If you\’re not familiar with Sotomayor (What? You don\’t follow the 2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals as closely as, say, the NBA playoffs?), here\’s a little clip of her thoughts on the roll of the Judicial Branch of our great nation.
(via: Hot A…

Sotomayor: Courts are where policy is made

For this very statement, is the reason that many federal judges need to be removed, they ARE NOT the legislative branch of government. Judges and their buddy lawyers have built a false, and phony screen around themselves, in the guise of “judicial independence.” The term “judicial independence” has been manufactured, by them and CAN NOT be found anywhere in the Constitution, but IMPEACHMENT is clearly there. Constitutional usurpers need to be booted, fast, and quickly.

She meant exactly what she said. Why can’t you accept that?rcl on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Because AP, like O’Reilly, fears being accused of being an unreasonable partisan. It’s why O’Reilly gave Obama a B on the economy. And it’s one of the reasons why Democratic Party incompetence does not get the scrutiny it should.

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

The Constitution is a contract like any other legal document. If you don’t follow it legally, to the letter, then you do not have a contract and you do NOT have a society following the rule of law.

What if your mortgage company changed your “fixed” mortgage rate from 5% to 18% twenty years down the road because “times have changed from when we signed this.”

This is called anarchy. If that’s what you want then say so; but remember: then I can come for you and there will be no laws to stop me.

Go for it. Heh.

All Sotomayor’s saying, I think, is that it’s pointless to pretend judges don’t have an active hand in shaping policy.

Allah, Do you think we’re idiots? That was about as direct a comment as you can make. She even mentioned it was probably unwise for her to make it.

She meant exactly what she said. Why can’t you accept that?

I’m trying to muster some outrageous outrage but can’t pull it

Try using intelligent analysis, AP. She’s a liberal. Therefore it’s likely she’s an anti-democracy judicial oligarchist. She quite content to have policy decisions made by unelected liberal elites. The rule of law applies only to conservatives.

Judges who make it up as they go think they are above the law. It’s the liberal way.

When I get to vote on SC justicess every 2/4/6 years, instead of them having ifetime appointments, they are entitled to make policy.

Bubba Redneck on May 4, 2009 at 2:11 AM

I passed a lot of New York bars.

With the prices they have, might as well drink at home. :-)

Allahpundit is a licensed lawyer, he passed the New York State Bar if I remember correctly.

doriangrey on May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM

How many times did take him to pass?

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

Which ones?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

The ones liberal, America-hating, Che-loving, Castro-butt-kissing, Commie-pinko judges didn’t make up don’t ya know!

Agreed. Write new laws then, and invalidate the old ones. “I need a judge who interprets…” — bang! Right there, you’re already on the wrong track, worried about “who” instead of “how”. The point of the rule of law is to make law — the monopoly of force — objective, not subjective. The rule of law, which rests on the idea of enforcement, has to be predictable for people to live their lives without fear. The state writes down what we’re gonna do, and then we all do it. If what’s written down doesn’t jibe with what’s going on, then you rewrite it. Your solution is to have have some frizzy haired Hera hurling down thunderbolts from Olympus at random based on how the text “feels” to her at any particular moment. If the plain meaning of the text is an impediment to the “rule of law” as you see it, why have the text at all? Why not just appoint philosopher kings?

shazbat on May 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM

.
I just about the write up something similar but you did a much better job. You are correct.
.
Its amazing and frightening, the ignorance shown here on Hotair by some of the three bodies of the American system. If many of the folks on this blog don’t get it, imagine the rest of the citizens! I blame this on a failed educational system and a corrupt media, including hollywood, for furthering the ignorance.

Before we find the right despot, however, this will be acceptable:

All court decisions should have an “empathy” test.

The SCOTUS should attempt wealth redistribution. This saves Dems from losing elections after they raise taxes.

All new laws should be approved by the NYT.

Even I, horribly deficient in English as I was when I first took that class on my first semester in college (I had made the direct jump from life in Puerto Rico to life in the Mainland), I learned that from the get-go.

She has a chip…a large one…one her shoulder. The more I read about her, the less I am thrilled at this equal-opportunity, affirmative action, choice.