What will she do for an encore? Part Two [Supreme Court 9-0 Vs. Sotomayor]

Powerline ^ | 06/30/2009 | John Hinderaker

[fiscon1]

judges in Ricci adopted something resembling the position she took when the case was before her. It's comforting that liberals now understand that there are worse things than having a divided Supreme Court disagree with your position. During the Bush years, when a divided Supreme Court would strike down this or that Bush anti-terrorism measure, some liberals were quick to declare the president "lawless." They did so despite the fact that there was little precedent on the subject, and such precedent as there was often supported the Bush administration's position. Fortunately, liberal commentators seems to be "growing in office."

[Cyber Liberty]

That isn’t the original title of the article. The original title is: “What will she do for an encore? Part Two”

It is not helpful to the cause of derailing her nomination if we claim a 9-0 win when it was onluy 5-4. Makes it look like we’re making stuff up as we go along, when that’s the Dems’ job.

[Nonstatist]

Change the title, Troll. You cant make things up, dont you know the posting rules ?

[libstripper]

The big point isn't the outcome of the case; it's how Sotomayor reached it. She did none of the hard factual analysis that all nine of the SCOTUS justices did to reach their differing conclusions. In other words, she did a lazy, sloppy job of judging, something that appears to characterize a number of the reversals she's suffered from SCOTUS. In that respect she's a typical AA candidate, one whose mental elevator doesn't go high enough to justify placing her on the Court. However, since that's the case, she's probably the least bad pick we can expect from the Usurper, who might otherwise have chosen someone who could have persuaded Kennedy to move over to the bad side.

[Cyber Liberty]

All true. It does not justify the practice I’ve seen (not just on FR) of claiming a 9-0 victory based on semantics. It was 5-4. It makes all conservatives look foolish.

[Condor51]

It is not helpful to the cause of derailing her nomination if we claim a 9-0 win when it was onluy 5-4. Makes it look like we’re making stuff up as we go along, when that’s the Dems’ job.

You're right, but, Rush started saying '9-0' yesterday too. It had to do with the point Sotomayor made, or tried to, and which no SCOTUS justice agreed with. That's in the article at the end:

"Judge Sotomayor's approach thus failed to command the vote of a single Supreme Court Justice."

So yes, it was 5-4, but this is where the 9-0 stuff is coming from.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree, but to casual observers, it looks dishonest.

[Condor51]

I agree, but to casual observers, it looks dishonest.

True, so very true.
Especially by the lefty lurkers who skim FR looking for just one exaggeration, or 'lie'.