The Party grooms another Presidential puppet.
Good evening to you Ms. Fae. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and you will also enjoy a prosperous New Year.
I am troubled to read your unwarranted attack on Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. The OP statement takes a swipe at the qualifications of two highly experienced legal scholars. It also represents another uninformed, biased statement, this time smearing two respected public servants. Permit me to provide a few facts to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.
After four years at Princeton University, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was graduated summa cum laude with the school’s highest academic honor. Three years later, she earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School where she also served as an editor for the Yale Law Journal. After five years as an assistant District Attorney in New York City, she served eight years as an associate, and later a partner, for the firm Pavia & Harcourt. Republican President H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. District Court where she served for six years. Hold on Fae. We are not done yet. She sat eleven years on the U.S. Court of Appeals before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. {1} Shall we do the arithmetic, Fae? I come up with 37 years studying and practicing law.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan earned a Bachelor of Arts also from Princeton in 1981, a Master of Philosophy in Law from Oxford, and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. She clerked for Judge Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She taught as a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and at Harvard Law School. After serving as Associate Counsel to the President and as Deputy Assistant to the President during the Clinton Administration, she became Dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. {2} Her experience in the field of law spans 33 years, Fae.
I would welcome the opportunity to read your reasons for thinking they are unqualified. That is, if you have any. I am sure you know of other candidates more agreeable with your political philosophy but I doubt you know many that are more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than are these two jurists.
{1} http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
{2} IbidAh, Fae, I already know that, but do you call them based on facts or prejudice?
Dear Ms. Fae,
Without a shred of evidence, lacking even one supporting fact, you question their qualifications and now their ethics.
Thinking must become effortless and unchallenging for those who can reach calumnious conclusions without having to search for the truth.Hi Ms. Fae.
Please do not assume any of my posts are personal.
I am only responding to statements found in your posts. If you have evidence that these justices are unqualified or unethical then I would love to see it. However, in the absence of evidence, the only decision I have made so far is that your posts contain calumnious statements without a shred of evidence and lacking even one supporting fact.
The OP statement claimed the last two appointed Supreme Court justices were unqualified. “She is hideously unqualified…Just like the last two Supreme Court justices.”
After I provided facts that they had extraordinary qualifications, your reply said that their future decisions would likely be unethical. “At the end of the day they will go with their ideology above what the Constitution says” is the way you put it.
These quotes are taken from the statements posted. Most contributors to this forum, based upon my experience, expect others to challenged outrageous and unsupported claims. For this reason, I try to simply offer facts without any concern for how others interpret them. No one is required to agree with me. Everyone is free to ignore the truth or correct my facts if I am wrong.
Again, I am sorry if there is a misunderstanding. Be well, Fae, and be sure to follow your bliss in the New Year.
LOL I didn't see this 'un coming again either------ATexanagain, is that really you?? WELCOME back!!
Related Discussions
- 23
Will who wins the 2016 presidential election really make a meaningful difference
Will who wins the 2016 presidential election really make a meaningful difference to most Americans?
- 11
It's Against The Law To Protest Outside Supreme Court Justices Homes
It's Against The Law To Protest Outside Supreme Court Justices Homes. The Biden administration is once again ignoring a problem and ignoring the laws that protect our Supreme Court Justices.This is nothing new, but it certainly shows the Biden administration is politicking with little care for the...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 767
Biden hasn't won and will not!
Have you noticed that Trump supporters are not rioting? Why is that? From a friend: Copied and pasted - info from some of the lawyers from my group: Ok in a nutshell. This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country...
- 42
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court’s biggest decisions of the term are coming. I thought it'll be good to have one thread, kind of a tracker of the upcoming decisions.The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.
- 22
Ending Affirmative Action in College Admissions. It's about time.
Affirmative action is nothing but reverse racism. If affirmative action is used in college admission, it should also be used in sports. Forget a players ability, being on the team should be determined like college admissions, based on your race. It is time to get diversity in...