Fox Reporter Queries Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor Reversal Rate

[mynamearekid]

Robert Gibbs is such a loser lol. He's worse than Scott Maclellan ever was!

[SecureIsrael]

gibbs is such an asshole

[sammvoyager]

Reply to RobertRobls;  Well said Patriot!!!! "I love this Country and I fervently oppose her nomination to the supreme court because she is a threat to the legal system." Besides, she's "F"ugly as hell. Fat racist she is, as Yoda would say.

[Chslosers]

she is pretty ugly ill give you that

[logansGT]

Blah blah blah.....

This snarky weasel Gibbs litterally turns my stomach.

He's just another typical  White House press secretary/liar; a cunning-linguist spewing lies and bullshit, as usual.

The fawning toadies, aka the White House Press Corps, continue to be complicit sycophants.

[RobertRobls]

Why we do not want to reconized that Soto Mayor is a Radical Activist Judge and if confirmed she will destroy our National Legal Institution "The Supreme Court".

Soto Mayor will make the Supreme Court a Radical Progressist Agency to help destroy our bless Republic.

I love this Country and I fervently oppose her nomination to the supreme court because she is a threat to the legal system.

[papavalium]

Some observers claimed that the Democrats also wished to avoid giving Bush points with Hispanic voters. The Democrats hotly contested this; however, internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee

[Wisegeorge]

For his next Supreme Court pick Obama should add Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Al Franken and Chris Rock to his list of ten and then narrow it down to Coulter or the one he was going to pick anyway. Man, that would make good television.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

If it gets reversed by the Supreme Court, it's not a bad decision. Bad decisions get reversed by lower appellate courts, and the Supreme Court then doesn't bother with it. The Supreme Court typically takes cases with ambiguous features of the law, or unclear and conflicting lower judicial opinions exist - NOT because of bad judgments through all the lower courts. Reversal rates on appeal is the criteria for dubious judicial judgment.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

So 3 reversals, all at the Supreme Court, out of 380 opinions, is a sign of an excellent judge. Of course, FOX "News" will attempt to suggest otherwise. They're always relying on the ignorance of their audience.

[JustinCaseable]

Of her 6 opinions, 3 of them were reversed... Soon it will be 4 after the New Haven case is voted on, not sure how you missed that point. Maybe you should listen to the substance of the argument before you attack the Straw Man.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I'm just using what's presented in this video: 3 reversals out of 380 opinions, all by the Supreme Court.

Your comments made no sense. Straw Man? Do you even know what that means? I defy you to show where I made a straw man argument. And should I point out the irony here? No - instead I'll point out your amusing certainty about how the Court will rule prior to the decision (even better, how you're not sure how I missed that point - I guess I don't have access to your time machine.)

[jimfree10]

Imagine that! The Supreme Court did reverse her ruling... You didn't need a time machine to figure that out, you needed only look at the fact that her decision was based upon emotion and racism instead of law and justice.

And you missed the point of the question completely. It was not about 3 out of 380, that was Gibbs' statistic, it was the 3 out of 6 (now 4 of 7) that the Supreme Court had ruled on... that was the issue on the table. Use your brain, instead of blindly drinking the koolaid.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Talk about missing the point completely. I said: "If it gets reversed by the Supreme Court, it's not a bad decision.. The Supreme Court typically takes cases with ambiguous features of the law, or unclear and conflicting lower judicial opinions exist - NOT because of bad judgments through all the lower courts." You didn't address my argument at all. Like most who use the very original koolaid crack, you failed to grasp a simple line of reasoning. Try addressing my position before firing insults

[jimfree10]

Ah, I admittedly did not read the lower post, I had read the exchange above which was what I was commenting on. Of course my admitted mistake does not change the fact that the numbers you were using were not an applicable part of the argument.

But leaving that aside, making a blanket statement about cases the Supreme Court "typically" takes, has no bearing on Sotomayor. Her most recent case, for example, was not unclear; it was simply racism in action... from a judge no less. It was sad.

[qwertyman129]

I'd assume you didn't read the opinion in this case, either at the district, appellate, or Supreme Court level. This was not about racism in action.

The firefighters' tests showed racially disparate results. Under Title VII, this can create a rebuttable presumption of the test being racially biased. NH threw it out. There was plenty of support on both sides of the issue, and this was a close case. The decision wound up being 5-4. I think it was decided correctly, but this was far from racism.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Let me restate - I know the argument being made, my argument were meant as a rebuttal. My point was that all judges will encounter border areas of law, and will inevitably be reversed sometimes. 4 reversals out of 380 opinions is hardly the sign of a poor judge. In fact, when 94 out of 95 opinions stand, it's a sign of a good judge. (The most recent, as described by qwertyman below, was hardly a no-brainer, being a 5-4 USSC decision.)

The attacks on Sotomayor have been borderline insane.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

She makes an innocuous comment, out of a lifetime of on-the-record comments, about her background allowing her to better judge a situation than a white man might, and Limbaugh makes that into "How do you get ahead in an Obama administration? By hating white people." Here 4 Supremes agreed with her, and yet you claim her opinion was based on emotion and racism. 98.9% of her opinions stand = an emotional racist judge? Is that rational perspective, or partisan hyperbole/nonsense?

[Shiftyeyes516]

Yeah - you might be a Suprem Court Nom - but as a idiot news reported - you probably more power with the bullshit propaganda (Fix News) puts out.

[WinterHaven]

Obama chose her because (1) due to being a woman (2) being hispanic. That's more "brownie" points on "change" but its basing it on gender and race. Did you know most hispanics and blacks voted against gay marriage? I am also seeing all over the internet that she *IS* a racist. Do a google search and look for yourself.

[faifaalelei]

...and the GOP chose Clarence Thomas because...........? Welcome to Politics 101, Dont lose sleep over it, Democrats will rule for the next 50 years, get use to it.

[SubmarinerAndroid]

Can you imagine the reaction if he had chosen the lesbian?

[carrierexchange]

She isn't good for the Supreme Court because Obama chose her and Obama is the devil.

That's republican logic right there,

[OlivierdeAthos]

She's a good choice, but I think Supreme Court Judges should have term limits (ie-12 years), rather than lifetime appointments.

[gsuitter]

"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.

—Opinion of the court, including Judge Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo 2009

Bork her!

[OlivierdeAthos]

I'm pretty sure there's a law that states you can only Bork somebody after they've met two preconditions:

1. They must rise to the rank of acting Attorney General after everybody above them has resigned for refusing to obey unconstitutional orders from the president, and then pervert justice by following those orders for the sake of cheap party politics, and...

2. They must shave off their pubic hair, glue it to their face, and pretend it's a beard.

[3star2nr]

the only person fox would like is rush limbaugh

[dogstar7]

Can't Obama come up with somebody totally infallible?

Are we talking about a SC Justice or a Pope?

So, FOX doesn't like Sotomayor, eh?

That's good enough for me to support her,

regardless of anything else.

[PASMdude]

If you make your decisions that easily and don't get off your ass and use the power of google search engine to find a REAL reason to support her then kindly do mankind a favor by not voting and not reproducing.

[dogstar7]

Oh golly! Personal abuse for attacking FOX???

You got a guy crush on Hannity or somethin'?

[PASMdude]

Oh golly! I made it clear in my comment that I would not make my decision based on what I had heard and you made a comment based on what you have heard. Which one of us comes off as the intellectual here?

[dogstar7]

If "coming off as an intellectual" is important to you, by all means...whatever...

I'm just expressing myself in the most off-handed and totally unengaged manor I can.

[PASMdude]

"offhanded" and "unengaged"is not working out that well for you. Study Socratic dialectic and then you will be in a position to debate. Your pathetic attempt to avoid the issues by changing the subject has been noted.

[dogstar7]

Oh, so we're practicing Socratic Dialectic, are we?

Your thesis, again, was...?

Oh yes: Constructionist Constitutionalism is the only accepted premise for choosing a Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Have I got that right?

OK.

Antithesis: No, it's not.

That's just your opinion.

There can be any number of criteria for the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider. Constructionist theory is just one of many partisan 'litmus tests'.

[PASMdude]

There is a way to change the constitution if the situation requires. Amendment.. It is not granted to the supreme court to take on that role. I don't see this as a partisan issue as long as both parties are essentially the same. In my opinion we are no longer a republic we have become a corporatocracy Parties make good speeches for the people that voted for them but represent the people who PAID to get them into office when it comes down to voting for legislation.

[dogstar7]

What does "changing the Constitution" have to do with anything? The issue is a Supreme Court nominee.

If you believe "activist judges" are "changing the Constitution" than you are indeed promoting a partisan viewpoint, whether you realize it or not.

And you may be surprised to learn (specially if you only utilize 'conservative' information sources) that most Americans don't share your opinion.

Most of us see the Courts as natural public advocates.

[dogstar7]

Who's trying to "avoid the issues by changing the subject" now?

The subject is a partisan attack by a FOX reporter on the record of a Federal Justice who may or may not be named as a Supreme Court nominee.

You just attempted to open the argument up to slams about parties, corporations, accusations of paid legislation, etc.

First complain about the quality of debate, then drive it right off the rails! Sheesh!

[PASMdude]

Both parties make speeches for the people that voted for them and vote in the interest of the people that paid to get to get them elected. I do not think there is such a thing as partisanship. It is a circus for the people to distract them from any real solutions to our problems.

[dogstar7]

Sorry PASMdude,

I hadn't noticed that you host a series of videos on political opinion on your our channel.

I promise to give them a look and encourage everyone to support YouTube contributors.

[PASMdude]

I have posted about 1500 videos under my 5 different accounts. I am not a troll. I would not criticize anyone unless I had put myself out there to be criticized also. It is only fair.

[dogstar7]

What exactly makes Sotomayor an "activist judge"?

When did she "make law"?

Point to any abuse of judicial power in her rulings.

What do you think you have on Sotomayor, specifically?

[PASMdude]

Never heard of her before today. I watched clips on youtube from mainstream media both conservative and liberal and she apparently has made statements in the past that suggest she is an activist judge. I do not make up my mind about anyone based on mainstream news and will reserve my final judgment until I have had a chance to do research. I just tried to qualify my initial opinion of her based on what I have heard but not do it in a way that would lead anyone to believe I was not open minded.

[mejdrich]

Ad hominem. Argument from authority. Argument ad nauseum.

Also, dogstar wasn't equivocating and he wasn't asking you for a debate.

So don't pick a fight if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Socrates.

[PASMdude]

Did you pull that out of your ass or look it up on wikepedia and not know what it meant? I know what the fuck I am talking about and am prepared to defend it and I don't need to use any forms of logic like ad Hominem which is no form of logic at all. Did you even fucking bother to read the entire exchange between us before coming to your erroneous conclusion?

[mejdrich]

No and no.

I was pointing out the fallacies I've seen you use here on this thread. Mostly because it amuses me when people get an over-inflated view of their own logical skills.

I did. Simply declaring me to be erroneous doesn't make it so.

For what it's worth, I don't find you to be very intellectual or very intelligent. You my be, but it isn't coming across in your posts here. You just look like you're looking for a fight.

[mejdrich]

While you are dipping into the endless well of ad hominems elsewhere, my point here remains. With every post you look more and more like a troll.

I suppose I have to take some blame here. I DO get overly irritated with pseudo-intellectuals.

[San47di]

It's said on the News that GOP could lose Latino votes if they attack Sotomayer's appointment to the Supreme Court. "News Flash!!" The GOP has already lost the Latino vote, and 42% of the white vote!! Did you not see the election return results??!! Viva Obama!!We have a Bold, Brave, and Competent President who is a serious man in a serious job, and he's not afraid to make the right choices. No one can effectively argue against this woman's credentials and accomplishments!!

[WKaliberr]

I'm not making this up, I'm watching Fox right now and they made a "joke" that she would excuse baby killers.

[Smartassawhip]

I think he made a great choice. They said they were gonna bitch.. so get our your hip waders and let the whining begin... or hell just let it continue because they really haven't stopped yet. I think the entire GOP has colic.

[zidmt]

Faux News...need we say more?

[sugarpuddin88]

The ONLY relevant criteria is whether the guy bases his decisions on the US Constitution or not

[dogstar7]

That's the Strict Constructionist viewpoint.

It's not unanimously held.

The Constitution is a structure and a template for enumerating and illustrating rights retained and rights reserved.

Justis Prudence; the life that Law leads, is a constant test of that scaffolding from which we all build our community under the it's Rule.

[sugarpuddin88]

Dog

Did you ever wonder why Federal Government employees swear to "uphold the Constitution of the United States"?

In fact, the Supreme Court is supposed to consider all decisions based solely upon their ability to reflect the precise content of the US Constitution

America has floundered & is bankrupt (illegal FED Res Bank), precisely because its people allowed its US Constitution to be usurped by oligarchs & other elites

[dogstar7]

sugarpuddin88

Did I say otherwise? I'm just say that there is also case law and other opinions.

Really, between self styled Bible absolutists and self styled Constitution absolutists what's left to discuss?

[sugarpuddin88]

Dog

The very premise of the Constitution is the most perfect document ever made by men in government

It says rights come from God; not man

It specifically prevents the Federal Government from becoming very big, important or usurping the inherent rights of all man

It forges a republic that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the majority, (because the majority is always wrong)

Today, even dying is a "taxable event" in the USA

[ipxzor]

Huh? Where is god mentioned in the constitution. I'm sure its implied but you could also imply that it isn't there.

But i'm Australian maybe i missed that bit or something.

[greyflcn]

re: sugarpuddin88

==It says rights come from God; not man==

That's not the Constitution. That's the bill of rights.

Religion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, except in an exclusionary manner.

[fishhead06]

To me, this sounds like Sotomayor will bring balance back to a court that has strayed too far away from judicial rigor. No wonder Fox and its masters are crapping their pantaloons.

[DeletedDelusion]

Isn't there still a very conservative majority on the supreme court?

[fishhead06]

I should have said "will HELP bring balance back." Then, perhaps, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia will leave the court to take up monastic vows.

[DeletedDelusion]

There is always hope, who knows?

[JamJells]

Fox is a full package of crap, and they keep on spinning it like Bush is still in need of the propaganda.

[snipzor]

Gibbs>>>>>>>Fox Reporter

Any questions?

[OlivierdeAthos]

Yes. By "reporter" do you mean "entertainer?"

[terpis]

The 'reporter's point--that our polluted Supreme Court has reversed Sotomayor 3 times--is an argument for why she needs put on the Court on the double!

Is that the karma train I hear around the bend?

[PASMdude]

Apparently 90% according to one source of her decisions got reversed before they reached the supreme court. I have yet to verify that independently but if it is true I don't want someone who does not know the law being in a position to make it.

[FatherJudgement]

Exactly, And I want to know what the reversals were and who was pulling her strings.

[dogstar7]

"I have yet to verify that independently..."

...but that doesn't stop me from repeating it!

LOL!

[PASMdude]

LOL! Does not matter too much to me if that turns out to be false. I am a strict constitutionalists and think the Senate should make laws not the Supreme court. She thinks the Supreme Court should make laws and I oppose her for that only at this point in time. I have been trying to find the video I saw about that earlier today and see who the source is so I can do research. What is wrong with qualifying an opinion in a way that does not state it as truth just because I heard it somewhere?

[dogstar7]

The SCOUS represents the apex of the Judiciary Branch which, as a "strict Constitutionalist" you would know, is intended as a check and balance, sharing Federal Powers with the Executive and Legislative Branches.

The Justices of the Supreme and Federal District Courts are no more or less involved with 'making laws' than the other two branches of government.

[PASMdude]

They are supposed to interpret law when it was written in a way that left doubts as to what the intention of the law was. They are not supposed to be activist and change the law according to their own personal peeves.

[dogstar7]

Says who?

Last I checked Obama was the former University of Chicago Professor of Constitutional Law. I'm pretty certain he's got it covered.

[PASMdude]

Larry Lindsey was a former professor of economics at Harvard. Bush listened to him instead of Paul O'Neill and how would you describe our economy based on his credentials?

[OlivierdeAthos]

When was the last time the Supreme Court "changed" a law?

[PASMdude]

Duh. If they grant themselves the power to not just interpret law but grant themselves the power to define law then they make law. Roe vs Wade.

[OlivierdeAthos]

Roe vs Wade was an example of interpreting the law in a specific case.

Trying not to sound like Clinton here, but what is your definition of "define law?"

[PASMdude]

I hate Clinton. The supreme court is to try to take 2 different arguments about what a law means and try to interpret that in the context of the specific argument being presented. Roe vs Wade made law and that is not the job of the supreme court. Once the supreme court defines a law it is a legal president that makes it law.

[OlivierdeAthos]

Still not following you. Roe v Wade overturned the state anti-abortion laws as being unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Judging whether laws are constitutional or not is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. I fail to see how that "made law."

[dogstar7]

"...how would you describe our economy based on his credentials? "

More argument shift.

Roe didn't change the Constitution.

In fact, that's why Anti-Abortion activists are trying to pass an Abortion Ban Amendment since the Courts ruling on Roe was entirely Constitutional.

This is why the "activist judges" meme is a fallacy.

[PASMdude]

Argument shift? Is that what you call a difference in opinion? I was using Socratic dialectic Using someones own logic against them. An activist judge believes that they have the power to create law through their decisions instead of exercising their constitutional role as a last resort when 2 parties disagree on what the law meant. Big difference.

[MooseOfReason]

Didn't that happen because people weren't sure what the law was, whether abortion was legal or illegal?

The Supreme Court clarifies the law. They don't invent new ones.

[PASMdude]

Then why is that a court decision is considered to be a legal precedent defines law? Everyone that disagrees with this law has to contend with the fact that the supreme court has defined this as law. I am not anti abortion just pointing out that under our constitution the Senate makes law and if the supreme court finds that law unconstitutional then the senate should create new constitutional law and not let the supreme court decide what law is.

[mejdrich]

"not let the supreme court decide what law is."

That's their job as defined by the constitution.

You can't have it both ways and all of this nonsense boils down to this: republicans are mad because they want conservative ideologues stacking the court.

[PASMdude]

Bullshit. If they determine a law is unconstitutional they rule it so and the senate tries to create a new law that is constitutional. Your belief that there are conservative ideologues I dispute. Both parties are owned by the same corporations and the differences between them are cosmetic. I can't tell the difference between Obama and Bush.

[mejdrich]

"Bullshit"

Ah, this must be some of that "Socratic dialectic method" you've been touting.

There has been an undisputed trend in the republican party toward an extreme Right identity which is not duplicated on the Left. This is what the politics of the last ten years has been about. It's what the infighting between Limbaugh and Powell is about.

I "dispute" your claim about corporate ownership.

If you aren't interested enough to tell Obama from Bush, then you probably aren't worth my time.

[PASMdude]

The neocons infiltrated the republican party during the Ford administration. Where did I support the republican party? You elected a democratic congress based on their promises and what did you get? You elected a democrat to president based on promises and what did you get? What is your explanation for this phenomenon? Mine is they make speeches for voters and vote for their corporate sponsors. Come up with a better explanation before criticizing me.

[mejdrich]

O_o PASMdude, what exactly are you trying to say?

I haven't said anything about what party you support.

*I* didn't elect anyone, the country did. And whatever "phenomenon" it is you're eluding to that I "got," it's beside the point.

The idea of calling liberal appointees "activist judges" because they aren't republican ideologues under the guise of so-called "constitutionalists" is silly. The country was founded on checks and balances -- this is high school government stuff.

[PASMdude]

Let me be perfectly clear. Liberals and conservatives are two head of the same snake. Why do you think I am a liberal? What prompted you to believe that or do you just make shit up when confronted with a different viewpoint to keep from having to think? Activist judges believe they have the ability to create law instead of interpret law. Is that so hard to understand? If the court thinks a law is unconstitutional they should say so and the congress can try again. Not make law.

[mejdrich]

This is becoming ridiculous. You infer I said you support the republican party, then you say I'm calling you a liberal. Make up your mind what straw man you want to rail against, PASM.

"...do you just make shit up..."

Remember our little talk about ad hominems?

You seem to be having trouble understanding my point. Judges have the responsibility to interpret laws made by congress. NO judge makes laws up, as you seem to imply.

When people call judges "activist," it's almost always political

[PASMdude]

Do you think you are the only person I am arguing with at the same time? I will revue your comments and make sure we are on the same page.

[mejdrich]

... well, if you don't have the time to defend your own positions like a sane, normal adult, why the hell did you dive in and start picking fights?

O_O Seriously.

[PASMdude]

"The idea of calling liberal appointees "activist judges". You put words in my mouth and then wonder why I have a problem with you.

[mejdrich]

lol PASM, at least try to keep up with your OWN arguments. You said:

"Activist judges believe they have the ability to create law instead of interpret law."

"[Sotomayor] is an activist judge"

That's you earlier in the thread. Are you now arguing Sotomayor isn't liberal? dogstar7 already called you out, so I'm done with you. Just for kicks, here are a few other gems by you today:

"I hate Clinton."

"Roe vs Wade made law"

"The neocons infliltrated the republican party" (lol)

[PASMdude]

I don't have a memory disorder I remember more than the stain on the blue dress I remember Chingate. Do you? 5 witnesses fled the country and 115 asserted their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. Get off your happy ass and try to challenge roe vs wade and see if that is not considered law. Neocons? what the fuck do you know about them? Tell me and then I will decide if you know WTF you are talking about. Until you can do that kindly not waste my time.

[mejdrich]

PASMdude,

I don't remember "Chinagate," nor can I find a reputable account. It has all the markings of another right-wing conspiracy theory. Are you a 9/11 Truther, too?

As you've already been told, RvW isn't a law, it's a ruling that makes it explicity that abortion rights are implicit in the 14th Amendment. Maybe you should re-read it, since you call yourself a "Constitutionalists."

I haven't said a word about Neocons, other than to quote your little troll/tangent.

[PASMdude]

Check the congressional record. 2 investigations 1 into Clinton conducted by Fred Thompson (yes that fred thompson) and 1 into how bad it hurt national security. Is everything you don't know about a right wing conspiracy? Too bad for you because it destroys your credibility. .

[PASMdude]

Brother I have my face and my opinions in videos unlike you so don't you dare call me a troll. Who the fuck are you? I cant find out but anyone can find out who the fuck I am by watching my videos

[mejdrich]

Ah, the argument of last resort. You can't hold your own in a conversation about law or politics, so you brag about your videos. Bravo, PASM, bravo.

You're a troll in your videos, too.

Btw, you seem to have misread me (again). I said "right-wing conspiracy THEORY." Very different.

I don't think I'm the one loosing credibility here, Socrates, but I getting bored. I was hoping for a better fight. Instead, all you have is ad hominems and red herrings

At least try to lose with some dignity

[PASMdude]

I now believe that there is a God. I prayed to him that you would not waste anymore of my time and he answered my prayer.

[PASMdude]

When you get the time I highly suggest you study logic as I have. Once you do that you will understand quickly whether you are winning or losing an argument without making it apparent to everyone else on the internet.

[mejdrich]

... I have.

All you've done here is rattle on a long list of unsupported claims. Any attempt I've made to engage you in coherent debate has been met with an onslaught of red herrings

You haven't been able to deal with the refutation of your central claim: Soto is activist, RvW was writing law. You've been told twice, abortion restrictions were illegal under standing law. See 14th amendment

Case closed. It doesn't matter how much you rattle on about neocons or the clintons. You still lost

[PASMdude]

In your own mind I am sure you believe that. That is all that is all that really matters. What is going on in own mind. Good luck my friend.

[mejdrich]

O_o

In my "own mind"?

No, in the mind of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Fuck, dude, at least lose with a little grace.

[PASMdude]

as you wish. I am wasting my time trying to reason with you.

[02teddykgb02]

PASMdude...You are an anti-semite. It's no suprise that you are a liberal facist. Sotomayer is also a racist so it's no wonder you like her so much.

[PASMdude]

Ha! thanks for the laugh. I needed one.

[mejdrich]

When you start using reason, let me know. Till then, I'm getting some sleep.

Try not to be a troll.

[PASMdude]

as you wish

[PASMdude]

Troll? your happy ass has not posted a single video and I can't leave a comment on your home page although you can post stupid comments on mine. Fuck off troll. You are the definition of a troll.

[PASMdude]

When you understand reason let me know. Till then I am getting some sleep. Try not to be a foolish asshole.

[PASMdude]

I am not a pussy boy like you. You are not blocked. Feel free to make an idiot of yourself on my channel anytime you want.

[PASMdude]

You blocked me pussy boy but i have not blocked you. The answer to what you posted on my channel is that nothing I know about you convinces me that you could reason your way out of a paper bag even if you had a laptop preloaded with reasoning your your way out of a paper bag software, a copy of of reasoning your way out of a paper bag dummies, and an itty bitty booklight.

[MooseOfReason]

PASMdude, Congress does create law. The Supreme Court did not create a new law when it made its Roe v. Wade decision. It found the law unconstitutional.

[PASMdude]

You are making my point for me. If they decide a law is unconstitutional it should go back to the Senate to make a law that is constitutional instead of declaring the supreme court decision is law.

[PASMdude]

You are apparently unaware of what is called a "legal precedent".

[mejdrich]

"activist" judges is a new rhetorical term used mostly by republicans to mean "judges we don't like." It has no historical or judicial content.

[blipperUT]

Interpretation of the law often means determining what the relevant social policies are and deciding the case in accordance with that.

[PASMdude]

Yes. Our system is not perfect but it is the best in the world as long as we honor our system. The framers of our constitution envisioned that it may need to be changed and set down a process for doing that. Unfortunately once that process gets started there is no way to control it. We can be led to support a convention to change it and with the mindset of our leaders I fear it is not in our best interest to do so. So here we are.

[mejdrich]

If you can independently verify, please repost. I keep hearing that statistic but can't find it.

[PASMdude]

I never heard of her before today. I saw this in a video on youtube earlier. I don't understand why people judge me for admitting my info was not verified when everyone else is posting opinions as if they were fact that they can't verify. I tried to be honest that my initial impression of her was based on something I could not verify. Please tell me how that is wrong.

[mejdrich]

"I don't understand why people judge me ... "

O_o I'm not.

When I posted that, I was genuinely curious whether you were verifying it or not. Since then, I've read all of your posts and I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity.

[blipperUT]

Pretty obviously a false statistic since she is one level below the S.Ct.

[PASMdude]

The fact that few of her legal decisions even make it to the Supreme Court is highly relevant when you are putting someone in a place to interpret law.

[vallejoelgrande]

Thank you! It is not that she's batting 50% as the "fair and balanced" Fox representative would have us infer; it's that out of 360 at bats she's only struck out three times. Gibbs could've done a better job, but you could tell he was thinking about numbers and not focusing on how to answer the question effectively.

[PASMdude]

Thanks for your support. I usually wonder why I even bother trying to bring truth to people who don't want to hear iit.