If you want to see a perfect example of right wingnut Repub judicial activism, you need go no further than Bush v. Gore, the 2000 coronation of George II by a 5-4 majority.  Five of the nine nutty professors cast aside decades of precedent that saw refusal of certiorari in cases involving states’ rights to run their own elections so that Dubya could be ensconced in the White House (to disastrous results with which we are all more than familiar).  Some of the justices actually reversed course on matters they’d earlier decided in opposite fashion.  The only reason Sen. Jeff Sessions is throwing activist darts at Judge Sotomayor is that he is envious of her ability to do so much more than he could (the Senate rejected him for a job she already has), and I can guarantee you that if Sessions were on the bench, you’d see some real judicial activism, mainly striking down laws that favor civil rights.  This shameless bigot should just shut up and vote with the minority.

It’s a sign of how successful the Republicans have been in framing the debate that Dionne labels Souter, who was appointed to the Court by George H.W. Bush, as a liberal.  In fact, when viewed in the context of the post WWII Court, Souter and Sotomayor are both middle of the road. 

The success of the Republican strategy was illustrated very well by Justice Stevens.  When asked what had made him change from a middle of the road jurist to a liberal, he replied that his judicial philosophy had remained the same but that the Court had moved so far to the right he now was on the left side of the Court.

It is corporate lobbyists’, not judges’, role to make law.

When I think of the legal system I remember the assaults on friends and loved ones in the name of The War on Drugs. You could call it more accurately The War on the American People. Imagine waking up and fleeing to the sound of helicopters, and you don’t live in 1968 Vietnam, but 2004 Humboldt County, California. That’s the reality of thousands in northern California.

In my life, nothing has been more influential except possibly the Gay community. And there are numerous horror stories there too involving the legal system. What evil society is it that criminalizes love?

We are serfs under a monarchy in turn propped up by Churches, yeah yeah yeah I get that; problem is, we serfs don’t know our place. And we provide valuable services and products. How would you rich people like to live without weed? How would you like it if you shopped at Whole Foods and found empty local organic bins? You don’t think THAT’S possible?

Is Sotomayor an issue or nonissue? I’d argue the latter; she’s moderate/liberal replacing the same, albeit to the consternation of the GOP. Her vote won’t, unfortunately, stop the radical fascist majority on the Court from their future assaults on human liberty and justice.

Just after Obama Selected her CNN ran a poll that showed that Americans supported her nomination by 2 to 1 . last week CNN poll showed her support was down to 47% So I would say the Republicans have laid a glove on her. Also today at the hearing she was doing her best to sound like Judge Roberts.

This hearing about Sotomayor is just a diversion, a circus for the public, that will allow the Republicans in Congress to reassure their base that they are still extremist right-wing racists who hate women, and will allow the Democrats in Congress to pretend that they actually do something on behalf of the public.  Which they don’t, by the way.  This reminds me of the baseball steroid hearings held by Congress which allowed them to give big lectures against drugs while, off camera, collecting autographs from the players.  If you look around the country and wonder who the sucker is—it’s us.

Sotomayor is, as far as we know, a moderate judge.  She is female and since the only other female will likely be leaving, that means we will continue to have 10% of the court female despite the fact that 50% of the public is female.  Her being Hispanic is a sop to the Hispanic voters, but the effect is unlikely to change anything for that group, or any other group.  It takes 51 votes to confirm her, and the Democrats have 60, so let’s stop pretending this is a big deal. 

What would have meant something is if the Democrats had stood against the Republicans packing the courts with extremist right-wingers such as Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.  Not to mention the dim-witted and unqualified pubic-hair-and-coke-drinking Thomas.  That would have been important.  But this charade is of no consequence except as a diversion, an opportunity for the Democrats to pretend they are helping us while they fail to pass single-payer healthcare or Medicare for all, refuse to stop these disastrous wars, refuse to prosecute and seize the assets of the criminals on Wall street who have looted our country, refuse to prosecute the war criminals, refuse to create job programs or stop the give-away of public money to Wall Street and the corporations. 

Instead, the Democrats want to pretend that with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they are somehow being courageous when they publicly defend a former prosecutor (who presumably did her share to contribute to throwing more Hispanics into prison), middle-of-the-road judge who has spent her entire life striving to be a moderate to advance her own ambitions, and who is unlikely to do anything to challenge the corporate control of our country.  Big deal. 

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

Too bad Obama doesn’t have the guts to appoint a real liberal to the court to balance out the right wing Bush appointees. Too bad Obama doesn’t have any courage, whatsoever. Too bad for america that the supreme court has become so corrupted. Too bad for the world that our great experiment in democracy is failing…..

Our system of governance is shown to be a failure once again. The GOP makes absurd charges about “activist judges” yet, when in the majority, appoints its own activists to the courts.

The Democrats prove only to be incompetent, weak and ridiculous, whether in a majority or minority position.