I’d say the same thing about Miguel Estrada if in fact he held the same view.
Sy- Do you eat Republican talking point shit sandwiches for lunch everyday or what?
She has more experience on the bench then any SC judge in 100 years, she will be confirmed with flying colors. Get over it.
And speaking of Sarah…
Did you see her giving her “Economics 101” speech about how we need to be “aware of the creation of a fearful population…”
Project much ya think?
THAT’S what we need – someone who got D’s in Economics (by her own admission in another speech about 10 months ago or so) lecturing us on economics.
I would truly love to see a stupid-off between Sarah and Michelle Bachmann.
But it sends a shiver down my spine every time I think that she actually had a shot at becoming the VP of the US. What an amazing embarrassment for the Republican party.
And, in a way, she’s the perfect I.Q. test all by herself: if you think Sarah Palin is smart you have to go sit in the corner and diagram one of her sentences while the rest of us hold a rational discussion.
And speaking of Sarah…
She also recently spouted off about Obama leading us down the path of socialism. I know; that’s a standard Republican talking point. But Sarah…
Sarah raised taxes on the Big Rich Oil Companies a couple years ago and gave each and every resident in Alaska $1200. Its true and she said so in her inauguration speech. She was proud of it.
Ok, Sarah, Economics 101…
That’s called… come on Sarah… starts with an “s”
Have I mentioned I thank God everyday she was not elected.
Whatever, you guys cite things Palin has said on camera as reasons why you perceive her as unqualified, yet don’t like it when the same is done with Soto.
A SCOTUS judge who thinks policy is/should be made on the bench should scare the crap out of either side.
Sy, grow up. Really, grow up. Judges make policy all the time. The legislature has yet to think of all the things that could happen in human endeavors. Judges have to fill in the voids here and now. In other cases legislatures are too cowardly to make laws about all the things that can happen in human endeavors, so again judges are forced to fill in the voids. Here’s an example that occurred in stormland, recently.
Let’s say that a little boy, we’ll call him Sy, has two mommies. They are a nice little family. But after several years the mommies are no longer getting along. One of Sy’s mommies wants to split. She happens to also make the larger financial contribution to Sy’s little family. What should happen to Sy? How will there be money for a roof over little Sy’s head, for food on little Sy’s table. The big, bad legislature said, “no, to gay marriage” so, on one hand a judge can hardly “create” a gay divorce. On the other hand, Sy has two parents who are both able to contribute to his welfare. What to do – make Sy a ward of the state, allowing one or both of Sy’s mommies to avoid any obligation for Sy’s future welfare? There you have the case for gay divorce, custody and visitation, child support and alimony.
The law is about how folks really live and organize their lives – not about how some right wingnut Talibahn would have folks live and organize their lives. Get over it.
I agree John, I think our founding fathers understood our constitution was not flawless and would have to be adjusted for the times. But they also understood there needed to be checks and balances, that’s why we have 3 branches of government. It’s one of the main reasons why I think Scalia, a strict constitutionalist, is one of the worst SC Judges in a long time. That and he handed the presidency to GW Bush on a silver platter.
John2:
“Judges make policy all the time”.
Sure and some is good/bad depending on your perspective. But if they overstep and make really bad policy that most of us wouldn’t want, then it can get overturned everywhere but the SCOTUS. Throw out Gay Marriage or any other issue you are concerned/passionate about, at this level neither side should want policy made from the highest bench. The voter is supposed to do their duty and elect people who’s policies they are closest to. The Court is there to interpret law and be a ref. That’s how the founders set it up, end of story.
and l3wis:
“That and he handed the presidency to GW Bush on a silver platter.”
I’ll pass johns words on to you: Get over it.
Sy: “Her record doesn’t matter.”
Sy…with all due respect – and I mean this in the most thoughtful manner possible here – you’re a fucking idiot.
For Christ sake her fucking record is the ONLY thing that matters. I could give a shit less if she made a statement about making policy off the top of her head or if she stated she felt it was the duty of judge to decide what color of M&Ms should be outlawed. What I DO care about is what she actually does, and thus far the right has only had two or three far reaching cases to bitch about in the 3,000 or so she has ever been involved in, so I think we’re pretty safe here.
By the way – Scalia has been quoted as stating essentially the same thing about judges making policy….twice.
Stop taking your viewpoints from Fox News and Rush and you might actually add something worthwhile to a discussion every now and then.
Her record doesn’t matter.
This is all you need to know as to why she isn’t qualified to sit on the SCOTUS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
I’d say the same thing about Miguel Estrada if in fact he held the same view.
Sy- Do you eat Republican talking point shit sandwiches for lunch everyday or what?
She has more experience on the bench then any SC judge in 100 years, she will be confirmed with flying colors. Get over it.
And speaking of Sarah…
Did you see her giving her “Economics 101” speech about how we need to be “aware of the creation of a fearful population…”
Project much ya think?
THAT’S what we need – someone who got D’s in Economics (by her own admission in another speech about 10 months ago or so) lecturing us on economics.
I would truly love to see a stupid-off between Sarah and Michelle Bachmann.
But it sends a shiver down my spine every time I think that she actually had a shot at becoming the VP of the US. What an amazing embarrassment for the Republican party.
And, in a way, she’s the perfect I.Q. test all by herself: if you think Sarah Palin is smart you have to go sit in the corner and diagram one of her sentences while the rest of us hold a rational discussion.
And speaking of Sarah…
She also recently spouted off about Obama leading us down the path of socialism. I know; that’s a standard Republican talking point. But Sarah…
Sarah raised taxes on the Big Rich Oil Companies a couple years ago and gave each and every resident in Alaska $1200. Its true and she said so in her inauguration speech. She was proud of it.
Ok, Sarah, Economics 101…
That’s called… come on Sarah… starts with an “s”
Have I mentioned I thank God everyday she was not elected.
Whatever, you guys cite things Palin has said on camera as reasons why you perceive her as unqualified, yet don’t like it when the same is done with Soto.
A SCOTUS judge who thinks policy is/should be made on the bench should scare the crap out of either side.
Sy, grow up. Really, grow up. Judges make policy all the time. The legislature has yet to think of all the things that could happen in human endeavors. Judges have to fill in the voids here and now. In other cases legislatures are too cowardly to make laws about all the things that can happen in human endeavors, so again judges are forced to fill in the voids. Here’s an example that occurred in stormland, recently.
Let’s say that a little boy, we’ll call him Sy, has two mommies. They are a nice little family. But after several years the mommies are no longer getting along. One of Sy’s mommies wants to split. She happens to also make the larger financial contribution to Sy’s little family. What should happen to Sy? How will there be money for a roof over little Sy’s head, for food on little Sy’s table. The big, bad legislature said, “no, to gay marriage” so, on one hand a judge can hardly “create” a gay divorce. On the other hand, Sy has two parents who are both able to contribute to his welfare. What to do – make Sy a ward of the state, allowing one or both of Sy’s mommies to avoid any obligation for Sy’s future welfare? There you have the case for gay divorce, custody and visitation, child support and alimony.
The law is about how folks really live and organize their lives – not about how some right wingnut Talibahn would have folks live and organize their lives. Get over it.
I agree John, I think our founding fathers understood our constitution was not flawless and would have to be adjusted for the times. But they also understood there needed to be checks and balances, that’s why we have 3 branches of government. It’s one of the main reasons why I think Scalia, a strict constitutionalist, is one of the worst SC Judges in a long time. That and he handed the presidency to GW Bush on a silver platter.
John2:
“Judges make policy all the time”.
Sure and some is good/bad depending on your perspective. But if they overstep and make really bad policy that most of us wouldn’t want, then it can get overturned everywhere but the SCOTUS. Throw out Gay Marriage or any other issue you are concerned/passionate about, at this level neither side should want policy made from the highest bench. The voter is supposed to do their duty and elect people who’s policies they are closest to. The Court is there to interpret law and be a ref. That’s how the founders set it up, end of story.
and l3wis:
“That and he handed the presidency to GW Bush on a silver platter.”
I’ll pass johns words on to you: Get over it.
Sy: “Her record doesn’t matter.”
Sy…with all due respect – and I mean this in the most thoughtful manner possible here – you’re a fucking idiot.
For Christ sake her fucking record is the ONLY thing that matters. I could give a shit less if she made a statement about making policy off the top of her head or if she stated she felt it was the duty of judge to decide what color of M&Ms should be outlawed. What I DO care about is what she actually does, and thus far the right has only had two or three far reaching cases to bitch about in the 3,000 or so she has ever been involved in, so I think we’re pretty safe here.
By the way – Scalia has been quoted as stating essentially the same thing about judges making policy….twice.
Stop taking your viewpoints from Fox News and Rush and you might actually add something worthwhile to a discussion every now and then.
[…] GOP Love […]