Comments on: Live updates from the Sotomayor confirmation hearings Tracking U.S. politics Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:39:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: palas_athena2 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:02 +0000 JD & R. Karch. Judge Sotomayor has been reversed by the Supreme Court in 6 out of the 380 opinions. That is a reversal of less than 1.6% of the time. The 40% figure (or 60% I’ve seen in some places) is of the cases the Supreme Court has taken up. It has been determined that the Supreme Court reverses about 75% of all the decisions they take up. So, she’s actually doing much better than the average appellate judge. Seriously, when the Supreme Court takes up a case the are likely to reverse the decision. That means in 374 of her opinions either the losing party has decided an appeal to the Supreme Court isn’t worth it, or the Supreme Court hasn’t taken up the case for review.

By: Robert Beal Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:11:14 +0000 I watched “Perry Manson” and “Sherlock Holmes” these have been inspiration into the legal profession…now if only it is possible for me to get a job at an A&W Root Beer Drive thru… then I can be assigned to the Supreme Court; where not only your right to bear life and arms would be in question; but your rights to bear a leg…

What a circus sideshow…aye!

By: Royce Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:19:01 +0000 It appears that President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court a judge who will be more conservative and less empathetic than he expected, if we are to believe what the candidate has stated. We will have to wait and see if she is true to her word or is a Troran Horse

By: Juls Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:10:45 +0000 Les – “For those of you that think “diversity” on the Court is important – Is diversity in the Law important? Should a law be enforced one way if you’re black, and another way if you’re white? What in hell does “diversity” have to do with the law?”

Because those who interpret the law have their own bias and agenda a diversity of biases IS important to even it out. Case and point, do you really think it would have taken America till 1920 to in act womens suffrage if women occupied the supreme court? Those male biases kept something clearly un-consitutional going for a long time.

By: Mary Ann Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:03:34 +0000 To all the comments accusing the GOP of grandstanding and criticizing Sotomayor, I would like to remind you of the Democratic behavior during the Bush nominations to the Supreme Court. EVERYONE has the right to question and investigate such an important decision. If the Republicans didn’t express concerns, they would not be doing what they were elected for. Perhaps the whole Country should stop behaving as though it were being run by two opposing sports teams Democrats against Republicans – nobody will win that game!

By: R. Karch Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:19:04 +0000 Being a judge, is an especially critical position,
especially on the Supreme Court. Having only nine
members, and a difference of just one vote being so
crucial many times, it is most important any Justice
be totally impartial. Thus I disagree that ‘diversity’,
or even gender, is that important. What is most important
is having very high qualification. On at least two important points, she fails: 1) not being correct 40% of
the time, i.e. having her ruling overturned by a higher
court, indicates not being very diligent in arriving at
a correct judgment. (We have to consider that what courts
generally decide is closer to being correct than not.)
2) she demonstartes decided bias in many cases, and in many instances where she ever made statements. These cannot be dismissed as ‘rhetorical flourish’ !

A large majority of the Republicans seem to be opposed.
We cannot countanance having such an important position as
Justice of the Supreme Court made on basis of just a
decision by leaders of the Republicans fearing for the
future way Hispanics or others view their party. When such a majority of a major party is opposed, something is
wrong, and the nominee is thus disqualified. Case closed.

By: Les Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:46:25 +0000 For those of you that think “diversity” on the Court is important – Is diversity in the Law important? Should a law be enforced one way if you’re black, and another way if you’re white? What in hell does “diversity” have to do with the law?
Just because Lady Justice wears a blindfold doesn’t mean she “feels” her way to judgment.

By: RealNeil Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:27:43 +0000 Talk all you want to. Say whatever comes to your mind.
Fact is that she’s gonna be confirmed after all of the GOP grandstanding is over and done with. They must hear themselves for awhile before they can do anything,……
Like it or not, that’s the way it’s gonna be. Some like it, some don’t, too bad. Ha!
She’s gonna be a fine Justice and the other Obama appointees will be as well. (yes, he’ll appoint others too)

I like it just fine.

By: lola and Antonio Roig Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:04:44 +0000 As a Puerto Rican I feel very confident that the higher education in the United States is a true value. I admire Sonia’s mother because she recognized this at a time that most people around her had little hope. Her endurance, as well as her mother’s, represent the best of Puerto Rican motherhood. Catholic at its root, but with a foot on the real world. They both serve as models for future generations. I would like to think that the balanced head, what is commonly known as common sense, is something she inherited by example. I call it the “survival kit” with a “brújula” something that is a must in the Caribbean. This is a trait that we have that is very positive, and hardly known, since the media is more interested in the caotic “pop” society. Arriba Sonia.

By: jd Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:36:28 +0000 pancha chandra: having 40% of one’s rulings overturned by higher courts – including the last fiasco by the supreme court – and comments like “the courts are where policy is made” hardly qualify as “excellent credentials;” rather, it is pathognomonic for megalomania and an irrepressed urge to govern from the bench. a few americans like myself still hold to the founding principle of separation of powers; anything less is tyranny