[ LOLITICS ] Let the battle begin!
- Thread starter Lizard Of Oz
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Hint: Probable Supreme Court Justice nominee.
I think she's a bit too far left, but I guess that will offset Justices like Scalia, who is too far right.
.
I think she's a bit too far left, but I guess that will offset Justices like Scalia, who is too far right.
.
Last edited:
The funny thing is, there were some Republicans tossing around fillibuster threats before she was even nominated. 95% odds they'll still fillibuster. Totalulz will be had when they realize she was appointed to federal appeals by H.W. Bush.
Although really, the only way to properly counterbalance Scalia would be to somehow fuse a PETA member with a 1960's hippie and Keith Olbermann's left testicle.
Although really, the only way to properly counterbalance Scalia would be to somehow fuse a PETA member with a 1960's hippie and Keith Olbermann's left testicle.
Her name is Sonia Sotomayor.
It does sound like she may lean a little too far left, but it sounds like conservatives will have a hard time proving their case. The only decision she's made that I've seen cited so far just isn't going to make the political waves necessary to stop her from being sworn in. In fact it seems that Obama is trying to push it through as fast as possible lest Republicans find something to combat him with.
Of course keep in mind that even the recent court decision about the second amendment only won by one vote.
It does sound like she may lean a little too far left, but it sounds like conservatives will have a hard time proving their case. The only decision she's made that I've seen cited so far just isn't going to make the political waves necessary to stop her from being sworn in. In fact it seems that Obama is trying to push it through as fast as possible lest Republicans find something to combat him with.
Of course keep in mind that even the recent court decision about the second amendment only won by one vote.
Last edited:
This is idiotic.
#1: H.W. Bush was not particularly conservative, and neither was his son (who coincidentally made a ridiculously liberal appointment).
#2: If you are ridiculing the filibustering of Republicans (=/= conservative, remember), then what did you think of the infamous Bork procedure?
#3: What about Scalia is irrationally conservative? Sure, he's "conservative" by today's sense of the word, but that only affects his duties in the capacity that he does not attempt to actively "legislate" in the court. This is a genuine question, to which you might provide examples.
#1: Not even getting into a debate about what side either Bush was on. That's a flamewar waiting to happen.
#2: Bork was a laughingstock of an appointment "debate", and I use the term ironically. The Supreme Court in general has a history of completely stupid arguments about justice appointments, but that does not change the fact that in this case, it was talked about even before the nomination. It also was in Bork, which was just as bad. This was a comment on the present case.
#3: As a sampling...
Edwards v. Aguillard: He dissented, wanting to uphold a state law requiring creationism ("creation science") to be taught in schools with evolution. The other judges struck it down because it provided only for christian creationism and no other available religious theories of the origins of man, thus clearly intended to advance one religion above others.
Romer v. Evans: He dissented, wanting to uphold a Colorado state constitutional amendment that would have prevented any legislative recourse for discrimination based on sexual preference. This amendment, had it been allowed, would have made it legal -- and unchallengeable -- to discriminate against gays specifically because they were gay.
Lawrence v. Texas: He dissented, wanting to uphold the Texas sodomy laws that basically made being gay a criminal offense. His argument was that the decision in Lawrence v. Texas would render other cases decided based on the previous ruling on the subject in Bowers v. Hardwick (which said the constitution did not protect sexual privacy) fall into question, which was bad.
Based on those and other, similar rulings, I consider Scalia pretty hard-right.
This decision is sexist.
Why do they only pick ugly women for the Supreme Court? Is it so much to ask to get some hotties on that bench? Let's liven the place up.
Why do they only pick ugly women for the Supreme Court? Is it so much to ask to get some hotties on that bench? Let's liven the place up.
The issue for me is not her liberal views, but the fact she has been an activist judge. When a judge makes comments such as, "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," how fair and impartial can she be? As long as she interprets what the Constitution says and not what she wants it to say, I will have no issue with her confirmation, should it happen.
Edit:/ How's this for irony? Sotomayor may actually sit on the SC before a decision is reached. I wonder how will this affect the decision in this case.
Edit:/ How's this for irony? Sotomayor may actually sit on the SC before a decision is reached. I wonder how will this affect the decision in this case.
Last edited:
I disagree; if I were to empathize with conservatives who hold a cynical point of view of the administration, even then the analysis points toward Obama actually preferring that Republicans throw the kitchen sink at her. Doing so would damage their standing generally amongst women, severely so amongst Hispanics, and overall would be a terrible misappropriation of what little political capital Republicans have at the moment. Senate Republicans are already wise to this, I think, and know better than to choose this nomination as one of their battles. In the end there will be a small but substantial minority of 20-some R's who clearly voice their opposition and vote against, but Obama's work is done; barring a major scandal this will be a cakewalk confirmation.
I think standard procedure there is to recuse oneself, so, eight-member bench, with a 4-4 split serving to uphold the lower court's decision. So ultimately her participation is effectively irrelevant. Intriguing prospect historically, you're right.
Last edited:
Dark Pulse
Dolla, Dolla. Holla, Holla.
+1. I saw her picture and thought "...God, she's ****ing ugly."
But then again, judges are almost never hot. Now lawyers... hmm...