Pretty good for a non-originalist. Likely better than a former ACLU lawyer.
I heard it was more like 80%.
Obama’s SCOTUS candidate nominee does NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION !
Next !
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.
I heard it was 4 out out 5 rejected.
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.”
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.
The list, ping
• 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.
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."
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.
