and..... what does this have to do with anything?

LOL, are you seriously asking that?  What possible relationship could the group I am specifically referring to in my statements possibly have to do with the actual meaning my my statements?

It's sort of like you are putting up something that sounds like what I said, but it really wasn't, and then you build an argument against that.  Hmm.  There's a name for that kind of argument.  Do you know what it is?

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

And, icydk, even the IRS can create things similar to executive orders that have the full weight of law.

Just to be clear, I have never made any assessment as to the "weight" that an Executive Order carries.  If I have, please point it out.

I am and have been arguing the point that an Executive Order is not a Law.  Read those words again and interpret them absolutely literally because that is what I am arguing.  We can have a debate about whether Executive Orders have the full weight of a law, or not, but that is a different question than whether it actually IS a Law.

We have been hearing a lot about people moving goal posts of late, so let me start being explicit about such things (not to pick on you specifically Brutus).  My original statement (i.e. my original goal post) was simply that "An Executive Order is not a Law", nothing more and nothing less.*

Therefore I reject this information as being evidence that is even applicable to refuting my original statement.

-----------------------------------

* So, for example, I consider a statement such as "An Executive Order carries the full weight of a Law" to be a completely different point (i.e. a completely different goal post).  Note that even this simple statement implies what I have originally claimed, that an "Executive Order is not a Law".  It may, or may not, have the same weight as a Law but it is very clearly NOT the same thing as a Law or this statement would be a tautology, and therefore meaningless.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

Not one line, word, or letter of either the US Constitution or the US Federal Code was ever changed by a Court decision.  The only way those get changed is through the legislative process which is something the Courts have decidedly NO ROLE in whatsoever.  Read the Constitution.  It's in there!

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

I guess we each take what we want away from these discussions.  I think that if you read my posts, at least, you will see that I haven't really addressed Ricci at all, or if I did it was tangential at best.

The term "thread" at this point is admittedly a bit muddy, I suppose, but if I start with your post to which I am now replying and follow the chain of comments from there back to the "root" post by clicking on "parent" I count 23 comments in this thread and only 1 of them (that I noticed anyway) mentioned Ricci and that was by ML.  The root post was by Centinel and was a generic anti-Sotomayer post that didn't focus on Ricci.  None of my posts in this "thread", or any of the other "threads" in this diary was intended to address Ricci.

I was focused on two points: (1) that "Affirmative Action" was created by (Presidential) Executive Orders and (2) it is therefore not technically a Law (at the federal level).  Everything I was discussing was on a Federal level and NOT on a state level and most definitely NOT on Ricci.  I have been talking about the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, the US Constitution, and the US Federal Code ... none of which has any bearing or relationship to Connecticut or Ricci. Other than the highest level overview of the Ricci case I have not looked into it at all, nor was it ever my intent to address it directly.

Now that I understand your context, I understand the relvance of your post to what you believed I was discussing even though I wasn't.  :)  It's kind of funny that we can get to a point this deep in the "thread" and find that we are each talking about completely different things.  Scary, actually.

Anyway, suffice it to say that none on my comments in this diary were ever intended to address Ricci directly.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

Let's look at some cases like you have asked;

Didden v. Village of Port Chester - probably the worst property right decisions on record. You claim Kelo, however, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens also emphasized that "the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit," was not enough to count as a "public use." It is difficult to imagine a more clearly pretextual taking than this one.Didden and Bologna's property would not have been condemned if it weren't for their refusal to pay Wasser the money he sought to extort from them. Wasser's plan for the property was to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on it, which is virtually identical to the previous owners' plan to build a CVS . There was no general public benefit that Wasser's plan would provide that would not have been equally well achieved by allowing Didden and Bologna to keep their property and carry out their plan to put a CVS there.

Ricci v. DeStefano - We all know the deal here.

The full 2nd Circuit, including Sotomayor, recently reheard the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian who contends that U.S. officials sent him to Syria in 2002 to be tortured. A divided panel had dismissed Arar's case. The decision from the full court should provide clues about Sotomayor's views concerning government efforts to combat terrorism.

Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Committee v. City of New York - Sotomayor was so eager to rule against the Giuliani administration that she overlooked an obvious roadblock: as a federal judge, she had no jurisdiction to hear the case. An appeals court later ruled that the case belonged in the state court system. Sotomayor should never have delivered a verdict. This leaves two disturbing options: either she doesn't understand the difference between a federal and state court, or she knew she didn't have jurisdiction, but was so "troubled" that she thought she could sneak this one through.

Archie v. Grand Central Partnership - Sotomayor's overbroad interpretation of labor law speaks volumes about her distaste for free-labor markets. When adults consent to work for free, that's not exploitation — it's volunteerism! By harping on the company's profits, alleged abuses and executive paychecks, she's not interpreting the law — she's demonizing a legitimate business, painting it as a heartless, slave-driving cartel. In reality, this was a partnership aiming to help the homeless, an activity made more difficult due to Sotomayor's meddling.

Krimstock v. Kelly - Sotomayor's decision seems reasonable enough, but her reasoning reveals a paranoid distrust of law enforcement. In her opinion, she questions police officers' ability to act as fair brokers to the accused, citing the "risk of erroneous seizure" and even mentioning the police department's financial interest in seizing property. It's a bizarre implication for a federal judge to make — doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the justice system, does it?

Clarrett v. NFL - Yet another pro-labor decision. When it comes to cases in which labor law is in dispute, whatever the merits, smart money says Sotomayor sides with the unions. In fact, legal scholars have slammed this case, calling it an overbroad application of the legal loophole that allows antitrust exemptions. A St. John's Law Review article dedicated to the case accused Sotomayor of "tipping the scales of the delicate balance between federal labor law and antitrust law too far in favor of labor law."

Riverkeeper v. EPA - Sotomayor's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court , which found cost-benefit analysis a-okay. Clearly she was determined to side with the activists, in spite of the law, and she grabbed at straws to do so. Who cares that the EPA didn't explain why it used cost-benefit analysis? The Clean Water Act left the policy process open-ended for a reason — to allow the EPA to regulate without micromanagement from Congress. Or activist judges.