The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Sotomayor is like some kind of sick joke, derailing SCOTUS
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| ivory library | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| Fiercely-loyal floppy garrison | 01/16/13 |
| Lilac state | 12/09/15 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 01/15/13 |
| cordovan nowag | 01/15/13 |
| Chestnut glittery gas station | 01/15/13 |
| Territorial marvelous heaven | 01/16/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| Bonkers nursing home newt | 03/18/13 |
| Sable theater | 03/18/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 03/26/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 03/26/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office | 03/26/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office | 03/26/13 |
| Azure roommate | 06/05/18 |
| Azure roommate | 06/05/18 |
| appetizing nofapping abode useless brakes | 04/07/16 |
| supple bearded bawdyhouse | 03/26/13 |
| slate flickering theater stage | 03/26/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 03/26/13 |
| slate flickering theater stage | 03/26/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert | 03/26/13 |
| adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office | 03/27/13 |
| Bistre stag film | 06/05/18 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| Bonkers nursing home newt | 03/18/13 |
| blue home | 03/18/13 |
| big magical stead | 03/26/13 |
| Crusty talented knife | 03/26/13 |
| Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter | 03/26/13 |
| indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location | 05/07/13 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 01/15/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 01/15/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 01/16/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/16/13 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 01/16/13 |
| Crusty talented knife | 03/26/13 |
| Insanely creepy turdskin | 06/14/15 |
| bespoke irate point | 12/09/15 |
| Startling Greedy Legend Headpube | 03/02/16 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| chartreuse roast beef | 12/20/17 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 10/04/23 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/26/13 |
| Crusty talented knife | 03/26/13 |
| Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter | 03/26/13 |
| aromatic salmon parlor dog poop | 04/23/13 |
| indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location | 05/07/13 |
| nubile crotch | 11/04/13 |
| Gaped razzle tattoo | 02/04/14 |
| Doobsian area love of her life | 03/02/16 |
| embarrassed to the bone double fault cumskin | 11/13/16 |
| Irradiated milk | 01/31/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/26/13 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/26/13 |
| indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location | 05/07/13 |
| Bonkers nursing home newt | 05/07/13 |
| Grizzly dashing toaster | 10/15/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 04/23/13 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 04/23/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 10/08/13 |
| chocolate circlehead | 02/04/14 |
| anal meetinghouse half-breed | 04/17/17 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 10/04/23 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 10/08/13 |
| Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman | 01/31/17 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 11/04/13 |
| metal silver coldplay fan rigor | 06/14/15 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 12/03/13 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/21/17 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 05/19/23 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 05/24/23 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/02/15 |
| Doobsian area love of her life | 03/02/16 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/21/17 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 10/04/23 |
| motley prole | 01/15/13 |
| provocative cuckoldry | 01/15/13 |
| red messiness locus | 01/15/13 |
| amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine | 01/15/13 |
| ivory library | 01/15/13 |
| cordovan nowag | 01/15/13 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 01/16/13 |
| pungent theatre | 03/18/13 |
| obsidian bbw potus | 03/26/13 |
| lemon business firm | 05/07/13 |
| Angry parlour keepsake machete | 03/26/13 |
| Angry parlour keepsake machete | 01/31/17 |
| Clear Institution Twinkling Uncleanness | 01/15/13 |
| Chestnut glittery gas station | 01/15/13 |
| Canary spectacular partner | 04/23/13 |
| Bistre stag film | 06/05/18 |
| Passionate Menage Azn | 01/15/13 |
| Doobsian area love of her life | 03/02/16 |
| Multi-colored mauve psychic | 01/15/13 |
| deep set sweet tailpipe | 01/15/13 |
| exhilarant hairless becky digit ratio | 01/16/13 |
| filthy galvanic temple | 04/23/13 |
| Demanding hideous pocket flask | 10/23/13 |
| excitant elite scourge upon the earth | 10/31/16 |
| Bateful spot | 12/20/17 |
| Trip address regret | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| Trip address regret | 01/16/13 |
| Racy tank crackhouse | 01/15/13 |
| amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine | 01/15/13 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 01/15/13 |
| Mischievous Stage Private Investor | 11/13/16 |
| sienna lascivious den | 01/16/13 |
| cordovan nowag | 01/16/13 |
| aqua gay wizard dragon | 02/16/13 |
| curious useless national | 05/21/13 |
| amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine | 03/26/13 |
| scarlet kitchen | 03/26/13 |
| Sable theater | 04/23/13 |
| french locale dingle berry | 10/15/13 |
| Bistre stag film | 06/05/18 |
| Trip address regret | 06/14/15 |
| Trip address regret | 06/26/15 |
| puce electric university nibblets | 12/20/17 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 10/04/23 |
| peach french chef church building | 01/15/13 |
| razzmatazz indecent multi-billionaire | 01/16/13 |
| Insanely creepy turdskin | 05/23/23 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 02/16/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/18/13 |
| Vibrant aquamarine mexican | 03/26/13 |
| Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter | 03/26/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/26/13 |
| blue home | 03/27/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 03/27/13 |
| cerebral background story | 04/23/13 |
| aromatic salmon parlor dog poop | 04/24/13 |
| adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office | 05/07/13 |
| aqua gay wizard dragon | 06/14/15 |
| violent place of business sandwich | 04/24/13 |
| Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate | 04/24/13 |
| Smoky thriller pozpig | 12/09/15 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 03/21/18 |
| Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate | 04/24/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 04/24/13 |
| Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate | 04/24/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 04/24/13 |
| Bonkers nursing home newt | 05/07/13 |
| big magical stead | 11/13/16 |
| blue home | 05/07/13 |
| indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location | 05/07/13 |
| chocolate circlehead | 02/04/14 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 05/07/13 |
| Soul-stirring weed whacker base | 05/21/13 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 10/15/13 |
| Cyan Pontificating Lay | 10/15/13 |
| Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold | 10/15/13 |
| cracking buff forum jewess | 10/23/13 |
| mildly autistic ocher boiling water | 11/04/13 |
| Azure roommate | 06/05/18 |
| Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold | 10/23/13 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 02/04/14 |
| primrose cuck | 02/04/14 |
| big magical stead | 04/07/16 |
| Bistre stag film | 06/05/18 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 03/10/14 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 04/22/14 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 10/26/14 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 01/25/15 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 06/14/15 |
| Demanding hideous pocket flask | 06/14/15 |
| Trip address regret | 06/26/15 |
| sienna lascivious den | 11/02/15 |
| Demanding hideous pocket flask | 11/02/15 |
| Startling Greedy Legend Headpube | 11/02/15 |
| beady-eyed topaz gaping fanboi | 11/02/15 |
| ruddy resort | 12/09/15 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 12/09/15 |
| bespoke irate point | 12/09/15 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 12/10/15 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 07/11/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 01/20/16 |
| Garnet pit | 02/16/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/02/16 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/02/16 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 03/02/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/02/16 |
| Smoky thriller pozpig | 04/13/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/02/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/05/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 03/21/16 |
| Smoky thriller pozpig | 06/28/18 |
| razzmatazz indecent multi-billionaire | 03/21/16 |
| Mustard hairraiser mad-dog skullcap black woman | 03/23/16 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/05/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 04/07/16 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 04/13/16 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 04/18/16 |
| arousing snowy corner | 04/18/16 |
| Massive people who are hurt | 04/18/16 |
| Mischievous Stage Private Investor | 04/22/16 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 06/20/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 06/20/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/04/16 |
| tantric property associate | 10/04/16 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 10/04/16 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 07/11/18 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 10/04/23 |
| Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman | 10/04/16 |
| Stirring shaky school | 12/06/17 |
| turquoise insecure rehab | 10/18/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/24/16 |
| vivacious cream trailer park blood rage | 10/24/16 |
| Demanding hideous pocket flask | 10/24/16 |
| embarrassed to the bone double fault cumskin | 11/13/16 |
| ruddy resort | 11/18/16 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/21/17 |
| Fiercely-loyal floppy garrison | 04/17/17 |
| Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace | 10/31/16 |
| Smoky thriller pozpig | 10/31/16 |
| excitant elite scourge upon the earth | 10/31/16 |
| Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace | 10/31/16 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 10/31/16 |
| mind-boggling hyperactive gunner | 04/27/17 |
| contagious queen of the night plaza | 06/05/18 |
| Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace | 10/31/16 |
| excitant elite scourge upon the earth | 11/12/16 |
| out-of-control space | 11/12/16 |
| high-end offensive tanning salon | 11/13/16 |
| internet-worthy pisswyrm casino | 11/14/16 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 01/18/17 |
| Gay senate | 01/31/17 |
| Bronze Frozen Ape | 01/31/17 |
| Gay senate | 01/31/17 |
| Bronze Frozen Ape | 01/31/17 |
| Gay senate | 01/31/17 |
| Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman | 01/31/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 02/16/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 02/28/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 02/28/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/21/17 |
| Smoky thriller pozpig | 02/28/17 |
| Fluffy legal warrant piazza | 03/21/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 03/21/17 |
| swashbuckling site juggernaut | 04/04/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/04/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| lime concupiscible box office striped hyena | 04/17/17 |
| Beta shimmering kitty | 04/17/17 |
| out-of-control space | 04/17/17 |
| Beta shimmering kitty | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| exciting market persian | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 04/17/17 |
| Fluffy legal warrant piazza | 04/17/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/17/17 |
| Comical Hospital | 04/27/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 04/28/17 |
| sienna lascivious den | 05/22/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 05/22/17 |
| big magical stead | 05/22/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 05/22/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 06/20/17 |
| histrionic station telephone | 11/02/22 |
| sienna lascivious den | 06/05/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 06/05/17 |
| big magical stead | 06/05/17 |
| wonderful public bath windowlicker | 06/20/17 |
| Fragrant fat ankles | 06/26/17 |
| puce electric university nibblets | 09/27/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/03/17 |
| Cerise laughsome faggotry indirect expression | 10/03/17 |
| titillating learning disabled dilemma | 10/03/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/03/17 |
| Black sex offender | 10/04/17 |
| Stimulating Purple Field | 10/05/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/05/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 10/05/17 |
| Stirring shaky school | 12/06/17 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 12/20/17 |
| puce electric university nibblets | 02/27/18 |
| self-centered idiot | 12/20/17 |
| Cheese-eating aphrodisiac stage affirmative action | 12/20/17 |
| Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman | 12/20/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 12/20/17 |
| self-centered idiot | 12/20/17 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 12/20/17 |
| self-centered idiot | 12/20/17 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 07/11/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 01/08/18 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 06/05/18 |
| Diverse toilet seat water buffalo | 01/17/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 01/17/18 |
| Diverse toilet seat water buffalo | 01/18/18 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 02/26/18 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 02/26/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 02/27/18 |
| big magical stead | 03/21/18 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 02/27/18 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 06/05/18 |
| big magical stead | 03/28/18 |
| Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman | 05/02/18 |
| saffron party of the first part | 06/05/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 06/26/18 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 06/27/18 |
| international law enforcement agency mood | 08/05/18 |
| Insanely creepy turdskin | 08/05/18 |
| Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold | 09/17/18 |
| hominid | 03/28/19 |
| Step-uncle's House Kitty Cat | 03/28/19 |
| Carnelian Therapy Hell | 09/17/18 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 10/01/18 |
| Henna Karate Goal In Life | 10/01/18 |
| 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge | 10/09/18 |
| Mahogany orchestra pit | 10/09/18 |
| deranged police squad friendly grandma | 03/28/19 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 03/28/19 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 04/15/19 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 02/23/20 |
| Stirring shaky school | 03/11/20 |
| brass sanctuary | 03/11/20 |
| umber range lettuce | 09/26/20 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 11/26/20 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 01/07/22 |
| Doobsian area love of her life | 01/08/22 |
| lake coffee pot | 01/17/22 |
| sienna lascivious den | 10/04/22 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 10/31/22 |
| orange center stock car | 11/01/22 |
| Lavender Native Giraffe | 11/01/22 |
| khaki pistol masturbator | 11/01/22 |
| navy chapel hissy fit | 11/02/22 |
| cowardly iridescent church | 05/19/23 |
| Insanely creepy turdskin | 05/23/23 |
| charcoal hunting ground halford | 10/04/23 |
| Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party | 02/08/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:48 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut seems like every argument gets derailed in the first couple minutes by Sotomayor asking these annoying "tough" questions which are all nakedly political in a way that isn't true for the other judges except maybe Scalia
edit: I regret this thread. posted it during a shitty edgy conservative phase in school. she is far from the worst justice. |
 |
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:50 PM Author: ivory library how do her clerks fail to prep her so badly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440053) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:54 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440077) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 4:46 PM Author: Fiercely-loyal floppy garrison This (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445482) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 7:33 PM Author: Lilac state she picks her clerks based on "diversity" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29345235) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:50 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe link to examples? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440054) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:56 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440084) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:02 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe I remember that. Scalia did a nice job of getting her to STFU (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440106) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:02 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440108) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:05 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe if she's dumb, how did she end up salutatorian at princeton? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440118) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:07 PM Author: cordovan nowag edit: apparently yale doesnt have honors |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:25 PM Author: Chestnut glittery gas station her A+ in "latino race theory" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440228) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 4:51 PM Author: Territorial marvelous heaven *Calls Latina an AA recipient*
*Is reminded that she graduated salutatorian in undergrad*
*Blank Stare* |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:37 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert see links below. she was AA to get in and AA to get the prize. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883415) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:20 PM Author: Bonkers nursing home newt I know you gave this response to make Sotomayor appear more competent than she really is, but all it does is make Princeton look like a TTT in decline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839295) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:47 PM Author: Sable theater LOL @ xo racists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839446) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:29 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert she was most definitely NOT the salutatorian there. there were two awards given out for "top" students in achievements but they were not based on grades. sotomayor herself said she struggled the first two years.
the awards were given to an insanely brilliant guy and the puerto rican trailblazer for her various accomplishments. but it wasn't grades. |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:51 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe she got straight A's her last two years of college. That's impressive, given that the average GPA at the time was 3.10 or so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883456) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:30 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert "almost" all As. by that time she was in the upper level courses in her identity politics major. to respond to the poaster i was responding to, she was not the salutatorian of princeton.
everyone says she's not nearly as smart as she thinks. Tribe said it. the lawyers who appeared before her said it. listen to any oral argument and you will draw the same conclusion. she's of ordinary intelligence, tremendous drive to self-promote, a bit of a bully, and was the right gender and ethnicity for the current climate. |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:55 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe citation for "identity politics" major? Wiki says history. Also, she graduated summa cum laude. Citation that that's not based on grades at princeton?
I don't care if she's "as smart as she thinks." She's smart. |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:04 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert it was history, and she took identity politics courses in her major. he senior thesis was "The Impact of the Life of Luis Munoz Marin on the Political and Economic History of Puerto Rico, 1930-1975."
she was a latina activist there: http://images.politico.com/global/news/090528_sotomayorarticle.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pictures/s-z/sotomayor_sonia/Sotomayor-thesis.pdf
it was identity politics through and through.
|
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:06 PM Author: adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office She looks pretty good cot damn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883839) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:07 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert does she look cheerful to you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883846) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:13 PM Author: adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office lolno, but you can literally see her nips. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883878) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:43 AM Author: Azure roommate Update:
http://i.imgur.com/V3ST1.jpg |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:42 AM Author: Azure roommate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186492) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2016 11:11 AM Author: appetizing nofapping abode useless brakes tbf, Munoz Marin is interesting as fuck. A real deal case story on how to corrupt a rebel and make them a tool of your bidding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30220131) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:11 PM Author: supple bearded bawdyhouse She admits her scores weren't comparable to her classmates. She's reddit intellectual smart, not scotus justice smart. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883862) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:46 PM Author: slate flickering theater stage *gets mostly A's in two years of latino studies* *is one of the two smartest people at princeton in her year* |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:53 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe She majored in history, and princeton didn't even have latino studies back then. pwn pwn pwn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883777) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:56 PM Author: slate flickering theater stage *gets mostly A's in two years of history (a feat clearly beyond the median autoadmit poster)*
*is one of the two smartest people at princeton in her year* |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:34 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert not the salutatorian.
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pictures/s-z/sotomayor_sonia/Bowen_remarks.pdf |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:34 PM Author: Godawful opaque whorehouse pervert compare this press release's description of sotomayor and the other winner of the Pyne.
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pictures/s-z/sotomayor_sonia/Pyne_Prize_pr76.pdf |
|
Date: March 27th, 2013 12:49 PM Author: adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office http://www.wellscap.com/people/david_germany.html
This is the other winner. |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:53 AM Author: Bistre stag film writing class profs give affirmative action to dark skinned students..I saw it in law school... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186563) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:29 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. JOHNSON: Even if you say it does, it still doesn't -- it's not an element of the crime. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Could you simplify that? Could you simplify that? http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-9540.pdf |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:30 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440263) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:19 PM Author: Bonkers nursing home newt A+ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839292) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:44 PM Author: blue home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839424) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:32 PM Author: big magical stead Please let Wise Latina transcript quotations become part of a shtick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883392) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:32 PM Author: Crusty talented knife 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883676) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:56 PM Author: Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883789) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:49 PM Author: indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location God bless you mr johnson. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151386) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:14 PM Author: exciting market persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097584) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:30 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. JOHNSON: Yes. In California you -just entry with intent is all you need, with intent to commit. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But the unlawfulness is not necessary. MR. JOHNSON: It's not necessary and that's the point-- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No matter what he said, he wasn't convicted of a generic crime because all he was convicted of under California law was entering and - MR. JOHNSON: Exactly. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- with intent. That's your point. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-9540.pdf |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:32 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base What the IAA says is that the government can sue when the violation occurs. Now - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Liman, I understand your argument, but I have a fundamental difficulty, okay? http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-1274.pdf |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:12 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. MICHEL: It does. I will tell you, the reason why it does, it's in the doctrine of collateral estoppel. It affects the inventor. It's affecting the inventor in this case. This holding of the State district court and the State court of appeals are now before the Patent Office. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. How does it -- the patent's invalid. MR. MICHEL: I'm sorry? JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The patent's invalid. Nothing the Court does here is going to change that invalidity. That's what I don't understand. MR. MICHEL: Correct. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: He's not going to get his patent back from this action. MR. MICHEL: That's correct. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: He's going to get money for losing it, maybe. MR. MICHEL: Correct. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So how does it affect the patent? MR. MICHEL: There is a pending continuation patent. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: We're back to that issue, okay. |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:15 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut jfc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22444600) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:19 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge on what a wise MPEP scholar (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22444630) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:33 PM Author: Crusty talented knife LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883682) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 1:04 PM Author: Insanely creepy turdskin ty to whoever bumped this thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28116252) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 7:27 PM Author: bespoke irate point ouch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29345190) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 6:15 PM Author: Startling Greedy Legend Headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29963646) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:15 PM Author: exciting market persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097593) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:13 PM Author: chartreuse roast beef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968123) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:54 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church gosh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883179) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:14 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base JUSTICE KAGAN: A couple where both people are over the age of 55. MR. COOPER: And Your Honor, again, the marital norm which imposes upon that couple the obligation of fidelity - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry, where is this - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry, maybe you can finish your answer to Justice Kagan. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that -- to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144.pdf |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:33 PM Author: Crusty talented knife (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883686) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:57 PM Author: Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter holy shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883790) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:57 PM Author: aromatic salmon parlor dog poop JFC (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064421) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:52 PM Author: indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location yes! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151398) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2013 1:45 PM Author: nubile crotch Ho Lee Fuk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24367971) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2014 12:03 PM Author: Gaped razzle tattoo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24954959) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 9:04 PM Author: Doobsian area love of her life 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29965048) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2016 12:41 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone double fault cumskin Disgusting manterrupting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31897188) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:30 PM Author: Irradiated milk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511136) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:01 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. WAXMAN: Well, Justice Ginsburg, two things. First of all, if you look at page 10 -- or page 14, footnote 7 of our yellow brief, you'll see all of the references made in the advocacy before the State court judge by my -- my brother here, not recognizing repeatedly that what Oxford was asking for was a dismissal and a transfer to individual arbitration - bilateral arbitration. There was no mistake whatsoever in the New Jersey State courts that Oxford's position was that - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Waxman - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Finish your answer. MR. WAXMAN: Yes -- that bilateral arbitration was what was requested, and -- but there was similarly no dispute that both parties -- certainly Oxford took the position based on an understanding of New Jersey law at the time, because this Court hadn't decided class action question, that the decision would be submitted in the first instance to the arbitrator as it was in Stolt-Nielsen. Yes, Justice Sotomayor. I apologize. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That's my question. Did you never -- you never argued that it was beyond the power of the arbitrator to decide this question, did you? http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-135.pdf |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:20 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097630) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:02 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: How do we draw the line, that line that you just asked us to draw between direct and indirect? How do we articulate that line? MR. SHAUGHNESSY: The direct - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Because now you're - now you're articulating a different line. You are saying this -- the hypothetical that Justice Kagan posited is not storage-related, it is something else-related. It's towing-related. What's the difference? http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-52.pdf |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:53 PM Author: indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location 180
the hypothetical that Justice Kagan posited is not storage-related, it is something else-related. It's towing-related. What's the difference?
This is doobsian. |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 3:01 PM Author: Bonkers nursing home newt BUT BUT BUT where do we draw the line???
|
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 8:00 PM Author: Grizzly dashing toaster tbf, pretty sure alito asks that question the most (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24240591) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:32 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. CLEMENT: Well, a couple of things, Justice Sotomayor. I went back to the Tropiano case, because it is sort of the progenitor of this whole line of Second Circuit cases, and I noticed two things. One, I noticed it was written by a district court sitting by designation. So, I mean, I -- I don't mean anything by that other than this is not Marbury. Second, I would say that the second thing I noticed is that the debt - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Oh, I think when I sat as a district court judge, I would have been insulted by that. MR. CLEMENT: Well, it's not -- it's a good thing you're no longer sitting in that capacity, Your Honor - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay. It's really - MR. CLEMENT: -- because I -- I certainly mean you no offense. You could write Marbury here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-357.pdf |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:19 PM Author: exciting market persian underrated (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097621) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097643) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:33 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MS. HARRINGTON: That he was trying to get commitment; that was one of the choices. What they circled was the recommendation. Now, who knows why a jury does anything. I assume, like I said, it's because that was what the e-mails were about, they were about the recommendation. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I didn't think they circled recommendation. They circled his honest advice, didn't they? MS. HARRINGTON: No, they circled -- it says the General Counsel's recommendation -- this is on the JA 142. That's where it - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. MS. HARRINGTON: JA 142. What they circled was the General Counsel's recommendation to approve the commitment. And I think that wording is very helpful to us, because it's not just that he's trying to obtain a recommendation from the General Counsel. He's trying to obtain a particular recommendation, the recommendation to approve the commitment. I think that encapsulates both the property and the obtaining that is the theory of our case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-357.pdf |
|
Date: October 8th, 2013 2:10 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base JUSTICE ALITO: Those were all created by the dairy industry or by the Nixon campaign, is that correct? MR. BURCHFIELD: That's not -- as I understand -- as I read the lower court decision in Buckley, that is correct. In addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Then how is it that - MR. BURCHFIELD: In addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume -- you have a thick volume of the Code of Federal Regulations of the Federal Election Commission, which did not exist at the time of Buckley. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. MR. BURCHFIELD: Thank you, Your Honor. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-536_21o2.pdf |
|
Date: February 4th, 2014 11:33 AM Author: chocolate circlehead LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24954821) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:55 PM Author: anal meetinghouse half-breed Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097898) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:55 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883188) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2013 2:20 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm a little confused, okay? I'm confused because we're talking in the abstract. This decision was based on a motion to dismiss. And there is a huge colloquy about what happens and doesn't happen. We don't have a record below. MS. MURPHY: Well - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I mean, I can go into the news, as Justice Breyer suggested. It's very hard to think that any candidate doesn't know the contributor who has enough money to give not only to himself or herself, but to any of his or her affiliates who are supporting him or her. I mean, it's nearly common sense, hard to dispute. So you're saying it can't happen, but I don't see charges of coordination going on that much. MS. MURPHY: I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about happening. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:09 PM Author: Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32510971) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:23 PM Author: exciting market persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097674) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2013 1:41 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But you told me -- you started by saying that our personal jurisdiction and venue provisions and jurisprudence center on a defendant's action, not on the plaintiff's action or injury. Calder suggests otherwise. But how do you respond, not only to Justice -- I'll do this after, but let me just pose the question and you can answer it on your rebuttal. MR. BUCHOLTZ: Thank you. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm worried about the Internet effects from somebody's account in Vermont by someone in Illinois -- the hypothetical on page 19, who steals something from a store in California. MR. BUCHOLTZ: Thank you, Justice Sotomayor. If I may, I'll reserve the balance of my time and, as you suggested, address that on rebuttal. Thank you. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, counsel. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-574_k5gm.pdf |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 12:07 PM Author: metal silver coldplay fan rigor OMG pwn pwn pwn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28116026) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:27 PM Author: exciting market persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097704) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2013 10:06 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base MR. CLEMENT: The second thing is I think you have to understand in the context - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Did a unitary contract? MR. CLEMENT: I'm sorry. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm not sure I understand that point. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-462_p86a.pdf |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 9:02 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884698) |
|
Date: May 19th, 2023 10:59 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46330742) |
|
Date: May 24th, 2023 12:14 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46348266) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2015 6:13 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That's sort of hard to understand because we made it very clear in Smiley and in Hildebrant that we're defining legislature in this clause as meaning legislative process.
MR. CLEMENT: With with all due respect, I disagree.
--
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And if a State constitution says that the people hold the power and they can choose a commission or however else they want to do it, isn't that the legislative process?
MR. CLEMENT: No, it's not. But, I mean, I disagree with you, Justice Sotomayor, but that's not particularly important.
---
THIS IS THE GOLD MINE BELOW
---
MR. CLEMENT: I think they would have the power to do an initiative. I don't think they would have to do the power to do a referendum.
One of the ironies is that my friends on the other side like to talk about the power of the people, but the maps that the commission promulgates are not subject to override by referendum the way the maps of the legislature were before Proposition 106 passed.
So I think all the legislature could do is what any citizen should do which is to propose an alternative map by initiative process. But whatever that is, that's not the primary power to prescribe congressional districts or to make election regulations. That puts the State legislature on the same plain as the people, and we know --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So please tell me --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do I understand you to say that it would be okay if the legislature itself established this commission?
MR. CLEMENT: I would I would take the position that that is okay because that is a delegation of authority. If you disagree with me, I mean, you know, you may disagree with me, but I think my position is consistent with what this Court said in the McPherson case about the authority of the State legislatures to prescribe rules for electorates. They can delegate that to some commission and come up with it that way, but if they want to take the authority back, as they did in the in the Michigan piece of legislation at issue in McPherson, you bet they can do that, and if the State tries to stop them from taking it back, that's a constitutional problem.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So --
JUSTICE KAGAN: So tell me, Mr. Clement, there's the State sets up this independent commission and the independent commission has a veto power on the State's redistricting. In other words, the State can do redistricting and then it submits it to the independent commission, and the independent commission can say, No, go back, do it again.
MR. CLEMENT: Well, if I mean, I guess it depends a little bit on the details of how that works and whether who's got the ultimate last say in the matter.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-1314_q8l1.pdf |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 7:50 PM Author: Doobsian area love of her life "So what about the lemon pledge? I just want to make sure that there is enough lemon pledge" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29964226) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 9:03 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884712) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:56 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883194) |
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:49 PM Author: motley prole yeah but she does have dat LIFE EXPERIENCE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440045) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:50 PM Author: provocative cuckoldry obama's america (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440048) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:50 PM Author: red messiness locus "But what is the rule you want us to articulate?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440051) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:52 PM Author: amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine Anyone that asks or cares about SCOTUS questions is a fucking idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440066) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:53 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440073) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:55 PM Author: amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine they're useless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440079) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:55 PM Author: ivory library naw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440082) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:05 PM Author: cordovan nowag There seem to be some cases where someone (usually Breyer or Scalia) gapes opposing counsel and that exchange is included as a big part of the opinion which Kennedy signs on to. Whether or not he would've voted that anyway, of course, is an unanswerable question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440122) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:18 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge it's not that oral arg is relevant; it's that oral arg is evidence that we have a fucking moronic spic on the court. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22444621) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:16 PM Author: pungent theatre and the wise italian politico or his nigga slave are any smarter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839265) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:18 PM Author: obsidian bbw potus scalia is certainly smarter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883335) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:25 PM Author: lemon business firm His Obamacare performance tops anything in this thread. It was a sad day for those of us who have thought of him as a conservastud and went to law school when his various 90s era pwnages were steadily populating the case books. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151242) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:44 PM Author: Angry parlour keepsake machete thomas doesn't try to peacock for counsel (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883735) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:29 PM Author: Angry parlour keepsake machete damn right son (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511131) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:53 PM Author: Clear Institution Twinkling Uncleanness bc she's full of herself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440071) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:53 PM Author: Chestnut glittery gas station just wait til there are three "wise latinas" on the court (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440072) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:35 PM Author: Canary spectacular partner jesus christ, that would be like a drunk mariachi band in tijuana. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064202) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:55 AM Author: Bistre stag film unwise latinas (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186576) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:04 PM Author: Passionate Menage Azn diabeetus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440116) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 9:03 PM Author: Doobsian area love of her life One can hope (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29965032) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:08 PM Author: Multi-colored mauve psychic just out of curiosity what drives you to listen to SCOTUS oral argument? i can see reading the briefs and opinions, but why would anyone care about the oral argument (unless maybe you are an appellate lawyer trying to improve, i guess). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440136) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:11 PM Author: deep set sweet tailpipe "Reading the tea leaves" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440161) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:24 PM Author: exhilarant hairless becky digit ratio They are the most fun part. Few people read them, so from time to time you can PWN opposing counsel when they make a tenuous argument based on the opinion by quoting some language from the opinion writer that shows that the court considered and rejected whatever bullshit they are trying to promote. It doesn't win motions but it tells opposing counsel that you are more through than they are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22444648) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:49 PM Author: filthy galvanic temple Kill yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064351) |
|
Date: October 23rd, 2013 12:46 PM Author: Demanding hideous pocket flask (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24290871) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:37 PM Author: excitant elite scourge upon the earth ? there is nothing wrong with his response (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768563) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:24 PM Author: Bateful spot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968226) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:12 PM Author: Trip address regret REMINDER: They just make shit up. If you argue against this position then you are stupid as fuck. And by the way, brown v. board and roe v. wade are prime examples of not following the law and making shit up. Horrible legal decisions.
About as prestigious as being on the Court of "People who make shit up in order to change the law in a way that is somewhat controversial but morally popular." I mean, that is kindov cool but lets quit acting like its scholarship. |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:13 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut This is another problem altogether. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440175) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 5:16 PM Author: Trip address regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445650) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:23 PM Author: Racy tank crackhouse cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440216) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:32 PM Author: amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine If someone wants to grow medical marijuana in their house for personal consumption, the commerce clause is all powerful and we should ignore Lopez and makes 6 leaps of faith about how it could affect interstate commerce.
But when a coal plant wants to spew NOx, SO2 with impunity across state lines, the commerce clause is weak and worthless and the cross state air pollution rule needs to be struck down.
Lol at double thinking Orwellian reptiles. |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:34 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut Clarence Thomas was on the right side of Gonzalez v. Raich, dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440289) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2016 12:22 PM Author: Mischievous Stage Private Investor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31896956) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 5:05 PM Author: sienna lascivious den Dee, you got pwned last time you made this point, but again: the EPA case wasn't a commerce clause case at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445592) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 5:07 PM Author: cordovan nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445606) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2013 4:09 PM Author: aqua gay wizard dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22650844) |
|
Date: May 21st, 2013 10:23 AM Author: curious useless national (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23241250) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:55 PM Author: amethyst odious travel guidebook shrine jfc I destroy full time attorneys on this website (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883785) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:01 PM Author: scarlet kitchen cr, actually (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883817) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:54 PM Author: Sable theater (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064407) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 7:34 PM Author: french locale dingle berry To be fair,
(Part-time attorney) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 6:01 PM Author: Bistre stag film yeah, and the Dems NEVER doublethink (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36189802) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 1:00 PM Author: Trip address regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28116245) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:43 AM Author: Trip address regret REMINDER (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28203556) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:23 PM Author: puce electric university nibblets Great post. RIP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968218) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:38 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883093) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:31 PM Author: peach french chef church building oral arguments are flame (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440270) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 5:07 PM Author: razzmatazz indecent multi-billionaire She's in poor health anyway. She'll be lucky to live another ten years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445601) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2023 11:52 PM Author: Insanely creepy turdskin ay caramba, que suerte! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46348189) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2013 3:58 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-1085.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22650818) |
|
Date: March 18th, 2013 3:10 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22839240) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 2:50 PM Author: Vibrant aquamarine mexican bendito (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883758) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 5:31 PM Author: Low-t cruel-hearted hall trump supporter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22884762) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 5:28 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22884729) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2013 12:36 PM Author: blue home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22889573) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2013 12:45 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22889630) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:55 PM Author: cerebral background story ive heard both of them speak, they seem brilliant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064410) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:22 AM Author: aromatic salmon parlor dog poop Kagan is very smart. She's up there with Roberts. Soto is just pandering to the masses. I guess its fine, I bet they vote almost 100% the same way. We're just teaching people that we don't live in a meritocracy, which i guess has always been the case (given that the sup ct was historically 100% white male). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064694) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 1:56 PM Author: adventurous crimson son of senegal principal's office "which i guess has always been the case (given that the sup ct was historically 100% white male)."
This is absurd. What % of the population that would be eligible for SCOTUS were not white males for most of this country's history? 2%?
You can point to decent examples that question how merit-based America was/is, but this is not one of them. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 12:02 PM Author: aqua gay wizard dragon Libs are stupid. Bc we didn't have transkins of color on the court it was RACIST (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28116003) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:00 AM Author: violent place of business sandwich Reminder: This is why Justice Thomas keeps his mouth shut. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064439) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:04 AM Author: Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate which is pretty sad actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064491) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 7:34 PM Author: Smoky thriller pozpig This was the first thought that came to my mind.
But wasn't he GC at Monsanto? |
|
Date: March 21st, 2018 5:53 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut Justice Thomas is brilliant and our greatest living justice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35655304) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:03 AM Author: Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate I can't even read all of this drivel. She is as smart as any of the other justices. She asks questions that are as compelling as Kagan's. And let's not forget she graduated scl from Princeton. There's no affirmative action in that designation. How many of you all have done that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064469) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:08 AM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base Her thesis was about a Puerto Rican no one had heard of, which was graded by the new Latino studies prof after she blitzed the school with a campaign to create one. BUT I BET IT WAS ALL ON THE MERIT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN COMFORTABLE GIVING HER A B+ FOR HER LATINO THESIS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064526) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:11 AM Author: Olive heady sneaky criminal degenerate You have to go into the thesis phase with summa grades to earn the scl post-thesis.
So ridiculous. No one would be questioning a white student's scl.
I heard a white law firm partner told her she was only at YLS on affirmative action. I would have told him about my Princeton scl and proceeded to bitch slap him. |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:17 AM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base Brother, the article boasting about her academics says she got "almost straight A's her last two years," which is two caveats too many. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064637) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 3:05 PM Author: Bonkers nursing home newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151474) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2016 12:35 PM Author: big magical stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31897131) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 1:57 PM Author: blue home LOL you are truly a dumb clueless idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151045) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:57 PM Author: indigo razzle-dazzle mental disorder location (member of the latino law students ass'n.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151426) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2014 11:35 AM Author: chocolate circlehead i hope this was a low IQ schtick, jfc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24954830) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 1:42 PM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23150962) |
|
Date: May 21st, 2013 8:58 AM Author: Soul-stirring weed whacker base LOL http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/supreme_court_brief.jsp
she hates us for criticizing oral argument.
|
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 7:23 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge "GAME POST"????
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has credited affirmative action with helping her attain an Ivy League education, scoffed.
"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children, and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them," she said. "It seems that the game post keeps changing every few years for minorities."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304330904579137840115177628 |
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 7:25 PM Author: Cyan Pontificating Lay i tink she meant goal poast (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24240325) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 7:37 PM Author: Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24240402) |
|
Date: October 23rd, 2013 12:32 PM Author: cracking buff forum jewess but don't they get the alumni preference? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24290793) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2013 1:45 PM Author: mildly autistic ocher boiling water Every pro-AA person has been arguing for abolition of alum preferences but now that Sotomayor has been to Princeton she starts arguing for keep the preferences. How stupid is she? Obviously she is not truly stupid but she sure is not smart. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24367970) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:46 AM Author: Azure roommate Julia pls respond (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186526) |
|
Date: October 23rd, 2013 12:14 PM Author: Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24290715) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2014 11:29 AM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2486228&mc=65&forum_id=2#24954283 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24954801) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2014 11:35 AM Author: primrose cuck Now that these elite libs (the lib justices) have to deal with AA on a daily basis, will they now overturn it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24954831) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2016 10:59 AM Author: big magical stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30220080) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:55 AM Author: Bistre stag film ALL scotus justices are LIB...all federal judges are lib...period (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186580) |
|
Date: March 10th, 2014 10:43 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#25167423) |
|
Date: April 22nd, 2014 8:29 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#25428392) |
|
Date: October 26th, 2014 4:18 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge <<Sotomayor said one of her attributes is her sense of “powerful concentration,” but acknowledged that the way that sometimes plays out during oral arguments — where she becomes a domineering figure — is bothersome to colleagues.>>
no, her utter stupidity is bothersome to colleagues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-who-graduated-from-yale-law-school-hold-court/2014/10/25/e0f09c38-5a28-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html |
|
Date: January 25th, 2015 3:51 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#27183891) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 11:56 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28115976) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2015 12:08 PM Author: Demanding hideous pocket flask (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28116032) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:57 AM Author: Trip address regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#28203680) |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2015 3:33 PM Author: sienna lascivious den 16 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So I guess my question 17 is, we've now taken a word, concreteness, that the Court 18 in recent years has applied to injuries by citizens and 19 when they can bring actions or not. A generalized 20 grievance, we said, of a taxpayer is not concrete 21 enough. 22 We've taken this doctrine, and you're trying 23 to superimpose the word "concrete" into legally created 24 rights. But for for two decades on, I mean, two 25 centuries, we've always said in our case law, that 1 injury in fact is the breach of a legally recognized 2 right. Where do we have a right? I think that's 3 Justice Kagan's question. 4 JUSTICE KAGAN: No. 5 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It's a requirement. 6 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why don't you answer 7 Justice Sotomayor's question first? 8 MR. PINCUS: Respectfully, I don't think 9 that the cases say that. We discuss them in detail in 10 our in our blue brief. I think what the Court said 11 in Warth and Linda R.S. was about what the Court said in 12 Lujan, which is, de facto injuries as to which there's 13 no cause of action can be made actionable when Congress 14 creates a cause of action. 15 That's quite different from saying that 16 something that doesn't qualify under this Court's 17 injuryinfact standard as tangible harm can be made 18 actionable, which is what the Ninth Circuit decided 19 here. 20 And I also I want to also 21 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I agree with you 22 entirely on that. |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2015 3:48 PM Author: Demanding hideous pocket flask (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29095089) |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2015 3:50 PM Author: Startling Greedy Legend Headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29095109) |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2015 3:42 PM Author: beady-eyed topaz gaping fanboi At least Thomas is smart enough to realize he's a dumbass and shuts the fuck up during oral argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29095040) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 7:33 PM Author: ruddy resort , the pumo lisped (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29345234) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 7:15 PM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29345132) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 8:00 PM Author: bespoke irate point Sotomayor shows the fatigue of one camouflaging how very often she seems to be ineffectively punching above her real intellectual weight. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29345432) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2015 10:41 AM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Garre, this is the fundamental problem that I think Justice Alito is pointing to, and you're sort of talking past each other. So maybe I'll explain his view.
(Laughter)
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Strange, isn't that?
JUSTICE ALITO: I --I could use-- I can use the help.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I think I'll explain what his view is.
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2018 11:06 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36404527) |
|
Date: January 20th, 2016 6:11 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29641178) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2016 10:45 AM Author: Garnet pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29841863) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 2:59 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford In abortion case, J. Sotomayor kept asking questions after Roberts signaled that time was over. "Sonia is off," J. Kennedy said to Roberts. https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/705116862640746497 MR. KELLER: Mr. Chief Justice, my time has expired, if may address it. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sure. MR. KELLER: Except even there, the clinic was not just closed for a single day. It was closed for a longer period of time. And there was an El Paso clinic that actually reopened also months later. So an as applied challenge could allow a clinic, if an undue burden, if a substantial obstacle were shown because of driving distances or capacity in the future, in that discrete instance, but we're in this facial challenge posture, Petitioner's bear the heavy burden to show at least a large-- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Why isn't that selfevident in any area that's-- JUSTICE KENNEDY: Sonia is off. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: This area of western Texas, it's as big as California. No? Bigger? MR. KELLER: I'm not sure about California, but it certainly is a large size. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Huge area. MR. KELLER: Absolutely. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Why isn't it selfevident if you have a law that says you can only be an ASC provider, and who's going to come in and say, I can't be an ASC provider, but it's an undue burden on me, or it's an undue burden that's selfevident on the women in that area? MR. KELLER: Well, the right is possessed by the women. The clinics and doctors can bring challenges. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. So why don't we take this lawsuit as those women saying just that? MR. KELLER: Because there was no-- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You can't have a law that has marginal, if any, medical benefit be applied to this procedure anywhere where there's an undue burden on people on women. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 3:12 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29962296) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 3:18 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party SONIA IS OFF (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29962340) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 3:53 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29962615) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2016 5:16 PM Author: Smoky thriller pozpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30265882) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 6:06 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29963600) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2016 2:03 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29984075) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2016 5:24 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So we announce a rule-- so we announce a rule-- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: All right. Justice Sotomayor. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: We announce a rule that every change that affects an incumbent gives the incumbent the right to challenge the line of change. MR. CARVIN: I think any-- any time somebody is injured-in-fact-- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Just answer the question yes. Every-- this is now an incumbency protection standing rule. MR. CARVIN: No. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-1504_5he6.pdf |
|
Date: June 28th, 2018 3:03 PM Author: Smoky thriller pozpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36329279) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2016 5:36 PM Author: razzmatazz indecent multi-billionaire She has an incredibly unhealthy diet and diabetes. She will likely pass away within a decade. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30107192) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2016 8:35 PM Author: Mustard hairraiser mad-dog skullcap black woman http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-23/sotomayor-helps-puerto-rico-argue-its-bankruptcy-case
Sotomayor Helps Puerto Rico Argue Its Bankruptcy Case MARCH 23, 2016 10:42 AM EST By Noah Feldman
Before Tuesday, I’d have said that Puerto Rico had no chance to win its legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy. That's how the island hopes to resolve its overwhelming debt problems, but the federal bankruptcy code says that it can't.
That's what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held last summer, unanimously. The statute seemed so clear that even Judge Juan Torruella, the appellate court’s only Puerto Rican member, concurred in an outraged separate opinion criticizing the federal law.
Puerto Rico's Slide
Then Sonia Sotomayor stepped in. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court rarely change the outcome of a case, yet Tuesday's session may turn out to be the exception. In a fascinating and unusual argument, Justice Sotomayor, who is herself of Puerto Rican descent, spoke by my count an astonishing 45 times. Sotomayor left no doubt that she was speaking as an advocate.
The interpretation of the law she favored would make the system fairer to Puerto Rico, allowing the commonwealth to create its own emergency bankruptcy measures outside federal law. But it depends on a highly doubtful reading of the statute, one that stretches credulity when read into the text. Ideally, Congress will hear what happened at the oral argument and pass one of the reform proposals it’s currently considering that would spare the court from having to decide the case.
First, Sotomayor walked Puerto Rico’s attorney, Christopher Landau, through his own argument with a precision that exceeded his own. She answered other justices’ hostile questions for him, better than he did. Then she dominated Matthew McGill, the lawyer for the creditors of Puerto Rico’s electrical utility, who are fighting the bankruptcy bid. In the second half of the argument, the other justices mostly stood by and let her go at him.
Sotomayor’s position, borrowed from Landau’s creative brief, was that the federal bankruptcy law doesn't mean what the appeals court considered obvious. The law says that Puerto Rico is to be considered a state for purposes of the bankruptcy code, except that, unlike a state, it may not authorize its municipalities (and by extension, its utilities) to resolve debts under Chapter 9 of the code.
According to the interpretation favored by Sotomayor, this provision does indeed mean that Puerto Rico can’t use federal bankruptcy law to let its electrical utility go into default. But at the same time, she clearly believes, the same law should be interpreted to allow Puerto Rico to create its own bankruptcy laws, under which it might be able to do just that.
The appeal of this interpretation is that it spares Puerto Rico the indignity of the First Circuit’s interpretation. According to that court, Puerto Rico is prohibited from having its own bankruptcy laws, just as the 50 states are prohibited. But uniquely (along with Washington, D.C.), Puerto Rico can’t enable municipalities or utilities to enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
The drawback of this reading is that by implication it gives Puerto Rico a power that no state has had for many decades – the power to create its own bankruptcy code. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that Congress really meant to give it that power, and no one has thought it did until now.
What was even more remarkable than Sotomayor’s dominance of the argument was the effect it seemed to have on her liberal colleagues. Justice Elena Kagan did something that’s rare in an oral argument: She announced that Landau (speaking under Sotomayor’s tutelage) had clarified her view. "I think I get what you're saying now, which I didn't when I started," Kagan told Landau. Initially, Kagan had seemed skeptical that Puerto Rico’s argument could be made to fit the statutory text. Now she was claiming to see the light.
Later Kagan made the point more explicit. "I came in here thinking your best argument is straight on the text," she told McGill. "But now I have a better understanding of Mr. Landau’s interpretation of the text."
Justice Stephen Breyer, who had seemed skeptical of Landau’s position, also appeared to change sides, or at least to be considering doing so.
The case, Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, will be decided by seven justices, since the late Justice Antonin Scalia hasn’t been replaced and Justice Samuel Alito is recused. That means Sotomayor would need four votes to win. Chief Justice John Roberts spoke briefly, expressing skepticism about Puerto Rico’s position. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent. So was Justice Anthony Kennedy.
That leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who could conceivably provide a fourth liberal vote in favor of Puerto Rico. She spoke sparingly, but pointedly. When Landau first stood up, she asked him if Puerto Rico would be allowed to let its electrical utility default on its debt, or whether that would violate the provision of the Constitution that says states may not impair the obligation of contracts.
Technically, not all of the Constitution applies to Puerto Rico, and Landau declined to say that Puerto Rico would be barred from a default that abrogated the utility’s contractual obligations in its debt contracts. In practice, however, there’s little doubt that the contracts clause of the Constitution would indeed apply to Puerto Rico. Ginsburg knows that perfectly well.
That’s important. She almost certainly asked her question to signal that allowing Puerto Rico to engage in some sort of emergency default wouldn’t actually sink the creditors’ real-world claims. This is as close as Ginsburg gets to hinting that she might be prepared to hold for the commonwealth.
The silent participant in this entire unusual argument is Congress, which is considering legislation that would give Puerto Rico some way to restructure its utilities’ debts. The liberal justices are telling Congress that if it doesn’t help Puerto Rico bail itself out, they may do it themselves.
I’m sure all four liberals hope that Congress was listening. A holding like the one Sotomayor was pushing would be good policy, but would push the envelope of statutory interpretation. Congress should resolve this issue soon, before June, so that a hard case doesn’t make questionable law. |
|
Date: April 5th, 2016 8:39 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30209732) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2016 10:54 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford "Wow this job is way harder than I thought it would be." http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/04/07/sonia-sotomayor-the-job-of-a-justice-has-gotten-much-more-complicated/?mod=WSJBlog (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30220064) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2016 5:28 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30265959) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:35 PM Author: exciting market persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097774) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2016 8:45 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford Gonna be an epic day for her idiocy today! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30296195) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2016 9:23 PM Author: arousing snowy corner KILLSHOT
During an oral argument that frequently veered into the swamps of supposition, speculation and outright imagination, Justice Sotomayor stuck to these concrete, undisputed numbers. In an exchange with Donald Verrilli, the United States Solicitor General, she asked him to confirm that “you only deport 400,000” annually.
“We have resources for about 400,000,” Mr. Verrilli responded. “Right.”
“So we have basically 10 million, nine hundred thousand people that cannot be deported because there’s not enough resources, correct?” Justice Sotomayor said.
“That’s correct,” Mr. Verrilli replied.
“So,” Justice Sotomayor concluded, “they are here whether we want them or not.” |
|
Date: April 18th, 2016 9:25 PM Author: Massive people who are hurt Make America Great Again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30300477) |
|
Date: April 22nd, 2016 6:27 AM Author: Mischievous Stage Private Investor http://www.vdare.com/articles/obamnesty-scotus-hearing-shows-wise-latina-sotomayor-is-embarrassment-to-court
Obamnesty SCOTUS Hearing Shows “Wise Latina” Sotomayor Is Embarrassment To Court
See also: Obamnesty At SCOTUS: Administration Ceding Opening For State-Level Immigration Patriotism
VDARE.com has long been very skeptical of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the ”wise Latina” and self-proclaimed “Affirmative Action Baby” whose nomination by Obama in 2009 was an early indication of his crude racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s bullying performance during the April 18 U.S. vs. Texas oral arguments fully justified this skepticism. She has become an embarrassment to the Court.
Supreme Court Immigration
With hundreds of demonstrators, many bused in by La Casa de Maryland, poised at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building waving both commercially and hand-made signs approving the Obama Administration’s Executive Amnesty effort, the battle lines had been drawn. Inside, at 10 o’clock the Crier of the U.S. Supreme Court banged her gavel and intoned: “Please rise….” then…“God save the United States and this honorable court,” while the justices, in order of seniority, took their seats perched above the lectern. Today would be different: there would be only one case, U.S. v. Texas, and it would last 90 minutes—something not done often during the Court’s Term, due to its national importance, described by a student of the Court as having the potential, “…to be the most important in the nation’s history.” [The Implications of United States v. Texas , By John Miano, April 14, 2016]
For the past 20 years, I have listened to oral arguments in the Court as the guest of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. On this day, it became abundantly clear that the Court’s decision will determine if America can maintain its cultural identity. And if the Obama Administration is victorious, the result will accelerate the decline not only of the historic American nation, but of its founding legal document, the U.S. Constitution.
A question early in the arguments by Chief Justice John Roberts to Donald Verrilli, Obama’s Solicitor-General of the U.S., saw that possibility:
So that [an administrative and arbitrary deadline on deportation] somehow binds the Executive branch now…this hasn’t been approved by the Executive branch prior to this point, either, and yet it’s a fairly significant departure.
In short, the Obama Administration was seeking legal justification for its unprecedented and open-ended policy of “deferred action,” or presidential non-enforcement of current immigration laws dealing with those illegally in the country.
Throughout the entire length the oral arguments, one question must have been shared by many in the packed audience which included Attorney-General Loretta Lynch: would the presence of Justice Scalia have brought about a victory for the forces of patriotic immigration reform?
Four years ago almost to the day, April 25, 2012, Scalia in his dissent in a case as applicable to the Texas governor seeking protections of his residents today, as it was to Arizona’s governor then, wrote:
A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, leaves the States’ border unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration law?
Both DACA and DAPA, the result of Executive Orders, were on trial at the Supreme Court. But there was another, more immediate, threat to Texas and the other 25 states that joined it in bringing their legal suits against the Obama Administration: their standing. It was evident from the outset that the four Leftist justices—Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—would attempt to prove that the states had a no legal right to bring the case to the Supremes in the first place.
In his opening remarks challenging that ploy by the “Gang of Four,” the Solicitor-General of Texas, Scott A. Keller, undertook to explain that both DACA and DAPA had produced an “injury resulting from the challenged action.” Hence, his state and the others had “standing,” and were legally entitled to bring the lawsuit.
But his introduction was short-circuited. Within thirty seconds, Keller was challenged by Justice Sotomayor. Comparing apples to oranges, Sotomayor opined that the Fairness Act, passed in 1990, allowed more illegal aliens deferred status than either DACA or DAPA.
Keller response was immediate:
Keller: DAPA is an unprecedented unlawful assertion of executive power. DAPA would be one of the largest changes in immigration policy in our nation’s history
But here he was interrupted again:
Sotomayor: How can you say that? I mean, we have the Fairness Act that happened in 1990. It granted basically the same thing, deferred action and work authorization, to 1.5 million people out of 4 million. That was a 40 percent of the immigrant population of the time was affected. Here, the best estimate is that only 35 percent are affected. So at least once before, the President has taken action that has a greater percentage effect than now. So why is it the largest? Is it the number of people?
Keller: Well, the Family Fairness Program, first of all, was done pursuant to statutory authority [emphasis mine]. It was a voluntary departure program.
Was Sotomayor oblivious to the difference between the two references?
On at least three occasions in which I was in the Court, Sotomayor been corrected as to her reading of the law. In Arizona’s attempt to deal with damaging impact of illegal immigration, Paul Clement, the former U.S. Solicitor-General under President George W. Bush, and now attorney for Arizona, on two separate occasions stated that Justice Sotomayor had “misread the law,” a polite way of telling the justice that she was wrong. (See also Race Preferences at the Supreme Court, American Renaissance, December 18, 2015).
So Sotomayor is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to the Court. Apparently, this does not bother her; I do not believe her attitude will change.
erinmurphyBut if Keller was adequate in his defense of his state’s interests, perhaps the most impressive advocate on either side that day was Erin E. Murphy (right) who represented the U.S. House of Representatives. During her brief time in responding to questions—about 15 minutes—Murphy made it clear why she was there defending Texas.
Again, it was Sotomayor, who apparently really is incapable of understanding legal distinctions, who interrupted Murphy brusquely after the House’s counsel had just begun her opening remarks:
Murphy: Three years ago the Executive asked Congress to enact legislation that would have given it the power to authorize most of the people that are living in this country unlawfully to stay, work, and receive benefits, and Congress declined. Now the Executive comes before this Court with the extraordinary claim that it has had the power to achieve the same—
Sotomayor: Excuse me. Was that really all was that part of a package for a pathway to citizenship?
Murphy: It was not a pathway to citizenship. It was a pathway to lawful presence in the country [emphasis mine] that would have allowed individuals to have a legal status, to remain in this country, and Congress has not created a legal status for the category of individuals covered by DAPA.
Responding to a question by the Chief Justice, Murphy encapsulated the unconstitutional nature of DAPA and DACA:
Murphy: Whatever the Executive wants to label that, under its own regulations, deferred action status is equated with lawful presence. So if you cross it (“unlawful presence”) out of the DAPA memo, it’s still part of the regulatory scheme that says once we’ve taken this extra step, not just of deferring the removal of you, but of putting you into this status, that changes your eligibility for work authorization and benefits in this country. And once the Executive is doing that, we are far outside the notion of mere enforcement discretion.
What Murphy had repeated was Keller’s claim that both DACA and DAPA are illegal seizures of congressional powers which, under the U.S. Constitution, are reserved exclusively to the legislature—a concept apparently alien to Sotomayor and her three allies.
How will the case end? After two decades of observing Court proceedings, I know that justices generally do not telegraph their final vote, disguising it by the type of question they ask. However, I believe most in the courtroom that morning felt that Sotomayor and three other justices will vote in favor of the administration’s extraordinary Executive Order.
I believe also that there are at least three votes to uphold the Constitution. If Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked the least probing questions, sides with the three, then the 4-4 split will be a victory for immigration reform patriots…at least for now. That tie will mean that the 5th Circuit Court decision last November will prevail, and that both DACA and DAPA will cease.
Or should. But do not discount the possibility of this Administration’s willingness to proceed in this matter, with Justice Sotomayor, its staunch defender, leading the charge. The Romans may have said it best: lex non rex.
|
|
Date: June 20th, 2016 6:10 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30749570) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2016 9:32 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30750963) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2016 3:29 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counselor, assume I agree with you-- MS. BELL: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: --that there were parts of your argument, both below and here in your brief, that suggested the instructional error. But what I find is that the way you presented the argument was confusing. MS. BELL: Yes. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It took a lot of teasing out. Does--how does that affect what we do. MS. BELL: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That--that you weren't clear in the instruction, don't you forfeit that argument? MS. BELL: No, Your Honor. The--the claim is that the intent to--we challenge-- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I--I know what your two claims are. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-5991_7k47.pdf |
|
Date: October 4th, 2016 3:31 PM Author: tantric property associate Jfc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31555796) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2016 3:43 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31555890) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2018 11:18 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit Wtf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36404592) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:57 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883202) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2016 3:33 PM Author: Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman She is the embodiment of the future Libs want for you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31555809) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2017 7:11 AM Author: Stirring shaky school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34850931) |
|
Date: October 18th, 2016 9:05 PM Author: turquoise insecure rehab (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31673504) |
|
Date: October 24th, 2016 10:13 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE GINSBURG: When the--when the component--when the article of manufacture isn't sold apart from the entire product, how should the--the judge charge the jury on determining the profit attributable to the infringing article? MR. FLETCHER: So we think that there'd be two factual questions in a case where that's disputed. The first one would be what is the relevant article, and there may be a dispute on that as there is in this case. The second question, once the fact-finder identifies the relevant article, is the question that you asked, which is how much of the total profits from the device are attributable to the infringing article? JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What's the first step, and how do you figure it out? JUSTICE GINSBURG: May he--may he complete his answer to my question? MR. FLETCHER: So Justice Ginsburg, on the second step, we urge the Court not to speak to that in a lot of detail because it hasn't been briefed in this case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-777_1b82.pdf |
|
Date: October 24th, 2016 10:29 AM Author: vivacious cream trailer park blood rage jfc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31714610) |
|
Date: October 24th, 2016 10:32 AM Author: Demanding hideous pocket flask (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31714619) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2016 12:49 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone double fault cumskin LJL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31897263) |
|
Date: November 18th, 2016 1:51 PM Author: ruddy resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31941910) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 8:59 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884679) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 10:12 PM Author: Fiercely-loyal floppy garrison I'm shocked that the transcript skipped over Sotomayor burying her head in her hands muttering "Ai pappi" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33098016) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:36 PM Author: Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace Parody or actual transcript?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So are you suing them 16 just for the pictures that are in their catalogue? Is 17 that what you're suing them for?
18 MR. BURSCH: We're not suing them; they're 19 suing us.
20 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. You're 21 right. I apologize. |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:38 PM Author: Smoky thriller pozpig Sotomayor McCheese (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768566) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:38 PM Author: excitant elite scourge upon the earth holy fucking shit.
that said, i love this thread. |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:38 PM Author: Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-866_j426.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768574) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:51 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party LO SIENTO SEÑOR! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768641) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2017 1:18 PM Author: mind-boggling hyperactive gunner Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33176314) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:59 AM Author: contagious queen of the night plaza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186609) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:39 PM Author: Boyish Self-absorbed House Electric Furnace same oral argument
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- but you can't stop 2 them from selling their -- 3 MR. BURSCH: We can't stop them from using 4 their copyright to do anything on a printed page, or 5 even to take these designs and, like I said, put it on a 6 lunchbox or a notebook. But their copyright does not -- 7 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I transposed the two of 8 you. I apologize. 9 MR. BURSCH: No problem, Justice Sotomayor.
-----
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Bursch, I go back to 19 this point, because I'm a little confused. You started 20 by saying to me you don't want to be stopped from 21 manufacturing this particular uniform. 22 MR. BURSCH: Correct. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2016 7:47 PM Author: excitant elite scourge upon the earth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31892440) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2016 7:48 PM Author: out-of-control space (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31892452) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2016 1:12 PM Author: high-end offensive tanning salon This is devastating (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31897511) |
|
Date: November 14th, 2016 5:35 PM Author: internet-worthy pisswyrm casino (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31908117) |
|
Date: January 18th, 2017 3:50 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Let's go back to, if we can, the earlier part of Justice Breyer's question. 1052 has two components. You can't disparate or falsely suggest a connection with a person institution. Are you challenging or saying that the second part of 1052 falsely suggests the connection is unconstitutional as well? MR. CONNELL: That's not the question before this Court. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I know. But your argument earlier was that if someone slanders or libels an individual by saying--Trump before he was a public figure--Trump is a thief and that becomes their trademark, that even if they go to court and prove that that's a libel or a slander, that trademark would still exist and would be capable of use because otherwise canceling it would be an abridgement of the First Amendment? MR. CONNELL: I believe that's correct. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That makes no sense. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-1293_l6gn.pdf |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:11 PM Author: Gay senate can you provide more context? is sotomayor saying that "trump is a thief" is not protectd by the first amendment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32510992) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:13 PM Author: Bronze Frozen Ape think she's saying you can't trademark it because it's libelous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511003) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:15 PM Author: Gay senate yeah but she's saying that the position that you can't cancel the trademark because it would violate the first amendment to do so is ridiculous, no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511014) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:17 PM Author: Bronze Frozen Ape she's saying that's the lawyers position and it makes no sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511027) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:18 PM Author: Gay senate yeah, so she thinks that the first amendment doesn't protect the claim "trump is a thief"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511034) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 4:15 PM Author: Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32511013) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2017 6:27 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32638729) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2017 3:05 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford MR. STOLER: Well, as Justice Kagan and I discussed, on day is an additional punishment. And one day-- JUSTICE KAGAN: She's Justice Sotomayor. Mr. STOLER: I'm sorry. Wrong end. (Laughter.) JUSTICE KAGAN: She was the one helping you. (Laughter.) MR. STOLER: I'm sorry. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: This is the-- JUSTICE KAGAN: I was the one who wasn't. (Laughter.) MR. STOLER: I got my ends mixed up. I'm sorry. But as was--as was indicated, that is an additional sentence. That is an additional punishment that is provided for according to the statutory provisions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-9260_bq7c.pdf |
|
Date: February 28th, 2017 3:10 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Kagan scrambling to get on the record that she's not associated with Sotomayor's comments (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32720341) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 9:05 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884719) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2017 3:14 PM Author: Smoky thriller pozpig MR. HILLIARD: That's right. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Personal general jurisdiction. MR. HILLIARD: Justice Ginsburg -- I mean, excuse me -- Justice Sotomayor. I do not -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That's the first time ever. (Laughter.) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 9:02 PM Author: Fluffy legal warrant piazza (insane quoter of bland SCOTUS oral arguments) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884706) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 8:57 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32884666) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2017 12:04 AM Author: swashbuckling site juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32987781) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2017 12:12 AM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32987833) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 8:50 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Could you please tell me, besides this voluntary settlement issue, what else is jurisdictional? What else besides something that doesn't match 7512, the furlough and suspension? MR. FLETCHER: Right. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So if we go down your route, and I'm writing that opinion--which I hope not, but if I were-- (Laughter.) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/16-399_3f14.pdf |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 8:54 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097389) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:18 PM Author: lime concupiscible box office striped hyena (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097612) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:20 PM Author: Beta shimmering kitty An enterprising person could turn this thread into a helluva long form piece. Judiciously constructed it could even sneak into the WaPo or similar. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097631) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: out-of-control space (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097647) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:45 PM Author: Beta shimmering kitty Couldn't be framed that way at all. Would have to adopt a derailing/collegiality angle. The dummy angle would have to be read in by readers with brain cells. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097834) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097651) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:27 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker “Being a judge was the most terrifying event in my life,” she said. “I was convinced I was gonna fail” but was determined to “die trying,” working seven days a week and long hours each day as she broke into her new positions. “I’m not the smartest person in the Supreme Court room,” she said.
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/At-UC-Berkeley-Justice-Sotomayor-discusses-10991435.php |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:38 PM Author: exciting market persian lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097789) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:50 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097857) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:48 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party "Sotomayor later explained that the 'Supreme Court room' is the name given to one of the dining areas near the Union Station Sbarro where she works nightly shifts." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097847) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:50 PM Author: Fluffy legal warrant piazza odd case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097858) |
|
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:57 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097918) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2017 1:14 PM Author: Comical Hospital what does she mean here?
MS. MAYNARD: The statute provides powerful incentives for the sponsors to continue through the process, Justice Sotomayor. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All incentives have a way of failing. Just look at our society. |
|
Date: April 28th, 2017 10:40 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33188530) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2017 4:17 PM Author: sienna lascivious den Lol is that for real? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33368278) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2017 3:50 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford In 7 years, Sotomayor has written zero divide majority opinions. https://empiricalscotus.com/2017/05/22/the-first-batch/ |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2017 3:55 PM Author: big magical stead Has Roberts let her sign any of the denial of cert. orders? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33368136) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2017 4:01 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party So the liberal justices don't trust her either (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33368169) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2017 10:21 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party But she just issued yet another lone dissenting opinion in the personal jurisdiction case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33605693) |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2022 7:14 PM Author: histrionic station telephone TBF, she holds down 3 full-time jobs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45426918) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: sienna lascivious den SCOTUS rules 8-0. Sotomayor separately concurs, joined by no one, to note that while she thinks that the unanimous Court got it right on the clear text of the statute, she's nonetheless "troubled" because the legislative history doesn't support the outcome. Not because the legislative history contradicts or undermines the outcome in any way, but rather because there is no legislative history on the issue at all.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-74_5i36.pdf |
|
Date: June 5th, 2017 3:39 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Kagan, the majority opinion author, probably wiped her ass with Sotomayor's useless 2-page concurrence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33479235) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2017 3:44 PM Author: big magical stead Maybe she thinks she can't be seen as going around following the clear text of statutes without objection, thereby undermining the authority of legislative history in future cases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33479272) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2017 10:16 PM Author: wonderful public bath windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33605651) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2017 6:30 PM Author: Fragrant fat ankles (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33647915) |
|
Date: September 27th, 2017 9:01 AM Author: puce electric university nibblets (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34307550) |
|
Date: October 3rd, 2017 9:09 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But I'm really - I'm very interested in the answer, which is Justice Gorsuch is -- is asking how you -- where do you draw the line? So acceptable civil vagueness and non-acceptable civil vagueness? https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/15-1498_886b.pdf |
|
Date: October 3rd, 2017 9:13 AM Author: Cerise laughsome faggotry indirect expression lol thank you Obama (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34354698) |
|
Date: October 3rd, 2017 9:22 AM Author: titillating learning disabled dilemma *turns directly to Gorsuch* "Anyway your honor as I was saying..." |
|
Date: October 3rd, 2017 9:13 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry, but why -- JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, why is it directed there if it doesn't say that? I mean, in fact, we said the opposite in Eastex. We said employees seeking to improve working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums, essentially the legislatures and the courthouses and the agencies, is covered by the mutual aid or protection clause. So, you know, in Eastex, we came up against this question, said it was very clear that the mutual aid and protection clause swept further than the workplace itself, as long as the ultimate goals were workplace-related, whether you took those goals to the -- in the -- you know, activity in the workplace or in the agencies or in the courts, it didn't matter at all, it was all covered by Section 7. MR. CLEMENT: That's right, Justice Kagan, but the key words there are "resort to." There's no right in Section 7 or anywhere else in the NLRA to proceed as a class once you get there. -- MR. CLEMENT: Well, the issue is just as the employer can raise a numerosity defense or a typicality defense, the employer can raise a defense that you agreed to arbitrate this claim. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Clement - MR. CLEMENT: And that should be enforceable -- and then, when you get to the arbitration forum, just as you take Rule 23 as a given, you should take the rules of the arbitration forum as a given. And this is the way it applies in every other context - JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Clement -- Mr. Clement, you recognize that this kind of contract, this -- there is no true bargaining. It's the employer says you want to work here, you sign this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-285_1qm2.pdf |
|
Date: October 4th, 2017 10:06 PM Author: Black sex offender Slate has an article praising Sotomayor's devastatingly effect bench rhetoric:
Here's an example they highlight of her overwhelming intellectual force:
“I really don’t understand what that means,” Sotomayor responded. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2017 8:15 AM Author: Stimulating Purple Field lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34371981) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2017 11:43 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford lol not gonna click but assume it's that mouthbreather Stern (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34373047) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2017 11:46 AM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Beautiful photo they used of her
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/171004_JURIS_Sotomayor-GillvWhitford.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg |
|
Date: December 6th, 2017 4:55 AM Author: Stirring shaky school JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You know, the other night I had some people over and one of them brought a box of cupcakes and one of the cupcakes was smashed against the box. That was the only cupcake not eaten.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
Yes, she really said that. During a Supreme Court oral argument. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:07 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Libs sweating profusely as extreme diabetic Sotomayor grabs her third cupcake of the night (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968068) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2018 11:27 AM Author: puce electric university nibblets (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35498013) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:16 PM Author: self-centered idiot "and as it turns out, the cupcakes that 'vanished' due to the 'ghost' were just stuck to the top of the box," she concluded after twenty minutes. "Okay, your argument time is up." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968141) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:16 PM Author: Cheese-eating aphrodisiac stage affirmative action come on post the whole thing....
MS. WAGGONER: Certainly not all cakes
would be considered speech, but in the wedding
context, Mr. Phillips is painting on a blank
canvas. He is creating a painting on that
canvas that expresses messages, and including
words and symbols in those messages.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You know, the
other night I had some people over and one of
them brought a box of cupcakes and one of the
cupcakes was smashed against the box. That was
the only cupcake not eaten.
Now, I suspect that one of the reasons
is the others were so much more attractive
whole. There is creation in serving food, in
creating any type of edible product.
People -- there are sandwich artists
now. There are people who create beauty in
what they make, but we still don't call it
expressive and entitled to First Amendment
protection.
MS. WAGGONER: No, but when we have
someone that is sketching and sculpting and
hand designing something, that is creating a
temporary sculpture that serves as the
centerpiece of what they believe to be a
religious wedding celebration, that cake
expresses a message. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:03 PM Author: Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968008) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:17 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford MS. WAGGONER: It's not just about what the individual thinks they are communicating. This Court also routinely makes that inquiry in all kinds of situations in all free-speech cases. Second, though, the Hurley framework provides a framework for this Court to make those decisions and to protect individuals. The way that it does that is it asks: Is the individual who's being compelled to speak objecting to the message that is contained in that speech or the person? And that's usually a very obvious inquiry. If it's connected - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would. You. Stop. Would that belief that expresses speech trump public accommodation laws against discrimination or protecting customers from race? Yes or no. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:19 PM Author: self-centered idiot I'm sure he said it's not implicated or whatever, but the answer is plainly "yes." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968165) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:19 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE ALITO: One thing that's disturbing about the record here, in addition to the statement made, the statement that Justice Kennedy read, which was not disavowed at the time by any other member of the Commission, is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint. The -- the Commission had before it the example of three complaints filed by an individual whose creed includes the traditional Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and he requested cakes that expressed that point of view, and those -- there were bakers who said no, we won't do that because it is offensive. And the Commission said: That's okay. It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage. MR. YARGER: Justice Alito - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counselor, in that case - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Maybe you could answer -- maybe you could Justice Alito's question. MR. YARGER: Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:22 PM Author: self-centered idiot One day CJ Roberts is just going to come out and say "shut the fuck up you stupid AA bitch, we'd like to consider actually germane arguments for a bit." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968208) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2018 11:03 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit Jfc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36404510) |
|
Date: January 8th, 2018 12:50 AM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Sotomayor wrote a stupid concurrence in a sentencing case that no one agreed with and now it's the subject of a case that SCOTUS recently granted cert. Lol at this question presented:
"2. Whether, under Marks, the lower courts are bound by the four-Justice plurality opinion in Freeman, or, instead, by Justice Sotomayor’s separate concurring opinion with which all eight other Justices disagreed." |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 10:46 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186883) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2018 8:48 PM Author: Diverse toilet seat water buffalo in a case where the lawyer admitted the client's guilt over the client's objection, Soto gets completely sidetracked on a hypo about perjured testimony that isn't germane so the lawyer and the court have to get the argument back on track.
JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Waxman, let me - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Waxman, this
sounds like a -- my ethics class in law school,
and this very hypothetical of what do you do
with a lying client?
And it was my understanding that every
ethics rule requires the lawyer to put the
client on the stand but not assist the client
in telling the lie by -- you can put him on the
stand and say tell your story. And if the
judge or someone objects that your -- that this
person's rambling on, you say to the judge: I
cannot ask questions. My client has directed
me to put him or her on the stand.
People can walk themselves into jail.
They can walk themselves, regrettably, into the
gas chamber. But they have a right to tell
their story.
MR. WAXMAN: They have -- they have
the same -- I mean, Your Honor's understanding,
this is not a question of ethics rules -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Absolutely not.
MR. WAXMAN: -- about perjured
testimony or anything.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But the question
MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor's
understanding is correct as to - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So let me find - MR. WAXMAN: -- the vast majority of
jurisdictions.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, could I ask you
about - JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I ask -- may I
just -
JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Waxman, could I
ask you about, because I want to understand
where the -- the line is here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-8255_7l48.pdf |
|
Date: January 17th, 2018 8:52 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party The frustration in Alito's voice jumps off the page (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35179702) |
|
Date: January 18th, 2018 9:13 AM Author: Diverse toilet seat water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35182051) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2018 1:30 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It's not going to change whether the union asks for it or the employees come -- what you're now saying is if the employees came into an auditorium at a business site of the state and every one of them got up and said, I want higher wages, the scale of that demand makes it protected by the First Amendment? It's still a work-related demand. MR. MESSENGER: Well, in that hypothetical, it would arguably be a matter of public concern if there was a stage-in, you know, at a public auditorium in which employees stood up. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, let's -let's not -- don't put in facts. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1466_gebh.pdf |
|
Date: February 26th, 2018 1:33 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- Breyer said, every single decision affects the public fisc. Every time you lose something, you -- the public fisc is affected. You are talking - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Care to comment? MR. MESSENGER: Again, to go back, I think it's the scale that makes the distinction, Your Honor. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1466_gebh.pdf |
|
Date: February 27th, 2018 11:25 AM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Roberts FINALLY let Sotomayor write a majority opinion...for a 9-0 decision about bankruptcy law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35498002) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2018 6:58 PM Author: big magical stead *Sotomayor hits send*
*notices typo in first line* |
|
Date: February 27th, 2018 7:50 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I -- I'm sorry, I'm -- I'm now -- I guess my imagination is running wild. (Laughter.) JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: How -- how does - who tells the robot what to do and what does the robot do? MR. ROSENKRANZ: A human being in, let's say, Redmond tells the robot -- it sends the robot instructions. And, by the way, the computer scientists' amicus brief spells this out in great detail. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-2_j4ek.pdf |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 10:45 AM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186874) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:02 PM Author: big magical stead "Not surprisingly, Sotomayor was first out of the gate at argument . . . This exchange lasted several minutes, with Sotomayor asking the first five questions of the morning. But just as the argument was veering into the weeds of statutory construction, Chief Justice John Roberts steered it back . . ."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/argument-analysis-we-know-how-to-get-to-five-justices-debate-precedent-in-the-absence-of-a-majority-opinion/ |
|
Date: May 2nd, 2018 3:37 PM Author: Coiffed fantasy-prone skinny woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35967712) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2018 9:50 AM Author: saffron party of the first part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36186548) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2018 8:55 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36315192) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2018 3:17 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36320957) |
|
Date: August 5th, 2018 2:36 PM Author: international law enforcement agency mood This has now been empirically confirmed: https://empiricalscotus.com/2018/08/01/a-little-change/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36557704) |
|
Date: August 5th, 2018 2:42 PM Author: Insanely creepy turdskin lmao wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36557721) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2018 11:40 AM Author: Gold charismatic doctorate cuckold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36824893) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2019 2:56 PM Author: hominid (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#38005462) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2019 3:03 PM Author: Step-uncle's House Kitty Cat jeez, wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#38005480) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2018 11:38 AM Author: Carnelian Therapy Hell (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36824882) |
|
Date: October 1st, 2018 3:09 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: As I read the record, there were suggestions by some of the scientists that what -- what you admitted to Justice Kagan a little while ago, minimal work, this species could survive, albeit not robustly, but it could survive.
MR. BISHOP: No.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Wouldn't that be enough?
MR. BISHOP: No, that's just not what the administrative record shows. All right. The -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, I don't want to argue the record now. |
|
Date: October 1st, 2018 3:15 PM Author: Henna Karate Goal In Life jesus, that sentence is rough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36933914) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2018 3:52 PM Author: 180 Sadistic Ceo Indian Lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36992193) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2018 3:55 PM Author: Mahogany orchestra pit Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36992211) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2019 3:18 PM Author: deranged police squad friendly grandma wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#38005542) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2019 2:51 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party Was reading a recent transcript and Soto had a two-page long "question." LJL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#38005427) |
|
Date: April 15th, 2019 8:09 PM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You answered --you answered discretion, but you don't answer why. Aren't we rewarding you -- rewarding you for not raising it adequately below, rewarding you for mentioning it in two sentences in your cert petition and not asking us to take it as a separate question presented? Where should we draw the line as to when we stop rewarding counsel for changing or moving the ball on cert grounds? MR. GARRE: Well, there was no strategic gamesmanship here, Justice Sotomayor. We -- the -- the broader argument, as even my friend concedes, is fairly included within the question presented. You look at page 20 of our cert petition, it was very explicitly raised -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You're not dealing with what I just asked, which is -- MR. GARRE: The -- the broader issue is this Court should -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- you could write almost any question and throw the kitchen sink if you choose. The question is -- you didn't raise it as a separate part of your cert petition; you didn't raise it below -- why should we reward you? MR. GARRE: Okay. First of all, we did argue it in our cert petition. But -- but, as to your broader question, Justice Sotomayor, you should do just as you did in the Central Bank case in order to provide for the intelligent resolution of this question. Whether or not -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I wasn't here. I might have taken a different position. Why -- MR. GARRE: Well, and -- and the dissenters obviously did. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Why should we reward -- MR. GARRE: And the reason is, is because this is an issue that is interdependent with the question of whether or not there could be inferred private right of action for negligence. It would be silly for this Court to say there can be inferred right for negligence, but -- but the -- but everybody would recognize, I think, that there is no -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That -- that's what the SE -- that's what the government says, that there is. MR. GARRE: Well, the government says there's no private right of action at all. The courts below agree with that. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, no, no, no, they say that the statute involves negligence. So we can find that it involves negligence and leave for another day whether there's a private cause of action or the right only belongs to the SE -- to the SEC. MR. GARRE: I think where I would take issue with that, Justice Sotomayor, is -- is the government, in the first part of the government's brief, I understand addressed the question of what would be the standard in an express action brought by the SEC. I don't really understand the government to be saying they think that in an implied private right of action, if it exists, you could have claims for negligence. They sort of artfully dodged that question and ultimately ground their brief on the broader position, which we very much agree with -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: They'll let us know. MR. GARRE: -- that there's simply no private right of action at all. And so I -- soI think, you know, again, to answer your question, we would take issue with the notion there was gamesmanship here. We -- we were not required to raise it at the panel stage when we were bound by the Ninth Circuit's precedent. We did flag it in our petition for rehearing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-459_5ie6.pdf |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2020 11:43 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#39641748) |
|
Date: March 11th, 2020 2:34 PM Author: Stirring shaky school https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1237806423628750848
BREAKING: Supreme Court grants stay to let Trump administration keep enforcing rule that has forced 60,000 people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum. Only Justice Sotomayor would have denied the Trump Admin a stay. |
|
Date: March 11th, 2020 2:36 PM Author: brass sanctuary mexico has 8 corona cases, at this point theyre better off staying there. why does Sonia want mexicans to die? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#39737759) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2020 10:04 AM Author: umber range lettuce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#40990016) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2020 4:52 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4698966&forum_id=2#41440326 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#41441675) |
|
Date: January 7th, 2022 7:02 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#43747609) |
|
Date: January 8th, 2022 3:51 PM Author: Doobsian area love of her life "millions of cases" 2022 bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#43751177) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2022 10:48 AM Author: lake coffee pot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#43797477) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2022 3:05 PM Author: sienna lascivious den Apparently KBJ giving her a run for her money with very long speeches to counsel about 14A (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45278931) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2022 2:16 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45415066) |
|
Date: November 1st, 2022 11:20 AM Author: orange center stock car De jure / de facto. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45418636) |
|
Date: November 1st, 2022 12:03 PM Author: Lavender Native Giraffe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45418820) |
|
Date: November 1st, 2022 1:24 PM Author: khaki pistol masturbator https://twitter.com/RogerSeverino_/status/1587132428279336967
Sotomayor just mistook de jure (legal) segregation for de facto (in fact) segregation. Alito called her out on it and she doubled down! It's an elementary mistake no competent 1st yr law student would make. |
|
Date: November 2nd, 2022 6:49 PM Author: navy chapel hissy fit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#45426778) |
|
Date: May 19th, 2023 10:49 AM Author: cowardly iridescent church great thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46330700) |
|
Date: May 23rd, 2023 11:39 PM Author: Insanely creepy turdskin “edit: I regret this thread. posted it during a shitty edgy conservative phase in school. she is far from the worst justice.” lmao |
|
Date: October 4th, 2023 11:34 AM Author: charcoal hunting ground halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#46883068) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2024 1:16 PM Author: Vigorous Burgundy Reading Party “Justice Sotomayor asked about if there were other ways a state might keep a candidate off the ballot.
'Are you setting up so that if some President runs for a third term, that a state can't disqualify him?' she asked, due to the 22nd Amendment's term limits on presidential tenure.
'Of course, they can disqualify him from the ballot because that is a qualification. That is categorical,' Mitchell responded.” |