Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

She has the judicial experience, for sure.

But I strongly suspect she will impose her personal views, rather than rule on strictly Constitutional grounds.

She'll get approved, so we shall see.

Since when do you need experience to hold a power political office these days?

We don't need no stinkin' analysis!

re: #1 MandyManners

Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

Not likely if she did, they'd have list out there.

ooo I posted this in a previous thread.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Almost a hat tip...

re: #1 MandyManners

I've been trying to find the source of that data for the last half hour; so far no luck.

re: #1 MandyManners

Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

I've been searching and have found absolutely no evidence to back up this outrageous claim.

Wood ranked eighth; Alito sixteenth. Sotomayor would be in the bottom half. However, I would not put too much weight on this conclusion. Choi and Gulati intended their composite ranking as an experiment to provoke discussion on how best to evaluate and rank judges.

re: #1 MandyManners

Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.

re: #9 loppyd

loppy, do you have a link for the 80 per cent reversal rate?

Anybody have a few Aleve?

re: #10 FurryOldGuyJeans

The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.

Which means Eric Cantor will be espousing it on every news show that will have him.

What could possible go wrong?
Unpaid taxes?
Racist comments/opinions?
Why she's the perfect candidate...
Spits

re: #1 MandyManners

Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

I think it was 4 out of 5 when she wrote the opinion...

re: #10 FurryOldGuyJeans

The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.

Oh, but it'll show up in numerous emailed chain letters. It'll take on a life of its own.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated Tuesday by President Barack Obama to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, is no stranger to the sports world.

Sotomayor helped end the 1995 Major League Baseball strike with a ruling against Major League Baseball owners in their collective bargaining dispute with players, and also was part of a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that overturned a lower court ruling that temporarily allowed Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett to enter the NFL draft despite the fact he hadn't been out of high school for three years.

[Link: sports.espn.go.com...]

For what it is worth?

Shouldn't we be more concerned about the fact that her name is an anagram of Orations Say Moo?

She's definitely got the resume for the job. No argument there. And she should get an up or down vote.

But she's got some views that don't jibe with the Bill of Rights. Which is why I think she was picked in addition to her 'historic' attributes.

She'll be confirmed, no doubt about it. The votes are there even if every Republican voted no, which they won't. But her views on the second amendment and affirmative action should be made very well known to the people, regardless.

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

I've not been able to find a link, either.

Right now I'm outta' smokes so I'm gonna' zip to the store.

Seekrit Soshalizm must stay seekrit. Shhh..

re: #18 Iron Fist

Or even better, a few percocets?

:-)

2 problems
1) drug testing
2) narcotics make me want to throw up

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

There's another line for the emailed chain letters. But hey, you left out the misspellings and grammatical errors.

re: #8 Charles

I've been searching and have found absolutely no evidence to back up this outrageous claim.

She has only received 11 out of 44 votes in her favor when her opinions have reached the SCOTUS.

I don't know how many cases where she authored the opinion have been granted certiorari by the SCOTUS, but four have been reversed - at least one unanimously. Three of the four were reversed because she erred in applying the law.

The New Republic

The Case Against Sotomayor
by Jeffrey Rosen
Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter.
Post Date Monday, May 04, 2009

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

I'm quite certain Hannity will have that as his lead story tonite.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

Peta is not gonna like that?

re: #16 Ward Cleaver

Oh, but it'll show up in numerous emailed chain letters. It'll take on a life of its own.

Did I discount that the conspiracy devotees will have a go at this? Nope. Pushing this unproven idiocy will have as much credibility as do the troofers and nirthers.

Now what would be a good nickname for the 80% conspiracists?

re: #29 Nevergiveup

Peta is not gonna like that?

Babies okay.
Sea Kittens not okay.

///

re: #17 Nevergiveup

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated Tuesday by President Barack Obama to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, is no stranger to the sports world.

Sotomayor helped end the 1995 Major League Baseball strike with a ruling against Major League Baseball owners in their collective bargaining dispute with players, and also was part of a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that overturned a lower court ruling that temporarily allowed Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett to enter the NFL draft despite the fact he hadn't been out of high school for three years.

[Link: sports.espn.go.com...]

For what it is worth?

Oh my goodness, she's a sports liberal, the worst kind of liberal. Before you know it we will have woman in football, gays on the PGA tour and midgets playing professional basketball.

///

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

Yeah, but I heard she only eats 80% of 'em.

//

re: #30 FurryOldGuyJeans

Spaghetti throwers? (hope that something sticks)

Dow +210
This is a sign of George Soros' pleasure with our puppet government.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

Linky?
/

re: #31 jcm

Babies okay.
Sea Kittens not okay.

///

My mistake.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

See my note above.

Orations [i.e. prayers to Satan]
Say [to Satan]
Moo [animal sacrifice... to Satan]

re: #33 subsailor68

Yeah, but I heard she only eats 80% of 'em.

//

80% of babies or 80% of the baby?

Should've gone with Posner (Richard A.). Posner has his own warts, but he's also one of the most prolific, respected, and cited jurists in America. He's one of the few judges I've witnessed whose criticism can cause the Supreme Court to change course, rather than vice-versa. 'course, he's also an old white guy so he's automatically a non-starter. Ladies and Gentlemen, Obama's America!

re: #29 Nevergiveup

Peta is not gonna like that?

As long as they're human babies, PeTA is okay with it.

/only half sarc

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

Oh my goodness, she's a sports liberal, the worst kind of liberal. Before you know it we will have woman in football, gays on the PGA tour and midgets playing professional basketball.

///

Sorry Walter, we already had a midget in baseball:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #29 Nevergiveup

Peta is not gonna like that?

PETA will be OK as long as they're human. Sea kittens, on the other hand...

re: #35 Killgore Trout

Dow +210
This is a sign of George Soros' pleasure with our puppet government.

No, it's more like Obama's economic policies are paying off, paying off everyone but those who are really hurting and need some help.

re: #33 subsailor68

Yeah, but I heard she only eats 80% of 'em.

//

She leaves the head?

re: #29 Nevergiveup

Peta is not gonna like that?

Only if they are animal babies.

re: #39 jcm

80% of babies or 80% of the baby?

Oh thanks jcm! I still haven't figured out the 20% chance of rain thingee.

;-)

re: #11 MandyManners

loppy, do you have a link for the 80 per cent reversal rate?

See my 26.

I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.

I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

Yes, there may be far-right nutballs spreading crazy rumors, but even a level-headed "moderate" observer such as myself can reasonably suspect that, based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist. That's not a wild supposition.

I'm almost certain she'll get approved (no reason to reject her, really, as she is legitimately qualified), so we'll find out if my suspicions are right over the upcoming years (and decades).

re: #26 loppyd

She has only received 11 out of 44 votes in her favor when her opinions have reached the SCOTUS.

I don't know how many cases where she authored the opinion have been granted certiorari by the SCOTUS, but four have been reversed - at least one unanimously. Three of the four were reversed because she erred in applying the law.

Not so outrageous then. Her peers don't put much stock in her reasoning.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

-Homer Simpson

re: #39 jcm

80% of babies or 80% of the baby?

The baby...she loves kids, but can't eat a whole one.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

No, but her stand on gun control and her little "Latina" remark is enough to make me think twice about her qualifications, her other record not withstanding.

And those are not rumors.

She produced slightly more opinions than Alito - in the Second Circuit, which is far busier than the 3d, in which Alito performed his duties. The margin between Sotomayor and Alito on number of opinions is and of itself a minor issue altogether.

The Second Circuit gets far more press than other circuits since it's a New York based Court, so the other metrics used tend to skew in that direction. Still, she ranked dead last on the invocations metric, while Alito was mentioned 5 times (ranking 28th overall - Sotomayor ranked tied for last with no mentions). As far as being independent, Sotomayor tends to correlate with other partisan members on the 2d Circuit, which means that she'd likely to be a reliable vote.

The one issue that I've yet to see resolved is the metric claiming that she's been overruled 80% of the time (as mentioned and quoted repeatedly on the last Sotomayor thread). I call BS on that until someone proffers any credible evidence to the contrary.

Stornger than Alito? I don't see the data as saying she is necessarily a stronger candidate than Alito.

Quality (1). Choi and Gulati measure quality by counting citations to a judge’s top twenty opinions. This approach avoids penalizing productive judges whose marginal opinion addresses narrower issues (as a citation-per-opinion measure would), while also avoiding excessive credit to productive judges who garner high citations by writing a lot. Judge Wood’s top twenty cases over three years received 327 outside-circuit citations, putting her 26th. The range is 96 to 734, with a mean of 277.9. Judge Sotomayor’s statistic is 231, which would place her 59th. (Alito was 70th.)

By this estimate, Sotomayor and Alito are very near each other, and Wood is the one who excels.

Quality (2). Judge Sotomayor’s opinions from 1999-2001 were cited 289 times in law reviews and other legal periodicals through May 31, 2004. Judge Wood’s opinions from 1998-2000 were cited 513 times through May 31, 2003 (16th). (Alito’s were cited 240 times (73rd).) Sotomayor would have ranked 65th.

Again, Sotomayor and Alio are very close and Wood is a much better candidate using this criteria.

Quality (3). Choi and Gulati also check what they call “invocations”—the frequency with which opinions written by other judges refer to the judge in question by name. They argue that invocations are most likely when the judge in question either has a good reputation or has written a particularly helpful opinion. Invocations range from 0 to 175 (excluding two outliers, the highest is 23), with a mean of 32. Judge Sotomayor was invoked 0 times (tied for last). Judge Wood was invoked 10 times (9th), and Judge Alito was invoked 5 times (28th).

Here, Alito is a much stronger candidate than Sotomayor, but not as good as Wood.

Independence. Judges should decide cases in a non-partisan way; “independence” refers to the probability that a judge will dissent from a majority opinion written by a co-partisan or will write a majority opinion from which a co-partisan dissents. Choi and Gulati use a complicated variable that attempts to measure this tendency, and I simplify here. A score of 0 means that a judge is just as likely to disagree as agree with a co-partisan (or opposite-partisan). Negative scores mean that a judge is more likely to agree with co-partisans. Judge Sotomayor’s score is -0.153 (read the paper if you want to know how this score is calculated), which would have placed her 55th. Judge Wood has a score of -0.018, placing her eighth in terms of independence. (Alito was 10th.)

Again, here Alito seems to be a more independent judge than Sotomayor, on-par with Wood's independence. A good question would be how willing would Ms. Sotomayor be to go along with the rest of the court on an opinion?

Personally, I think Obama would've been better to go with Judge Wood over Judge Sotomayor based on the criteria presented on Volokh.

re: #49 zombie

... but even a level-headed "moderate" observer such as myself can reasonably suspect that, based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist...

Nah, you must be kidding, really, you think that?
///

re: #48 loppyd

See my 26.

I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.

I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.

That's what Rush used for a source. It includes this paragraph:

In Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, the Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, affirmed a ruling by Sotomayor on a question of federal jurisdiction. (On a quick read, I can’t readily discern whether the majority’s grounds are the same as Sotomayor’s, but will assume for purposes of my cumulative vote tally that they are.)

Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.

re: #48 loppyd

See my 26.

I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.

I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.

AND what the average is of that specific stat for other judges...

Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.

She could be worse. I think many of us are very uncomfortable with her because:

A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.

B) She's associated with Empathy for liberal victim groups

No matter what her record we can be assured that the Congress will politicize the heck out of her nomination process.

Odds of a relevant question being asked about jurisprudence and constitutional law? Verrry Looong.

A 'conservative' Sotomayor opinion (from spinoff link above)

In United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2008), Judge Sotomayor, joined by Judge Livingston, rejected a defendant’s plea to overturn his conviction based on a Fourth Amendment violation. The defendant was arrested for possession of child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant application stated that an agent had purchased a subscription to a website advertising available child porn and that in light of a subsequent forensic examination of the site “it appeared” that the defendant “either gained access or attempted to gain access” to the website as well. In addition, the affidavit revealed that the defendant had previously been arrested in 1987 on charges of sexually abusing a seven-year-old girl and pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “acting in a manner injurious to a child less than sixteen” for which he received probation. Writing for the majority, Judge Sotomayor held that this failed to establish probable cause for the search warrant. However, she held that the constitutional violation did not warrant exclusion of the evidence because the officers acted in good faith reliance on the wrongly-issued warrant. She further rejected the defendant’s reliance on an exception to the exception: she concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the issuing magistrate was knowingly or recklessly mislead. And she rejected the claim that the warrant application was so facially lacking in indicia of probable cause as to make reliance upon it unreasonable. Judge Livingston concurred in part and in the judgment, but would have ruled that the police had probable cause.

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

No, but her stand on gun control and her little "Latina" remark is enough to make me think twice about her qualifications,

Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".

I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.

re: #54 lawhawk

You put things in perspective for a legal Novice very well. I know I could write things about Dentistry and make almost any point I wanted to and only another Dentist would be able to yell bullshit at me.

re: #61 chaosbf

Don't forget your hat and coat.

re: #57 wrenchwench

Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.

What does Wikipedia say? /

re: #38 Occasional Reader

See my note above.

Orations [i.e. prayers to Satan]
Say [to Satan]
Moo [animal sacrifice... to Satan]

No frickin wonder I didn't get it

re: #49 zombie

...based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist. That's not a wild supposition.

She'll probably get that label simply for being on the left. "Judicial activism" seems to mostly be a label from the right regarding decisions they don't like.

re: #58 Buck

AND what the average is of that specific stat for other judges...

Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.

re: #59 Killgore Trout

Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.

Look... it's not exactly a secret that gender and ethnicity were factors in the nomination decision. Even the most liberal, pro-Obama of media sources have been chatting away about that factor for weeks.

re: #61 chaosbf

Bye now! Take care.

re: #68 DaddyG

What does Wikipedia say? /

LOL! I was suspicious when they spelled her name Sodacracker.

;-)

re: #64 Occasional Reader

Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".

I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.

Context provided here. Hat tip: anant

re: #67 Bloodnok

Don't forget your hat and coat.

Missed that one?

re: #59 Killgore Trout

Her name was proffered from the outset because of restoring another woman to the Court; Bush chose best available for the seat (O'Connor retiring, Rehnquist dying, Miers fireballing in infamy, Roberts and then Alito chosen instead).

Best available should be the choice, not who's replacing who because of gender, race, etc.

If anything the Democrats keep pushing the idea of hitting specific demographics, but both parties do it.

re: #60 Dave the...

A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.

She's qualified, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the accusation.

re: #64 Occasional Reader

Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".

I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.

Much of this is moot unless something really blows up in her face.

re: #57 wrenchwench

Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.

I heard this before Rush came on today.

How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.

re: #76 wrenchwench

Context provided here. Hat tip: anant

Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.

re: #81 loppyd

I heard this before Rush came on today.

How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.

OOps 11 of 44 for upholding.

re: #63 jaunte

Who knows what Judge Sotomayor could be like on the SCOTUS. Everyone thought Judge Souter was a conservative until he got there. For all we know, Sotomayor could turn out to be Obama's Souter.

re: #77 Nevergiveup

Missed that one?

It was of the "Ur nuthin' but a liberull" variety.

re: #82 Charles

Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.

How?

Are there any Republicans with the stones to ask her opinion on the constitutionality of nationalizing a private industry and shifting ownership to the government and unions; or the limits of the interstate commerce clause when it comes to states' 10th amendment rights?

Those are the questions I want answered by any supreme court justice nominee.

re: #87 taxfreekiller

The white fire men case, where the only passing grades were white guys so the fire dept. canceled the promotion. This lady part of that deal.

That could be why race comes up, she plays the card herself and puts it in writing that race is a trump card.

She was rebuked by a Latino judge for her crap decision on that case.

re: #80 Walter L. Newton

Much of this is moot unless something really blows up in her face.

I'm with OR, it could have been worse. She'll get confirmed by the repubs for exactly that reason.

Some of her views.

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The thing that bugs me about her, is that a candiate for the Supreme Court would trail off a sentence with a half formed thought, and a summary "...you know".

How would that sound at the end of an empathetic rulling?

Sotomayor's nomination is doubtless causing confusion among those fully expecting POTUS Obama's 1st SC nomination to be along the lines of Bernardine Dohrn or Angela Davis. She seems closer to an Anita Hill with credentials.

re: #79 Killgore Trout

She's qualified, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the accusation.

What you've got to look at is, what is in the justice's heart? What's their broader vision of what America should be? Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire, but the issues that come before the Court are not sport, they're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart–the empathy–to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges. Alright?
Obama to Planned Parenthood.

Obama picked an empathic justice, with demographic considerations. Demographic considerations are a part of politics, on all sides.

re: #87 taxfreekiller

Maybe there was a real legal reason for her decision.

re: #82 Charles

Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.

However one spins it, invoking race when discussing people's qualifications or wisdom is offensive. Even if she was just speaking about discrimiation cases, and the full context is considered, it's still insulting and faintly racist to imply that a racial minority will have a superior opinion on the matter.

Reverse the racial nouns in her sentence to get the full flavor of how bigoted it appears.

In her bio, Sonia said Perry Mason was one of her idols. I hope she realizes he was an actor and not a real life attorney. She also idolizes Barack. Again, I hope she realizes he is an attorney and not a real life President.

re: #86 loppyd

How?

Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.

You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.

re: #95 Killgore Trout

Maybe there was a real legal reason for her decision.

The SCOTUS is widely believed to be poised to reverse her on it. AGAIN!

re: #72 loppyd

Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.

BUT that makes the stat valid... where she is on the scale...

re: #96 zombie

DING DING DING

re: #81 loppyd

I heard this before Rush came on today.

How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.

The compilation of facts was off the cuff, and the compiler said

On a quick read, I can’t readily discern

I call that off-the-cuff. I'm sure there's a better expression for it.

re: #95 Killgore Trout

here are some comments about that case:

...in the Supreme Court briefing, all the parties agreed that if New Haven declined to implement the results of its promotion test because it did not want to promote the best performers because they were white or Hispanic, then that was clearly illegal. New Haven says that this isn’t what happened, that it was simply trying to avoid a violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision. And much of the debate in the Supreme Court is whether New Haven’s conduct was legal assuming that motivation.

But at the same time, the plaintiffs in Ricci have argued that there was substantial evidence in the record that avoiding disparate impact was not New Haven’s actual motivation. Instead, they insist that New Haven was acting out of “racial politics” and good old-fashioned intentional racial discrimination.[Link: www.scotusblog.com...]

She's not going to move any more right or left when she gets confirmed. In other words, she's not going to do the Souter. She'll stay at her ideology but doubt she'll gain any more importance.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

re: #78 lawhawk

Her name was proffered from the outset because of restoring another woman to the Court; Bush chose best available for the seat (O'Connor retiring, Rehnquist dying, Miers fireballing in infamy, Roberts and then Alito chosen instead).

Best available should be the choice, not who's replacing who because of gender, race, etc.

If anything the Democrats keep pushing the idea of hitting specific demographics, but both parties do it.

You are absolutely correct, both parties do it - Bush the elder with Thomas replacing Marshall being the last GOP example. I would guess that Reagan's choice of O'connor was gender based, unless one believes that she was the most qualified at the time she was picked, which is a tough argument to make.

re: #82 Charles

Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.

I still think the "wise Latina" is outa line.

Rush speaks for the Party of Failure...

Limbaugh on Sotomayor: ‘Do I want her to fail? Yeah.’

re: #1 MandyManners

Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?

I don't think so, but I DO have a clue where that bogus number might have coe from. On a prior thread someone mentioned that of the 5 of her cases that went to the Supremes, 44 justice weigh ins (9 x 5 - 1?), and only 11 could be charitably construed to agree with her. That's 75% right there.

A number of justices who might disagree with a judge over the course of five cases is not of course a "reversal rate". I'm just suggesting a possible source for that bit of misinformation.

re: #90 turn

I'm with OR, it could have been worse. She'll get confirmed by the repubs for exactly that reason.

I will go along with that, it always could be worst, but her gun control ideas and the advantage she thinks she hold by being a Latina still bothers me.

re: #72 loppyd

Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.

You need to put the stat in context...

For example I am 65% water... if you don't know what other people are, you might think that is high...

re: #96 zombie

However one spins it, invoking race when discussing people's qualifications or wisdom is offensive. Even if she was just speaking about discrimiation cases, and the full context is considered, it's still insulting and faintly racist to imply that a racial minority will have a superior opinion on the matter.

Reverse the racial nouns in her sentence to get the full flavor of how bigoted it appears.

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

re: #99 Charles

Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.

You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.

Her statement:

"..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."

Better? I can live with different, but better? No way.

She should not be applying anything other than the law to her decisions. So yes, I disagree - vehemently.

re: #82 Charles

Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.

Having read a little more of the context now, I can't say I'm too happy about the quote. Note this at the beginning of the same paragraph:

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.

What?!

Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.

It was JOE BIDEN who turned Supreme Court nominations into political trench warfare.

Robert Bork should be on the bench.

I tend to use a "swap races in the statement" test on racial statements. Ie: if you made it a white/anglo statement, would it be judged "racist."

Would it be wrong for a white judge to suggest that since the case involves discrimination against whites, that a wise white man might give a more sensitive ruling?

IMO, it would be offensive, and perhaps more importantly, it would be instantly disqualifying if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak (for good reason).

re: #114 Charles

Here's a key phrase from the source of the quotation:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.

Understatement of the year.

re: #88 DaddyG

Are there any Republicans with the stones to ask her opinion on the constitutionality of nationalizing a private industry and shifting ownership to the government and unions; or the limits of the interstate commerce clause when it comes to states' 10th amendment rights?

Those are the questions I want answered by any supreme court justice nominee.

Very few difficult questions are truthfully answered by any SC nominee when before congress. If asked a question, the answer to which will be troublesome, the nominee will often state that he hadn't thought of the question before and thus has no answer.

re: #104 jaunte

It's the Ricci case? From the Stormfront group Tea Party Americans Coalition
(google cache)
The have a thread up titled "Using Buchanan's 'Party of Ricci' phrase"

I think I see why this is pissing off so many people.

re: #72 loppyd

Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.

Metrics, however, are completely meaningless in isolation, stripped of context. For example, if she's been reversed 80% of the time (still waiting for real proof of this) but her colleagues are reversed 82% of the time - or 97% of the time, or 10% of the time - then her record needs to be compared against that of her peers. The absolute number itself means nothing.

Given how hard it seems to be for anyone to confirm this otherwise simple statement, I'm guessing we're going to see that it is based on some bizarre form of measurement that, when applied to any other justices, would yield similar results. But I'm more than willing to see how the actual claim was arrived at.

re: #99 Charles

Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.

You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.

I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."

If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.

re: #113 Buck

You need to put the stat in context...

For example I am 65% water... if you don't know what other people are, you might think that is high...

11 of 44 at the SCOTUS does not a brilliant legal mind make. Sorry.

Charles, to be clear, even if some here would not disagree with the reversed statement scenario (though I would), the press, etc, would make it a witch-hunt, IMO.

re: #123 zombie

I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."

If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.

And she feels a Latina would come to a better conclusion than a white male. Imagine if the reverse statement were made?

re: #114 Charles

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

Well, I would not agree with that, any more than I could agree that her statement was a wise one to make,.

Kilgore, do you think she would have been picked if she was an English-American male?

Kind of like the college Chancellor who was picked due to an unwritten rule that it had to be a female...she may be qualified, but you always have your doubts when gender is a precondition (think Univ-Minnesota-Duluth for those of you from the area).

re: #114 Charles

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

Well, what are you talking about. Define your market. Are you talking about people here, on LGF, who tend to be moderate and fair about most issues, or Joe the Plumber?

I can't speak for anyone else (even though I do slip into that sometimes, and get my fingers whacked), but that "reversed" remark would offend me.

Hello!
Not that that matters a whit.

re: #59 Killgore Trout

Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.

I'd be less sceptical about it if she weren't handicapped (diabetes-which is being made much of,) female, and hispanic.
She (as we all) should be judged on our ability. I would like to see more of her work as a judge and lawyer.

I definately do NOT want another three ring circus.

re: #121 Killgore Trout

It's the Ricci case? From the Stormfront group Tea Party Americans Coalition
(google cache)
The have a thread up titled "Using Buchanan's 'Party of Ricci' phrase"

I think I see why this is pissing off so many people.

Ah yes, all roads lead to Stormfront in your world.

re: #117 experiencedtraveller

It was JOE BIDEN who turned Supreme Court nominations into political trench warfare.

Robert Bork should be on the bench.

Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)

re: #123 zombie

I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."

If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.

Not to mention the "physiological differences" bit.

re: #99 Charles

And would her point be valid if you substitute the word "Asian" for "white male"?
How about "Black" for "white male"?
At what point does it come apart?

re: #114 Charles

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

Um... not I.

The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").

I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.

re: #124 loppyd

11 of 44 at the SCOTUS does not a brilliant legal mind make. Sorry.

unless the average is lower... I don't know.

re: #97 calvin coolidge

In her bio, Sonia said Perry Mason was one of her idols. I hope she realizes he was an actor a fictional character and not a real life attorney.

Perry Mason was played by Raymond Burr.

re: #60 Dave the...

She could be worse. I think many of us are very uncomfortable with her because:

A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.

B) She's associated with Empathy for liberal victim groups

To be frank, I think just about everyone is uncomfortable simply because she was nominated by Obama. I also think that if Obama were to nominate Robert Bork, we would suddenly be hearing criticisms and suspicions raised over Bork's cherry-picked statements as well. Guilt by association.

re: #140 SixDegrees

Guilt by association.

Is very, very popular, almost anywhere.

re: #116 Occasional Reader

What?!

Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.

Just ask Lawrence Summers what the reaction would be.

re: #140 SixDegrees

Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.

A man can dream, can't he?

re: #124 loppyd

How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.

It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.

re: #137 Occasional Reader

Um... not I.

The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").

I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.

She not a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!? Dammit all, hey guys, stop the presses, toss the bumper stickers.

re: #134 Flyers1974

Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)

I know he has his opinions on the term "well organized militia."

re: #114 Charles

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

True, there may be racists who don't like her because she is Hispanic -- but that still doesn't justify her statement. Just because other people are racist against her, doesn't negate the fact that she said a statement that could also be interpreted as racist.

She shouldn't have provided fodder for the white supremacists, but unfortunately, she did.

re: #144 lawhawk

How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.

It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.

He's not called lawhawk for nothing!

re: #116 Occasional Reader

What?!

Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.

Hmmm -- reading the full context even seems to make her statement more offensive!

re: #143 Guanxi88

Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.

A man can dream, can't he?

I wouldn't want Bork at this point - way too old. It would give 0 two shots at the same target.

I'm just going to go ahead and say it:

I'm eminently unqualified to vet nominees to the SCOTUS, lacking as I do the understanding of the various nuances and what-have-you that must go into the process of screening candidates for nomination.

I'm ideologically opposed to Barry and most of what he supports, so, in this case, I will, by default, oppose the nomination, for all the good it does. (As if anyone is waiting for me to weigh in on it.)

re: #151 SixDegrees

I wouldn't want Bork at this point - way too old. It would give 0 two shots at the same target.

True, but then, it's a dream.

Leahy brought up the Ledbetter case today as a reason for supporting Sotomayer. If she would have overturned the statute of limitations law due to empathy for the party, that reason alone makes her unqualified.

Now, having said that, I don't know what her position is on the case.

re: #137 Occasional Reader

Um... not I.

The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").

I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.

This. I suppose the argument is if the life experience even matters in deciding what the Constitution means. Strikes me that life experience means squat compared to, say, knowledge of early American history so you know what the founders actually meant. The background of the Justice or Plaintiff should have nothing at all to do with the judgement they receive, right? The judgement should be "colorblind."

re: #138 Buck

unless the average is lower... I don't know.

Chief Justice Roberts:

During his two year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting two dissents from other judges, and authoring three dissents of his own.

2 of 49

re: #114 Charles

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

It still sounds disgusting. However, should that situation cannot arise in the present environment. The 'wise white male' would be tarred and feathered in 10.9.8... Even if Thomas were to state that he is a wise black male, the press would go berserk.

re: #140 SixDegrees

To be frank, I think just about everyone is uncomfortable simply because she was nominated by Obama. I also think that if Obama were to nominate Robert Bork, we would suddenly be hearing criticisms and suspicions raised over Bork's cherry-picked statements as well. Guilt by association.

Well, it stands to reason that if I do not trust Obama's judgment, then I will be uncomfortable with the decisions and nominations made, at least until I have more information. That is not unreasonable.

It actually appears to me (junderstanding I don't have a lot of info. just yet), that given my ideological differences with the O, she might not be such a bad choice.

Btw Posner is a super liberal judge who would do anything to see that the United States turns into the a communist society.

Extreme sarcasm.

So I have to say this...she could be worse. She could be from California.

re: #147 zombie

True, there may be racists who don't like her because she is Hispanic -- but that still doesn't justify her statement. Just because other people are racist against her, doesn't negate the fact that she said a statement that could also be interpreted as racist.

She shouldn't have provided fodder for the white supremacists, but unfortunately, she did.

You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.

I'm still trying to understand why her rate of reversal, in and of itself, is important. If one is conservative, wouldn't you want an appellate judge to render conservative opinions? And if the SC were liberal, wouldn't that judge's opinions have a higher reversal rate? Would you want that judge to stop rendering conservative opinions to avoid the high reversal rate?

re: #161 Spare O'Lake

You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.

Why single her out? Because she uniquely is going to be on the Supreme Court -- that's why!

re: #144 lawhawk

How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.

It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.

No, I thought I clarified and I understand that. A reversal is a reversal one time. The number represents 11 of 44 of the opportunities by the justices to uphold her decisions.

I'd love to see those numbers. I can't find a number of cases which were granted cert to square with the number reversed and I'm at work. As fate would have it we are putting together an application for further appellate review to the SJC of MA.

re: #21 Charles

Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?

/

Conservative babies. That won't be a problem.

I don't think much of the analysis or its methodology.I would like to hear from lawyers who tried cases against her in trial court, and lawyers who tried cases before her when she was a D. Judge, or argued cases before her in the 2nd Cir.They will have a wealth of info on her and be better analysts of her capabilities as a Justice, regardless of her politics.Any New York lawyers out there?

re: #143 Guanxi88

Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.

A man can dream, can't he?

If for no other reason than watching various pundits contort themselves into pretzels, I'd love to see that.

re: #162 Flyers1974

I'm still trying to understand why her rate of reversal, in and of itself, is important. If one is conservative, wouldn't you want an appellate judge to render conservative opinions? And if the SC were liberal, wouldn't that judge's opinions have a higher reversal rate? Would you want that judge to stop rendering conservative opinions to avoid the high reversal rate?

No! She was reversed in several cases for misinterpreting the law.

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

re: #158 reine.de.tout

Well, it stands to reason that if I do not trust Obama's judgment, then I will be uncomfortable with the decisions and nominations made, at least until I have more information. That is not unreasonable.

It actually appears to me (junderstanding I don't have a lot of info. just yet), that given my ideological differences with the O, she might not be such a bad choice.

I think the key here is to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. I doubt very, very much that she would be my pick if I had that power. But that's not going to happen, so for the moment I'd rather wait and get as many actual facts as I can.

re: #164 Iron Fist

In truth, are the members of the Senate any more qualified than you or I to vet this nominee? Why? Because they won a popularity contest 50 years ago and have been bring home the pork ever since? Would anyone argue that Robert Byrd's experience in the Ku Klux klan made him any better than you or I to vet this nominee?

Whatever may be said about me and my rather colorful (at times) past, I can assure you that I never was in the Ku Klux Klan, nor would I have ever considered joining such an organization.

That puts me one ahead of Byrd, at the very least.

No, no, no, no. You see, being a (former) Kluxer makes Byrd eminently better suited to judge matters of racial discrimination, based on his RICH LIFE EXPERIENCE.

re: #170 Charles

It's now the 48-second rule.

re: #167 beens21

I don't think much of the analysis or its methodology.I would like to hear from lawyers who tried cases against her in trial court, and lawyers who tried cases before her when she was a D. Judge, or argued cases before her in the 2nd Cir.They will have a wealth of info on her and be better analysts of her capabilities as a Justice, regardless of her politics.Any New York lawyers out there?

Most cases she (or any other judge) would have heard do not involve political matters such as abortion, etc... .

re: #166 HelloDare

Conservative babies. That won't be a problem.

No, that would make her a snob. Puppies are much cheaper.

/ask Dick Cheney

/

re: #170 Charles

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

No enforcement.

re: #173 HelloDare

It's now the 48-second rule.

You read my mind.

re: #170 Charles

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

Yep, I like the 48 hour rule myself.

That said, however, I've read that jumping to conclusions is good exercise.

Oops, no wait, that's jumping jacks.

;-)

re: #161 Spare O'Lake

You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.

Nobody singled her out until she was nominated for such a consequential position.

Reversal statistics for 2008.

See page 10 for the details (no way to easily replicate the table here), but 2d Circuit had 1 case reversed, 1 vacated, and 3 affirmed.

9th Circuit had 5 reversed, 3, vacated, 2 affirmed.

For 2007, reversal statistics (again 10th page of pdf):
2d Circuit had 3 reversed and 2 affirmed
9th had 12 reversed 7 vacated and 2 affirmed.

For those two most recent years (2009 statistics wont be produced until November), 2d Circuit had 4 cases reversed, 3 vacated, and 4 affirmed.

Out of 11 cases, 4 were reversed. That's not 80%. It's also not a reflection of how the Supreme Court operates, given that in 2007 for example, 36 cases were reversed, 11 vacated, and 19 affirmed. Compared with the overall performance of all federal court of appeals decisions, the Second performed better than average given that the Court was twice as likely to reverse than affirm.

re: #170 Charles

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.

So that one, at least, seems to check out.

The statistics I read (skimmed) paint her as average in most cases. Why can't Obama pick someone who was toward the top of some of those same statistics?

That said, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

re: #170 Charles

Just jumping into the thread, but I want to add that she finds herself in the unique position of having one of her rulings that has been appealed to the SC being ruled upon (and possibly overturned) as she sits for confirmation.

(The Connecticut fireman case, the ruling of which should be returned by the Supremes in July.)

re: #169 loppyd

No! She was reversed in several cases for misinterpreting the law.

Almost every reversal is going to be based upon the higher court's reasoning that the lower court or judge misinterpreted the law.

re: #156 loppyd

That goes to consensus, and Roberts was well known for getting consensus on his opinions. In fact, when discussing Roberts as Chief Justice, it was expected that we'd possibly see more unanimous decisions (we haven't). But it's an interesting metric.

I am looking to see whether there are any serious red flags regarding being overturned more than others - and that isn't the case.

re: #180 lawhawk

Out of 11 cases, 4 were reversed. That's not 80%.

FWIW, I thought the "80%" reversal figure being bandied about supposedly referred to opinions that she authored, not to all 2nd Circuit opinions taken together.

re: #181 Occasional Reader

Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.

So that one, at least, seems to check out.

The fact that she was thrice reversed by the SCOTUS for erring in the law is there for anyone to see as well.

re: #183 pink freud

Just jumping into the thread, but I want to add that she finds herself in the unique position of having one of her rulings that has been appealed to the SC being ruled upon (and possibly overturned) as she sits for confirmation.

(The Connecticut fireman case, the ruling of which should be returned by the Supremes in July.)

It will be interesting to see how that ruling breaks, really interesting.

re: #184 Flyers1974

Almost every reversal is going to be based upon the higher court's reasoning that the lower court or judge misinterpreted the law.

Which is why judges with a high reversal rate should set off a red flag.

re: #178 subsailor68

Yep, I like the 48 hour rule myself.

That said, however, I've read that jumping to conclusions is good exercise.

Oops, no wait, that's jumping jacks.

;-)

Just don't jump the shark.
BTW, you can get an Office Space Jump to Conclusions mat here.

re: #187 loppyd

The fact that she was thrice reversed by the SCOTUS for erring in the law is there for anyone to see as well.

Don't you mean, "Thrrrice?"

You must roll the "rrr" of the tongue!

re: #163 zombie

Why single her out? Because she uniquely is going to be on the Supreme Court -- that's why!

Correctimundo!
But still, all three branches are pretty much rife with similar-sounding statements.
And after all, her display of what could arguably called racial or feminist pride is not REALLY a reliable predictor of her judicial rulings, is it?

re: #160 Dave the...

So I have to say this...she could be worse. She could be from California.

or Chicago

re: #49 zombie

I'm almost certain she'll get approved (no reason to reject her, really, as she is legitimately qualified...

eh? Qualified as a rational for SC approval left the building during the Reagan administration. A lot of 'political blood' has been spilled in a fight 'they' started. I don't see any good reason why the very minority party shouldn't continue to hold the line and make it as costly as possible to the other side.

re: #189 loppyd

Which is why judges with a high reversal rate should set off a red flag.

That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?

re: #192 Spare O'Lake
Did you forget your /sarc tag?

re: #170 Charles
True enough... Sean Hannity just opened today's broadcast by playing the nominee's "activist" quote w/out her immediate qualifying statements.

Why did George H.W. Bush pick Sotomayor for the courts?

Let's have a look at the rest of her remarks, following the "wise Latina" section that's being quoted everywhere without context:

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.

That just does not look so horribly "racist" to me.

re: #192 Spare O'Lake

Correctimundo!
But still, all three branches are pretty much rife with similar-sounding statements.
And after all, her display of what could arguably called racial or feminist pride is not REALLY a reliable predictor of her judicial rulings, is it?

Read this.

re: #181 Occasional Reader

Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.

So that one, at least, seems to check out.

Very good point. And her comments on gun ownership are from a paper she wrote, I think more than 48 hours ago.

A statement of "racial pride" in a non-minority would be effectively disqualifying (again, for good reason, IMO).

re: #195 Flyers1974

That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?

They didn't reverse her on ideology. They reversed her because erred in applying the law.

re: #174 Flyers1974

I know that.Lawyers who have interacted with her, whether it is in a deposition,response to a moton or brief,tried a case before her or dealt with her questions at oral argument, will have an opinion on whether she will make a good Justice. The stats in the cited article to me seem meaningless.

re: #195 Flyers1974

That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?

In other words, reversal is due to ideological reasons not reasons related to competence. If Conservative SC, then liberal judges overturned more. If liberal SC, then conservative judges overturned more.

re: #114 Charles

I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.

Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life."

How many people would agree with that?

And I could not imagine any white judge daring make a statement like that. Not ever.

re: #181 Occasional Reader

Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.

So that one, at least, seems to check out.

These two paragraphs are a few paragraphs after the one with the "wise Latina" in it:

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.

.

re: #199 Charles

Sorry, but even there, I see signs of something that bothers me:

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.

"Understanding the values and needs"? She thinks a judge should be a legislator, it seems. (And that's leaving aside the question of "what are those words code for, exactly?".)

re: #170 Charles

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

It's a good rule, but at the pace things are going, while we sit around tying our shoelaces for 48 hours, everyone else just traipses up and down the field scoring political touchdown after political touchdown. By the time any sane blogger waits 48 hours and then finally enters the fray, the score will be 268 - 0 against him, and he might as well just forfeit.

The 48-hour rule has been replaced by the 48-second rule:

If you wait longer than 48 seconds to post your first hysterical comment on any topic, you are political roadkill.

re: #186 Occasional Reader

If it really is 80% of her authored decisions, someone would have taken note far earlier than this (after all, she's on the Second Circuit for a decade), and written up this extensively.

I'd still love to see this breakdown.

re: #134 Flyers1974

Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)

Link please? Can't find that.

re: #199 Charles

re: #208 wrenchwench

The two paragraphs I quoted follow the two you quoted.

re: #205 beens21

I know that.Lawyers who have interacted with her, whether it is in a deposition,response to a moton or brief,tried a case before her or dealt with her questions at oral argument, will have an opinion on whether she will make a good Justice. The stats in the cited article to me seem meaningless.

Her clerks and some colleagues (anonomously sourced) have said she is not a brilliant mind as she is being heralded as and a "bully"...

And yes, you can be a judge and not be very swift. I have seen it with my very own eyes.

re: #173 HelloDare

It's now the 48-second rule.

Drat! See what I mean about the pace of things? Scooped again, because i violated the 48-second rule myself.

re: #204 loppyd

They didn't reverse her on ideology. They reversed her because erred in applying the law.

Same thing, in most cases. The reason for the "error" is a difference in opinion. Who has the correct opinion depends upon who controls the high court.

re: #215 zombie

48 milliseconds is the new 48 hour rule.

re: #180 lawhawk

Thank you, Lawhawk. This is why I love LGF. The amount of fact-checking that goes on here is amazing.

re: #171 SixDegrees

I think the key here is to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. I doubt very, very much that she would be my pick if I had that power. But that's not going to happen, so for the moment I'd rather wait and get as many actual facts as I can.

I agree with you - wait for more info.

However, I still think her choice of words in that statement that has been discussed here was - not well thought out.

re: #170 Charles

I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.

Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?

I agree with the 48 hour rule. Bottom line is that Obama is going to get what he wants because of the makeup of the Senate, if nothing else. However, I will point out that if there are hard feelings and attacks starting, it was the Democrats that started the scorched earth policy on judicial nominees with Bork and Thomas. The courtesy of deferring to a President's judgement was killed by them.

The "wise Latina" remark is troubling on 2 fronts. Most obviously is the racist overtone. But deeper, she was quoting from someone who said "a wise woman and a wise man will reach the same conclusion." Then she goes on to say that she does not believe this - that her race and gender gives her the point of view to make BETTER decisions than a white man. She obviously doesn't believe that "wise" in an of itself can produce good decisions. And that there is an inherent wisdom from a racial/ethnic/class/gender background.

And this POV is to be established for a lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. I don't really need 48 hours to be troubled.

Charles, I suppose the point is one of "fairness."

That is, if the shoe were on the other foot, we might all agree that it is not "racist" but a statement of fact—our backgrounds inform our opinion, and thought process. None the less, if a white male said that, they'd be pilloried.

It's only fair, IMO, to hold everyone to the same standard. If a white guy would be bashed, then a hispanic woman should be too—even if we all might agree that it would be better if none were bashed for statements like this.

re: #199 Charles

And to use your own "turn the tables" thought experiment from your post above:

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 White heritage.

How would that statement grab ya, from a white, male nominee?

re: #196 NelsFree

Did you forget your /sarc tag?

SARC R' US.
Sorry for any confusion.

re: #216 Flyers1974

Same thing, in most cases. The reason for the "error" is a difference in opinion. Who has the correct opinion depends upon who controls the high court.

Not at all the same thing.

How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/

re: #199 Charles

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.

But that's exactly what she is saying with her "wise Latina" remark, which is actually a stab at the quote, "a wise woman and a wise man will reach the same conclusion."

re: #200 loppyd

Read this.

Hmmm, tantalizing...

re: #223 Occasional Reader

Not only would the nominee be history, but the (Republican to fully reverse the scenario) President appointing them would ALSO be called a racist by the press (since his star chamber would clearly have known the mind of the nominee beforehand).

I suppose I like the 48 hour rule because it gives everyone a chance to take a look at as much information as possible, separating the wheat from the chaff prior to taking a position. I know the opposition rarely does this, but we risk our credibility when we give the other side unnecessary ammunition.

The left is very skilled, and very ready, to take one statement - usually out of context - and use it to say "See, they're nothing but right wing crazies."

If the confirmation hearings were scheduled to start tomorrow, that might be one thing. I think we've got some time.

re: #226 Killgore Trout

How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/

You're hanging out at Stormfront too much, it seems.

re: #226 Killgore Trout

How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/

Bleach.

/

re: #30 FurryOldGuyJeans

Did I discount that the conspiracy devotees will have a go at this? Nope. Pushing this unproven idiocy will have as much credibility as do the troofers and nirthers.

Now what would be a good nickname for the 80% conspiracists?

Octoschmucks?

re: #219 reine.de.tout

I agree with you - wait for more info.

However, I still think her choice of words in that statement that has been discussed here was - not well thought out.

I think it was well thought out. People who have to make statements in public a lot have scripts in their mind, pre-answers already formed, from answers or statements they have made before. I do it myself. I'll even create an idea or an opinion in my head, script out a basic "dialog" and it becomes "quote" ready when I need it, either when I am talking to someone about a topic, or here, or when I am writing a play. I do it with humor, observations of life and so on. It can become second nature to a person who is use to speaking in public or responding in public. Actors do it for a living, and you would be surprised who that develops a "scriptable mind" in a person and it becomes second nature.

I suspect that the judge has said this before, in one form or another, she just didn't form that detailed of an answer on the spot.

re: #199 Charles

Let's have a look at the rest of her remarks, following the "wise Latina" section that's being quoted everywhere without context:

That just does not look so horribly "racist" to me.

Seems OK ... until that last line:

"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."

Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)

The more context I read, the more troubling statements I see.

re: #233 _RememberTonyC

Octoschmucks?

"Octo" is well-overused these days. I would look for something better.

re: #231 OldLineTexan

Sadly, they're much more relevant these days than they should be.

re: #232 acwgusa

Bleach.

/

Damn it. That was meant to be a joke. Now it sounds crass.

re: #226 Killgore Trout

How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/

Fair is fair Killgore, that's what the world wants, that's what they need to get.

re: #238 acwgusa

Damn it. That was meant to be a joke. Now it sounds crass.

Yes it is very crass. Try peroxide instead.

I'm going to beat the 48-second rule by ANTICIPATING the next question: What if she's really bad, can we impeach her? Answer:

The process is the same as impeaching a President. The vote to impeach is done by simple majority of the House; this is after it passes a committee hearing on the grounds of impeachment. If the full House votes to impeach, it moves to the Senate who votes for conviction. It needs 2/3 majority to pass in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the Judge is removed from Office.

Ohhh, the vision is fading! The future is now clouded...dang!
/h

re: #223 Occasional Reader

How would that statement grab ya, from a white, male nominee?

It would be racist. And the speaker would be soundly and rightly denounced.

re: #241 NelsFree

I'm going to beat the 48-second rule by ANTICIPATING the next question: What if she's really bad, can we impeach her? Answer:

The process is the same as impeaching a President. The vote to impeach is done by simple majority of the House; this is after it passes a committee hearing on the grounds of impeachment. If the full House votes to impeach, it moves to the Senate who votes for conviction. It needs 2/3 majority to pass in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the Judge is removed from Office.

Ohhh, the vision is fading! The future is now clouded...dang!
/h

Thank you Professor Marvel.
/

BTW, it's interesting that the Republican-appointed Justices seem to be all over the map from an ideological POV once they actually hit the SCOTUS. Does anyone know how many Democrat-appointed Justices have become "conservative" members of the court? None leap to mind.

re: #238 acwgusa

Damn it. That was meant to be a joke. Now it sounds crass.

Well, how else can you keep your whites white? Bleach works well for it. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable while doing the laundry.

re: #237 Killgore Trout

Sadly, they're much more relevant these days than they should be.

All 68 of them?

/

In any case, she does not alarm me by being female or Hispanic.

She alarms me by being an Obama nomination, as would any other Obama nomination.

Of course, the continuing hue and cry to Balkanize the Supreme Court into racial and gender-specific seats should be troubling to anyone, IMO, whether or not the Repubs are playing along (which they certainly have).

re: #236 OldLineTexan

"Octo" is well-overused these days. I would look for something better.

that's why i went with it ... but do you like the "schmucks" part?

The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.

Sotomayor: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. I know, I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m...you know.”

re: #241 NelsFree

Clear your mind you must.

/

re: #235 zombie

And if this were a sculptor applying for some sort of Arts Council grant and citing her "Latina heritage", it would be one thing. But judges are, by the nature of the profession, supposed to be striving to put aside such influences. Yet in her own words, she seems to either shrug off her "heritage"-based prejudices, or outright trumpet them.

re: #223 Occasional Reader

Since supreme court justices acted like racists in the past, that means, she too can act like a racist...(or a tu quoque whine of "But you did it too!"...)

re: #235 zombie

Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)

I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?

re: #248 HelloDare

The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.

[Video]

Well, isn't that special. Busted.

re: #252 Killgore Trout

I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?

She didn't say "Puerto Rican."

re: #252 Killgore Trout

I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?

Code words for white. He'd be toast.

re: #249 OldLineTexan

Clear your mind you must.

/

Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

With regard to Judge Sotomayor's qualifications for SCOTUS. I am well versed in the New Haven Firefighter case. For me it goes to the heart of the matter. The decision rendered by Sotomayor etc. is so egregious (and blatantly racist) that I cannot and will not support her appointment to the Court.

re: #248 HelloDare

The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.

Youtube Video

Actually, on that one, I felt somewhat better about the "make policy" quote when I saw it in context.

The "wise Latina" quote, OTOH, seems to get worse the more context is added.