# Sotomayor.....No Surprise



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
Sotomayor case in point.

2. This week, we saw proof:
"Politifact, Jake Tapper call out Justice Sotomayor for glaring falsehoods during vaccine mandate hearing, nets ignore​


3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Judicial intellect

During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology. And, “…firemen where meant to be hired due to the vagrancies…” She meant vacancies. One more? “Questions of policy are within the providence of Congress…” Clearly, province, not providence- unless she was speaking of the Rhode Island legislature.


b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor



c.“The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085


But she certainly serves Democrat purposes.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 8, 2022)

*"Judge" Sodomizer is a leftist apparatchik. She is an abysmal member of the SCOTUS, much as obozo's hobbit selection elena kagan. If McConnel has any credibility AT ALL, it's because he blocked that sociopath lunatic merrick garland from taking the place of the Honorable and Esteemed Scalia on the court.*

*That actually may be the Mr. Turtle's only significant "achievement".

.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
> When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
> Sotomayor case in point.
> 
> ...



Didn't she say that identified as a  Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2022)

Pete7469 said:


> *"Judge" Sodomizer is a leftist apparatchik. She is an abysmal member of the SCOTUS, much as obozo's hobbit selection elena kagan. If McConnel has any credibility AT ALL, it's because he blocked that sociopath lunatic merrick garland from taking the place of the Honorable and Esteemed Scalia on the court.
> 
> That actually may be the Mr. Turtle's only significant "achievement".
> 
> .*



Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

4. Judicial temperament in the Democrat nominee.....

a. Championed racial supremacy, claiming many times that someone of her background, a “ wise Latina" judge will make better decisions than, say, a white male judge.


b. Judge Sotomayor does not feel that she may be able to put aside personal sympathies or prejudices. This, form a Berkeley speech in 2002, published by La Raza: “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.”

c. Judge Sotomayor feels that she has the right to ignore some facts: “…*….Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. *.. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” (ibid.)



d.” …according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.

The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments. Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.

"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."

Lawyers tag nominee as ‘terror on the bench’





I've said many times that Democrats/Progressives/Liberals should never....NEVER...be allowed to occupy any seat of power.

Turns out I'm right again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?




And because she opposed free speech, a hallmark of Democrat belief.



"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may *be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. *
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical *balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." *
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes *it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up.* If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"









						Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
					

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…




					thedaleygator.wordpress.com
				




Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia









 “Earlier this week,* Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena **Kagan wrote* in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The *majority opinion* dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

*Kagan, however, has* other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. *The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” *
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?


----------



## Hang on Sloopy (Jan 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Didn't she say that identified as a  Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?


I thought she identified as a Mongoloid. But a Mongoloid has more brains....................Sorry to the Mongoloids libturdshere


----------



## Oddball (Jan 8, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
> When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
> Sotomayor case in point.
> 
> ...


All three of the leftist tools on USSC said what have to be the most stupid things ever uttered in that courtroom.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Didn't she say that identified as a  Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?


*It didn't stop there....It described itself as "wise". *




			
				A jabbering lefts syndrome retard said:
			
		

> "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sodomizer said in a speech at 2001 at the Insane Asylum of California, Berkeley, law school. It made similar statements at other such asinine events.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?


*That and Kagan is part of the oppressed "A Sexual" hobbit community. Thank God it hasn't found a source of the proper proteins to reproduce.

Imagine that fuckin horror.


.*


----------



## Donald H (Jan 8, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 3. But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.


Her personal corruption is much more an important factor than any of your reasons. She is highly dependable on making decisions based on her leftist political persuasion.

As is true of all the them deciding based on politics, with a 'possible' exception of Roberts, who appears to go renegade from time to time.

However, keeping in mind that Roberts hasn't really decided contrary to the rightist political agenda when his position counted. Well, hardly ever, except when outward appearances would have sunk his credibility boat. 

You need to be reminded Chicy, that what appears to you as being important, is of little or no interest to others.

She's going to decide with the 'free choice' side on the abortion issue, regardless of whether she gets the grammar and spelling completely right.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Her personal corruption is much more an important factor than any of your reasons. She is highly dependable on making decisions based on her leftist political persuasion.
> 
> As is true of all the them deciding based on politics, with a 'possible' exception of Roberts, who appears to go renegade from time to time.
> 
> ...




Mind your manners, commie-boy, and restrict your feeble opinions to Canada.....just don't plan on emmigrating.


*"Why do so many more Canadians (45,000) immigrate to the USA each year than people from the USA (7,500) immigrate to Canada? Are there more opportunities, economic or otherwise, in America?"
 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-more-Canadians-45-000-immigrate-to-the-USA-each-year-than-people-from-the-USA-7-500-immigrate-to-Canada-Are-there-more-opportunities-economic-or-otherwise-in-America


Just stay away.

Or....at least, downwind.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

5. Democrats hate America and American values, which is why they nominate Progressives rather than patriots
One can be a patriot, or a Progresssive.....but never both....
Let me explain why:

The Constitution was a _distillation_ of the views of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. Progressivism is from the views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.
Now, let's quote 'progressives,' also known as totalitarians.

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of _obeying without protest”_ (Ralf Dahrendorf, _Society and Democracy in Germany_).



b. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of _A.B. “Happy” Chandler_, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can *take everything we have* if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
_*From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943*_ Happy Chandler's dangerous statism - The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions



c. Jim Cramer, one of the Left's apparatchiks, say what Democrats believe, encourage.....but blames it on the other side.
“government has a right to force you to obey and has always exercised it especially under GOP”



Anyone think to question what the GOP has forced any to obey about?

Masks?

Injections?

Taxation?





Guess were Democrat Sotomayor stands as far as incorporating European views.

"Although the use of *‘foreign law’* in judicial consideration has been popular in recent decades, there are many who see marked differences between European civil law, and Anglo-American concepts known as common law. Although space does not allow a full discussion here, their import is very different. “* Judge Sonia Sotomayor says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution ..."*


			http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_197002132.html?keyword=topstory
		



BTW, for Democrats reading along.......the Constitution is written in English.


----------



## daveman (Jan 8, 2022)

Justice Sotomayor, tell me you've never read the Constitution without saying you've never read the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 8, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
> When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
> Sotomayor case in point.
> 
> ...


She should be impeached for lying while on the bench.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jan 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Didn't she say that identified as a  Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?


It's just too bad that she is an actual woman, though, isn't it?

Imagine how truly  qualified she would be if she were a Latino man in a dress, instead.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 8, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> She should be impeached for lying while on the bench.


*I'm thinking of some more elevated adventures....

*


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 8, 2022)

Dogmaphobe said:


> It's just too bad that she is an actual woman, though, isn't it?
> 
> Imagine how truly  qualified she would be if she were a Latino man in a dress, instead.


*That's just the thing, we can't tell!!!*


----------



## Hellokitty (Jan 8, 2022)

Whenever liberals make fun of MTG we need to reply that makes Sotomayor the MTG of the Supreme Court.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

6. Every racist/dunce who votes Democrat votes to support anti-white racism.
While it was a major issue in the recent election...... more evidence that Biden didn't win......it was a determining factor in Obama's nomination of Sotomayor.


She wrote the anti-white decision in the Ricci case.

"Sotomayor's mystery case, Ricci v. DeStefano.​https://slate.com › news-and-politics › 2009/05 › sotom...
May 26, 2009 — _Ricci_ and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of ...



Sotomayor said it was just fine for the city to toss the exam results becasue whites did better than black applicants.



BTW......
Ricci decision: all nine Supreme Court Justices criticized her decision, saying that summary judgment was inappropriate, and should have been judged on the facts.

"All nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method _based on a statistical disparity alone_." None adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination. This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."
One moment, please...


“Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed,…”
Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

Including the Ricci case, that would be 66%.



As I said, when Democrats nominate a Supreme Court Justice, it isn't because they are wise or have integrity.


----------



## ClaireH (Jan 8, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. Every racist/dunce who votes Democrat votes to support anti-white racism.
> While it was a major issue in the recent election...... more evidence that Biden didn't win......it was a determining factor in Obama's nomination of Sotomayor.
> 
> 
> ...


You have provided excellent evidence for your case PC; keep up the good work! I was not familiar with these court actions revealing Sotomayor’s reversals following appeals and inappropriate summaries. Thanks for posting informative pieces to inform the vast number of readers. There are always a lot more “guests” on USMB reading than registered posters online. A great platform to spread knowledge!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> You have provided excellent evidence for your case PC; keep up the good work! I was not familiar with these court actions revealing Sotomayor’s reversals following appeals and inappropriate summaries. Thanks for posting informative pieces to inform the vast number of readers. There are always a lot more “guests” on USMB reading than registered posters online. A great platform to spread knowledge!





You are one of the few who recognizes that 5 to 10 times more folks read threads than post in them.

Thank you for those gracious comments: and both of us have to keep on keepin' on!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2022)

7. Does integrity or honesty play any role in Democrat nominations???


Not a chance.


Speaking of which......



Were some of Sotomayor's actions unethical, bordering on illegal? 

"Now Sotomayor was a prosecutor up until 1984 and started in April of that year with Pavia & Hartcourt, according to the questionnaire. That means she had her private law firm, likely a home office based on her modest description of the practice, that overlapped both her prosecutor's position and her associate's position at Pavia & Hartcourt. So the question here is not whether she had permission to have that private firm, as I suspect she must have, but rather, why she called it *"Sotomayor & Associates"?

Did she have any associates *when she was advertising herself in that manner? My guess is no, given that this was a side business that she says was devoted to consulting for family and friends. And* if she had no associates, then it is a no-no to tell the world that you do. That's misleading.*

From the _American Bar Association_ comes this all-inclusive statement that* such conduct is prohibited in every state:*

_Are there any Associates (or "Law Groups") in the House?_



There are several state bar opinions that address a lawyer's use of terms in a firm name that carry with them the implication that there is more than one lawyer in the firm. Examples of such terms include "X and associates" or "The X law group". Citations to these opinions, along with digests of them as they appear in the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct follow.

*All State bar opinions are in agreement that a lawyer may not use the term, "and Associates" if there are in fact no associates in the firm. *See, South Carolina Opinion 05-19 (2005) (A lawyer seeking to open a governmental affairs and lobbying firm consisting of the lawyer and two nonlawyer employees may not name the firm "John Doe and Associates, P.A." The name violates Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a) because it misleadingly implies that the firm has more than one lawyer.), Ohio Opinion 95-1 (1995) (A lawyer who is in solo practice may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name to indicate that the lawyer shares space with other lawyers, acts as co-counsel with other lawyers, or has non-lawyer employees. A lawyer who is the sole shareholder in a professional corporation may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name when the lawyer in fact has no employees.)

In New York, the conduct would fall under DR 2-102, which bars misleading advertising on a letterhead. [*See Comment 2*] If in fact Sotomayor had no associates at her firm, it would appear she overstepped the bounds of self-promotion by making her firm seem bigger than it was.
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/06/did-sotomayor-violate-ny-ethics-rules.html




Of course, as we have learned.....laws only apply to Republicans.

General Flynn

Roger Stone

Scooter Libby

Papadopolous, Page, .......Trump

Dinesh D'souza.....

Any charges or investigations of _Julie Swetnick_ ???? Blasey Ford????Kevin Clinesmith?????


How about this:
Clapper lied when asked, under oath, by Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon-Democrat) " On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded: “No, sir.” When Wyden followed up by asking, “It does not?” Clapper said: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail." James Clapper's Tip for Avoiding Lies: Don't Do Talking Points | emptywheel


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 9, 2022)

8. I hope that my view that the Democrat Party is a European creation, not one based on American history and heritate, and that everything the Democrats have a hand in turns to.....mud.

This thread is an exposition focusing on one particular impediment the Democrats put on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor.

It should be noted that no Democrat has risen to support this outlier. 



But to go further, a far greater mistake is the "Supreme" Court itself.
This is what I've always said:
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."




The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and if you accept that it is due to a lack of understanding.
Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.



“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 9, 2022)

9. What is the correct function of the Supreme Court.

As viewed correctly, by the Founders and described by the Great Scalia, it is to match questions of laws with the words of the Constitution.
To say either 'aye,' it matches, or 'nay,' it does not.

The document is written in English, hence no 'interpretation' is required.
The theft of power by the court and its accomplice, the federal government, should be considered illegal.


* A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788*
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm*



*The function of the Supreme Court according to the European Party, the Democrats, is to fulfill their totalitaran oppression of the American people.
Hence....Sotomayor and Kagan.






*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 9, 2022)

10 "Supreme misinformation! Liberal SCOTUS justices pummeled over false vaccine mandate statements​








						Supreme Court weighs Biden vax and test mandates: AIR.TV
					






					www.air.tv
				





Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer all made jaw-dropping oral arguments during the session that were rife with incorrect facts and liberal bias.

Leading the pack was Sotomayor, who declared that “Omicron is as deadly as Delta … we have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.” That statement is not even close to being accurate, according to experts who are now saying Omicron is a mild form of the virus that replicates in the throat, not the lungs.

“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition,” Sotomayor contended, “and many on ventilators.” The actual number of children ill and hospitalized from COVID according to the Department of Health and Human Services is 3,342 as of Friday."








						Supreme misinformation! Liberal SCOTUS justices pummeled over false vaccine mandate statements
					

The 3 liberal justices on the Supreme Court were dragged on social media for making erroneous claims concerning COVID and Biden's mandates.




					www.bizpacreview.com
				







All three liars are Democrat partisans.


Any penalty?????


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 8. I hope that my view that the Democrat Party is a European creation, not one based on American history and heritate, and that everything the Democrats have a hand in turns to.....mud.
> 
> This thread is an exposition focusing on one particular impediment the Democrats put on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor.
> 
> ...


Sotomayor is what happens when you view skin color and genitals as being more important than qualifications.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Sotomayor is what happens when you view skin color and genitals as being more important than qualifications.





And in this case we see what Democrats demand in their voters and their nominees......'Yes men' or 'Yes women."
No deviations allowed....up to and including lying.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> And in this case we see what Democrats demand in their voters and their nominees......'Yes men' or 'Yes women."
> No deviations allowed....up to and including lying.


Integrity is meaningless.  Honesty is meaningless.  The Constitution is meaningless.

All that matters is the agenda.  Everything else must be discarded.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Integrity is meaningless.  Honesty is meaningless.  The Constitution is meaningless.
> 
> All that matters is the agenda.  Everything else must be discarded.


The only meaningful point to make about 9 politically corrupt justices is the fact that none of them will deviate from their politics to make a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law.

And of course Sotomayor is as corrupt and steadfast in that respect as any of them. Our Chicy needs to understand that  before she starts ranting about Sotomayor's grammar and spelling.

You're dead right! 





> All that matters is the agenda.  Everything else must be discarded.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> The only meaningful point to make about 9 politically corrupt justices is the fact that none of them will deviate from their politics to make a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law.
> 
> And of course Sotomayor is as corrupt and steadfast in that respect as any of them. Our Chicy needs to understand that  before she starts ranting about Sotomayor's grammar and spelling.
> 
> You're dead right!




"... a decision that's totally based on sound practices in law."

No, you dunce, the only correct course for a Supreme Court Justice must be based on the actual language of the US Constitution.



Edification here:






Stick to Canadian Communism, your only area of expertise.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 10, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Didn't she say that identified as a  Latina woman was her one and only qualification for SCOTUS?


I was going to say, for Democrats the only significant qualification is “brown vagina”.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 10, 2022)

Hellokitty said:


> Whenever liberals make fun of MTG we need to reply that makes Sotomayor the MTG of the Supreme Court.


*Then we've got the Hobbit of the SCOTUS "justice" Kagan who belongs in an asylum....*

*Or maybe a barn.*

*Still not sure what to make of that fucking creature.



.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

"The Morning Briefing: Confirmed—The Supreme Court's Lib Justices Are Paste-Eaters​
Whether Breyer and Sotomayor are lying activists, idiots, or a combination of both, it is clear that American leftists are steadfast in their resolve to use this bat flu as an excuse to continue their efforts to turn the United States into the new East Berlin. Yes, they want to be able to play fast and loose with election laws in the name of COVID, but this is bigger than that. They really would like to see our freedoms shrink as federal power grows. These are the kinds of people who miss the Soviet Union."








						The Morning Briefing: Confirmed—The Supreme Court's Lib Justices Are Paste-Eaters
					

Top O’ the Briefing Happy Monday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Many clarinetists are rumored to understand the call of the humpback whale. Well, now we know why the Democrats are so ea...




					pjmedia.com


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

Guess which party picked her as their perfect Supreme Courtr Justice?


----------



## shoshi (Jan 10, 2022)

I read Sotomayors book about her life.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 10, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
> When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
> Sotomayor case in point.
> 
> ...



It turns out Sotomayor is as dumb as we were afraid she was.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

shoshi said:


> I read Sotomayors book about her life.




I have great respect for readers.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> It turns out Sotomayor is as dumb as we were afraid she was.





Never should have been nominated.....

....but not the only one.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

1. The powers usurped by the Supreme Court are found nowhere in the Constitution.
Their function, as it is of writers of laws and of the President, is to verify that any law is directly related to words written in the Constitution.....

....nothing more.



2. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the *Judicial* (*Supreme Court *and lower Courts) *Branch* of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that t*he Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ *nor is the concept found in English law.


3.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that *the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules* to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf


The law is not what the Court says it is......it is what the Constitution says it is.

They don't teach that in government school, do they.


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 10, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The only surprise about the recent dishonesty by Justice Sotomayor is that anyone claims to be surprised.
> When Democrats nominate a judge to the Supreme Court, the only reason is provide a reliable vote.....and nothing to do with qualifications or intellect.
> Sotomayor case in point.
> 
> ...


*She lied in a Supreme Court Hearing.  Is there anything more despicable for a SCOTUS JUSTICE to do?  And why haven't they ruled on this yet?  

It's an open and shut case.  OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the workplace that you have to take with you home, and live with for the rest of your life.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

The Original Tree said:


> *She lied in a Supreme Court Hearing.  Is there anything more despicable for a SCOTUS JUSTICE to do?  And why haven't they ruled on this yet?
> 
> It's an open and shut case.  OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the workplace that you have to take with you home, and live with for the rest of your life.*





Wouldn't be the first time the Supremes defied logic and law.


As I have said before, the Supreme Court decisions should be treated as red and green lights in Rome: as merely a suggestion.


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 10, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> Wouldn't be the first time the Supremes defied logic and law.
> 
> 
> As I have said before, the Supreme Court decisions should be treated as red and green lights in Rome: as merely a suggestion.


*Plessey vs. Ferguson violated The US Constitution and SCOTUS knew it and just went along with The Pressures of The Day and bowed down to the cries of the racist segregationist Democrats promoting segregation instead of following The Constitution.

I am hoping The Rule of Law is followed instead of The Rule of The Mob.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

The Original Tree said:


> *Plessey vs. Ferguson violated The US Constitution and SCOTUS knew it and just went along with The Pressures of The Day and bowed down to the cries of the racist segregationist Democrats promoting segregation instead of following The Constitution.
> 
> I am hoping The Rule of Law is followed instead of The Rule of The Mob.*





I never count on the Supremes doing the right thing.

Forgive the length, but this is one of those sublects of personal interest for me......the worst Court decisions.


The standard I'm using for “worst” is three-fold:


First, the holding of the case is unambiguously still guiding precedent.
Second, the holding of the case is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Third, the case either A) has egregious consequences for individual liberty or B) is clearly ideological- or policy-driven rubbish as a matter of constitutional law (whether or not I happen to like the consequences).
Under the first prong, I will exclude from consideration a number of infamously horrific decisions: _Dred Scott_ (ruling black people aren't citizens), _Plessy v. Ferguson_ (allowing separate-but-equal), _Buck v. Bell_ (permitting compulsory sterilization), and _Korematsu v. United States_ (upholding Japanese internment camps).

_Dred Scott_ and _Plessy_ have been clearly overruled. _Buck_ and _Korematsu_ may not be technically be overruled, but I think the reason is just that a similar case hasn't provided the opportunity. I may be wrong about that for _Buck_ and_Korematsu _— I hope not — but I am making the assumption that they're not good law anymore.

Using the second and third prongs, I think the case that wins the “honor” for the worst active Supreme Court decision in American history is _Helvering v. Davis_ (1937). _*Helvering*_* upheld the constitutionality of Social Security *on the basis that Congress has a general power to spend on whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.

This ruling completely upended the system of enumerated powers, in which Congress only had the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and eviscerated the Tenth Amendment that restricted the federal government to its defined roles.

Since _Helvering_, Congress can spend money on anything it wants, facilitating the welfare state and the immense growth of the federal government in the last 80 years. If I had to make a rough estimate, I'd say about 75% or more of the spending currently done by the federal government relies on this holding in_Helvering_, making the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does unconstitutional.

Thus, _Helvering_ is the central case that flipped the system from limiting the government to what is explicitly _allowed_ to permitting anything that isn't explicitly _banned _— effectively* ending federalism.*




Here are various runners-up, in approximately chronological order:


Slaughter-House Cases /_ United States v. Cruikshank_ (1873 / 1875)
*Rulings*: Eviscerated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, preventing the Amendment from broadly protecting individual rights to this day.
_Chae Chan Ping v. United States_ (1889)
*Ruling*: Upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act on the basis that Congress has an inherent power to restrict migration into the United States, despite Congress not actually being enumerated this power.
_Hans v. Louisiana_ (1890)
*Ruling*: Declared that the symbolic meaning of the 11th Amendmentprevents citizens from suing their states, even though the text makes no such reference, and thus inadvertently damaged the 4th Amendment by foreclosing the most effective means of enforcing it.
_Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell_ (1934)
*Ruling*: Allowed states to alter banking contracts after the fact and thus effectively eliminated most of the Contracts Clause that prevents states from impairing private contractual obligations.
_United States v. Carolene Products _/_ Williamson v. Lee Optical_ (1938 / 1955)
*Rulings*: Removed virtually all protection for unenumerated rights, particularly economic liberties, and granted the government nearly unlimited power to blatantly and unambiguously promote special interests at the expense of the public.
_Wickard v. Filburn _/_ Gonzales v. Raich_ (1942 / 2005)
*Rulings*: Allowed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce to be used to regulate purely local and essentially non-commercial activities, and thus empowered Congress to regulate essentially anything it wants.
_Baker v. Carr_ (1962)
*Ruling*: Declared that a “One Person, One Vote” standard is essential to democracy, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't follow OPOV in elections for the Senate or the presidency; facilitated gerrymandering by requiring every state to redo its districts every census to comply with OPOV.
_Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. _/_ Runyon v. McCrary_ (1968 / 1976)
*Rulings*: Declared that Congress's power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.
_Buckley v. Valeo_ (1976)
*Ruling*: Granted broad deference to Congress on campaign finance restrictions that limit political speech, despite the 1st Amendment's core protection being for political speech.
_Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc_. (1984)
*Ruling*: Granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers.
_McCleskey v. Kemp_ (1987)
*Ruling*: Declared that Georgia's application of the death penalty did not violate its victims' Equal Protection rights, despite admitting that racism played a substantial role in determining who received the death penalty and, by implication, insulated the entire criminal justice system from any obligation not to be discriminatory in effect or operation.
_Morrison v. Olson_ (1988)
*Ruling*: Allowed Congress to create an independent counsel with the power to investigate and prosecute people independent of the president, even though the president is vested with executive power, and prosecutions are purely executive powers.
_Kelo v. City of New London_ (2005)
*Ruling*: Declared that using the power of eminent domain to take property from poorer people and give the property to large corporations (who pay more taxes) to be a "public use" under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
_NFIB v. Sebelius_ (2012)
*Ruling*: Allowed Congress to force people to buy health insurance from private companies on the basis of the regulation being a “tax,” by implication allowing Congress do virtually anything with the taxing power that no independent power, even the expansive Commerce Clause, would allow.






						15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal
					

From Slaughter-House to Obamacare, the Supreme Court has often abdicated its responsibility to limit state power.



					fee.org
				






To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, *Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional*, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

Sadly*, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.*



a. "April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case,* the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to

protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "*



			Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"
		



 “…here we have government by the people, making laws through their own elected representatives, not government by unelected “experts” autocratically making rules that tell us what to do. Implicit in the beginning of the speech was a repudiation of the Administrative State, which Supreme Court rulings from _Wickard_ v. _Filburn_ in 1942 down to the present day have authorized, giving bureaucrats power to overturn the checks and balances of limited government that the Framers built into the Constitution in 1787 and that Woodrow Wilson and FDR methodically and intentionally subverted.”
Pro-American


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 10, 2022)

daveman said:


> Integrity is meaningless.  Honesty is meaningless.  The Constitution is meaningless.
> 
> All that matters is the agenda.  Everything else must be discarded.


*If The Government can Mandate you wear a mask, undergo weekly testing, and force you to take experimental vaccines in to your body and if you refuse, you will lose your job, your home, and health insurance.....

Is it really The Land of The Free when you are not given a choice?

You've become a slave.

"Malo periculosom libertatem quam quietam servitutem!"

"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude!"

Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## AMart (Jan 10, 2022)

We need more wise Anglo Saxons on the bench, Clarence is an honorary member.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2022)

Sotomayor looks awful!  I guess she's cut off from her adrenochrome


----------



## Orangecat (Jan 10, 2022)

Sotomayer and Kagan are affirmative action nominees, both utterly incongruous with the concept of judicial impartiality.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 10, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> Sotomayer and Kagan are affirmative action nominees, both utterly incongruous with the concept of judicial impartiality.




....synonymous with "Democrat nominees."


There are only three things important to the Democrat program, agenda.....Race, Class, and Gender.
Not liberty, not religious freedom, not prosperity, not individuality, not tranquility.
Race, Class, and Gender.

“Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.”
 Caldron Pool


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 10, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kagan got the job because she called Barack and asked "How is my favorite foreign law student"?


*I think IT got the job because IT looks like a small boy and can put IT'S ankles behind IT'S hobbit looking ass ears. That's about all it takes to become a "success" in the democrook party.*


----------



## daveman (Jan 10, 2022)

The Original Tree said:


> *If The Government can Mandate you wear a mask, undergo weekly testing, and force you to take experimental vaccines in to your body and if you refuse, you will lose your job, your home, and health insurance.....
> 
> Is it really The Land of The Free when you are not given a choice?
> 
> ...


The problem is there are so many Americans willing to become slaves.  They're terrified of the responsibilities of citizenship.  And since they can't imagine life out from under the government yoke, they assume ALL Americans want to be slaves.


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 10, 2022)

daveman said:


> The problem is there are so many Americans willing to become slaves.  They're terrified of the responsibilities of citizenship.  And since they can't imagine life out from under the government yoke, they assume ALL Americans want to be slaves.


Exactly!


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 11, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Her personal corruption is much more an important factor than any of your reasons. She is highly dependable on making decisions based on her leftist political persuasion.
> 
> As is true of all the them deciding based on politics, with a 'possible' exception of Roberts, who appears to go renegade from time to time.
> 
> ...


Roberts renegated and rammed Obamacare down our throats by declaring it a tax and thus legal even though the administration never argued for that point.


----------



## monkrules (Jan 11, 2022)

Imo, all 9 justices are political hacks. Sadly, they're appointed to lifelong terms. We're stuck with them.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 11, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Roberts renegated and rammed Obamacare down our throats by declaring it a tax and thus legal even though the administration never argued for that point.


*You know  he was on Epstein's plane and was compromised. The globalists got dirt on him. Maybe he was all into it, maybe got drunk, maybe even ruffied. Someone got a picture of him with his dick somewhere it shouldn't be and he has to rule on key cases against the interests of the republic or be exposed.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 12, 2022)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 12, 2022)

monkrules said:


> Imo, all 9 justices are political hacks. Sadly, they're appointed to lifelong terms. We're stuck with them.




I'm gonna challenge you on that.

If  you can back it up, fine......but it sounds far too much like the excuse that many use to avoid actually thinking and investigating the two parties.


1. Writes Jeffrey Toobin:

In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.

This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in _The New Yorker_ for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas: Herbert Hoover as the First Keynesian? Henry Kissinger as the Great Humanitarian? Richard Nixon, the most liberal president ever (that one might even be true)?

If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work.

Toobin is less interested in exploring why liberal America has been so blind for so long to the force of Clarence Thomas’ intellect than in understanding just what Thomas has achieved in his lonely trek across the wastes of Mordor. And what he finds is that Thomas has been pioneering the techniques and the ideas that could not only lead to the court rejecting all or part of President Obama’s health legislation; the ideas and strategies Thomas has developed could conceivably topple the constitutionality of the post New Deal state.

The next topic for Constitutional revisionism is the expansive reading of the commerce clause that the New Deal judges used to justify the Roosevelt administration’s ambitious economic programs. The Obamacare health reform depends on that kind of reading of the commerce clause; the penumbras must stretch pretty far for the Constitution to give Congress the right to require all Americans to buy private health insurance. And if the commerce clause can be stretched this far, one must ask whether there is anything that the Constitution blocks Congress from doing.

If gun control and Obamacare were the only issues at stake in the constitutional debate, liberals would find Thomas annoying but not dangerous. Losing on gun control and health care frustrate and annoy the center left, but those are only two items on a long list of liberal concerns.

The real problem will come if Thomas can figure out how to get the Tenth Amendment back into constitutional thought in a serious way. The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The standard interpretation is that this merely restates an assumption that undergirds the Constitution as a whole and so has no special meaning or significance in law. If reading the rest of the Constitution leads you to uphold some act or law as constitutional, this amendment would not affect that judgment. Therefore it can be and usually is ignored. That is certainly what we were told to do with it in the hallowed halls of Pundit High.

But there is another view of this amendment. The Constitution of the United States confers specific, “enumerated” powers on the Congress, and many of the things that Congress does today are not listed among those enumerated powers. On his last day in office, President James Madison vetoed what today we would call an infrastructure bill. He thought the bill was a good idea, that the country needed the infrastructure and that the federal government was the right agency to provide it, but believed that the Constitution he had helped write provided no authority for Congress to act in this way. If Congress wanted to support infrastructure in the various states, the right way to proceed was to get an infrastructure amendment into the Constitution. Barring that, nothing could be done.

Taken seriously today, that approach to the Constitution would change the way Washington does business. Radically. The list of enumerated powers is short and does not include, for example, health care, education, agricultural subsidies, assistance to the hungry or old age pensions. Most of the New Deal and Great Society (with the interesting exception of civil rights laws which enforce the Civil War era amendments) would be struck down. Whole cabinet departments would close.

The federal government would not wither away completely; even on a narrow reading of the commerce clause (the clause that places the regulation of interstate commerce among Congress’ enumerated powers), Washington would exercise considerable authority over the national economy. But the balance between the states and the feds would change, and among other things, our federal tax burdens would fall, but the costs of state government would rise.

This is pretty much a Tea Party wish list, and it is why the Tea Party movement is so strongly identified with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Unleashing the Tenth Amendment would move the constitutional status quo back towards the early 1930s when the “Nine Old Men” struck down one New Deal law after another. For Toobin and most _New Yorker_ readers, it is hard to imagine an idea that more radically and totally runs against everything they believe.

That Justice Thomas’ wife Virginia is a prominent speaker and organizer in the Tea Party completes the picture: the Thomas’ are the anti-Clintons, the power couple out to dismantle the progressive American state. The specter Toobin’s piece conjures is of Clarence and Virginia, like Frodo and Sam, quietly toiling towards Mount Doom while liberal attention is fixed elsewhere.


Read more: http://blogs.the-american-interest....omas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/#ixzz1WXKBUI2I









						Partners
					

Will Clarence and Virginia Thomas succeed in killing Obama’s health-care plan?




					www.newyorker.com


----------



## Donald H (Jan 12, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Roberts renegated and rammed Obamacare down our throats by declaring it a tax and thus legal even though the administration never argued for that point.


That is the decision from Roberts that I was suggesting, but it's questionable on whether he actually reneged or he saw taking the other side would be much too politically unpopular with the people.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 12, 2022)

Donald H said:


> That is the decision from Roberts that I was suggesting, but it's questionable on whether he actually reneged or he saw taking the other side would be much too politically unpopular with the people.


Political popularity should NEVER be a concern to the members of the SCOTUS.  Their only concern should be the guidance of the constitution.


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 14, 2022)

Despite what Leftists think or want, it is not the role of the USSC to rule on the wisdom or efficacy of Executive policy, only whether it is found in the Constitution.

And given the idiocy disclosed during last week's hearings, the USSC could not be depended on to make rational rulings on wisdom or efficacy in any event.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 14, 2022)

DGS49 said:


> Despite what Leftists think or want, it is not the role of the USSC to rule on the wisdom or efficacy of Executive policy, only whether it is found in the Constitution.
> 
> And given the idiocy disclosed during last week's hearings, the USSC could not be depended on to make rational rulings on wisdom or efficacy in any event.




As I've said before, the pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated like red and green lights in Rome....as merely a suggestion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2022)

"Communist Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Declines to Block VAXX Mandate for NYC Teachers​Thousands of employees in New York City face termination with today's vaccine mandate deadline. The Supreme Court could have stopped it, but unfortunately NY is in Sotomayor's district.​
Covid-ignorant Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to block the vaccine mandate being imposed on New York City teachers today. She did not offer a comment on her decision.

The district that covers New York is overseen by Sotomayor, who embarrassed herself last month during open statements in the OSHA vaccine mandate case. She voted with the minority against blocking the mandate."





						Gmail
					

Gmail is email that's intuitive, efficient, and useful. 15 GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access.



					mail.google.com


----------



## daveman (Feb 12, 2022)

PoliticalChic said:


> ​
> "Communist Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Declines to Block VAXX Mandate for NYC Teachers​
> ​Thousands of employees in New York City face termination with today's vaccine mandate deadline. The Supreme Court could have stopped it, but unfortunately NY is in Sotomayor's district.​
> 
> ...


The peasants must do what their betters tell them.


----------

