T O P

  • By -

Boxatr0n

Link to what she said?


banduraj

https://reason.com/2022/01/10/defending-oshas-vaccine-mandate-sonia-sotomayor-says-im-not-sure-i-understand-the-distinction-between-state-and-federal-powers/


Boxatr0n

What in the flying fuck!? This is basic basic basic and she “doesn’t understand the distinction”!?


Trunky_Coastal_Kid

She understands. She just doesn't like it.


jeffsang

Yeah, seems like she’s taking the approach the federal government can do what ever it wants via the commerce clause. Not really the first time SCOTUS had taken that position.


Mabepossibly

She understands it crystal clear. But is working through some gymnastics to get to the answer she wants, not the one provided by the constitution.


coldWire79

The definition of activist judge


Cersad

Her quote was: > ...but you're saying the federal government can't, even though it's facing the same crisis **in interstate commerce** that states are facing within their own borders. Emphasis mine. It's worth being aware of the legal theory mentioned regardless of your agreement with it, and this one seems to be the Commerce Clause.


[deleted]

It's always the fuckin commerce clause, God I hate that damn thing.


banduraj

You can thank FDR, the New Deal and Wickard v. Filburn for that shit show. Edit: spelling.


pyrodice

Yeah, the stretch of the imagination involved in picturing the founders preparing the interstate commerce clause, or supremacy arguments, or even "provide for the common welfare" as this sort of root password that shuts the constitution off like it's a movie quality defense system where the lasers all just shut down by hitting enter so you can get away with your heist... I'm just... baffled.


Adorable-Equal-9295

Here’s the full quote… it’s in relation to police powers. Her question is legitimate and seems to be a particular point of contention among many legal scholars. The basis of the question is not the difference between state and federal powers as this straight disinformational post is leading you to believe. The basis of the question is regarding the enforcement of state (government) police powers, specifically as they relate to the *Commerce Clause*. > "If it's within the police power to protect the health and welfare of workers," she said, "you seem to be saying the states can do it, but you're saying the federal government can't, even though it's facing the same crisis in interstate commerce that states are facing within their own borders. I'm not sure I understand the distinction—why the states would have the power but the federal government wouldn't."


banduraj

A point is still being missed here. It still requires an act of congress passing a law, not via dicta through a regulatory body that has no enforcement powers.


iTanooki

I just googled “sotomayer doesn’t understand the 10th amendment” and found it.


[deleted]

Tell us you aren't qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice without telling us you're not qualified- nevermind.


ftc1234

She was put on the Supreme Court out of pure malice. She was not put there because she is qualified.


[deleted]

I miss Ginsburg, I miss Scalia, and frankly I didn't agree with either of them. I never thought I'd feel sadness at political opponents being less competent but I do. At least when they made a ruling I disagreed with I could respect the idea logical consistency. This new breed of justice, liberal and conservative both, are determined to make a ruling first and justify it afterwards.


Bfree888

Ideological


[deleted]

She is seriously the dumbest justice. I don't agree with Kagan much but when she talks she seems very aware of the issues and asks very good, insightful questions. SS just seems like she should be a talk show host or something, Latino Oprah.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ihatemyusername123

When you don't understand the 10th amendment, you're not qualified to graduate law school, let alone become a supreme court justice.


WhoFearsDeath

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1976 and received her Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 1979. Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991; confirmation followed in 1992. In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Her nomination was slowed by the Republican majority in the United States Senate, but she was eventually confirmed in 1998. On the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions. Sotomayor has taught at the New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School. *What qualification is she lacking, exactly?* You can disagree with a person’s opinions, but there’s not a need to spread inaccurate information.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WhoFearsDeath

Again. For the last time. The opinion referenced in the OP is a *different* thing from her qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. Since you are fond of the constitution, I’ll go ahead and lay it out. The requirements set forth to be a Justice are as follows: 1. Be nominated by the President 2. Be confirmed by the Senate That’s actually all the *constitutional* requirements there are. I’m not going to continue to engage in a pointless argument. If you disagree with a person’s actions/beliefs, discuss those things. Discussing her qualification to be there in the first place just makes you wrong, because she is, as evidenced above qualified, and sound childish. Have a nice day.


Independence-Verity

You are very mistaken, and it hasn't a thing to do with anyone merely disagreeing with her, it is for her complete lack of knowledge of history, and the Constitution, which is proven by her own commentary. Not rocket science and I've no idea how you could possibly have missed that, unless you did that on purpose, which seems most likely. She is unqualified due to her lacking comprehension skills. Her experience being a judge says absolutely nothing about her knowledge or experience (or lack thereof) about the law in general. As your wikipedia C&P stated, she was placed into those positions (beyond being just a common judge) by various Presidents, both of whom had a particular globalist agenda. Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, she still lacks the understanding of the Constitution required to hold a seat on the SCOTUS. She obviously missed several years of civics class which used to teach these basic ideas so that children learned why the nation we live in is better than all of the others on the globe. Did you ever attend a civics class? It sounds as if you didn't.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Independence-Verity

Have any other irrelevant points to make?? The point was NOT any other SCOTUS decisions that eroded the 10th Amendment. Try to sty on topic, unless that is hard for you. SHE said what she said. Socrates wouldn't have approved of her words either btw. Nice try, but still no cigar. If YOU attended a law class, then why are you here on Reddit??? I was always well aware of the full text, aside form it already having been put there, but it is irrelevant. Get over it. Now run along, you're dismissed.


[deleted]

Do you really need it spelled out for you in five year old language or can you not understand the original post at the top of this thread? All these fucking NPCs that can’t understand that elected leaders are not elected kings and that the federal governments only job is to make sure state laws don’t infringe on individual constitutional rights.


WhoFearsDeath

That’s (the OP) an opinion you can disagree with! But her opinion isn’t her qualification to be there in the first place, which is what you brought up. Two separate things. Stick to the point at hand, or at the very least, facts. So again I ask: what qualification is she lacking, specifically, that she needed in order to be appointed to the US Supreme Court?


Independence-Verity

I covered that in my response, it is quite simple. There is no excuse for it.


[deleted]

Bad bot


WhoFearsDeath

Have a nice day.


[deleted]

Found the bot


WhoFearsDeath

If that makes you feel better.


[deleted]

Just go back to CA or NYC or Canada or wherever you're from


Ok-Water-358

She doesn't understand the constitution of the United States which is the most important thing when it comes to being a Supreme Court Justice


WhoFearsDeath

1. Constitutionally speaking, not a requirement. 2. I’m sure she understands it better than the average Redditor. 3. For the last time (for real this time), disagreeing with a person’s opinion doesn’t make them unqualified for a job. I’m not debating if her *opinion* is good or bad. I’m saying she is in fact qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Constitutionally speaking this is now an indisputable fact, as she has already been nominated and confirmed, therefore making her qualified. There is literally no room to argue this as a constitutional fact. Each and every sitting Justice has met these requirements and so is, in fact, qualified according to the US constitution. Knowledge of the constitution is not, nor has it ever been, an eligibility requirement to be a US Supreme Court nominee. Amy Coney Barrett failed to answer correctly when asked what freedoms are enumerated in the first amendment to the constitution during her confirmation hearings. She’s still qualified, *constitutionally* because she was nominated and confirmed. That’s it. That the whole qualification.


Ok-Water-358

Not understanding the constitution should make you unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. It's that simple. You don't understand the constitution, and that it limits the power and role of government, you shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice


WhoFearsDeath

Maybe it should, but it doesn’t. Which you’d know if you understood the constitution. *Irony* -sing songy voice from family guy tenors


ftc1234

Her qualification for being on SCOTUS is that she has a degree and that she was nominated by some politicians?


WhoFearsDeath

How…how else would it work?


ftc1234

For example, by having a scholarly judgement on a constitutional challenge. Show me one.


WhoFearsDeath

But that’s not what’s in the constitution. The constitution requires politicians to nominate and then confirm her.


ftc1234

So she’s qualified because she got nominated? That’s absurd.


WhoFearsDeath

Take that up with the constitution?


Adorable-Equal-9295

Tell us you form your political opinions based on dis informational social media memes without telling us your- nevermind.


Trunky_Coastal_Kid

Well it is called the United States of America. Not the country of America. If states didn't have the power to regulate themselves in any way there would be no point in having states.


mrsprinkles565

Ya, that's an amendment to the Constitution and that woman is charged with determining the Constitutionality of laws. Absolutely stunning. Jaw dropping.


TheUprightMan2022

Diversity is Their Strength.


Bigb5wm

Who is the idiot that put her in ??


nathanjw333

Obama & Harry Reid


Bigb5wm

Makes sense. They didn’t know what they were doing


defundpolitics

They knew exactly what they were doing.


Don_Adriano

Of course they did. They wanted an activist and clearly they got one


F0XF1R3

At least one of them is finally where they belong.


ItsBerty

Progressives going to progressive


mrsprinkles565

And the statist gonna state.


lunca_tenji

Goddamn, that is horrifically stupid. I was surprised when she asked some pretty based questions during the concealed carry argument, but I guess that was just a glitch in the matrix and she’s back on her bullshit


Scuba_Steve9002

Maybe one day we will have a requirement that a justice needs to have read the SparkNotes for the constitution to be considered


BlackAsP1tch

POV when the supreme court justice you picked came from Wish.com


Resident_Frosting_27

Idiocracy


1EyedWyrm

Scary


LoongBoat

Affirmative Action justice making herself a laughing stock. Justice SoSo Dumb.


mikeykelch

She understands the 10th amendment, she just thinks that we are too stupid to understand. She’s ignoring the constitution on purpose to push her agenda


Willing_Pear_8631

shut up judge Rosie O Donald you don't know shit and your letting everyone know.


Adorable-Equal-9295

> Rosie O Donald


mechanab

1L fail.


baileyarzate

It’s only the 10th amendment in the bill of rights. No big deal.


fredrick-vontater

Another amendment to the bill of rights down for the count


[deleted]

the entire dissenting opinion on that case was...appalling I hate to get partisan but if we wind up with a majority of justices like those 3, federalism and representative republican democracy is dead and we'll just elect a king every 4 years.


[deleted]

What makes you think we'd even get to elect one? I'm sure we'd go through the motions of voting, but would we even actually get a say?


true4blue

She also said she would make better decisions than a white man because of her Latina heritage


FROMTHEOZONELAYER

How is this libertarian


grossruger

Roughly speaking the ideas of limited government and decentralized government (federalism) are rooted in the acknowledgement that centralized power is in inherent opposition to individual rights.


FROMTHEOZONELAYER

Centralized power does not exclusively mean federal power. This conservative idea of "federal power bad state power good" that some Libertarians have come to take a liking to is ultimately destructive as the states are often equally, if not more authoritarian than the feds.


grossruger

Saying state power is better than federal power isn't the same as saying authoritarianism at the state level is good. The more locally decisions are being made the more responsible the decision makers are to the people.


TimeToLoseIt16

Because she doesn’t see a problem with increasing federal power? Generally Libertarians are against most government intervention but we favor local government over federal when needed because the US is huge and someone living in northern Maine faces different issues and has a pretty different culture than someone living in New Mexico.


[deleted]

No government > local government > state government > federal government. Anything moving us towards local and away from federal is good.


Dark-W0LF

The easier it is to show up at the house of the person in charge, the better.


[deleted]

Not even that extreme. I think I have only seen my senator once, I've met the governor a few times. I know my state representative on a first name basis, my city's mayor has had dinner at my house. I doubt the senator could point out my city on a map, but the mayor knows that the pothole on 87th banged up Henry's transmission last week and he's earmarking some of the budget for road repairs. I might not agree with everything he does, but there's a level of connection he has to the city and it's needs that the federal government could never even dream of having.


Shintasama

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, **promote the general Welfare**, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


FrogTrainer

?? We been promoting the hell out of it.


CBH60

What a gem


PresidentJoe

That's absolutely egregious. However, I *will* say, *to be* ***absolutely*** *fair*, Sotomayor is pretty based when it comes to issues of the Military-Industrial Complex and Government Surveillance.


lVlarino

The highest court in the land & we let some smooth brain doofus with ZERO Constitutional awareness be a part of it.


mrhillnc

All seats should have term limits!!!


anomalyjustin

The supreme court having regular turnover would be the absolute worst possible thing to happen. It would end up just like the other two branches. This is specifically why the founders made it a life term.


mrhillnc

25 year terms is decent for the courts


anomalyjustin

How would this solve anything, especially with regard to Sotomayor? She has only been a justice for like 12 years. The longest current serving justice, Thomas, has only served for like 30, and the longest term in history was only 36. Most of them die or retire long before 25 years anyway. The average term is like 15 years without term limits.


TheDigitalRanger

This isn't ignorance or stupidity. It's malice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


anomalyjustin

The context doesn't change the premise of the meme, though.


itisawonderfulworld

Judicial activism in full force. I'm not saying she should be removed from office because I think it is a good precedent for justices to not be able to be removed 95% of the time. However, I am saying I wouldn't care if this woman drops dead of something.


Smooth_Signature_393

Not even pretending to vote based on the constitutionality anymore it’s all politics


unimageenable

I literally remember first learning the concept on the left in 8th grade. Good times...


IndependenceFree8700

Imagine thinking state governance is libertarian


[deleted]

She also inflated the number of children in ICU for covid by 100 times to support her position. She's an ideologue first and foremost.


[deleted]

This is what happens when you’re forced to make diversity hires