This is exactly why judges need to be directly elected by the people or at the very least, removable by government. They need to be held accountable for the things they say and do. What a disgusting display by this woman.
The reason why this video is so short is because the audience that this clip was cut for is here to get all of their information from a 35 second clip. Shirley Sherrod anyone?
It is the courts arrogantly belief that they make law, is how the legal system got so screwed up. Judges interpret the law and must ,if they abide by their oaths, recognize and follow the clear legislative intent of any law they sit in judgment on. They can 't make it up as they go and can't (legally) make a ruling that is clearly against both the constitution and the clear legislative intent of the law.
We need sanctions for judge who don't follow this and even criminal penalties.
And they all laughed, when she just revealed exactly what all liberals think about the judicial branch. It is and has been the illegal ace in the hole for the left for decades.
Occasionally a liberal will slip up and tell the truth about their lawlessness in their practice of rewriting the Constitution by way of liberal judges. Liberals used judges as their illegal hammer to force their politics without the votes
Of course Judges Make Law. Any first year law student knows that - they spend 12 hrs a day reading the law made by judges. That is what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on the Court are doing now. The real question should be whether a Judge knows the limit of their power to make law.
Obama has just announced Elena Kagan as a supreme court appointee. How can the supreme court have 3 SC justices (which would represent 30% of the total) are Jewish, while they represent LESS THAN 2% of the population. This is fucking ridiculous..this is the SUPREME COURT for Christ's Sake! CNN is so far up here ass, talking about diversity..where is the DIVERSITY on these numbers? Her allegiance probably lies with a country that has been accused of WAR CRIMES! Why is their no debate bout that?
@ttiger5050 Does she probably have allegiance with Israel, or is there evedence that she has allegiance? If you have evidence, how and why are you persuaded by that evidence?
Further, is the supreme court not diverse enough? Evidence?
My point is: why are you making an argument based in fear and not information?? Read some decisions. Come back and let us know. I bet you'll be surprised how fair the whole system is.
There is a longer version of this clip, in which she explains in further detail what she means. Basically, what she goes onto say is that at the appeals level you are looking at how laws are being applied, how the implementation of law is evolving. Not to mention whether there is an ambiguity or conflict in the law because the law system is complex. At the appeals level you aren't looking at the easy cases. You are looking at the difficult ones.
Making a mockery of my human kind. you seen 'on stage' 'on spot' on the tv and know that stars are above, at times u can see them and when they come out, they don't all come out. oh and this behavior is ok if you have what u feel to be a better reason but not whatever u feel to be the reason and i know you 'pick up' things from other ppl. relations are doesn't matter, i know ppl with guns are holding ppl against their will and because something i say, order. oh btw, i'm not responsible for that
feeling -> decision to act on -> uses tools -> completed -> gratified. cycles like these with different lengths in time. 'its a different kind of gratified for putting human minds places'. it's a different holding hostage. etc . oh and i didn't create the 'sides' in whatever i got involved with that u did too. hahaah. you did that! . what a crock
I don't care what her nationality is she is an idiot that does not belong on the supreme court period, she is a liberal that's is a racist against her own latino people.
The common law system is the application of statute law and precedent from other rulings (common law). As the law is applied it becomes decisions that form more precedent and make more law.
In short, in the legitimate activity of judging and making decisions, judges make law. It is almost all they do.
Anyone who thinks judges "shouldn't make law" need to learn about the purpose of the judiciary. In learning the role society needs judges to fill, you will see that they should make law.
Amen... However, i think saying "making the law" is not something she should be saying. Otherwise it seems the legislature is defunct.
They interpret and set precedent within the made law... they don't exactly come up with new abstract legislation - it is all within the current framework of law and precedent =)
@cadavison ya right, bull shit,they make laws against the constitiution, which states the constitiution is to be decided by the people not judges ass hole
She's not talking about what you're talking about, and you know it. When people talk about judicial activism, they mean changing the law due to ideological preferences, as opposed to upholding the existing law. You are correct that the actions of justices result in modifications of laws, but the debate is not whether they do, but WHY they do that is the subject of controversy.
Judges are NOT elected, therefore, they should NOT use ideological preferences to influence decisions.
@zeecee1 I hear her say that court of appeals make policy and judges make law. I don't hear anything about activism. Judges use legislated interpretive principles to make judgments. They are experts at fact finding and law interpretation. Read some case law - I guarantee you will no longer be afraid of ideological boogeymen. Even when you don't agree with the ruling, you will see their arguments are rational.
@cadavison But that is not the case when judges find, within amendments, rights that were completely unknown to the drafters of these amendments. Take Roe v. Wade and the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot say that all decisions made by judges are rational. I suppose the decision NOT to outlaw slavery in Dred Scott v. Sanford must've been "rational" and not influenced by anything else too, eh?
@zeecee1 Dred Scott (from 1857) was rational given the laws at the time. Remember its ruling predates the fourteenth and thirteenth amendments. I'm sorry I thought you were against "judicial activism". Would you prefer that in this case the court not rule in concert with existing common law? Would you have preferred they be ideological? Pick a position.
@cadavison "Locating the right to abort within personal liberty and privacy is very reasonable" ...ah, really. And where might this be? On top of that, the notion that ABORTION comes down solely to a question of liberty and privacy is utterly ridiculous.
@cadavison And my point regarding Dred Scott was that not all decisions are rational, which you've acknowledged... In that case, of course the judges should have broken the law of the land, gotten themselves impeached, WHATEVER in order to abolish slavery. That's a specific, extreme case that can't be compared to any recent judicial activism.
I still don't understand how a court can possibly "find" a right to abort a child.
@zeecee1 You should read the Roe v. Wade majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. And I don't mean an overview - I mean read the actual decision. Then you will see how that right was "found". After reading it, while you may not be persuaded, you will at least see that there is a reasonable and sophisticated argument to be made.
@cadavison The majority opinion makes absolutely no sense. They even state themselves that the court is in no position to decide when life begins... and then proceed to make a decision that obviously involves the question of when life begins. There is absolutely nothing "reasonable" or "sophisticated" in their argument.
@zeecee1 ...As for all decisions being rational. You are right. Not ALL decisions are ALWAYS rational. But when you look at the system as a whole, you will find very few irrational rulings, and these with time get reviewed, overruled or distinguished. The checks and balances work.
@zeecee1 ...As for Roe v. Wade. While you might not agree with the majority ruling, locating the right to abort within personal liberty and privacy is very reasonable, especially given the court's review of changing medical knowledge/practice and the country's evolving understanding of rights. Additionally, your perspective is found within the ruling: there are emphatic dissents. So do you think that because you disagree with this ruling, there is a problem with the whole system?
"judges make law" -- just as pedophiles rape children.
The difference, of course, is that only one of those two activities is judicial racketeering and High Crimes, and goes unpunished. It is the legislative branch alone who is granted the authority to make law.
Lawyers who are genuinely unable to understand and APPLY the law should be stripped of their license to practice, or prosecuted. The systemic failure of our government to do so has resulted in this Justice Sodomizer.
You've really never heard of common law (aka judge-made law)? You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.
I've heard lots of silly excuses for judicial racketeering. Hiding it behind other words doesn't alter what it is.
And the judges who engage in such judicial perversions are keenly aware of that, which is why, for example, the one in the video knew enough to dance around her racketeering.
Sadly, the systemic corruption is so rife that the racketeers feel comfortable enough to giggle about it as they do so, and are even appointed to the supreme court after admitting to it.
@TylerNull I wasn't hiding it behind other words. I was presenting you with how the judiciary works and how its worked since its inception. You'd be very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers disparaging common law.
For example, you'd be infinitely more than "very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers" overturning an election whereof the citizens voted against using taxpayer money to sponsor illegal aliens.
For another example, you'd be infinitely more than "very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers" hallucinating into the US Constitution a divine right to torture babies to death right before they are born.
You initially mocked the quote "judges make law" and likened it to pedophiles raping children. I then brought up the topic of common law because *that's judge-made law.* Clearly the issue of judicial activism isn't merely judges making law; that's the point you're not understanding. There needs to be more to the definition than simply judges making law to constitute judicial activism.
That's real nice, but your claim IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS TOPIC, is that "common law" applies here.
It doesn't.
Whatever term you give her judicial racketeering, even Miss La Raza shows here that she knows it's wrong.
Your anachronism was replaced by our republican form of government. Socialists have not YET regressed the USA to a feudal monarchy. Even Miss La Raza knows that, which is why she immediately distanced herself from her crime after admitting to it.
All your previous posts tried to defend the judicial racketeering that Mz. La Raza boasts & giggles of doing in this video. Now you swap ploys by posing as an idiot to ask that I educate you on the topic.
Aside from fraud, shamelessness, and bouts of stupor, have you anything left in your Leftist toolbox? Perhaps its time you rethink your indefensible politics.
More than a mere "instance", the video clearly shows that Mz. La Raza premises her entire jurisprudence on such racketeering, even as she indicates that she's keenly aware that doing so is illicit. She's as shameless as you, and neither is she bashful about demonstrating that trait either.
@cadavison The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make the law. The law is made by democratically elected representatives of the people. You need to learn the purpose of the judiciary,
Well i am of Latin background and a veteran of the USMC and a graduate of RU university. First off i don't believe judicial activism but it happens all the time conservative or liberal. The constitution first of all was written by white supremacist who wrote about freedom however owned slaves. (hypocritical i think so) The Constitution was written in the 1700 peoples thinking evolve and one day we can hopefully see an equal America. I saw a White power comment, how about American power!
With Sotomyer's anti-gun record why is the right remaining so docile and quiet. Perhaps they know gun control will make great politcal ammunition. I dont like Sotomyer, latina or not, She seem's like a souless robot who will do exactly as she is told. I believe that's why she's there.
These 'judges' (of whom Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer etc., etc., ad nauseam, are prime examples) need to find some backbone and honesty and get off the bench and run for office, rather than continuing this disgusting 'judging' charade. All this lying and 'judicial' politicking has to stop.
Summon up a little character, stop the transparent and disgustijng lying, get off the bench, and run for office.
A bunch of old white men agree that they are dumber than this woman and they don't care that she belonged to an EXCLUSIVE woman's club that I see as making chance from within....
An example would be if two people were looking at a rock and one called it pretty while the other called it limestone, the one who said limestone is correct. What I'm observing with the law is equivalent to calling the rock a limestone which is based on fact. No vehicles allowed is a proposition that itself is inherently true just like the rock as inherent properties that make it a limestone regardless of meaning or personal belief or interpretation. But I do see what your saying.
Most of the time I would agree with your analogy about limestone. The vast majority of the time a law is sufficiently clear to allow for an obvious outcome. But that's not always the case.
A good exception is Muscarello v. US, 524 US 125. A statute said anybody "carrying" a firearm during a drug deal gets extra years in prison. Most of the time it will be clear whether a guy is carrying or not. Muscarello had a gun in his locked glove compartment; was he carrying?
Silly americans, arguing left vs right. Meanwhile, in other news, you have no rights left.
Does anyone really believe Obama was any different from McCain? I mean in the debates they were just trying to one up each other promising bigger bailouts, more homeland security, and more war then the other (Obama wanted to invade Pakistan, McCain wanted to invade Iran).
Democracy = May the best liar win.
So america chose chocolate socialism over vanilla socialism. Whoop-de-doo.
Precedents are based on the law upheld or thrown out because the law was unconstituional, they don't make law. Precedents aren't set by those who think they're above the law and thus can rule against it. If the courts find gray area where their is no law than they should dismiss the case send the defendants to get legislation passed so the courts can uphold the law if it doesn't violate the Constituion. Doesn't matter if she's pointing it out, it's BOTH WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL to make policy.
Say there's a statute the says "No vehicles in the park." A kid is arrested riding a bike in the park. When the case comes to the court, the judge will decide whether a bike is considered a vehicle. That interpretation will be binding on the court in future, which in essence, makes it either legal or illegal to have a bike in the park. That interpretation forms new law.
And she was absolutely right. Compared with the lower courts that deal with the facts of individual cases, results of appellate cases change the law by creating a binding interpretation that the lower court must follow, thus, where policy is made.
Doesn't matter if she's right, she is both wrong and in violation of the Constituion for making policy. Courts regardless if their lower or appeals must always rule for the law so long it doesn't condradict the Constituion. If their is no law regarding the case than the courts dismiss it and let the legislative branch make policy because that is their job according to the Constituion. The constituion and our founding fathers made this point unmistakeningly clear.
Yes, courts are to apply the rule of law. But laws are ambiguous. That's why we have courts to interpret them. There has literally been an entire Supreme Court case that hinged on what the word "carry" meant in a statute that said if you're carrying a gun during a drug deal, you get extra years on your sentence.
When the court ruled on that, it set policy on what carry meant for all the lower courts. It's a fundamental fact of our judicial system.
Our founding fathers also made it unmistakably clear that the Constitution is mutable precisely because nothing can be perfect. You should know this considering that you cited an Amendment (look up the word).
Regardless, what Sotomayor is saying here is NOT unconstitutional. These people are called "judges", after all -- some level of policy making inevitably comes into play if human minds are involved in decisions. Qwerty illustrates this with superb examples. But please, keep spinning.
You are alluding that we have more than the 10 amendments America started out with the Bill of Rights. Yes, the consitution can be amended BUT NOT BY THE COURTS. And as for Qwerty's example, with all respect it's a weak one. Judges do not make policy or law that is up to the legislative branch. The courts simply uphold the law, declare the law unconstitutional, or dismiss the case if there is no law to uphold. Any judge making policy in their ruling are violating the seperation of powers, period
For better or worse, we live in a common law legal system (unless you're in Louisiana). The opinions of courts are binding on lower courts, a concept called stare decisis.
Do you deny that there was a Supreme Court case that decided what the meaning of "carry" was in a statute?
What should the court do in the "no vehicles in the park" case?
The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. That interpretation is binding, and in that sense creates new law.
Yes, a common law legal system that enforces laws on the book and limits judges to doing only that. Your bike example validates my view beause a bike is a vehicle and so the kid riding it in the park was in violation of the law so the courts should rule in favor of the law, upholding it. Yes, judiciary interpret the law but only based on what the law says, not on their own viewpoint or how they feel about it. As for the carry case, the SC decided based on the definition of carry.
By saying that a bike is a vehicle you have made an interpretation of what the law says.That law only said "no vehicles." What if the councilman who wrote it said that the law was designed to keep cars out of the park? Now you've prohibited bikes from being in the park.
Your ruling, not necessarily the statute itself, has made bikes illegal in the park.
That's what Sotomayor means when she says appellate courts make policy - their rulings are binding on the lower courts.
I'm still ruling based on the letter of the law as what the law itself implied, not on what I thought regardless if their an agreement or not between the two. If councilmen used wrong wording or not enough to define the law properly that's not my problem. If their is an exception to be made for bikes than the councilmen should amend the law to say all vehicles are banned in parks with exception to bikes. You've shown that man made laws aren't perfect but it still should be enforce to the letter.
Yes, your ruling is your interpretation of what the law itself implies. Whereas the council did not intend to ban bikes in the park, you have with your ruling. Your ruling has created new policy. If you had ruled that a bike wasn't a vehicle for the purpose of that statute, then bikes would still be allowed in.
It's a basic example, but can you not see how with the ruling of an appellate or Supreme Court, new "law" is created? This is a basic fundamental FACT or our judicial system.
It's not my interpretation of what the law itself implies, but at what it implies like if the law was it's own entity which it is. A judge can't go off what the councilmen meant with the law because human feelings and meaning are fickle, however, the letter of the law isn't. I don't see where new law is created when the law already in place is being enforced. If the intent wasn't to ban bikes than the council should include an amendment to make bikes an exception.
Again, that is your interpretation. There are many different theories of statutory interpretation, and you have followed one of them. Again, as a result of your interpretation, bikes are no longer allowed. They could have been allowed had you decided the case differently.
Again, the point is that the results of appellate decisions results in a new interpretation of the law that will be binding on lower courts.
For the third time, this is a basic fundamental fact of our judicial system.
Bikes are no longer allowed becaue bikes are a vehicle which is an objective view, not a subjective one. The law says no vehicles so that means no bikes. I'm ruling based on what the law objectively states, refer to my limestone example. And just because courts have made new law in the past doesn't mean that they were right according to the Constitution and I follow the Constitution and so should all judges. I do see your point but it's not a Constitutional one that's all I'm saying
I pity the burden all you people must feel. Thinking you have a voice and some ability to change the government, when in fact it''s all a fraud.
What a silly burden. You just keep hating each other, left vs right, when you both are powerless, especially since that division paralyzes both sides.
Democracy really is the worst system. The most efficient liars rule, and the people dividedly trying to force their "good" on each other, wasting their time on politics, instead of loving each other
It doesn't help that the overwhelming majority of the American voting bloc is full of idiots. I mean, if you look at the micro scale of someone's daily life (relationships, money use, attitude toward work, attitude toward other Americans, etc.) it only reflects the macro scale of the nation. Everyone wants quick fixes, the easiest and fastest pleasure, and superficial relationships.
Sadly...at the same time...love isn't an easy thing. There is a great cost in love. A sacrifice to another.
She is not part of La Raza, you have to be Mexican for that, not from Puerto Rico. Still, she is a leftist activist judge who has no business being a court justice. This sucks. Wise Latina, my ass.
Crack, not sure I follow you here. Blasting Sotomayor on her appearance? Does this mean you want to fuck the rest of the Supreme Court? You got a thing for wrinkly old men? What exactly are you telling us about yourself?
Gatoreffer, This Sotomayor really played it smooth the last few days. Actual evidence of her bad attitude & smug self were in hiding during the confirmation hearings. She's playing the good judge now, but on the bench she will lash out with her radicalism, deconstructing our Constitution with the current Leftists on the SC.
No, for me it's not her looks that are the main problem, but her smugness and apparent racism when it comes to feeling a superiority of her Latino race over others.
Actually, in truth, if a white man made the statement just has you said here, they would be just a many people criticizing him and supporting him as there are with her. A lot would be on his side and a lot would hate him just as with her. In the end the guy would proably be confirmed. Usually if they can't be cofirmed they don't get this far.
I swear I've wondered about that too. More and more racism is bad but anti-white racism is perfectly ok. What amazes me even more is that so many white liberals seem to agree!
PLEASE pull your head out of your **** and listen to what they are doing to us
Listen to Mark Levin on the WABC radio online, or go to his website at:
marklevinshow(dot)com and hear the TRUTH that the Mainstream Media won't give you about Obama's push to get socialized healthcare- which will destroy our quality of life. This stuff is serious, people, & don't go around blindly following guys like Obama. Seek the truth.
BTW Did you know Sotomayor is a member of La Raza? She's radical!
Lift up your voice America! If you love guns, private property, life, liberty, The Constitution (she would not even say we had a right to self-defense) The Declaration of Independence, Americans being judged by our law and not foreign law precedents, call your United States Senator and demand that they vote no on Sotomayor. 1-202-224-3121. If busy call again and again. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Pray for America and act to save her.
I would hope that a wise White Male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a (insert non white male race & sex here) who hasnt lived that life.
Now how do you think this would have played out?
Not only would this person not be elected to be a Supreme Judge, they would not be able to judge a pie eating contest!
When have you ever seen a politician answer a question with a straight forward answer ? But a liberal will just try to avoid the question entirely and talk about something totally different than what you asked about.
CHECK OUT = the new YouTube posted today=........Sotomayor quits belizean grove..........(yah this loon is gonna be = fair........she makes up magical messages to re-interpret her own WORDS & think shes so "elite" we BELIEVE IT?.......not bloody likely)
Judge Sotomayor's statement is not racist, she is just wrong. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Judge Sotomayor's statement is not racist, she is just wrong. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
The truth is the truth and if she is going to give preferential treatment to Latinos versus non-Latinos is just as bad as anyone who gives preference to any group over another. That is fine as a citizen, although unAmerican, but it is not fine for a lifetime judgeship appointment. She should treat all people equally.
Obama has them all thinking that the bullshit he pulled, the lies, the hidden facts etc, will be fine fr the rest of them too. Sadly in Sotomayor's case, she will get in because of the numbers in DC. But like my daddy aways said, U can force feed me horseshit but U can't make me like it! She PROMISED a full explanation of her words re "Latina = better decisons" but all she did (ALA OJ SIMPSON) was stand up & make a general statement of her innocence. Thats a criminals dream.
In reading through Sotomayors overturned and heavily questioned decisions I noted that many of them were problems because of "Statutory Interpertation". So I asked a neighbor who is a local circuit court judge and he simply smiled and said: " It means the judge was jgnorant of the meaning of the law". Now THAT scares me.
Many? She's been reversed four times as an appellate judge in over 10 years on the bench.
Your local circuit court judge apparently doesn't understand that statutory interpretation can be very subtle. There has literally been a Supreme Court case that turned on the statutory interpretation of the word "carry." They're tough questions. Being reversed doesn't mean that she was completely wrong.
Besides, Alito was also reversed four times by the SC while on the lower court.
I think you, and just about everyone else, are underestimating the professional demeanor and the way judges do things. Especially judges with long careers. Sotomayor is a pretty standard pick.
Trying to read too much into rhetoric will make you ignore the reality.
~ slithering and twisting her own words~ around to get to her and Obama's ultimate = GOAL! A society run by THEM - and the ruin of FREEDOMS that has always made America = GREAT!........this women is another in a ......long......line of the Obama Drones ..........SHE IS LYING IN FRONT OF THE WORLD.........and no one in that commitee will MAN UP! and vote=NO! for this Obama ~ shape shifter~ sadly this is the "change" we all do not NEED! How can they allow this person on the Supreme Court? ~sigh~
So the firefighters tests were biased in favor of whites huh? What a crock of shit. If you look at national test scores in any subject, whether it be math, science, history, ANYTHING, whites/asians always come out on top. How the fuck could math possibly be culturally biased? There's a reason Mexico and Africa are all fucked up and England and Russia and Germany are superpowers. Niggers and spics are fucking stupid, but they'll keep making excuses until the end of time.
As a Puerto Rican American who speaks better Spanish than Sotomayor never will- she is an embarrassment to ANY community. She knowingly states something that she believes in & her record proves it; & then laughs it off knowing it is wrong- laughing AT all of you, while LYING through the confirmation hearings.She is clearly a racist, feminazi, ideologist activist that fits like a glove in Hugo Chavez's court, rather than ANY U.S. court. Que se vaya al carajo esta gorda, fea y estupida.
The Republicans know the art of demonization like no other. They cater to the uninformed and unintelligent among us; people who generally don't care about context, depth or nuance. The GOP leaders and the base to which they cater are lashing out as they watch the majority of Americans reject their fear mongering and their small ideas.
Oh no dear. Lying is what Fundamentalist Christians do when they tell children there is an afterlife, that god beings aren't imaginary, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that the bible is inerrant and that the Theory of Evolution is just a silly opinion a few fringe scientists hold. Hey, what are you doing to celebrate Sotomayer's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? Hey, did you hear Obama's birth certificate is authentic? Must be tough for 'birther' extremists. No nuance there. ;)
I am so looking forward to living in a socialist country here in the near future where we will have the ability to defend ourselves with sticks and stones, where we can wait in line for months to see a doctor for the common cold, where everyone is 100% equal regardless of their entrepreneural efforts or hard work, where discrimination is back and stronger than ever, where my taxes pay for the lazy & irresponsible and where everything is run by the Govt.... I CAN"T WAIT Yippee !!!!
No, Sthernguy1, you'd rather children not be able to see a doctor at all. How very un-Christian of you.
>>
Sotomayor isn't any more liberal than Souter. In fact, with her abortion stance being ambiguous there is a good chance she'll turn out more Conservative than anybody expects.
>>
PS: Sthern please look at a dictionary or encyclopedia once in a while. You are misconstruing socialism. Spreading lies does not advance your case.
Leviance - Basing what our country is moving towards is not defined in the dictionary, Obama is creating his own system, which is way left of Socialism.
Sthernguy1 you're living in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories and paranoia. Nothing you've describe is based on reality, facts or data. But, people like you don't seem to care for reality which is always so inconveniently contrary to your politically bizarre world view. :)
Patrick - Well, so far the facts are that unemployment was not supposed to go above 8.5% with the stimulus passed, but look where it is now. Is that a fact or some paranoia? If this idiot gets what he wants, this country will be in a stranglehold by the Govt. Over 200 years ago, peolpe fled to this country to have freedom and opportunity that was not available in the European world. Our ancestors would be turing over in their graves right now if they could see what the hell is going on.
When Obama entered office, the unemployment rate was about 7%-- now it's 9.5% or 10 percent. Obama said he would help-- heck if I can see how he's done anything but lie,lie, lie.
His Sotomayor woman will be as big a failure when it comes to competency, as Obama and most of his Administration picks have been. So Obama's Sec. of the Treasury had some problems choosing not to pay his taxes, right? What do you bet Obama's first choice for SC justice will make some most unjust decisions there?
Pat - A fantasy world is what Liberals live in every day. They want FREE health care, they want FREE housing, they want FREE food, they want FREE everything and they expect the Rich to pay for it all. I do not know about you, but I was raised to work my butt off and not rely on the Govt for anything except for the obvious: Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranqulity, Provide for the common Defence, PROMOTE general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty. Nowhere does it say PROVIDE !!!
What ironic though is the rich liberals don't want to pay for the free stuff due to their elitist view that all of us our idiots. The rich liberals want the rich conservatives to pay for everything.
Promote General Welfare - "Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with principles of the self governed. It means that congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation. It DOES NOT mean that congress should create legislation that plunders the people in order to REDISTRIBUTE wealth. It DOES NOT provide for any entitlements for certain people."
Jay, aka sternguy1, I find it bizarre that after 8 yrs of the incompetence of Bush and his cronies you'd complain about the problems they created while the Liberals work to right things. It'll take time. The economic mess, foreign debacles and enormous debt that Bush left the Obama Admin is widely recognized.
But even Richard Nixon had his die hard supporters even after he was shown to be corrupt so I don't hold your denial against you. Thank goodness the grown ups are in charge now. ;)
Pat - This is not about Bush, I am not happy with him either, but then again, he had a Democratic Congress the last two years of his administration. This is about fundamental and what Obama is doing is not making things right, but creating his own type of Govt that is not even mentioned in the Constitution. He has his own agenda which has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our Constitution. Our ancestors moved here because they wanted to be free of a Govt such as the one Obama is creating
Seriously people, 35 seconds is really not enough time to get all crazy!
dudecosta 4 months ago
And that is why our country is shit right now.
FlankerVT 5 months ago
i hate this bitch!send her back to puerto rico!
bobsolla 6 months ago
Stick foot in mouth. She shows her true agenda. How the hell was she appointed? She is the most racist judge on the Supreme Court.
SilverFox466 6 months ago
This is exactly why judges need to be directly elected by the people or at the very least, removable by government. They need to be held accountable for the things they say and do. What a disgusting display by this woman.
StinkyKnobcheese 8 months ago
Is Sotomayor related to Gaddafi?
javeav 11 months ago
The reason why this video is so short is because the audience that this clip was cut for is here to get all of their information from a 35 second clip. Shirley Sherrod anyone?
pnggolfer9 11 months ago
It is the courts arrogantly belief that they make law, is how the legal system got so screwed up. Judges interpret the law and must ,if they abide by their oaths, recognize and follow the clear legislative intent of any law they sit in judgment on. They can 't make it up as they go and can't (legally) make a ruling that is clearly against both the constitution and the clear legislative intent of the law.
We need sanctions for judge who don't follow this and even criminal penalties.
unclefixer 11 months ago
" I SHOULDNT SAY THAT THIS IS ON TAPE" hmm so its ok to say it off tape? The fact is , this is what she believes . Sick !
1969floridagirl 1 year ago
NO WE DONT KNOW YOU COMMUNIST DOUCHEBAG
WONDOCTORJ 1 year ago 5
And they all laughed, when she just revealed exactly what all liberals think about the judicial branch. It is and has been the illegal ace in the hole for the left for decades.
Occasionally a liberal will slip up and tell the truth about their lawlessness in their practice of rewriting the Constitution by way of liberal judges. Liberals used judges as their illegal hammer to force their politics without the votes
Liberals practice lawlessness as a way of life.
defenseattny 1 year ago 3
Of course Judges Make Law. Any first year law student knows that - they spend 12 hrs a day reading the law made by judges. That is what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on the Court are doing now. The real question should be whether a Judge knows the limit of their power to make law.
JDSackman 1 year ago
See the racist commie you guys now have to learn to love?
BlueStateChronicle 1 year ago
where is she now? why obama picked a fucking jew now
adibeh 1 year ago
I want to be one of THee First to say wHat a Phrophet of God Has SaiD: Mitt Romney will be PresiDent in 2013...........
FireYourJOB 1 year ago
Obama has just announced Elena Kagan as a supreme court appointee. How can the supreme court have 3 SC justices (which would represent 30% of the total) are Jewish, while they represent LESS THAN 2% of the population. This is fucking ridiculous..this is the SUPREME COURT for Christ's Sake! CNN is so far up here ass, talking about diversity..where is the DIVERSITY on these numbers? Her allegiance probably lies with a country that has been accused of WAR CRIMES! Why is their no debate bout that?
ttiger5050 1 year ago
@ttiger5050 Does she probably have allegiance with Israel, or is there evedence that she has allegiance? If you have evidence, how and why are you persuaded by that evidence?
Further, is the supreme court not diverse enough? Evidence?
My point is: why are you making an argument based in fear and not information?? Read some decisions. Come back and let us know. I bet you'll be surprised how fair the whole system is.
cadavison 1 year ago
she is a racist to whites and black
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@johnpoco If she wasn't white, she'd already be president.
JaysThoughts 1 year ago
Mitt Will be the Next PresiDent of the U S A.......
FireYourJOB 1 year ago
There is a longer version of this clip, in which she explains in further detail what she means. Basically, what she goes onto say is that at the appeals level you are looking at how laws are being applied, how the implementation of law is evolving. Not to mention whether there is an ambiguity or conflict in the law because the law system is complex. At the appeals level you aren't looking at the easy cases. You are looking at the difficult ones.
leftbehind81 1 year ago
She's right.
mrransak 1 year ago
Judicial activism at its worse. I could of swore that the constitution gives the power of policy making to the legislative branch.
Ours leaders are TRAITORS to the constitution.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth it gives the power to the people not the elected idiots
tomanyasses 1 year ago
Comment removed
forwardmover 2 years ago
Good job Obama! Another left wing Nancy Pelosi type. Can't get enough power over YOU! Good to see another lefty get caught lying, and admitting it.
forwardmover 2 years ago
Making a mockery of my human kind. you seen 'on stage' 'on spot' on the tv and know that stars are above, at times u can see them and when they come out, they don't all come out. oh and this behavior is ok if you have what u feel to be a better reason but not whatever u feel to be the reason and i know you 'pick up' things from other ppl. relations are doesn't matter, i know ppl with guns are holding ppl against their will and because something i say, order. oh btw, i'm not responsible for that
WexOwnsMe 2 years ago
feeling -> decision to act on -> uses tools -> completed -> gratified. cycles like these with different lengths in time. 'its a different kind of gratified for putting human minds places'. it's a different holding hostage. etc . oh and i didn't create the 'sides' in whatever i got involved with that u did too. hahaah. you did that! . what a crock
WexOwnsMe 2 years ago
once they have put a latinamerican at a high position is the time for USA to discriminate against latin americans, because show must go on.
sulperac 2 years ago
most worthless supreme court judge we've ever had
viperdawg41192 2 years ago
@viperdawg41192 AMEN.
calstategop 2 years ago
Policy is made in the court?
jdk209 2 years ago
She's a shawty, She's a Boricua
Jurisprudent with soft thighs
and other soft features that Ginsburg can appreciate, stayin up late,
makin sure to thank heaven above
because she ain't lonely without another woman
Soulbuddies 2 years ago
dumb bitch. But she'll take your individual right to bare arms away!
And her comments were funny to her.
Whoops...
faruek 2 years ago
Um, if you want to protect your individual right to bare arms, why don't you just wear sleeveless t-shirts? Moron.
MrJuandoe01 2 years ago
Would anyone like to sleep with her?
jdk209 2 years ago
Comment removed
Xbizkitl 2 years ago
Comment removed
Xbizkitl 2 years ago
Comment removed
Xbizkitl 2 years ago
I don't care what her nationality is she is an idiot that does not belong on the supreme court period, she is a liberal that's is a racist against her own latino people.
MyREDTAIL 2 years ago
Hey At least she did not find pubic hair in her coke can, And from what I hear she does sound like she may have more to say than Clarence Thomas...
Mystery207 2 years ago
So does Beavis and Butthead but I wouldn't want them as a justice.
yak6ex 2 years ago
At this point would it make a difference our logo should be mickey mouse...
Mystery207 2 years ago
...ur what?
How is being liberal racist?
Lilsprog 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The common law system is the application of statute law and precedent from other rulings (common law). As the law is applied it becomes decisions that form more precedent and make more law.
In short, in the legitimate activity of judging and making decisions, judges make law. It is almost all they do.
Anyone who thinks judges "shouldn't make law" need to learn about the purpose of the judiciary. In learning the role society needs judges to fill, you will see that they should make law.
cadavison 2 years ago
Amen... However, i think saying "making the law" is not something she should be saying. Otherwise it seems the legislature is defunct.
They interpret and set precedent within the made law... they don't exactly come up with new abstract legislation - it is all within the current framework of law and precedent =)
Lilsprog 2 years ago
@cadavison ya right, bull shit,they make laws against the constitiution, which states the constitiution is to be decided by the people not judges ass hole
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@cadavison
She's not talking about what you're talking about, and you know it. When people talk about judicial activism, they mean changing the law due to ideological preferences, as opposed to upholding the existing law. You are correct that the actions of justices result in modifications of laws, but the debate is not whether they do, but WHY they do that is the subject of controversy.
Judges are NOT elected, therefore, they should NOT use ideological preferences to influence decisions.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 I hear her say that court of appeals make policy and judges make law. I don't hear anything about activism. Judges use legislated interpretive principles to make judgments. They are experts at fact finding and law interpretation. Read some case law - I guarantee you will no longer be afraid of ideological boogeymen. Even when you don't agree with the ruling, you will see their arguments are rational.
cadavison 1 year ago
@cadavison But that is not the case when judges find, within amendments, rights that were completely unknown to the drafters of these amendments. Take Roe v. Wade and the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot say that all decisions made by judges are rational. I suppose the decision NOT to outlaw slavery in Dred Scott v. Sanford must've been "rational" and not influenced by anything else too, eh?
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 Dred Scott (from 1857) was rational given the laws at the time. Remember its ruling predates the fourteenth and thirteenth amendments. I'm sorry I thought you were against "judicial activism". Would you prefer that in this case the court not rule in concert with existing common law? Would you have preferred they be ideological? Pick a position.
cadavison 1 year ago
@cadavison "Locating the right to abort within personal liberty and privacy is very reasonable" ...ah, really. And where might this be? On top of that, the notion that ABORTION comes down solely to a question of liberty and privacy is utterly ridiculous.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@cadavison And my point regarding Dred Scott was that not all decisions are rational, which you've acknowledged... In that case, of course the judges should have broken the law of the land, gotten themselves impeached, WHATEVER in order to abolish slavery. That's a specific, extreme case that can't be compared to any recent judicial activism.
I still don't understand how a court can possibly "find" a right to abort a child.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 You should read the Roe v. Wade majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. And I don't mean an overview - I mean read the actual decision. Then you will see how that right was "found". After reading it, while you may not be persuaded, you will at least see that there is a reasonable and sophisticated argument to be made.
cadavison 1 year ago
@cadavison The majority opinion makes absolutely no sense. They even state themselves that the court is in no position to decide when life begins... and then proceed to make a decision that obviously involves the question of when life begins. There is absolutely nothing "reasonable" or "sophisticated" in their argument.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 ...As for all decisions being rational. You are right. Not ALL decisions are ALWAYS rational. But when you look at the system as a whole, you will find very few irrational rulings, and these with time get reviewed, overruled or distinguished. The checks and balances work.
cadavison 1 year ago
@zeecee1 ...As for Roe v. Wade. While you might not agree with the majority ruling, locating the right to abort within personal liberty and privacy is very reasonable, especially given the court's review of changing medical knowledge/practice and the country's evolving understanding of rights. Additionally, your perspective is found within the ruling: there are emphatic dissents. So do you think that because you disagree with this ruling, there is a problem with the whole system?
cadavison 1 year ago
@cadavison
"judges make law" -- just as pedophiles rape children.
The difference, of course, is that only one of those two activities is judicial racketeering and High Crimes, and goes unpunished. It is the legislative branch alone who is granted the authority to make law.
Lawyers who are genuinely unable to understand and APPLY the law should be stripped of their license to practice, or prosecuted. The systemic failure of our government to do so has resulted in this Justice Sodomizer.
TylerNull 1 year ago 8
You've really never heard of common law (aka judge-made law)? You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
I've heard lots of silly excuses for judicial racketeering. Hiding it behind other words doesn't alter what it is.
And the judges who engage in such judicial perversions are keenly aware of that, which is why, for example, the one in the video knew enough to dance around her racketeering.
Sadly, the systemic corruption is so rife that the racketeers feel comfortable enough to giggle about it as they do so, and are even appointed to the supreme court after admitting to it.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I wasn't hiding it behind other words. I was presenting you with how the judiciary works and how its worked since its inception. You'd be very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers disparaging common law.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
Judicial racketeering isn't "common law".
For example, you'd be infinitely more than "very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers" overturning an election whereof the citizens voted against using taxpayer money to sponsor illegal aliens.
For another example, you'd be infinitely more than "very hard pressed to find any of the founding fathers" hallucinating into the US Constitution a divine right to torture babies to death right before they are born.
TylerNull 1 year ago
You initially mocked the quote "judges make law" and likened it to pedophiles raping children. I then brought up the topic of common law because *that's judge-made law.* Clearly the issue of judicial activism isn't merely judges making law; that's the point you're not understanding. There needs to be more to the definition than simply judges making law to constitute judicial activism.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
"initially mocked" --- and still do.
And again, the term "common law" has nothing to do with anything you claim.
TylerNull 1 year ago
"And again, the term "common law" has nothing to do with anything you claim."
.
Common law IS "judges making law." That you can't wrap your head around that is astounding.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
That's real nice, but your claim IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS TOPIC, is that "common law" applies here.
It doesn't.
Whatever term you give her judicial racketeering, even Miss La Raza shows here that she knows it's wrong.
Your anachronism was replaced by our republican form of government. Socialists have not YET regressed the USA to a feudal monarchy. Even Miss La Raza knows that, which is why she immediately distanced herself from her crime after admitting to it.
TylerNull 1 year ago
"Whatever term you give her judicial racketeering..."
.
Give me one case in which she conducted judicial activism either as a Court of Appeals Judge or as SCOTUS Justice.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
Is your Googler broken?
All your previous posts tried to defend the judicial racketeering that Mz. La Raza boasts & giggles of doing in this video. Now you swap ploys by posing as an idiot to ask that I educate you on the topic.
Aside from fraud, shamelessness, and bouts of stupor, have you anything left in your Leftist toolbox? Perhaps its time you rethink your indefensible politics.
TylerNull 1 year ago 2
So no such instances. Exactly as I expected. All rants and no substance.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077
This video is "substance". Where's yours?
More than a mere "instance", the video clearly shows that Mz. La Raza premises her entire jurisprudence on such racketeering, even as she indicates that she's keenly aware that doing so is illicit. She's as shameless as you, and neither is she bashful about demonstrating that trait either.
JUSTICE SODIMIZER
TylerNull 1 year ago 3
@cadavison The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make the law. The law is made by democratically elected representatives of the people. You need to learn the purpose of the judiciary,
StinkyKnobcheese 8 months ago
we all know it's true, why make such big fuss about it
lyriclex 2 years ago 2
Well i am of Latin background and a veteran of the USMC and a graduate of RU university. First off i don't believe judicial activism but it happens all the time conservative or liberal. The constitution first of all was written by white supremacist who wrote about freedom however owned slaves. (hypocritical i think so) The Constitution was written in the 1700 peoples thinking evolve and one day we can hopefully see an equal America. I saw a White power comment, how about American power!
MrJulian1978 2 years ago
great
MrJulian1978 2 years ago
Hello everyone!! I just wanna say long life for QUEEN SOTOMAYOR better known as "JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR"
yoyey 2 years ago
Costa Rica Costa Rica!!!!
kilibufon 2 years ago
This Witch Sonia ...........Needs to get on her BoooM and fly away.......
and Take Obamma and Biden with HeR
FireYourJOB 2 years ago
With Sotomyer's anti-gun record why is the right remaining so docile and quiet. Perhaps they know gun control will make great politcal ammunition. I dont like Sotomyer, latina or not, She seem's like a souless robot who will do exactly as she is told. I believe that's why she's there.
afferch 2 years ago
These 'judges' (of whom Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer etc., etc., ad nauseam, are prime examples) need to find some backbone and honesty and get off the bench and run for office, rather than continuing this disgusting 'judging' charade. All this lying and 'judicial' politicking has to stop.
Summon up a little character, stop the transparent and disgustijng lying, get off the bench, and run for office.
apeppink 2 years ago
burrito comment is not funny u fuckin idiot..
btw she's Puerto Rican, and we don't eat burritos
antqui 2 years ago
well duh. She stating a fact.
haherjoe 2 years ago
A bunch of old white men agree that they are dumber than this woman and they don't care that she belonged to an EXCLUSIVE woman's club that I see as making chance from within....
concerned00citizen 2 years ago
whats good for Trent Lott is good for sotomayer
spudaso 2 years ago
An example would be if two people were looking at a rock and one called it pretty while the other called it limestone, the one who said limestone is correct. What I'm observing with the law is equivalent to calling the rock a limestone which is based on fact. No vehicles allowed is a proposition that itself is inherently true just like the rock as inherent properties that make it a limestone regardless of meaning or personal belief or interpretation. But I do see what your saying.
cubed07 2 years ago
Most of the time I would agree with your analogy about limestone. The vast majority of the time a law is sufficiently clear to allow for an obvious outcome. But that's not always the case.
A good exception is Muscarello v. US, 524 US 125. A statute said anybody "carrying" a firearm during a drug deal gets extra years in prison. Most of the time it will be clear whether a guy is carrying or not. Muscarello had a gun in his locked glove compartment; was he carrying?
It wasn't a clear cut fact.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
Racist, Constitution hating, judicial activist biatch!
fuklibs 2 years ago 2
Silly americans, arguing left vs right. Meanwhile, in other news, you have no rights left.
Does anyone really believe Obama was any different from McCain? I mean in the debates they were just trying to one up each other promising bigger bailouts, more homeland security, and more war then the other (Obama wanted to invade Pakistan, McCain wanted to invade Iran).
Democracy = May the best liar win.
So america chose chocolate socialism over vanilla socialism. Whoop-de-doo.
Cyrus255 2 years ago
Precedents are based on the law upheld or thrown out because the law was unconstituional, they don't make law. Precedents aren't set by those who think they're above the law and thus can rule against it. If the courts find gray area where their is no law than they should dismiss the case send the defendants to get legislation passed so the courts can uphold the law if it doesn't violate the Constituion. Doesn't matter if she's pointing it out, it's BOTH WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL to make policy.
cubed07 2 years ago
Let me explain using a simple hypo:
Say there's a statute the says "No vehicles in the park." A kid is arrested riding a bike in the park. When the case comes to the court, the judge will decide whether a bike is considered a vehicle. That interpretation will be binding on the court in future, which in essence, makes it either legal or illegal to have a bike in the park. That interpretation forms new law.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
I'm going to finish her last statement, "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm ya know JUST DOING IT."
cubed07 2 years ago 6
And she was absolutely right. Compared with the lower courts that deal with the facts of individual cases, results of appellate cases change the law by creating a binding interpretation that the lower court must follow, thus, where policy is made.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
Doesn't matter if she's right, she is both wrong and in violation of the Constituion for making policy. Courts regardless if their lower or appeals must always rule for the law so long it doesn't condradict the Constituion. If their is no law regarding the case than the courts dismiss it and let the legislative branch make policy because that is their job according to the Constituion. The constituion and our founding fathers made this point unmistakeningly clear.
cubed07 2 years ago 2
Yes, courts are to apply the rule of law. But laws are ambiguous. That's why we have courts to interpret them. There has literally been an entire Supreme Court case that hinged on what the word "carry" meant in a statute that said if you're carrying a gun during a drug deal, you get extra years on your sentence.
When the court ruled on that, it set policy on what carry meant for all the lower courts. It's a fundamental fact of our judicial system.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
Our founding fathers also made it unmistakably clear that the Constitution is mutable precisely because nothing can be perfect. You should know this considering that you cited an Amendment (look up the word).
Regardless, what Sotomayor is saying here is NOT unconstitutional. These people are called "judges", after all -- some level of policy making inevitably comes into play if human minds are involved in decisions. Qwerty illustrates this with superb examples. But please, keep spinning.
cinenutz 2 years ago
You are alluding that we have more than the 10 amendments America started out with the Bill of Rights. Yes, the consitution can be amended BUT NOT BY THE COURTS. And as for Qwerty's example, with all respect it's a weak one. Judges do not make policy or law that is up to the legislative branch. The courts simply uphold the law, declare the law unconstitutional, or dismiss the case if there is no law to uphold. Any judge making policy in their ruling are violating the seperation of powers, period
cubed07 2 years ago
For better or worse, we live in a common law legal system (unless you're in Louisiana). The opinions of courts are binding on lower courts, a concept called stare decisis.
Do you deny that there was a Supreme Court case that decided what the meaning of "carry" was in a statute?
What should the court do in the "no vehicles in the park" case?
The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. That interpretation is binding, and in that sense creates new law.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
Yes, a common law legal system that enforces laws on the book and limits judges to doing only that. Your bike example validates my view beause a bike is a vehicle and so the kid riding it in the park was in violation of the law so the courts should rule in favor of the law, upholding it. Yes, judiciary interpret the law but only based on what the law says, not on their own viewpoint or how they feel about it. As for the carry case, the SC decided based on the definition of carry.
cubed07 2 years ago
By saying that a bike is a vehicle you have made an interpretation of what the law says.That law only said "no vehicles." What if the councilman who wrote it said that the law was designed to keep cars out of the park? Now you've prohibited bikes from being in the park.
Your ruling, not necessarily the statute itself, has made bikes illegal in the park.
That's what Sotomayor means when she says appellate courts make policy - their rulings are binding on the lower courts.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
I'm still ruling based on the letter of the law as what the law itself implied, not on what I thought regardless if their an agreement or not between the two. If councilmen used wrong wording or not enough to define the law properly that's not my problem. If their is an exception to be made for bikes than the councilmen should amend the law to say all vehicles are banned in parks with exception to bikes. You've shown that man made laws aren't perfect but it still should be enforce to the letter.
cubed07 2 years ago
Yes, your ruling is your interpretation of what the law itself implies. Whereas the council did not intend to ban bikes in the park, you have with your ruling. Your ruling has created new policy. If you had ruled that a bike wasn't a vehicle for the purpose of that statute, then bikes would still be allowed in.
It's a basic example, but can you not see how with the ruling of an appellate or Supreme Court, new "law" is created? This is a basic fundamental FACT or our judicial system.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
It's not my interpretation of what the law itself implies, but at what it implies like if the law was it's own entity which it is. A judge can't go off what the councilmen meant with the law because human feelings and meaning are fickle, however, the letter of the law isn't. I don't see where new law is created when the law already in place is being enforced. If the intent wasn't to ban bikes than the council should include an amendment to make bikes an exception.
cubed07 2 years ago
Again, that is your interpretation. There are many different theories of statutory interpretation, and you have followed one of them. Again, as a result of your interpretation, bikes are no longer allowed. They could have been allowed had you decided the case differently.
Again, the point is that the results of appellate decisions results in a new interpretation of the law that will be binding on lower courts.
For the third time, this is a basic fundamental fact of our judicial system.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
Bikes are no longer allowed becaue bikes are a vehicle which is an objective view, not a subjective one. The law says no vehicles so that means no bikes. I'm ruling based on what the law objectively states, refer to my limestone example. And just because courts have made new law in the past doesn't mean that they were right according to the Constitution and I follow the Constitution and so should all judges. I do see your point but it's not a Constitutional one that's all I'm saying
cubed07 2 years ago
Ill add also that in the carry case, the decision was based on what the law stated and what it defined carried to be.
cubed07 2 years ago
@cubed07 lol woah!
hammerheadrock 1 year ago
She will be a FINE Supreme Court justice! You alarmists and naysayers need to get a life, or at least a hobby.
sophiegromit 2 years ago
This pig wants to judge me? Flip her and the horse she rode in on.
aczwie 2 years ago
I pity the burden all you people must feel. Thinking you have a voice and some ability to change the government, when in fact it''s all a fraud.
What a silly burden. You just keep hating each other, left vs right, when you both are powerless, especially since that division paralyzes both sides.
Democracy really is the worst system. The most efficient liars rule, and the people dividedly trying to force their "good" on each other, wasting their time on politics, instead of loving each other
Cyrus255 2 years ago
It doesn't help that the overwhelming majority of the American voting bloc is full of idiots. I mean, if you look at the micro scale of someone's daily life (relationships, money use, attitude toward work, attitude toward other Americans, etc.) it only reflects the macro scale of the nation. Everyone wants quick fixes, the easiest and fastest pleasure, and superficial relationships.
Sadly...at the same time...love isn't an easy thing. There is a great cost in love. A sacrifice to another.
bluesmaster14701 2 years ago
A Racist Pig...
Slammok 2 years ago
She is not part of La Raza, you have to be Mexican for that, not from Puerto Rico. Still, she is a leftist activist judge who has no business being a court justice. This sucks. Wise Latina, my ass.
nothingisgreener 2 years ago 3
I'm hispanic (from Mexico) and I don't want her as a supreme court justice. I want some one to rule on the side of justice not "social justice."
nothingisgreener 2 years ago 5
Sotomayor is a stupid, evil bitch. She will be very bad for this country. She is a moron.
devonbuckfastliegh 2 years ago
Oh my fucking god, she is so fugly. She looks like a fucking cockroach.
crackrocksteady16 2 years ago
Jusice Ruth Ginsburg isn't exactly a looker either. :oP
madhoyden 2 years ago 2
True, but she is reeeaaallllllyyy old.
This fat cow has no excuse...o god i cant even watch this its making me ill, shes......so.......ugly........*vomits*
crackrocksteady16 2 years ago
Crack, not sure I follow you here. Blasting Sotomayor on her appearance? Does this mean you want to fuck the rest of the Supreme Court? You got a thing for wrinkly old men? What exactly are you telling us about yourself?
cinenutz 2 years ago
Gatoreffer, This Sotomayor really played it smooth the last few days. Actual evidence of her bad attitude & smug self were in hiding during the confirmation hearings. She's playing the good judge now, but on the bench she will lash out with her radicalism, deconstructing our Constitution with the current Leftists on the SC.
No, for me it's not her looks that are the main problem, but her smugness and apparent racism when it comes to feeling a superiority of her Latino race over others.
Gerts4th 2 years ago 2
View count has been stuck at about 225k for about 6 weeks now.
kenp3L 2 years ago
HAAHAHAHA THAT WAS FUNNY!
theblue64 2 years ago
Actually, in truth, if a white man made the statement just has you said here, they would be just a many people criticizing him and supporting him as there are with her. A lot would be on his side and a lot would hate him just as with her. In the end the guy would proably be confirmed. Usually if they can't be cofirmed they don't get this far.
Xelanderthomas 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS IS COMING SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReadMatthew24 2 years ago
Comment removed
guppyelf 2 years ago
I swear I've wondered about that too. More and more racism is bad but anti-white racism is perfectly ok. What amazes me even more is that so many white liberals seem to agree!
SpeakaDaEnglish 2 years ago
PLEASE pull your head out of your **** and listen to what they are doing to us
Listen to Mark Levin on the WABC radio online, or go to his website at:
marklevinshow(dot)com and hear the TRUTH that the Mainstream Media won't give you about Obama's push to get socialized healthcare- which will destroy our quality of life. This stuff is serious, people, & don't go around blindly following guys like Obama. Seek the truth.
BTW Did you know Sotomayor is a member of La Raza? She's radical!
Gerts4th 2 years ago
Lift up your voice America! If you love guns, private property, life, liberty, The Constitution (she would not even say we had a right to self-defense) The Declaration of Independence, Americans being judged by our law and not foreign law precedents, call your United States Senator and demand that they vote no on Sotomayor. 1-202-224-3121. If busy call again and again. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Pray for America and act to save her.
reginaDexant 2 years ago
I would hope that a wise White Male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a (insert non white male race & sex here) who hasnt lived that life.
Now how do you think this would have played out?
Not only would this person not be elected to be a Supreme Judge, they would not be able to judge a pie eating contest!
America we need a gut check!
ramairgto72 2 years ago 2
you are obviously an unintelligent ass!
otosanjoe 2 years ago
When have you ever seen a politician answer a question with a straight forward answer ? But a liberal will just try to avoid the question entirely and talk about something totally different than what you asked about.
yi9tep 2 years ago
CHECK OUT = the new YouTube posted today=........Sotomayor quits belizean grove..........(yah this loon is gonna be = fair........she makes up magical messages to re-interpret her own WORDS & think shes so "elite" we BELIEVE IT?.......not bloody likely)
OcultOprah 2 years ago
The ignorance of that statement makes me think that you've never been outside the U.S.
Argentina is a fantastic country.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
was that for me patrick?
spacemonkeyable 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Judge Sotomayor's statement is not racist, she is just wrong. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
spacemonkeyable 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Judge Sotomayor's statement is not racist, she is just wrong. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
spacemonkeyable 2 years ago
'cause of machismo but you wouldn't know about that
thica14 2 years ago
Funny thing is, the Republican senators are going to vote for her ass well, so... crazy comments on here. :-)
stim100986 2 years ago
The truth is the truth and if she is going to give preferential treatment to Latinos versus non-Latinos is just as bad as anyone who gives preference to any group over another. That is fine as a citizen, although unAmerican, but it is not fine for a lifetime judgeship appointment. She should treat all people equally.
AequitasVeritas7777 2 years ago
Obama has them all thinking that the bullshit he pulled, the lies, the hidden facts etc, will be fine fr the rest of them too. Sadly in Sotomayor's case, she will get in because of the numbers in DC. But like my daddy aways said, U can force feed me horseshit but U can't make me like it! She PROMISED a full explanation of her words re "Latina = better decisons" but all she did (ALA OJ SIMPSON) was stand up & make a general statement of her innocence. Thats a criminals dream.
624787John 2 years ago
In reading through Sotomayors overturned and heavily questioned decisions I noted that many of them were problems because of "Statutory Interpertation". So I asked a neighbor who is a local circuit court judge and he simply smiled and said: " It means the judge was jgnorant of the meaning of the law". Now THAT scares me.
JayJayhope 2 years ago
Many? She's been reversed four times as an appellate judge in over 10 years on the bench.
Your local circuit court judge apparently doesn't understand that statutory interpretation can be very subtle. There has literally been a Supreme Court case that turned on the statutory interpretation of the word "carry." They're tough questions. Being reversed doesn't mean that she was completely wrong.
Besides, Alito was also reversed four times by the SC while on the lower court.
qwertyman129 2 years ago
I think you, and just about everyone else, are underestimating the professional demeanor and the way judges do things. Especially judges with long careers. Sotomayor is a pretty standard pick.
Trying to read too much into rhetoric will make you ignore the reality.
volcombillx3 2 years ago
~ slithering and twisting her own words~ around to get to her and Obama's ultimate = GOAL! A society run by THEM - and the ruin of FREEDOMS that has always made America = GREAT!........this women is another in a ......long......line of the Obama Drones ..........SHE IS LYING IN FRONT OF THE WORLD.........and no one in that commitee will MAN UP! and vote=NO! for this Obama ~ shape shifter~ sadly this is the "change" we all do not NEED! How can they allow this person on the Supreme Court? ~sigh~
OcultOprah 2 years ago
Rush? Are you back on the Oxy again?
vonbombsalot 2 years ago
at least sonia is anti abortion ...it is important, and it shows her to have some credibility
mrstrings65 2 years ago
"Sotomayor" in Spanish means "lying Racist Arseface."
zsj11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So the firefighters tests were biased in favor of whites huh? What a crock of shit. If you look at national test scores in any subject, whether it be math, science, history, ANYTHING, whites/asians always come out on top. How the fuck could math possibly be culturally biased? There's a reason Mexico and Africa are all fucked up and England and Russia and Germany are superpowers. Niggers and spics are fucking stupid, but they'll keep making excuses until the end of time.
fooschnikens 2 years ago
As a Puerto Rican American who speaks better Spanish than Sotomayor never will- she is an embarrassment to ANY community. She knowingly states something that she believes in & her record proves it; & then laughs it off knowing it is wrong- laughing AT all of you, while LYING through the confirmation hearings.She is clearly a racist, feminazi, ideologist activist that fits like a glove in Hugo Chavez's court, rather than ANY U.S. court. Que se vaya al carajo esta gorda, fea y estupida.
mistermotero 2 years ago
The Republicans know the art of demonization like no other. They cater to the uninformed and unintelligent among us; people who generally don't care about context, depth or nuance. The GOP leaders and the base to which they cater are lashing out as they watch the majority of Americans reject their fear mongering and their small ideas.
patrickometry 2 years ago
And by "nuance", of course you mean lying in order to achieve power. Got it.
morgenr 2 years ago
Oh no dear. Lying is what Fundamentalist Christians do when they tell children there is an afterlife, that god beings aren't imaginary, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that the bible is inerrant and that the Theory of Evolution is just a silly opinion a few fringe scientists hold. Hey, what are you doing to celebrate Sotomayer's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? Hey, did you hear Obama's birth certificate is authentic? Must be tough for 'birther' extremists. No nuance there. ;)
patrickometry 2 years ago
I am so looking forward to living in a socialist country here in the near future where we will have the ability to defend ourselves with sticks and stones, where we can wait in line for months to see a doctor for the common cold, where everyone is 100% equal regardless of their entrepreneural efforts or hard work, where discrimination is back and stronger than ever, where my taxes pay for the lazy & irresponsible and where everything is run by the Govt.... I CAN"T WAIT Yippee !!!!
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
Nothing will change in the court.
vonbombsalot 2 years ago
I know, I was responding to Patrickhomo in a previous post.
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
No, Sthernguy1, you'd rather children not be able to see a doctor at all. How very un-Christian of you.
>>
Sotomayor isn't any more liberal than Souter. In fact, with her abortion stance being ambiguous there is a good chance she'll turn out more Conservative than anybody expects.
>>
PS: Sthern please look at a dictionary or encyclopedia once in a while. You are misconstruing socialism. Spreading lies does not advance your case.
Leviance 2 years ago
Leviance - Basing what our country is moving towards is not defined in the dictionary, Obama is creating his own system, which is way left of Socialism.
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
Sthernguy1 you're living in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories and paranoia. Nothing you've describe is based on reality, facts or data. But, people like you don't seem to care for reality which is always so inconveniently contrary to your politically bizarre world view. :)
patrickometry 2 years ago
Patrick - Well, so far the facts are that unemployment was not supposed to go above 8.5% with the stimulus passed, but look where it is now. Is that a fact or some paranoia? If this idiot gets what he wants, this country will be in a stranglehold by the Govt. Over 200 years ago, peolpe fled to this country to have freedom and opportunity that was not available in the European world. Our ancestors would be turing over in their graves right now if they could see what the hell is going on.
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
Not True,
Predictions were for unemployment to go above 10% WITH the stimulus.
vonbombsalot 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
LOL, please provide documention of your claim. I will be waiting.
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
When Obama entered office, the unemployment rate was about 7%-- now it's 9.5% or 10 percent. Obama said he would help-- heck if I can see how he's done anything but lie,lie, lie.
His Sotomayor woman will be as big a failure when it comes to competency, as Obama and most of his Administration picks have been. So Obama's Sec. of the Treasury had some problems choosing not to pay his taxes, right? What do you bet Obama's first choice for SC justice will make some most unjust decisions there?
Gerts4th 2 years ago
Pat - A fantasy world is what Liberals live in every day. They want FREE health care, they want FREE housing, they want FREE food, they want FREE everything and they expect the Rich to pay for it all. I do not know about you, but I was raised to work my butt off and not rely on the Govt for anything except for the obvious: Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranqulity, Provide for the common Defence, PROMOTE general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty. Nowhere does it say PROVIDE !!!
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
What ironic though is the rich liberals don't want to pay for the free stuff due to their elitist view that all of us our idiots. The rich liberals want the rich conservatives to pay for everything.
cubed07 2 years ago 2
Promote General Welfare - "Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with principles of the self governed. It means that congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation. It DOES NOT mean that congress should create legislation that plunders the people in order to REDISTRIBUTE wealth. It DOES NOT provide for any entitlements for certain people."
Does that help Patrick????
Sthernguy1 2 years ago
Jay, aka sternguy1, I find it bizarre that after 8 yrs of the incompetence of Bush and his cronies you'd complain about the problems they created while the Liberals work to right things. It'll take time. The economic mess, foreign debacles and enormous debt that Bush left the Obama Admin is widely recognized.
But even Richard Nixon had his die hard supporters even after he was shown to be corrupt so I don't hold your denial against you. Thank goodness the grown ups are in charge now. ;)
patrickometry 2 years ago
Pat - This is not about Bush, I am not happy with him either, but then again, he had a Democratic Congress the last two years of his administration. This is about fundamental and what Obama is doing is not making things right, but creating his own type of Govt that is not even mentioned in the Constitution. He has his own agenda which has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our Constitution. Our ancestors moved here because they wanted to be free of a Govt such as the one Obama is creating
Sthernguy1 2 years ago