"Cases are bigger. They’re more demanding. The number of amici are greater, and you know that our emergency calendar is so much more active. I’m tired,” she said. “There used to be a time when we had a good chunk of the summer break. Not any more. The emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis."...
It's not just the amount of work. After a prompt about how law students feel discouraged, she said:
"I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
पोस्ट्स
१२५ टिप्पण्या:
It’s tough to argue against the Constitution.
How much of that is thrust upon the court and how much does the court thrust upon itself? They don't have to go along with the Democratic scheme to turn the courts into another legislative branch.
"But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
Fighting? Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be "fighting". This is so wrong.
A wizened Latina.
I thought the idea was that judges should be impartial... not rooting for outcomes.
"But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
A potato could predict how she'll vote on a case. How much fighting does that really take?
Signalling a stepdown so Joementia can appoint a spry nutjob?
She's supposed to follow the laws of the Constitution...NOT fight for left wing causes. What a disgrace.
"I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
-------------
Spoken like a true activist jurist.
Partisan hack."Every loss". Democrat Party occultist.
poor baby...
She expected to have less work to do as a SCOTUS Justice? I’m sure plenty of people would love for her to resign, so they could replace her with a younger person that will be around longer.
But she doesn't lose cases - she's not the litigant.
“Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart.”
So it’s not about the law at all with you is it?
Eat shit! Hope you keep losing!
Good to see she’s bringing her personal feelings into each case. What a bummer when her team loses.
Fighting for what? Social justice. And if that happens to coincide with the Constitution, great. If not, shrug emoji.
A public servant who would rather retire.
"I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
Well when you are fighting for an ideology and not over any specific nuance or archaic gray area of the meaning of the actual Constitution then sorry, not sorry you live in frustration.
It would be easier if you were trying to uphold the Constitution instead of trying to bend it to meet the outcomes you "feel" should prevail.
You’ll be amazed how much time you’ll free up by punting 90% of your cases back to Congress and the states.
Think of it as self-care.
I'm sorry, 'every LOSS'??? What kind of an 'impartial' justice says anything remotely like this? She should be impeached without delay. Open cheerleading/activism has zero place on the highest court in the land, or any other for that matter.
Boomer Blues
I would think the job would be ever-so-much less tiring if one simply understood and applied the law rather than fighting for ideology, hang the law.
She is not supposed to be "fighting". she is supposed to be interpreting the law and applying it to cases before the court. Fighting?
Judges feel the loss? Seems against the whole idea of being a judge. Oh well, it's Democrats.
She's traumatized because she doesn't "win" all the cases? On what planet did she attend law school?
She should quit after the election.
It's going to be hilarious if Trump wins in November and gets to nominate her replacement, along with Thomas's replacement.
A wise Latina should accept her limits.
Nothing's more useless than a lefty Justice that keeps on fighting.
I'm sure she'd rather just wave her witch wand, utter an incantation, and remake the US into the fine leftie shithole she envisages so that she can spend more time at her dacha basking in glory as a pedestaled wise Latina.
- Krumhorn
She also makes arguments for expanding the court. How convenient.
It’s tough to argue against the Constitution
Sotomayor is struggling to reconcile emanations she receives from the penumbra (i.e. twilight fringe) with the black (no diversity intended) letter and spirit of our conservative forefathers that acknowledges citizen... civil rights and establishes a governing model to mitigate authitarian progress.
Stop bellyaching and resign.
Maybe she'll resign this year and Biden will nominate Sam Brinton as her replacement? The greatest need of our time is more furries and bondage gear and fewer boring black robes.
Any nominee will vote the party line, so all that matters is youth and life expectancy.
along with Thomas's replacement.
It's his choice, of course, he seems to still be in good form.
But she doesn't lose cases - she's not the litigant.
What I came to write…funny how, unlike that Trump money decision, Constitutional ‘scholars’ throw deference to the process out the window when they don’t get their way…
If you want to relieve your fatigue I know a couple ways…
"I thought the idea was that judges should be impartial... not rooting for outcomes."
One supposes you were also nonplussed by Obama's principles as well.
Ginsburg waited for another president, perhaps Republican. Her epiphany, perchance remorse.
You know she is being pressured to step down before the election- that pressure will grow unless the Democratic nominee is assured a win in November.
Entitled minority female who should never have been hired for anything above a county legal aid office.
Should have retired early in Joe's term.
Come on my fellow commenters. The Wise Latina may be full of more nonsense than the Christmas goose. But there's a process on the Supreme Court where Justices argue for their point of view. She's entitled to argue her point of view. And the winner of the argument (usually) gets to write the majority opinion. Justice Sotomayor is tired of writing dissents.
It's a natural process and it's supposed to lead to correct (and maybe even on occasion) wise decisions. But the process gets off track when politics intervenes. But as that long ago Irish American bartender "Dooley" said in an editorial cartoon around 1904, the Justices do look at the election results. And that's where the trouble starts.
She'll get a minimum of 250K per year retirement if she so chooses, but I think she will continue to fight well into her 80s. Clarence Thomas is 79, she's 69.
Maybe it's a setup for court packing.
It's very unsemenly to complain about your dream job.
Madeline Kahn did it better.
Another Public Service!
Good catch Professor. La cucaracha falters in the bright light.
Not so "wise a Latina" there Barry!
You know how much effort i have to put into this jibberish
Why is she "fighting"? Isn't she supposed to be adjudication? She is a political Commisar, not a judge.
Why is she "fighting"? Isn't she supposed to be adjudication? She is a political Commissar, not a judge.
Sotomayor is a Type 1 diabetic (the genetic kind, more severe, and incurable, as opposed to lifestyle-related Type 2). My father and little brother suffered through decades of horrors from the disese before dying, and the first time I saw Sotomayor's face, I thought she already had pretty serious kidney and digestive problems.
She also developed the disease young, at 7. This matters because people developing Type 1 as children face far more serious organ failure problems and other complications (adults can manifest it too, though it used to be called Juvenile Diabetes). Not so many years ago, treatment was so inaccurate that it's pretty amazing that she's still alive.
I have empathy for her, for that, and for fighting through with it, but if she's as ill as she looks, especially around the eyes, she's already lived past when she might be expected to die of Type 1.
Sorry to sound so morbid. Despite disagreeing with all of her politics, I wish her well. But I'd be amazed if she isn't on dialysis or transplant drugs, which have severe side effects, including severe mental ones.
Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart.
We need to find Sonia’s Travis Kelce.
@Paul Zrimsek -- brilliant. Thread winner.
"Tired."
The endless refrain of the incompetent diversity hire in over their head.
What a power trip that must be to serve as a member of SCOTUS. To know that your interpretation of the Constitution can affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people for decades or longer. To know that you can serve as long as you like with the likelihood of impeachment essentially nil.
This is simply an example of a highly placed person accidentally telling the truth, without embellishment or thought of consequences.
She feels that voting for a minority opinion is a loss. so ask her a loss for what or who, exactly? The US, the Constitution, prog swine everywhere, or just herself?
She is exhausted by the weekly emergency schedule. If it is a weekly occurrence, it isn't emergencies, it is someone pushing their own agenda on a regular basis.
She keeps on fighting. For what, exactly? What does she want to happen in the US?
The questions write themselves. If only there were people paid to ask such questions of her, and transcribe her answers for the public. But I guess it is really much easier to let her spout a lot of vague complaints and not ask any followups. Also makes the article fit on a tweet on X, right?
How hard is it call the White House and ask how they want her to vote?
What is she "fighting for" if she is supposed to be impartial?
Blogger Original Mike said...
Fighting? Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be "fighting". This is so wrong.
But the audience at CA-Berkely (would be the same in Madison, WI) expect liberal justices to "fight".
Just look at what Madison expects from our coven of four liberals that now run the WI Supreme Court. They think they're the new legislature. Madison wants maps re-drawn to consolidate MORE power in Dance County, and they are doing their best to deliver.
Hang in there, Wiseass Latina! One more year! Once Trump is reelected, you can drag your useless ass off into well-deserved oblivion.
If Trump isn't reelected, she'll be replaced by Fani Willis.
Back before she was nominated to SCOTUS, Justice Sotomayor surely read “The Emerging Democratic Majority.” So she undoubtedly believed that by now the correct result in each case would be apparent to all the Justices and so could be announced in a brief and unanimous Opinion for the Court. Imagine her horror that she must continue the daily battle against wrongness into her old age, and so often lose it! Or have you no empathy?
Cry harder.
"I'm sorry, 'every LOSS'??? What kind of an 'impartial' justice says anything remotely like this? She should be impeached without delay. Open cheerleading/activism has zero place on the highest court in the land, or any other for that matter."
You certainly can't believe Supreme Court justices do not hold strong personal views on the issues of the day, which are all intertwined with the past, present, and future. You certainly can't believe that any members of the Court do not feel disappointment when the outcomes are not as they would have wished.
Generally, when relatively mature people find themselves on the losing side of anything, they will step back and assess why they are losing and then try to figure out what they can do to improve their fate. Sotomayer seems to not have engaged in that process at all. She may be wise, but because she never self-reflects, she is also an immature, chronic loser.
Absolutely the worst Justice of the Supreme Court. She has no conception of what her position as a Justice was/is meant to be. Maybe she should retire to a safe HR district and run for a seat in the House.
To her a game.
To her a game.
"But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
The Wide Latina is cracking under the stress. Not the stress which comes from following the law and the Constitution. Rather, the stress that comes from "fighting" for leftist causes.
Yep, another run-of-the-mill blind lady of justice.
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.3499609080.5650/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg
"But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
The Wide Latina is cracking under the stress. Not the stress which comes from following the law and the Constitution. Rather, the stress that comes from "fighting" for leftist causes.
Yep, another run-of-the-mill blind lady of justice.
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.3499609080.5650/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg
Remember way back when, when I said I didn't want judges being empathetic because it makes you pick a side based on your feelz rather than go by the book?
Back before Sotomayor, and yet, it was about her.
Big Mike:
A wise Latina should accept her limits.
A wise Latina would accept her limits.
"Generally, when relatively mature people find themselves on the losing side of anything, they will step back and assess why they are losing and then try to figure out what they can do to improve their fate. Sotomayer seems to not have engaged in that process at all."
You seem to think that being on the losing side means one is in the wrong. Often, those in the wrong are often on the winning side. Those in the right who are losing can only win if they keep fighting.
See, this is the problem with the whole feminist thing. Somebody told her that a woman could do anything a man can, backwards, in heels. Then somebody else told her to piss up a rope. And now ...
loss?
so much for neutral and by the law
no need to hide it, theyre almost there.
"Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart."
LOL. Yeah I'll buy that for a dollar
Maybe if they would rule 9-0 in favor of liberty, freedom, the citizens, the Constitution, the rule of law, morality, etc. then the worthless, criminal government (at ALL LEVELS and BOTH parties), would STOP VIOLATING the rights of so many people and far fewer cases would need to end up before the 9 clowns in gowns. Yeah, asking too much of these Epstein-owned creeps.
Life for her would be much less stressful and chaotic if she just gave up her activism and followed the Constitution.
I'm not sure why it is that people are so surprised that, in one of the most prestigious professional positions in the world, there are indications that competitiveness is involved.
Robert Cook, I do believe that Supreme Court justices and, for that matter, judges do have personal views on all sorts of topics. However, the point of being a judge is to rule on cases impartially based on the Constitution and the law, wherever that leads. I understand that some cases can be ambiguous and different people can come to different conclusions through different trains of logic. However, if the goal of a judge is to win for their personal views, then that judge is corrupt. If you want to win, go into politics.
I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.
Back when I believed Americans were generally after the same things this would have disappointed me. Now that I see what these assholes have been planning all along the emotion is something akin to gratification and gratefulness to the founding fathers these people hate so much...
...what's most amusing is that in the system these people want they'd be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Serfs at best serving an unjust master...
"Maybe if they would rule 9-0 in favor of liberty, freedom, the citizens, the Constitution, the rule of law, morality, etc. then the worthless, criminal government (at ALL LEVELS and BOTH parties), would STOP VIOLATING the rights of so many people and far fewer cases would need to end up before the 9 clowns in gowns."
Doesn't take a Mensa candidate to see that, by elevating those to the bench who are inclined to rule based on the outcome their party prefers rather than on the constitutionality of the issue, more and more of those sorts of cases end up needing to be decided?
But the wise Latina is surprised by this? Who'da thunk it?
Dear sleazy oath breaker Sonia Sotomayor:
Fuck you
"I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."
You worthless scum bag. You're supposed to be a judge, not a politician. You swore an oath to be a judge, bound by the written US Constitution and the written laws, not a politician pushing your personal beliefs.
I hope there's a hell, so you can spend eternity in it.
Until then, here's hoping that every day you wake up miserable, you miserable excuse for a judge
Earnest Prole at 12:18 PM:
Well said.
But if she allowed the US Constititon, the law, and democracy to triumph, then her violent personal desires would lose
Robert Cook said...
You certainly can't believe Supreme Court justices do not hold strong personal views on the issues of the day,
Scalia had a stamp that said "Stupid, but Constitutional".
This is because, unlike SS, he wasn't a worthless pice of shit pathbreaker who decided to abuse the powers of his office for personal political advantage.
Everyone has personal political beliefs. So what
If you take a job where your role is to interpret the law, rather than make it, then your'e not allowed to engage in your personal beliefs.
if you're not willing to accept that restriction, don't take the job.
Justice Sotomayor- please wait to retire until 12:01 PM January 20, 2025.
Here comes the judge: KH
How much of the work is actually done by the judge ? I got the impression an awful lot of the work is done by the associates............
"If you want to win, go into politics."
Leftists see the SC as a way to get the things they want when they can't win on the politics. And then, on the occasions even the SC won't give them what they want, they whine about politics.
She should draw inspiration from Hillary Clinton: Aww don’t feel noways tired. I’ve come too faarrrrr from where I started frum.”
Static Ping
4:56pm
+1
It is undemocratic to feel traumatized that other people hold different opinions than you do.
hmm... I wonder if some on the left will urge Justice Soto-Mayor to retire then, while there is still a Democrat in the White House and the Senate is Democratically controlled. Politically it is kind of a double-edged sword since both sides care very much about the make-up of the Supreme Court. But perhaps that will have a greater affect on the Left since, in my estimation at least, more of the Left are unenthused about the 2024 election and feel somewhat dejected or resigned to supporting Biden.
Good thing she isn't a black woman, or she'd be working twice as hard.
n.n said...
Ginsburg waited for another president
She wanted the first female prez to name her replacement. Served the chauvinist right that Trump got to, instead.
Expand the Court to 13. Equal to the number of federal circuits. An easy, logical, practical, productive number. It will diminish, at least incrementally, the partisan pressure on individual Court nominations. It will help with the Court's overwhelming workload.
“You seem to think that being on the losing side means one is in the wrong. Often, those in the wrong are often on the winning side. Those in the right who are losing can only win if they keep fighting.”
This is a convoluted response. If you’re wrong wrt a SCOTUS decision, you’re not on the winning side. This is not rocket science. If you are chronically wrong and consistently losing the argument, perhaps it’s you and your side, too.
Cook:
–You seem to think that being on the losing side means one is in the wrong.
I have no idea what you mean by wrong. Do you mean Brett Kavanaugh grade wrong? Sufficiently wrong that he deserved to be crucified on live television by Senate democrats/American leftists?
–Often, those in the wrong are often on the winning side.
Again, with the ambiguous “wrong”. Should those on the SC who supported Dobbs be threatened and stalked because they were “wrong”. Do you have the Divine right to deem such as “wrong”? Rachel Maddow refers to such as evil. Is this an improvement over your assessment?
–Those in the right who are losing can only win if they keep fighting.
–Because an activist SC Justice, along with her sister Social Justice Warriors, deserves to correct evil Justices who interpret the Constitution.
What a baby.
I would like to see her blog about multiple things every day for twenty years. Show what she is made of.
Lazy. You take one of the most important jobs there is then you complain? It’s not like she doesn’t have support. Almost weekly? Good lord. Retire lady! But wait til Trump is back in office & take Roberts with you.
RBG wanted the first female president to name her replacement.
She came, she Chose, she aborted. I clearly gave her more credit than she deserved.
Leftists see the SC as a way to get the things they want when they can't win on the politics.
Political Congruence ("="), Progressive Prices, Green - as in naive - deals, CAIR, among other select choices.
Dagwood, please have some respect for our wise Latinx. It's "pobrecita".
In an early 1990s panel with two other female judges, Sotomayor talked about her educational background and how it helped her in her job as a federal trial judge in Manhattan.
"I am a product of affirmative action," she said. "I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."
She said that using "traditional numbers" from test scores, "it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted."
Breezy said... @ 7:22
What does the constitution say?
Her public whining looks like an early sign of loss of cognitive function. The left will start to put pressure on her to retire while Biden can nominate a much younger and even further left replacement.
Mason G said...
"If you want to win, go into politics."
Leftists see the SC as a way to get the things they want when they can't win on the politics. And then, on the occasions even the SC won't give them what they want, they whine about politics.
1/30/24, 6:30 PM
And then cry about stacking the Supreme Court with more Progressives.
Mason G said...
"If you want to win, go into politics."
Leftists see the SC as a way to get the things they want when they can't win on the politics. And then, on the occasions even the SC won't give them what they want, they whine about politics.
1/30/24, 6:30 PM
And then cry about stacking the Supreme Court with more Progressives.
Mason G said...
"If you want to win, go into politics."
Leftists see the SC as a way to get the things they want when they can't win on the politics. And then, on the occasions even the SC won't give them what they want, they whine about politics.
1/30/24, 6:30 PM
And then cry about stacking the Supreme Court with more Progressives.
Get paid for what you love to do, and you will never work a day of you life.
I retired, because I was tired of working 70 hours a week, in planting and harvest season. I enjoy the work, been doing it over 40 years.
So I took my pension and work two part time jobs. One is Crop Insurance Adjuster.
This year with the drought and the drop of prices of about $1 per bushel, triggered a bunch of harvest claims. Normally claims all get worked by Thanksgiving. I am just finishing up now.
I'll get my new contract in a few weeks and I will sign up for another year.
The point is, I spent my life working with farmers. I like doing it, because I'm good at it.
Why did the whiny Judge accept the job if she does not enjoy, unraveling the Constitutional Puzzle?
And, she does not loose cases, she is adding the constitutional history. I think It was Scalia that said if you weren't upset by some of your rulings, you are doing if wrong. Meaning, following the Constitution will sometime conflict with your desired outcome.
If she dreads going to work, its time to hang up the robe.
Siesta anyone?
is this her bat signal to pack the court?
If a particular outcome for a case would be personally grievous to you, you shouldn't be the judge. Also, you don't really buy into democracy.
If a particular outcome for a case would be personally grievous to you, you shouldn't be the judge. Also, you don't really buy into democracy.
"Meaning, following the Constitution will sometime conflict with your desired outcome."
Conservative: "What does the Constitution say?"
Leftist: "What do I want the Constitution to be saying?"
Misinforminimalism said...
If a particular outcome for a case would be personally grievous to you, you shouldn't be the judge.
Nice and to the point. I'm stealing that
"Scalia had a stamp that said 'Stupid, but Constitutional.'"
Also, "...unlike SS, he wasn't a worthless pice of shit pathbreaker who decided to abuse the powers of his office for personal political advantage."
Perhaps that stamp was his all-purpose excuse for unjust or outrageous legal decisions. Scalia believed that “There is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction.” Also, (the Supreme Court has) "never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually innocent.’"
So, FUCK Tony Scalia.
That aside, where in Sotomayor's lament is there any proof she abused her power at all, much less for personal, political or other advantage? I suggest that she, or any judge, may wish to see an outcome of a legal decision be one that allies with one's personal views, but that one cannot make a judgement to that effect on the basis of the facts and legal arguments presented, or, that one believes as a matter on the law (such as a judge must determine) that a particular reading of the law and precedent supports that desired particular outcome, but that a majority of the other judges held otherwise. There wouldn't be written dissents added to judgements if such disagreements were not common and plentiful.
Robert Cook said...
"Scalia had a stamp that said 'Stupid, but Constitutional.'"
Also, "...unlike SS, he wasn't a worthless pice of shit pathbreaker who decided to abuse the powers of his office for personal political advantage."
Perhaps that stamp was his all-purpose excuse for unjust or outrageous legal decisions. Scalia believed that “There is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction.”
There isn't, and shouldn't be.
If teh "evidence" is real, and conclusive", go to the governor and get a pardon / your sentence commuted.
Scum bag left wing "judges" have spent too many years abusing teh system, and claiming that things "proved" actual innocence that didn't, just because they were opposed to people being convicted in teh first place.
See current left wing "criminal justice reform".
He's right, you're full of shit.
Also, (the Supreme Court has) "never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually innocent.’"
Wow! He "convince[d] a habeas court"
Not a jury. Not anyone who we care about. But the same kind of lying scum bags who invented a "right" to abortion / gay sex / gay marriage / forcing Christians to bake cakes and make websites.
IOW, Scalia was right again. Because only a complete fucking moron tests power to left wing judges.
So, FUCK Tony Scalia.
No Cookie, fuck you, and fuck all the dishonest left-wingers who made Saclia's positions on the subjects the only possible reasonable positions.
Because you lefties acting in bad faith is 100% justification for taking away your power to act, ever
If teh 'evidence' is real, and conclusive, go to the governor and get a pardon / your sentence commuted."
There is no reason a just "justice system" should leave it to the uncertain inclinations of a governor or other elected official to free a person condemned to prison (or death) who has been "properly convicted" but for whom evidence has been discovered that proves (or compellinglly indicates) his/her innocence. How many public officials would have the courage to exonerate a person perceived by the public as a dangerous criminal? What elected official would not be concerned about alienating his voters? If convicted, he or she must be guilty, right? No mistakes or injustices ever in our great land! Let the animal die (or rot)!
If we are a truly just society, the justice system must investigate any compelling evidence of a person's actual guilt or innocence, even--especially--after all "proper steps" have been followed and closed.
But, you being a fascist, see no value in a merciful (and actual) "justice" system that sees convicted persons as human beings with inalienable rights that are never erased. I mean, Class Failure, what's the big deal with a few executed innocent people here and there, as long as we make sure we're killing plenty of the truly guilty, right?
Can we separate the person from the politician here?
Maybe I'm being emotional.
People don't understand how chronic diseases like type 1 diabetes steals your life away, horribly, piece by piece until you have to choose to die with the parts that are left.
Yes, she sucks for a million reasons as a Supreme Court Judge. But she wasn't elected, like Biden. She was appointed. Some empathy? And she's also not fit for the job, physically. So let's wargame instead of insulting her genetic disease.
She quits now? Then what?
She hangs on until the election: this seems like a bad idea, tried already.
At the very least we deserve to know if she is competent.
Robert Cook said...
That aside, where in Sotomayor's lament is there any proof she abused her power at all, much less for personal, political or other advantage?
Voting against Bruen. Voting against Dobbs. Voting for "Affirmative Action" at Harvard.
The last is both personal and political, the other two are pure political.
None of her votes there have the slightest justification in the written US Constitution, or even the slightest legitimacy.
Which even you have to know
Robert Cook said...
Me: If the 'evidence' is real, and conclusive, go to the governor and get a pardon / your sentence commuted."
There is no reason a just "justice system" should leave it to the uncertain inclinations of a governor or other elected official to free a person condemned to prison (or death) who has been "properly convicted" but for whom evidence has been discovered that proves (or compellinglly indicates) his/her innocence.
There is no reason why any sane person would trust a left wing "judge" or "justice" to be honest about the evidence, and what it shows.
You all have been complete and total lying sacks of shit for over 100 years. The US Constitution is not a "progressive" document (it's not a libertarian one, either, more's the pity), and the type of Federal Gov't, and the powers you want for it, are NOT allowed by the US Constitution.
Instead of working to amend it, you lying scumbags have just ignored it, and used your majorities on SCOTUS to trample it, and trample our rights.
So GFY. NOTHING that gives more power to left wing black robed thugs is legitimate. Ever.
And until you start ranting about the evils done to the Jan 6 protesters, or the Tenn anti-abortion protesters, anything you babble about "harms done to innocent people" is just obvious bullshit.
Tina Trent said...
Can we separate the person from the politician here?
No Tina, we can't.
She is a vile oath-breaking scumbag promoted because of racism and sexism. She used and sues that power to push evil, and to trample over our rights.
"The personal is political." I believe in always imposing on my enemies their own rules.
No, I believe it is a moral imperative to always impose one h Left the full measure of any and all of their rules. I believe that is the only possible road to a just and decent society, one where everyone understands that there's no such thing as "just this once, because it's really important", and understands that whatever they do to us, it's going to come back to them 10x.
Personally, I think in a just society, SS would be occupying a jail cell with a "trans woman" cell mate.
They never resolve any issue and simply keep kicking the cans down the road. Buell is a start on making a clear and unambiguous decision and yet the idiots in the legislatures around the country keep deciding that there's enough daylight in something that straightforward that they think they can keep pushing the Titanic through. Roe was simple; it is not the business of the unelected/permanent justices to make new laws. The more ignorant boobs Biden and his bunch push onto the bench makes ever more work for the justices who have to 'fix' what is simple but beyond the ken of most liberal morons who get tapped for judge. It's embarrassing to watch them squirm under examination by JFK Jr.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा