Sotomayor nomination

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Wow...that's some nominee...

Unfortunately she does seem to be a numbers liberal, unfortunate. We have enough numbers liberals already.

"numbers liberal"??? just what the heck is this?

Also funny that her decisions appear to be overturned about what....60% of the time when reviewed by the Supremes?? Methinks someone is drinking the barry kool-aid.

well, the scotus typically takes cases that they see as needing to be reviewed (iow, if they feel the lower court is correct they won't review the decision and thus let it stand), with about 75% (from what I've read) of those appeals being heard ending with the scotus reversing.

so if she is at 60% (and bear in mind that's from about 8 opinions being heard by the scotus) she is doing much better than average.

methinks someone hasn't done any thinking about sotomayor's ability/credentials and is drinking the rush/newt kool-aid....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"numbers liberal"??? just what the heck is this?

A numbers liberal is a liberal that likes to use numbers (quotas) to try and "fix" the country.

well, the scotus typically takes cases that they see as needing to be reviewed (iow, if they feel the lower court is correct they won't review the decision and thus let it stand), with about 75% (from what I've read) of those appeals being heard ending with the scotus reversing.

so if she is at 60% (and bear in mind that's from about 8 opinions being heard by the scotus) she is doing much better than average.

methinks someone hasn't done any thinking about sotomayor's ability/credentials and is drinking the rush/newt kool-aid....

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers...That's kinda surprising to me to be honest..that the supremes reverse about 75% of their cases.

With respect to Sotomayor...I don't know enough about her to know all of her judicial "judgements". But if the facts of the firemen's case (don't really want to look it up) are true, then I'd not vote her in. Of course this is just on a cursory judgement (message board and all)...but that case should have been open and shut the other way imo. If she disagrees...I expect our opinions are a little crosswise.

The only reason I even jumped in here was what I believe is a ridiculous over-the-top assertion that she's the best(or most qualified) candidate in 100 years(or was it 60?). I haven't really taken a long look at her, except for the case mentioned.

Rush/Newt kool-aid, funny........You guys are obsessed with those dudes. I haven't listened to Rush more than a dozen times in years.

I must however admit it's quite funny(and not funny ha ha ) how the left is touting a hispanic nominee....all the while they were witch hunting Estrada...and they'll get away with it because of the media I expect.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

A numbers liberal is a liberal that likes to use numbers (quotas) to try and "fix" the country.

oh, gee, what a conjured description.

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers...That's kinda surprising to me to be honest..that the supremes reverse about 75% of their cases.

With respect to Sotomayor...I don't know enough about her to know all of her judicial "judgements". But if the facts of the firemen's case (don't really want to look it up) are true, then I'd not vote her in. Of course this is just on a cursory judgement (message board and all)...but that case should have been open and shut the other way imo. If she disagrees...I expect our opinions are a little crosswise.

the "facts" of the fireman's case? the fact is she, and the other two members of the appeals court, unanimously affirmed the judgement of the lower court opinion which applied a section of the civil rights act that has been used for over 40 years.

a was said in the oral arguments, the city was in a no win situation. the firemen who passed the test were not "denied a promotion", the city decided to have a do over. all the promotions were delayed.

The only reason I even jumped in here was what I believe is a ridiculous over-the-top assertion that she's the best(or most qualified) candidate in 100 years(or was it 60?). I haven't really taken a long look at her, except for the case mentioned.

Rush/Newt kool-aid, funny........You guys are obsessed with those dudes. I haven't listened to Rush more than a dozen times in years.

I must however admit it's quite funny(and not funny ha ha ) how the left is touting a hispanic nominee....all the while they were witch hunting Estrada...and they'll get away with it because of the media I expect.

not very funny, see it is simply looking at the person's work and deciding if they merit promotion, not being focused on their race or ethnicity. estrada had a very troubling trail of poor work, therefore he was not acceptable. being a latino had no bearing nor should it allow for a weak candidate to be affirmed.

apparently you are a "numbers conservative", looking at ethnicity as the factor rather than the person....