[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BOHICA! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:25:40 AM EDT
|
If she gets confirmed, and she will, we're in deep shit. Listening to her hearing makes me wanna puke. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Seriously?
Ive read some of her opinions, and she seems pretty bright to me. B.A. at Princton, J.D. at Yale. Went from Yale Law (where she could have easily taken a $150k-$200k per year job right out of school) and decided to be a D.A. in Manhattan! That is a really tough job, it doesnt pay real well, and it shows a devotion to upholding the law and punishing bad guys. She was appointed by H.W. Bush to the Southern District of NY, which any officer of the court will tell you is a really big district position, and then appointed by Clinton to the Second Circuit. I think the dual-partisan appointments show a real lack of partisanship in her judicial role. I hear alot of people bitching about her, but I dont really think those people really know anything about her. I just think they want to bitch b/c she is an Obama appointee and they are going to bitch about it even if he appoints Karl Rove. Her "wise latina" saying raises eyebrows, but her record of following the law is pretty good. My conclusion: Dont drink the media Kool-Aid (whether it is the pro-Sotomayor CNN or the anti-Sotomayor Fox). Read some of her opinions and make up your own mind. If you are basing your opinons on what you read about her or heard about her on the news, then you are trusting the middle man. Her opinions are avbailable. Read them. |
|
i have no clue who you are, and you obviously have no clue who i am. I am usually one of the most politically informed people in this forum. Im listening to her own words. Ive read many of her opinions. Ive also read many of the opinions of scotus from when the reversed her opinions. She is one of the most reversed judges outside the 9th circuit. She herself is one of the most dishonest, manipulative people to ever soil the hill. Listening to her try to wrangle out of her proven prejudice is sickening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
i have no clue who you are, and you obviously have no clue who i am. I am usually one of the most politically informed people in this forum. I dont see where you and I fit into this. To papaphrase, you said, "Sotomayor is bad news." I said, "Not based on her opinions I have read." Seems to me, this post is about Sotomayor. Im listening to her own words. Ive read many of her opinions.
Which ones? Ive also read many of the opinions of scotus from when the reversed her opinions.
"Many" of them? She has only been reversed by SCOTUS 3 times in 232 appellate decisions. She is one of the most reversed judges outside the 9th circuit.
I expect better from "one of the most politically informed people on this forum." Sotomayor had 232 appellate opinions during her time as an appellate judge. Only 5 of those decisions have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means for the other 227 (assuming cert was sought), the Court felt they were probably decided correctly and didnt merit review. Of those 5 decision, 3 of were overturned. That is 60%. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases which they review. 3 out of 232 is a percentage of (drumroll please) 1.3% of Sotomayor's cases have been overturned. That doesnt qualify as "one of the most overturned judges outside the 9th Circuit." She herself is one of the most dishonest, manipulative people to ever soil the hill. Listening to her try to wrangle out of her proven prejudice is sickening.
What has she lied about? |
|
Quoted:
wow, after hearing how lawyers rate her, she has no business running a mcdonalds much less a court. Lawyers repeatedly say she has a temper problem, is often out of control, and a bully to those that she disagrees with. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile A federal appellate judge with a temper problem is kinda par for the course. |
|
Graham is a RINO.
One consolation about her nomination...she's simply replacing another liberal on the bench. In that respect I don't see much damage from this. Honestly though my thinking about the qualifications to be a SCOTUS is you have one and only one document to follow. The Constitution of the U.S. and original intent. Plain and simple. Who needs 12 degrees from the most prestigious universities and a law degree to do that? Simple American history should be all that is required. |
|
Quoted:
Graham is a RINO. One consolation about her nomination...she's simply replacing another liberal on the bench. In that respect I don't see much damage from this. Honestly though my thinking about the qualifications to be a SCOTUS is you have one and only one document to follow. The Constitution of the U.S. and original intent. Plain and simple. Who needs 12 degrees from the most prestigious universities and a law degree to do that? Simple American history should be all that is required. I whole heartedly agree. However, for better or worse, Constitutional law has become alot bigger than the Constitution itself. There is a whole canon of SCOTUS opinons which have interpreted the Constitution. Knowing that stuff is (again, for better or worse) just as important to being a modern federal judge as knowing the document itself. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: wow, after hearing how lawyers rate her, she has no business running a mcdonalds much less a court. Lawyers repeatedly say she has a temper problem, is often out of control, and a bully to those that she disagrees with. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Im a lawyer, I practice in a couple appellate courts. An appellate judge with a temper problem is kinda par for the course. yeah. And so is the nomination of a liberal by a socialist. I cannot, nor do i wish to imagine why you would defend a racist on a board where you should be able to tell that she is rightfully hated. But advertising that youre a lawyer and support this nomination makes me question your actual reason for being here. Trolling comes to mind, but it is rather obvious that furthering the anti lawyer stereotypes is at least a partial goal. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Graham is a RINO. One consolation about her nomination...she's simply replacing another liberal on the bench. In that respect I don't see much damage from this. Honestly though my thinking about the qualifications to be a SCOTUS is you have one and only one document to follow. The Constitution of the U.S. and original intent. Plain and simple. Who needs 12 degrees from the most prestigious universities and a law degree to do that? Simple American history should be all that is required. There is a whole canon of SCOTUS opinons which have interpreted the Constitution. Knowing that stuff is (again, for better or worse) just as important to being a modern federal judge as knowing the document itself. What if it was misinterpreted in the earlier opinions? i.e. Liberal judicial activism.  Rather than letting incorrect precedent stand wouldn't it be better to overturn earlier decisions? I can think of several back a few decades that need correcting.
|
|
yeah. And so is the nomination of a liberal by a socialist. I cannot, nor do i wish to imagine why you would defend a racist on a board where you should be able to tell that she is rightfully hated. But advertising that youre a lawyer and support this nomination makes me question your actual reason for being here. Trolling comes to mind, but it is rather obvious that furthering the anti lawyer stereotypes is at least a partial goal.
How come anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion on this forum is labelled a troll? I am an avid gun collector and user. I own multiple ARs and one of them is SBR'ed and suppressed. That is why I am on this forum. Period. Last I checked, this was AR15.com, not "AntiSotomayorOnly.com." Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to own guns, enjoy gns, and still agree with at least some decisions of the current administration. Does that mean I am blind to the mistakes being made by Obama? No. For example, do I agree with its stance on gun control? No. But your one sided rant about Sotomayor was based on incorrect facts and I called you out on it. You can argue the issues or you can call me a troll. Niether will upset me, although I would prefer to have a discussion rather than an argument. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Graham is a RINO. One consolation about her nomination...she's simply replacing another liberal on the bench. In that respect I don't see much damage from this. Honestly though my thinking about the qualifications to be a SCOTUS is you have one and only one document to follow. The Constitution of the U.S. and original intent. Plain and simple. Who needs 12 degrees from the most prestigious universities and a law degree to do that? Simple American history should be all that is required. There is a whole canon of SCOTUS opinons which have interpreted the Constitution. Knowing that stuff is (again, for better or worse) just as important to being a modern federal judge as knowing the document itself. What if it was misinterpreted in the earlier opinions? i.e. Liberal judicial activism. Rather than letting incorrect precedent stand wouldn't it be better to overturn earlier decisions? I can think of several back a few decades that need correcting.
Certainly. There is some precedent that ought to be fixed. That said, you cant fix it if you dont know it. That is where factors like "Yale" come into play. |
|
Quoted: yeah. And so is the nomination of a liberal by a socialist. I cannot, nor do i wish to imagine why you would defend a racist on a board where you should be able to tell that she is rightfully hated. But advertising that youre a lawyer and support this nomination makes me question your actual reason for being here. Trolling comes to mind, but it is rather obvious that furthering the anti lawyer stereotypes is at least a partial goal. How come anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion on this forum is labelled a troll? I am an avid gun collector and user. I own multiple ARs and one of them is SBR'ed and suppressed. That is why I am on this forum. Period. Last I checked, this was AR15.com, not "AntiSotomayorOnly.com." Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to own guns, enjoy gns, and still agree with at least some decisions of the current administration. Does that mean I am blind to the mistakes being made by Obama? No. For example, do I agree with its stance on gun control? No. But your one sided rant about Sotomayor was based on incorrect facts and I called you out on it. You can argue the issues or you can call me a troll. Niether will upset me, although I would prefer to have a discussion rather than an argument. I got news for ya. The reason I'm posting this post today is because I have held my judgement until I could listen to her speak. She has been incredibly evasive with her answers all morning. She has openly contradicted herself numerous times in relation to her racist "wise latina" comment. She's a weasel. To non lawyers, thats bad. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah. And so is the nomination of a liberal by a socialist. I cannot, nor do i wish to imagine why you would defend a racist on a board where you should be able to tell that she is rightfully hated. But advertising that youre a lawyer and support this nomination makes me question your actual reason for being here. Trolling comes to mind, but it is rather obvious that furthering the anti lawyer stereotypes is at least a partial goal.
How come anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion on this forum is labelled a troll? I am an avid gun collector and user. I own multiple ARs and one of them is SBR'ed and suppressed. That is why I am on this forum. Period. Last I checked, this was AR15.com, not "AntiSotomayorOnly.com." Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to own guns, enjoy gns, and still agree with at least some decisions of the current administration. Does that mean I am blind to the mistakes being made by Obama? No. For example, do I agree with its stance on gun control? No. But your one sided rant about Sotomayor was based on incorrect facts and I called you out on it. You can argue the issues or you can call me a troll. Niether will upset me, although I would prefer to have a discussion rather than an argument. I got news for ya. The reason I'm posting this post today is because I have held my judgement until I could listen to her speak. She has been incredibly evasive with her answers all morning. She has openly contradicted herself numerous times in relation to her racist "wise latina" comment. She's a weasel. To non lawyers, thats bad. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Evasive? contradictory? Have you ever seen a confirmation hearing before? Of course she is evasive. Every nominee (R or D appointed) since C-SPAN began televising the hearings has been evasive. Confirmation hearings are little more than a chance for congressmen and women to hear themselves speak and to appease lobbys who gave them money by asking "the tough questions" which are really just flowery speeches with a question mark at the end. If you dont like people who are evasive under public congressional questioning, then you must not like anybody who has ever been questioned!!!! One more time: If you want to know about a judge, read her opinions. That is where the answers lay. Anything else is politicized b.s. with an agenda. |
|
Quoted:
Dude, Dan_Gray is usually one of the most politically informed people on this forum. That may very well be true. I dont know him, but he seems to have many fans in here. As he is a well informed person and I would enjoy talking about this issue with him like adults. However, that is being made difficult by personal jeers and what I can only call a desire not to dicuss this topic. I would only ask, if you dont want to discuss it, why did you post it on a public internet forum??? Did you just want everyone to blindly agree? Dan, back to our discussion, you stated that: She is one of the most reversed judges outside the 9th circuit.
I pointed out the flaw I perceieved in this statement with my post which read: Sotomayor had 232 appellate opinions during her time as an appellate judge.
Only 5 of those decisions have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means for the other 227 (assuming cert was sought), the Court felt they were probably decided correctly and didnt merit review. Of those 5 decision, 3 of were overturned. That is 60%. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases which they review. 3 out of 232 is a percentage of (drumroll please) 1.3% of Sotomayor's cases have been overturned. I agree that my opinion is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant. The facts are, Sotomayor's jurisprudence ought to be judged by her rendering of judicial opinions. I will return to my original questions: which opinons of hers have you read by which you judge her unfit for SCOTUS? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Dude, Dan_Gray is usually one of the most politically informed people on this forum. That may very well be true. I dont know him, but he seems to have many fans in here. As he is a well informed person and I would enjoy talking about this issue with him like adults. However, that is being made difficult by personal jeers and what I can only call a desire not to dicuss this topic. I would only ask, if you dont want to discuss it, why did you post it on a public internet forum??? Did you just want everyone to blindly agree? Dan, back to our discussion, you stated that: She is one of the most reversed judges outside the 9th circuit. I pointed out the flaw I perceieved in this statement with my post which read: Sotomayor had 232 appellate opinions during her time as an appellate judge. Only 5 of those decisions have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means for the other 227 (assuming cert was sought), the Court felt they were probably decided correctly and didnt merit review. Of those 5 decision, 3 of were overturned. That is 60%. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases which they review. 3 out of 232 is a percentage of (drumroll please) 1.3% of Sotomayor's cases have been overturned. I agree that my opinion is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant. The facts are, Sotomayor's jurisprudence ought to be judged by her rendering of judicial opinions. I will return to my original questions: which opinons of hers have you read by which you judge her unfit for SCOTUS? first of all, i dont think the only matters that should be considered are her legal opinions. Second, i already stated that i would get into that when i was at a computer. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
first of all, i dont think the only matters that should be considered are her legal opinions. Second, i already stated that i would get into that when i was at a computer. I agree that more matters than her opinions. However, I would place considerably more value on her opinions than on a C-SPAN congressional hearing. Not trying to rush you, respond whenever you have time. I know everyone is busy and this is just idle internet ramblings. I was just trying to put a stop to the personal/collateral attacks and try to steer this topic back on course. |
| The woman is a member of laraza so that should disqualify her alone, but it will never be brought up. Her lack of a stance on the 2nd solidifies my belief she is a anti. She is obviously a latino racist that would like to see America disarmed so her race may gain power thru violent takeover of parts of the U.S. She is a tool. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude, Dan_Gray is usually one of the most politically informed people on this forum. That may very well be true. I dont know him, but he seems to have many fans in here. As he is a well informed person and I would enjoy talking about this issue with him like adults. However, that is being made difficult by personal jeers and what I can only call a desire not to dicuss this topic. I would only ask, if you dont want to discuss it, why did you post it on a public internet forum??? Did you just want everyone to blindly agree? Dan, back to our discussion, you stated that: She is one of the most reversed judges outside the 9th circuit.
I pointed out the flaw I perceieved in this statement with my post which read: Sotomayor had 232 appellate opinions during her time as an appellate judge.
Only 5 of those decisions have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means for the other 227 (assuming cert was sought), the Court felt they were probably decided correctly and didnt merit review. Of those 5 decision, 3 of were overturned. That is 60%. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases which they review. 3 out of 232 is a percentage of (drumroll please) 1.3% of Sotomayor's cases have been overturned. I agree that my opinion is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant. The facts are, Sotomayor's jurisprudence ought to be judged by her rendering of judicial opinions. I will return to my original questions: which opinons of hers have you read by which you judge her unfit for SCOTUS? I was being a little sarcastic but there's no way you could have known that. Dan_Gray texts me with breaking news at least 12-24 hours after I hear about it. And he has no fans here. Okay, back to how wrong you are. |
All in all I still have and only need one and only one reason to reject her....Obama picked her. That's good enough for me to know she's most definitely not a good pick. To be picked by a man who is so obviously a hard liberal and socialist as well is enough to satisfy me. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself. I know that's not scientific but it's good enough for me.  Oh and another reason...the MSM sure seems to paint her like she deserves it. If there's one thing I've learned it's to almost always go the opposite direction the MSM is leaning.
And on another subject getting a shipment of M855 today as well as my Young National Match BCG. That'll leave me with 3 spares. Dan eat your heart out!  But I suppose you'd only use a Colt BCG in your guns!! lol
|
|
Looks like Coburn asked her what she thought about the right to self protection as it relates to gun ownership:
So far what I can find: Here's a capsule: Coburn, a strong advocate of individual gun ownership, found an intriguing way to question Sotomayor on that issue. First, he asked her how she could consider that the right to privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) is settled law but the right to keep and bear arms (the Second Amendment) as unsettled. Sotomayor started with her usual answer that judges don't make law. And she noted that the federal government and many states have laws restricting guns, such as possession of firearms by felons. Then the sparing got more interesting. "Do I have a right to personal self-defense?" Coburn asked. Sotomayor: "That's an abstract question." Coburn: "That's what the public wants to know. Yes or no? Do we have that right?" The judge thought for a moment, then came up with an answer based on her experience as a New York City prosecutor: "If there's a threat of serious injury you can use force. How imminent is the threat? If the threat is in this room and I go home get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law." Coburn: "What the American people want to see is what your gut says." Sotomayor said that's not how judges decide cases. |
| One of the cases that will be brought up soon is a case in which she was reversed. Basically, New Haven CT tested it's fire dept members for promotions. No blacks passed the test. Just some whites and hispanics. New Haven then through out the results and promoted lesser qualified people based on race. She agreed with the city that this was ok. What more proof could one need that she is absolutely ok with discrimination against whites? |
|
Quoted:
Her relationship with La Raza is all I need to hear about. All those pretty papers from nice colleges dont mean shit if you're still a dumbass. But what do I know? I'm just a dude with a real degree and a real job. And white.  As we know, a latina will come to a better conclusion than a white. |
|
Quoted:
One of the cases that will be brought up soon is a case in which she was reversed. Basically, New Haven CT tested it's fire dept members for promotions. No blacks passed the test. Just some whites and hispanics. New Haven then through out the results and promoted lesser qualified people based on race. She agreed with the city that this was ok. What more proof could one need that she is absolutely ok with discrimination against whites? I think your ignorance of the judicial system is pretty apparent in this post. In the New Haven case, she applied the clearly established precedent in her Circuit, which is what an appellate judge is generaly supposed to do. I think the precedent was bad law (obviously you agree with me there), but it was the law and her job as appellate judge is to apply the law––not ignore it and make up new law. If she made up her own law, that would be "legislating from the bench" and people would be bithcing just as hard about her for "overstepping her judicial bounds" and making her own law. The case was sent to SCOTUS and they overturned the precedent in the 2nd Circuit because it was bad. That is what they are supposed to do, and they have the power to do. End result = each member of the judiciary did their job and the American judicial system got the right result. Quoted:
All in all I still have and only need one and only one reason to reject her....Obama picked her. That is really what this is all about. No one is really concerned about reading her opinions and learning about her individually. People on the left just automatically love her and people on the right just automatically hate her because she was nominated by the current administration. My whole point in this discussion has been to say: why not do some independent research and actually read her opinions rather than regurgitating what is said on Fox [for the right] and CNN/MSNBC [for the left]. |
|
Quoted:
Seriously? Ive read some of her opinions, and she seems pretty bright to me. B.A. at Princton, J.D. at Yale. Went from Yale Law (where she could have easily taken a $150k-$200k per year job right out of school) and decided to be a D.A. in Manhattan! That is a really tough job, it doesnt pay real well, and it shows a devotion to upholding the law and punishing bad guys. She was appointed by H.W. Bush to the Southern District of NY, which any officer of the court will tell you is a really big district position, and then appointed by Clinton to the Second Circuit. I think the dual-partisan appointments show a real lack of partisanship in her judicial role. I hear alot of people bitching about her, but I dont really think those people really know anything about her. I just think they want to bitch b/c she is an Obama appointee and they are going to bitch about it even if he appoints Karl Rove. Her "wise latina" saying raises eyebrows, but her record of following the law is pretty good. . My conclusion: Dont drink the media Kool-Aid (whether it is the pro-Sotomayor CNN or the anti-Sotomayor Fox). Read some of her opinions and make up your own mind. If you are basing your opinons on what you read about her or heard about her on the news, then you are trusting the middle man. Her opinions are avbailable. Read them. yea like the part when she said the 2nd is not an individual right |
|
You tell us to read her opinions, we do, you call us ignorant if we dont like her over it. We give other reasons, you say we should read her opinions. Tell me, how can i be as much of a self righteous blow hard as you? I mean I can be an ass, but you give me a whole new level to strive for. You sir (and thats spelled with a "c" and a "u") are my new idol. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
You tell us to read her opinions, we do, you call us ignorant if we dont like her over it. We give other reasons, you say we should read her opinions. Tell me, how can i be as much of a self righteous blow hard as you? I mean I can be an ass, but you give me a whole new level to strive for. You sir (and thats spelled with a "c" and a "u") are my new idol. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You havent argued the issues at all. You have just said, "I read her opinions, she is a racist." you know who I respect the most in this thread? BamainArk. At least he has the cojones to just admit he doesnt like her b/c she is an Obama oppointee LaRaza . There are tons of people on this planet who I dislike just because of their association with others. That is fine. I can respect that position, and respect that he is honest with himself and with others. What I dont respect is disingenuous B.S. like stating "I am the most politically informer person in this thread" when you obviously havent read Sotomayor's opinions (as evidenced by your quote "I have read many of her opinions which have been overturned" when she only has 3 and you cant name them without the help of Google) yet you parade yourself as a beacon of independent political and judicial knowledge. Dan, up to this point, I havent done any name calling, I havent made a single personal attack, and yet you get defensive in every post and lash out simply because I have pointed to flaws in your arguments. You have called me a "weasel" and a "blow hard," among other things, yet you dont know the first thing about me other than a couple words posted on the internet. Now you expect me to believe that you wait to form your opinions based on the entierty of the facts at your disposal. The evidence at hand would suggest otherwise. Im not trolling, Im just trying to have an adult discussion/debate on the issues. You obviously cant figure out how to do that, so I bow out of this one. I believe the saying is, "never argue with a fool in public because the passerby may be unable to ascrertain who is who." Please continue being the most informed person on this forum. I defer to your infinite wisdom. |
|
You make the mistake of assuming anyone here cares if they have your respect. I listened to her lie her ass off for two days. From your previous comments. You obviously have no problem with that. I do. So does pretty much everyone else here. We're simple hard workin people here. We have values and we have problems with liars. The only person in this forum that doesnt dislike liars is you. You defend her lies as normal for confirmation hearings. I think anyone that cant defend theic record has no business on the hill. I bet you wonder why people hate lawyers. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul for President 2012!!!!!!!! Fuck it, let's get Dan really fired up, LMAO Fuck you j  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile And Glocks suck!!!! Oh now Fuck you too. and fuck yall for never showing up to shit you antisocial fucks Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ron Paul for President 2012!!!!!!!! Fuck it, let's get Dan really fired up, LMAO Fuck you j
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile And Glocks suck!!!! Oh now Fuck you too. and fuck yall for never showing up to shit you antisocial fucks
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Hey now me and Griz are coming to the swap meet and we are looking at shooting some of those shoots you guys have been going to. |