I believe the third one is still under review.
There were dissenters on the court as well.
Don't get me wrong. I do not think she is highly qualified, but the 60% reversal rate touted by the rag washington times is inaccurate. Five cases have been heard by the court, two reversed, two upheld, one under review.
Originally Posted by JDogger
thanks I needed a good laugh
Why couldn't or wouldn't Osama appoint a qualified candidate instead of someone who plays well with the women's and Hispanic lobbies? We need another activist who legislates from the bench like we need Osama in office.
A liberal, judicial activist on the high court :p...kinda gives me a chuckle too.
Originally Posted by badbullgator
Sotomayor cases reviewed by the Supreme Court:
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA - reversed 6-3
Dabis vs. Merrill Lynch - reversed 8-0 (ouch)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance vs. McVeigh - reversed 5-4
Malesko vs. Correctional Services - reversed 5-4
Tasini vs. New York Times - reversed 7-2
Knight vs. Commissioner - upheld but the Court unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted.
The Supreme Court upheld her decision but said her approach "flies in the fact of statutory language" (ouch)
Ricci vs. DeStefano - decision pending (I bet she'll lose this one, too) She was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. But the Supreme Court agreed to review the case anyway and heard oral arguments in April. This is the case where she ruled against a group of white firefighters in New Haven.
So she was reversed 5 out of 6 times...an 83% failure rate in front of the Supreme Court and in the sixth the Court disagreed with her reasoning...not what I would consider a brilliant legal mind.
Yeah, I found it here too. A link was all I asked for back on page two.
So now we agree on the number of cases reversed.
Did you find anything yet on her hatred of the constitution?
You are wrong. The Supreme Court overturned three out of five cases decided by the Second Circuit where Sotomayor authorized the majority opinion. That says nothing about other cases where Sotomayor was a member of the majority on a case that was upheld on appeal but was not the author assigned to write the majority opinion (note, you don't get to pick which ones you write), or the cases where she was in the minority of a case that was subsequently overturned, thereby indicating support for her dissent. Analyzing an appellate court judge's work quality by looking at the rate of supreme court reversals is a tricky process at best. This is expecially true in a context where the SCOTUS decides to overrule precedents -- an option open to the SCOTUS but not the the appellate courts. On the face of it, 3 out of 5 appealed cases out of 380 is not a very high rate of reversal. Alito had numerous decisions overturned while he was an appellate judge. However, whether for Sotomayor, Alito, or anyone else, you would need to analyze the totality of the track record, not a cherry picked statistic, to obtain a reasonable indicator. Even then, the indicator does not necessarily tell you anything about the quality of decisions made, only about their degree of concurrence with the justices of the SCOTUS at the time an appeal is heard. Having a high degree of concurrence may be good or bad depending on your perspective.
Originally Posted by Terry Britton
The media is full of stories today indicating that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot with Hispanics if they oppose her nomination. Her or anyone else's ethnicity is not a good reason to be nominated for a federal appointment.
Dude what is your problem. I made a statement on where you might find more info about the topic that YOU asked about. I told you i didn't know where the info was or where he got it. I made a statement that I told you i wasn't going to back up just saying that the info you were referring to wasn't what he was talking about. Asking me to back up that statement is just stupid.
Originally Posted by JDogger
Everything in DC is about ethnicity now.
Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth