Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

[Nik]

sorry, but that is a strawman by both YOU and factcheck
no one is claiming anything of the sort
they put up that only 1% of her decissions but thats not what has been said
its 60% of her decissions that have been REVIEWED

you and factcheck are being DISHONEST

Where exactly does the word reviewed appear in the OP or in the title?

Yeah. Nowhere.

By the way...if its not intentionally misleading, why exactly is this a talking point considering the standard overturn rate by the USSC is approx 75%?

read the fucking link
it's in the 2nd paragraph

Right...and I'm sure they put it down there as opposed to the top for no reason at all...

 

[DiveCon]

Where exactly does the word reviewed appear in the OP or in the title?

Yeah. Nowhere.

By the way...if its not intentionally misleading, why exactly is this a talking point considering the standard overturn rate by the USSC is approx 75%?

read the fucking link
it's in the 2nd paragraph

Right...and I'm sure they put it down there as opposed to the top for no reason at all...

give it up, moron, you are wrong

 

[oreo]

WTH?

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court - Washington Times

Busted. You listen to Rush too much.

FactCheck.org: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Checked your link-

It specifically states -out of the 5 cases that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court-- 3 of her decisions have been overturned. That results in 60%. Did you read the second paragraph of your link?

Remember that the Supreme Court chooses to hear what cases they want. If there is something that has taken their interest in a case--it's because they more than likely feel that a decision was handed down unjustly by the lower court. Therefore, a 60% overturn rate by the higher court is not good.

 

[Nik]

read the fucking link
it's in the 2nd paragraph

Right...and I'm sure they put it down there as opposed to the top for no reason at all...

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

 

[DiveCon]

Right...and I'm sure they put it down there as opposed to the top for no reason at all...

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

please show everyone WHERE i have said it mattered

it doesnt
not to me

 

[Sarah G]

Right...and I'm sure they put it down there as opposed to the top for no reason at all...

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

It doesn't matter to anyone except the Rs in congress who think they are going to block this nominee using these idiotic smear tactics.

 

[DiveCon]

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

It doesn't matter to anyone except the Rs in congress who think they are going to block this nominee using these idiotic smear tactics.

so, Sarah, who in the house is going to even attempt to block this nominee?

please list them

 

[editec]

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

please show everyone WHERE i have said it mattered

it doesnt
not to me

Show you where you say it mattered?

You posted it, ergo, one must assume you thought it worthy of our attention.

 

[Soaring]

She won't get blocked. The Messiah has chosen her.

 

[jillian]

She won't get blocked. The Messiah has chosen her.

as opposed to Bush's nominees, of course... right?

the first indication i often get that someone is a complete dolt is the use of "messiah", "chosen one" or any other religious imagery in referring to the president.

i mean, i know it is likely that Jesus had dark skin... but puleeze.

 

[Soaring]

She won't get blocked. The Messiah has chosen her.

as opposed to Bush's nominees, of course... right?

the first indication i often get that someone is a complete dolt is the use of "messiah", "chosen one" or any other religious imagery in referring to the president.

i mean, i know it is likely that Jesus had dark skin... but puleeze.

How do you know Jesus had dark skin? Is there a picture of him you can post? How do you know that Jesus was even the Messiah?

 

[del]

She won't get blocked. The Messiah has chosen her.

as opposed to Bush's nominees, of course... right?

the first indication i often get that someone is a complete dolt is the use of "messiah", "chosen one" or any other religious imagery in referring to the president.

i mean, i know it is likely that Jesus had dark skin... but puleeze.

How do you know Jesus had dark skin? Is there a picture of him you can post? How do you know that Jesus was even the Messiah?

george bush told me

 

[Nik]

WTH?

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court - Washington Times

Busted. You listen to Rush too much.

FactCheck.org: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Checked your link-

It specifically states -out of the 5 cases that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court-- 3 of her decisions have been overturned. That results in 60%. Did you read the second paragraph of your link?

Remember that the Supreme Court chooses to hear what cases they want. If there is something that has taken their interest in a case--it's because they more than likely feel that a decision was handed down unjustly by the lower court. Therefore, a 60% overturn rate by the higher court is not good.

Actually it is very good. The average overturn rate is %75 or so. This is because they rarely take interest in a case unless they want to overturn it.

 

[Nik]

give it up, moron, you are wrong

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

please show everyone WHERE i have said it mattered

it doesnt
not to me

Yes, well, it does to Republicans, and they are using this to try to smear her. Of course the only way that fact would smear her is if you were intellectually dishonest with that fact, and so they are doing their best to do so.

 

[editec]

Right...so care to tell me why this matters, considering the 60% is LESS than the average overturn rate?

It doesn't matter to anyone except the Rs in congress who think they are going to block this nominee using these idiotic smear tactics.

so, Sarah, who in the house is going to even attempt to block this nominee?

please list them

Oh they know that they don't have the votes to BLOCK her.

But using this canard to rally public support among Whites fearful that the Obama administration is racist seems like a fairly typical Republican move.

Were I running the GOP, I'd let the talking heads hammer on this issue, too.

And I would ALSO be telling the GOP congress critters to remain silent on that issue, such that they won't be called on it around election time.

I think the GOP is playing this hand about as well as they can, to be honest.

They've got the weaker hand though given the demographics that they'll be facing as time goes by.

 

[johnwk]

What is most alarming about Sotomayor is, she made fun concerning the judicial branch of government making public policy, then recanted by saying she doesn’t advocate the court setting public policy, and finally she winds up as a Judge using the power of the Court to set public policy by ignoring a complaint brought before her in which the power of government had blatantly been used by folks in government to discriminate on the basis of race, which is exactly what was intended to be ended and forbidden by the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted!

It is a frightening thought to realize the ocean of blood America sacrificed during the war between the states to put an end to slavery and later government sponsored discrimination based upon race, can so easily be forgotten and ignored by our president in making his nomination for the next Justice of the S. C ., which is only too obvious has been made by him to further his own political career.

It is quite difficult for me to imaging how any member of the Senate who takes their oath of office seriously, can vote to approve Sotomayor who has joked about subjugating the separation of powers built into our Constitution; who has actively engaged in an act to deny a guaranteed and fundamental protection to American citizens under the 14th Amendment, and in so doing has violated her oath of office to support and defend “this Constitution”.

For any Senator to vote for this nominee is an act of misfeasance, and arguably an act of malfeasance, in addition to being disloyal to one’s oath to support and defend our written Constitution.

Hopefully those who believe in our constitutionally limited system of government, and see Sotomayor for the threat she has already exhibited, will contact Senate Judiciary Committee members [could not post link] and express their outrage over Obama’s nominee.

Regards,
JWK


" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison, Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

 

[DiveCon]

She won't get blocked. The Messiah has chosen her.

as opposed to Bush's nominees, of course... right?

the first indication i often get that someone is a complete dolt is the use of "messiah", "chosen one" or any other religious imagery in referring to the president.

i mean, i know it is likely that Jesus had dark skin... but puleeze.

uh, a bunch of Bush nominees were blocked
FAIL

 

[Sarah G]

It doesn't matter to anyone except the Rs in congress who think they are going to block this nominee using these idiotic smear tactics.

so, Sarah, who in the house is going to even attempt to block this nominee?

please list them

Oh they know that they don't have the votes to BLOCK her.

But using this canard to rally public support among Whites fearful that the Obama administration is racist seems like a fairly typical Republican move.

Were I running the GOP, I'd let the talking heads hammer on this issue, too.

And I would ALSO be telling the GOP congress critters to remain silent on that issue, such that they won't be called on it around election time.

I think the GOP is playing this hand about as well as they can, to be honest.

They've got the weaker hand though given the demographics that they'll be facing as time goes by.

Too late, they always take these things too far.

 

[DiveCon]

so, Sarah, who in the house is going to even attempt to block this nominee?

please list them

Oh they know that they don't have the votes to BLOCK her.

But using this canard to rally public support among Whites fearful that the Obama administration is racist seems like a fairly typical Republican move.

Were I running the GOP, I'd let the talking heads hammer on this issue, too.

And I would ALSO be telling the GOP congress critters to remain silent on that issue, such that they won't be called on it around election time.

I think the GOP is playing this hand about as well as they can, to be honest.

They've got the weaker hand though given the demographics that they'll be facing as time goes by.

Too late, they always take these things too far.

so, sarah, where's that list of House Republicans that are going to block this appointment?

 

[Yurt]

the problem i have with this....she's been reversed X percent... is it proves nothing other than the majority of 9 people disagree with her legal opinion. and as we all know, the court is not made up of pure jurists, each have their own biases.