patrick.net

Without context those quotes mean nothing. What I can say is that former justice Anthony Scalia -- may he rot in hell, if only hell were real -- publicly claimed with vigor to hold many principles that he would abandon, even embracing the antithesis of, at a moment's notice when his political agenda required it. Conservatives say a lot of things and then behave in the opposite matter including when making either legislative or court decisions. This is what we call hypocrisy.

Actions speak louder than words. The actions of conservative judges, particularly on the Supreme Court, have always been corrupt and hypocritical.

One example out of many. Scalia ruled that a person arrested for any offense however minor, and even if the person is completely innocent, can at the complete discretion of any police officer be anally searched -- which meets the Dept. of Justice's legal definition of rape -- and the victim has absolutely no rights in this matter and the cop has absolutely no accountability. This means if a cop wanted to fuck with a person he decided he didn't like, he could inflict this anal rape punishment on that person without any process, due or otherwise, without concern of having to justify it to the courts. Yet Scalia claims to believe in upholding the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. There is no fucking way that the founding fathers when writing the Fifth Amendment thought that letting cops inflict anal rape as a punishment on a person, innocent or guilty, would be reasonable or legal in any way, shape, or form for any reason. Scalia was a hypocrite. Same is true for almost if not all conservative judges and politicians.

I remember when that cunt said because she was a Latina female she could make better decisions than the white males on the court.
She can die and rot in hell.

Tenpoundbass says

I remember when that cunt said because she was a Latina female she could make better decisions than the white males on the court.

If that is the case, then she is, by definition, not a liberal. That directly and completely contradicts liberalism. Liberalism's first and most important tenet is equality under law. Any kind of racism, including anti-white racism, directly violates that tenet.

Liberalism isn't a self-identity term. You don't just get to declare yourself a liberal. You must meet the definition to be one. If you don't act like a liberal, if you don't follow the principles of liberalism, then you are not a liberal by definition.

Tenpoundbass, would you call a person a Christian if that person said he was but rejected the very notion that Jesus Christ or a god ever even existed, did not believe in the moral teachings in the bible, and practiced Hinduism? Would you say that person is a Christian just because he calls himself one? Hell no. Same thing goes for liberalism.

The thing you are complaining about in this thread is conservatism. And you are hypocritical for only complaining about left and Islamic conservatism while ignoring the conservative right when they do the exact same damn thing. Liberalism is the solution to every problem you bitch and moan about. Conservatism, from one tribe or another, is the cause of every one of those problems.

Tenpoundbass says

I remember when that cunt said because she was a Latina female she could make better decisions than the white males on the court.

She can die and rot in hell.

Case in point of how you are a hypocrite... If Solomayer's comments offend you so greatly, then you should be even far more enraged with Scalia's actual acts on the Supreme Court like the one I mentioned above.

Somebody needs to make a meme about how dimbulb right wingers take something out of context as proof that their emotions are justified. This is like "you didn't build that."

The thing is, sometimes they even understand the context, but since they don't have any legitimate arguments to back up their emotions and their beliefs, they have to resort to bullshit and lies. That's why they love Trump so much. He's the king of bullshit and lies.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/26/republican-national-committee-republican/rnc-claims-supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-s/

"The Court of Appeals is where policy is made," said Sotomayor, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know … I know. (some laughs) I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm … you know. Okay. (more laughs)

"Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation. It's application."

So keep in mind the audience and the question here, said Tom Goldstein, a partner at Washington law firm Akin Gump and the founder of ScotusBlog, a widely read blog on the Supreme Court. Goldstein watched the full video, and simply sees it as Sotomayor noting that in comparison to district court judges, "there's more policy involved" in the appeals courts.

"The truth of the matter is, in the court of appeals, they are dealing with gaps and ambiguities in the law," Goldstein said.

There's a lot for judges to interpret. Appeals court judges often have to make a call when a statute is unclear. In a sense, the policy is set by those calls made by the judges, even if they don't want to.

To use that one line from Sotomayor to paint her as an activist judge is misleading, he said.

"She's not a sweeping visionary ideologue in any way," Goldstein said. "Conservatives who are genuinely concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court, they are sort of grasping at straws here. That's an awful lot to put on one sentence."