I believe we need to recognize that any person’s experience will bring a different understanding of the words of the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not be of a single mind. We need to be as concerned about that as we are of legislating from the bench. There needs to be a diversity of backgrounds to ensure justice and common sense. If there is not then we risk the situation that Anatole France observed in his book, The Red Lily, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring, but no more so than Justices Alito and Thomas. This country needs to accept judges on the basis of their track record rather than on the concept of liberal and conservative judges. While Democrats have failed to do so in their attacks on Justices Thomas and Alito – that is no reason for the Republican Party to do the same. We desperately need to stop both extremes and work together. We need to stop listening to both Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

I believe we need to recognize that any person’s experience will bring a different understanding of the words of the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not be of a single mind. We need to be as concerned about that as we are of legislating from the bench. There needs to be a diversity of backgrounds to ensure justice and common sense. If there is not then we risk the situation that Anatole France observed in his book, The Red Lily, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring, but no more so than Justices Alito and Thomas. This country needs to accept judges on the basis of their track record rather than on the concept of liberal and conservative judges. While Democrats have failed to do so in their attacks on Justices Thomas and Alito – that is no reason for the Republican Party to do the same. We desperately need to stop both extremes and work together. We need to stop listening to both Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh.

Although I basically agree with what you are saying, why must the GOP play the adult role all the time? After 8 years of extreme hatefulness from the looney left, why should everybody get a case of maturity under their watch. I don't know about you but after 8 years of extreme Bush-bashing from the Lettermen, Leno and all of mainstream media. I need to vent some of my frustrations a little.
The Left's venom started immediately after Bush beat Gore and did not let up once in 8 long, long years. We have been beaten down, mocked, laughed at, scorned, ridiculed on a daily basis and now were expected to just lay down and let the Looney Left put any old radical they want on the Supreme Court?
We need to get our moxie up. We need to get our fighting spirit up. We need to let the Looney Left know that the Conservative Movement of President Reagan is not dead.

Keedy

Amen!!!! Keedy

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.

For the record, her decisions have been overturned 60% of the time on appeal. This demonstrates her attempts at making policy instead of upholding the rule of law.

Originally Posted by MMC24

For the record, her decisions have been overturned 60% of the time on appeal. This demonstrates her attempts at making policy instead of upholding the rule of law.

...Few words, serious content.

Originally Posted by Fourpar

...Few words, serious content.

Ditto.

Keedy

Whoever said that 60% of judge Sotomayor's decisions were reversed must be a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh. Fact check's data shows just 1% reversal, which is lower than most judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that judges make law when elected officials do not, nobody on the right had any problem because he was on their side and would rule in their favor.
As a man, I think most of the problems in the world are due to much macho thinking and I welcome a change to women in leadership positions.

When I read the allegation that 60% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned on appeal, I thought to myself that no judge with that kind of record would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court. Given the criticism that would occur in the nomination hearings, such a nomination would have been a lunatic move by any President. Such a record would surely result in the nomination being rejected.

I kind of thought that the 60% allegation fell into the same category as the claim that only Chrysler dealers who were Republicans were closed in the bankruptcy. It was posted here for the same reason as the claim of 60% overturned decisions. Obviously, both allegations were posted without even the faintest suggestion of a reliable source for the information. The car dealer thread has already been removed by the administrators.

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

Originally Posted by santiagobob

Whoever said that 60% of judge Sotomayor's decisions were reversed must be a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh. Fact check's data shows just 1% reversal, which is lower than most judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that judges make law when elected officials do not, nobody on the right had any problem because he was on their side and would rule in their favor.
As a man, I think most of the problems in the world are due to much macho thinking and I welcome a change to women in leadership positions.

Now there is a loaded statement. I don't know whether to laugh or cite sexist. LOL
Anyways, gender does not play into my selection of the perfect leader. I'll take either Margaret Thatcher or Ronnie Reagan.

Keedy

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

When I read the allegation that 60% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned on appeal, I thought to myself that no judge with that kind of record would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court. Given the criticism that would occur in the nomination hearings, such a nomination would have been a lunatic move by any President. Such a record would surely result in the nomination being rejected.

I kind of thought that the 60% allegation fell into the same category as the claim that only Chrysler dealers who were Republicans were closed in the bankruptcy. It was posted here for the same reason as the claim of 60% overturned decisions. Obviously, both allegations were posted without even the faintest suggestion of a reliable source for the information. The car dealer thread has already been removed by the administrators.

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

From what I understand, of the 5 decisions of Sotomayor reviewed by the Supreme Court, 3 have been overturned, which would explain the 60% figure.
In her defense, 60% is not a particularly large percent, according to the average of overturns.
Keedy

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

Since well over 60% of the cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned (75% in 2008), you might say she has done better than average.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/its-over/

I might be taken to the wood shed for saying this, and I can't stop my fingers from typing, but I'm going to say it anyways. I think she leans a little on the the side of being called a racist. Let me explain.
A bunch of firefighters took a promotion exam and something like 17 or 18 passed but were denied promotion. The reason is that Sotomayor said that because she didn't see any black people on the promotion list...it isn't right. Well, the reason there was no black people on the promotion list is because none acheived a score high enough to pass the test. ( I hope I'm explaining this correctly)
Now, let me say that I hope nobody reading this post ever gets in a situation where he would need rescueing from a dire situation. If you do need help, I bet you that you will not care about the color of the skin of the person helping you, right? All you will want is the best people for the job. You will want the most qualified person for the task at hand.
Now tell me how a judge would know who is the best is to do the job. He or she couldn't know as well as I couldn't know. That is why we have tests.
Martin King said he wanted to see a color-blind society. How is putting judges on the bench who go out of their way to look for color...going to help future generations in the quest for a color-blind world?
OK...Let the rocks fly!!!!:
Keedy

We need a lawyer, or someone knowledgeable, to read Judge Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven Fire Department case. I would guess that her legal reasoning and the case law that she applied to reach her decision went a whole lot farther than the color of the skin of the applicants who passed the test. If her opinion reflects that her decision was based only the ethnicity of the test-takers, you or anyone else would be justified in calling her a racist. But if her opinion is reasoned and well-supported in both written and case law, then your allegation that she is a racist is not only premature, but inflammatory by it's very nature.

Originally Posted by Keedy

I might be taken to the wood shed for saying this, and I can't stop my fingers from typing, but I'm going to say it anyways. I think she leans a little on the the side of being called a racist. Let me explain.
A bunch of firefighters took a promotion exam and something like 17 or 18 passed but were denied promotion. The reason is that Sotomayor said that because she didn't see any black people on the promotion list...it isn't right. Well, the reason there was no black people on the promotion list is because none acheived a score high enough to pass the test. ( I hope I'm explaining this correctly)
Now, let me say that I hope nobody reading this post ever gets in a situation where he would need rescueing from a dire situation. If you do need help, I bet you that you will not care about the color of the skin of the person helping you, right? All you will want is the best people for the job. You will want the most qualified person for the task at hand.
Now tell me how a judge would know who is the best is to do the job. He or she couldn't know as well as I couldn't know. That is why we have tests.
Martin King said he wanted to see a color-blind society. How is putting judges on the bench who go out of their way to look for color...going to help future generations in the quest for a color-blind world?
OK...Let the rocks fly!!!!:
Keedy

From the New Republic (highlights are mine):
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

From the New Republic (highlights are mine):
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

She was a member of a 3 member panel which ruled against Ricci in what I have read was a very terse decision. She was as involved as any of the other two !

This summer about the time she is confirmed or shortly thereafter the Supreme Court will overrule her panels decision !

I dislike discussions on Supreme Court appointees simply because so much of what they do is narrow in relation to the decision they come to. In other words what the public construed as a "bad" decision or a "good" decision has to be tempered by how the question before the body was framed.

I make my decision based on the oath they take after listening to the hearings.....the oath for Supreme Court Justice is as follows....

"According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''