Federal appeals courts and the SCOTUS can overturn laws that are unconstitutional.

__________________

Yes, but they can not create requirements for the legislature to fulfill.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

by interpreting the law, they are creating policy. that is the argument. the two are synonymous.

when a law it 'interpreted' as unconstitutional, it creates policy in a de facto manner.

__________________

Ok, well, apparently she has been wrong about 60% of the time when her cases went to the Supreme Court. Should we trust her ability to understand the constitution with such a poor record?

the SC overturning a case does not make the original decision 'wrong.' it makes it a different decision than the one the SC came up with.

there is no right and wrong in jurisprudence.

__________________

Why did you type it if you didnt expect me to understand it? Maybe you should dumb it down a bit.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Really? I would say that's exactly what it does.

Interesting article on Sotmayor and her views on legal realism (that the law as written isnt realistic, so we must apply it differntly than its written to take into account reality). Of course, we could simply change the law...


Legal Realism Informs Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's Views - WSJ.com

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

IMHO, the best judges are pragmatists, the ones who consider the actual effect of a ruling/law-overturning, both on the immediate case and on society given the precedent set by the ruling. The ruling's effect has to be consistent w/the Constitution, not merely the ruling's wording.

The second required qualification for a judge is a vigilant respect for civil liberties--someone who favors individual rights over government power and who can balance federalist (states' rights) arguments against the rights of the individual, and doesn't always take one side over the other.

__________________

So with her ruling on the firefighters case, it would see she did not consider the societal effects or the constitution since she basically ruled for quotas and will most certainly be overturned.

Again, in her firefighters ruling, she ruled against the rights of individuals to gain deserved and qualified promotions.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

It was written in plain English. Any additional ad hominem argument fallacies you care to employ? You might as well get them all out up front to save us some time so I can dismiss them out of hand and we can get on to the real arguments, if you believe you can stand on them which, if you really do, then you don't need those fig leafs.

You still haven't addressed her own statements in the opinion I cited that rebut your claim. That's her in actual action in binding cases. You dodged that citation of her in action with a red herring joke. So here it is again:

and she goes into category by category of breaking down the law on all those points like a surgeon....

and then concludes as follows:

(bolding added)

In Re: Air Crash Off Long Island, New York, on July 17, 1996, 209 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2000).

Case link:

209 F.3d 200


What I said is true, and the Dems are thanking you. I'll get to the 'you guys' thing shortly.


Phtt. Ad hominems being the fallacy they are, the dodge is the bigger issue. Answer the statement. You said the following:

(emphasis added) You claim Hispanics support Democrats because Hispanics want and appeal to being doped on welfare, affirmative action, etc.

False. You did and it's requoted above.

Yeah, you are falling into it.

As for Estrada, the Dems did not challenge him on his ethnicity and stereotypes, ethnic fearmongering and stoking 'angry white male' stuff, etc. They challenged him on his judicial philosophy. Hispanics understand that as being legitimate and fair lines of challenge.

And that is what the GOP should do and should have done here with her to earn credibility they have lost with Hispanics, but already they are shooting themselves once again. That crap may have worked with the Southern Strategy and through the 80s, but the demographics are different now with the huge rise of Latinos in the population and it will pay the penalties for it.

Now, as to 'you guy's meaning me...try thinking and learning of what you talk before you talk. Missapplied textbook talking points fall flattest. I personally supported 'Yes' votes for both Roberts and Alito and opposed filibusters applying the same kinds of standards for judicial evaluation and due deference to the appointment processes. So let's get down to debating the subject.

I think I saw this strawman next to Dorothy.

No problem.

If I Only Had a Brain: the Anatomy of a Straw Man | randomneuralfirings's Xanga Site - Weblog

It's a matter of what to conclude from what is said.

The smarter ones will know she will be confimed anyway given the dynamics of Congress and will try to use the confirmation process to show what directions and issues are believed to be important to conservatives when picking judges so the public can consider whether their approach is better come voting time.

The low brow and Whitey McCracker panderers who are bankrupt and incompetent on understanding what conservativism should really be about will play those old tunes and thus drive Hispanics away and others by making themselves appear like the white male cracker party that 'hates niggers, spics, queers,' etc and namecalling, code calling, etc, that they are all 'just keeping God and the white man down and they are socialist leeches, etc.' And every microphone and red carpet will be rolled out by the Dems and their supporters to let them do it to themselves. That's why you see fools like Tom Tancredo doing just that on shows like Keith Olbermann...all he has to do is give people like him the microphone.

As for her reversal rate by the SCOTUS, it actually says she is a very good judge. She's handled thousands of cases with hundreds of published opinions. Only 3 have ever been reversed by the SCOTUS (2 of them in a closely divided court) and 2 were actually affirmed by them. And given the SCOTUS most often invokes their rare discretionary appeal to reverse case decisions they do not feel were rightly decided, that means her record is remarkably excellent. It was even better than Roberts and Alito on that comparison given they also have been reversed and they had far less handled cases, so unless you are willing to concede they are more unproven and/or incompetent than she is, that claim only helps her, not hurts her.

__________________

in your world, probably so. In the real world, jurisprudence is subjective, and the SCOTUS is simply a final say, not a decider of what is right and wrong.

What if 20 years from now the SCOTUS gives a ruling that agrees with sotomayor? Does a magical fairy go back in time and make it all right?

__________________

In the real world people lives their lives the way they want. They don't care what elected officials and appointed judges say.

they are probably likewise ignorant of the rulings, but they nontheless effect their lives.

__________________

Great and smart choice President Obama. Sotomayor was the right choice for Supreme Court Nominee.