if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

[Bret Callentine]

I was looking around for some background on the new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. And found a site that indicated that she has had 7 of her decisions reveiwed by the Supreme Court. Six of them were overturned, and the seventh was upheld, although the court pointed out that her reasoning was incorrect.

Does anyone know of a reliable law review website that I could use to either corroborate or contradict this information?

[Bret Callentine]

Let me also specify: I'm not looking for commentary on her "qualifications". As far as I'm concerned, she's qualified.

I'm curious as to how her judicial instincts match up with the existing court especially when you compare/contrast to past nominees.

[sharon kinsella]

MSNBC stated that she's had 4 overturned and one that is due for review that is an affirmative action ruling.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Two words, Clarence Thomas. I think after that appointment, Republicans need a few picks from the penalty box.

[Brian Pedaci]

Here's a good piece on why the 60% reversal rate that Sotomayor's foes quote so often sounds high but really isn't.

[ryan costa]

it is true. she judged hundreds of cases. a few of them went to the Supreme Court afterwards.

The Supreme Court is listed as reversing 75 percent of the Circuit Court Decisions it decides to rule upon.

The Supreme Court has the discretion to decline to review cases.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record" said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Wendy Wright is some kind of con-artist or dumb animal. The Concerned Women for America is an organization of scoundrels not to be trusted.


The Supreme Court itself doesn't really matter. you appoint the personalities, not the legal work. Their decisions are completely arbitrary: it is possible to interpret the constitution any way you want. it is possible to pick and choose any precedent you want, and interpret it any way you want. The only restraint on Supreme Justices' opinions is the possibility of an angry mob waving pitchforks. Every decision the Supreme Court makes is "legislating from the bench", because "precedents" have weight.

The Constitution can be interpreted any way you want. the Libertarian Candidate for Kucinich's seat on the house told me our Interstate Highway system is justified by the Constitutions call for postal service routes.

The primary motivation when selecting a Supreme Court Justice is to select someone who will do as little work as possible. Because Precedents have the weight of law. the fewer cases they review, the fewer precedents they are inflicting.