[Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

[Saundra Lund]

Roger wrote:
"While I did not quote her full statements I do not think it skewed the
meaning."

Then I can only assume you didn't bother to read the links or else you'd
readily admit that your talking heads have excelled at nothing so much as
taking the snips out of context.

You also wrote:
"For someone who posted every rumor about Sarah Palin yo do not have much
room to talk."

Wrong again:  I posted facts and corrected rumors.

You also wrote:
"Also If i remember correctly you landed all over Joe The Plummer for being
a tax cheat."

Yes, he was a tax cheat & a liar, and it was idiotic for the GOP to try to
dress him us as anything different.  Don't blame me for his very own
transgressions -- blame your compatriots for not having the sense God gave a
billy goat.  Sheesh -- anyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows better
than to trot out a new poster boy without doing even simple Google search.

Please do tell us why you're going ape over Sotomayor while not giving a rip
that what she said isn't much different than Scalia's opinion in REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZO.html):
"This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of
"representative government" might have some truth in those countries where
judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the
legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do
state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the
immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker
v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the
election of state judges became popular."

AND
"Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice
[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated
from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good
judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point
of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not
hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If
he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to
follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion
polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were
limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce
clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of
a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at
3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign
for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would
not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates
alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law,"
since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and
not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the
view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court.
See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring
opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987)
(dissenting opinion)."


Get your shovel & start digging, Roger, because the more you keep saying,
the deeper you keep digging your hole.



Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****