WTF, did anyone just watch Sotomayor???

[MARINE96]

I can't remember where I saw it - but hasn't something like 80% of her decisions been over turned??

Has any of the Senators asked her about that? Or has it only been a case by case question? More people need to hear about the 80%.

But,but,but.... I thought she is a wise latino women capable of making better decesisons than a old white guy.

She fits in well with all of the other fools currently staffing the oval office.

 

[Bob P]

But,but,but.... I thought she is a wise latino women capable of making better decesisons than a old white guy.

She fits in well with all of the other fools currently staffing the oval office.

Ah, but you see, if she's on the SCOTUS, no one can overturn her judgements anymore so she'll be fine!

 

[Lynne]

Its 60%. Not to horrible in consideration.

Still too high for someone being considered for SCJ. IMHO.

 

[Bob P]

I don't like Sotomayor.

That being said, the 60% number on it's own is deceptive. What needs to be looked at as well is what percentage of that 60 represents new SCOTUS interpretations of existing law? The Fireman case they're all making a big deal out of is just such a case. The fact that the SCOTUS ruled for the plaintiff in that is more a case of SCOTUS changing direction then Sotomayor being wrong in her ruling. Her position on that DID track with prior SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Cato]

I knew that I heard that 80% were over turned so I went looking. I know Rush Limbaugh was mentioning 80%. It seems that the 80% number refers to her rulings that made it to the SCOTUS. She had seven rulings appealed to the SC and five of them were overturned. However in one of the cases that were upheld the justices unanimously rejected her reasoning. So that's 86% or 71% depending on how you look at it.

Here are the cases.

• Wrong on Affirmative Action: Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - reversed 5-4
Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court has rejected this decision, finding that New Haven's policy amounted to discrimination against whites.

• Wrong on the environment: Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) - reversed 6-3
Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the EPA may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow.

• Wrong on taxes: Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) - upheld but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted
In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductible. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language."

• Wrong on finance: Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) - reversed 8-0
In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation."

• Wrong on Civil Rights: Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) - reversed 5-4
Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government.

• Wrong on Intellectual Property: Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) - reversed 7-2
As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling).

• Upheld on Health Insurance: Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - affirmed 5-4 In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party

 

[ryan81986]

But,but,but.... I thought she is a wise latino women capable of making better decesisons than a old white guy.

 

[Bob P]

Sotomayor is going to be an activist disaster as an SC judge, but let's get off the reversal rate. Alito had a 100% reversal rate before his nomination. Further, according to the National Law Review, the average reversal rate on cases heard by the SCOTUS is 73%.

73% of all cases heard by the SCOTUS are reversed. This is a function of the whole appeal process including the fact that the SCOTUS doesn't choose to hear a case unless it thinks there's reason for reversal of the lower court finding.

Sotomayor sucks, but she sucks because she's a judicial activist who's likely to legislate from the bench. Her stats on reversal are average for a judge at her level.

 

[Cato]

Yes, more important than reversal rate is the amount of appealed cases that each judge has had appealed to the SC. The reversal rate has always been 50+% because the SC only chooses cases in which they see some merit in the appeal.

Judge Alito has been a federal judge since 1990. In that time he had only two cases appealed to the SC and yes, they were both reversed.

Judge Sotomayor has been a federal judge since 1992. In that time she has had seven cases appealed to the SC.

I do think that these stats say a little more than the reversal rate stat.

 

[Cato]

However, these stats simply make for interesting discussion and they should not be used as a sole reason to choose a judge.

 

[RKG]

Well, let's remember that the BoR was written because some of the states would not ratify the Constitution without more clear limits on federal power. There's an equally good argument that - up until the 14th Amendment - the BoR was really intended solely to more explicitly limit the federal government's ability to supersede states' powers - not just in areas affecting the inherent rights of the people. After all, the states knew where they were at, and they all had their own constitutions spelling out their limits and the rights within their borders. Some of the states had been founded as - and remained - little experiments in religion, rights, and social planning.

The real issue is - and remains - what the 14th A was meant to include. The history of its passage and events of the time strongly suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was solidly within its scope, and that the one SC case on point is an outlier driven by other political concerns of its day.

Utility is a very poor legal argument, and is always a very sharp two-edged sword.

Spot on.

 

[RKG]

Sotomayor is going to be an activist disaster as an SC judge, but let's get off the reversal rate. Alito had a 100% reversal rate before his nomination. Further, according to the National Law Review, the average reversal rate on cases heard by the SCOTUS is 73%.

73% of all cases heard by the SCOTUS are reversed. This is a function of the whole appeal process including the fact that the SCOTUS doesn't choose to hear a case unless it thinks there's reason for reversal of the lower court finding.

Sotomayor sucks, but she sucks because she's a judicial activist who's likely to legislate from the bench. Her stats on reversal are average for a judge at her level.

That is quite correct.

Add that most often cert. is granted because there is a split amongst the Courts of Appeals on a given point, which means that one Court (or group of Courts) will always be reversed.

 

[kendall-op]

She is not only against gun rights, she against self defense of any kind. Self defense to her is surrender, run, hide or just be a victim of any crime.

 

[HTRN]

She is not only against gun rights, she against self defense of any kind. Self defense to her is surrender, run, hide or just be a victim of any crime.

So to sum up, you are saying she is anti-human.

Lovely.. That's who we need in the supreme court.

 

[DR.A.W. Fast]

I watched this fiasco for several hours today. I was appalled at the way they let her use circular logic to explain away her past published ideas of our rights as a whole. Not just our Second Amendment but her complete obfuscation of of our rights to self protection! Not one Senator bothered to really pin her down. It was nerf ball in the hearings and I am afraid the rest of the questions will be the same!


Doc

 

[Lynne]

She is not only against gun rights, she against self defense of any kind. Self defense to her is surrender, run, hide or just be a victim of any crime.

May she become one. She can KMA.

 

[Bob P]

Yes, more important than reversal rate is the amount of appealed cases that each judge has had appealed to the SC. The reversal rate has always been 50+% because the SC only chooses cases in which they see some merit in the appeal.

Judge Alito has been a federal judge since 1990. In that time he had only two cases appealed to the SC and yes, they were both reversed.

Judge Sotomayor has been a federal judge since 1992. In that time she has had seven cases appealed to the SC.

I do think that these stats say a little more than the reversal rate stat.

Out of a total of 237 heard. That's less then 1/2%. My point, and I think you get it, is that stats of this nature are meaningless. Better to look at her actual rulings - which are appaling enough.

 

[Coyote33]

Sotomayor sidesteps on abortion, guns in grilling

Sotomayor sidesteps on abortion, guns in grilling

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 8 mins ago


WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor determinedly sidestepped volleys of Republican questions on abortion and gun rights Wednesday, keeping her demeanor cool and her opinions mostly private as she neared the end of a marathon Senate grilling on the road to all but sure confirmation.

After two long days of questioning by Judiciary Committee senators, Sotomayor had yet to make a slip — certainly not the gaffe that even Republicans concede would be necessary to derail her nomination to be the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the high court. She was due back for still more questioning on Thursday.

The appeals court judge, 55, avoided weighing in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice, instead using legal doctrine, carefully worded deflections and even humor to ward off efforts to pin her down.

Appearing more at ease in the witness chair, Sotomayor defused a tense exchange on gun rights by joking about shooting a GOP critic and charmed Democratic supporters with nostalgic praise for fictional attorney Perry Mason.

Republicans, frustrated in their attempts to undercut President Barack Obama's first high court choice, said they were still worried Sotomayor would bring bias and a political agenda to the bench.

"It's muddled, confusing, backtracking on issue after issue," complained Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel. "I frankly am a bit disappointed in the lack of clarity and consistency in her answers."

Her rulings — except for a much-debated reverse discrimination case — have not shed much light on her positions either, though she is considered unlikely to disturb the Supreme Court balance in replacing generally liberal Justice David Souter.

On abortion rights for example, Sotomayor has not ruled on any case that squarely confronts the issue. As an appeals court judge she dismissed a challenge to the so-called global gag rule on U.S. foreign aid, deciding against an abortion rights group. But in her opinion she used the phrases "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice," typically used by abortion rights supporters.

The hearings are expected to continue Thursday with more questions for Sotomayor and testimony from outside witnesses. A vote by the full Senate to confirm her is expected in early August, time enough to allow her to don the robes of a justice before a scheduled hearing on Sept. 9 on a case involving federal campaign finance law.

The cavernous hearing room on Capitol Hill was filled for a third straight day, and tourists waited in line outside for their few moments to witness history.

Among the audience members sat Frank Ricci, a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor's court panel. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling late last month, and Republicans plan to showcase Ricci on Thursday as part of their effort to portray her as a judge who has let her biases trump the law.

On Wednesday, Sotomayor declined repeatedly to respond to questions designed to elicit her personal and legal views about a woman's right to end a pregnancy, saying she couldn't address it in the abstract and wouldn't do so in any specific way since the issue is likely to come before the court.

The Supreme Court in 1992 "reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain cases," Sotomayor told Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., adding that the ruling said the court should consider whether any state regulation "has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right."

But she refused to be drawn out by Coburn, a leading abortion-rights foe, on whether a late-term abortion would be appropriate, or whether technological advances that allow an early-term fetus to survive should have any bearing on the legal standard for ending a pregnancy.

"All I can say to you is what the court's done and the standard that the court has applied," Sotomayor said. "We don't make policy choices on the court; we look at the case before us."

Earlier, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked how the Obama administration could have known her position on the issue.

"I was asked no question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue," she said.

She was no more forthcoming on the issue when pressed by an abortion rights supporter, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. Asked whether the 1992 ruling reaffirming Roe was a kind of "super" precedent, she didn't respond directly.

On her second day fielding questions, Sotomayor sidestepped when Cornyn asked whether she stood by or disavowed a controversial 2001 remark that a "wise Latina" judge would often make better decisions than a white male.

She said she stood by her explanation Tuesday that the words were a rhetorical flourish gone awry.

Cornyn persisted, asking whether she would regret it if her audience of students understood her to be saying that the quality of a judge depended on race, gender or ethnicity.

"I would regret that," she said of any misunderstanding of remarks that have caused more pre-confirmation controversy than any other issue.

Sotomayor, appearing more relaxed on the third day of nationally televised Senate hearings, shared a few light moments with her interrogators while fielding questions on serious issues.

Asked by Coburn whether the Second Amendment confers a right to personal self-defense, Sotomayor posed a hypothetical in which the senator threatened her with bodily harm and she went home to get a gun and shoot him.

"I don't want to suggest I am, by the way," Sotomayor said, to laughter from the audience and Coburn.

Coburn responded with his own jibe: "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do.'" His remark echoed a refrain often heard on a 1950s situation comedy, "I Love Lucy," in which the main character's Cuban-born husband Ricky Ricardo would often say with exasperation, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do."

At another point, when Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said she had run into Sotomayor's mother in a ladies' room and noted that she "has plenty of stories she'd like to share about you," Sotomayor begged the senator with a laugh, "Don't give her the chance!"

And she shared a chuckle with the Senate's only professional comedian, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., about their mutual love of the TV series "Perry Mason."

Asked by Franken at the close of his questioning which was the lone case the prosecutor Hamilton Burger won during the show's run, Sotomayor was at a loss.

"Didn't the White House prepare you for that?" Franken asked with mock incredulity, referring to the meticulous rehearsals Obama's team held with Sotomayor to get her ready for her Senate grilling.

"You're right," Sotomayor said. "But I was spending a lot of time on reviewing cases."

___

Associated Press Writers David Espo and Ann Sanner contributed to this report.

This really makes one sick. I can't stand how they downplay this on the guns stuff. They and we both know she is going to sucker punch the country if she gets in. This is really sickening the way they all either ignore or laugh off the "gun issue". Just sick.

 

[Preachers Sheets]

Originally Posted by Gonzo
I think we're in the very beginning stage of that, if not very ill.

We're still here. Saying what's on our minds, openly, and without (much) fear of retribution.

For now.

Umm didn’t Obama already appoint some sort of media czar to censor what could hurt people’s feelings via the net/media? I think that was pretty creepy in its own. So if Obama or Obama's little buddy decide something doesn’t sound "right" they can just pull it? Sounds like North Korea’s mentality to it but in a pretty white dress.

Who's to say if an open (and not so positive) opinion of Obama is voiced and the White House has no way to rebutt it? What’s going to be the excuse; "it could hurt leadership" and that will be enough to make your comment so it never existed? Suppose your a repeat offender, are you going to jail for voicing your opinion?

I felt there were more than enough outlets for someone to go after someone else for verbal abuse and it was even pathetic then, now it's creepy.

 

[Preachers Sheets]

Sotomayor sidesteps on abortion, guns in grilling



This really makes one sick. I can't stand how they downplay this on the guns stuff. They and we both know she is going to sucker punch the country if she gets in. This is really sickening the way they all either ignore or laugh off the "gun issue". Just sick.

Everybody knows she has her own agenda and she comes off like she doesnt give a shit what anyone else thinks. She even has the balls during the interview to out right beat around the bush; thinking if she beleives her own lies then we will.

People beleived Obama when he said he knew what to do and he would fix things; I bet Sotomayor is riding the same train.

Complete B.S. artist.

 

[pbearperry]

As soon as she was asked about the 2nd Ammendment,she started blinking like hell and gazed off to one side.All experts agree these are classic signs of someone lying.She is going to be the looney left lightning rod.

 

[Lamina]

anyone see where she drooled all over herself? funny shit.

ETA, she was blinking a shitload through the whole hearing.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

The lady is crazy and she is openly extreme with her views on firearms. She thinks the 2nd amendment is on a Federal level and if a state doesnt want to follow it they shouldn’t have to.

Funny how she's right about that one. In the 1800s The Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment only applies to the federal government and not the states. Until it is incorporated (which only the Supreme Court can do since it required overturning a previous Supreme Court decision), that's how it is. Hopefully this could happen soon with NRA v. Chicago.

 

[Gak44]

How can anyone here be suprized by all this . This is what to expect when you have traitors running the gov. I am expecting much worse to come.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

I'd like to personally thank everyone who voted for "The One" and put him in a position to nominate that wise latina cow. God help America.

 

[Lynne]

Something struck me this morning as I was driving in to work. Before these hearings began, didn't she take an oath to tell the truth??

If yes, then the "wise latina" is committing and has commited perjury.

Gee....ya think that would escape everyone's notice if she were a conservative judge?

 

[center442]

An answer that you won't hear from Sotomayr...

Moonbat Senator Franken asked her "Why do you want this job?" Her reply was pretty much what one would expect; her love of law, how our laws make America special, etc.

I would much prefer that she had answered honestly, something like this:

"By appointment to the SCOTUS I will have achieved a position of power from which to advance my own personal agenda and biases. Hopefully, I will be able to exert my influence to remake America over into my vision of what it should be. It is time to replace the antiquated notion of merely interpreting legal questions in light of our Constitution with a more activist viewpoint, one that would increase the size of government at the expense of individual freedom, further entrench the liberal socialist agenda, and ensure that Dear Leader's programs are judicially expedited and cast in a favorable light.

Let's get these hearings over with so my foreordained appointment can occur and I can get my robes. We need to get a lot of new laws approved so we can move forward into the brave new world of America's future. I'm also getting tired of bobbing and weaving around some of these questions, because I really don't want to answer them truthfully, especially those questions about guns.

Thank you, Senator Franken, for such a good question. It was good for me, was it good for you?"

Did I miss anything?

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

The Republican are gutless, d*ckless cowards in their handling of "The Wise Latina". Democrats were ruthless during the questioning of past nominees by Republican presidents, yet the so-called conservatives on Capitol Hill caved without pressing her on vital issues. I'm disgusted.

I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess in August," said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. described her judicial record as "generally in the mainstream" and said he thought she would keep an open mind on gun rights. Graham, who has said previously he may vote to confirm Sotomayor, said she was "not an activist."

Another Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, also called Sotomayor's rulings "pretty much in the mainstream."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Sotomayor, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed. "And I don't think you will" have a meltdown, he added quickly as Sotomayor sat listening, her face in a half-smile.

WTF???????????

 

[Yelena]

anyone see where she drooled all over herself? funny shit.

Se was thinking about grabbing our guns.
Rabid dogs always drool.

 

[Yelena]

I'd like to personally thank everyone who voted for "The One" and put him in a position to nominate that wise latina cow. God help America.

As a veterinary professional, I am deeply offended by comparing this brainless useless being to a cow.

 

[goofycj7]

And I just loved the ASSociate press summery.

"Marathon grilling

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor determinedly sidestepped volleys of Republican questions on abortion and gun rights Wednesday, keeping her demeanor cool and her opinions mostly private as she neared the end of a marathon Senate grilling on the road to all but sure confirmation. "

Even the press is bragging about it and yet people do not see this as a problem.