This is a dishonest, PC statement concerning the Constitution. Not that I agree with the Constitution's quotas, but the Founding States and post-Civil War constitutional lawmakers enumerated quotas as evidenced by the following clauses.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (emphases added). ...
14th Amendment, Section 2: ... shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
While I agree that her success was without merit, I don;t agree that “Once we decide, there is no more hope.” While I temporarily lost hope after their terrible and lawless ObamaCare decision, she is fundamentally wrong. Government derives it’s powers from the consent of the governed. Lawless decisions squander that consent and the loss of consent can restore hope - it’s ugly but it will eventually work.
You know, she defines herself as a person with the opposite character traits that define a “judicial temperament”. A judicial temperament requires someone to be deliberate, careful, logical, not impulsive, slap-dash and emotional. Judges should be predictable in the sense that they will conform their thinking and decisions to established case precedent and principals of jurisprudence. In this sense, judges who consider being unpredictable a part of their role are stripping the rule of law of its central components: a known system of laws and a known system of interpretation and application of laws. The worst thing a lawyer has to tell his litigation client is that there is no way of knowing what the judge might do, something that happens all too often.
Can she name one unexpected thing she’s don on the SCOTUS? I can’t. She’s a wise Latina.
(She does have large, uh, tracts of land!)
Has she ever NOT voted in the expected liberal way? I can't think of any.
Assertive, but DON'T CALL HER BOSSY!
Assertive, but DON'T CALL HER BOSSY!
‘’Every decision we make is final,’’ declares Sonya Sotomayor of the Supreme Court, ‘’Once we decide, there is no more hope.’’ No more hope? Tell that to Dred Scott. Tell that to today’s African-Americans who are permitted to drink from the same water fountains as white people, thanks to the overturning of Plessy v Ferguson in the 1890s.
In fact, the Supreme Court constantly changes laws. Why else does Sonya Sotomayor think Barack Obama chose her for the Supreme Court except because he expected her to change laws according to their shared liberal ideology?
If Justice Sotomayor were paying attention to her job instead of spending her time giving misleading interviews to foreign publications, she would know that the Supreme Court is currently considering changing a law which she and the Supreme Court have already ruled constitutional — the Affordable Care Act. An affirmative ruling in the Hobby Lobby case would change the ACA by removing requirements deemed contrary to employers’ freedom of religion.
Nothing is forever, except maybe the ignorance of liberal justices, who have no reason to spend much time studying the law because they care more about advancing liberal causes than upholding judicial standards.
She couldn’t even make her marriage work after only seven years. How can we possibly expect her to protect the constitution for life!
I am always impressed by how unimpressed I am when these people speak (Obama, Michelle, Sotomayor, Clintons, etc). They attended the top schools and their intellect is astoundingly vapid.
True, why don’t you retire?
Putting someone on the Supreme Court that isn’t even close to being qualified to be there was “unexpected” to me. Making “a compelling life story” the only qualification for being a Supreme Court justice was a goofy idea. Just another indicator of how far America has gone downhill.
What an effin moron
Even if success is not always about merit (like a certain occupant of the WH), merit is still the primary goal. The state has no right whatsoever to undermine this core American principle by force of arms. It’s extremely destabilizing, it causes great damage to millions of innocent citizens, and it undermines our economic prosperity ( or, given we lost that four or five years ago, it impedes our another to recover if so many jobs are forced to be occupied by less than capable or meretricious people ).