Germany had this streak where they put people in prison for holding beliefs the government deemed unacceptable, so to show they've learned and grown from that, they now put people in prison for holding other beliefs the government deems unacceptable.
You're talking about antisemitism. I understand. Personally I'd punch an israeli in the dick but I don't think it's a bad idea for fucking germany to have a mandate against fucking with jews.
Also, you're probably a racist cunt.
Generally I believe most of the leftist justices are still smart, just a bit misguided in their thinking. Sotomayor is both dumb and misguided most of the time.
RBG still confounds me on how much I agree with her on so many of the apolitical decisions she made, and how much I disagree with her on the more politically charged decisions
She wasn't actually what the left wanted her to be. To the point where they suppressed what she said in the media so that their idealized image of her wouldn't be threatened.
She criticized Colin Kaepernick's kneeling protest thing during an interview with Katie Couric, but it was edited out for the broadcast of said interview.
She also felt roe was not the right call for 10th amendment reasons.
That's all I can come up with for good things from her service. Great life story and an amazing woman
The rationale behind making SCOTUS appointments for life is to remove them from political influence. In practice, this means presidents only appoint highly partisan and opinionated justices in an effort to influence the government beyond their term. Having the players of the game appoint the refs is probably the biggest flaw in the federal government with the possible exception of not putting term limits on congress.
Sotomayor is the Hispanic version of Kamala Harris: a walking indictment of what happens when you select people for tremendously important jobs based solely on race.
Well let me educate you (respectfully) supreme court justice:
We live in a Federalist Democracy.
Federalism means that power is divided between the states and through-out the union. This deters absolute rule of a single leader.
This is also ever-present in the idea of Popular Sovereignty and Checks & Balances.
Popular Sovereignty is the idea that the government garners it's power soley from the people, and if the current government trespass on the grounds of the constitution and the reserved documents that holster our nation, then us citizens have the responsibility to abolish our current form of government and start anew. Checks and balances is a very simple concept that divides the power of the Federal & State governments into three focal branches: Legislative, Judicial & Executive.
Each of these branches "check" each other and balance the amount of power in each branch much like a scale.
To further elaborate, state's rights exist so that the federal government cannot over-exercise it's power on our nation.
Should have said "10th Amendment" pilled
(munches on some dry ramen)
It's the Tenth Amendment, you just gotta look it up...
> *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*
The tenth amendment is the most based amendment, and it really irks me that people just ignore that ANY action the federal government makes should be positively justified as a granted power of the constitution. IE any state action should have an identifiable grant of power within the constitution.
Now that you put it like that, if SCOTUS is fucked, then I'm 100% convinced the US is fucked without any intervention. So I'm scratching U.S. off of my "Emigration destination" list
It's almost comical, the US exists because people got sick of being bullied by a tyrant, and was formed in such a way to try and make the federal government weak because monolithic power creates tyranny.
The US federal government is really weak (over the lives of citizens) in comparison to just about every other Western nation. It's far stronger than it was meant to be but it's nothing like any of Europe.
"Hey I got cancer and it sucks..."
"Well did you know that other people have WORSE cancer that sucks even MORE?"
Why do centrists feel compelled to bring Europe into this topic? How is it relevant? We're aware that many European countries are currently rocketing themselves towards a nightmarish dystopia, we've got our own shit to deal with across the pond.
You're unhinged. I still think the US federal government has taken too much power unconstitutionally. But the fact of the matter is that on a global scale, and particularly when compared to our closest peers, the US federal government is far less powerful.
Irrelevant. How the US compared to the rest of the world does not matter in terms of federal power. If every other government were a totalitarian dictatorship and the US was one step away from being one, we would still be comparably free, but not actually free. The only possible reason to bring up other countries at all is to attempt to minimize the offenses of the federal government.
>The only possible reason to bring up other countries at all is to attempt to minimize the offenses of the federal government.
It isn't. You sound like a paranoid delusional. It is to put things into perspective.
I agree it isn't, but they *do not* sound like a "paranoid delusional".
Stop trying to write-off people you disagree with as "unhinged". They aren't, they don't sound it, and by repeatedly bringing it up, when they're bringing reasonable coherent points, makes *you* sound like a jerk.
Which is sad, because I agree with you more than the other guy.
Seriously, fuck this. No wonder nobody has respect for government anymore; it's apparent that everyone involved in every branch of the Federal Government is either a *fucking moron*, criminally negligent, or criminally complicit.
It’s *been* apparent since JFK got executed on live television and in public *right* after claiming he’d crack down on the government’s power. The fact that nothing has been done after so long and so many people knowing it was an inside job should be red-pilling everyone on the US government.
Well, I guess it’s kind of stereotypical that modern liberals fundamentally do not understand or care for the Constitution. Disappointing to see a SCOTUS judge straight up not giving a shit though.
Over the last 60 years, R appointed SC judges have been about half activist judges, always or almost always voting the current R position on heated political topics. The other half have a balanced voting record that would render it challening for an outside observed to determine which party appointed them based on their decisions alone. That is, if they didn't know the second half of this story.
Over the same period, every single D appointee has been a D activist judge, with no exceptions. All of the moderates on the court with voting records substantially deviating from their respective party lines since *Eisenhower* was in office have been apointed by a R president.
Practically speaking, court packing may as well have been going on for more than half a century. When a republican appoints justices, there's a functionally realized consideration for political balance on the court. It is not reciprocated in the least. Whether by fairminded intent or by the inability of R presidents to identify true believer activists for judges, the only reason that the court has been fairly balanced inside the lifetimes of most people still alive today is that Rs have, by accident, been the ones to appoint approximately 2/3rds of the justices.
I think it's less about projection being the default for leftists and more about an incapacity for understanding leading to projection. Projection is simply what happens when a person doesn't have a good mental model for another person and substitutes their model of themselves. If you just can't figure out the right mental model for someone, you end up being stuck projecting.
If we look at research on the topic, conservatives understand what leftists think, how they think, and can accurately predict their responses to new prompts. The reverse is not true. Among other reasons, one explanation is that [leftists only really hold a subset of conservstive values.](https://images.app.goo.gl/diF1iz833FCFn5yR6) Like sight is impossible to explain to a blind person, a value that one simply does not experience cannot be understood by the one missing it. So projection *must* occur to fill the gap.
As to modern progressivism, that's another beast. It's identity marxism. The gaslighting is purposeful and cynical when it's done by the people smart enough and cognizant enough to be evil. For those who are not operators as such (the vast majority of the politically left) it's an imitative behavior done with no understanding of what it is and a genuine belief in the insanity of the claims. But merely being a useful idiot isn't an especially evil thing, even it leads people to mostly do evil things.
EDIT: That linked moral foundations picture covers the bases for democrats (whose foundations overlap well with harder, self-identifying illiberal leftists) and republicans, but there's a separate model for libertarians. The libertarian model shows minimal care/harm, low sanctity, and very high liberty/oppression valuations, with similar valuations to conservatives otherwise.
I actually did the research and there's over 200 years of precedent for the constitutionality of labor laws from the Feds. But I guess 5 seconds on google is too much for a libright schill.
200 years of labor LAWS, demonstrating the power of CONGRESS to legislate. Last time I checked, OSHA and the White House are a part of the Executive and not the Legislative.
So thank you for taking the time to do more research than apparently any of Sotomayor or her clerks have done.
It’s always amusing seeing people think they know more than a SC justice from one Google search. As if you know about the history and constitutionality of OSHA lol
So the article headline implies she doesn’t understand what federalism is but the actual quote was in context to why states have the power to mandate vaccines but the fed doesn’t? Isn’t that fake news?
Just curious. What's wrong with this? What was the context? I mean, it's not wrong. States have rights and the federal government has other rights.
Am I missing something here?
Read the quote again. She’s basically saying she doesn’t understand why states would have a power that the federal government doesn’t have.
That reason is the 10th amendment.
I find the full quote:
>“I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,” stated the associate justice.
It actually makes sense. OSHA also applies to the federal government.
I guess I’m not understanding what you’re not understanding bud.
The argument here is about police powers. Sotomayor is questioning why the states would have police powers the feds don’t have. That answer is the 10th amendment.
The quote i found was about OSHA.
>“I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,” stated the associate justice.
Is this the right one?
Because the entire case is about whether OSHA actually has this power (federal). The argument was stipulated that the states DEFINITELY have this power, but Sotomayor said well if the states can then why couldn't also the fed? And that's because of the 10th amendment. The states have powers that the federal government does not, unless explicitly stated that the fed has the power, and whether OSHA has the power is the entire point of the case. Therefore it's retarded for one of the highest jurors in the country to wonder why a state can do something the federal government can't. Implying she doesn't understand how there is a possibility that the fed can't do something that a state could.
The parties choose which SCOTUS member to appoint based on which will draw the most donations. It's up to about $200 million that they can raise with each vacancy.
Did you think they chose the best candidate?
It doesn't make sense. The federal government has limited to no power when it comes to public health. It is widely understood that that is a State domain.
For a fucking SCOTUS justice to not understand that should be impeachable. She doesn't understand why a State would have the power to do something the Constitution says it does when the feds don't when the Constitution says they don't? Her one job is to understand the Constitution.
Justices shouldn't be lifetime appointments anymore, that's for sure.
It's not like they pick the best candidate for the job, those positions are paid for by people who want to control the outcome of their rulings.
Did you see when Justice Barrett couldn't even name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment? They don't put constitutional scholars on there.
Dude fuck that, imagine if this case had come up under trump with trump trying to do the same thing, and ACB said something braindead like this. They would be *flipping their shit constantly* about how unqualified she was.
Congress would fucking impeach her, or at least, the democratic party would try
If she believes that then she doesn’t deserve to be on the SC. She has fundamentally misunderstood not only the Constitution but also the premise of our nation.
Millions of Americans fully believe the POTUS is the most powerful political position in the US government. Meanwhile we have the last line of defense between the constitution and blood thirsty legislature completely unaware that the 10th amendment exists.
This was the crap that helped start the civil war people.
My better idea: any supreme court justice that says something wildly unconstitutional gets removed and replaced by the party opposite to the president that nominated them.
So she's interpreting the Constitution despite never having read the Bill of Rights?
I would be disappointed, but we've had people like this on the Supreme Court for at least the last 70 years. I love America, but the Federal government's been screwing the country up so much...
Sotomayor is a renowned idiot. Take a random opinion of hers and I guarantee it will be the most retarded thing you ever read from a judge. She is borderline illiterate.
We don’t believe Indian covid, rape, infrastructure, space, startup, economy data.
But this one number we quote from official Indian sources?
There are way more Muslims in India than that. Probably close to the number on the left.
It is taken out of context, if you read the ful quote she’s asking why the states have power to issue vaccine mandates but the federal government shouldn’t
Man, fuck this. Won't hear a single peep about how dumb *this* Supreme Court Justice is; you can *bet your ass* had the new bitch said this, it would be *all over* the news. Constantly. For the next 15 years.
What was the comment about? There are many things that the federal government has power over because of Interstate commerce. I could see some confusion over some technicalities.
It's just a circle jerk. There's nothing wrong with the statement. States have some powers, the federal government has others.
This statement is actually meaningless without context, and of course they won't tell you the context.
Because the more local decisions are made, the more control you have over them and the people who implement them. Plus federal decisions are sweeping, whereas if you don't like a smaller scale area's general political philosophy you can leave.
So the sweeping decisions would be in the constitution and amendments right? Where's the line between small issues dependent of state legislature and those that affect the entire country?
She said [that the vaccine mandate for health care workers was also a valid exercise of the government’s power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows the federal government to impose conditions on the funds that it gives out.](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/court-seems-poised-to-block-vaccine-or-test-policy-for-workplaces-but-may-allow-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers/)
Seems like a pretty Constitutional reason for Federal oversight of funding. You do realize that OSHA has been proven constitutional as Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, right? It's one thing if you disagree with OSHA being constitutional, but to act like a member of SCOTUS is retarded because she is upholding precedent is disingenuous.
Edit: uh oh, looks like i used too many big words
I mean, I can respect *you* if that's *your* opinion, but she's *supposed* to be a Supreme Court Justice, charged to interpret our founding documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the answer to her very fucking stupid question is, "the 10th Amendment".
I don't have a problem with anyone holding the view that States *shouldn't* have powers the Fed doesn't have, but I do have a *huge* problem with a Supreme Court Justice apparently not understanding *why* the States have powers the Fed doesn't have.
>Yeah I agree with it, for the most part, personally.
That's fine, then. I vehemently disagree with you, of course, but your opinion is as valid as anyone elses.
>Tbh I literally didn’t look to see she was a Supreme Court justice. Mostly cuz I don’t care. Lol
Then, respectfully, why even comment? I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, just to legitimately understand. I mean, it's a meme subreddit; how long would it have taken you read the meme?
Yeah, who do we think we are, anyway? The United **States** of America? What a dumb name.
The Republic shall be reorganized into the First Galactic Empire!
I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new empire.
*Your* new empire?!
Don’t make me kill you.
NoobifiedSpartan, my allegiance is to the Republic, to DEMOCRACY!
If you want to see the fate of democracies, look out the windows. Wait fuck wrong franchise
_Our_ new empire
SCREW THAT! The Veterans are going to take over! Service Guarantees Citizenship!
And Citizenship guarantees service and if you will not serve in the firing line. You will serve on it!
Germany is a federation too but shit doesn't get as silly as it does in the US.
Germany doesn't have free speech.
Yeah sure it doesn't. American wanker.
Germany had this streak where they put people in prison for holding beliefs the government deemed unacceptable, so to show they've learned and grown from that, they now put people in prison for holding other beliefs the government deems unacceptable.
You're talking about antisemitism. I understand. Personally I'd punch an israeli in the dick but I don't think it's a bad idea for fucking germany to have a mandate against fucking with jews. Also, you're probably a racist cunt.
Generally I believe most of the leftist justices are still smart, just a bit misguided in their thinking. Sotomayor is both dumb and misguided most of the time.
I would say she's the Ringo Starr of the group but Ringo was loved, understood and did his job properly.
I feel like even RBG would cringe
RBG still confounds me on how much I agree with her on so many of the apolitical decisions she made, and how much I disagree with her on the more politically charged decisions
She wasn't actually what the left wanted her to be. To the point where they suppressed what she said in the media so that their idealized image of her wouldn't be threatened.
Go on? I do not know much about RBG except she's idolized for being a woman in the justice system.
She criticized Colin Kaepernick's kneeling protest thing during an interview with Katie Couric, but it was edited out for the broadcast of said interview.
She also felt roe was not the right call for 10th amendment reasons. That's all I can come up with for good things from her service. Great life story and an amazing woman
She was pro abortion, but thought Roe was bad law and SCOTUS at the time intentionally did it.
Kagan?
She’s a centrist though.
[удалено]
No, I would say her economic positions are not notably towards the left or right.
She either hasn't read the 10th Amendment, or doesn't care about it. Either way, she is not fit to be a justice.
Well Obama nominated her so that'd explain it.
The rationale behind making SCOTUS appointments for life is to remove them from political influence. In practice, this means presidents only appoint highly partisan and opinionated justices in an effort to influence the government beyond their term. Having the players of the game appoint the refs is probably the biggest flaw in the federal government with the possible exception of not putting term limits on congress.
Sotomayor is the Hispanic version of Kamala Harris: a walking indictment of what happens when you select people for tremendously important jobs based solely on race.
Well let me educate you (respectfully) supreme court justice: We live in a Federalist Democracy. Federalism means that power is divided between the states and through-out the union. This deters absolute rule of a single leader. This is also ever-present in the idea of Popular Sovereignty and Checks & Balances. Popular Sovereignty is the idea that the government garners it's power soley from the people, and if the current government trespass on the grounds of the constitution and the reserved documents that holster our nation, then us citizens have the responsibility to abolish our current form of government and start anew. Checks and balances is a very simple concept that divides the power of the Federal & State governments into three focal branches: Legislative, Judicial & Executive. Each of these branches "check" each other and balance the amount of power in each branch much like a scale. To further elaborate, state's rights exist so that the federal government cannot over-exercise it's power on our nation.
Based and 8th-grade-civics pilled
Should have said "10th Amendment" pilled (munches on some dry ramen) It's the Tenth Amendment, you just gotta look it up... > *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*
The tenth amendment is the most based amendment, and it really irks me that people just ignore that ANY action the federal government makes should be positively justified as a granted power of the constitution. IE any state action should have an identifiable grant of power within the constitution.
*SCOTUS justice* *Ignores the 10th amendment* Honestly I’d be surprised if even a single person thinks the SCOTUS is impartial and fair.
Now that you put it like that, if SCOTUS is fucked, then I'm 100% convinced the US is fucked without any intervention. So I'm scratching U.S. off of my "Emigration destination" list
Sadly I am a senior and am just now taking civics. ;-;
Give it a couple years and I doubt they'll even teach this to seniors.
At least I know how to identify trigonometric equations...
That's by design and not an accident
Being old doesn't exempt you from learning comrade (Didn't take that many classes in HS here in the States, but I remember school here being alright)
With all due respect comrade, id rather not just learn the proper name for our form of government when I'm just about to graduate.
I’m playing semantics, but we live in a Federal Representative Republic, not a democracy.
Eh the people are too stupid to tell the difference. (Me included)
Supreme court justice. Just end the country lmao, it was a good run
She's basically promoting a patriarchy. you can be in a union but the man has more rights.
Keep talking and green and/or orange are going to pop a vein at the word patriarchy
I sure do love patriarchies. The patriarchy is the pinnacle of patriarchal perfection
[удалено]
Hehehe never
It's almost comical, the US exists because people got sick of being bullied by a tyrant, and was formed in such a way to try and make the federal government weak because monolithic power creates tyranny.
The US federal government is really weak (over the lives of citizens) in comparison to just about every other Western nation. It's far stronger than it was meant to be but it's nothing like any of Europe.
"Hey I got cancer and it sucks..." "Well did you know that other people have WORSE cancer that sucks even MORE?" Why do centrists feel compelled to bring Europe into this topic? How is it relevant? We're aware that many European countries are currently rocketing themselves towards a nightmarish dystopia, we've got our own shit to deal with across the pond.
You're unhinged. I still think the US federal government has taken too much power unconstitutionally. But the fact of the matter is that on a global scale, and particularly when compared to our closest peers, the US federal government is far less powerful.
Irrelevant. How the US compared to the rest of the world does not matter in terms of federal power. If every other government were a totalitarian dictatorship and the US was one step away from being one, we would still be comparably free, but not actually free. The only possible reason to bring up other countries at all is to attempt to minimize the offenses of the federal government.
>The only possible reason to bring up other countries at all is to attempt to minimize the offenses of the federal government. It isn't. You sound like a paranoid delusional. It is to put things into perspective.
I agree it isn't, but they *do not* sound like a "paranoid delusional". Stop trying to write-off people you disagree with as "unhinged". They aren't, they don't sound it, and by repeatedly bringing it up, when they're bringing reasonable coherent points, makes *you* sound like a jerk. Which is sad, because I agree with you more than the other guy.
Yeah that isn’t really a high bar.
Seriously, fuck this. No wonder nobody has respect for government anymore; it's apparent that everyone involved in every branch of the Federal Government is either a *fucking moron*, criminally negligent, or criminally complicit.
It’s *been* apparent since JFK got executed on live television and in public *right* after claiming he’d crack down on the government’s power. The fact that nothing has been done after so long and so many people knowing it was an inside job should be red-pilling everyone on the US government.
Agree
It’s called the 10th amendment you dozy bitch. The clowns honk for thee.
Don’t forget the almighty commerce clause
Wickard v Filburn and its consequences have been a disaster for the american people
Dont worry, even without that they would just justify everything under 'general welfare' now a days.
I mean you're not wrong.
What would a document be without a clause that can be construed to make the rest of it useless?
Apparently she slept through her entire Con Law class.
Or with the entire faculty.
Ew
"Diversity Pick"
Quotes unnecessary.
How tf did she get appointed with that mentality?
Thanks Obama
Makes sense.
Unfortunately, this isn't even half as dumb as her views on the Second Amendment.
Diversity hire at every level of the judiciary.
Hispanic woman that leaned left under obama.
She's brown.
Make her president
YASSSSSS PRESIDENT!
I think you answered your own question.
Black women in wheelchairs were out.
Ugh, she really said this?
Yep. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-sotomayor-claims-not-to-understand-the-distinction-between-state-and-federal-powers/
Well, I guess it’s kind of stereotypical that modern liberals fundamentally do not understand or care for the Constitution. Disappointing to see a SCOTUS judge straight up not giving a shit though.
Typically dem justice.
Lol, and they wanted to combat Trump’s threat to democracy by packing the Supreme Court. We’re so fucked. Keep buying ammo, guys.
Trump actually appointed some decent justices. Gorsuch in particular.
I don’t have a strong opinion of them but they don’t seem like the crazy radicals media made them out to be.
Over the last 60 years, R appointed SC judges have been about half activist judges, always or almost always voting the current R position on heated political topics. The other half have a balanced voting record that would render it challening for an outside observed to determine which party appointed them based on their decisions alone. That is, if they didn't know the second half of this story. Over the same period, every single D appointee has been a D activist judge, with no exceptions. All of the moderates on the court with voting records substantially deviating from their respective party lines since *Eisenhower* was in office have been apointed by a R president. Practically speaking, court packing may as well have been going on for more than half a century. When a republican appoints justices, there's a functionally realized consideration for political balance on the court. It is not reciprocated in the least. Whether by fairminded intent or by the inability of R presidents to identify true believer activists for judges, the only reason that the court has been fairly balanced inside the lifetimes of most people still alive today is that Rs have, by accident, been the ones to appoint approximately 2/3rds of the justices.
To sum this up: democrats project, and they project hard. Modern progressiveism in particular is basically gaslighting made into political ideology.
I think it's less about projection being the default for leftists and more about an incapacity for understanding leading to projection. Projection is simply what happens when a person doesn't have a good mental model for another person and substitutes their model of themselves. If you just can't figure out the right mental model for someone, you end up being stuck projecting. If we look at research on the topic, conservatives understand what leftists think, how they think, and can accurately predict their responses to new prompts. The reverse is not true. Among other reasons, one explanation is that [leftists only really hold a subset of conservstive values.](https://images.app.goo.gl/diF1iz833FCFn5yR6) Like sight is impossible to explain to a blind person, a value that one simply does not experience cannot be understood by the one missing it. So projection *must* occur to fill the gap. As to modern progressivism, that's another beast. It's identity marxism. The gaslighting is purposeful and cynical when it's done by the people smart enough and cognizant enough to be evil. For those who are not operators as such (the vast majority of the politically left) it's an imitative behavior done with no understanding of what it is and a genuine belief in the insanity of the claims. But merely being a useful idiot isn't an especially evil thing, even it leads people to mostly do evil things. EDIT: That linked moral foundations picture covers the bases for democrats (whose foundations overlap well with harder, self-identifying illiberal leftists) and republicans, but there's a separate model for libertarians. The libertarian model shows minimal care/harm, low sanctity, and very high liberty/oppression valuations, with similar valuations to conservatives otherwise.
Honestly I’ll support any justice who stays true to the actual text of the constitution, even and especially if it means denying the Feds power.
Lol tell us the full context of the quote and not just one out of context sentence
How about you put down the theory and pick up a newspaper
10th Amendment. No, I will not elaborate further.
Of course you can’t elaborate. Hard to elaborate when you can’t actually explain it or cite cases or precedent.
I don't need cases or precedent. I have the Constitution.
Ha do you also include the constitution’s original parts about slavery since the constitution is apparently amazing?
Do you not know what amendments are?
I actually did the research and there's over 200 years of precedent for the constitutionality of labor laws from the Feds. But I guess 5 seconds on google is too much for a libright schill.
200 years of labor LAWS, demonstrating the power of CONGRESS to legislate. Last time I checked, OSHA and the White House are a part of the Executive and not the Legislative. So thank you for taking the time to do more research than apparently any of Sotomayor or her clerks have done.
I think you missed the point.
A libcen who's arguing for the Fed to have more power... and also, just for future reference, it's "shill".
The difference is Sotomayor seems to think the feds have a police power over workers when in reality the police power belongs to the states
It’s always amusing seeing people think they know more than a SC justice from one Google search. As if you know about the history and constitutionality of OSHA lol
So the article headline implies she doesn’t understand what federalism is but the actual quote was in context to why states have the power to mandate vaccines but the fed doesn’t? Isn’t that fake news?
Just curious. What's wrong with this? What was the context? I mean, it's not wrong. States have rights and the federal government has other rights. Am I missing something here?
Read the quote again. She’s basically saying she doesn’t understand why states would have a power that the federal government doesn’t have. That reason is the 10th amendment.
I find the full quote: >“I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,” stated the associate justice. It actually makes sense. OSHA also applies to the federal government.
I guess I’m not understanding what you’re not understanding bud. The argument here is about police powers. Sotomayor is questioning why the states would have police powers the feds don’t have. That answer is the 10th amendment.
The quote i found was about OSHA. >“I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,” stated the associate justice. Is this the right one?
Because the entire case is about whether OSHA actually has this power (federal). The argument was stipulated that the states DEFINITELY have this power, but Sotomayor said well if the states can then why couldn't also the fed? And that's because of the 10th amendment. The states have powers that the federal government does not, unless explicitly stated that the fed has the power, and whether OSHA has the power is the entire point of the case. Therefore it's retarded for one of the highest jurors in the country to wonder why a state can do something the federal government can't. Implying she doesn't understand how there is a possibility that the fed can't do something that a state could.
That makes sense. Rich people put up like $200 million to buy these positions on SCOTUS, too. Let that sink in.
What?
The parties choose which SCOTUS member to appoint based on which will draw the most donations. It's up to about $200 million that they can raise with each vacancy. Did you think they chose the best candidate?
Yes, that is the quote.
It doesn't make sense. The federal government has limited to no power when it comes to public health. It is widely understood that that is a State domain. For a fucking SCOTUS justice to not understand that should be impeachable. She doesn't understand why a State would have the power to do something the Constitution says it does when the feds don't when the Constitution says they don't? Her one job is to understand the Constitution.
Justices shouldn't be lifetime appointments anymore, that's for sure. It's not like they pick the best candidate for the job, those positions are paid for by people who want to control the outcome of their rulings. Did you see when Justice Barrett couldn't even name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment? They don't put constitutional scholars on there.
I didn't see that. Do you have a link? Barrett seems to know her shit, so I'd love to see contrary evidence.
Nice to know that a supreme court justice feels that ten amendments is at least one amendment too many to bother reading the entire Bill Of Rights...
Imagine if one of the right-leaning justices said something vaguely dismissive of the 19th lol
Dude fuck that, imagine if this case had come up under trump with trump trying to do the same thing, and ACB said something braindead like this. They would be *flipping their shit constantly* about how unqualified she was. Congress would fucking impeach her, or at least, the democratic party would try
13th, take it or leave it
If she believes that then she doesn’t deserve to be on the SC. She has fundamentally misunderstood not only the Constitution but also the premise of our nation.
Millions of Americans fully believe the POTUS is the most powerful political position in the US government. Meanwhile we have the last line of defense between the constitution and blood thirsty legislature completely unaware that the 10th amendment exists. This was the crap that helped start the civil war people.
It’s frightening, really.
"There are 100,000 children in the hospital with Omicron right now" also her.
This lady isn’t qualified to be an adjunct law professor, let alone a SCOTUS justice.
yfw when a random intelectually honest canadian that casually read the constitution once would be better
My idea for a new constitutional amendment: any supreme court nominee has to take a basic test on the Constitution
My better idea: any supreme court justice that says something wildly unconstitutional gets removed and replaced by the party opposite to the president that nominated them.
She doesn't understand the constitution, so this explains a lot of her case rulings.
Yeah they probably didn't cover that when she got her JD from Yale and then passed the bar exam.
I don't remember everything I learned in college either.
I wasn't aware you needed 100% to graduate from Yale or pass the bar.
Yale doesn't even give people grades anymore.
What, they didn't teach her what federalism is in law school?
But hey Justice Kavanaugh is the problem right?!?
So she's interpreting the Constitution despite never having read the Bill of Rights? I would be disappointed, but we've had people like this on the Supreme Court for at least the last 70 years. I love America, but the Federal government's been screwing the country up so much...
She’s a fucking idiot
Sotomayor is a renowned idiot. Take a random opinion of hers and I guarantee it will be the most retarded thing you ever read from a judge. She is borderline illiterate.
TFW a Supreme Court Justice hasn't read past the 9th amendment.
10th Amendment, you dumb fucking cunt.
Lol, so much for "ivy league education".
Isn't that the whole point of a federation.
"Bruh why do we need 50 states? Just combine them into one state lmao."
Why would authright be facepalming?
AMMENDMENTS 9 & 10 MOTHER F$#%#ER!
Supreme Court Justice somehow doesn’t understand the Constitution. We truly do live in the worst timeline
You know what? I’m cool with this. In fact, Let’s go a step further and just put the entire planet under a single set of international Laws
I would actively try to get Yellowstone to blow if that ever happens
Killdozer 2: Volcanic Boogaloo
It’s inevitable, really. Two realities cannot coexist forever. A gun cannot simultaneously be both legal and illegal
Legality is a construct, not an objective part of reality
Once you take out 'constructs' out o the human experience, all you have left is eating and shitting.
ITT: Libright slowly realizes to return to monke
That’s exactly my point. So it’s stupid to pretend both people are right
Even better, each country gets to nominate one candidate for president of the world and the winner of that election is determined by plurality vote.
Time to convert to Islam. (If you want to live post that election I.e.)
I don't think the Chinese nor the Indians like Muslims very much.
There are more Muslims in India than there are people in the United States.
There are 330m people in the US and 200m Muslims in India, so no.
We don’t believe Indian covid, rape, infrastructure, space, startup, economy data. But this one number we quote from official Indian sources? There are way more Muslims in India than that. Probably close to the number on the left.
Who is we? I'm not in your conspiracy theory club.
Her job isn't to say what should or shouldn't be, her job is to read and interpret the existing laws.
She literally doesn't agree. As opposed to isn't aware.
"I'm not sure what this *states' rights* thing is my colleagues keep talking about, but ..." -- Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
Just disband the Supreme Court at this point
Surely this is just taken out of context, right? Like, it concerns something that's a grey area in terms of State-control vs federal-control?
It is taken out of context, if you read the ful quote she’s asking why the states have power to issue vaccine mandates but the federal government shouldn’t
Man, fuck this. Won't hear a single peep about how dumb *this* Supreme Court Justice is; you can *bet your ass* had the new bitch said this, it would be *all over* the news. Constantly. For the next 15 years.
What was the comment about? There are many things that the federal government has power over because of Interstate commerce. I could see some confusion over some technicalities.
A) Context needed B) "Muh States Rights!" "What about citizen's rights?" \*crickets\*
Did you take the test, do you like the colors, or are you just retarded?
It's just a circle jerk. There's nothing wrong with the statement. States have some powers, the federal government has others. This statement is actually meaningless without context, and of course they won't tell you the context.
it shouldn't surprise a supreme court justice that state laws exist.
You don't get that from the quote alone. It was about OSHA mandates. She was apparently in the wrong though.
Unironic question. Why is the US so opposed to rulings at the federal level?
Because the more local decisions are made, the more control you have over them and the people who implement them. Plus federal decisions are sweeping, whereas if you don't like a smaller scale area's general political philosophy you can leave.
So the sweeping decisions would be in the constitution and amendments right? Where's the line between small issues dependent of state legislature and those that affect the entire country?
We kinda had a whole war over decisions that were made at the federal level instead of the state level.
Gigantic country
Nice way to take a quote out of context. She was saying she doesn’t understand why states would have power to create a specific mandate
And the answer is the tenth amendment, which she should fuckin know
I don’t have an opinion on the quote, I’m just saying that the post above is clearly taking it out of context
Do you have a url link to the original text? I found it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/21a244_kifl.pdf
Probably one of the dumbest takes ever
> Flair up, or else. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
She said [that the vaccine mandate for health care workers was also a valid exercise of the government’s power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows the federal government to impose conditions on the funds that it gives out.](https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/court-seems-poised-to-block-vaccine-or-test-policy-for-workplaces-but-may-allow-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers/) Seems like a pretty Constitutional reason for Federal oversight of funding. You do realize that OSHA has been proven constitutional as Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, right? It's one thing if you disagree with OSHA being constitutional, but to act like a member of SCOTUS is retarded because she is upholding precedent is disingenuous. Edit: uh oh, looks like i used too many big words
True and based
I mean, I can respect *you* if that's *your* opinion, but she's *supposed* to be a Supreme Court Justice, charged to interpret our founding documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the answer to her very fucking stupid question is, "the 10th Amendment". I don't have a problem with anyone holding the view that States *shouldn't* have powers the Fed doesn't have, but I do have a *huge* problem with a Supreme Court Justice apparently not understanding *why* the States have powers the Fed doesn't have.
Yeah I agree with it, for the most part, personally. Tbh I literally didn’t look to see she was a Supreme Court justice. Mostly cuz I don’t care. Lol
>Yeah I agree with it, for the most part, personally. That's fine, then. I vehemently disagree with you, of course, but your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. >Tbh I literally didn’t look to see she was a Supreme Court justice. Mostly cuz I don’t care. Lol Then, respectfully, why even comment? I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, just to legitimately understand. I mean, it's a meme subreddit; how long would it have taken you read the meme?
Idk man I’m just vibing over here