racist positions (female Latinas have superior life experience to everyone else, which explains why so many women risk their lives to immigrate to Mexico), would render her unable to serve on a jury, yet there she is on the supreme court. Hooray!

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The reason for higher courts, is to correct mistakes of lower courts. If anyone know this is should be Sotomayor, who was routinely overruled, usually unanimously so, when people appealed her idiotic decisions.

Her publicly stated racist positions (female Latinas have superior life experience to everyone else, which explains why so many women risk their lives to immigrate to Mexico), would render her unable to serve on a jury, yet there she is on the supreme court. Hooray!

Love the non relevant topic once again you have no issues with Trump avoiding checks and balances.. and no issues of the court allowing the administration to circumvent the process
heres some info

ORDINARILY, the Supreme Court is a tribunal of last resort. Only after exhausting avenues for relief in the lower courts do parties tend to turn to America’s highest court—and, about 99 times out of 100, the justices refuse to take up their cases.

counts 21 times Mr Trump has made unusual requests to the justices in the first 30 months of his presidency. That is compared to eight requests during the 192 months of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. again context is lost when it comes to defending Trump


I bet this is ok as well For the past 18 months, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, sent White House with memos and suggestions about which people to fire — and who should replace them. as not loyal

[Jim in CT]

it’s not non relevant. from your post, sotomayor is whining that people are seeking justice at the supreme court. she has been wrong as often as any judge who has ever lived, she’s living, breathing evidence of why we need the ability to appeal. m
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not non relevant. from your post, sotomayor is whining that people are seeking justice at the supreme court. she has been wrong as often as any judge who has ever lived, she’s living, breathing evidence of why we need the ability to appeal. m
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, please explain in great detail your position on the Justice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, please explain in great detail your position on the Justice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure.

as a judge, she had a large number of opinions unanimously overruled by the supreme court. which means that everyone from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and everyone in between, said she was wrong on the law.

on race, she said that a female latina, by virtue of her unique life experience, would make a better judge than anyone else.

She’s a poor jurist and a bigot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

not directly related to the current attack on the courts

but found this interesting in a current free speech case involving support of illegal immigrants

Gorsuch to the trump Admin Lawyer


Justice Gorsuch noted that being in the country illegally is not itself a crime, so why is encouraging someone to stay a crime?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sure.

as a judge, she had a large number of opinions unanimously overruled by the supreme court. which means that everyone from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and everyone in between, said she was wrong on the law.

on race, she said that a female latina, by virtue of her unique life experience, would make a better judge than anyone else.

She’s a poor jurist and a bigot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Says who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can easily google both claims i made. many of her opinions were unanimously overturned on appeal, and she said that latina women make the best judges. go look that up, and get back to me.

you got obliterated here, you’re acting like a child.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you can easily google both claims i made. many of her opinions were unanimously overturned on appeal, and she said that latina women make the best judges. go look that up, and get back to me.

you got obliterated here, you’re acting like a child.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obliterated?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obliterated?

humiliated if you prefer.

if a nominee who was a white man, said “white men make superior judges to anyone else”, i’m pretty sure you’d take vehement offense to that.

she also belongs to a group called La Raza, which literally means, “the race.”. Not “a” race, not “one race of many”, but “the” race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

she had a large number of opinions unanimously overruled by the supreme court.

you love to stretch the Truth




Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

A: Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court. out of 232 cases

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31.

The Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as an associate justice on October 6, by a vote of 50–48.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

she had a large number of opinions unanimously overruled by the supreme court.

you love to stretch the Truth




Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

A: Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court. out of 232 cases

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31.

The Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as an associate justice on October 6, by a vote of 50–48.

she had 5 of her opinions reviewed by the supreme court, 4 were overturned, 3 of those unanimously. if you’re satisfied with that ratio, good for you.

i’m well aware of the votes to confirm her. that’s not because the gop likes her, it’s because the gop didn’t then make a habit of opposing judicial nominations for political reasons. The democrats invented that with Bork.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

she had 5 of her opinions reviewed by the supreme court, 4 were overturned, 3 of those unanimously. if you’re satisfied with that ratio, good for you.

i’m well aware of the votes to confirm her. that’s not because the gop likes her, it’s because the gop didn’t then make a habit of opposing judicial nominations for political reasons. The democrats invented that with Bork.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now its about ratio. And i guess you missed the Garland episode as well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

she had 5 of her opinions reviewed by the supreme court, 4 were overturned, 3 of those unanimously. if you’re satisfied with that ratio, good for you.

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

Yawn.

i’m well aware of the votes to confirm her. that’s not because the gop likes her, it’s because the gop didn’t then make a habit of opposing judicial nominations for political reasons. The democrats invented that with Bork.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was errr over 20 years earlier Jim, not to Mention Mitch's pathetic behavior in the Senate during Obama.

Please stop humiliating me, it's hard to bear

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

she had 5 of her opinions reviewed by the supreme court, 4 were overturned, 3 of those unanimously. if you’re satisfied with that ratio, good for you.

i’m well aware of the votes to confirm her. that’s not because the gop likes her, it’s because the gop didn’t then make a habit of opposing judicial nominations for political reasons. The democrats invented that with Bork.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For frame of reference, whats the record for the other justices who served as appellate judges?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

For frame of reference, whats the record for the other justices who served as appellate judges?

i don’t know that bry. but you tell
me, she had 5 opinions get reviewed, 4 got overturned, and 3 of those were unanimous, meaning everyone from Ginsberg to Scalia said she was wrong on the law.

id like to see Borks results for his opinions that were reviewed by scotus.

and what about her statement that latina women make the best judges? and the fact that she’s currently complaining about cases that are appealed to the scotus?

if it wasn’t for activist judges so comfortable with ignoring the constitution to promote personal political ideology, maybe she wouldn’t be seeing so many cases. Her complaining about cases being appealed to scotus, is like an arsonist complaining about the sound of fire engine sirens ( stolen from ted cruz).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t know that bry. but you tell
me, she had 5 opinions get reviewed, 4 got overturned, and 3 of those were unanimous, meaning everyone from Ginsberg to Scalia said she was wrong on the law.

id like to see Borks results for his opinions that were reviewed by scotus.

and what about her statement that latina women make the best judges? and the fact that she’s currently complaining about cases that are appealed to the scotus?

if it wasn’t for activist judges so comfortable with ignoring the constitution to promote personal political ideology, maybe she wouldn’t be seeing so many cases. Her complaining about cases being appealed to scotus, is like an arsonist complaining about the sound of fire engine sirens ( stolen from ted cruz).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, you don't know that out of 232 (I saw 432 somewhere else online) cases if that is a lot or not. For all I know (or you know) Scallia had similar numbers and mountains could be molehills here.

As far as her comments, I think it wasn't great wording, but do I think that having diverse backgrounds on SCOTUS is good? Absolutely, since they are representing cases for all Americans, and that means I want judges appointed by conservatives and liberals.

Back to work, play nice everyone....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Back to work, play nice everyone....

This your first time here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, you don't know that out of 232 (I saw 432 somewhere else online) cases if that is a lot or not. For all I know (or you know) Scallia had similar numbers and mountains could be molehills here.

As far as her comments, I think it wasn't great wording, but do I think that having diverse backgrounds on SCOTUS is good? Absolutely, since they are representing cases for all Americans, and that means I want judges appointed by conservatives and liberals.

Back to work, play nice everyone....

her comments are the textbook definition of bigotry.

here’s a big difference between liberals and conservatives. for big important jobs ( scotus qualifies) i don’t give a frogs fat azz about pigmentation or genetalia, and neither does anyone else who isn’t a moron. if the very best candidate is a white man, he gets the job, if the best candidate is a purple drag queen, they get the job.

Bill Clinton committed to naming a woman AG, which is why we got an incompetent moron named Janet Reno, and if that appointment was done to make women feel better, i’m sure that means a lot to the women burned to death in an idiotic and unnecessary military attack in Waco.

The country would be very well
served, if your side would
pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about our character or
abilities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

her comments are the textbook definition of bigotry.

here’s a big difference between liberals and conservatives. for big important jobs ( scotus qualifies) i don’t give a frogs fat azz about pigmentation or genetalia, and neither does anyone else who isn’t a moron. if the very best candidate is a white man, he gets the job, if the best candidate is a purple drag queen, they get the job.

Bill Clinton committed to naming a woman AG, which is why we got an incompetent moron named Janet Reno, and if that appointment was done to make women feel better, i’m sure that means a lot to the women burned to death in an idiotic and unnecessary military attack in Waco.

The country would be very well
served, if your side would
pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about our character or
abilities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Jim veers back into his sexist manifesto...need to get a new car that shakes the wheel when you're drifting into another lane.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

her comments are the textbook definition of bigotry.

which say absolutely nothing about our character or
abilities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you do know whos in the white house correct

you think he was elected based on character or abilities

He was elected because the very best candidate is always a white man in his supporters eyes and Trumps

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And Jim veers back into his sexist manifesto...need to get a new car that shakes the wheel when you're drifting into another lane.

and what did i say that was sexist, madam?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you do know whos in the white house correct

you think he was elected based on character or abilities

He was elected because the very best candidate is always a white man in his supporters eyes and Trumps

you humiliate yourself a lot, you know that? i would give anything for Condaleeza Rice to run, anything. Or Bobby Jindal. Or Nikki Haley. none are white men. my side thinks blacks deserve better than what democrats have given them. It takes a special
kind of idiot, to call that racist.

Hilary didnt lose because she ran against a white man. she lost because she was a godawful, unlikeable witch, and a big reason why she lost is because blacks stayed home.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Well, I see William Foster is getting wound up again. Actually the country would be very well served, if "your side" would pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about their character or abilities.

Democrats have several times more women and several times more minorities than Republicans do in Congress. And old white males are much more predominant among Republicans. And if you are not Christian, fuhgeddaboudit you ain't getting in that club, with the exception of a couple token Jews.

But that doesn't match the victim narrative, does it?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well, I see William Foster is getting wound up again. Actually the country would be very well served, if "your side" would pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about their character or abilities.

Democrats have several times more women and several times more minorities than Republicans do in Congress. And old white males are much more predominant among Republicans. And if you are not Christian, fuhgeddaboudit you ain't getting in that club, with the exception of a couple token Jews.

But that doesn't match the victim narrative, does it?

"the country would be very well served, if "your side" would pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about their character or abilities"

Please specify the things that people have no control over, which the GOP uses to divide the country on? I'm all ears...

"Democrats have several times more women and several times more minorities than Republicans do in Congress"

True, and the overwhelming majority of blacks vote democrat. I'd love to know why. I saw what decades of democrats control have done for blacks in my home state, in New Haven, Bridgeport and Hartford. I say those people deserve better and we need to try different ideas. Liberals say they need more of the same. You tell me which idea is racist, and why. Again, I'm all ears.

Democrats prefer their blacks aborted, but failing that, they like them addicted to welfare and safely contained in cities which the liberal elites will never spend any time in. With zero upward economic mobility.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well, I see William Foster is getting wound up again. Actually the country would be very well served, if "your side" would pay less attention to things that people have absolutely zero control over, and which say absolutely nothing about their character or abilities.

Democrats have several times more women and several times more minorities than Republicans do in Congress. And old white males are much more predominant among Republicans. And if you are not Christian, fuhgeddaboudit you ain't getting in that club, with the exception of a couple token Jews.

But that doesn't match the victim narrative, does it?

And if the GOP is that limited (old, white, male Christians), how do you explain that the GOP holds the presidency, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships? Lemme guess, Russia and voter suppression?

My side doesn't make a habit of identifying as victims. That's the play on the left, not the right.