SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor
So, it’s Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics triumphs. Here’s the bio/record info I shared at the beginning of the month:
“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”
And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network:
Memorandum
TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCN
DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his
Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been
deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider
their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the
standard for any Supreme Court justice.”• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Legal analyst Stuart Taylor sums up this p.c. pick:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15.
It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor’s Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
***
Update: Obama praised Sotomayor in his announcement for having “saved baseball” and read Nancy Drew as a young child. The White House is pushing the “compelling personal story” angle hard.
There are murmurs of filibuster threats by the GOP.
Alas, those are idle threats, as all the GOP’s past filibuster threats have been over the past year.
Mark my words.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesWeekly Standard
» Obamacare Could Require Private Insurers to Fund Abortion on Demand
The dumbing down of America continues!
Sotomayor: “Constitution…we don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.”
This nominee proves that law school can be a waste of time for liberals. Anyone that thought Obambi was going to pick “moderates” so Republican Senators could have cover for supporting his picks was sadly mistaken. Once again, He told you so.
…yeah, as bad as I expected… elections have consequences …
God save America
this clown rules based on what she considers her defecits. this country doesn’t need a pseudo judge prone to hyterical emotional decisions.
For those out there (if there are any left standing) who thought, or still think that Obama will govern from the middle:
again.
Oh well, as long as Europe feels this is okay, I guess we should also.
Congratulations to all of you who vowed not to vote for McCain.
Liberal, Conservative, Moderate…..
Why do we even bother with an Oath to defend the Constitution if thats the direct opposite of what is being done?
I mean the guidlines are pretty straight forward aren’t they?
It’s all about race and the downtrodden, as defined by the great community organizer-in-chief. Yes Mark x…those elections do have consequences indeed.
God forgive us and please save America again.
Might as burn all previous case law since she will not consider any if it does not reflect her feelings. I guess the only question for her is whether she considers herself a hispanic or a woman first.
I guess this will also end her track record of being reversed so many times.
So the concept of blind justice is also to be dispensed with. Can you imagine the outrage if a white male (especially a white southern male) said such a thing?
While it is true that the Constitution doesn’t lay out any specific qualifications for Supreme Court Justices, common sense – what a misnomer that is! – would dictate that any nominee have a solid foundation in the laws of this country, most particularly Constitutional law.
That’s right; I forgot that the Constitution has been deemed an imperfect document by the One. May as well toss it out and start over. /sarc.
Victim
Let’s see…hmmm…Supreme Court qualifications…(1) female, (2) Hispanic or some other aggrieved group, (3) Democrat activist, (4) permanently angry. Yep, she makes the cut! If only she was a blind lesbian in a wheelchair, it would be a match made in heaven!
I thought the Court of Appeals was where policy was reviewed, not made. Silly me.
ANY time one’s race and/or gender is put forth as superior to others, it’s racist and prejudicial. A judge with prejudice, rather oxymoronic don’t you think?
…who adopts transexual children in Africa.
Oh, and I’m sure the bar association will give her/gave her an “extremely qualified” opinion.
Well, I guess professional sports better start hiring refs and umpires that have experience being on losing teams, and can empathize with athletes that aren’t as strong or fast.
It’s not ‘holding’ if the lineman grew up a victim.
The throw didn’t really make it in time if the runner is a minority.
May God have mercy on our country. An Obama Supreme Court will not.
We will all be driving around in clown cars (if we can even afford them), taxed up the wazoo for our CO2 emissions, and forced to confess (in Spanish) that we accept the homosexual agenda. Maybe Obama will be able to do away with the secret ballot, too, after all if it’s good enough for the unions it’s good enough for the rest of us! And then it will only be a short while before we are taken over by the Muslims or the Chinese…
We did vote for McCain. He was so lackluster and wishy-washy, no wonder Obama won. If McCain was the best the Republicans had to offer (but of course he was not), it’s no wonder we lost. It’s arguable that things would not be that much different under McCain, he subscribes to so many of the same things as The One.
If the Republicans do not start to oppose Obama’s agendas with every fiber of their being, they are not worth supporting. We need a REAL conservative party with REAL conservatives who will fight against this crap!
I reject your premise, much like I would a bad tuna fish sandwich, with violent projectile vomiting.
Care to start a pool to guess how many Republicans vote against her?
Geeze, is she loaded?
Obama walks around with a great big chip on his shoulder and he wants a Supreme Court nominee with the same qualification.
First question should be “do you pay your taxes? If not, can you get current before the swearing in ceremony?”
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Thats all I needed to read to figure out which way the wind blows for this LibTard.
/sarc
because it’s sooooo obvious that McCain would have picked someone better as he tried to reach across the aisle.
/sarc off
FWIW: McCain got my vote by reason of Palin so don’t blame me. McCain did not get my vote during primary season.
Peyote toxicity
And so, hate crimes legislation gains another advocate.
It’s always about votes and a very liberal agenda! The Constitution is “just a piece of paper”.
Congratulations to all of you who voted for McCain in primaries.
The lamestream media is already playing the ‘Race Card’ claiming that to question her qualifications is ‘Racist’ (as well as ‘Sexist’ – but as Obama shows – Race trumps Gender).
This is exactly the candidate the ignorant masses would gleefully support. She’s uber-liberal, not particularly smart, full of herself, a product of immigrant parents, a child of the NYC “projects”, received an expensive education even though coming from poor parents (um, yeah…who paid?), a social idealist who adjudicates by “empathy”, not constitutionality, not very well liked by her peers…she sounds like Obama, except that she is not charismatic. Whether or not she is narcissistic remains to be seen.
I expect every challenge made during her confirmation hearing will be answered much differently than her actual record reveals. The saliva and spittal will soon be raining down in her defense, along with the argumentum ad hominem proffered by her supporters in both houses of Congress. B.A.U!
If it barks like a dog, walks like a dog, and smells like a dog…it’s a dog! No amount of grooming, make up, ribbons, or perfume can alter that fact. This dog is a Chihuahua, and does not hunt (but will make a lot of noise, show some teeth, and be very annoying)!
Obama is reaching up, pushing the scales aside and removing the blindfold.
If the conservative House in Washington approves this nomination (and they have given us no reason to thing otherwise) we in this country will be paying for more than just an economic stimulus for many, many generations.
Yeah…like Barney Frank…e-r-r-u-g-h-h-h! American Standard, here I come!
Justice in America no longer exists.
You mean Oblahblah and his teleprompter have nominated a hard-core leftist (who also happens to be an affirmative action supporter’s wet dream) to the Supreme Court? DUH!!!!
Just as with the Bamster, her stand on issues won’t matter. If you oppose her nomination, it’s only because she’s Latina, you racist bastages!!!!
Not everyone was given a choice – thanks to the Republican primary rules. Those of us in later-primary states were pretty much screwed out of the process – by the time our primary came up the decision had already been made.
No any challenges will be answered with the old Liberal argument: “YOUR A RACIST!!!”. Works every time.
Why is anyone surprised by this pick? Obama has been nominating sub-par people to every post he’s had an opportunity to. What does he care? The media will play lapdog and highlight her background and identity, and he owns the Senate. So, while the Republicans will have a small opportunity to rough her up, she’ll get in. So, we’ll all be paying for the nomination of McCain over Romney for 30+ years.
We can all see now that the “laws” of this country mean absolutely nothing. The constitutions is now void. We will be run by far left activist groups with thier puppets in power.
It’s blatant. It’s deliberate. It’s a power grab that this country has never seen before. The United States as we knew it is near death.
And if you are a white Christian, especially male, you should be ready for an onslaught against your family. They will take your job and your rights because they plan on bringing their brand of justice to right all of the wrongs from our history.
Sotomayor’s nomination is pure distraction on Obama’s part, meant to divert attention from his lack of having an effective response or plan to put forth in dealing w/ North Korea and a soon to be nuclear armed Iran.
They know there is video and other evidence of Sotomayor making some controversial comments. That’s why they want her out there right now, taking the heat off the administration until they until something to say on NK and Iran.
After that, they’ll walk away. They know a nonstarter when they need one.
Obama is reaching up, pushing the scales of justice aside and removing the blindfold.
She openly and freely admits that she is prejudice. What chance does a Euro-American have in a court where she presides?
A very dangerous pick. Her quote:
So, let me get this straight. Because you’re nonwhite and hispanic, that will make a difference in how you judge? Ummm…have you ready the US Constitution lately? Or ever for that matter?
Edit: until they until = “…until they have something to say… .
So after this nomination will the media continue the lie that Obama is a centrist?
The question is rhetorical. Of course they will, since they knew all along that it was a lie.
Well no mention of a husband or children. I guess that is one experience she has no grounds to refer to in her vast array of life experiences.
The THUG community organizer once again says “I WON” with this selection. Why wouldn’t THE most far left POTUS ever pick THE most far left judge for SCOTUS? Its perfectly logical and no surprise.
Republicans might huff and puff about her, but, as always, will grab their ankles and smile.
This woman is way beyond scary. She epitomizes the far left mindset that is, and WILL destroy the US of A.
She went on to say…..“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Can you imagine if a conservative nominee had said anything like this????
“A wise white male and richness of his experience would more often reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman.”
The nominee would be cast into the alligator pit by the left.
What a double-standard the left employs. Sickening, isn’t it?
Uh….no Judge …in political science 101 we learned that the Court, part of the judiciary branch, is where the law is interpreted and followed. The legislative and the executive branches are where policy is made.
But what do I know? I’m just a dumb, uninformed caucasion male, not a person of color (isn’t pasty white a color??)
A predictable disaster.
Future court cases in America should be decided by melanin content and the degree that victim stories about overcoming the white man’s greed can elicit tears from a jury of dark skinned liberals.
Just because white males need not apply doesn’t necessarily mean justice wasn’t applied. We had our time…time to pay the (minority) piper for things that happened before my birth.
Haven’t been here for a while, still going Galt. Sold two houses, one more to go. Taking my tax money and hording it. It might not be much, but I won’t give them anything else I don’t have to.
Good news is white males can whine incessantly without being responsible for their actions in about 100 years, if the country exists by then.
Well, this is payback to the Hispanic community from Obama and a big “thank you” for selecting him as president.
My sister-in-law (a paralegal, that often works in this area of law) assures me, that at least here in my state, white males have no rights – especially with regard to employment law. I asked her recently when was the last time a white male filed an employment discrimination suit against an employer and she went to thinking… and thinking… and thinking… and couldn’t recall any (the number of ‘he-looked-at-me-wrong’ suits [which have a success rate of about 1% - in full disclosure], and similar suits stream through the workflow fairly regularly however)
A definite thumbs-down to Sotomayor.
Unfortunately, ethnic and gender based grievance politics trumps again…
We will have a SCOTUS judge that thinks race and/or gender is important – and what about those famous words from MLK Jr. about the ‘content of their character’?
She was married and divorced with no children
Let me add: hypocritical, ignorant, racist, elitist, audacious, specious, and of course…incredibly stupid.
She is also Roman Catholic. Should make for some interesting abortion debates, no?
So Bo nominates a “liberal”, “hispanic”, “pro-choice”, “pro-gay”, “angry”, “the constitution is living & breathing” woman to the Supreme Court. And, what part of this is news?
gird your loins
Another SCOTUS pick that had its roots with Republicans. Just as Ruth Ginsburg was suggested to Clinton by Orrin Hatch, this one was first appointed to a lower court by Bush 41. I predict that she will be confirmed with most Republicans voting for her.
Yes, some (McConnell, e.g.) will try to shore up their conservative creds by kicking up dust but in the end, the GOP that is dedicated to sucking up to La Raza won’t dare to even put a scratch on the first Latina nominee.
Our main problem today as conservatives is with the GOP itself. Once they end their war against us and start acting out of conviction instead of fear, maybe then we can talk again. For now, the only time they vote correctly is at the point of a gun and at the last possible moment. Pathetic bunch.
My first med school interview went like this:
(First question from ugly white woman with a chip on her shoulder) “Why should I let you in here? We have plenty of white boys like you.”
Word for word, burned into my brain. Can you imagine if she said that to ANYONE else?
Liberals are right, there are different rules for different people. They want it that way when it works in their favor, but cry bloody murder when it doesn’t.
What many people fail to see is we have this statue called Lady Justice/Scales of Justice/Blind Justice! She holds scales of balance in one hand and sword in another and a wears a blindfold. Why? The scales she holds represent impartiality to which justice is served. The sword signifies the power held by those making the decisions. The blindfold added during the 16th century represents justice is not subject to influence
The Bill of Negative Rights is dead. Ugly women need to feel important.
BHO
Personal Views triumph
Sonia Sotomayor
Bork/Resist/Prepare
AzN
She’s Roman Catholic?
If she takes a public stance supporting abortion, she should be excommunicated.
The Rule of Law is dead. Long live the Rule of Power!
::: puking :::
Never fear!
Stinkipedia states that she is a “centrist” judge.
Yes jb, he basically just picked his wife.
She really is a racist.
And a sexist.
No surprise. As mentioned above, the Rule Of Law is dead anyway. The Constitution bears no weight anymore. The spiral downward continues.
I guess we, if anyone actually did not already know, Obama has no intention of being non-partisan. The nominee may be a judge at the end of the day BUT the process is going to cost Obama dearly as the real Obama will be on display throughout the entire justice’s hearing.
To the surprise of pretty much nobody.
the left has always been about putting people in groups..and then having favored groups and out-of-favor groups..
white males are now Kulaks…
So much for “as honest as other men”.
An Equal Opportunity Candidate. I saw this behavior in corporate business. Quotas must be met.
Once again we have been bitten in the butt by Bush One who previously nominated her for a high court position.
At least G. W. got the Supreme Court right.
That statement should disqualify someone from presiding over traffic court, never mind the Supreme Court. Anyone who values the actual rule of law should find that sentiment terrifying.
Further evidence that despite propoganda to the contrary, it is amongst so-called liberals where overt racism is not only tolerated but actually celebrated as a virtue.
The Repubs ought to go after this woman just as hard as the Dems went after Miguel Estrada.
Of course, it won’t happen.
Yep, after 2 weeks of the msm and the Dems using the race/gender card in EVERY news report and interview, the Repubs will cowardly approve her.
And how many judges did Prince Reid hold up during the W years? Reid even made promises that he would get some of them thru the process and never did a one.
They can dispense with the formality of confirming this insane woman. She’s Souter’s replacement. No one will have the backbone to oppose this from happening, no more than anyone opposed the fact that Obama cannot provide any evidence that he has any legal standing to be president of the United States.
Hey everybody, gusee what?
America wants this woman to be on the Supreme Court – you people are in the minority.
We know you all wish she was like Scalia or Bork – but the rest of humanity is ready to move forward with a more just less hostile world.
Early days on what America wants. I know you want to pretend to speak for America, but what are you using for authority?
Aren’t minorities part of America…I mean, now that you think you are in the majority…???
I would love for the rest of humanity to get what they deserve. Unfortunately they a taking the rest of us along with them.
That is one ugly chick. Mentally, and physically.
Yeah right, kinda early for the pipe isnt it country?
Go read the constitution and get back to us!
The triumph of mediocrity…
With any luck maybe we’ll find out she used to be a high school teacher who seduced a 14 year old retarded boy.
Oh shoot I forgot; in LibWorld, that’s a qualification!
Do you suggest that we chose Supreme Court Justices by popular vote? Does her popularity …of which we have no idea…have ANY bearing on anything?
I was one of those late states who had no choice in the primaries.
I supported Palin/McCain as the lesser of two evils.
Those of you who voted 3rd party – THANKS A LOT.
You helped screw this country by handing Obama a victory.
Doesn’t she smoke? And she has diabetes. These two factors do not indicate a long life expectancy. I wonder if that is part of the President’s calculation.
Also, what Ms. Sotomayor has said and done since 1998 negates any votes by Santorum and Frist, as well as any others in her first confirmation process.
Looks like she combs her hair with a Weed-eater.
The Grievance Guild and the Fugly Caucus will be slappin’ high fives and sharing bodily fluids all day and night over this one.
A Two’fer (as in: number of hoofs)!
Go to the Wikipedia article now and add the facts. They will of course be deleted, and eventually, the entire article will be locked in a pristine, leftist propaganda, state. You will have helped prove what snot-nosed cowards the loons over there are.
Read conservative judge Richard Posner on this point. Judicial decisions have consequences that judges should take into account. If saving the spotted owl means shutting down the lumber industry, we need to think twice before applying the simplest literal interpretation of a law. We need judges who can understand what it means to be an unemployed lumberjack. We also need judges who understand the consequences to women of their decisions.
Duh! The GOP would filibuster a bathroom break if they could.
Elections have consequences! Did anyone really expect Obama to pick anyone from the middle? The Administration is hoping that the fact that this leftist being hispanic will blunt the Republican opposition to the appointment. If ever the Republicans needed bal.s, it is now!!
And for a follow-up, Obambi will replace Ginsberg with Hugo Chavez.
I think they must have already done this, then, since all the DemocRATs are full of s—!
BTW, you make as many generalities as my children, with almost certainly little or no data to back your assertions.
Whom did you poll to determine these conclusions? Just asking…
And since when did this matter for anything? Her record shows that she does not have the temperament to make judgments according the legal constitutional precedent and merit. She has shown that she cannot make objective judgment, and has a terrible record with regard to having her judgments overturned.
All-in-all, she is nothing that Obama said that she is with regard to being objective and having any constitutional temperament. If she would be presented for what she is by the media, then the vast majority of the American people would reject her. Hell, if the media had informed the American people about who Obama was, he wouldn’t have made it through the democrat primaries…
tell KIM JONG IL that!! ROFL…
Since no one here has objected to the idea of a woman on the Supreme Court this statement is a complete non-sequiter.
Fair enough. Now please show me one example – just one – of a place where substituting racially-based favortism for impartially applied laws has ever made things more just or less hostile.
You are a deeply, deeply foolish person, one seemingly incapable of rational thought.
..and the law, particularily the Constitution, means nothing….words, just words……
puke!!
Apparently you did not see my response to Cristy Li. I repost it here for your pleasure.
On May 26th, 2009 at 10:26 am, Rogue Cheddar said:
I reject your premise, much like I would a bad tuna fish sandwich, with violent projectile vomiting.
Some food for thought…
This is absolutely true, but you got it absolutely wrong.
Posner is a leading light in the area of law and economics. He, I think correctly, advocates that courts SOMETIMES apply a cost/benefit analysis to cases before them. Part of the basis for this is that the Congress (and state legislatures) draft laws intentionally to be so loose that they only provide a mandate for court interpretation. Cowards that they are. So, Posner opines that courts HAVE to apply appropriate guides to give effect to laws that does not violate common sense, including economic analysis.
THAT is completely different than applying a racial, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. filter to a given case. That is EXACTLY what Obama and Sotomayor have in mind.