Will it be a woman? I think it very well could be.
A moderate or a more progressive pick? I'm going with Fed Judges Sonia Sotomayor or Diane Wood.
Printable View
Will it be a woman? I think it very well could be.
A moderate or a more progressive pick? I'm going with Fed Judges Sonia Sotomayor or Diane Wood.
Looks like Sonia Sotomayor will be the pick as it is being reported by AP and I just heard it on Morning Joe.
:corn:
this should be fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo
No matter who it is, the person is going to get ripped by the Republicans who will make a big show of it, and then the Dems will get him/her passed anyways.
hispanic? :nope
latino. yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZmHACG6LdM
I think if Republicans want to make any gains with Hispanics they won't attack so harshly but we'll have to wait and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I wish the nominee would be Halle Berry, though that seems a little bit far from realism considering Obama's prejudice on the black people, even though Halle Berry is only half black just like Obama himself.
I remember how eloquently C. Thomas was treated by the left :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Too bad republicans haven't attempted to make an entire race dependent on the government :depressed
It's a good day when Fox News and the resident conservatives are in a tizzy..! Great job President Obama!
They didn't have the votes to block Clarence Thomas just as republicans don't have them to block this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Clarence Thomas liked pubic hair in his coke cans, what can you say to that?
Have the Republicans ever done that to a Supreme Court nominee?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
She was a frontrunner for the pick, yet Republicans don't seem to have a lot of attacks ready. It's as if they were more concerned about the other candidates, which makes me think she was the safe pick for Obama.
In a day or two she of course will have been thoroughly vilified as an extremist, but based upon the initial response, my guess is that she gets confirmed fairly easily.
I have a prediction folks..the right wing will call her a radical.. mark my words folks..Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
It is the job of the opposition to oppose...Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
probably so, because President Obama will likeliy pick someone who wants to make policy...Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Funny, didn't she acknowledge that is what happens? See the first YOUTUBE clip?
Yes, the republicans will rip her, for that reason, if not others.
Why are you making this an issue of racism? You a racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Racism? My point is that republicans lost some of the gains they had made under Bush with the Hispanic vote during the last election. It is politics is what I'm saying. She'll be confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any to be honest. Most of the examples are of Democratic obstruction. It's probably happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
My opinion/assessment is based on the fact that Republicans have tended to obstruct Dems over the past two years when they held Congress, and that the Right-Wing was up in arms about blocking any slightly liberal candidate before he/she was even picked.
Were you aware of the context behind the statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009...-clowning.html
Please read/skim and then tell me if you think she was in the wrong. :)
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by lngrrrr
I say she's wrong. It should not be a lower courts job to make a decision based differently than the supreme court will base it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Until the higher courts actually make a decision, that is a distinct possibility since the scope of the lower courts decisions is much more narrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It should still be based on law. Not activism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Buzzword!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Seriously, you just want your kind of activism in the court.
If you are really serious about that kind of crap, you would be calling for a different system of law.
The very point of those courts is that the LAW is not clear. Therefore, the courts job is to MAKE the laws clear. They MAKE the laws clear through ruling one way or another, setting precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Their decisions are based on law. They are ACTIVELY determining the law in these cases, because the LAW can not be specific enough to determine every case that might arise from its execution.
Did I explain it clearly enough?
my Representative isn't crazy about the choice.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ics-advocates/Quote:
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in a written statement, said Tuesday he's concerned Sotomayor has shown "personal bias based on ethnicity and gender."
"Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written," said Smith, who will have no vote in the matter, as the confirmation is a Senate matter.
Like we really need someone with an agenda sitting on the SC...
That was the Republibot response. He's probably never heard of her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I never heard of her, but she was obviously the MOST qualified person for the job.
So who is?
Someone else you've never heard of, to be sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, I'm serious. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
She believes in reverse discrimination.
Fireman case anyone?
No, I'm serious. What the hell does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Buzzword!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But a horrible example.
prove it dickheadQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
How many sitting federal appellate judges are you familiar with? She has excellent credentials. As far as politics go, Republicans weren't going to do much better. She'll be confirmed easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Ivy League undergrad and law, Manhattan prosecutor, corporate litigator, appellate judge for a decade -- that's a pretty substantial CV. I mean she's no Harriet Miers, but I think she'll be able to do the job well.
The woman making claims against Thomas was African AmericanQuote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Do you even know the context of that statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
and paula white was white.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
She's a judicial lightweight who's had roughly 80% of the decisions, appealed out of her court, reversed.
She thinks the court makes "policy" (or law) to achieve social justice.
She's a judicial activist in favor of racial discrimination...for the right races, that is.
She'll be confirmed...
The woman who made allegations against Justice Thomas has been well compensated for her hit job.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
Sotomayor: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male'...
Okay, let's try this on someone else...
Roberts: 'I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female'...
Yeah...sounds just as bad.
why don't you post her whole speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
In what possible context does that statement make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Why don't you post the whole speech and let others decide? Are you scared?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
No. Are your cut and paste skills absent? You post it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Personally, I think the statement stands alone and, is unchanged, in any context -- particularly where a color-blind jurist should be concerned.
This also presumes I'm the sole repository for the speech... Inquiring minds can go read the damn thing for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
So if out of proper context it doesn't sound as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
:rolleyes
It doesn't sound good in any context. Go ahead, put it back in the context of her speech about how ethnicity and sex, in her words, "...may and will make a difference in our judging."Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I thought justice wore a blindfold for a reason.
According to the article from where I pulled the quote, Sotomayor was speaking about the impact of ethnicity and sex on judging and was, by way of the quote, trying to dispel a notion forwarded by both Justices Ginsberg and O'Connor "...that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases."
So, go ahead, explain why her statement isn't racist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...ewanted=1&_r=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’
May 14, 2009
The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.
BY the way Yoni should tell everyone that this was s speech about the Latino presence in the Judiciary. This is page 5 of the speech..
So is she a racist?Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
More Politics News Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
The speech continued and concluded..Quote:
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Ricci v. DeStefano proves it. Well, that's she's a racist or is incompetent.
You choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Care to expound on the case Yoni? Os is that what some right wing blog stated?
Considering the source I say neither. Why don't you refute the whole speech yoni?
Because, I have no interest in refuting the speech. I'm interested in how you square her racist statement with the color-blind position of a Supreme Court Justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
And, actually, it was Judge that overturned her ruling that left the question of competence or racism open. Frankly, he found her one paragraph decision a little lacking, to say the least.
You have no interest in having an honest and open debate? Shocking..Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The speech doesn't change my impression of the quote. Why do you want to talk about the speech -- those are just words without any authority?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Let's talk about her judicial racism...
R-A-C-I-S-TQuote:
A striking opinion this past June by highly regarded Second Circuit judge (and Clinton appointee) José Cabranes exposes some remarkable and disturbing shenanigans by Sotomayor. Cabranes’s opinion, joined by five of his colleagues (including Chief Judge Jacobs), dissented from his court’s narrow 7-6 denial of en banc rehearing in Ricci v. DeStefano. (Cabranes’s opinion begins on the ninth page of this Second Circuit order.)
In Ricci, 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter charged that New Haven city officials engaged in racially discriminatory practices by throwing out the results of two promotional exams. As Cabranes puts it, “this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”
The district judge, Janet Bond Arterton, issued a 48-page summary-judgment order ruling against the firefighters. Summarizing Arterton’s opinion, Cabranes clearly finds highly unusual that Arterton could grant summary judgment for the city officials notwithstanding her acknowledgement that the evidence was sufficient to enable a jury to find that the city officials “were motivated by a concern that too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted.” Further, Cabranes finds it remarkable that such a “path-breaking opinion” was “nevertheless unpublished.”
On appeal, Cabranes’s account indicates, the judicial effort to bury the firefighters’ claims got worse. In a case in which the parties “submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages,” in which two amicus briefs were filed, and in which oral argument “lasted over an hour (an unusually long argument in the practice of our Circuit),” the panel, consisting of Sotomayor and fellow Clinton appointees Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack, “affirmed the District Court’s ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph”—which Cabranes quotes in full and which gives the reader virtually no sense of what the case is about. Four months later, just three days before Cabranes issued his opinion—and after the panel evidently knew that it had evaded en banc review—“the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court’s opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.” As Cabranes sums it up:
And then this killer understatement:Quote:
This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.
Cabranes and his five colleagues clearly believe that Sotomayor and her panel colleagues acted as they did in order to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them. Cabranes’s opinion expresses his “hope that the Supreme Court will resolve the issues of great significance raised by this case” and his judgment that plaintiffs’ claims are “worthy of [Supreme Court] review.”Quote:
This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.
Quite an indictment—by a fellow Clinton appointee, no less—of Sotomayor’s unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court.
n-a-t-i-o-n-a-lQuote:
Originally Posted by yonivore
r-e-v-i-e-w
'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words.
Don't worry, I don't think Republicans would stoop to such racist tactics.Quote:
Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:01 A.M. EST
Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is.
This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts:
November 6, 2001/To: Senator Dick Durbin
"You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). . . .
". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
February 28, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with Andy Stern of SEIU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino media outlets . . ."
April 17, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tried to call you today. . . . Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
June 12, 2002/To: SENATOR (Kennedy)
"...Ultimately, if [Chairman Pat] Leahy insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich [10th Circuit] go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
Mr. Tymkovich apparently got the gay OK.
But, in other news -- rumors abound that there may be up to 9 Democrats ready to vote no on Sotomayor...
Robert "Sheets" Byrd, paragon of racial equality, is among them.
SonOfDeepThroat
Only a rumor, mind you...but, heh, would that it be true... First, you have Democrats squabbling over whether or not the CIA lies and now, they'll be squabbling over whether or not "latinos" are allowed in the Supreme Court.
I can see Byrd now, "Goddamnit, I thought we decided no Latinos when we fought the Estrada nomination..."
The order and Judge Cabranes are quoted. The article contains the Court Record, you imbecile.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I didn't read anywhere that she was racist? Did I miss that?
Wall Street Journal opinion piece.. Let me go run and get a NY Times opinion piece to back my position...:rolleyes
Yes, you did. But, I did allow, the decision that clearly upheld a racist finding by the District Court (that the city could disallow an exam because not enough minorities would be promoted) could have been due to incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Please do. I think you'll find, as I did, that the New York Times opinion piece calls the Ricci case "Sotomayor's Mystery" case; and, is very vague on the substance of the case...much as Cabranes accused Sotomayor of being in her decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I'm sorry, that was Slate. The New York Times Editorial opinion doesn't mention Ricci.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
O.K. Yoni sit down I thought we went through this already..... Jerimiah Wright is not an anti-semetic racist asshole.Bill ayers is not a self admitted terrorist he's a kindigarten teacher.Rashid Khalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO,The sky isn't blue and bears don't shit in the woods. Wow a 20 year old disciple of Rev. Wright appoints a racist to the supreme court what a surprise.:lmao
The left just doesn't get it, or they do and they approve of a judge that will make bad ruling.
Within 12 hours we have all kinds of sound bite experts on her jurisprudence.
That's standard for the right and left.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
So now we worry about "activist" interpretations of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
"She's unqualified!" screams a chorus that thought Harriet Miers would have made a fine Supreme Court justice.
Personally, I don't have an opinion on Sotomayor yet. I'll say, however, that I think the Slate blurb referenced above strikes me as a bit misleading about Sotomayor, if only because (from what I can tell), there's no indication that she was anything other than on the panel in that case. I don't take from the piece that Sotomayor was identified as the author of the opinion -- and so indicating would be strange because a per curiam opinion is generally an anonymous opinion for the entire panel -- and if she wasn't the actual author of the opinion, then attributing the procedural criticisms of that opinion to her would be inaccurate, I think.
Moreover, at worst, she's agreed with the majority of a court that split 7-6 in a case that is likely to divide the United States Supreme Court 5-4. It's not as if the conclusion that Judge Sotomayor ultimately voted for (regardless of who authored the underlying opinion) is obviously contrary to some settled standard of law -- at least it's not well-settled among some of the great legal minds in this country. In fact, as I just heard Walter Dellinger note, her conclusion is actually an act of judicial restraint insofar as it upholds the decision of a lower court, which upholds the decision of a local policy-making body.
Only liberally-oriented activism, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Conservative activism is always welcome.
That's what Rush said today on his show so that's why they are repeating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Republicans are looking stupid today by instantly opposing her nomination. She's clearly a hell of alot more qualified Harriet Myers so they ought to at least keep their mouth shut and learn more details about her judicial record before getting up in arms. Especially since this doesn't change the balance of the court.
I actually like her, but I'd definitely like to hear her explanation for her quote in California and for throwing that case out. Judges are going to make mistakes from time to time, or to have a point of view that might not be immediately obvious to those of us that don't know all the nuances of the case. I've only heard one side of that case so far, and it's the losing side, so naturally they're going to have a beef and be vocal. I can certainly understand how those two things taken at face value can be seen as racist if there's not something more to it as the details emerge. I wouldn't accept someone believing that their opinion was somehow more important than everyone else's simply because of their background, their gender or their race. I'd be damn frightened to have someone that thought that way applying the constitution to legal issues for 400 million people.
As far as the "making policy" quote, it's not nearly as incendiary as one would think once you hear it. When an appeals court makes a decision, it sets a precedent and becomes policy. I think that's all she was saying. She knew it had the potential to be taken out of context when she said it, and she made a joke about it.
Well, for instance, I'm sure if blacks were on the court back in the day, they might have disagreed with Dred Scott. But I guess you'd call those blacks 'racist'. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Liberals care more about women and minorities.
As long as they're liberal women and minorities.
I would really like to see someone who hasn't made so many bad rulings.
How many cases has the supreme court reversed of hers, and President Obama wants to put here there?
This is absolutely ridiculous.
please shut up
What is the average reversal rate for CoA decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Give us a baseline, counselor.
Of hers? Of the cases in which she's actually written the opinion that's been subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That number would be 3. Three reversals in 6 cases that the Supreme Court has taken. She's 50% in being affirmed by the Supreme Court on opinions that she's written and that they've actually considered on something other than a summary basis.
For what it's worth, the Court's reversal rate for the last 3 terms hovers around 75% and since the end of World War II, that reversal rate is generally in the high 60's or low 70's. Statistically, she's decidedly on the good side of that number.
I'm not sure how it's "absolutely ridiculous" to appoint a judge whose reversal rate is strikingly below the Supreme Court average over the handful of almost 400 written opinions that the Court even thinks should be reviewed.
Do you KNOW how many cases the Supreme Court has reversed? Could you please provide proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And if you REALLY wanted to do your homework, pick one or two other SCOTUS Judges before they were nominated, and see what the number of their reversed cases were.
Ha! Nevermind. FWDT did your homework for you. Let's see how big this football field gets with the next goalpost movement.
But.but,but she's a racist Jeff!Quote:
WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn't foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though he thinks her legal philosophy should be closely examined.
"The nominee has serious problems," Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. "But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court."
"I don't sense a filibuster in the works," the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama's call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.
sincerely,
yonivore
The reversal rate is so high because they pick which cases to take. They don't take all that are requested.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
3 in 6 is statistically insignificant. Not enough data points. If she understands the law rather than applying personal opinion, her reversal shouldn't be that high. This will soon be 4 reversals in 7 anyway.
Besides, do you want a supreme court that has members who only get it right half the time? They are suppose to be the cream of the crop. Not a choice for political reasons.
So what is the reversal rate of all the other SCOTUS justices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Surely you have already made the comparisons and aren't just making shit up, so give us the data.
She'll be confirmed.
Conservatives or yonivorians want things their way and no other way.
And of course the Supreme Court generally grants review to reverse -- hence the high reversal rate. What's statistically significant, though, is that of the 400 or so cases that she's written, only 6 have even warranted review (though, by way of disclosure, I'm not sure yet in how many of those certiorari was actually sought) and only 3 of those have resulted in reversals. You're right that 3 in 6 is statistically insignificant; but 3 in almost 400 is rather statistically significant, one would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Moreover, it's not as if she's been reversed unanimously in the cases that the Court has reviewed (although there appears to have been one case that met that fate). If her opinions are being reversed 5-4 or 6-3 it sure sounds as though there are reasonable grounds for disagreement on difficult questions of law (the Supreme Court doesn't review facts and rarely takes easy legal questions) where there is substantial disagreement about what the law is and support for her conclusion.
I'm still looking for the reversal rates of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts when each of them sat on the courts of appeals, if only to have a point of comparison.
First off, your response is not quite in line with my intent. Now I assume your numbers are right about the high 60's to 70's percents. I'm saying that is a meaningless comparison as well, because not all cases are reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
As for the cases reviewed, at least one of them was unanimous. That should be significant when even all the lefties reverse a ruling.
Would you agree that 50% is a poor track record to be appointed to the highest court? Any of those 60% to 70% people been nominated even?
Why does President Obama want to make himself appear even more of a joke than people already see him as?
Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why do you want to make yourself appear even more of a joke than people already see you as?
If you have relative stats, let's see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I already asked you for them, stat boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You don't understand how this works, do you?
Yes, I do understand how a slimball like you works.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Guess what. I haven't looked them up. I am more concerned about the latest case about to be unanimously reversed (yes my opinion) because it is reverse racism, and the fact she has had at least one other opinion unanomously reversed. Not a 5-4 decision.
You see, she has to be legally incompetent, to have such a reversal. Because of that, I really don't care about the other statistical facts.
:lol
Changing the subject is probably a good idea at this point.
Why did you argue your unsupported position so strongly just to run away from it like a pussy?
Nah. There are many reasons a decision can be unanimously reversed. If one of those reversals called her legally incompetent in writing, then you might have something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There you go, being an ass again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I told you. I don't care about the stats. I care about how complete her decision was overturned.
I responded to FWD's stats. I don't care about comparisons. I think 50% is simply too high. Especially when any of the reversals are unanimous.Quote:
Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?
Show me where I said the relative stats are important? I'm not comparing her to anyone. Just the fact she's not qualified in my opinion. I must state that, because there are few legal qualifications.
Believe as you wish. I do not want a court appointee who's peers have unanimously overturned one of her opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So what are your qualifications and how many justices have met them?
Or did you just start making up the qualifications yesterday?
So you did this research on all the appointees since you've been voting right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You've checked all their stats, right?
In my opinion, we clearly have others that shouldn't be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That is not my point, nor am I about to entertain you. Give it up.
I am simply saying she should not be chosen because of her poor track record and prejudice. Again, others probably shouldn't be there either under my criteria. Unlikely since what gets me the most is the unanimous nature.
Just because there might be one rotton apple, should we add more?
That's nonsense - all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
First of all, I'm almost 100% sure you're wrong about the pending case; listening last night to a lawyer who regularly advocates before the Supreme Court and knows far more about its justices than either you or I do, I'm convinced that the most likely result is a 5-4 or 6-3 split, either to affirm or reverse on a question that Mr. Dellinger forthrightly called novel and difficult. I'd be curious what -- other than your own hopes -- should make me believe your hunch over Walter Dellinger's.
Second, a judge who is reversed 9-0 isn't incompetent, particularly when the case at hand involves a novel and difficult question of law for which there is no precedent. Intermediate court judges frequently make guesses -- educated guesses based on existing case law (frequently case law that is itself splintered and in conflict) about how a particular issue should be resolved. It's not uncommon for the guesses in such cases to be deemed incorrect or for the Supreme Court to consider other policies in construing the laws at issue in those cases. Was the judge who maintained separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education before that case was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court incompetent? I doubt it; he did his best to follow the law as it existed at that time but the Supreme Court disagreed with him, unanimously.
Finally, while we're hung up on 3/6 as a reversal rate, in real terms, that rate is much more like 3/390 -- it's a verifiable fact that she's been reversed in substantially less than 1% of the cases in which she's authored a controlling opinion.
So you just started making up your qualifications yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Understood.