Obama to name supreme court justice nominee today at 10:15 ET

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Doesn't look like the rule of law is her strong point ---> 60 percent appeals reversal rate

You should be very careful citing to the Washington Times. They aren't good with statistics. Rather, they use very selective statistics to tell a fraction of the story. They are the ones who depicted Obama's current approval ratings as "in the basement."

Here, they cite of the 5 majority opinions she drafted which the Supreme Court heard, 3 were reversed. So there's your 60%.

Of course, she also wrote 375 opinions over 11 years which the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on, I don't know how many were appealed to them and simply denied cert. But looking at it that way, the SC tacitly affirmed her opinions 375 times out of 380. Then there's the fact that the SC reverses the overwhelming majority of cases for which it grants cert. http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/ Pretty prophetic:

In the end, the positions the lower appeals courts take and the ones the Supreme Court hands down is that the Supremes get the final say. That's why you hear constitutional law professors emphasize that the Supreme Court is right because it's last, not last because it's right. It's worth remembering that when a judge, or a court, is singled out for special criticism.

But if you want to look at 5 cases instead of 380 and make that the basis of your argument, by all means, have at it.

This is pretty academic anyway, the Reps will not oppose this nomination in any numbers. I'm still waiting for some of them to have to respond to Rush calling Sotomayer and Obama racists.
Actually...looking at the historical numbers...a 60% reversal rate is not unusual and appears to be the norm. Measuring Federal Appellate Courts' Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court

But...then again...there's a fly in the ointment.

Let's play with the numbers:

- 687 federal courts of appeals judges (approximate number...constant state of flux)
- 80 appellate decisions typically reviewed by the Supreme Court each year
- Supreme Court choses to review 5 of her 380 career opinions and 3 were overturned
- 380 opinions in 11 years - 34.5 opinions per year

Applying this average to all appeals judges we get:
34.5 opinions per year X 687 federal appeals judges = 23,702 opinions per year

Chance of an 23702 opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
80/23702 = 0.3375% (roughly 1 in 300)

Chance of Sotomayor's opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
5 opinions reviewed / 380 opinions = 1.3% (roughly 1 in 76)

Bottomline it looks like Sotomayor's opinions were 4 times more likely to get reviewed than other appellate judges....not good.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: senseamp
The nuances of the political situation they had in hand was that she was a Hispanic Woman. I didn't say they were racist, just that they were holding up her nomination because she was a Hispanic Woman. As I said, reading is too much for your little brain. Maybe you should skip on posting too.
Sorry...I thought you were implying racism...my bad.

No, I was just saying that, based on that article, her nomination and career advancement was held up by Republicans because she was a Hispanic woman. You can make your own judgment on what that implies.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Doesn't look like the rule of law is her strong point ---> 60 percent appeals reversal rate

You should be very careful citing to the Washington Times. They aren't good with statistics. Rather, they use very selective statistics to tell a fraction of the story. They are the ones who depicted Obama's current approval ratings as "in the basement."

Here, they cite of the 5 majority opinions she drafted which the Supreme Court heard, 3 were reversed. So there's your 60%.

Of course, she also wrote 375 opinions over 11 years which the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on, I don't know how many were appealed to them and simply denied cert. But looking at it that way, the SC tacitly affirmed her opinions 375 times out of 380. Then there's the fact that the SC reverses the overwhelming majority of cases for which it grants cert. http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/ Pretty prophetic:

In the end, the positions the lower appeals courts take and the ones the Supreme Court hands down is that the Supremes get the final say. That's why you hear constitutional law professors emphasize that the Supreme Court is right because it's last, not last because it's right. It's worth remembering that when a judge, or a court, is singled out for special criticism.

But if you want to look at 5 cases instead of 380 and make that the basis of your argument, by all means, have at it.

This is pretty academic anyway, the Reps will not oppose this nomination in any numbers. I'm still waiting for some of them to have to respond to Rush calling Sotomayer and Obama racists.
Actually...looking at the historical numbers...a 60% reversal rate is not unusual and appears to be the norm. Measuring Federal Appellate Courts' Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court

But...then again...there's a fly in the ointment.

Let's play with the numbers:

- 687 federal courts of appeals judges (approximate number...constant state of flux)
- 80 appellate decisions typically reviewed by the Supreme Court each year
- Supreme Court choses to review 5 of her 380 career opinions and 3 were overturned
- 380 opinions in 11 years - 34.5 opinions per year

Applying this average to all appeals judges we get:
34.5 opinions per year X 687 federal appeals judges = 23,702 opinions per year

Chance of an 23702 opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
80/23702 = 0.3375% (roughly 1 in 300)

Chance of Sotomayor's opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
5 opinions reviewed / 380 opinions = 1.3% (roughly 1 in 76)

Bottomline it looks like Sotomayor's opinions were 4 times more likely to get reviewed than other appellate judges....not good.

With a 5-4 tilted right wing USSC, that is not enough. I would be more comfortable if it was 10 times more likely.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Applying this average to all appeals judges we get:
34.5 opinions per year X 687 federal appeals judges = 23,702 opinions per year

Except that in "averaging" those numbers you ignore that the SC hears cases from the 2nd and 9th a lot more often than the other circuits, mostly because the 2nd and 9th represent more populated areas. The SC picks what cases it wants to decide, and NY and CA generate more case law due to the industries present in their jurisdictions. The SC picks cases based on subject matter they want to rule on, not the author of the opinion.

As the author of your link admits, statistics can be fun, but also misleading.

"To be sure, there are many other ways that a federal appellate court's record of success or failure before the U.S. Supreme Court could be evaluated. For example, should a 9?0 reversal carry more negative weight than a 5?4 reversal? And should a 5?4 affirmance carry more positive weight than a 9?0 affirmance because arriving at the correct answer was presumably more difficult in the former case? And if the 11th federal appellate court to consider a question is the first to decide it a certain way, and the Supreme Court agrees with that court, should that affirmance count more than if the courts that had previously considered the question were evenly divided in number?"

A counter argument against Sotomayer based on mathematics is not going to be very persuasive. Not to mention that we don't know the stats for every other justice on the court, or I don't after some looking anyway.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Doesn't look like the rule of law is her strong point ---> 60 percent appeals reversal rate

You should be very careful citing to the Washington Times. They aren't good with statistics. Rather, they use very selective statistics to tell a fraction of the story. They are the ones who depicted Obama's current approval ratings as "in the basement."

Here, they cite of the 5 majority opinions she drafted which the Supreme Court heard, 3 were reversed. So there's your 60%.

Of course, she also wrote 375 opinions over 11 years which the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on, I don't know how many were appealed to them and simply denied cert. But looking at it that way, the SC tacitly affirmed her opinions 375 times out of 380. Then there's the fact that the SC reverses the overwhelming majority of cases for which it grants cert. http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/ Pretty prophetic:

In the end, the positions the lower appeals courts take and the ones the Supreme Court hands down is that the Supremes get the final say. That's why you hear constitutional law professors emphasize that the Supreme Court is right because it's last, not last because it's right. It's worth remembering that when a judge, or a court, is singled out for special criticism.

But if you want to look at 5 cases instead of 380 and make that the basis of your argument, by all means, have at it.

This is pretty academic anyway, the Reps will not oppose this nomination in any numbers. I'm still waiting for some of them to have to respond to Rush calling Sotomayer and Obama racists.
Actually...looking at the historical numbers...a 60% reversal rate is not unusual and appears to be the norm. Measuring Federal Appellate Courts' Success Before the U.S. Supreme Court

But...then again...there's a fly in the ointment.

Let's play with the numbers:

- 687 federal courts of appeals judges (approximate number...constant state of flux)
- 80 appellate decisions typically reviewed by the Supreme Court each year
- Supreme Court choses to review 5 of her 380 career opinions and 3 were overturned
- 380 opinions in 11 years - 34.5 opinions per year

Applying this average to all appeals judges we get:
34.5 opinions per year X 687 federal appeals judges = 23,702 opinions per year

Chance of an 23702 opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
80/23702 = 0.3375% (roughly 1 in 300)

Chance of Sotomayor's opinions being reviewed by Supreme Court in any given year:
5 opinions reviewed / 380 opinions = 1.3% (roughly 1 in 76)

Bottomline it looks like Sotomayor's opinions were 4 times more likely to get reviewed than other appellate judges....not good.

With a 5-4 tilted right wing USSC, that is not enough. I would be more comfortable if it was 10 times more likely.
I'm sure you would...hack.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: senseamp
With a 5-4 tilted right wing USSC, that is not enough. I would be more comfortable if it was 10 times more likely.
I'm sure you would...hack.

You are bitter. I don't predict that's gonna change in the near future, and if GOP stays on its current track of alienating every group but their base, I wouldn't bet on distant future either.
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
I'd prefer a more leftist judge than one labeled a centrist by the bar association, but justices with the exception of the fascist scalia and uncle thomas have a tendency to veer left while on the bench. It'll be entertaining watching republicans melt down trying to disguise their racism and misogyny and failing like they have the last few years.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Applying this average to all appeals judges we get:
34.5 opinions per year X 687 federal appeals judges = 23,702 opinions per year

Except that in "averaging" those numbers you ignore that the SC hears cases from the 2nd and 9th a lot more often than the other circuits, mostly because the 2nd and 9th represent more populated areas. The SC picks what cases it wants to decide, and NY and CA generate more case law due to the industries present in their jurisdictions. The SC picks cases based on subject matter they want to rule on, not the author of the opinion.

As the author of your link admits, statistics can be fun, but also misleading.

"To be sure, there are many other ways that a federal appellate court's record of success or failure before the U.S. Supreme Court could be evaluated. For example, should a 9?0 reversal carry more negative weight than a 5?4 reversal? And should a 5?4 affirmance carry more positive weight than a 9?0 affirmance because arriving at the correct answer was presumably more difficult in the former case? And if the 11th federal appellate court to consider a question is the first to decide it a certain way, and the Supreme Court agrees with that court, should that affirmance count more than if the courts that had previously considered the question were evenly divided in number?"

A counter argument against Sotomayer based on mathematics is not going to be very persuasive. Not to mention that we don't know the stats for every other justice on the court, or I don't after some looking anyway.
I just threw that out there...but it's interesting that the Republicans are bitching about the 60% number though...when it's actually normative.

You can play with numbers forever and at the end of the day you're going to have people lined up to argue against them. Obviously...the numbers I used were very rough...but it's very unlikely that any gyration you want to perform will show Sotomayer in a favorable light on this matter. The Supreme Court reviews questionable decisions and she's had more than her fair share. Adding this to the Firefighters debacle and I'm personally struggling with her.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,556
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06...l?fta=y&pagewanted=all
Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.
Looks to me like GOP was holding up her nomination in the 90s because she was a Hispanic woman.
I hope the right wing of the GOP forces them to oppose her now. They will lose the vote anyways, but will also alienate Latinos from GOP for a generation and throw out the last remaining hope of Republicans building a majority party any time soon.


those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The Supreme Court reviews questionable decisions and she's had more than her fair share.

Appellate judges are required to follow precedent even if they are certain the SC will overturn them because of the specific facts. The SC also picks cases to resolve circuit splits, or to make clear the law on an issue from one circuit is applied nationwide. Basically, using NUMBERS to criticize a judge in this manner is fairly pointless. Unless the SC specifically states in an opinion that the REASONING of the court below was specious, then the ultimate disposition of the case says very little about the judge, given the various reasons the SC grants cert, the rotation on the circuit court for who authors the majority opinion knowing the case will likely be overturned, etc.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06...l?fta=y&pagewanted=all
Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.
Looks to me like GOP was holding up her nomination in the 90s because she was a Hispanic woman.
I hope the right wing of the GOP forces them to oppose her now. They will lose the vote anyways, but will also alienate Latinos from GOP for a generation and throw out the last remaining hope of Republicans building a majority party any time soon.


those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But now the GOP is in disarray, trying to figure out reasons to filibuster Soyomayer, especially since she was originally nominated to the Bench by GHB.

She wasn't George H. W. Bush's choice. Read this to see why she was chosen:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....e-courts-46094732.html

Lol. Talk about passing the buck. Oh, she wasn't the one he wanted, boo hoo. The president appointed someone but didn't really appoint her? His hands were tied? No New Judges? This is getting really amusing. Tancredo and Rush and handing future elections to the dems with their hysterics which will so endear them to the fastest growing minority in the country. Obama really is a genius.

The first paragraph of the article reads: At the Sotomayor announcement ceremony today, President Obama emphasized the fact that his new Supreme Court nominee was first chosen for the federal bench by a Republican, the first President Bush. "It's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton," the president said. The message was clear: Sotomayor is a judicial moderate with great experience and appeal to both sides of the ideological spectrum.

I posted that to show that she was not nominated by Bush because of "her qualities and qualifications" as Obama claimed, but rather because he had no other recourse. Of course, we should be used to Obama's unique interpretations of the truth by now.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The Supreme Court reviews questionable decisions and she's had more than her fair share.

Appellate judges are required to follow precedent even if they are certain the SC will overturn them because of the specific facts. The SC also picks cases to resolve circuit splits, or to make clear the law on an issue from one circuit is applied nationwide. Basically, using NUMBERS to criticize a judge in this manner is fairly pointless. Unless the SC specifically states in an opinion that the REASONING of the court below was specious, then the ultimate disposition of the case says very little about the judge, given the various reasons the SC grants cert, the rotation on the circuit court for who authors the majority opinion knowing the case will likely be overturned, etc.
So...let me get this straight...the numbers are meaningless...she was just basically an anomaly of probability...a 4 to 1 shot of being unlucky...getting much more than her fair share of circuit splits and cases following bad precedent ...gotcha. :roll: Is it safe for me to assume that you agree with her ruling on her firefighters ruling also (Ricci v. DeStefano)?
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06...l?fta=y&pagewanted=all
Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.
Looks to me like GOP was holding up her nomination in the 90s because she was a Hispanic woman.
I hope the right wing of the GOP forces them to oppose her now. They will lose the vote anyways, but will also alienate Latinos from GOP for a generation and throw out the last remaining hope of Republicans building a majority party any time soon.


those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.

Unnamed senior Republican staffers. But I'm sure that the Times would never run a story without it being properly vetted, right? cough**Jayson Blair**cough

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But now the GOP is in disarray, trying to figure out reasons to filibuster Soyomayer, especially since she was originally nominated to the Bench by GHB.

She wasn't George H. W. Bush's choice. Read this to see why she was chosen:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....e-courts-46094732.html

Lol. Talk about passing the buck. Oh, she wasn't the one he wanted, boo hoo. The president appointed someone but didn't really appoint her? His hands were tied? No New Judges? This is getting really amusing. Tancredo and Rush and handing future elections to the dems with their hysterics which will so endear them to the fastest growing minority in the country. Obama really is a genius.

The first paragraph of the article reads: At the Sotomayor announcement ceremony today, President Obama emphasized the fact that his new Supreme Court nominee was first chosen for the federal bench by a Republican, the first President Bush. "It's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton," the president said. The message was clear: Sotomayor is a judicial moderate with great experience and appeal to both sides of the ideological spectrum.

I posted that to show that she was not nominated by Bush because of "her qualities and qualifications" as Obama claimed, but rather because he had no other recourse. Of course, we should be used to Obama's unique interpretations of the truth by now.

Again, not relevant. If she was a screaming flaming liberal, GHWB would still have appointed her as part of his legacy? Apparently she was acceptable enough to be appointed by a Rep. president, regardless of his motives. It's not like republicans to play the weak executive card...sheesh.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The Supreme Court reviews questionable decisions and she's had more than her fair share.

Appellate judges are required to follow precedent even if they are certain the SC will overturn them because of the specific facts. The SC also picks cases to resolve circuit splits, or to make clear the law on an issue from one circuit is applied nationwide. Basically, using NUMBERS to criticize a judge in this manner is fairly pointless. Unless the SC specifically states in an opinion that the REASONING of the court below was specious, then the ultimate disposition of the case says very little about the judge, given the various reasons the SC grants cert, the rotation on the circuit court for who authors the majority opinion knowing the case will likely be overturned, etc.
So...let me get this straight...the numbers are meaningless...she was just basically an anomaly of probability...a 4 to 1 shot of being unlucky...getting much more than her fair share of circuit splits and cases following bad precedent ...gotcha. :roll: Is it safe for me to assume that you agree with her ruling on her firefighters ruling also (Ricci v. DeStefano)?

Go back and read the article you linked which does all the work for me.

Your 4-1 "math" is faulty since the 2nd and 9th circuits get far more cases granted cert because of their population and demographics. You can "average" out whatever you like but those numbers are of zero use.

I haven't read the Ricci case law, have you?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The Supreme Court reviews questionable decisions and she's had more than her fair share.

Appellate judges are required to follow precedent even if they are certain the SC will overturn them because of the specific facts. The SC also picks cases to resolve circuit splits, or to make clear the law on an issue from one circuit is applied nationwide. Basically, using NUMBERS to criticize a judge in this manner is fairly pointless. Unless the SC specifically states in an opinion that the REASONING of the court below was specious, then the ultimate disposition of the case says very little about the judge, given the various reasons the SC grants cert, the rotation on the circuit court for who authors the majority opinion knowing the case will likely be overturned, etc.
So...let me get this straight...the numbers are meaningless...she was just basically an anomaly of probability...a 4 to 1 shot of being unlucky...getting much more than her fair share of circuit splits and cases following bad precedent ...gotcha. :roll: Is it safe for me to assume that you agree with her ruling on her firefighters ruling also (Ricci v. DeStefano)?

Go back and read the article you linked which does all the work for me.

Your 4-1 "math" is faulty since the 2nd and 9th circuits get far more cases granted cert because of their population and demographics. You can "average" out whatever you like but those numbers are of zero use.

I haven't read the Ricci case law, have you?
I've already addressed your "math" comments but apparently I didn't explain myself very well. But anyway...let's assume that the 2nd and 9th circuits get twice as many cases reviewed...maybe the real number is closer to 3 to 1...bottomline the likelihood of her decisions getting reviewed is much higher than other appellate judges.

Nope...I didn't read the Ricci v. DeStefano case law...but I understand the gist of the case and her ruling. I'll bet you $5 that her decision gets reversed because it's wrong...dead wrong.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Nope...I didn't read the Ricci v. DeStefano case law...but I understand the gist of the case and her ruling. I'll bet you $5 that her decision gets reversed because it's wrong...dead wrong.

"Her" decision was also the decision of the other 2 judges who heard the case on appeal affirming the district court who tried the case and ruled for the city. I don't bet on the SC, but I will bet Alito and Scalia vote together :)

Do you know what disparate impact under Title VII is? Seems like this case fits it, so if you have a problem with the decision, it isn't the judges' fault, after all, they merely interpret the law, right?

Anyway, this is a SC case with extensive briefings and complex arguments of law. If you think a quick breeze through some periodicals which you captured the "gist" of, enables you to understand all the nuance, I think you're misinformed. Just knowing you disagree with the outcome doesn't make the judges' decision dead wrong if they correctly interpreted the law.

It's like people who are complaining about the CA SC upholding Prop 8 and claiming it was a discriminatory decision. They clearly didn't read it or understand it if they did read it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Nope...I didn't read the Ricci v. DeStefano case law...but I understand the gist of the case and her ruling. I'll bet you $5 that her decision gets reversed because it's wrong...dead wrong.

"Her" decision was also the decision of the other 2 judges who heard the case on appeal affirming the district court who tried the case and ruled for the city. I don't bet on the SC, but I will bet Alito and Scalia vote together :)

Do you know what disparate impact under Title VII is? Seems like this case fits it, so if you have a problem with the decision, it isn't the judges' fault, after all, they merely interpret the law, right?
You're smart not to take my bet...and I'm not taking yours either...maybe I'm not as dumb as I look. :D

I'm not a lawyer, but I know wrong when I see it regardless of any allowances for disparate impact under Title VII. I don't necessary agree with every SCOTUS decision that comes down the pike...but I do think they get it right most of the time. In this particular case...I'm confident that they'll reverse her wrong decision. It comes down to this for me...I expect good decisions and common sense from those being considered for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court...so far, she's not inspiring great confidence for me.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06...l?fta=y&pagewanted=all
Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.
Looks to me like GOP was holding up her nomination in the 90s because she was a Hispanic woman.
I hope the right wing of the GOP forces them to oppose her now. They will lose the vote anyways, but will also alienate Latinos from GOP for a generation and throw out the last remaining hope of Republicans building a majority party any time soon.


those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.

Unnamed senior Republican staffers. But I'm sure that the Times would never run a story without it being properly vetted, right? cough**Jayson Blair**cough

Do you have proof that this is not properly vetted. cough **NO** cough.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06...l?fta=y&pagewanted=all
Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.
Looks to me like GOP was holding up her nomination in the 90s because she was a Hispanic woman.
I hope the right wing of the GOP forces them to oppose her now. They will lose the vote anyways, but will also alienate Latinos from GOP for a generation and throw out the last remaining hope of Republicans building a majority party any time soon.


those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.

Unnamed senior Republican staffers. But I'm sure that the Times would never run a story without it being properly vetted, right? cough**Jayson Blair**cough

Do you have proof that this is not properly vetted. cough **NO** cough.

And you have proof that it was?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I'm not a lawyer, but I know wrong when I see it regardless of any allowances for disparate impact under Title VII. I don't necessary agree with every SCOTUS decision that comes down the pike...but I do think they get it right most of the time. In this particular case...I'm confident that they'll reverse her wrong decision. It comes down to this for me...I expect good decisions and common sense from those being considered for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court...so far, she's not inspiring great confidence for me.

I'm not sure that's the case, and I think most conservatives disagree entirely with disparate impact case law; they don't want any classifications by race at all. In cases similar to this, employers went ahead and certified such test results and the minorities left out sued under Title VII. Promoting fire fighters solely based on a multi-choice test and not on their performance in the field or leadership abilities is arguably not job related enough to justify such promotions. Either way, it's a tricksy case and we're probably doing to see a 5-4 split, again. I think it likely the case will be remanded for a jury trial since all they're proceding on now is a summary judgment decision of the district court.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,556
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ElFenix

those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.

and yet the sentence you're relying on doesn't have 'said' in it. no, the two sentences that surround it do. and then there is the structure of the sentence. you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ElFenix

those are the words of an author for the new york times, not the GOP. congratulations, you took the juxtaposition of the comments and made the inference the author wanted you to make.

Citing senior Republican staffers.

and yet the sentence you're relying on doesn't have 'said' in it. no, the two sentences that surround it do. and then there is the structure of the sentence. you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, it's vast left wing conspiracy.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: jonks
-snip-
A counter argument against Sotomayer based on mathematics is not going to be very persuasive. Not to mention that we don't know the stats for every other justice on the court, or I don't after some looking anyway.

I tend to agree.

However, what those cases were about and what part she got 'wrong' may well be very important. Then there's the whole 'fireman' case and if that gets overturned before her confirmation it could get interesting.

Fern