More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

KBarr, SC — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:56:21 GMT

Judge Sotomayor's answer, that Roe v Wade is settled law, is a fairly standard answer for a Democratic Supreme Court nominee.

===============

And it's an outright lie.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Gina Y., Dover NH — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:16 GMT

Roberts, at his Supreme Court hearing, said: "It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis." At his hearing for a judgment on the D.C. Circuit, he simply called it settled, without further elaboration.

--------------------------

Roberts also went on to say that a long explanation is necessary because abortion is a derived right. It isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution anywhere. It was made up. So to get to it, you have to go through a lot of hand waving antics.

There is no such thing as "settled law". If there was, we'd still have slavery. Things change as the country changes, and laws change in response to those changes. Sotomayor is denying that fact.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:40 GMT

It continually amazes me how the Republicrats continue to dissect & parse every word that comes out of any Democrats mouth…

But yet stood & applauded when the Clown in Chief eviscerated & mangled the English language beyond comprehension for 8 years!

Of course then there’s Simple Sarah… nuff said… dingbat & her word salads make my ears BLEED!

The right wing whack jobs wear their ignorance like a medal of honor!

The double standards thrown around by the party of family values are down right ABSURD!

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:41 GMT

From NBC's Pete Williams
Judge Sotomayor's answer, that Roe v Wade is settled law, is a fairly standard answer for a Democratic Supreme Court nominee. Stephen Breyer said as much. But it was somewhat more definitive than the answers given by Republican nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I have a question…why the obsession over this? Perhaps I’m missing something but these confirmation hearing will be going on for quite some time and we will hear commentary for weeks to come, so why the obsession over “every remark”? HCR is a meat and bread issue that I feel needs the attention. The Senate Democrats that are not doing their jobs need attention.

Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and unless Sessions say’s something out landish or shows the color of his neck then this isn’t news…

HCR NOW!!!!

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Roe v Wade — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:52 GMT

Even many pro-choice legal scholars acknowledge "Roe" was horribly written. It's simply bad law because it goes against what this country stands for--defending the little guy/gal. Roe is today's version of Dred Scott from the slave days....and how many people today think that was a good law which basically treated black people as mere "property". Also, the "Roe" of this case is Norma McCorvey who has admitted that her case was a shame because she lied about being raped to get pro-abort lawyers to fight for her abortion. She never actually had the abortion and today she is extremely pro-life because she now knows abortion unnecessarily kills babies.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton from 1973 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:03:40 GMT

It's also worth noting that both "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) and "Doe" (Sandra Cano), the plaintiffs in the two court cases are both strong pro-life advocates today. And both testify that the pro-abortion lobby used them like raw meat to accomplish their legislative highjacking and then threw them to the curb. "Roe" admits she lied about being raped in order to help her cause to get an abortion. But she never knew she was being used to bring legalized abortion to the entire nation. "Doe" went to her lawyer only seeking a divorce. They used her as their ideal case for why abortion should be legal. She never asked for nor wanted an abortion. Also, neither lady ever actually had an abortion. Isn't it amazing that you never hear this reported on by the mainstream media who obviously are in the pro-abort corner and thus don't feel very motivated to investigate all the manipulation and fabrication on the pro-abortion side.

Lastly, for those who try and justify (as Obama does) the legalized abortion just to "protect women" and "keep it safe"....why then has the abortion rate exponentially gone up since pre-1973? If only those seeking illegal abortions were the ones to have them today, we'd probably only have about 100,000 max per year. Instead we have 1.5 million per year. Answer: The killing of innocent life is used as a flippant form of birth control. This is sad for America.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Doug Jennings, SD California — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:05:11 GMT

It really time to let the people decide what is, and isn't legal with respect to abortion. Roe V. Wade denied tha people the right to decide it. 9 men in ropes do not make the law, the people do. Abortion will be just another aberration on the history of the United States, very similar to say, slavery.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Laugh In — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:07:39 GMT

Sotomayor: "'I was trying to play on her words. My play fell flat. It was bad,' Sotomayor said."

Maybe Sotomayor and Franken can take their comedy act on the road. They can be the next Hope and Crosby.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Carl Sees, NE — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:09:58 GMT

The color coded system brought to you by the duck tape administration was never really all that useful.
Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA

It's "duct" tape.

Taping ducks in Iowa is a crime.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

ADAY — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:13:55 GMT

From the DailyKos

Matthew Yglesias articulates what I'm guessing most of us are thinking:

I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, "Senator Sessions, I think it"s ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he"s a huge racist."

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Chris - IL — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:14:22 GMT

Is it "settled law"? What a dodge from the fraud.

Malcom R., NY NY (Sent Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:25 AM)
-------------------------------------------------------
So since Breyer, Alito, and Roberts all said it was settled law I guess we have one third of the court that is a fraud?

Either that, or maybe you're just unhappy that after all the incredibly conservative appointments in recent years, we are now seeing a liberal being appointed!

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Scott D, Lufkin TX — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:16:33 GMT

Can't believe you're posting Bill from Fairfax - he makes too much sense for some liberals to comprehend.

Hey Democrats commenting on the wealth concentration - it's called an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax. Having wealth doesn't mean you're recognizing income. If you want to have a discussion about tax policy and ways to simplify and/or fix, we can do that, but don't start talking about apples when we're discussing oranges.

With regards to corporate taxes - it's bunk. I own a C Corp and every year draw the income down to almost zero. The Corp doesn't pay taxes, but I sure as hell do when I apply the income to my salary.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

no joe, no bo,nj — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:17:44 GMT

I've never understood the respect given to stare decisis. there have been many cases decided by the U.S. Supreme court that were either badly decided, or just plain wrong.

should the dred scott decision been allowed to stand because of blind allegiance to stare decisis?

On the other hand, stare decisis is trotted out ONLY when it is politically expedient. There was a case decided by the supreme court during world war II that held that 'enemy combatants' did not have the rights afforded to citizens by the Constitution. I don't remember the name of the case,(maybe some lawyer on the board can help me out),but it involved an americancitizen and two nazi spies who had been caught in, I believe, Miami. It was on the stregnth of this precedent that the Bush administration relied in setting up Gitmo; when lawyers for those incarcerated there got the the Supreme court, they ignored that precedent and established new rules.

My point on this is that society evolves, and information comes forward that causes even justices to re-examine precedents. Therefore, stare decisis is more properly utilized by the government that relies on prior Supreme court precedent, not by the justices themselves.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

DG, Houston, TX — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:20:28 GMT

None of this matters. We all know Sotomayor is a liberal and will proceed as such. What's important is that none of the conservative justices check out for the next three years so that Obama doesn't get to put another wack job on the bench.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Hiding behind Roe — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:20:30 GMT

No matter whether Roe is "settled law" or "precedent"--it's still immoral and wrong. Hide all you want behind this shameful law--you'll still have to give account to God whose law is unchanging. He despises the shedding of innocent blood and abortion is the worst modern example of that. Abortion also is damaging the poor women who get lied to and duped into having these abortions. I pray for those women who live with regret. Intuitively they know they've lost a baby.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Feisty Redhead, Roswell, IL — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:25 GMT

She is going to have a rough time. Obama rushed this like everything else. Obama might be in trouble in 2012.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

chris, alabama — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:25:23 GMT

I don't know where your infomation came from but in from quotes from the AP she did not say it was settled law. She just alluded to the fact that it was precedent that extended to settled law which is two completely different things. By the way it is a shame if she did say in fact that it was settled law because she would then be pretty much recusing herself from all future abortion legality issues in the future. Also, it is sad to say the Court settled the law when it is not under their jurisdiction to do so. It is and should be a state issue but that is just the most glaring example of the break down of our federalist system.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

justwaitandsee — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:33:26 GMT

I have a question, why when Democrats question the Supreme Court Nominee the MSNBC Panel breaks in for a discussion but when republicans questions her they give Republicans full coverage. Some how that doesn't seem fair to me.

It's sad that I have to now switch to CNN for more balance coverage

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

dan Austin, tx — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:38:32 GMT

So we can agree they all agree. Woo hoo!!! I call that a win for everyone in the middle on political issues.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Willing to Work — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:59:02 GMT

Are you both under the impression that someone is going to come knock on your door and say "Hello, we're from the government, here is your job?"?

Has either of you contacted the legislature in your own state to inquire about the jobs being created under the stimulus?

Has either of you been applying for jobs either in the paper or online?

Has either of you contacted an employment agency, or even a temp agency?

Or do both of you just spend all your time online whining on a news site?
I'm guessing the latter (Sent Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:27 AM)

--------------------------------
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
You guessed wrong.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Clara Kansas City, MO — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:20:58 GMT

Settled law? Are Affirmitive Action laws "settled law" too? How about laws that says gays can't marry? Many states have that law. Is it "settled law"? What a dodge from the fraud.
Malcom R., NY NY (Sent Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:25 AM)
I believe settled law is that the US Supreme Court has already ruled on it. The rest of your points aren’t settled, as USSC hasn’t ruled on them. There appears to be an opinion that once the USSC has ruled, it is considered ‘settled’. Those wishing to overturn RvW are looking for a nuance or technicality with which to bring it up and have it overturned. It is pretty rare:
This article and q&a was interesting: http://ask.metafilter.com/22418/What-does-it-mean-to-overturn-a-Supreme-Court-decision

I personally don't think ANY law is settled. Nations evolve, people evolve, ideas evolve. It is good to revisit issues periodically to attest to the prudency of decisions and the impact on modern day society.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Jody, Iowa — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Empathy. The republicans seem to hate the very thought of empathy probably because they have none. If you have no empathy, you cannot comprehend the concept. I like Ruth Bader Ginsberg's example of explaining to the men on the Court what it would be like to be a 14 year old girl, and be strip searched--that's empathy. Without it we are a nation of laws but no personal conscience.
Settled law is what John Roberts and Alito both answered. If they are smart, no SCOTUS nominee commits specifically to possible changes in settled law. It's hypothetical because no one knows what specifics in a particular case might come up years from now. Our constitution has to evolve with the times and so will "settled" law.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Ed, FW, TX — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:27:28 GMT

Much to do about nothing, just more posturing from both sides.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Nobamadrama — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:49:08 GMT

How fickle we are. We expect her NOT to be biased because of gender and race but we expect she MUST be biased because of her religion.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

Fletcher Mussels, Durham, NC — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:38:03 GMT

Re a previous topic: For all of you who ridiculed the color coded alert system. Please realize it was people like you that caused a need for such a thing. People who say stupid things like "there never was a threat" etc...are the very first people to throw a fit when something DOES happen. They scream "why didn't they at least give us some sort of warning"...

The Bush admin was forced to come up with this system, however silly, to be able to say that they did try, and were trying. Of course, when the liberals are doing everything possible to make it easier for terrorists to attack us again, it was a tough task from the start to be able to warn us all, but hey, it was something at least.

They knew that your kind would ridicule the system. But that was better than going public and saying "hey, we have been wiretapping so and so and we believe he and his buddies might be up to something". Not only would that let the terrorists know that we are wiretapping them, but then you very same people would cry and scream that the poor terrorists's rights were being violated.

More on Sotomayor and 'settled law'

eagle1776 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:59:54 GMT

Just like interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Roe V. Wade is settled law.

So far, so good.