Judge Sotomayor would show fidelity to our Constitution

Post Reply New Topic

By bestest buddy, Barack, sent me a personal e-mail to say,
"I am proud to announce my nominee for the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor." ...yadda, yadda... and that she "would show fidelity to our Constitution."

It was a very nice letter and gave me the warm fuzzies.

I replied, asking, "What Constitution? They threw that old rag away years ago.
I believe I heard that Dubbya used it for toilet paper. Save a tree, and all that.
Is there any chance of this Judge Sotomayor restoring it, or something vaguely reminicient?" It's a sentimental thing. I was never much for rules, but sometimes I like knowing that we have some, and what they are

He hasn't replied yet, but I'm sure that he will.

You believe everything Obama says?

She, like every other justice in the last 30 years, is selected because she is the "correct" choice for the administration in power.

Obama is supposedly a "constitutional scholar." That was twisted to imply he knows and respects the Constitution. I disagree. A "scholar" is someone who is versed in how to twist things in the wind to get whatever conclusion they desire. Obama's record speaks for itself.

She's a minority face with a liberal slant, but not so controversial that she won't get confirmed. That's what happens to one degree or another in the political world.

Apparently you were no "scholar" in school, zer0netgain, I assume? (Neither was I.)

At least she's not a Scalia.

"Scholar" is a term often twisted to conceal people who use intellect to conduct deceit.

So Stephen Hawking & others like him "use[d] intellect to conduct deceit"?

No. What I'm saying is that "scholar" is a label often utilized by a person who is crafty at using his education to convince people to reach a conclusion that is contrary to the common sense facts he relies upon.

Al Gore hawking for the environment isn't the best example (as he cannot claim to be a scholar), but he misrepresents scientific fact to draw many false conclusions. It is why he refuses to debate anyone who has the academic background to correctly analyze the assertions Gore makes in public.

Anyone can go to a university and earn a doctorate degree. Of those, any of them could work for any number of groups with a specific political or social agenda and apply their knowledge to promote a specific goal.

How many of them would call themselves "scholars?" How many of them are honestly pursuing knowledge with no predisposed bias or agenda?

A scholar seeks knowledge for knowledge's sake. They do not seek to promote a personal view or agenda that lies contrary to the evidence.

As such, when someone calls themselves a scholar, be critical of what they claim. It's a claim too often abused.

Ah, I now understand. I thank you for the explanation - it cleared up a lot of questions that were left in my mind.

Remind me never to use the word scholar - I've got too many opinions as is.

He is a She. And She is a self proclaimed judicial activist who does not know the difference between Law and Policy. If she confirmed we will have a loose cannon on the court for the next 30 years.

ruveyn

The only information I have on Sotomayor is from the clip below (from a moderate, New Democrat [in the Clintonian sense, not the Canadian Political Party]) radio show "The Young Turks".

The basic premise is that by "the Appeals court makes policy" she means they make precedents. Precedents, in turn, lead to the concrete actualization of the law (legislators almost always have a relatively detached and abstract understanding of the laws the pass).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcw5-k6AsbQ&feature=channel_page[/youtube]

If you can find another source with some of her quotations in context I would be glad to review them to make up my mind regarding this judge.