Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KMAN, May 27, 2009.

  1. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
  2. RodISHI
    Offline

    RodISHI Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    10,392
    Thanks Received:
    1,858
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,047
    380 cases. Five heard by the Supreme court. Three overturned. Twisted OP Kman. That is less than 1 percent. Unless you can come up with a better numbers for averages on reversed decisions it looks like there is not much to say here.
     
  3. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Weird thing is I have heard some things about reversal rates with her.. but I have not seen 1 reported # being the same.. would like some cold hard and verified stats on this
     
  4. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,435
    Thanks Received:
    3,184
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,132
    Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.

    "The totality of the record is one that's more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it," Mr. Gibbs said.

    Still, Republicans will be under pressure from conservative and libertarian activist groups.......

    See, Libertarians are just another branch of the GOP. Its like Bud and Bud Light. I can hardly tell the difference.
     
  5. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,122
    Thanks Received:
    10,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,671
    three, soon maybe four! is this good or not good? doyathink???
     
  6. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    I'm sorry - that is flat wrong. She has had 3 reversals in over 300 of her decisions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    no, it's factually correct, but not particularly indicative of anything.
     
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,685
    Thanks Received:
    4,477
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,017
    I think this is a better discussion of the empathy judge

    Questions for Sotomayor - WSJ.com
     
  9. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Empathy judgments have no place.. this is about letter of the law and interpretation of the law based on the intent of the constitution

    The court is not a 'feel good' place that sets aside the law for the sake of results
     
  10. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    No, it is NOT factually correct. If she really had an 80% reversal rate, that would be indicitive, believe me. But she doesn't. Limbaugh bleats that she does - but he is (being charitable here) incorrect.
     

Share This Page