About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico ignores Roberts, Alito record in claiming Ricci "could tarnish Sotomayor"

June 30, 2009 8:54 am ET
image

SUMMARY: A Politico article about the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is unusual. However, the court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year since 2004.

96 Comments

A June 30 Politico article about the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano -- which reversed by a 5-4 margin a decision joined by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is somehow unusual. The article bore the headline, "Ruling could tarnish Sotomayor." The article itself, by staff writer Josh Gerstein, asserted that the Supreme Court's action "seemed to deal a blow to President Barack Obama's pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor." At no point in the article did Gerstein note that the Supreme Court reversed Justice Samuel Alito on at least four occasions when he was an appellate court judge and that the court also reversed a decision Chief Justice John Roberts joined as an appellate court judge. Gerstein also did not note that it is not unusual for the Supreme Court to reverse federal appellate court decisions.

In his book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Doubleday, 2007), New Yorker staff writer and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote that, in 1992, O'Connor had "excoriated" the "logic, approach, and conclusions" of her eventual successor, Alito, in her opinion for the abortion-rights case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Moreover, Alito identified four more reversals -- in each of which O'Connor voted with the majority reversing Alito -- in his Supreme Court nomination questionnaire:

  • Rompilla v. Horn, 355 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. granted 542 U.S. 966, and rev'd 125 S.Ct. 2456 (2005)
  • Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 294 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. granted 537 U.S. 1187, and rev'd 540 U.S. 20 (2003)
  • Coss v. Lackawanna County D.A., 204 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. granted 531 U.S. 923 (2000), and rev'd 532 U.S. 394 (2001)
  • Fiore v. White, 149 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. granted 526 U.S. 1038, question certified 528 U.S. 23 (1999), certified question answered 562 Pa. 634 (2000), and rev'd 531 U.S. 225 (2001)

Alito was reversed unanimously in Thomas.

Additionally, as an appeals court judge, Roberts was a member of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, in its July 2005 unanimous ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, allowed a military commission to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantánamo Bay detainee.

Roberts was confirmed as chief justice several months later, in September 2005. Then, in 2006, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision on a 5-3 ruling.

Moreover, data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 67 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year, except 2007, when it reversed federal appeals court cases 61 percent of the time. During the term that concluded June 29, the Supreme Court reversed outright 74.7 percent of the federal appellate cases it considered.

From the June 30 Politico article:

In awarding a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters in New Haven who argued that they were denied promotions on account of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court also seemed to deal a blow to President Barack Obama's pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who earlier had ruled against the firefighters.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven discriminated against white firefighters by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.

"Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race. The city rejected the test results solely because the higher-scoring candidates were white," Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 30, 2009 9:15 am ET)
      7  
      Our media is not helping us fail Basic Civics now. This whole story is just astoudning. And the fact that it's been distorted this far should just be further proof that there is NO liberal media bais, and if anything there is a conservative bias when bias does play a role in reporting.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seeryer (June 30, 2009 11:44 am ET)
        5  
        This whole case has been promoted and discussed in a black vs white context. In reality, it was not. We are still a scoiety that has unique situations that must be re-evaluated constantly. We can't assume that since 45 years has passed since the voting rights act and Obama is president so race is not consequential in 2009. There are lots of shades of grey regarding race in America. One of those shades involves standardized testing. It has been proven time and time again that standardized testing has underscored the intelligence of minorities. Since the city of New Haven realized this could have occured in their FF test, they nixed the results. It seems their should be more reliable factors to determine the readiness for a promotion than a test score. Performance reviews, time with the department, special training, leadership skills. It seem these could be measured in a work setting as opposed to in a class room.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 30, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
          6  
          Let's put it in a more race-neutral way.

          If I derrive a forluma to determine who the best hitter is in the history of major league baseball (a populat hobby among b-ball stat-hounds like me) and my formula concludes that Candy Maldonado is in fact the greatest hitter of all-time, it might be reasonable to conclude that the formula is crap. Otherwise I have to accept that Candy Maldonado IS the greatest hitter of all time. (And he's not.) So rather than starting to cast his bronze plaque, I instead go and modify my formula. (Or find some other, independant justification for the result.)

          So given a test that says 100% of one group is golden, and 100% of another group is... well, NOT, either something is wrong with the test, or something is wrong with the other group. Now that MAY be the case - this black firefighter MIGHT just all be incompetant - but you can't determine that using only the results of the very test in question as a basis for that conclusion! (That would be as ridiculous as concluding that Candy Maldonado was the greatest hitter of all-time just because my formula said so!)

          But the fact is, both the City AND the White (and 1 Latino!) Firefighters had legitimate cases. Both had valid concerns, and neither was 'just being racist.' This is exactly why we have courts, as well as appellant courts and the supreme court. To settle these kinds of complex disputes, where BOTH parties have valid, competeing concerns. And with a case like this one a 5-4 decision was not all that surprising. The only question was ever (and is ever) "How with Just. Kennedy rule?" So the result, either way it went, was hardly shocking. You've never see a 5-4 decision go any other way in the Roberts Court.

          This remains nothing more than the press trying to gin up a story where there is none, due to them trying to gin controversy about Sotomayor where there is none.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by seeryer (June 30, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
            5  
            "Both had valid concerns, and neither was 'just being racist.' This is exactly why we have courts, as well as appellant courts and the supreme court. To settle these kinds of complex disputes, where BOTH parties have valid, competeing concerns."

            This is the context the issue should be discussed in. Our media knows race baiting gets better ratings though. I can still see Candy Maldonado on an 1989 Topps card in his Giants jersey. #22? I was 10 years old at the time.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 30, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
              3  
              LOL. OT, but I'm kind of glad you knew who Candy Maldonado was!

              I hate making that analogy (because I've used it before) and the first thing people say is "Who the hell is Candy Maldonado?" Which is exactly the point - if you've never heard of him, what are the chances he's better than Ruth, Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, Cobb, Hornsby, Musial, etc...? The point always seems to be lost on them that if they (a total non-BBall fan) KNEW EXACTLY who I was talking about, then they might just be a legimate candidate for "best ever." But you have to pick a name that is known, but barely, for that analogy to work!

              LOL. Hopefully you don't think I'm racist for saying that the seven WHITE ballplayers above are among the best ever while at the same time clearly dismissing the credentials of the darker-skinned Maldonado. ;)
              Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (June 30, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
              4
            -- So given a test that says 100% of one group is golden, and 100% of another group is... well, NOT, either something is wrong with the test, or something is wrong with the other group. -- niceguyeddie

            Just a little clarity on the test results. There were indeed blacks and hispanics that passed the exams...just as their were whites who failed the exam.

            For the Captain's exam...36% of whites failed...38% of blacks passed and 38% of hispanics passed.

            For the Lt.'s exam...42% of whites failed...32% of blacks passed and 20% of hispanics passed.

            It was not a shutout...but based on the number of positions open the blacks and hispanics failed to score high enough to be considered for those open positions that were available at the time.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
              3 1
              but based on the number of positions open the blacks and hispanics failed to score high enough to be considered for those open positions that were available at the time.
              Which arouses suspicion that the test was biased.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (June 30, 2009 9:31 am ET)
      3  
      To repeat myself from another post: The Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. The reversal rate is no surprise: If there isn't a major issue in question, why would the highest court in the land review it?

      What is the percentage of appeals that the Court hears? What does that ratio tell you?

      A new thought: This was an obvious set-up. From jump street the right wing nutz fully expected the Court to reverse the New Haven case. With the current profiles of Justices, this is no surprise. So, from the start this was spun as a "startling rebuke" to Judge Sotomayor.

      And most of the media fell for it...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (June 30, 2009 10:19 am ET)
        4  
        Good points.

        Missed in all of this BS is the fact that Judge Sotomayor has mad many rulings that were apparently so solid the the Supremes never even took up the cases,

        The media likes to say that SCOTUS reversed 6 of 7 rulings, but they don't give us all the numbers, do they? I don't have the numbers, myself, but if we assume that Judge Sotomayor made just ten rulings per year in 17 years on the bench, that would mean that she was reversed in just 6 out of 170 rulings - a very solid record, if you ask me.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 11:08 am ET)
        2 1
        Whatever route the media can take to be more dramatic, they'll take it. I really think that's the prevailing action, instead of a political bias.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 30, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
          4  
          You are correct. The bias towards sensationalism is for more egreggious than liberal or conservtave bias.

          Still... it seems that the conservtives are better at framing the press's sensationalism towards their own POV. I mean... Can you imagine how different the world might be if the press made this much of an effort to sell the public on Gay Marriage, Global Warming or Stem-Cell Reseach?

          Christ, we'd all be gay, cancer-free and freezing!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
            3  
            I wish they'd just report facts as they happen!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by scootmandubious (June 30, 2009 10:30 am ET)
      3  
      When Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito support the decisions of Justice Sotomayor, THAT is when I will be concerned.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 11:09 am ET)
        2  
        You know, the general public only sees the big controversial cases. Often the judges aren't nearly as split on other cases that aren't as "sexy", and they'll often disagree with each other across lines that don't exist on these cases...there have been plenty split 5-4 but where 2 conservs/3 libs were in the majority, for instance. Google the supreme court and read through the cases they've decided over the last few years.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 01, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
             
          That's a good point and one which the media will never grasp. I actually think the progressives on the left are going to be disappointed in Sotomayor if they actually follow all of her decisions. She is very middle-of-the-road and makes her decisions based on precedent.

          I am not saying she is a bad judge. On the contrary, I think she is a very highly qualified judge - as was Alito. However, Alito is much more on the right than Sotomayor is on the left. The attacks coming from the right, to me, just show Obama that on his next choice he can probably go as far left as he wants - the nuts on the right are going to attack the choice endlessly anyways.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (June 30, 2009 10:58 am ET)
      3  
      whatever the merits of this particular case, there is still a basis for affirmative action. you can't hold a particular group back for three hundred years, and then all of a sudden say everything will be equal in a generation or two. it doesn't work that way.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 11:11 am ET)
        2 3
        Sure, which is why we should spend the work on the children and the communities, not shorten the finish line and put unqualified and incapable people in positions based on their race.

        I'm not saying in this particular place that anyone was unqualified or incapable, I'm responding to MeFirst.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 30, 2009 11:21 am ET)
          6
        What way does it work? What is the threshold where we as a society declare "we're all equal"? How many years? Reparations? White's will be in the minority in less than fifty years, how will that effect the calculations.

        I don't know the answers to these questions, and I think there will be more court rulings over the years to sound out where the line will be drawn. I'm just wondering what your definition is or where you think the cut off should be.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 30, 2009 11:27 am ET)
          3  
          let me ask you. no affirmative action?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (June 30, 2009 11:36 am ET)
            2 7
            Affirmative action is not needed or helpful. What would be far more helpful, is giving aid to those who need it based not on race but socio economic status.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 30, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
              4 3
              Affirmative action is not needed or helpful.

              Spoken like a true racist.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (June 30, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
                1 4
                Once again, you can make no comments on the facts presented. Your brand of racism is dangerous to us all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  Your brand of racism is dangerous to us all.
                  The old 'I'm rubber and you're glue..' routine. Are you still in grade school? Because if you are, it explains a lot regarding your lack of comprehension and rhetorical skills.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 01, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                       
                    Hey, give POV credit. He just got past "I know you are, but what am I?" He'll graduate to calling people "stupidhead" any day now.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (June 30, 2009 6:30 pm ET)
              3  
              I think AA is necessary. Lets not pretend that institutional racism has completely disappeared OR that the interia from it is still not having effects. My job is a perfect example. The railroad always hired blacks and hispanics but NOT for the best jobs in the operating dept. Since we work closely with the level of management that actually hires it is much easier to get this job if your father or uncle had it. So the railroad started hiring blacks and hispanics in the mid seventies STILL they are a very small percentage of engineers and conductors. STILL those whose family is in the job have a better shot. Truthfully that isnt bad. It is a different lifestyle never having anything like a schedule and not everyone can take it. Those who grew up with it are a better risk. Only by assuring that a decent number of blacks and hispanics get in the door can we level the playing field and that is all AA does. It doesnt help them pass our rigorous tests. It doent get them promotions it doesnt get them the grades in school.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 01, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
                   
                You are correct and anyone who has ever worked or had their family work a real trade knows it to be true. Most of these jobs have been open to minorities for exactly one generation. And, now, we're supposed to pretend that all is fixed and equal now.

                It is the same level of naivete that leads you to believe the strawman arguments put up daily by Rush and co. If you really want to get past the court case (in which Sotomayor ruled on precedent and the majority of the Supreme Court made new law) and get into the reasons behind the court case the question is simple. Why is it that in so many of our cities still today there are no blacks or minorities in positions of leadership?

                Are we to believe that minorites are inherently inferior when it comes to firefighting (as well as other trades)? Or is possible that the generation after generation of Irish (my family included), Polish, etc. descendants have kept handing these jobs down to sons and grandsons and nephews, etc. Those of us that have some experience with this understand which is true. Those of us who believe that the universe is always fair and live in a utopian society that exist only in our heads do not.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 30, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
              3
            We have anti-discrimination laws on the books. If those laws are doing their jobs then I would say you don't need A Action rules (or executive order if you want to be technical) to level the playing field anymore.

            The problem with the studies over the last 40 years are what constitutes Affirmative Action? The definition is pretty broad over many employer practices and tends to skew the data. For every report that claims AA as being effective there is one that shows the contrary.

            I tend to believe that it has probably helped women and minorities get a foot in the door but that is in conjunction with anti-discrimination laws.

            What do you think would be the cut off?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (June 30, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
              1 4
              I dont think we have any way of ever knowing. Thats why I prefer helping those who need the money, need the financial assistance, those from lower economic classes, regardless of race.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 30, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                2  
                I would be fine with that. It would accomplish the same with our socio economic make up. The point is to get them in the door.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 11:29 am ET)
          2 4
          I don't think there should be a set of rules..I think we should do what's best while making sure we're not trampling on other's freedoms and equal protection.

          Reparations are impossible and not sensible, in monetary terms.

          To me, "we're all equal" means that we have equal legal protection under the law and we are not denied opportunity that others are allowed through public access. I don't think "equal" means "everybody gets to have what everybody else has, or nobody gets to have it."

          I think the best (or least worst) thing to do is to require financial qualifications to produce children you get to keep, improve schools and after-school programs in impoverished areas, and provide something like "community centers" that will pass out birth control, advise on medical issues (perhaps provide free preventative care?), and counsel on good financial decisions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (June 30, 2009 11:51 am ET)
            4  
            i never said reparations. that's too tangled an issue. what i was saying and what you missed, is that everyone is not equal if you hold one group back, educationally and economically, for many generations. who is more likely to go to college? the child of an upper middle class worker or a worker making minimum wage. of course, now the opportunities are there, but that was not the case all that long ago. i think we have to make an allowance for the fact that some people started out far behind and it was because they were held back for so long. i don't have a problem with the rest of what you're saying, except the financial qualifications thing. i agree people should not have children they cannot support or take care of, but do they have to show a bank book?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
              1 5
              I know you didn't say reparations, I was responding to another poster who asked specifically about it.

              I agree that the child of an upper middle class worker is more likely to go to college than the child of a worker making minimum wage...but I would also argue that the child of the minimum wage worker is less likely to be successful at college (to the point of wasting funds), especially what's holding him/her back are test scores and academic achievement.

              I'm not saying "Well all people born on the tough side of the tracks are SOL if they're older than 12!", but it will take generations to fix the problem, instead of just changing the outcome to something we think we like.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
                4 2
                "......but I would also argue that the child of the minimum wage worker is less likely to be successful at college (to the point of wasting funds), especially what's holding him/her back are test scores and academic achievement." I can't believe you said that! You arogant punk!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                  1 3
                  Are you soooooo offended?

                  If underserved children aren't trained, taught, or raised as well, do you think they're going to as well as adults?? LOL at YOUR arrogance!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    When you pose a question that makes sense maybe I'll answer?"...If underserved children aren't trained, taught, or raised as well, do you think they're going to as well as adults??" WTF does that mean?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
                      1 5
                      It means that you were possibly one of those children, if you don't get it. Here's my claim, simplified:

                      1. Dex's argument:

                      Tommy, at age 18, has plenty of food, nuturing parents, and access to tutors and extracurricular activities.

                      Joey, same age, has spotty provision of food, his dad is a drunk and him mom just doesn't care. Therefore, he doesn't have the same access to tutors, extracurricular activities, or the support at home that a good student usually requires.

                      Joey gets worse grades than Tommy, and everyone agrees a large part of that has to do with his upbringing and access to essentials and basic mentoring.

                      Dex: Because college and work are competitive and require time management skills, learning, and appropriate socialization, Tommy will do better in college and at work than Joey would, if they were both given the same opportunity.

                      Congo: Dex is arrogant. Just because Joey doesn't have the tools, resources, or training that Joey does, there is no reason to believe he won't do just as well in an academically-challenging environment, or a demanding, multi-skill-requiring job.

                      You're wrong. and I'm not arrogant, I'm realistic. That's why I support fixing "has spotty provision of food, his dad is a drunk and him mom just doesn't care. Therefore, he doesn't have the same access to tutors, extracurricular activities, or the support at home that a good student usually requires" instead of Congo's "it wasn't fair that Tommys' parents did better than Joeys, so it isn't fair to assume that Joey won't do as well, considering his much worse upbringing."
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Thanks for putting words in my mouth! But WTF are you proposing? It's not clear? Your drawing conclusions that are not supported by facts! No one is talking about throwing Joey or Tommy into college or expecting equal results, that's something that you made up and want to argue. Make yourself clear WTF are talking about?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Only a crazy con could call that post simplified.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
                            2
                          Even storytelling is over Once's head.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                            2  
                            Here's my claim, simplified:
                            You're the one that claimed that story was "simplified", not me.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                        4  
                        How about if Joey despite his mother being a drunk or whatever and not having the resources, tutors, tools(as you call them)despite everything being against him does well in school, but does not have the financial resources to attend college, or what if there is not enough slots open at the local state college? C'mon dude I can draw up scenarios too! Why Joey has to underserved(as you put it)and unable to compete in your scenario I thinks reflects on your mindset than mine. Infact I find it hard to believe that in a city with a minority population of over 60% that they don't have 1 person of color in a command position on their FD!
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                    3  
                    If underserved children aren't trained, taught, or raised as well, do you think they're going to as well as adults??
                    Perhaps you didn't learn proper grammar in school yourself.
                    Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Again, way to not refute the point
                        This from the guy who posted the following:
                        Says the typo-master.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (June 30, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
                4  
                first of all, i don't pretend that everything is due to past discrimination. and i was not just talking about going to college, but in general the child of the wealthy worker is given more and has a better chance to succeed. you're saying it will take generations to fix the problem, and that's my point. you're saying they should continue to pay the price. if all things had been equal, from the beginning, then there would be no need for affirmative action. hopefully, we can get rid of it one day, but in the meantime i think we have to have a certain amount.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  "Affirmative Action" can mean so many things though. What specifically are you ok with that falls under that category?

                  I certainly think that a business, in the interest of diversity, is justified in hiring a black man over a white man (assuming they are equally qualified) in order to further diversify their employees and their potential customer base. I think it's almost never a good thing to put a less-capable person in a role that a more-capable person is wiling and able to fill (regardless of whose fault it is that there's a difference in capability).
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 30, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
      4  
      Roberts had a decision reversed by his own SCOTUS and they're pulling their hair out over Sotomayor? Give me a freakin' break.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (June 30, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
          4
        This is the fifth time she has either been overturned or had her reasoning faulted in an upheld decision -- out of six appellate decisions reviews. On three of the previous four occasions, she was overturned for misreading statutes . . . failing to properly interpret the law.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (June 30, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
            3
          source: http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/sotomayor-overturned-again-heres-whats
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
            3  
            This from Think progress Report today:"...The RNC claimed, falsely, that Sotomayor has been reversed in six of seven cases before the Supreme Court. (In reality, of the approximately 380 opinions Sotomayor has written as an appeals judge, the Supreme Court has reversed only five.) Although these attacks may be heavy on rhetoric, they are light on facts." 380-5=375. UMMMMMM!! Your full of it!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
                4
              Except 380 didn't get to the Supreme Court. Reading comprehension plz.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                3  
                So your numbers don't prove a damn thing!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                    4
                  fail
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 30, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Yes you do fail? 375 on one hand 5 on the other simple math. This recent decision overturned a 25 yr. precedent/the 5 cons were reaching and being...well activist(ugh)in their findings. This is hardly proof that she is unfit to be a Supreme! Stop trying to fit the world into your narrow binders. Free your mind and your butt will follow! HA!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (June 30, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
                        3
                      You changed the rules of the debate. You said that AA was wrong, that only 5 of 380 had been overturned by the SC. But your premise is false, since of course, the SC cannot overturn a case that doesn't come before it. So AA was completely correct, and you were wrong.

                      No one was talking about whether or not she was unfit.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 30, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
                        4  
                        5 out of 380 is a more telling stat. Not five out of six times the court decided to take the case. How many did they turn DOWN taking which is the same as upholding her decision we will never know. Using the stat five out of six is misleading. And I think AA was trying to imply EXACTLY that she wasnt fit.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 30, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
                        3  
                        the SC cannot overturn a case that doesn't come before it.
                        The ones that don't come before the SC don't because it's obvious that the ruling is sound. If she were a bad judge, you would see a higher percentage of her decisions being challenged at the next level, the Supreme Court.
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (June 30, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
          3  
          Alito was also reversed 5 times. Seems like that's not unusual either.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by flylooper6802 (July 01, 2009 9:55 am ET)
        1
      I consider myself a liberal/progressive. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the reversal was well founded. The city rejected the white candidates on the basis that no non-whites were promoted. To me this is a rather blatant, race based move on part of Hartford, no mater how well intended.

      The good news all this is that the decision itself is narrow. It does not throw out Title VII and the concept of affirmative action; it accepts that race based discrimination still exists.

      As for the impact on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I think she's still a lock on the job, and that's okay with me. Very okay.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (July 01, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
           
        It actually makes new law concerning Title VII. The next city will now have to prove that they were going to face litigation before they threw out a test that the city felt was racially biased. Not that they just thought they might be sued.

        As far as Sotomayor, I think the progressives on the left will probably be pretty disappointed with her. I think if you read some of her decisions you will quickly see that she is VERY moderate. She does not take very many ideological stands and she rarely, if ever, makes new law from the bench. She seems to honor precedent the most. Something the Supreme Court majority did not do here.

        She will not be as far to the left as even Souter was. The real reason that the right-wing is attacking her so pathetically is because, well....they're frickin' insane once again. They can no longer be taken seriously in any adult discussion.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by aocasio463507 (July 01, 2009 11:58 am ET)
         
      One must consider that there are always two factors in a discussion or argument. But only one can be right, so how do we know who or what is right? Socrates had a method of using question and answer, causing one to use logic to come to a rational conclusion. These Justices neither used Logic or reason, but political ideology to make their decision. Education per say does not necessarily translate into competence. Look at the incompetence of all the departments of the degree holders within the Bush Administration. Another thing going on here is good vs. evil, these people take the moral high ground, when in fact they are the party of deception, and who is the Prince of Deception. They own the media, they corrupt everything they touch, they have no credibility.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 01, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
           
        One must consider that there are always two factors in a discussion or argument.
        At least. You are arguing black and white, and others are arguing many shades of gray in-between.

        And you have no clue what you are talking about. Your entire post is stitched together bumper stickers.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dusteemusic (July 01, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
         
      Hmm, Politco'n is at it again.
      Report Abuse