"There is no room for error in such a program"
There's no "room" for error in a warplane avionics control system, or a medical X-ray machine controller, or a Mars lander program either, yet all such programs have literally thousands of undiscovered errors.
"Maybe a failsafe mechanism could be built-in which defaults to individual liberty in lieu of "doing something".
You know absolutely nothing about writing computer programs, don't you? |
|
There is no room for error in such a program, as the rational for the documents are stated clearly in the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers as well as the Congressional record.
Yeah, programmers are a tricky bunch. Maybe a failsafe mechanism could be built-in which defaults to individual liberty in lieu of "doing something". |
|
|
...from doctors, dispassionate legal reasoning from judges. Don't confuse the two, or the doctor will smack you with a gavel and the judge will give you an enema. |
|
|
...banana republic mentality. If the Constitution and the law present incovenient truths, ignore the Constitution and the laws and go with your own emotions to dictate what you feel is right. After all, the Constitution was the product of white men, and Judge Sonia "feels" that the judgement of a wise Latina woman is superior to that of any white man. If The People don't like her rulings, let them eat bananas! "God Dam* America", anyway. |
|
"Programmed with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
I'd love to see the program source code for such a system. How could you be sure that the programmers hadn't built their own beliefs into the code? Remember, most computer types are very clever and they are an especially tricky people. |
|
"Empathy" has no place in the Rule of Law.
"In wingnut world, judges might as well be robots."
Yep. Programmed with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If attempts to rule contrary to the original intent of these documents, there should be an "error" message. |
|
cottoneyed writes: Thursday, July, 09, 2009 11:49 PM
"Raffaella"
Now the most popular "boy" name in leftistville. This version has "bats in his belfry"! And for sure, is void of any curiosity, instead inhales any and all, leftist dogma. Desperately wants to be part of the "group", be one of the "cool guys", you know, like, oh, the unibomber, or hey hows bout', Michael Moore. Lofty aspirations, to be sure. Not just talk, they are all about the "walk" in leftistville! The democrat party, as Ann Coulter stated in her last column, is now, most definitely, the girl party. All the real men left that thing in the 80s. All thats left, is "guys" called, "Raffaela"!!
Arch says
Cotton. You are killing me!!!! LOL!!! |
|
|
Now the most popular "boy" name in leftistville. This version has "bats in his belfry"! And for sure, is void of any curiosity, instead inhales any and all, leftist dogma. Desperately wants to be part of the "group", be one of the "cool guys", you know, like, oh, the unibomber, or hey hows bout', Michael Moore. Lofty aspirations, to be sure. Not just talk, they are all about the "walk" in leftistville! The democrat party, as Ann Coulter stated in her last column, is now, most definitely, the girl party. All the real men left that thing in the 80s. All thats left, is "guys" called, "Raffaela"!! |
|
|
doesn't matter what role, what oversight, what Constitutionally they are legally to do, NONE of it makes a DAMN, because you see they are GODS, they know best, by G-D, and the Constitution, and the decent people of this country can go straight to hell, if they don't like it! Mullah obama's in charge, and the 22nd Amendment can go to hell to, while we're at it! That about it, you leftist scum!! |
|
raffaella writes: Thursday, July, 09, 2009 10:43 PM
Ridiculous wingnuts
This judge is more conservative in her rulings than not, is more experienced on the bench than any of the wingnut dolts now sitting on the Supreme Court were when they were nominated, and is far, far more wise than any of the Bush nominees were, so what's the gripe? You can obstruct this woman's nomination and take the chance that the President will flip you the bird while he nominates a more liberal judge, and not require a single bipartisan nod to your irrelevant behemoths. Now that I think of it, that might be a better deal!!!
Arch says
raffaella. I think you are totally wrong in what you consider a conservative to be.
Sonia is a libtard wretch to the core. She has been proven wrong 7 times. How many times have Alito, Thomas,or Roberts been proven wrong?
Better think again my dear! |
|
that Sonia Sotomayor has ruled on AND has been reviewed by the US Supreme Court, (11 cases I believe), her rulings have overturned 7 times.
Yep.........SEVEN TIMES OUT OF ELEVEN the US Supreme Court has DEEMED HER TO BE WRONG......
IF she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, who THEN will be there to tell her she is (almost certainly again)...........WRONG!!!!!
I have no law degree but I'll bet I could rule correctly on more than FOUR OUT OF ELEVEN.....
What a sad, unqualified "PC" pick......
|
|
as usual, you read what you want to read. "Some" say something, and that's a fact? "Most" said the opposite...
wow, what a terrible thing, to be a thorough judge. |
|
|
nose ain't lying. A new clone of one of the same old Gammy's Basement Dwelling Lefturds.(*GBDL*) |
|
|
..and discovered, not entirely to my surprise, that the compulsively commenting "new" lefturd, Xian, has an ignorance that is NOT quantifiable. Shocked is what I am. :-) NOT. |
|
they brought in is familiar.
"In wingnut world, judges might as well be robots." |
|
|
In wingnut world, judges might as well be robots. |
|
"I hope the Senate is determined to examine in kind."
Intellect has no currency in modern politics; Emotion is the coin of the realm. I am embarrassed to admit that Minnesota sent Al Franken to the Senate. However, I am pleased to say that my county (the fourth most populous county in the state), my city, and my precinct, had no part in sending him there. |
|
"Her writings have often offered a granular analysis of every piece of evidence in criminal trials, and sometimes read as if she were retrying cases from her chambers.
Legal experts said Sotomayor's rulings fall within the mainstream of those by Democratic-appointed judges."
Yep. Typical Leftist.
|
|
Being a "finder of facts" is a noxious role for a trial judge much less an appellate one.
When legal review turns on re-examining demeanor evidence from a paper record, you know the Justice is hell-bent to corrupt the presented record.
Justice Sotomayor is a bizarre creature. The Post article evidences some laudatory traits, were they present in an investigator or an advocate. Those same traits in a judge, trial or review are intrusive of juries and frightful.
I find her to present as an individual that may be manic and the reasons for her loose lip judicial postures and extra minutiae application of her job; I hope the Senate is determined to examine in kind.
|
|
|
|