She had these words to make me doubt she cares. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination." Geez! It's the courts job to make up for the world that was, in this world now? More or less without regard to what is in the Constitution. This seems to me to be nothing more than just turning about who is targeted for discrimination. By the court no less! Whom never face re-election. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-liberal-voice/
You being a dumb pink meatbag wouldn't understand. It takes a wise Latina to know how to make up shit as you go.
Sotomayor has never read The Constitution of The United States of America, because she is not a Real American. She is a New World Ordian who owes her lofty position to Affirmative Action's racial discriminations, which are clearly un-Constitutional.
This seems to be a clear reason to vote for Trump. If we lose the Constitution, there will be no other course than CWII.
Let me make this clear. Every SCJ respects and understands the constitution better than anyone on this board including me, MarAzul or HCP. They may interpret it differently than you, and differently than what you view as congruous the United States or your interpretation of the constitution. But to think they don't care, understand, have context, have experience or have philosophy behind their interpretation is foolish. That includes Supreme Court Justices with whom I utterly disagree.
I have no beef with her or her statement. The court ruled in the 1880s that separate but equal was ok. In 1954 the court overturned Plessy v Ferguson with the Brown v Board of Education decision that integrated schools. Government should treat everyone equally but hasn't for centuries. The process of unwinding all the Jim Crow laws piled upon Jim Crow laws does take people speaking up (1st amendment!) and recognizing Jim Crow and kicking him in the balls. I have no beef with any of the justices. As further said, they all know their shit.
Did someone say horse shit? I am sure they all understand what it says more than I do, I'm sure they do. I'm just sure that they do. I'm sure as sure can be. I'm so sure I can't say I've ever been surer of anything. I also know that our political system makes a point of finding people who vote on things based on their political leanings. The Supreme Court is actually one of the more obvious problems with our system. The number of 5-4 decisions is mind boggling. The best lawyers in the world aren't much better at decision making than a coin flip. Fuck that.
I'm not scared, the fruity pebbles with blue hair and hula hoop earrings aren't much to worry about. Just as long as they know the Geneva Convention doesn't recognize "safe spaces"
You and I completely disagree I guess. I'm not saying I agree with any particular justices interpretation on a specific issue, just that there are different philosophical ways to interpret the constitution and I do believe that SCJ's respect and care about the constitution. As far as them being appointed, yes, but they are appointed because of how they view the constitution, but it's not like they sway to the appointees wishes to get the robe. It's a lifetime job, if they actually believed alternately to what they told congress/pres at appointment time, they would simply vote how they believed once they got the job. 4-5 decisions are common because thats why those cases were being reviewed, because the legal matter is unestablished. It comes down to interpretation.
Blah blah blah, if we have to worry about which party is in office when one of them dies the system is obviously broken. Interpretation means "I know it says this and that but this is a bad guy so I'm sure congress meant for him to get caught" 9 people? Not adequate.
You oversimplify. Most of the issues that come before the Supreme Court don't have the answer in clear concise language in the Constitution. For instance, in the case for which Sotomayor wrote the dissent, a man was detained on the street, and then an open warrant was found on his ID, and then drug paraphernalia was found on his person. The 4th amendment simply says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The interpretation in this case comes in the word "unreasonable". Does the fact that he had an outstanding warrant make the search of his person "reasonable", or... Does the fact that the warrant was located during an unlawful stop make the search "unreasonable". That's absolutely up to interpretation. I'm a conservative by nature, but I tend to agree with Sotomayor's dissent on this one.
And yet she has no problem with the NSA and other government agencies spying on people, reading their emails, listening to their phone calls...
Silly me, I thought we were talking about this case and her above-linked commentary thereupon. Do you have links to comments from her regarding government spying, so as to contribute to informed discourse? On the contrary, her comments here seem to suggest that she does have an issue with warrantless spying.
This thread is about Sotomayor, not some specific case. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/nsa-spying-challenge-turned-aside/ NSA spying challenge turned aside The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a challenge to the National Security Agency’s global sweep of telephone and electronic communications — the first such test case to reach the Court since former NSA analyst Edward Snowdon began releasing publicly a pile of secret papers disclosing details of that surveillance.
