~which side of the magical memory rainbow is miss Sota on today?~ ....can she be allowed to "mock" with her LYING TO THE WHOLE WORLD..& the Senator's...by = "re-interpreting"......with an "elite' sniff!.....the very words she actually spoke ....but now elects to pander more fake interpretations into the questioning? Will anyone who can VOTE! = MAN UP! & vote=NO! - so America does not end up with a = LIAR on this Noble Court's Podium for the sake of Obama's "AGENDA".......pray for this country!
Courts of Appeal can legitimately "make policy" consistent with judicial precedent and legislative acts. Most statutes have open-ended language that requires a judgment on how to apply the rule to specific facts. Often, the law requires the court to balance competing factors (eg, the interests of a state employer vs. an employee's 1st amendment rights). This cannot be done without brining policy preferences to bear. Conservatives and liberals who practice law, or follow the courts, know this.
Maybe thats the problem. Jaded jackass legal experts with political agendas that could only get enacted through judicial fiat. Why have a legislature at all if thats the case?
Why have a legislature? Because they WRITE the laws. Another question is, why have a judiciary at all? The answer is that the judiciary has to INTERPRET what the legislature has written. The reason this is necessary is that the legislature can't possibly write a law for EVERY possible scenario that can occur. So when a specific scenario DOES occur, judges have to decide how the law pertains to that specific case. Once judges make the decision, it then becomes policy and it effects future cases.
The idea that the legislative branch was meant to be the only branch involved in making policies is simply wrong. The legislative branch WRITES laws that are meant to pertain to a large number of scenarios, and the judicial branch fine tunes the laws by saying how they pertain to specific scenarios. This is not because the judicial system is jaded and is trying to have power that they aren't meant to have. That is just how the legal system is designed and has been since its inception.
ok. let me give you a concrete example. You know that it is a POLICY in the U.S., that black and white students cannot be separated in public schools based on race. That is a POLICY BECAUSE of a COURT CASE called Brown vs. the Board of Education that was decided by JUDGES. Before that case, that was NOT a POLICY. You can continue to say that I am wrong. But if you do, I have one word for you . . . DENIAL!!
Oh and Roe v. Wade was also decided by "judges"(?) and the day will come when we will get back from all of the deaths we've allowed...hmm ever hear of the HOLOCAUST?!
I am sure our founding fathers would be proud. Legislating from the bench is the exact opposite of what they were trying to accomplish. Well, if you like socialism people, here it is. I do want to know how long it will take for you libs to figure it out that it does not work. Anyone can do the research. It is all because of you whiny ass, lazy, good for nothing progressives that will turn our country into the USSA The United Socialists States of America!! Eat it up because you brought it on
is anyone surprised by this?? she is another liberal activist judge, and she is a racist too. after all we have an ILLEGAL president in the WH , he is a racist and so is she
~which side of the magical memory rainbow is miss Sota on today?~ ....can she be allowed to "mock" with her LYING TO THE WHOLE WORLD..& the Senator's...by = "re-interpreting"......with an "elite' sniff!.....the very words she actually spoke ....but now elects to pander more fake interpretations into the questioning? Will anyone who can VOTE! = MAN UP! & vote=NO! - so America does not end up with a = LIAR on this Noble Court's Podium for the sake of Obama's "AGENDA".......pray for this country!
OcultOprah 2 years ago
I feel bad for Sonia but just take a look at all these White Maggots attacking a Woman stupid Cowards.
whtisrcowards 2 years ago
Yay Sotomayor!
:D
HIMsabo 2 years ago
Courts of Appeal can legitimately "make policy" consistent with judicial precedent and legislative acts. Most statutes have open-ended language that requires a judgment on how to apply the rule to specific facts. Often, the law requires the court to balance competing factors (eg, the interests of a state employer vs. an employee's 1st amendment rights). This cannot be done without brining policy preferences to bear. Conservatives and liberals who practice law, or follow the courts, know this.
etsneroj 2 years ago
LOL! "obamba" me neither
magpie4321 2 years ago 2
airpower, she is as much of a racist as Odumbo and the church he goes to
magpie4321 2 years ago 4
People who are making a big deal out of this a just ignorant about how law works. For legal experts, there is nothing controversial about this.
levybh 2 years ago
Maybe thats the problem. Jaded jackass legal experts with political agendas that could only get enacted through judicial fiat. Why have a legislature at all if thats the case?
daskcool 2 years ago
Why have a legislature? Because they WRITE the laws. Another question is, why have a judiciary at all? The answer is that the judiciary has to INTERPRET what the legislature has written. The reason this is necessary is that the legislature can't possibly write a law for EVERY possible scenario that can occur. So when a specific scenario DOES occur, judges have to decide how the law pertains to that specific case. Once judges make the decision, it then becomes policy and it effects future cases.
levybh 2 years ago
The idea that the legislative branch was meant to be the only branch involved in making policies is simply wrong. The legislative branch WRITES laws that are meant to pertain to a large number of scenarios, and the judicial branch fine tunes the laws by saying how they pertain to specific scenarios. This is not because the judicial system is jaded and is trying to have power that they aren't meant to have. That is just how the legal system is designed and has been since its inception.
levybh 2 years ago
levybh, I should kind of expect such a ridiculous and insane comment out of the a left wingnut like you!
magpie4321 2 years ago 2
ok. let me give you a concrete example. You know that it is a POLICY in the U.S., that black and white students cannot be separated in public schools based on race. That is a POLICY BECAUSE of a COURT CASE called Brown vs. the Board of Education that was decided by JUDGES. Before that case, that was NOT a POLICY. You can continue to say that I am wrong. But if you do, I have one word for you . . . DENIAL!!
levybh 2 years ago
levybh, she is SO PROABORT, let me count the ways!
magpie4321 2 years ago 2
Oh and Roe v. Wade was also decided by "judges"(?) and the day will come when we will get back from all of the deaths we've allowed...hmm ever hear of the HOLOCAUST?!
magpie4321 2 years ago
If we find out that she also owes Federal Income taxes for prior years, she will then completely fit the profile for service under Obama.
w3sj 2 years ago
I am sure our founding fathers would be proud. Legislating from the bench is the exact opposite of what they were trying to accomplish. Well, if you like socialism people, here it is. I do want to know how long it will take for you libs to figure it out that it does not work. Anyone can do the research. It is all because of you whiny ass, lazy, good for nothing progressives that will turn our country into the USSA The United Socialists States of America!! Eat it up because you brought it on
forwardrebel 2 years ago
does she support the FALN?
doug1863 2 years ago
is anyone surprised by this?? she is another liberal activist judge, and she is a racist too. after all we have an ILLEGAL president in the WH , he is a racist and so is she
doug1863 2 years ago