Is Maximus being nominated? How does a racial generalization from a US Supreme Court pick get sidelined for some anon poster’s racial generalization on a bodybuilding politics forum? I only wish I had made Maximus’ comment. What a brilliant way to render her defenders impotent.
“Do I call out Maximus (some dude on the internet), while ignoring the comment from Obama’s pick for the United States Supreme Court?”
I have tried posting in this thread and they havent all shown up, so I am hoping this will make it. My comment is from her position with La Raza, and why else would someone be a part of such an organization than to help promote or advance it. Especially a politician of all people. She brought up her Latina heritage on numerous occasions, and do you see other Supreme Court Justices talking about their heritage? If a white justice did, would be associated with white supremacy.
My point is that she should hold no biased opinion, other than to uphold the Constitutional Law, and being a part of an organization like La Raza is a conflict of interest. She is playing the race card, she must be prepared to get shit for it. Her background should not have even been mentioned, other than her ability to interpret the law to a high degree of competency. That should be the benchmark for her nomination.
Well, that is from the perspective that a judge’s job is to work according to what the law, passed by legislators elected by the people, says.
However she is being nominated from the perspective that a judge’s job is to feel the pain of the plaintiff and of various interest groups, perhaps the pain of the planet as well, to decide for himself or herself how society ought to be made to change, and to Breathe New Life into the law, never mind that this might well be the exact opposite of what it actually says.
For example, “shall not be infringed” should have new life breathed into it and be read as “does not exist,” if that would the judge’s idea of a more ideal society. Can’t be tied down by old dusty dead words, don’cha know.
Thus from this perspective, her background and the types of ways she would want to Breathe New Life into the law – namely, ways that such as La Raza and Reverend Wright would like – are key. Not disadvantages, but the very reason for her nomination.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, that is from the perspective that a judge’s job is to work according to what the law, passed by legislators elected by the people, says.
However she is being nominated from the perspective that a judge’s job is to feel the pain of the plaintiff and of various interest groups, perhaps the pain of the planet as well, to decide for himself or herself how society ought to be made to change, and to Breathe New Life into the law, never mind that this might well be the exact opposite of what it actually says.
For example, “shall not be infringed” should have new life breathed into it and be read as “does not exist,” if that would the judge’s idea of a more ideal society. Can’t be tied down by old dusty dead words, don’cha know.
Thus from this perspective, her background and the types of ways she would want to Breathe New Life into the law – namely, ways that such as La Raza and Reverend Wright would like – are key. Not disadvantages, but the very reason for her nomination.[/quote]
Thats exactly what I mean, she has motives and that is not supposed to be allowed. What really irked me is that over and over, she brought up her Latina background, while no other justice mentioned their own heritage (while it might not be Latin.) Her “Latinness” doesn’t make her wise (if she is), but more so what she has gone through. Latin people aren’t the only people who went through shit in life. I lost alot of respect for Obama with this action.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is Maximus being nominated? How does a racial generalization from a US Supreme Court pick get sidelined for some anon poster’s racial generalization on a bodybuilding politics forum? I only wish I had made Maximus’ comment. What a brilliant way to render her defenders impotent.
“Do I call out Maximus (some dude on the internet), while ignoring the comment from Obama’s pick for the United States Supreme Court?”[/quote]
Dude the thread is what it is. I didnt start it, I am giving my opinion. Dont like it dont read it. You can call me out, I will answer you. If I was nominated, I would be smart enough to know that people will hold me accountable for what I say, which is something she is trying to avoid. I would also be in it for the best interest of the citizens of this country. People are irritated for their reasons, so be it. You might not be, and thats your business. Bottom line, she belongs to an organization that could be considered questionable for someone who is supposed to be unbiased. You can deny it if you like, but I didn’t invent the shit. Just calling it like I see it.
Apologies if this has already been brought up, but I read that 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court. That is such an incredibly high number that I’m hesitant to believe it, but if it’s true then it reflects extremely poorly on Sotomayor.
A 60% reversal rate is out-of-this-world, and it suggests that her “interpretations” of the law are not only out-of-step with the mainstream, they’re often simply wrong. That is, she fails to have a complete understanding of the law she’s supposed to be interpreting. 60% reversal rates don’t occur if she just has a different yet defensible perspective.
Politics aside, if it is true that she’s been overruled 60% of the time, the Senate should reject her nomination because she’s incompetent to serve on the Court.
At 60% determined-to-be-wrong, a coin-flipper would do a better job of jurisprudence.
And yes, that figure is reported by numerous sources.
I doubt it’s a question of lack of understanding of what the law says.
It is from the attitude that “policy is decided by Appeals Court judges” (paraphrase) and that it is her role to turn the law into that which it is not, to meet her ideas of what government and society should be.
That is what is meant by judicial activism. Don’t want to rely on laws written and passed by legislators elected by the people: they aren’t doing what judges think right. Better that lifetime appointed, elected-by-no-one judges hand down from on high what society has to do.
And with reference to Supreme Court justices, also accountable to no one and unchecked by anyone.
I know I like that a whole lot better than laws meaning what they say! What an antiquated “dead text” concept that was. Luckily we are so much more progressive now.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
apparently being anti-gun, a tax-cheat and a socialist are all you need to qualify for a position in the Obama administration . . … perhaps we should just go ahead and declare ourselves the Democratic Republic of America . . . .[/quote]
"“Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
She should be fired immediately from ANY position, much less made a Justice. This also reflects how absolutely evil Obama is, to pick someone like this.
I’m currently watching the Sunday news shows and this figure has not come up. Could you list those sources please?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m currently watching the Sunday news shows and this figure has not come up. Could you list those sources please? [/quote]
Three of the five majority (3/5 = 60%) opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed.
Did a little research (you guys should know me by now!)
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. (Research it yourself!)
So…she is below the average.
Also…this 60% number is for 3 out a five total cases which is a pretty small sample in anyones book.
Good for her.
Mufasa
I think it’s a bit of comedic irony that her last name loosely translate to “under the majority” in Italian. LOL. Fox News has the statistic at 50% this morning, ruling 3/6 decisions overturned.
I saw that “60%” number yesterday afternoon, and then found this link this morning, putting a little context on that number:
“60%” comes from three rulings overturned out of five rulings heard by the Supreme Court. She’s had ~150 rulings while on the circuit court. Thus, about 98% of her rulings were not overturned. Also, about 75% of all cases heard by the Supreme Court are overturned.
I have plenty of reservations about Sotomayor, but the “60%” number is misleading.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Did a little research (you guys should know me by now!)
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. (Research it yourself!)
So…she is below the average.
Also…this 60% number is for 3 out a five total cases which is a pretty small sample in anyones book.[/quote]
If the average appeals court judge had to have five cases heard by the Supreme Court, the calendar would be a heck of a lot fuller than what it is. It’s not as if they hear a case per day.
I don’t know the answer to this, but what percentage of appeals court judges have three of their judgments found wrong by the Supreme Court in the time frame that she has? (If even in their entire careers.)
If actually most of them do, then your point holds up.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Did a little research (you guys should know me by now!)
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. (Research it yourself!)
So…she is below the average.
Also…this 60% number is for 3 out a five total cases which is a pretty small sample in anyones book.
If the average appeals court judge had to have five cases heard by the Supreme Court, the calendar would be a heck of a lot fuller than what it is. It’s not as if they hear a case per day.
I don’t know the answer to this, but what percentage of appeals court judges have three of their judgments found wrong by the Supreme Court in the time frame that she has? (If even in their entire careers.)
If actually most of them do, then your point holds up.
[/quote]
All the kerfuffle about her reversal rate doesn’t mean much. Appeals court judges are bound by prior precedent. One the reasons the Supreme Court grants review of cases is specifically to overturn their prior precedent. So, while a court of appeals may have made a correct decision based on current law, the Supreme Court may overturn their decision because it wants to change the direction of the law.
What would be more instructive (which I haven’t done) is to read the Supreme Court decisions overturning the rulings she authored.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, that is from the perspective that a judge’s job is to work according to what the law, passed by legislators elected by the people, says.
However she is being nominated from the perspective that a judge’s job is to feel the pain of the plaintiff and of various interest groups, perhaps the pain of the planet as well, to decide for himself or herself how society ought to be made to change, and to Breathe New Life into the law, never mind that this might well be the exact opposite of what it actually says.
For example, “shall not be infringed” should have new life breathed into it and be read as “does not exist,” if that would the judge’s idea of a more ideal society. Can’t be tied down by old dusty dead words, don’cha know.
Thus from this perspective, her background and the types of ways she would want to Breathe New Life into the law – namely, ways that such as La Raza and Reverend Wright would like – are key. Not disadvantages, but the very reason for her nomination.[/quote]
This has been a conscious and stridently pursued strategy of the left forever in this country. Obama committed his first act of premeditated perjury the first second of his administration when he took the oath of office. He intended, intends and is achieving before our very eyes a systematic dismantling of whatever is left of constitutional law in this country in the name of groovy elitist social justice which is itself only an instrument of political self empowerment.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Did a little research (you guys should know me by now!)
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. (Research it yourself!)
So…she is below the average.
Also…this 60% number is for 3 out a five total cases which is a pretty small sample in anyones book.
If the average appeals court judge had to have five cases heard by the Supreme Court, the calendar would be a heck of a lot fuller than what it is. It’s not as if they hear a case per day.
I don’t know the answer to this, but what percentage of appeals court judges have three of their judgments found wrong by the Supreme Court in the time frame that she has? (If even in their entire careers.)
If actually most of them do, then your point holds up.
[/quote]
I would be shocked if there weren’t MANY considering the fact that the Supreme Court reversed or vacated ONE HUNDRED % of the opinions it heard in cases that arose from the 1st, 3rd, 7th, D.C. and Federal Circuits in 2005.
Plus, I know of at least one Judge who had 100% of his opinions vacated while serving as a 3rd Circuit judge. Samuel Alito
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Did a little research (you guys should know me by now!)
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. (Research it yourself!)
So…she is below the average.
Also…this 60% number is for 3 out a five total cases which is a pretty small sample in anyones book.
If the average appeals court judge had to have five cases heard by the Supreme Court, the calendar would be a heck of a lot fuller than what it is. It’s not as if they hear a case per day.
I don’t know the answer to this, but what percentage of appeals court judges have three of their judgments found wrong by the Supreme Court in the time frame that she has? (If even in their entire careers.)
If actually most of them do, then your point holds up.
[/quote]
Putting aside the fact that you can tell almost nothing about an appelate judge simply based on reversal rates for a whole host of reasons, her reversal rates are not high. For example, when Bush II nominated Alito the reversal rate for his opnions was 100%. And overall, as I believe Mufasa said, the Supreme Court reverses 75% of both Second Circuit and all circuit cases. So, she is low.
So, please fault her for her judicial philosophy. Fine. There are certainly grounds for that. But not these non-starter non-sequitors.