Rewarding losing
According to ABC’s Jake Tapper, a new name has appeared on the president’s short list of possible Supreme Court nominees: Leah Ward Sears.
Yes, the former Atlanta traffic court judge is on the short list.
Okay, sure, she also served as Superior Court judge, then state Supreme Court justice, and finally Chief Justice of Georgia.
But look at her career on the Supreme Court. Her major accomplishments include dissenting opinions on:
- Club Southern Burlesque v. City of Carrollton (1995)
- McIntyre v. State (1995)
- Greene v. State (1996)
- LaFontaine v. State (1998)
- Lumpkin v. Johnson (1998)
- Gibson v. Turpin (1999)
- Wilson v. State(1999)
- Howard v. State (2000)
- Hill v. Head (2003)
- O’Kelley v. Cox (2004)
- Johnstone v. Thompson (2006)
- Morrison v. State (2006)
- Reaves v. State (2008)
- State v. Davis (2008)
Keep in mind that “dissenting” means that she differed with the court. She was on the losing side.
What does this mean? Her legal rulings are wrong. Her judgment is poor.
But that’s right up the alley for Obama and his socialist supporters.
Being legally correct isn’t important in a Supreme Court justice. Blindly following a bad political philosophy is what they seek.
With that crew, being a loser isn’t a bad thing. It’s a thing to be honored.
Imagine if this same logic applied to the NFL. Who would have been in the most recent Super Bowl? St. Louis (1-15) vs Kansas City (4-12).
Who would have been in the World Series? Washington (55-103) vs Baltimore (60-98).
Loser gets rewarded. That’s the liberal way.
Send to Kindle
(16 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)Tags: liberals
April 13th, 2010 at 8:07 am
It’s only fair, since losing is never the loser’s fault! If you weren’t a mean conservative you’d be harping on the majority-opinion judges in the cases you cited. What’s the deal with those guys, keeping Leah Ward Sears down? They could get together and rule stupidly on important cases so the liberal opinion would be in the majority, but noooo. Winners – disgusting.
As for the Nationals, it goes without saying that D.C. would win the World Series if it were up to D.C.
Maybe we’ll see that at the end of this season, now that democrats have pioneered the concept of “deeming” things to have happened whether they happened or not!
April 13th, 2010 at 8:31 am
In our society we reward losers because it makes us feel so darn good. Somehow, this feeling has not rubbed off on me yet.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Maybe, your rubbing wrong.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Skywatch: maybe you ought to teach me.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:59 am
But think of the merchandising tie-ins possible with Sears on the court,
like, “Get your case accepted, get a Craftsman tool chest or a Kenmore vacuum, free!”
She could issue 3 opinions, Sears Good, Sears Better, and Sears Best.
April 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
I dunno folks…granted, this gal is obviously wrong, but…one of these days, maybe soon, Scalia and Thomas will be writing all of the dissenting opinions. Won’t always make them wrong to be on the losing side!
[One bit of advice: You should never put more thought into something I write than I put into something I write. Which is nil. - B.]
April 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am
But don’t we want Obama’s pick to always be writing the dissent?
[I'd prefer there not even be an Obama pick. - B.]
April 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Oh Lord. Teh One chooses a corrupt Fulton county traffic court judge for SCOTUS. After seeing the “folks” Obama has picked I wonder if the Gong Show, or for us older people, the Ted Mack Amatuer Hour, were inspirations?
Sorry, this is Obama. That would be the BONG Show.
April 13th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Paula Abdul is an experienced judge that seems to me a better choice
April 13th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Chuck Norris for Supreme Court Justice!
April 13th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Dissenting opinions do not mean she was on the losing side or did not know the law. It means she has a different interpretation on the law and it’s application. I’ve read one of her dissenting opinions with regards to wills and descent, and her opinion was much more logical and intelligent than the majority opinion.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
It makes one wonder why – at this point – they’re even continuing to pick people with previous experience being a judge.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Isn’t this how “the one” picks all of his cohorts. He finds the biggest loser or the most corrupt moron and nominates them. So far it’s worked every time.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
I’ve gotten traffic tickets in Georgia, but I’ve lived to comment about them. Maryland, on the other hand and in my experience, makes most other states look like amateurs in the traffic ticket arena.
In Montana once, I was rolling down a two lane “highway” at about 105mph when I passed a highway patrol car loitering, radar gun out, on the side of the road. I pulled over and waited for him to mosey on over to my rental minivan, loaded with kids, wife, and friends (I was on vacation – why the hell else would anyone ever purposefully go to Montana?). He asked why I was going so fast, and I told him truthfully that I was trying to get to the Butte airport (150 miles away) in time for my friends to catch their flight home. He let me go with a verbal warning to watch out for free range cattle.
Which is why I support any traffic court judge from Montana getting a Supreme Court nomination.