Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

[Willie99]

60% of her decisions overturned? that can't be considered to be a good thing, eh?

There seems to be some sort of disconnect between coverage and reality.

I initially had no problem with her nomination. She seems qualified and it's the President's choice (Republicans accept this, democrats don't). I was especially pleased when I read this quote “Judges must be extraordinarily sensitive to the impact of their decisions and function within, and respectful of, the Constitution,”.

Since reading about her "respect for the constitution", I find another quote

"The Court of Appeals is where policy is made," said Sotomayor, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know…I know. (some laughs) I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm…you know. OK. (more laughs)

(this citation is unedited)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm sorry, but you just can't reconcile "respect for the constitution" and "making policy from the bench".

 

[Willie99]

and having 60% of her decisions reversed is an indicator that she is a legislator.

 

[kingbill]

Willie Mercer how you doing...you are slowing sinking into Mercerdom with your posts about the president and the Administration. Next thing you know you'll be posting pics of that Crackhead who said he blew Obama.

Or just pull out a bulldog Gannon pic and say atta boy Brownie and you're almost there.

 

[BASEHEAD]

Willie Mercer how you doing...you are slowing sinking into Mercerdom with your posts about the president and the Administration. Next thing you know you'll be posting pics of that Crackhead who said he blew Obama.

Or just pull out a bulldog Gannon pic and say atta boy Brownie and you're almost there.

Hes got miles to go before reaching that level.

However is anyone really surprised hed pick a minority with a penchant for liberal activism...constitution be damned?

 

[Georgiaboy]

I'm just ready for the government schools to redo the text books and say the Judicial Branch is where policy is made.

 

[Willie99]

Willie Mercer how you doing...you are slowing sinking into Mercerdom with your posts about the president and the Administration. Next thing you know you'll be posting pics of that Crackhead who said he blew Obama.

Or just pull out a bulldog Gannon pic and say atta boy Brownie and you're almost there.

LOL

read some mercer and get back to me

many of my threads are really less about Obama, and more about mocking cheerleaders by discrediting their faith.

 

[quantumleap]

Willie, how about her decision in last year's firefighter case? Have you read anything on that? I'll try to find a reference if you don't already have one.

 

[quantumleap]

Here's a quote by Sotomayor from a lecture she gave in 2001 at the University of California :

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Replacing a Liberal with a Liberal won’t have any affect on the court. IMHO it was nothing more than a bone to solidify the Latino vote. If he gets the opportunity to appoint another justice, he/she will undoubtedly be gay.

 

[ScottL]

^^ Justice Perez Hilton

 

[levistep]

Willie, how about her decision in last year's firefighter case? Have you read anything on that? I'll try to find a reference if you don't already have one.

I remember that and was pretty pissed off by her decision. Just read in the paper that Quinnipiac's Men's Track team had to take the boot because of that equality bullshit too.

Here's a quote by Sotomayor from a lecture she gave in 2001 at the University of California :

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

What a joke of a pick this woman is. I don't think anyone would deny that she is getting picked over at least one more qualified white male just because she is Hispanic. Equal treatment is supposed to mean that race isn't factored into the equation whatsoever.

 

[Willie99]

Willie, how about her decision in last year's firefighter case? Have you read anything on that? I'll try to find a reference if you don't already have one.

it shows she believes government / judges are supposed to manage the workplace, even if it means a less qualified man gets the job

could you imagine the outrage if a white male received a job over a more qualified minority?

race baiters like Al Sharpton would be organizing demonstrations by welfare recipients, the ACLU would be suing everyone in sight and the big Zero would be calling the decision makers "the worse people on earth".

LOL at that three ring circus

 

[texansfan]

Willie, how about her decision in last year's firefighter case? Have you read anything on that? I'll try to find a reference if you don't already have one.

I believe that decision is about to be overturned by the Supreme Court...

 

[D2bets]

I remember that and was pretty pissed off by her decision. Just read in the paper that Quinnipiac's Men's Track team had to take the boot because of that equality bullshit too.


What a joke of a pick this woman is. I don't think anyone would deny that she is getting picked over at least one more qualified white male just because she is Hispanic. Equal treatment is supposed to mean that race isn't factored into the equation whatsoever.

How is she not qualified?
Princeton summa cum laude
Yale law and editor of law review
Assistant DA 5 years
Private practice 7 years
appointed to US Dist. Court by GHWB 6 years
2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals 11 years
Adjunct Professor at NYU Law 9 years
Columbia Law lecturer 10 years

Top-notch education, prosecutor, private attorney, district court, appeals court, professor, lecturer.

Name me the white male under the age of 55 who is more qualified.

She is no Harriet Miers.

 

[nimue77]

She may be qualified, but i'm not so sure she is committed to the Constitution (not that the rest of the Court is).
I know for sure Obama is not.
Anyone nominated for positions by GHWB, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama is suspect to me.

How is she not qualified?
Princeton summa cum laude
Yale law and editor of law review
Assistant DA 5 years
Private practice 7 years
appointed to US Dist. Court by GHWB 6 years
2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals 11 years
Adjunct Professor at NYU Law 9 years
Columbia Law lecturer 10 years

Top-notch education, prosecutor, private attorney, district court, appeals court, professor, lecturer.

Name me the white male under the age of 55 who is more qualified.

She is no Harriet Miers.

 

[D2bets]

You guys don't even understand the Ricci case. It is a Title VII case. You guys are basing your opinion on what you think the law should be, not what the law actually is. That's called judicial activism. Ya know, those activist judges you rail against. Trying to legislate from the bench. She and the others who reviewed the trial court decision were simply following the statute, not making law as you guys would like. Buncha hypocrites all of you.

 

[Willie99]

You guys don't even understand the Ricci case. It is a Title VII case. You guys are basing your opinion on what you think the law should be, not what the law actually is. That's called judicial activism. Ya know, those activist judges you rail against. Trying to legislate from the bench. She and the others who reviewed the trial court decision were simply following the statute, not making law as you guys would like. Buncha hypocrites all of you.

please do teach us

------------------------------------------------------------

Ricci is a fireman who happens to be dyslexic but still managed to come sixth out of 77 candidates who took an exam to become a lieutenant. But the city of New Haven, Connecticut - home of Yale, where Judge Sotomayor studied law - threw out the test because none of the 19 black firefighters who took it qualified for promotion.


After no one was promoted, Ricci and 17 other non-black firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued the city alleging racial discrimination. Sotomayor was one of seven judges (six were against) who wrote a one-page judgement throwing the test results out and denying Ricci his promotion.


-------------------------------------------------------------
CIR filed amicus briefs at two points that helped develop the precedential significance of the case. First, CIR
<table align="left" cellspacing="0" width="178"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" width="170">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="picture_right">"AS THE DISSENT IS WELL AWARE, THE PLAINTIFFS DID
NOT ARGUE THE MIXED-MOTIVE THEORY; A NON-PARTY RAISED IT IN AN AMICUS BRIEF."

--SECOND CIRCUIT OPINION, PARKER J.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> urged the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear an appeal of the case in an amicus brief filed in January 2007. CIR asked the court to address the City of New Haven's "mixed" motives for jettisoning a hiring test on which black applicants had not scored well enough to be considered for promotion. Although city officials said they feared the test might be discriminatory, it also appeared that City officials were simply trying to satisfy noisy political constituent groups demanding greater minority hiring.
Although the law encourages employers to use hiring tests that do not unfairly disadvantage minority groups, it does not permit employers to jettison carefully constructed hiring tests solely to boost minority numbers for political reasons. The trial court largely ignored evidence of the city's racial motive and instead focused solely on the city's desire to avoid litigation.

-------------------------------------------------------------






come on now, teach us about this case

after that, tell us why 60% of her decisions are overturned

hypocrites that don't know what we're talking about @)@)@)

I wonder why the Supreme Court is hearing this case? should be cut and dry, eh?

:lol:

 

[Willie99]

for those looking for substance on this case, here's a summary written Feb 27, 2009, long before her nomination. Not a political piece at all.

http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/ricci_v_destefano.html

 

[quantumleap]

How is she not qualified?
Princeton summa cum laude
Yale law and editor of law review
Assistant DA 5 years
Private practice 7 years
appointed to US Dist. Court by GHWB 6 years
2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals 11 years
Adjunct Professor at NYU Law 9 years
Columbia Law lecturer 10 years

Top-notch education, prosecutor, private attorney, district court, appeals court, professor, lecturer.

Name me the white male under the age of 55 who is more qualified.

She is no Harriet Miers.

She certainly has the experience but experience shouldn't be the only measure that is used for a SCJ. What would you say is the typical percentage of decisions being reversed by the Supreme Court of a typical candidate for Supreme Court?

 

[D2bets]

It's going to be a 5-4 decision, of course. But the district court's determination is the proper statutory decision, maybe not the right "result", but the correct application of law.

If the decision was based on political reasons, as that snippet suggests, then I would agree with you, but I don't believe that there was sufficient or maybe any evidence of that and that was not the trial court's finding. I do think it would be reasonable to remand the case for that determination. But it seems far more plausible to me that the government saw the obvious disparate impact of the tests and determined that they violated Title VII.

If you don't like Title VII then you need to bring that up with the legislature. It's not the court's job to legislate from the bench.

Sound familiar?