A) republican strategic acumen hailed as genius
B) a conservative leader of the free world
C) a deceptive, treacherous politician of the Republic, e.g., Dark Lord of the Sith
D) all of the above

The fact is that it is significant that the US Supreme Court overruled her more often than not, and as I’ve said in one case unanimously. In another case that was upheld her reasoning was questioned. And now we have another case to be reviewed.

You may not like that her credentials are being questioned, but they should.

Go soak you head.

You claimed that, and I’m quoting your own post, “Lets take into account that Sotomayor’s been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in her decisions 60% of the time and has another case on appeal when determining intelligence and competence”

That is a complete and utter lie. 60% of her cases which have been selected for review by the Court have been overturned. The judicial average is 73% overturned, making her rulings above average. That said, you completely ignore the FACT that only 5 of her 300-some-odd cases have been reviewed by the court in the first place, only 3 of which were reversed, making her actual rate of overturned cases less than 1%.

You have no leg to stand on, because you refuse to tell the truth. You chose instead to parrot talking points without even pretending to care about the veracity of those talking points, then ignore reality when it is shoved right in your face.

Bottom line: YOU’RE AN IDIOT. Get used to it.

If so, you better be prepared to start rebuffing the points you’ve been ignoring for about 50 posts now. But, of course you won’t, because you’re clearly an idiot.

You may not like it but what I said is true. All you’ve got is “spanks”?

And ElBruce – How the heck can you say that those tests were skewed against minorities?! Please, lets not have different standards for those who we depend on to save lives.

ro,

is sesli bothering you again?

…

seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat

Since the Supreme Court takes very few cases to review, to me its not only significant that more often than not they disagreed with Sotomayer’s opinion, but in one case the disagreement was unanimous.

Is it “significant to you” that they’ve taken less of her cases than the average Circuit judge? Or that they’ve overturned less of hers than average?

Tell me, who has a better record than her? Let’s see an example.

.

Romartin16985 Says:

It seems likely that another ruling of hers will be overturned, as she all but dismissed the Ricci case. The nature of that case and her opinion says a lot about her ability to be impartial.

Can’t imagine why. Looks pretty cut-and-dried. If you design a written test for promotion and the results end up skewing wildly against minorities, then according to Title VII, you’ve got to chuck out the test because it’s provably racially biased. That’s what happened. That’s existing law and precedent. The lower court judge ruled according to that law as written. Sotomayor and two other judges upheld that ruling, without adding any significant comment. So what’s your problem? That she didn’t overturn the ruling because some white firefighters wanted the court to ignore the fact that the test that benefitted them was biased?

That’s what it comes down to: she doesn’t have a record of shuckin’ and jivin’ for Whitey. She doesn’t do the Stepin’ Fetchit thing and actively defend racist policies*. In short, she hasn’t proven that she knows her place. Hence in your mind she’s the racist, because she doesn’t seem likely to defend white privilege.

* Example: Michael Steele once defended former Gov. Bob Ehrlich’s decision to hold a $100,000 fundraiser at a country club that did not allow non-white members, saying that the club’s membership’s policies were “not an issue” because “I don’t play golf.”

Since the Supreme Court takes very few cases to review, to me its not only significant that more often than not they disagreed with Sotomayer’s opinion, but in one case the disagreement was unanimous. I do however agree that she has written opinions on many cases that stand – although we don’t know if she was in the majority on those.

It seems likely that another ruling of hers will be overturned, as she all but dismissed the Ricci case. The nature of that case and her opinion says a lot about her ability to be impartial.

Maybe its just me, but I would think we’d want to pick a SUPREME COURT NOMINEE who has a MUCH BETTER THAN AVERAGE record, you nit wit.

Her record is better than average. The average turnover rate of cases selected by the SCOTUS is in the 73% – 76% range. So 60% beats that. Hence, “better than average.”

Out of over 400 cases she decided, only 5 were picked up for review by the SCOTUS, and only 3 of those overturned. That makes her overturn rate less than 0.75%. I don’t know what the average rate is on that, but that looks pretty good to me.

Now that these facts have been explained to you, I’m sure you’re all for her. Right?

From this visionary mindset, you have the Rove’s, Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s with their beer swillin,’ lunch box packin,’ yellow mustard eatin’ personas (failing to mention their country club memberships and so on). And through the medium of radio, they created the “Us vs Them” debate that exists today by exciting passions at the expense of rational thought. However, the chickens have come home to roost because this pseudo-conservatism (social) has perverted conservatism’s intellectual persuasion (general overall freedoms from government) which embraced ideas over pugilistic banter. These remnants can be seen in individuals such as Andrew Sullivan and Richard Posner having taken the party to task.

Yet, as long as GOP fortunes are tied to talk radio hosts, Fox News and failed Rovian tactics, it seems certain that it will find itself in the proverbial wilderness for some time to come.

Romartin16985 Says:
Eugene,

Direct your spittle elsewhere, I’m not interested.

Translation: you included facts in your spittle, and facts really turn me off.