Sotomayor


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sotomayor should recuse herself from deciding vaccine mandates for her blatant and obvious bias regarding children at risk for COVID hospitalism.   She was so far off when she claimed that currently there are over 100,000 children in hospitals when there are barely just over 3,000.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Sotomayor should recuse herself from deciding vaccine mandates for her blatant and obvious bias regarding children at risk for COVID hospitalism.   She was so far off when she claimed that currently there are over 100,000 children in hospitals when there are barely just over 3,000.

 

The Traveler

Agreed.  She's a judicial activist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently she also claimed "Omicron is as deadly as Delta".  I sure hope she's reading the news being written about these pretty serious incorrect beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Apparently she also claimed "Omicron is as deadly as Delta".  I sure hope she's reading the news being written about these pretty serious incorrect beliefs.

I’m not saying she’s right, I disagree with her on plenty, including this. 

I think she’s the new version of RBG. 
 

Off topic- it always amazed me that Scalia and Ginsburg were very close personal friends. Imagine Scalia hearing things the right would say about RBG. He’d probably be repulsed by it. Same with Ginsburg and her side. I think all political junkies could learn a ton from that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Imagine Scalia hearing things the right would say about RBG. He’d probably be repulsed by it. Same with Ginsburg and her side. I think all political junkies could learn a ton from that. 

When RBG died, everyone including me and mine, were all pausing to remember her greatness, whether we agreed with her or not.   When Rush Limbaugh died, I had a facebook thread where me and mine were sharing some shock and grief.  My arguing buddy from the left showed up in the feed to smack talk Rush and post a bunch of critical links.   Stark contrast to how Trump reacted to RBG's death.   That arguing buddy just became more and more negative, insulting, and unhinged - I finally had to block him.  :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

When RBG died, everyone including me and mine, were all pausing to remember her greatness, whether we agreed with her or not.   When Rush Limbaugh died, I had a facebook thread where me and mine were sharing some shock and grief.  My arguing buddy from the left showed up in the feed to smack talk Rush and post a bunch of critical links.   Stark contrast to how Trump reacted to RBG's death.   That arguing buddy just became more and more negative, insulting, and unhinged - I finally had to block him.  :( 

I’m very sorry that you had that happen to you. As someone who has good friends who vehemently disagree with him on politics, I imagine that it was very hard on you to block him. It would be for me. 
 

That said, and I’m sorry to say this, but when RBG died some on the right said the same things that the left did when Rush died. If you don’t believe me, just go back on Facebook and look. It’s the same with AOC getting Covid. 
 

Now, I do generally agree with you that the right is far more decent and mannerly than the left ever will be. With one big exception. The Trumpers and hardcore neverTrumpers are easily the nastiest and rudest people I have ever met. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note, I think it’s important to try and maintain friendships with people who disagree with you on politics and religion. It’s a good reminder that someone can have vastly different views and still be a good person. The saddest, most boring people I know live in echo chambers. 
 

sorry again about the guy you had to block @NeuroTypical. It’s just miserable 😞

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is any one else confused over the response to government mandates issued by the Supreme Court???  First I would point out that the decisions were not slam dunks of agreement of constitutional law.  Also the decisions were directly aligned with government funding.  In essence we are told that the government can mandate anything when federal funding in involved.  Perhaps someone like @Just_A_Guy can explain this funding trumps citizen rights and freedom.  We do not have a health care system entirely funded by the Government and yet the government is able to mandate behavior for private individuals that do not receive government funding just because the government has a potation of health care funding.

Is anyone else concerned?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Is any one else confused over the response to government mandates issued by the Supreme Court???  First I would point out that the decisions were not slam dunks of agreement of constitutional law.  Also the decisions were directly aligned with government funding.  In essence we are told that the government can mandate anything when federal funding in involved.  Perhaps someone like @Just_A_Guy can explain this funding trumps citizen rights and freedom.  We do not have a health care system entirely funded by the Government and yet the government is able to mandate behavior for private individuals that do not receive government funding just because the government has a potation of health care funding.

Is anyone else concerned?

 

The Traveler

There's actually a SCOTUS-level legal precedent for vaccine mandates. It's over 100 years old, so it can certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but it's worth noting that this vaccine discourse is far from new in the US.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 6:19 PM, LDSGator said:

I think she’s the new version of RBG.

I am no RBG lover. Ginsberg's opinions were rarely insightful, IMO. (Her writing was top-notch, though.) The best thing she ever did for herself was to keep her ears open and her mouth shut when around Scalia. She often disagreed with Scalia, of course, which is to say she was often wrong. But even in her wrongness, she knew enough to recognize his transcendent intellect, and perhaps more importantly his method of fully understanding and dissecting the arguments of one's opponent before attempting to defeat those arguments. Obvious enough, right? Yet all too rarely seen today.

Ginsberg, for her many faults, was fundamentally inquisitiveopen-mindedsearching, probing, and highly intelligent. Sotomayor is none of those things. Her analyses are sloppy, typically not exceeding the borders of the courthouse walls. She frames arguments from the get-go based not on what the fundamental issues are about, but on how to set things up in order to make it so that her predetermined outcomes are most likely achieved. Her writing is literally laughable; there is a reason she is not the go-to candidate when choosing an author for the majority.

Sotomayor is literally the least intellectually gifted justice we have had on the Supreme Court since...when? I don't know. I am sincerely curious how you see Sonia Sotomayor as "the new version" of Ruth Ginsberg, or what that even means.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Godless said:

There's actually a SCOTUS-level legal precedent for vaccine mandates. It's over 100 years old, so it can certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but it's worth noting that this vaccine discourse is far from new in the US.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

I read this link (which states it is opinion and not legal president) and I am not sure it applies at all.  I am not a legal expert but in my simple citizen trying to understand law; this particular case looks more to support states rights for opting out of federal vaccine mandates.  As I understood the Supreme Court upheld that the states have the right to regulate in favor of any particular state (not federal) public health.  In the case presented it was the State of Massachusetts.   I also found this quote most interesting: 

Quote

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine

Page 197 U. S. 12

in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.

Also this clearly states that the mandate is up the the legislature (not the courts or the executive branch) to create the mandate.  In addition we know that the current vaccine does not prevent COVID or that it is the " BEST" means of protecting public health - especially since the virus has mitigated risk based on health threats that already exist in the public.

Again I am just a citizen asking questions that I believe should be answered before any government agency (especially federal agency) assumes power to act with compulsions against citizens.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 12:48 PM, LDSGator said:

It is my personal opinion that when it comes to government - things are seldom as they seem or are claimed to be.  Sadly this seem to be a recurring theme within the media. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share