popeye1250
Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006 From: New Hampshire Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse It isn't the job of a Supreme court justice to make policy. Their job is to uphold and interpret current laws. She will be making policy from the bench. Bush didn't think so when he originally appointed her in 1992. I read two of her opinions, one in which she was the majority and one in which she dissented. They were both brillant; on point and insightful. She brings more judicial experience to the bench than anyone in the past 70 years. She's written over 150 opinions, only two of which have been over turned by the SCOTUS (a third is likely to be over turned as well.) That's a pretty damn good record. When Bush appointed her, the conservatives considered her moderate. When Clinton promoted her, the liberals considered her moderate. I haven't read anything yet that shows such does not continue to hold true. She has ruled on the side of business and on the side of labor. Right now, from my (very) quick review of her opinions, she looks to be 'slightly' left to me but since Souter tends to lean that way as well, it's pretty much a wash. My gut says this is a good appointment and I can't see anything that would bar her nomination from SCOTUS .. yet. Hell, the worst thing I can say about her at this point is that she's a Yankee fan but I'm still researching. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ Link gives over view and some case names for ease of research for anyone interested. Bita, are there any lawyers running for office or being appointed to a public post who *aren't* "Brilliant Legal Scholars?" I'm sure if you asked an alchoholic ambulance chaser with mustard on his jacket and who likes to hang out at the dog track if he were a "Brilliant Legal Scholor" he'd say yes. Or a divorce lawyer. Why are they always "Brilliant?" With all the "Brilliant Legal Scholors" that have been in our govt and looking at the shape financially of it I'd settle for "Competant Legal Scholors." Bill Clinton thought he was "Brilliant" too. Look what happened to him. How can you be "brilliant" if you can't even do "competant?" That's the problem with "brilliant" they all seem to forget that they work for The People and at some point decide that they'll do what "they" want to do instead of doing the job they were hired to do and are being *paid* to do. You try that shit in the "D.P.S." (Dreaded private sector) and you're gone in a week! I'd take a pass on this woman who likes to "make policy from the bench" for someone "not quite brilliant", "doesn't like brilliant" or "huh? what's brilliant?" One person's "opinion" is just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 5/26/2009 11:09:10 PM >
_____________________________
"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"
|