Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 33 of 33

Thread: Sonia Sotomayor

  1. #26
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    You are really parsing here...ok, there are many and MUCH better and MUCH more intellectually accomplished jurists out there.
    No. This isn't true. Like I said in a previous post, there are a handful of better quality choices and maybe one or two better "diversity" choices. But, no. There aren't many, MUCH better, MUCH more intellectually accomplished jurists alive than Sotomayor. Sorry.

    There are maybe a dozen, half of which have never sat on a federal bench. There are precious few "standouts" on the CoA. I've mentioned the ones worth noting, though perhaps we'd throw in Calabresi, and one or two on the D.C. Circuit. There really aren't that many CoA judges clearly superior to Sotomayor.

  2. #27
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by JayATee View Post
    I agree with every word of this. Also, I think the actual number is 80% of her decisions have been overturned on appeal. That's not a stellar record, certainly not for someone who is well on her way to sitting on the highest court in the country.
    She's had three of her opinions overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955

    Hope you're not relying on Rush Limbaugh for information about her (or anything else).

  3. #28
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    well, she isn't a white (by american standards) man, so any qualifications she has are pretty much automagically not adequate enough. she lacks the requisite genitals and american-based definition of 'whiteness' to be quality enough for the supreme court.

    remember, affirmative action for unqualified white guys (and occasionally cute white milfs like sarah palin) is totes ok, but not for anyone else!

  4. #29
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    ^^^ Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginzberg would undoubtedly have their own opinions on your female inadequacy 'red herring'.

    As to Sotomayor's history of overturned 'important' cases, the figure is FAR higher than the 1.3% cited ...

    (snip)"Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (200 -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009 [ now reversed 5-4 - sic ]

    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

    • Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

    • Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

    • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

    • Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

    • Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

    • Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 [ now decided 5-4 that black and hispanic applicants have no 'vested right' to promotion in the absence of an equal demonstration of their qualifications for said promotion - see - sic ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    from


    One set of facts for everybody, please ! And the facts are that, on cases involving controversial issues that rose to the level of Supreme Court review, Sotomayor is 2 for 7 ... with one of the two 'upheld' original Sotomayor rulings still faulted for 'flying in the face of statutory language'. This fact alone strongly implies that the addition of Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court would produce a major 'change' !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-19-2009 at 08:28 AM.

  5. #30
    God/dess JayATee's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In your nightmares...
    Posts
    4,861
    Thanks
    1,334
    Thanked 2,291 Times in 1,133 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    She's had three of her opinions overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955

    Hope you're not relying on Rush Limbaugh for information about her (or anything else).
    I have never, nor would I ever consider Rush to be an informed source. I can't remember where I read about her record, but sorry, I also wouldn't take newsweek to be the holy grail either.

    Also, 60% is as equally unimpressive.
    Last edited by JayATee; 07-19-2009 at 02:09 PM.
    Sorry I missed church. I was too busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian.

    "If you're good at something, never do it for free." The Dark Knight

    "you conjunctively engender an intoxicating combination of wicked, wholesome & insanely intelligent" - a friend describing me


    Quote Originally Posted by lestat1 View Post
    ^^^ It's a penis, not a martini shaker.
    Blessed Be

  6. #31
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    I'm glad to hear that. You seem too intelligent to listen to a boor like that.

    The 60% only applies to cases that were appealed to the Supreme court. Most of the cases she ruled on, weren't. The Supreme Court only takes accepts appeals if there is a chance they will be overturned, so the percentage of decisions being overturned by the Supreme Court, on cases that have reached that level, is fairly high for any judge.

  7. #32
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginzberg would undoubtedly have their own opinions on your female inadequacy 'red herring'.

    As to Sotomayor's history of overturned 'important' cases, the figure is FAR higher than the 1.3% cited ...

    ~
    No it isn't. There were very few decisions made by Sotomayor that were appealed to the Supreme Court, around 2 percent. I would say that any case that reached her level would be considered 'important'. One set of facts for everybody, please.

  8. #33
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Sonia Sotomayor

    During its 2006-2007 term, the Supreme Court reversed 68 percent of all cases that came before it. That would mean that the percentage of decisions made by Sotomayor appealed to the Supreme Court, that were reversed, is less than average.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Rush Limbaugh on Sonia Sotomayor. LOL!
    By eagle2 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 07:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •