Former MSNBC host calls on Justice Sotomayor to step down from SCOTUS

Oh, for sure. Democrats would never lie, huh. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Democrats are paragons of virtue, honor and the American way. Oh yeah.

 

Any member of Congress that demands a Supreme Court justice rule a certain way is an idiot.

 

A corrupt idiot.

 

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret never promised not to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

A moron that doesn't understand how our system works.

 

Oh, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be 'political'...? Sure, I agree with you, but then how do you account for Obama's appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan behaving the way they did on Obamacare, which was the most blatantly unconstitutional thing I've seen in my entire, long lifetime!

Sotomayor was an old radical extremist, springing from roots as a big-wig in the anti-American La Raza organization. Elena Kagan was hand-picked by Obama to be a Solicitor General in his Dept. of Justice where she worked to advance the cause of Obamacare. When she became a Supreme Court Justice, she was supposed to have recused herself from making any decisions concerning the "Affordable Care Act" because of all her prior involvement in its behalf -- but she DIDN'T.

So, the Supreme Court isn't to be 'political'? Agreed! Now, try to convince DEMOCRATS of that....

 

Totally agree. Democrats became comfortable playing with a stacked deck. Now they whine like brats denied a candy bar in the checkout line.

 

Newsmax. Hard to get much further to the right than that.

This is much ado about nothing, just more nonsense that the right feels a need to sensationalize. I don't doubt that Sotomayor is diabetic, but so am I, and I'm older, yet I could still do that sort of work -- non-physical. There's nothing wrong with my mind.

This idiotic idea of replacing her with Harris in order to make room for a different VP is a boatload of horse pucky.

 

Me, too. See #133.

 

If you don't like Newsmax, you can read all about Sotomayor's lifelong struggles with diabetes at Leftist propaganda sites like CNN and NPR. Thus, it requires no proclivity for objective judgement to criticize "the messenger" -- but when the "the MESSAGE" is true, then what does a self-styled critic do? Just complain about "the messenger"? Hard to get much more shallow than that....

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." -- Paul Simon

Think about it: Sotomayor has had diabetes all her life -- so why is that the subject of recent 'trial balloons' sent up by Democrats and their liberal affiliates in the mainstream media lately...? Why is it trumpeted now that she has to have a medic with her when she travels...?

 

Jeez. Last time:
the idea that it is worth "refreshing" the SC when you still can, unfortunately nowadays has merit. In a very possible scenario that Biden wins the Whitehouse but loses the senate, it is clear that a republican senate will do nothing to help dems get a justice nominated should an elder SC justice take ill. Why should they? They have a 6-3 majority in the SC due to dumb luck and McConnell's manoeuvring (still amazing to me that Trump has nothing to do with Trump's most enduring legacy: the Federalists Society named candidates, RBG died, and McConnell blocked a nomination and then forced a nomination). In today's hyper partisan world where presidents will have a tough time nominating a justice if they don't have the senate majority, this is worth discussing. The dems have held the presidency for 20 years in which a present SCJ has been on the bench, and the repubs 16 (and that's counting Bush sr who nominated Thomas just before the elections) and have 3 justices to show for it favs 6 (sad how nowadays the party of a justice is part of his definition)

So by all means, lets discuss the possibility of Sotomayor's retiring.

But why in god's name are you still pushing the idea that dems are eyeing Kamala on the bench? your story makes absolutely zero sense. We are not picking at it because you have unearthed some truth that we are trying to keep hidden. We are picking at it because it is so damn stupid

 

Fair enough -- but then I'd like to hear alternative strategies from those of you who think that it's nonsense that Democrat strategists will offload Kamala onto the Supreme Court. So, oh skeptical ones -- WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH KAMALA? Leave her on the ticket?! I've known some pretty vacant-minded, error-prone Democrats, but I don't think I know of any who are STOOPID enough to actually want to keep her on the Democrat ticket....

."Just vote like me and Elena do, and you'll be just FINE!"

 

Sigh ...

As I've already stated, I don't need chapter and verse on Sotomayor's diabetes-related physical health issues, since I suffer from the same disease. As I've already stated, those ailments do not affect my mind.

 

I understand and agree that having diabetes does not make a person incapable of higher-level thought and related work. Indeed, Justice Sotomayor could probably go right on functioning in her present capacity for quite a long time to come -- but -- my conjecture about her stepping down in July and making a vacancy for Democrat strategists to stick Kamala Harris into the SCOTUS isn't rooted in anything but POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY! They've got to do something with Kamala! And that 'something' has to be something that won't piss off Blacks, liberal women (which is nearly all of them), and the 'abortion-on-whim' contingent....

Kamala was a San Fran District Attorney and the Attorney General of the State of California. Democrats in the Senate (where they have a majority) can sell her as having the necessary 'legal cred', and put her in Sotomayor's empty chair in less than a week! Then -- Voilà -- no more Kamala problem! A genius solution!

 

HUH ?

This is by far the most political SC in history, BY DESIGN.

Clarence Thomas anyone...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller.....The man is bought and sold to Harland Crow. The right isnt even denying it. This has been a republican priority for 20 years, and they have finally achieved it. Basic history shows this to be true

 

Unlike you, I remember both, JFK had the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Reagan and Iran/Contra.

Sorry, we don't need either of them.

 

Are you kidding, this is the most corrupt SC in history, and held in the lowest esteem in history. They destroyed Roe (after promising to respect stare decisis during their hearings), Gutted the voting rights act, Got dark money in flooding politics and thus corrupted it more than any SC in history, and Heller was no 'precedent' given it's party line vote and thus the SC is now clearly HARD RIGHT WING, totally out of whack with the will of the people, and thus, 'political'.

Very political, the most political.

 

they are not expected to LIE.

 

Oh boy - Fox News Reports. This is extremely newsworthy, but reporting that Trump's lawyers stated that "Trump would be immune from prosecution, even if he ordered his political rivals to be assassinated" --- That's not news worth covering. "Living in the FOX News Bubble" ought to be the name of a song.

 

Nothing specific in your post. You disagree, but you can't tell us why.

 

They didn't lie.

 

I didn't say that either JFK or Reagan were perfect -- but each was an order of magnitude better than anyone who has been in the big chair at the Oval Office during all of the 21st-century so far... including Idiot "W" Bush, 'Messiah' Obama, the 'Orange Oaf', and "Big Guy" Biden....

 

The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to make decisions based on the will of the people. The problem is people who believe that SCOTUS is supposed to make decisions based on popular opinion.

 

They said they would respect stare decisis, giving the distinct impression they wouldn't reverse roe, and they lied.

Sorry.

 

No president but Obama/Biden brought affordable health care to 18,000,000 people.
No president but Biden got a major infrastructure bill passed. Eisenhower's highway project was limited to highways. There are currently some 46,000 infrastructure projects occurring across the united states.

I'm not seeing your point, at all. JFK wasn't in long enough to accomplish much, but he did **** up, big time. He gave good speeches, he was eloquent and had gravitas, He did do well during the Cuban Missile crisis, but it was a close call.