Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Hmm....so 60% of her rulings that have been reviewed by the supremes have been overturned. And probably another one because of the recent horrible ruling with respect to the cops.
Best candidate in 100 years.......right..
|
60% is a better percentage than most. I know you won't like this, but furthermore, that's practically a badge of honor when you consider the conservative activist court we have now.
Furthermore, the case you reference (
Ricci v. DeStefano) is not about cops, it's about firefighters. I probably know this because I've read about the case. You plainly haven't. And sure, the Supreme Court may overturn it. They probably will, considering the Court's current makeup. But, in the words of oh-so-many conservatives, wouldn't the opposite ruling be overturning the decision of a democratically-elected body, and constitute that accursed
judicial activism? I don't expect you to be able to answer that question, because you plainly don't know anything about the case, because you don't even know who the plaintiffs are.
And lastly, I did not say "best." I said "most qualified." I think someone like Diane Pamela Wood would have been better (at any case, she would have fulfilled the necessary "female justice with three names" quota that's been in place
). Cass Sunstein, with his application of behavioral economics to law, would have been much more interesting (and much more of an unknown). Sotomayor has more actual judicial experience than anyone in a hundred years, and graduated
summa cum laude from Princeton, and was an editor of the Law Journal at Yale. When I say "most qualified," this is what I mean. By comparison, our current Chief Justice, Mr. Roberts, had about two years of experience as a judge.