Posted on 05/27/2009 8:11:50 AM PDT by dervish
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Pretty good for a non-originalist. Likely better than a former ACLU lawyer.
I heard it was more like 80%.
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
Obama’s SCOTUS candidate nominee does NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION !
Next !
The list in post #4 shows 71% (5 of 7).
Legally wrong, yes...but her HEART was in the “right place!” And that’s all that matters, right? After all, that’s why Hussein picked her! A dedicated, mindless, America hating, Constitution ignoring, radical leftist! You know, like Hussein himself!
She is a reflection of the Ninth Circuit Court — overturned to a high degree based on the Constitution.
She, like her nominator, are very anti-Constitution. But she fits the “agenda mold”, pandering to every corner of the far-left voting base.
send this to Drudge!
I heard it was 4 out out 5 rejected.
I get 83% reversal from your case list. There's likely quite a number of cases where the decision was not appealed (correct or not. One only receives the Justice one chooses to afford).
And one more Pending....makes it unbearable, unacceptable.
Thanks BHO for bringing this problem of Judges ignoring the Constitution to the “front row” .
Should we infer from this that she doesn't have the character to recuse herself?
Now let's look at how often the Supreme Court decides that the 9th got it wrong. Last term, the Supreme Court's reversal rate for 9th Circuit cases was 90.5 percent. Yikes—that's huge! But wait, for on-the-merits cases, the Supremes reversed the 3rd and 5th Circuits almost all of the time* last term. Cases from state appellate courts fared no better: They also had a 100 percent reversal rate. Overall, this past term the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively. For those years, the 9th was reversed 84 percent and 88.9 percent of the time, or about a case or two more each year than it would have been if it had conformed to the reversal rate of the other circuits. How do one or two cases a year add up to a court run amuck?
We should be happy that she's been overturned so much, and this certainly shows she's no scholar. Merit is not the issue for Obama. Identity politics and some weird and nebulous notion of "empathy" is Obama's proclaimed guiding principle.
A 60% turnover for Sodomizer is uncalled for and probably unprecidented in Supreme Ct. nominees. Republicans on the committee had better question every case she had reversed.
How about this forsight?
“On Sept. 30, the day of her confirmation hearing, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, warned the Senate that Judge Sotomayor was an ultraliberal who was on a ‘’rocket ship’’ to the Supreme Court. That day, Judge Sotomayor was questioned closely by Republicans.
In the end, the only Republicans to vote against her were Senator John Kyl of Arizona and Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. The committee’s other conservative members, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, voted in her favor. Mr. Kyl and Mr. Ashcroft declined to comment today.
The confirmation delay comes as Ralph K. Winter, chief judge of the Second Circuit, has complained that unfilled vacancies on the court have created its worst backlog in history. In his annual report, Judge Winter, a conservative Republican, lamented that he had to declare judicial emergencies several times to allow retired judges and trial judges to sit on appeals panels.”
bump
Impressive, though it did take 11 years
I heard Karl Rove comment that Specter’s switching sides could be very significant since per the Rules at least one Republican has to confirm her for the vote to go to the floor.
Bad headline. About 1% of her decisions were reversed by the Supreme Court. 4 of the 6 which were reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. She had issued 380 decisions.
I’d never heard that that was a rule that at least one member of the opposition party had to vote for confirmation. Are you sure that’s what he said?
Actually 83% -- 5 of 6, with one pending.
That is what Mr Rove said. It is possible that was the compromise agreement reached.
I will try to get more info later.
You know what they say about statistics...
Actually, it's 83% (5 of 6), since 1 of the 7 is still pending and should not be included in the calculation yet.
See my post above. The final statistic depends on how you approach the information. The current case is in the subset of “SCOTUS Reviewed” so can logically be included in the final calculation.
You know what they say about statistics.
The list, ping
Obama has stated that he sees the Constitution as an obstacle to instituting the economic and social justice mechanisms he wants in place. The Constitution limits the powers of government.
Only makes sense that he’d try to bend the Constitution by stacking the Supremse Court with those who do not cling to it.
• Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.): The Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard. (Reversed)
• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006): The Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. Justice Stevens also pointed out that the Court had rejected Sotomayor’s interpretation in cases from 1971 forward setting precedence for further reversals in similar cases[41]. (reversed)
• New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001): The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
• Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001): The Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007): The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Sotomayor orginally ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position[42].
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (396 F.3d 136, 2005): In 2005, the United States Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from the respective insurance company where she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party[42]. The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party[43]. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented
• The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (2005): The court remanded this ruling back to the Second Circuit. (Vacated Judgement)The European Community sued RJR Nabisco and other tobacco companies alleging violation of the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968). At issue was the matter of foreign enities suing US companies. The Court declined to address the RICO allegations and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of the opinion in Pasquantino v. United States.[44]. On September 13, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that foreign governments cannot bring civil suits in US Courts against tobacco companies under the RICO statues to recover lost tax revenues and law enforcement costs due to alleged smuggling. Some technology-related legal experts believed the ruling might benefit international e-commerce[44].
One could make the argument that she has not had a single favorable ruling by SCOTUS.
“it only makes sense” that Obama would do this.
Someone in the WH better start supporting the Constitution, because its becoming Obvious to the most Casual Observer what they really believe in......People have a Revolution against Government....Vice Versa ain’t gonna work.....The constitution stands in its way.
I feel a filibuster coming in the Senate......Alberto Gonzales REVENGE !
This matters because Rule IV of the Senate Judiciary Committee requires that a motion to end debate and bring a nominee to a vote pass with “ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.” Before last week, that Republican was likely to be Arlen Specter, but he’s now a Democrat. Mr. Obama will have to consider if his pick is likely to win over at least one Judiciary Republican.
http://stephenlaughlin.posterous.com/rove-ways-in-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominati
Anyone know which Republicans are on the Judiciary Committee?
I think it is Grahmnesty, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn, & Sessions. If there are 8 and if there haven't been any recent changes.
Nice work.
“Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation”
Er, is that like making policy?
I think it is Grahmnesty, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn, & Sessions. If there are 8 and if there haven't been any recent changes.
Only 7 Pubbbies are on thwe US Senate Juduciary Commirttee. Brownback left.
I heard him say that on FOX last night too.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"That's precisely the reason I've chosen her, gun-clinging Bible-loving white xenophobic grandma types."
see #25
see #25
With that record, she belongs on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals...
:’) She belongs out of public office altogether.
She ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
She also had a terrible ruling on a 1st Amendment case Doninger v. Niehoff. She ruled that a high school student who denigrated the school administration on her personal blog could be barred from student government.
http://race42008.com/2009/05/28/sonia-sotomayor-free-speech-opponent/
I agree with the last sentence:
Of course, one has to wonder whether the case would have been different had it been a young Latina girl complaining about the cancellation of a cultural festival…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
