Sonia Sotomayer

[cmotherofpirl]

60% of her decisions have been overturned by another court, she is NOT qualified to move up the ladder.

[dUSt]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1877879' date='May 29 2009, 12:27 PM']60% of her decisions have been overturned by another court, she is NOT qualified to move up the ladder.[/quote]
But what if she turns out to be a pro-life liberal?

[Paddington]

I've never seen Ms. Sotomayer's show. Then again, I don't watch much tube during the day.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1877879' date='May 29 2009, 11:27 AM']60% of her decisions have been overturned by another court, she is NOT qualified to move up the ladder.[/quote]

That's almost the definition of an activist judge. To get that many turned over, you are either a dolt, or you are trying to change law from the bench rather than just enforce the laws as written.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1877940' date='May 29 2009, 02:36 PM']That's almost the definition of an activist judge. To get that many turned over, you are either a dolt, or you are trying to change law from the bench rather than just enforce the laws as written.[/quote]

Actually, it would appear the opposite...if people "above her" are overturning her decisions, aren't [i]they[/i] the activist judges. If they aren't employing the [i]stare decisis[/i] model, then they're the activists.

[KnightofChrist]

CNN claimed that Sotomayer was a “moderate liberal, like Ginsburg and Breyer.”

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kujo' post='1877945' date='May 29 2009, 12:43 PM']Actually, it would appear the opposite...if people "above her" are overturning her decisions, aren't [i]they[/i] the activist judges. If they aren't employing the [i]stare decisis[/i] model, then they're the activists.[/quote]

At the appeals court level, you are supposed to use the same decision process that the Supreme Court does. You don't look at new evidence, you simply look at whether at the trial level, the correct procedures were followed, and the law was properly decided. If she upholds a trial court decision that is later overturned by the SC, or if she overturns a trial decision that is later overturned by the SC, then to me that means she missed some procedural error, or didn't apply the law correctly. Since appeal courts can not look at procedural issues that aren't raised by the appealing parties, and Federal judges have clerks to do the dirty work, it comes down to whether she wants to follow precedence or not.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1877954' date='May 29 2009, 03:05 PM']At the appeals court level, you are supposed to use the same decision process that the Supreme Court does. You don't look at new evidence, you simply look at whether at the trial level, the correct procedures were followed, and the law was properly decided. If she upholds a trial court decision that is later overturned by the SC, or if she overturns a trial decision that is later overturned by the SC, then to me that means she missed some procedural error, or didn't apply the law correctly. Since appeal courts can not look at procedural issues that aren't raised by the appealing parties, and Federal judges have clerks to do the dirty work, it comes down to whether she wants to follow precedence or not.[/quote]

So having your legal holding overturned by the SC or another superior court means that you are not qualified to be on the SCOTUS?

[XIX]

When it happens at a 60% clip, I'd say so.

[KnightofChrist]

Racist bigoted comments dont really help either.

Edited May 30, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kujo' post='1878204' date='May 29 2009, 09:15 PM']So having your legal holding overturned by the SC or another superior court means that you are not qualified to be on the SCOTUS?[/quote]

You either can't interpret the law correctly, or you are trying to interpret them in such a way to change laws rather than just interpret them.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1877879' date='May 29 2009, 11:27 AM']60% of her decisions have been overturned by another court, she is NOT qualified to move up the ladder.[/quote]
oh please.


Let's be honest, for many here the fact that she is appointed by Obama makes her unqualified.

The President has the decision, the Senate should be defferential unless there is a [i]real[/i] reason to block her. Harriet Myers was obviously not qualified and thus blocked, Roberts was obviously qualified and correctly seated.

I really do not like the fact that Roberts is on the court, I hate that he is the chief justice and that his youth ensures he will be around for a long time. However he is obviously qualified and my disdain is due to a rejection of his rulings, political temperment, and philosophy and the Senate absolutly was correct to approve him. She is likewise obviously qualified. Dislike her, hate her, whatever you want but please let's all grow up a little bit.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1876478' date='May 27 2009, 02:32 AM']I know what you mean! When I first heard she was Catholic, I turned to my husband and said that it seems Obama's going out of his way to find "Catholics" in name, but not in practice, for key positions. [/quote]
+J.M.J.+
it's not a coincidence. like TeresaBenedicta said, there is a reason he is appointing all these "Catholics".

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1877165' date='May 28 2009, 06:49 AM']

..and sadly, there is a lot of delusion amongst Catholics on this..... the more obama outright lies and tells the world that he's for a "reduction" of abortions, the more "Catholics" will justify voting for the man in the next election...[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
didn't you hear? The WH clarified that statement. they aren't for reducing the number of abortions (because to say that would mean there is something wrong with abortion) but reducing the need for abortions.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1877940' date='May 29 2009, 12:36 PM']That's almost the definition of an activist judge. To get that many turned over, you are either a dolt, or you are trying to change law from the bench rather than just enforce the laws as written.[/quote]


Or she correctly interpreted the law and the court above her was an "activist court" (a silly, itelectually vacuous term but let's use it all the same).

Of course no one here knows because no one here has actually read all of her oppinions, and compared the ones that were overturned with the higher courts oppinion.

[Saint Therese]

The appointment of whatserface is just a distraction from the other, more troubling things our Dear Leader is up to.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1878258' date='May 29 2009, 11:45 PM']The appointment of whatserface is just a distraction from the other, more troubling things our Dear Leader is up to.[/quote]
Like what?


Is he still covering up the fact that he was *really* born over seas? Is he still a secret Muslim working with fundamentalist groups in Kenya to impose Sharia' law? Whatever happened to the people here outraged over thier pet theory that he ordered federal troops to Alabama after the shootings?

What's the latest conspiratorial theory out there for disaffected conservatives to latch onto?


I guess my question is do you all really think that this sort of attitude (and I understand I'm over generalizing) and just non sense is going to get you all back into the political mainstream? Or make the issues you care about viable again?

If you constantly cry wolf (like comparing a democratically elected leader in a nation with a strong and present tradition of constitutional liberalism and enumerated executive powers to Hitler) people will pretty quickly tune you out.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1878256' date='May 29 2009, 10:44 PM']Or she correctly interpreted the law and the court above her was an "activist court" (a silly, itelectually vacuous term but let's use it all the same).

Of course no one here knows because no one here has actually read all of her oppinions, and compared the ones that were overturned with the higher courts oppinion.[/quote]

You have a good point. She could have been having her opinions turned over by an activist court above her. I do not know. I kept myself in the 5th and 10th District Appeals Courts, far from where she sat.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1878264' date='May 29 2009, 11:51 PM']Like what?


Is he still covering up the fact that he was *really* born over seas? Is he still a secret Muslim working with fundamentalist groups in Kenya to impose Sharia' law? Whatever happened to the people here outraged over thier pet theory that he ordered federal troops to Alabama after the shootings?

What's the latest conspiratorial theory out there for disaffected conservatives to latch onto?


I guess my question is do you all really think that this sort of attitude (and I understand I'm over generalizing) and just non sense is going to get you all back into the political mainstream? Or make the issues you care about viable again?

If you constantly cry wolf (like comparing a democratically elected leader in a nation with a strong and present tradition of constitutional liberalism and enumerated executive powers to Hitler) people will pretty quickly tune you out.[/quote]



I was thinking more along the lines of growing the national debt by trillions of dollars, bumbling relations with N Korea and Iran, strong-arming private businesses into accepting gov't money and then not allowing them to pay it back, then taking control of these businesses,etc,etc.

And yes, I do still think he's a muslim. Like you.

[BG45]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor"]President Obama is sure she would've phrased it differently if she'd known she sounded so racist.[/url]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31011651"]"The American ideal of justice should be colorblind" says GOP Senator.[/url]