This will have a negative impact on affirmative action hiring at the majors

[EdAtTheAirport]

My read was that it was only the certification of the written test that was in dispute. If the argument was only whether it was 40/60 or 60/40, then there is even less merit to the case.

 

[Andy Neill]

No previous Supreme Court nominee has had as many decisions reversed AT the Supreme Court. She will be confirmed but she was clearly chosen for attributes aside from judicial qualification. Not saying it hasn't happened before, but I thought this administration would bring "change."

WOW. You must have access to an incredible book of statistics. Which Supreme Court nominee comes in second for the most overturned? Are you saying that having 4 of her 400 some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (99% of the decisions have stood) is the worst record among Supreme Court nominees? Can you back that up? Where did you hear/get that?

....on the other hand, if you are saying that having 4 of her 6 (67%) decisions that have been heard and reversed by the Supreme Court is the worst, I would be hard pressed to argue that fact. I think it is pretty meaningless but I would be hard pressed to call it false. I think the 99% is more meaningful.

 

[Beaver79]

Buy this man a beer! An articulate, well reasoned, and professional position...now if you could only teach Brown to spell......

For the record, I am one minority who agrees with the Supreme Court decision. It simply came down to the fact that the White and Hispanic candidates scored better on a written test. I have no idea what "special favors" Brown is referring to.

Justice Ginsberg's dissent was full of mumbo-jumbo about 1972, and the "long shadow" of discrimination in the fire department. While certainly nepotism, political patronage, and union membership have been (and are) used to exclude minorities, this case was simply about a written test.

Honestly Brown, I wish you would not have started this thread if you are going to spell words such as "sucseed" and "fare." There may well be a place for intelligent discussion on this subject, but you aren't the flag bearer. Your posts are a caricature of the very problem you're complaining about.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

(99% of the decisions have stood)

Only six of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of those were overturned. Now extrapolate...

At that rate, if four hundred decisions had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 267 of them would have been overturned.

Your 99% figure is completely bogus.

 

[filejw]

You guys do realise this guy Brown is pulling your legs... and most likely is not a minority.

 

[Andy Neill]

Only six of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of those were overturned. Now extrapolate...

At that rate, if four hundred decisions had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 267 of them would have been overturned.

Your 99% figure is completely bogus.

I'll go with that a very limited way. Insomuch that cases have not had time to be reviewed by the Supreme Court (like Maloney v Cuomo) I'll give you that.

Most cases (roughly 99%) she has decided on won't be appealed, or won't be heard, or will be affirmed. Are you saying that if the Supreme Court hears 1% of the cases tried at District court level and overturns 25% of what it reviews that 25% of all federal district cases are bad decisions? Really? I don't.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Sir, the Supreme Court only hears 1 out of roughly 10,000 that are appealed. So there is only a scant minority of cases that get there. Your 99% figure is meaningless. Any federal judge can make that claim.

More meaningful is the apparent fact that of the six of hers that made it, four of them were overturned. Not many (none, if I read right!) have that deplorable a record.

And you're not making her look any better comparing her record to the 9th circuit. I think you know this!

 

[Monster Buck]

You guys do realise this guy Brown is pulling your legs... and most likely is not a minority.

Thank god this only took three pages for someone to say it. I can't believe how many people think this guy is actually a minority.

Brown=not a pilot
Brown=not a minority
Brown=flame only
Brown=STHU

 

[gutshotdraw]

....on the other hand, if you are saying that having 4 of her 6 (67%) decisions that have been heard and reversed by the Supreme Court is the worst, I would be hard pressed to argue that fact. I think it is pretty meaningless but I would be hard pressed to call it false.

This is exactly what I am saying and it is FAR from meaningless. It means 6 cases in which she ruled were deemed important enough for the Supreme Court to hear (contrary to popular belief, they don't agree to hear very many cases each term). And she was reversed TWO-THIRDS of the time her decisions were heard by the highest court in the land. I'd rather not have a Supreme Court justice that is WRONG TWO-THIRDS of the time on EXACTLY the kinds of cases she will be hearing seated on the Supreme Court bench.

 

[Andy Neill]

Sir, the Supreme Court only hears 1 out of roughly 10,000 that are appealed. So there is only a scant minority of cases that get there.

Why is that? I thought it was because there was nothing worthy of review at the next level. If someone appeals and loses at appellate level, they can still appeal to the Supreme Court. If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, to which cases would you grant writs of certiorari? I propose that only those with unfinished business will be heard.

Your 99% figure is meaningless. Any federal judge can make that claim.

I hope so. I hope the average federal judge is right 99% of the time. I don't think they are but that would be nice. I'll stand by my 99% claim. Will you give me +1/-2%? I will strongly defend as her record the number of cases she heard up to and including Ricci (how many hundred is that?) divided into 4 for the most meaningful number. Since she has been a federal judge since late 1992 and the Ricci case was heard on appeal in early 2008, I would say that all of her cases between 1993-2007 have had their day in courts and appeals. That still means than only 40-60 cases have not had a chance to make it through the system yet while 340-360 have. If 4 of 340 have been overturned then her record is better than 98.8%.

More meaningful is the apparent fact that of the six of hers that made it, four of them were overturned. Not many (none, if I read right!) have that deplorable a record.

Where are you reading that. Those that say that (and repeat it) should also know who has the second worst record. Who is that and what is that judge's record?
To say that a judge's overall effectiveness is measured by how many cases get overturned is to say that the poor judge who ruled in favor of the Safford School on the strip search never makes a right decision because she was overturned by the Ninth Cicuit on appeal and that ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court. I guess Judge Nancy Fiora never makes a right decision using your logic. I mean, she has never had one of her decisions affirmed on appeal in the Supreme Court has she?

And you're not making her look any better comparing her record to the 9th circuit. I think you know this!

My purpose is not to make Judge Sotomayor look good. I want her fitness evaluated fairly. I disagreed with her decision on Ricci and with her decision on Maloney. I have found no fault in any other of her cases. Have you? My point in bringing up the 9th was that she hardly has the worst record if an entire court average overturn rate is worse than hers. The Ninth was an easy target.

My question remains,
If Judge Sotomayor's record is the worst, who is in second place? If you don't know, you are repeating internet material rather than stating facts.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

This is exactly what I am saying and it is FAR from meaningless. It means 6 cases in which she ruled were deemed important enough for the Supreme Court to hear (contrary to popular belief, they don't agree to hear very many cases each term). And she was reversed TWO-THIRDS of the time her decisions were heard by the highest court in the land. I'd rather not have a Supreme Court justice that is WRONG TWO-THIRDS of the time on EXACTLY the kinds of cases she will be hearing seated on the Supreme Court bench.

You might be on to something here...I've never thought about it that way to be honest.

I still havent made up my mind about her yet even though I'm a hardcore liberal.

I'll just have to wait and see...

 

[gutshotdraw]

Andy, we don't know how many times she was reversed on Federal Appeals Court decisions before she ascended to the Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the SC as you know) in other cases that never made it to the Supreme Court. Haven't seen that number published but I'd be willing to wager THAT number is pretty large too.

 

[Lear70]

You guys are too funny... if you haven't figured it out yet, Brown is one of the BETTER flame baiters out there. Much better than InstructorDude, more subtle, lures more people in before he finally goes SO far that you FINALLY realize he's been baiting you all along...

Too funny...

 

[Andy Neill]

Andy, we don't know how many times she was reversed on Federal Appeals Court decisions before she ascended to the Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the SC as you know) in other cases that never made it to the Supreme Court. Haven't seen that number published but I'd be willing to wager THAT number is pretty large too.

You're right.
We don't know how many times she was reversed at the appellate level before she got to the court of appeals and that reversal was not later reversed by the Supreme Court.

I would not be willing to state that any federal judge has "a pretty large number" of cases overturned on appeal. What's your wager and what is pretty large?

Do you know, as has been stated very surely here, that she has the worst record on reversals at the Supreme Court? If so, how?
Who has the second worst record?

I'm going on the presumption, as our legal system itself does, that a decision that is not overturned on appeal is a valid decision. That's why they are cited by other courts in making their own decisions.

I'm asking you to do some independent thought here. I assure you I will not be posting off of any group's briefing points. There are enough concerns about Judge Sotomayor's fitness for the Supreme Court without delving into speculation. Let's stick to the best facts we can find.

 

[thruthemurk]

Just to stir the pot, how about the fact she is a catholic? She may meet the woman and Latino minority profiling but religious is another story. If confirmed, 6 of the 9 justices will be catholic, while 25% of Americans are catholic. There is no question that catholic schools and universities provide some excellent education in all corners of the country, and produce an outsize percentage of lawyers (and judges)- but that still doesn't seem to level the field. After all, you do not have to be catholic to attend these schools.

The clergy is not the flock, but...it seems that an organization that actively protected their own staff who was guilty of child molestation, rape and abuse of the power for hundreds of years to the degree that the catholic church has might not need to be quite so well represented on the highest court in the land,


Disclaimer - raised catholic save the wailing.