Originally Posted by ObamaSuperStar

Nice spin, i swear i dont know if it is because she is a woman, hispanic or just an Obama pick. But the spin zone has got to stop man seriously.

Originally Posted by Wowwww

5. Do you think men should be forced to provide financial support for an unwanted baby?

Originally Posted by johnwk

If that question was to be asked, it would go something like this.






The sad thing is, Sonia Sotomayor, while sitting on the 2nd Circuit Court, has already proven to be disloyal to the oath of office she took, has ignored our written Constitution and the intentions under which it was adopted, and, she blatantly thumbed her nose at the most fundamental rule of constitutional law when she refused to address a specific 14th Amendment claim brought before the Court in the case Ricci v. DeStefano and sided with public servants of New Haven, Connecticut, who refused earned promotions to 18 firefighters because they were not the right skin color!



And just what are the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted? A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the first Civil Rights Act into the Constitution and make them constitutional, documents the very intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted and were very limited in their scope. The objective was to prohibit state legislation and government force to be used to advance discrimination based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…” This protection was blatantly ignored by Sonia Sotomayor --- a protection summed up as follows up by Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the 14th Amendment when it was being debated:






And just what is the most fundamental rule which our Judiciary Committee will, in all probability, not raise and question Sotomayor on? That rule was eloquently articulated more than two hundred years ago by Thomas Jefferson:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


Heck, as impossible as it may be to believe, even our Senate Judiciary Committee is aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional law even though I have yet to hear any member ask a Supreme Court nominee if they will follow it:


"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),



Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. Let us look at some additional authoritative sources:


Intent of constitution


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.




“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)


"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.


"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .


"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.


"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.


“The intention of the law maker constitutes the law.” U.S. vs. Freeman, 3 HOW 565; U.S. vs. Babbit, 1 Black 61; Slater vs. Cave, 3 Ohio State 80; Stewart vs. Kahn, 11 Wall, 78 U.S. 493, 504


“The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail, any rule of construction declared by previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.” 4 Dall 144


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" ___ Justice Story


Now ask yourself, which Senate Judiciary Committee member will have the fortitude to question Sonia Sotomayor on the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, and ask her why she was derelict in not applying it in Ricci v. DeStefano? Perhaps you may want to forward this post to your favorite member of our Senate Judiciary Committee and see if they respond to your inquiry.


Regards,


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Originally Posted by ObamaSuperStar

So context doesnt matter? A snippet is more important? What i see is false outrage by so called conservatives. Why did you not have the same outrage during Alito's confirmation?

Originally Posted by camp_steveo

It isn't a snippet. It is her discussing her understanding of the Justice system.

I wasn't following politics back then. So, I can't really comment on Alito. Perhaps you could fill me in, or I could get back to you at a later time.

But you do bring up a good point. Why is it that "life experience" is so important now, but it wasn't so much when the minority nominee was conservative?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...e-the-results/

Originally Posted by TheHat

Hey while we are at lets bring up Miguel Estrada.

Democrats stonewalled him b/c he was "latino".

Any defense of that one?

Originally Posted by johnwk

No spin here and this has nothing to do with left or right, Republican or Democrat from where I stand. This is about members of the S.C. being obedient to the most fundamental rule of constitutional law…carrying out the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and not using the force of government to impose one’s personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution.

Originally Posted by johnwk

I suspect most freedom loving people would say they simply want the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted to be enforced. Do you have a problem with that? If not, then the case Ricci v. DeStefano in which Sotomayor sided with public servants of New Haven, Connecticut, who refused earned promotions to 18 firefighters because they were not the right skin color! should cause you great alarm in that Sotomayor has been nominated to be a S.C. Justice. Do we really want her personal policy, or any person’s personal predilections to be imposed upon the people of the united States under the cloak of a judicial opinion?

JWK

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Please,by all means, provide the "context" you are pretending exists,that will change the basic nature of her comments.
Then,please show us the Alito quote where he claimed white men will make better legal decisions than hispanic women.

Originally Posted by ObamaSuperStar

Exactly my point. The life experience comment is blown out of proportion. The experience comment was made by Alito and it wasnt an issue then. Which only points to the hypocrisy of those trumpeting this crap.



I never understood why they stonewalled Estrada. It was retarded decision if you ask me, but then again thats just my opinion.



That is simply your interpretation. Law is not as black and white as one would assume. Interpretation is always how the Constitution is applicable to the case before them. The Constitution is not black and white if that were the case there would be no need for interpretation.

Furthermore you are as other taking a one liner and ignoring the rest of her points raised.





Another talking point debunked. The New Haven case was not about skin color. It was about the law on record.





Pretending exsit? How about you read the entire script. Then keep in mind it is about how judges backgrounds affect decision making. And please dont distract from her comment right after the one you are whinning about.

Originally Posted by ABoyNamedSue

I'd like to hear someone ask her to elaborate more about her decision to quote an American Socialist in her yearbook? Was it a sign of things to come, for her? I mean...why that quote? Why that person?

Originally Posted by ABoyNamedSue

I'd like to hear someone ask her to elaborate more about her decision to quote an American Socialist in her yearbook? Was it a sign of things to come, for her? I mean...why that quote? Why that person?