Sotomayor is like some kind of sick joke, derailing SCOTUS
| Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | Mildly autistic hunting ground | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | Coral locus | 01/16/13 | | Brass tanning salon | 12/09/15 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 01/15/13 | | Purple nofapping filthpig pervert | 01/15/13 | | Cerise Meetinghouse Goyim | 01/15/13 | | Aqua Duck-like Parlor Legal Warrant | 01/16/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | seedy immigrant location | 03/18/13 | | topaz university codepig | 03/18/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 03/26/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 03/26/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | motley massive senate preventive strike | 03/26/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | motley massive senate preventive strike | 03/26/13 | | honey-headed swashbuckling station | 06/05/18 | | honey-headed swashbuckling station | 06/05/18 | | Sickened stimulating skinny woman doctorate | 04/07/16 | | arousing gold goal in life point | 03/26/13 | | Laughsome Buff Mood Scourge Upon The Earth | 03/26/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 03/26/13 | | Laughsome Buff Mood Scourge Upon The Earth | 03/26/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | Provocative Bull Headed Casino | 03/26/13 | | motley massive senate preventive strike | 03/27/13 | | Anal church brethren | 06/05/18 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | seedy immigrant location | 03/18/13 | | kink-friendly thriller stage | 03/18/13 | | lavender dashing cuck | 03/26/13 | | Passionate laser beams coldplay fan | 03/26/13 | | Bright fluffy affirmative action clown | 03/26/13 | | galvanic pale address personal credit line | 05/07/13 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 01/15/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 01/15/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 01/16/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/16/13 | | Cracking weed whacker | 01/16/13 | | Passionate laser beams coldplay fan | 03/26/13 | | Internet-worthy overrated whorehouse | 06/14/15 | | Puce cruise ship hominid | 12/09/15 | | domesticated stag film | 03/02/16 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | exhilarant center mental disorder | 12/20/17 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 10/04/23 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/26/13 | | Passionate laser beams coldplay fan | 03/26/13 | | Bright fluffy affirmative action clown | 03/26/13 | | dead brindle psychic boistinker | 04/23/13 | | galvanic pale address personal credit line | 05/07/13 | | Irradiated Hideous Parlour | 11/04/13 | | hilarious lascivious crackhouse mad-dog skullcap | 02/04/14 | | Grizzly Death Wish | 03/02/16 | | haunting glittery rigpig business firm | 11/13/16 | | Electric autistic forum | 01/31/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/26/13 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/26/13 | | galvanic pale address personal credit line | 05/07/13 | | seedy immigrant location | 05/07/13 | | sticky market jap | 10/15/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 04/23/13 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 04/23/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 10/08/13 | | big amethyst property | 02/04/14 | | Stubborn Canary Police Squad Spot | 04/17/17 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 10/04/23 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 10/08/13 | | azure philosopher-king hall | 01/31/17 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 11/04/13 | | Aromatic hateful puppy | 06/14/15 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 12/03/13 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/21/17 | | odious macaca | 05/19/23 | | odious macaca | 05/24/23 | | bateful territorial home | 03/02/15 | | Grizzly Death Wish | 03/02/16 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/21/17 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 10/04/23 | | 180 crimson associate | 01/15/13 | | startled peach son of senegal | 01/15/13 | | Chocolate Fortuitous Meteor Twinkling Uncleanness | 01/15/13 | | learning disabled bat-shit-crazy potus | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | learning disabled bat-shit-crazy potus | 01/15/13 | | Mildly autistic hunting ground | 01/15/13 | | Purple nofapping filthpig pervert | 01/15/13 | | Cracking weed whacker | 01/16/13 | | Aphrodisiac blood rage kitchen | 03/18/13 | | Hairraiser magical toaster athletic conference | 03/26/13 | | Unholy Burgundy Lay | 05/07/13 | | Fear-inspiring mischievous regret | 03/26/13 | | Fear-inspiring mischievous regret | 01/31/17 | | Dull sneaky criminal | 01/15/13 | | Cerise Meetinghouse Goyim | 01/15/13 | | sooty heady selfie private investor | 04/23/13 | | Anal church brethren | 06/05/18 | | razzmatazz trump supporter double fault | 01/15/13 | | Grizzly Death Wish | 03/02/16 | | curious space | 01/15/13 | | adventurous doobsian gas station tank | 01/15/13 | | Metal flushed resort sweet tailpipe | 01/16/13 | | Bossy Gaping State | 04/23/13 | | mustard vivacious brunch knife | 10/23/13 | | sexy blue dopamine party of the first part | 10/31/16 | | Magenta floppy organic girlfriend turdskin | 12/20/17 | | Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine | 01/16/13 | | charcoal deer antler | 01/15/13 | | learning disabled bat-shit-crazy potus | 01/15/13 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 01/15/13 | | Impertinent candlestick maker bawdyhouse | 11/13/16 | | outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy | 01/16/13 | | Purple nofapping filthpig pervert | 01/16/13 | | spruce chad area | 02/16/13 | | Exciting Bat Shit Crazy Hospital Gay Wizard | 05/21/13 | | learning disabled bat-shit-crazy potus | 03/26/13 | | Stirring avocado jew | 03/26/13 | | topaz university codepig | 04/23/13 | | Sapphire cerebral set legend | 10/15/13 | | Anal church brethren | 06/05/18 | | Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine | 06/14/15 | | Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine | 06/26/15 | | charismatic dark native | 12/20/17 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 10/04/23 | | Chrome Bearded Stock Car | 01/15/13 | | supple field boltzmann | 01/16/13 | | Internet-worthy overrated whorehouse | 05/23/23 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 02/16/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/18/13 | | Emerald rambunctious dysfunction | 03/26/13 | | Bright fluffy affirmative action clown | 03/26/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/26/13 | | kink-friendly thriller stage | 03/27/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 03/27/13 | | cream histrionic hell useless brakes | 04/23/13 | | dead brindle psychic boistinker | 04/24/13 | | motley massive senate preventive strike | 05/07/13 | | spruce chad area | 06/14/15 | | green base round eye | 04/24/13 | | yellow famous landscape painting coffee pot | 04/24/13 | | Effete cordovan internal respiration | 12/09/15 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 03/21/18 | | yellow famous landscape painting coffee pot | 04/24/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 04/24/13 | | yellow famous landscape painting coffee pot | 04/24/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 04/24/13 | | seedy immigrant location | 05/07/13 | | lavender dashing cuck | 11/13/16 | | kink-friendly thriller stage | 05/07/13 | | galvanic pale address personal credit line | 05/07/13 | | big amethyst property | 02/04/14 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 05/07/13 | | saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency | 05/21/13 | | Cracking weed whacker | 10/15/13 | | amber faggot firefighter | 10/15/13 | | Lime pistol menage | 10/15/13 | | Contagious maize nursing home shitlib | 10/23/13 | | Marvelous step-uncle's house foreskin | 11/04/13 | | honey-headed swashbuckling station | 06/05/18 | | Lime pistol menage | 10/23/13 | | Cracking weed whacker | 02/04/14 | | Violent Site Gaming Laptop | 02/04/14 | | lavender dashing cuck | 04/07/16 | | Anal church brethren | 06/05/18 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 03/10/14 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 04/22/14 | | Cracking weed whacker | 10/26/14 | | bateful territorial home | 01/25/15 | | bateful territorial home | 06/14/15 | | mustard vivacious brunch knife | 06/14/15 | | Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine | 06/26/15 | | outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy | 11/02/15 | | mustard vivacious brunch knife | 11/02/15 | | domesticated stag film | 11/02/15 | | Obsidian Insecure Dilemma Hissy Fit | 11/02/15 | | citrine volcanic crater giraffe | 12/09/15 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 12/09/15 | | Puce cruise ship hominid | 12/09/15 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 12/10/15 | | odious macaca | 07/11/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 01/20/16 | | Boyish Idiot | 02/16/16 | | bateful territorial home | 03/02/16 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/02/16 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 03/02/16 | | bateful territorial home | 03/02/16 | | Effete cordovan internal respiration | 04/13/16 | | bateful territorial home | 03/02/16 | | bateful territorial home | 03/05/16 | | bateful territorial home | 03/21/16 | | Effete cordovan internal respiration | 06/28/18 | | supple field boltzmann | 03/21/16 | | cobalt den | 03/23/16 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/05/16 | | bateful territorial home | 04/07/16 | | Cracking weed whacker | 04/13/16 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | bateful territorial home | 04/18/16 | | Vibrant Bistre Office Idea He Suggested | 04/18/16 | | federal concupiscible garrison | 04/18/16 | | Impertinent candlestick maker bawdyhouse | 04/22/16 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 06/20/16 | | bateful territorial home | 06/20/16 | | bateful territorial home | 10/04/16 | | Self-centered generalized bond | 10/04/16 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 10/04/16 | | odious macaca | 07/11/18 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 10/04/23 | | azure philosopher-king hall | 10/04/16 | | startling abode | 12/06/17 | | wonderful mint pozpig messiness | 10/18/16 | | bateful territorial home | 10/24/16 | | Gaped coiffed school cafeteria indirect expression | 10/24/16 | | mustard vivacious brunch knife | 10/24/16 | | haunting glittery rigpig business firm | 11/13/16 | | citrine volcanic crater giraffe | 11/18/16 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/21/17 | | Coral locus | 04/17/17 | | spectacular apoplectic chapel | 10/31/16 | | Effete cordovan internal respiration | 10/31/16 | | sexy blue dopamine party of the first part | 10/31/16 | | spectacular apoplectic chapel | 10/31/16 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 10/31/16 | | Mind-boggling Opaque Multi-billionaire | 04/27/17 | | Razzle-dazzle maroon house | 06/05/18 | | spectacular apoplectic chapel | 10/31/16 | | sexy blue dopamine party of the first part | 11/12/16 | | Beady-eyed pisswyrm queen of the night | 11/12/16 | | slate diverse prole stead | 11/13/16 | | Salmon institution | 11/14/16 | | bateful territorial home | 01/18/17 | | Umber talented halford | 01/31/17 | | fragrant nowag | 01/31/17 | | Umber talented halford | 01/31/17 | | fragrant nowag | 01/31/17 | | Umber talented halford | 01/31/17 | | azure philosopher-king hall | 01/31/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 02/16/17 | | bateful territorial home | 02/28/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 02/28/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/21/17 | | Effete cordovan internal respiration | 02/28/17 | | Self-absorbed claret national | 03/21/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 03/21/17 | | Crystalline sound barrier corner | 04/04/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/04/17 | | bateful territorial home | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | comical dun new version kitty | 04/17/17 | | Hairless mauve alpha | 04/17/17 | | Beady-eyed pisswyrm queen of the night | 04/17/17 | | Hairless mauve alpha | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | Titillating Turquoise Azn Heaven | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 04/17/17 | | Self-absorbed claret national | 04/17/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/17/17 | | disgusting friendly grandma digit ratio | 04/27/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 04/28/17 | | outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy | 05/22/17 | | bateful territorial home | 05/22/17 | | lavender dashing cuck | 05/22/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 05/22/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 06/20/17 | | Sick becky | 11/02/22 | | outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy | 06/05/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 06/05/17 | | lavender dashing cuck | 06/05/17 | | Gay stage dog poop | 06/20/17 | | Multi-colored Olive Plaza Telephone | 06/26/17 | | charismatic dark native | 09/27/17 | | bateful territorial home | 10/03/17 | | trip embarrassed to the bone indian lodge | 10/03/17 | | excitant khaki temple boiling water | 10/03/17 | | bateful territorial home | 10/03/17 | | soul-stirring corn cake | 10/04/17 | | Vigorous marketing idea | 10/05/17 | | bateful territorial home | 10/05/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 10/05/17 | | startling abode | 12/06/17 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 12/20/17 | | charismatic dark native | 02/27/18 | | chestnut french chef sanctuary | 12/20/17 | | Racy Keepsake Machete Community Account | 12/20/17 | | azure philosopher-king hall | 12/20/17 | | bateful territorial home | 12/20/17 | | chestnut french chef sanctuary | 12/20/17 | | bateful territorial home | 12/20/17 | | chestnut french chef sanctuary | 12/20/17 | | odious macaca | 07/11/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 01/08/18 | | odious macaca | 06/05/18 | | Drab nighttime trust fund theater stage | 01/17/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 01/17/18 | | Drab nighttime trust fund theater stage | 01/18/18 | | bateful territorial home | 02/26/18 | | bateful territorial home | 02/26/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 02/27/18 | | lavender dashing cuck | 03/21/18 | | bateful territorial home | 02/27/18 | | odious macaca | 06/05/18 | | lavender dashing cuck | 03/28/18 | | azure philosopher-king hall | 05/02/18 | | aquamarine masturbator theatre | 06/05/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 06/26/18 | | Cracking weed whacker | 06/27/18 | | Lodge | 08/05/18 | | Internet-worthy overrated whorehouse | 08/05/18 | | Lime pistol menage | 09/17/18 | | incel | 03/28/19 | | sandwich | 03/28/19 | | pink antidepressant drug | 09/17/18 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 10/01/18 | | Iridescent Range Sex Offender | 10/01/18 | | Cracking weed whacker | 10/09/18 | | odious macaca | 10/09/18 | | Cruel-hearted church building | 03/28/19 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 03/28/19 | | bateful territorial home | 04/15/19 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 02/23/20 | | startling abode | 03/11/20 | | Submissive juggernaut | 03/11/20 | | Carmine theater | 09/26/20 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 11/26/20 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 01/07/22 | | Grizzly Death Wish | 01/08/22 | | roommate | 01/17/22 | | outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy | 10/04/22 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 10/31/22 | | fuchsia sinister yarmulke place of business | 11/01/22 | | Lemon ticket booth ape | 11/01/22 | | Pearly principal's office half-breed | 11/01/22 | | Very tactful school newt | 11/02/22 | | razzle orchestra pit hairy legs | 05/19/23 | | Internet-worthy overrated whorehouse | 05/23/23 | | bateful territorial home | 10/04/23 | | mahogany trailer park black woman | 02/08/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 15th, 2013 6:48 PM Author: Crystalline sound barrier corner
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440041) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 4:51 PM Author: Aqua Duck-like Parlor Legal Warrant
*Calls Latina an AA recipient*
*Is reminded that she graduated salutatorian in undergrad*
*Blank Stare*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22445508) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:30 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440261) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:32 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440277) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2013 2:12 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22444583) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 1:14 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883314) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:01 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883812) |
|
Date: March 26th, 2013 3:02 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22883825) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 2:53 PM Author: galvanic pale address personal credit line
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151402) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:32 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064169) |
|
Date: April 23rd, 2013 11:33 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064187) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2013 2:10 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24193593) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2013 2:20 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24193646) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2013 1:41 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24367941) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2013 10:06 PM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24561978) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2015 6:13 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#27418340) |
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:12 PM Author: Rusted Liquid Oxygen Shrine
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440165) |
|
Date: January 15th, 2013 7:32 PM Author: learning disabled bat-shit-crazy potus
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#22440273) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2013 1:56 PM Author: motley massive senate preventive strike
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23151035) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2013 12:11 AM Author: yellow famous landscape painting coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23064564) |
Date: May 21st, 2013 8:58 AM Author: saffron out-of-control voyeur international law enforcement agency
LOL http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/supreme_court_brief.jsp
she hates us for criticizing oral argument.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#23240954)
|
Date: October 15th, 2013 7:23 PM Author: Cracking weed whacker
"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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#24240309) |
Date: November 2nd, 2015 3:33 PM Author: outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29094975) |
Date: December 10th, 2015 10:41 AM Author: mahogany trailer park black woman
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29349193)
|
Date: March 2nd, 2016 2:59 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#29962253) |
Date: March 21st, 2016 5:24 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30107127) |
Date: March 23rd, 2016 8:35 PM Author: cobalt den
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30123514) |
|
Date: April 18th, 2016 9:23 PM Author: Vibrant Bistre Office Idea He Suggested
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.”
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30300465) |
Date: April 22nd, 2016 6:27 AM Author: Impertinent candlestick maker bawdyhouse
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#30324080)
|
Date: October 4th, 2016 3:29 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31555779) |
Date: October 24th, 2016 10:13 AM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31714547) |
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:36 PM Author: spectacular apoplectic chapel
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768560) |
Date: October 31st, 2016 3:39 PM Author: spectacular apoplectic chapel
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#31768576) |
Date: January 18th, 2017 3:50 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32400676) |
Date: February 28th, 2017 3:05 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32720301) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2017 3:14 PM Author: Effete cordovan internal respiration
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.)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#32720365) |
Date: April 17th, 2017 8:50 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097360) |
Date: April 17th, 2017 9:27 PM Author: Gay stage dog poop
“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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33097707) |
Date: April 27th, 2017 1:14 PM Author: disgusting friendly grandma digit ratio
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33176273) |
Date: June 5th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: outnumbered appetizing library ladyboy
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#33479116) |
Date: October 3rd, 2017 9:13 AM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34354697) |
Date: December 6th, 2017 4:55 AM Author: startling abode
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34850765) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:16 PM Author: Racy Keepsake Machete Community Account
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968145) |
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:17 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968156) |
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:19 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#34968175) |
Date: January 8th, 2018 12:50 AM Author: mahogany trailer park black woman
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."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35106981) |
Date: January 17th, 2018 8:48 PM Author: Drab nighttime trust fund theater stage
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35179663) |
Date: February 26th, 2018 1:30 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35491087) |
Date: February 26th, 2018 1:33 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35491111) |
Date: February 27th, 2018 7:50 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#35501557) |
Date: October 1st, 2018 3:09 PM Author: mahogany trailer park black woman
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#36933884) |
Date: April 15th, 2019 8:09 PM Author: bateful territorial home
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#38094240) |
Date: March 11th, 2020 2:34 PM Author: startling abode
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#39737740) |
Date: February 8th, 2024 1:16 PM Author: mahogany trailer park black woman
“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.”
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2160853&forum_id=2#47380021) |
|
|