Sotomayor is legitimately stupid and unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. She's an intellectual lightweight similar to, but not as bad as, Kamala Harris.
At oral argument, Sotomayor confused the difference between "de jure" [mandated by law] and "de facto" [existing in fact irrespective of the law] segregation.
She said "we certainly have de jure segregation. Races are treated very differently in our society in terms of their access to opportunity."
So she's wrong in two ways there. First, she means discrimination, not segregation. Second, she described de facto discrimination - which does exist and is called affirmative action - not de jure, as it isn't imposed by law. Though we all know she doesn't see affirmative action as discrimination, so she must have meant this nebulous and fictional "systemic racism" the libs always claim exists without ever being able to prove with evidence apart from "well black people do worse so that must be because of racism", when the true cause is inferior black choices and priorities.
Alito then asked "Are you aware of de jure segregation today?" knowing the lawyer would answer "I am not" because it's obvious to everyone except Sotomayor.
Rather than realize her error and take the L, Sotomayor immediately responded by doubling down: she claimed that "large swaths" of the US has "residential segregation" [nope], and that "large numbers" of schools or school districts only have one race [again, no and that would be illegal, with a handful of exceptions for black-only schools]. She then claimed "De jure to me means places are segregated. The causes may be different, but places are segregated in our country."
This is the classic "I'm not wrong, I just define the words in my own way" tactic redditors often use to transform any argument into an "unwinnable" semantic argument. In other words, it's a retard tactic. De jure literally means imposed by law. She argued [wrongly] de facto, and then called it de jure.
I know, I've heard her opinions before, it is amazing how she got where she is.
I guess this is the fail of the communist ideology, you push people in to positions do to ideology and not merit - race and gender is just a smokescreen to protect against criticism. That is one of the reasons why communist failed, you had very dumb people in positions where they had to resolve things. Just like we are seeing today, the communist approach to fix things was to not allow anyone to critique their bad decisions.
This works great to assume power but horrible for running a successful society.
No, it's not. She got there the same way all these sorts of people get where they are. The left does its politicking to boost them to positions of power, and (this is the important part) the media never shines a spotlight on the bullshit going on, and (in a lot of cases) actually covers for them. Look back at the last couple of Supreme Court Justice confirmations, and think about how those played out in the media. Nominees from the right face weeks of negative coverage, in which the left is allowed to grandstand, and basically viscously lie as much as they want. Nominees from the left get glowing reviews, and are allowed to give non-answer after non-answer to any questions senators on the right submit, without so much as a peep from the media.
People really need to start getting this. The media - the control of information, and the narrative - is the #1 fucking problem. Control of the narrative means control of the populace. When one side can pretty much hide (with few exceptions) whatever they want, and make people angry at their opponents whenever they want, our system of government totally breaks down. Do you think people from the left, or people in the middle are ever going to see anything regarding what this post is about? Do you really think any of those people are ever going to hear about how fucking pitiful it is that she put her ignorance of those basic legal terms on display, and how poorly that reflects on the process that allowed her to rise to the highest level of the judiciary?
This is the system in which we exist, and it's the exact system that allows someone like Sotomayor to rise to power, and stay there. For anyone not already firmly on the right, the left gets to decide exactly what people see/hear about Sotomayor. They get to craft exactly what sort of opinion people have about her.
You'll never see anyone outside of Fox run a bad segment about her. You'll never see any newspaper write a bad story about her. Go to Google right now. Just type in Sotomayor, and check the (curated) results you get about her. Look at the overall results, and then click the "news" tab.
That last one is the scariest to me. Google is a monster. Controlling Google, and getting to curate the results that nearly 100% of the populace uses to inform themselves on any given subject, is an unheard of level of control.
People more aligned with the right side, and people who are just unhappy with the current state of the world, really need to start understanding what the real issue is here. Politicians are always going to be slimy, and do things (ethical, and unethical) that align with their side's interests. That is to be expected. The system can survive that. What it can't survive is one side having carte blanche to do whatever it wants, because they control the populace's access to information.
I want you to know that I'm stealing this and adding it to my daily lexicon.
Isn't this bitch a jewess?
LOLOLLOLLLLOLLOL
I know some professors who love Sotomayor due to her politics but basically admit she's a complete fucking idiot.
Ketanji seems like a loudmouthed idiot too. The three most chatty justices are Ketanji, then Sotomayor, then Kagan. Ketanji speaks more than Sotomayor and Kagan combined.
Elena Kagan is a smart cookie and the core of the left wing bloc. I disagree with her almost always, but I actually find her likeable, funny, and intellectually honest in her positions.
Affirmative action is actually helping conservatives here. 2/3 of the left bloc, and the two clear affirmative action hires, are just not up to par with the intellectual requirements of the court.
It's not a question of looking stupid while doing it, it's that if they were smarter, they could make more compelling arguments, maybe even peel off some of the weaker-willed conservatives (see Roberts, Kavanaugh, etc).
As it is, they are hardcore leftists and they don't make compelling legal arguments. Kagan is the one to watch out for.
"the females are chatty fucking retards"
Wow, you don't say?
https://twitter.com/AdamSFeldman/status/1580303052430450688
Hilarious. The three left-wing women are the chattiest. Then Alito. Then Barrett. Finally, Thomas.
How exactly does that help us at all? Those 2 justices' votes on all the cases that are passing through our Supreme Court still count exactly the same as any of the more intellectual justices.
This doesn't help us at all. The left - as always, in conjunction with the media covering for them - has managed to ram through two hyper partisan, hyper political, hyper activist "dumbasses" (your words). For the next - probably 20 for one, and 30 for the other - years, we are going to be saddled with a guaranteed two votes always being totally inconsistent with the actual Constitution, and instead being 100% based on radical leftist activism.
What I said in a second post. There are only a few "reliable" conservative justices. Thomas is rock solid in his jurisprudence. Alito is solid. Gorusch has some idiosyncracies, but he's pretty solid. Scalia was just about as perfect a justice as I could ask for.
Roberts? Kavanaugh? Barrett? Well..
Kenndy and O'Connor used to be known as a swing justices, who could, and often were, swayed by counter arguments.
A really solid, intellectual, and persuasive leftwing justice could easily make a habit of picking off Roberts, convincing Kavanaugh to go along with something, etc. We've seen this happen. Kagan DOES try this with Roberts.
Kagan's probably is that she's got to represent the intellectual left, while tempering two justices who are not intellectual and who are not interested in meeting with the other side of the bench.
Sotomayor and Ketanji are shitty justices. They're also not going to convince anyone who is balancing on the edge of an issue. This is one case where, imho, it's better to have firebrand idiots.
You know, there is some merit to this. Thanks for the re-explanation.
On the other hand, I fear that it's not that the three "conservative" justices you mention often need "picking off", but that they often arrive at their activist/non-originalist opinions on their own.
Isn't it amazing how it never seems like anyone the left manages to get seated ends up having more originalist opinions, but that we are often in the situation that the opposite happens?
It's hard to make any reading of Bostock without concluding he's a raging moron who wears a normal person skinsuit most days of the week.
Unfortunately, the clerks who write opinions (the thing that actually matters) for the affirmative action justices are not intellectual lightweights.
No, this doesn't help conservatives. The left WANTS retarded puppets that follow orders. If you are a principled person, you can be swayed by argument. If you are a spineless puppet, you are also a flawless instrument.
Tfw I'm smart enough to be on the Supreme Court
No kidding, I would take literally anyone in this community to be a SCOTUS judge over anyone who learned enough law to squirm their way out of having to rule for freedom.
all you need now is to be a hispanic or black woman and get lots of Democrat party political connections and you're in.
I'm still rooting for the 'beetus.
A lot of people have rightfully complained about the new black lady, but Sotomayor really is the dumbest person I've seen on the court. She gives Kamala Harris a run for her money in the IQ little leagues. I think Kagan is overrated too but nowhere near as bad as them.
Sotomayor straight up lied about the number of children hospitalized due to covid during the vax mandate hearing. She should be stripped of her title and removed from SC several times over.
One of the symptoms of Type 1 Diabetes is diminished mental capacity along with eating disorders.
Yep, check, aaaaand, check.
There is no actual law for affirmative action, that’s the difference between dejure and defacto. A practice that is legally allowed/or currently unchallenged is defacto, a practice that is explicitly allowed under law is dejure.
Same as there is no law for DACA, government funding for something still doesn’t constitute “law”.
There's also the farm loans only given to black farmers, but I really doubt anti-white government racism is what she meant.
These people believe that racism is a cause, so any time there is disparity it means government didn't prevent racism from causing the disparity, and they think government didn't prevent it on purpose because of white people. So in her warped head she really means the law and this is where dekachin is dumb to try to fit her words into actual reality; you have to fit her words into her reality to understand in what way she's wrong.
In actual reality racism is the effect. People see that neighborhoods get worse when blacks move in, the 5x violence, and so on and that makes them segregate and avoid blacks. If Thanos snapped his fingers and only peaceful, law abiding blacks were left then racism would fade out immediately and be gone in just years because even hard core racists would go into black Wendy's and see it's actually clean, with pleasant staff, and the food is prepared well and every time that would knock it down a notch.
This. I don't believe that most cops join the police hating blacks, but after years of answering calls disproportionately involving blacks, they're bound to form an opinion. That's the so-called "institutional racism"- a shift in behavior based on the reality they've encountered.
Racism: "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities"
Blacks would literally stop being black, their hair would uncurl, and their facial features would become human-like?
That's one of the simplest distinctions in legal terms. I'm truly surprised she doesn't understand that
On a more serious note I would argue that affirmative action is de jure discrimination because it is empowered and enforced by state and federal law and judiciary rulings.
I personally prefer my segregation de facto