Justice Sotomayor: Saying It's So, Makes It So!
May 14, 2014 14:54:45 #
This article is rather boring to read, but it's very important if you have any desire to know the flat-out truth about what goes on at the SCOTUS.
Not only is Justice? Sonia Sotomayor the "homeliest" person ever to sit on the high court, I strongly suspect that she will retain that dubious "distinction" for the next 50 years at least.
(But Justice Sotomayor's stunning homeliness isn't the reason this article is so important; ) The real reason is......Justice Sotomayor's incredible BIAS! (Racial bias at that ) Read the article carefully and you'll understand what I mean.
Justice Sotomayor: Saying it's so, Makes it so
Apr 29, 2014 / Article by Bill Murchison
The nice thing about modern America is that, if you don't like a certain form of reality, you can always make up your own version.
It helps to have a few federal judges in your corner -- such as the ones currently busy with re-imagining marriage as an institution open, on an equality basis, to same-sex as well as different-sex pairings. Then there's Justice Sonia Sotomayor, declaring that a call for no racial discrimination is tantamount to a call for racial discrimination of a very racial, and detestable, sort.
Joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor last week let loose a blast at her U. S. Supreme Court colleagues for upholding, 6-2, Michigan's right to amend the state Constitution with a prohibition against "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Well, I mean -- wouldn't we call such language a green light for preferential treatment? Sotomayor and Ginsburg would.
Look, said Sotomayor's dissent: "As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."
We don't have to slog through the tortured syntax of Sotomayor's second sentence to understand that a key reality of modern life is the need to prevail, by whatever means: never mind distortions, never mind evasions, never mind outright lies. That we get what we want appears to be the main thing.
Observe Sotomayor (seconded by Ginsburg) in action. RACE MATTERS! (Would Sotomayor herself be on the court, at the expense of far more experienced jurists, is a question likely to have circulated in her own mind, many times.) TO RULE OUT RACE IS TO RULE IT IN!
Come again? You could probably argue something of the sort at a university debate tournament. From the high court, outrageous assertions take on another character. Sotomayor missed by one vote the joy of inviting Michigan voters -- their own judgment being inferior to hers -- to take a flying leap, and with them all other Americans doubtful of the logic of assigning rewards on the basis of "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."
She had scornful words for those high court colleagues whose respect for the Michigan outcome exceeded hers. Their views simply were "out of touch with reality." This was to the extent that her own version of reality trumped competing accounts.
The new measure of reality in many former centers of civilization -- e.g., Washington, D.C. -- is the power of one coalition to set its notions and viewpoints (however eccentric or upside down) at such a height as to drive away opposed ideas. The people of Michigan, by Justice Sotomayor's reasoning, lack the constitutional right to assert a definition of equality she sees as defective. She'll tell 'em, by gosh, even if what she tells them has similarities to the claim that up is down, red is green, war is peace.
Yes, the late George Orwell saw it coming. It is hard to imagine Orwell expressing surprise or shock at the willingness -- the eagerness -- of a political faction to tie facts into bowlines and square knots while claiming brazenly to be doing just the opposite. A society without a moral center -- ours, for instance -- is up for grabs. The shouters have only to shout more loudly than anyone else.
The Constitution was meant, at the start of our national life, as a kind of sheet anchor keeping us generally true to the early ideals. It kind of worked until it no longer worked. "We are under a Constitution," Chief Justice Hughes acknowledged, "but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." And that was before Sonia Sotomayor had even been born.
End of article
Comments;
As would be expected, that "other "beauty", Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with Sotomayor; the dyke, er, I mean Justice Elena Kagan must have been in the ER with something "serious", because she failed to agree with Sotomayor and Ginsburg. What does all of this prove? That's the easy question! It PROVES that Barry Soetoro, AKA Obummer is the WORST POTUS in the history of the U.S. at "selecting" competent SCOTUS appointments! Just imagine......all of our resident libertardians will be in ecstasy, inasmuch as we will "get rid of" the Obummer in a few more years, but barring an "act of Divine Providence", we'll be saddled with Kagan and Sotomayor probably until the next outbreak of bubonic plague! (Ginsburg has already "about had it" so she probably won't last all that long.
BTW......we got lucky this time! The the "homely girls were on the short end of the vote. ( no doubt yet another act of Devine Providence! )
Caution; better to use welder's goggles or VERY dark sunglasses when viewing pictures below. (don't say I didn't warn you.....)
Not only is Justice? Sonia Sotomayor the "homeliest" person ever to sit on the high court, I strongly suspect that she will retain that dubious "distinction" for the next 50 years at least.
(But Justice Sotomayor's stunning homeliness isn't the reason this article is so important; ) The real reason is......Justice Sotomayor's incredible BIAS! (Racial bias at that ) Read the article carefully and you'll understand what I mean.
Justice Sotomayor: Saying it's so, Makes it so
Apr 29, 2014 / Article by Bill Murchison
The nice thing about modern America is that, if you don't like a certain form of reality, you can always make up your own version.
It helps to have a few federal judges in your corner -- such as the ones currently busy with re-imagining marriage as an institution open, on an equality basis, to same-sex as well as different-sex pairings. Then there's Justice Sonia Sotomayor, declaring that a call for no racial discrimination is tantamount to a call for racial discrimination of a very racial, and detestable, sort.
Joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor last week let loose a blast at her U. S. Supreme Court colleagues for upholding, 6-2, Michigan's right to amend the state Constitution with a prohibition against "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Well, I mean -- wouldn't we call such language a green light for preferential treatment? Sotomayor and Ginsburg would.
Look, said Sotomayor's dissent: "As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."
We don't have to slog through the tortured syntax of Sotomayor's second sentence to understand that a key reality of modern life is the need to prevail, by whatever means: never mind distortions, never mind evasions, never mind outright lies. That we get what we want appears to be the main thing.
Observe Sotomayor (seconded by Ginsburg) in action. RACE MATTERS! (Would Sotomayor herself be on the court, at the expense of far more experienced jurists, is a question likely to have circulated in her own mind, many times.) TO RULE OUT RACE IS TO RULE IT IN!
Come again? You could probably argue something of the sort at a university debate tournament. From the high court, outrageous assertions take on another character. Sotomayor missed by one vote the joy of inviting Michigan voters -- their own judgment being inferior to hers -- to take a flying leap, and with them all other Americans doubtful of the logic of assigning rewards on the basis of "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."
She had scornful words for those high court colleagues whose respect for the Michigan outcome exceeded hers. Their views simply were "out of touch with reality." This was to the extent that her own version of reality trumped competing accounts.
The new measure of reality in many former centers of civilization -- e.g., Washington, D.C. -- is the power of one coalition to set its notions and viewpoints (however eccentric or upside down) at such a height as to drive away opposed ideas. The people of Michigan, by Justice Sotomayor's reasoning, lack the constitutional right to assert a definition of equality she sees as defective. She'll tell 'em, by gosh, even if what she tells them has similarities to the claim that up is down, red is green, war is peace.
Yes, the late George Orwell saw it coming. It is hard to imagine Orwell expressing surprise or shock at the willingness -- the eagerness -- of a political faction to tie facts into bowlines and square knots while claiming brazenly to be doing just the opposite. A society without a moral center -- ours, for instance -- is up for grabs. The shouters have only to shout more loudly than anyone else.
The Constitution was meant, at the start of our national life, as a kind of sheet anchor keeping us generally true to the early ideals. It kind of worked until it no longer worked. "We are under a Constitution," Chief Justice Hughes acknowledged, "but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." And that was before Sonia Sotomayor had even been born.
End of article
Comments;
As would be expected, that "other "beauty", Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with Sotomayor; the dyke, er, I mean Justice Elena Kagan must have been in the ER with something "serious", because she failed to agree with Sotomayor and Ginsburg. What does all of this prove? That's the easy question! It PROVES that Barry Soetoro, AKA Obummer is the WORST POTUS in the history of the U.S. at "selecting" competent SCOTUS appointments! Just imagine......all of our resident libertardians will be in ecstasy, inasmuch as we will "get rid of" the Obummer in a few more years, but barring an "act of Divine Providence", we'll be saddled with Kagan and Sotomayor probably until the next outbreak of bubonic plague! (Ginsburg has already "about had it" so she probably won't last all that long.
BTW......we got lucky this time! The the "homely girls were on the short end of the vote. ( no doubt yet another act of Devine Providence! )
Caution; better to use welder's goggles or VERY dark sunglasses when viewing pictures below. (don't say I didn't warn you.....)
Justice? Sonia Sotomayor (Bad Face Day )
Same As Above, Possibly Closer?
Sorry, Couldn't Find Pic Of Ginsburg & Kagan; Trust Me, The Cat Looks Better!
May 14, 2014 16:08:29 #
Gitzo, To my mind at least, your diatribe might carry a little more weight if it didn't rely so heavily on your insulting descriptions of personal appearances and aspersions regarding sexual orientation. ........ Coot
Gitzo wrote:
This article is rather boring to read, but it's ve... (show quote)
May 14, 2014 23:59:57 #
Lazy Old Coot wrote:
Gitzo, To my mind at least, your diatribe might carry a little more weight if it didn't rely so heavily on your insulting descriptions of personal appearances and aspersions regarding sexual orientation. ........ Coot
Don't need any weight, Coot;
May 15, 2014 00:32:11 #
Your post is extremely offensive. If Justice Sotomayor looked like Elisabeth Hasselbeck would you say the same thing?
May 15, 2014 06:29:30 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Your post is extremely offensive. If Justice Sotomayor looked like Elisabeth Hasselbeck would you say the same thing?
Tell me something; what made you think I was worried about getting your "approval"? Also......who twisted your arm and made you read it? To answer your question, if Sotomayor "acted", or even "thought" anything like Elizabeth Hasselbeck, she wouldn't need to be beautiful for me to treat her kindly; I'm a very kind person; (to "normal people" ) Sotomayor isn't a "normal" person; neither are you; you're a liberal; I'm assuming that you're a secular-progressive lib; I don't care much about sec-pros and libs; anyone who has the attitude that you turkeys have about the events at Benghazi, is in my opinion, a traitor to their country; and I especially dislike traitors.
May 15, 2014 14:40:00 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
If you especially dislike traitors and think they should be put to death, I suggest you go hang yourself!
Gitzo wrote:
Tell me something; what made you think I was worri... (show quote)
May 15, 2014 17:06:21 #
ole sarg wrote:
If you especially dislike traitors and think they should be put to death, I suggest you go hang yourself!
your suggestions carry zero weight, never have, never will..
May 15, 2014 17:10:58 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
he has a thing for Sarah.Your post is extremely offensive. If Justice Sotomayor looked like Elisabeth Hasselbeck would you say the same thing?
May 15, 2014 19:11:10 #
ole sarg wrote:
If you especially dislike traitors and think they should be put to death, I suggest you go hang yourself!
I suggest you go jump off of the nearest cliff! (but first, stick both index fingers up your nose ) (ROF, LMAO! )
The idiot still hasn't figured out how to spell his own screen name properly!
May 15, 2014 19:55:44 #
Gitzo wrote:
I suggest you go jump off of the nearest cliff! (but first, stick both index fingers up your nose ) (ROF, LMAO! )
The idiot still hasn't figured out how to spell his own screen name properly!
The idiot still hasn't figured out how to spell his own screen name properly!
Old friend Gitzo. Check your medications. I think they need adjustment. Surely we can do without vicious personal attacks.
May 15, 2014 20:51:14 #
GeorgeH wrote:
Old friend Gitzo. Check your medications. I think they need adjustment. Surely we can do without vicious personal attacks.
Really, George, that wasnt any worse than sarges post that he was responding to...
May 15, 2014 22:05:29 #
Michael O'
Loc: Midwest right now
Word meaning reversal has been a commonly applied tool of the socialist, communist, Nazi, and other fascist power grabbers and manipulators from time immemorial. His royal Kenyan/Hawaiian/
Chicagoan, governor-by-edict appoints as would be expected.
Chicagoan, governor-by-edict appoints as would be expected.
May 16, 2014 01:34:00 #
[quote=GeorgeH]Old friend Gitzo. Check your medications. I think they need adjustment. Surely we can do without vicious personal attacks.[/quo
Thank You but that's what has become of our country and it appears to be the same problem with this web site.
Thank You but that's what has become of our country and it appears to be the same problem with this web site.
May 16, 2014 02:31:25 #
GeorgeH wrote:
Old friend Gitzo. Check your medications. I think they need adjustment. Surely we can do without vicious personal attacks.
George; Remember WW2 ? If there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima.
I read a lot; I often come across things that I think like minded people may have missed, and that I think they may find interesting, so I sometimes post them. Based on the the numbers of "views" in "my topics", (something over 100,000 at the last attempt to count ), apparently someone must be finding them interesting.
You know how it goes......you can't please everyone; (not that I even try. ) If you will notice, there are no notes on any of my posts, saying, "you had better read this, or else"! As a matter of fact, I often do the exact opposite, posting cautions saying, "unless you are "like minded", you may find this post to be "offensive" and you may wish to "avoid it". But you known how liberals are, I'm sure.........everyone must agree with them about everything.
In short, liberals want to give all of the orders, they think they can control everyone else; they are the world's biggest "party crashers"; and they expect everyone at the party to listen to THEIR music, talk about THEIR topics, and to think like THEY think! To which I say.....not likely! Not even possible!
And then there is all of this nonsense from liberals about anyone posting anything THEY "disagree" with, MUST somehow be on some kind of "meds"! I'm convinced that all libs must pop an awful lot of pills, because they sure as hell like to accuse everyone else of doing it! (I'm not directing that remark at you, George; ) Just libs in general. Please be advised, all libs.....I don't ANY "meds", any alcohol, and tobacco products, or any "recreational" drugs of any kind, and I have no desire to ever "get high". (or "low" ) Any garbage or other trash that you throw in MY yard, you may be absolutely certain will be delivered right back into YOUR "yard".
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.