The average exceeds 75%. The supreme court generally doesn't even hear cases that it summarily agrees with. If we are to assume the court agrees with her on ever case they don't even accept on appeal, that number would be in the fractions of a percent given that her panel heard hundreds of cases. I don't see how this is even a discussion, that headline was like the most easily debunked in history.
Rush Limbaugh, Fox and the Rape-ublican party say Fail, and as always--that's good enough for me.
You're not remembering hard enough. What about Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens? O'Connor was somewhat liberal, and Kennedy is pretty moderate.
All good points, and all equally true when a GOP president appoints a qualified-yet-conservative justice and the Dems pitch a fit, but of course Craig will never admit to that. 42 Senators, most of them Dems, voted against Alito, and 22 voted against Roberts, all Dems this time. In both cases, the Dems were just playing politics as well.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
I have asked you before and I will ask you again. Can you please cite some of her cases where she has ruled in some kind of 'racist' fashion? Where in her record has her 'racist' views showed itself?
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
The REAL activists.
By the definition that an activist judge is one who tries to use their position to write laws, conservatives by far hold the edge as being activist judges. In fact, when this article was written in 2005, the 4 liberal justices were the 4 least activist.
Republicans declare any judge whose rulings don't hold an extreme conservative bias to be activist. Where in fact, the judges whose rule holds the conservative bias are in fact activist.
As Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well known liberal bias.
By the definition that an activist judge is one who tries to use their position to write laws, conservatives by far hold the edge as being activist judges. In fact, when this article was written in 2005, the 4 liberal justices were the 4 least activist.
Republicans declare any judge whose rulings don't hold an extreme conservative bias to be activist. Where in fact, the judges whose rule holds the conservative bias are in fact activist.
As Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well known liberal bias.
She is a incomparably better nominee than Alito. Dmeocrats were right to oppoee him, as his track record has shown as he's acted like the radical we knew he was.
I admit to that. The disagreement is that you call radical Federalist Society agenda judges 'good'., or your phrase 'qualitfied yet conservative'.
There are plenty of 'qualified yet conservative' judges I would oppose nominating, but admit are qualified and deserve a vote of approval under a Republican president.
Unfortunately, Republicans aren't too good lately at appointing good, 'conservative' judges.
A first filter is they not be members of The Federalist Society - not even former *officials* who 'forgot' they had any connection, like Roberts.
From there, just be qualified, not a radical out to undermine the constitution. That's the problem with Bork - an early Federalist Society nominee with very radical views. I'd go back before that to Nixon, but Nixon's appointees included two attempts to appoint racists who were turned down for good reason, and the atrocious Lewis Powell, a father of the modern sellout Republican party, who wrote the infamous 'Powell Doctrine' months before he was appointed with a plan for the corpotocracy to win over the public opinion.
Far-right Republicans used to be little more politically viable than Libertarians today, but they did quite well for themselves, and quite badly for the country, after that.
But go back before that, and to two other Nixon ppointees, Burger and Blackmun, they were in that categoty of qualified conservative judges without a radical agenda.
So, if you are talking about 'qualified but conservative', you have what you say you would not get. But if about radical Federalist Society judges, you are playing word games.
An appointee is not radical just because you say so. For example, Bork was endorsed by the ABA with its highest rating when he was nominated, before Ted Kennedy and others succeeded with their smear campaign against him. Bork should've been approved, just like Clinton's and Obama's nominees should've been (and were).
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The sky has fallen, the sky has fallen, the end is near, leave the USA immediately before the bottom drops out. Of all the possible calamities, none is worse than the Sadom and Ghmorrah of Sonya Sotomayer.
The NRA and the religious right are pissed, they will tell GOD, and we who stay will soon turn to pillars of salt if the Fire and Brimstone do not get us first.
The NRA and the religious right are pissed, they will tell GOD, and we who stay will soon turn to pillars of salt if the Fire and Brimstone do not get us first.
The idiocy of anyone calling her a racist is just disgusting. Someday monkeys are going to be saying they descended from man if our right wing's children rule the world.
I'm sorry Muralis, I'm patient but not patient enoguh to spend the time wasted trying to get someone who is clueless about the Federalist Society Justices being radical *again*.
It wasn't a smear campaign just because you say it was. Bork was qualified in terms of his legal knowledge and his experience. He was *not* qualified because of hts radical ideology.
The ABA doesn't rate ideology, and they were right to rate him based on the criterion they use, and the Senate was right to protect the American people from him based on ideology.
In fact, the ABA giving Bork such a high rating is an indication of how well they did at not weighing ideology - but that didn't stop the Federalist Society from replacing the ABA as the official group for rating nominees under Bush, after the ABA had the role under every president since Eisehnower - suggesting how radical the Bush administration was.
I've posted at length on the radical nature of the Federalist Society, and you can easily find the informaiton. I'm not inclined to waste the time repeating it to someone I think isn't interested. You did not ask for information, much less provide any of your own on the topic. I don't think you will respond to info if I post it, so go find your own info.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimorats and Republirats have played the race card so many damn times in the past
230 years, is it really worth getting Patranus all worked up yet again?
In the grand scheme of things its really really hard to portray Sotomayer as a racist or a radical.
But to racist republicans, anything is fair in love, war, and politics.
And cheer up Petranus, your hero, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to Sonya today.
The fight is over, Sotomayer is now the newest minted member of SCOTUS. All the moaning and groaning in the world will do nothing to change facts.
Balderdash. GOP presidents do have a litmus test just like Democratic presidents; it happens that for any number of reasons some judges have noticeably changed their judicial views/ideology over time....Stevens has claimed that he considers himself a judicial conservative, and only appears liberal because he's surrounded by more conservative justices (he does have a point, if you think of Scalia, Thomas, and until his death, Rehnquist).
And Souter was the infamous "stealth candidate" that Bush tried to sneak in as a backdoor conservative. Although he hadn't voted on abortion prior to being nominated, supporters convinced Bush that he would be a reliable anti-abortion vote so he got nominated, and subsequently confirmed. As a result of Souter's less-than-conservative voting, Bush had no choice but to nominate an extreme conservative, Clarence Thomas.
Now, I'd agree that in the past, before judicial nominations became more partisan/polarized that it was possible to nominate honest, impartial judges and that political philosophy was less of a consideration for being selected by the president. But don't tell me that GOP presidents are or were less interested in judicially sympathetic judges.
Ah yes, and I suppose Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales were nominated and race had nothing to do with their nomination? Whatever else I may think of Clarence Thomas, he was far more qualified than Gonzales to be on the SCOTUS.
PS - Interesting article pondering why some "conservatives" become more "liberal" on the SCOTUS
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Petranus has a right to say, "I don't care...and thats just it...but it always seems like the Dems are the ones who keep pushing race into the picture...as example with Professor Gates or by trying to rally the Hispanic vote against the Republicans with Sotomayer's nomination."
And now Petranus has every right to go into his own closet, and rend his own breasts, wear hair shirts, and self flagellate himself in protest.
Just don't expect it to amount to a hill of beans. And when you finally emerge from your own closet, you will still have to deal with the fact that your side lost and the other side won. Maybe if history had been different and GWB&co had not screwed up so badly, maybe McCain would have won. But in a democracy, losers like you can't be choosers.
And maybe in years past, you could have had the vision to see GWB was screwing up and done something to prevent it, and then you might be happier with a John McCain SCOTUS pick.
And now Petranus has every right to go into his own closet, and rend his own breasts, wear hair shirts, and self flagellate himself in protest.
Just don't expect it to amount to a hill of beans. And when you finally emerge from your own closet, you will still have to deal with the fact that your side lost and the other side won. Maybe if history had been different and GWB&co had not screwed up so badly, maybe McCain would have won. But in a democracy, losers like you can't be choosers.
And maybe in years past, you could have had the vision to see GWB was screwing up and done something to prevent it, and then you might be happier with a John McCain SCOTUS pick.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter