Monday, June 01, 2009

Sotomayor, Obama and the Legitimization of Racism

I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

Had any previous Supreme Court nominee made such a statement, he would have been tarred and feathered throughout the press and in public life for making such a blatantly racist statement. But Sotomayor's inverse version of the remark was treated not only as normal but even praiseworthy.

Yet Sotomayor's comment was not merely a racist remark. It would have been far less dangerous and problematic if she had merely recited some sort of stereotype showcasing her own stupidity and prejudices. Instead she made the one statement that no judge can be permitted to make, she expressed the belief that certain people, based on race and gender, are more fit to issue rulings than others.

This belief, that some races and genders are more fit to rule, hold authority and voice their views than others, is at the heart of political discrimination. It is a belief that the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments existed to strike down.

If Sotomayor is placed on the Supreme Court, she will have to issue rulings for a nation that derives its existence from the Declaration of Independence, a document which states that all people are created equal, a premise she clearly does not believe in. Nor should anyone expect a member of the racist La Raza (The Race) organization to believe it, anymore than we would expect a member of the KKK to do so either. The difference of course is that La Raza has been legitimized because it is a racist group composed of a racial minority. And that same legitimization of minority racism is at the heart of the defense for Sotomayor's own racist statement.

Rather than bringing about the colorblind society that Martin Luther King spoke of, Social Liberals hijacked the civil rights to impose a society blinded by color, in which left wing radicalism fused with racism could be used to impose a blatantly exclusionary agenda. Sotomayor, like Obama, is both the beneficiary and the promoter of that agenda.

Obama could not have gotten as far as he did, if American society had not been primed with the idea that color is a legitimate reason to support a candidate when it is expressed as "positive racism", or that racial loyalty in politics is unacceptable among the majority, but laudable among minorities. Both of these are racial double standards which legitimize racist ideas and practices when applied to minorities against the majority.

In the Social Liberal moral and ethical calculus, racism is not equally wrong regardless of who practices it, it is only wrong when practiced by the "privileged" majority, against the oppressed minority. By contrast racism by the minority is not racism, but the pride of an oppressed people affirming their own self-worth. That kind of double standard pervades the treatment of both Obama, who belonged to a racist church whose views were not far afield from David Duke's, or Sotomayor, who openly expressed her belief that she was more fit to serve on the bench and issue rulings because of her race.

Social liberalism has legitimized racism, and if Sotomayor is placed on the bench, she will be the first openly racist Supreme Court Justice since Democratic Justice and Klansman, Hugo Black. The media's treatment of Sotomayor showcases the "Positive Racism" that treats race plus position as an accomplishment. But as Sotomayor's bigotry demonstrates, the flip side of positive racism is simply racism.

America can either be a nation of laws, or of identities. Sotomayor's nomination is a vote for America as a nation not run on the bedrock of law, but on the constantly shifting sands of diversity through racial and ethnic identity and personal biography subsituting for actual accomplishments.

Sotomayor's nomination represents everything that is wrong with the Social Liberal exploitation of race, a reality that can best be summed up by a press that has devoted 99 percent of its coverage to celebrating her "historic accomplishment", the only thing historic about it again involves race, and 1 percent to actually talking about her rulings and positions. That is the triumph of diversity over qualification, and it is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Self-Evident Truth of the Framers, equality, lies in the dustbin. In its place stands guilt ridden diversity and tokenism. In its place stands race as a qualifier for public office, a hateful atavism that was supposed to be extinct in 21st century America rather than ruling over it. In its place stand Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor.


Lemon said...

Because the United States has now been tribalized our politicians and many of the people do not consider "the nation" anymore.
Instead this tribal thinking pushes them to think of their own special interests outside and sometimes way against the interests of the entire nation.

reoconnot said...

In his Hollywood speech last week, Obama referred to illegal immigrants as undocumented workers. These are the words of a far left loon who doesn't respect the rule of law.

Kevin Lockett said...

Minorities in the United States have unique experiences that whites do not have. All judges draw on their experiences as they make decisions. If this was not true, then it wouldn't matter who the judge was.

If you deny that minorities face unique challenges in this country or that whites have privilege in this country, then I can see your point. But, since I live in the real world and am forced to confront the realities of race, I can't make that assumption. Therefore, I have to agree that a minority judge, especially a Latina woman with the background of Judge Sotomayor, along with her impeccable training and lengthy record of service, and draw on a wealth of experience that a white male judge can not.

Lemon said...

The law of the United States does not need special interest groups to fight for their "people".
The US is one people, American people and until everyone comes to realize that nothing works.
To divide the court into races and religions and etc is to destroy it.
The idea of the court is not to have the various races and religions represented at all.
If that were true then the court would need tons more people on it and in the end those racial and religious biases would be fighting one another for first place.

The court's job is only to see that the Constitution is held to.
To place someone on the court because they "have experiences" others do not have is ridiculous
IN that case, let us then have rape victims, incest victims on the court too. They need special people too no?

People have no clue what the court is for. It isnt for policy or to make sure blacks , latinos or mongolians have their "rights" it is to make sure all have rights by the court making sure the law holds by the Constitution.

Kevin Lockett said...

So we don't need any races represented on the court? Except for white, right? Yes, the U.S. is one people and we should all be treated as such. But we're not. The law hasn't been applied equally to all, and minorities often get the short end of the stick. So, to me, it makes sense to have people on the court who are more familiar with this uncomfortable truth. It's not about me having a representative on the court. It's about having multiple perspectives so that when the justices go to discuss a case, they can look at it from all possible angles and then make the most informed decision. If I were a Supreme Court justice and a case came up that dealt with sexual harassment against women, I would be very grateful to have a colleague who could give a women's perspective. That doesn't mean she has to argue for the woman in the case, just that she can give an authentic perspective (for example, I recall hearing about one case where one of the female justices had to explain to the men why it would make a difference to have a female present in the room when a woman is strip-searched).

Unless you're arguing that all races experience America in exactly the same way, I can't see why you would be so against aiming for diversity on the court.

Sultan Knish said...


we don't need "races" represented in the court, we need the law to be represented in the court.

It's not about unique experiences, but objective truths. The court is not a representative body, it is a legal body. If we're going to represent everyone's unique experience on the court, there wouldn't be nearly enough judges. If we're going to represent every group in America, we'd have to expand the court to a few hundred judges.

It's not about experience, it's about the law. In the case of the court, it's about the Constitution. The court's main function is to prevent unconstitutional laws from coming into being at the Federal level. That doesn't require perspectives, it requires knowing the Constitution and being able to interpret it, without distorting or recreating it.

I don't feel more comfortable with a Jewish justice. I feel more comfortable with a justice who understands that his or her job is to prevent abuses of the law by lower courts and the other two branches of government. Sotomayor, who thinks her job is to make policy, is exactly what the court does not need.

Keli Ata said...

So true, Sultan. Right off the bat I saw a problem with her and her racist comments about white males and her unique experience. She more qualified by virtue of her race--if any other race made a comment like that they'd be beaten to a pulp by the media and public.

If she can't grasp and comprehend that all men (and women) are created equal what hope do we have that she'll be a just judge on anything after that?

Sultan Knish said...

Of course Sotomayor hasn't been nominated in the name of equality, but in the name of inequality

Lemon said...

Thats right we need no races represented on the supreme court. Its not a popularity contest or a special interest lobby.
It is a court which sees to it that other courts keep to the Constitution of the United States.. thats it.

The Constitution protects rights of citizens. It is the job of the supreme court to make sure other courts make rulings ONLY according to that document.

The supreme court has gone way off track BECAUSE of trying to make it a special interest board where each member tries to protect his *own*.

Justice is murdered by that mindset.

Lemon said...

Frankly I dont want someone judging me by their "life experiences".
Will the rape victim see all men as evil and violent, etc?
I want someone who judges cases based on the law of the land and with an eye toward mercy and justice.

The next extension of giving each group representation on the Supreme court for their special needs and interests will be Sharia Law.
That is just where this will go if the real purpose of the Supreme Court is changed.
We need men/women of any race who will stick with the Constitution and make sure the lower courts do just that.

No Bueno said...

Another home run by Sultan! The problem with affirmative action and other programs( such as the doctrines of multi-culturism and diversity) which promote first and foremost on skin color, is that certain people begin to believe that even the Supreme Court should be subjected to race-based appointments. That's a very scary thought indeed!

The rule of law( Constitution) is expected to be blind to issues such as race - as are those who are called upon to interpret it's meaning. Life experience has nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution. Sound legal judgement(remind me again what skin color has to do with possesing sound legal judgement?) and an understanding of the law is what is needed to sit on the Supreme Court - or any court for that matter.

Based upon Sotomayor's comments, as well as membership in the hispanic supremacy group La Raza, she is arguably not fit to serve on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

Another fallacy I would like to address is that being "white" somehow conveys special powers or privilege( I could only imagine the outcry if a caucasion caucus were assembled in Washington to advocate for guys like me) in this country. Unfortunately for some, this is simply not true.

As a "white male" I can attest to the fact that I have not enjoyed or benefitted from being white as nearly as much as some have probably benefitted from being black( or other minority) in today's affirmative action, race based society.

In fact, I can assure you that I did not get into college because I'm white. It was because I had white skin, that I was expected to demonstrate competence and merit. No extra considerations were given based upon the color of my skin.

If anything, I have probably missed out on some opportunites, simply because of the color of my skin.

Hey, no big deal... right? I understand it's up to me to carry the burden of correcting wrongs which occured long before I were even born and for which I had nothing to do - other than the unfortunate fate of sharing the same skin color of those who perpetrated such wrongs.

I think Jonah Goldberg had it right in a piece for "National Review" Online:

"If the choice is between an abstract black and an abstract white and they are for all intents and purposes otherwise indistinguishable, I'm not going to freak out if the black kid catches a break, even if it violates the principle of colorblindness. But, I'd be even more in favor of a poor white kid from Oklahoma catching a break at the expense of a black dentist's kid."

Sultan Knish said...

the whole "privilege" was an attempt to transfer the Marxist class paradigm onto race

as problematic as class warfare was, that is blaming the rich for having money, blaming people for not being born minorities, makes it seem like a model of common sense

Kevin Lockett said...

I think it's so interesting how you all don't seem to be able to make your point without twisting someone else's words.

I agree with you that we don't need "representatives" of each race on the court. However, interpreting the law is not a completely objective process. If you think it is, then please explain why the judges don't always vote the same. Explain why sometimes they write differing opinions even when they do vote the same. And explain why they at times overturn themselves (i.e. Brown overturning Plessy.

Again, who among you is willing to say that the experience of minorities in this country is identical to that of whites? Because that assumption seems to be necessary to maintain your argument. Diversity, whether it's racial, gender, geographical, economic, or religious, is an asset for the court.

Think about it. When the hearing is over and the justices to back to deliberate, do you want all 9 justices to have common experiences or do you want them to have different ones, so that each can lean from the other? Since when did more information lead to less informed decisions?

Sultan Knish said...

You keep saying that we don't need representatives on the court, and then you keep arguing that we need 'experience representatives'

Judges should strive for objectivity when interpreting the law, rather than using their 'experiences' to insert bias into the process. A case cannot be about what it feels like to be a white man or a black man, but about what the law is.

"then please explain why the judges don't always vote the same. "

Because some are right and some are wrong.

But if you want diversity of experience, the diversity of experience from say a doctor, a con artist, a circus juggler, and a physics professor... would be far more diverse in terms of experience and worldview, than two black and white law professors.

Maybe we should have a Supreme Court with a doctor, a juggler, a con artist, a physics professor, a cop and an Indian scout. And together they can have their own sitcom.

Lemon said...

Interpreting the law MUST be a completely objective process.
If it is to be just and fair, it has to be 100% fee of bias.

Lemon said...

Subjective law means this:

Ok I did wrong but my own kind will never convict me. I get a pass because of my "special" circumstances that give me rights to do wrong others do not have.
I am poor so I can steal.
I got picked on so I can kill.
No, thats not just.

Drum said...

I think Kevin Lockett makes some good points, and that having a variety of perspectives is a good idea. However, a variety of perspectives does not necessarily arise from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

Justice Clarance Thomas is a kind of obvious example. Here's a guy who "served" on the EEOC by essentially stalling virtually all of the complaints of discrimination. His reward: the Supreme Court, where he has echoed Justice Scalia most of the time. Does his life experience of suffering and discriminatioin make him "more" wise than Scalia? Doesn't seem so.

I also agree that there is still discrimination, but equal opportunity is the path to ending that, not identity politics.

Moreover, Sotomayor's comment assumes that a white male would not have any life experience of hardship, empathy, struggle, etc. That's what I found so appalling. Yeah, most Fortune 500 CEO's are white males, but most white males are not CEO's.

Kevin Lockett said...

I never said we need "experienced representatives." Again, you are misinterpreting my words.

You are also making the very faulty assumption that it is possible for a person to interpret the law without being impacted by their own experiences. Everyone has a different perspective. That means that no matter how objective you try to be, when you look at a situation, you will see something that someone else does not see, and they will see something you don't see.

Would a like a doctor, con artist, professor, etc., on the court for different perspectives? Yes, as long as those individuals have demonstrated the requisite legal knowledge to engage in constitutional law (and Sotomayor has more federal court experience than any nominee in 100 years). It shows an utter lack of reality if you think it's possible to interpret the law without being influenced by who you are.

And, if disagreeing with another justice makes you wrong, than are you saying that most (or probably all) of the people on the Supreme Court should be removed because they've been on the loosing end of a decision? Is the majority opinion automatically right because it's the majority?

And I'm guessing none of you read Sotomayor's words in context, but if you did, you'd see that she said that part of her job is to use her experience to her advantage BUT not to let it make her biased. She also argues that other judges also have this responsibility - to work to make themselves progressively more objective.

Lemon, it's ironic that you describe an experienced judge in that way, because Sotomayor has actually been praised for being tough on crime, and historically the white male Supreme Court has let whites get away with all kinds of foolishness.

And, again, I'm trying to understand how experience or information has become a bad thing.

Sultan Knish said...

Everyone comes into the court with their own 'experiences', which tend to generate basis, requiring justices to set aside the white man's view or the black man's view, and instead focus on the law.

Experience and information are not the same thing at all. Information is a tool. Experience is a bias. Information utilized should be objective. Experience is subjective.

Treating the Constitution as a subjective document is precisely how we got into this mess. And treating the Supreme Court like a rainbow coalition will insure the death of what little restraint on governmental power remains.

"And, if disagreeing with another justice makes you wrong, than are you saying that most (or probably all) of the people on the Supreme Court should be removed because they've been on the loosing end of a decision? Is the majority opinion automatically right because it's the majority?"

It has nothing to do with being in the majority or minority, but interpreting the constitution correctly. The majority has been wrong plenty of times. Individual justices themselves will be wrong some of the time. But that does not mean there isn't a right.

Sotomayor was a member of a racist organization, believes that her role is to make policy and has described herself as more fit because of her race, all these are fundamental disqualifying factors.

Kevin Lockett said...

Drum, your right about Clarence Thomas, and that's the reasons that many African Americans do not support him. He's a good example of why you don't put people on the bench just because of their race. You have to look at a person's record and ask how they use the tools they have - their education, their cognitive skills, their ability to communicate, and their experience, to reach legally sound judgements. Race inherently goes into the mix of all of this.

Sultan Knish, I just don't believe that any judge of any race can transform him or herself into a completely objective robot. What you know and how you process information impacts how you interpret and apply law. Now, of course you have to apply the law in a just way. If you really look at Sotomayor's speech, especially what came after the "wise Latina" statement, you'll see this is what she's really talking about: how people apply the law in a fair way in spite of their various experiences.

Sotomayor was a member of a racist organization, believes that her role is to make policy and has described herself as more fit because of her race, all these are fundamental disqualifying factors.

1. What racist organization? La Raza? How are they racist? I guess the NAACP and any other minority-rights organization are also racist.
2. On the whole policy issue, again look at what she actually said, and you'll see that she's making a point that many legal scholars agree with. It's the judiciary's job to interpret the law. Inevitably, they make policy, because they decide how the legislature's laws will be applied - that's their job.
3. I think it's an unfair evaluation of her words to say that her race makes her a better judge than a white man. I think she was saying that the experiences she has as a result of her race make her more equipped than if she never had those experiences.

But why did I even write that when I know you'll twist my words, too?

Sultan Knish said...

You don't have to become a robot, to put aside your biases. It's part of the challenge of holding such a position.

1. How is an organization called The Race, that has close ties to hate groups like MECHA, racist? Seriously.

As for the NAACP, there have been occasions where its leadership has been racist and anti-semitic. But nowhere in the La Raza range.

2. Making policy is the job of the legislature. Applying the law is the job of the judiciary. Even Sotomayor understood that her comment was completely wrong, even while she was making it. But it's also a symptom of the judicial activism that has overrun the legal system.

3. Do I need to quote what she actually said again? She very clearly mentioned race. Had any Republican candidate for the court made the reverse statement, would you really be okay with it?

Kevin Lockett said...

1. There are many ways to translate "La Raza" other than "the Race," and their core principles do not represent racism.

2. Interpreting the law is inherently a policy making decision. Are you saying that striking down quota systems doesn't effect policy? Are you saying that Brown outlawing racial segregation didn't make policy? Are you saying that declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional doesn't make policy? Any time you apply the law you make policy, because you determine how the law will be applied for your court and every court within you jurisdiction. That's not radical, it's basic civics.

3. Mentioning race in a comment doesn't make your comment racist. If someone says, "Barack Obama is the first black president," does that mean they said something racist? How do you define racism?

Sultan Knish said...

1. La Raza conventionally is used to describe race. If you like the same defense can be used for the KKK. Every racist group makes sure to focus on positive values too.

2. Policy making decisions are made by legislatures. Judges should only be striking laws down based on their incompatibility with existing laws. Judicial activism on the other hand makes policy by artificially creating its own laws, and trying to hang them on something loosely for support. In the 20th century the Supreme Court has swung toward judicial activism, and if it keeps going we'll wind up with a European style unlimited powers judiciary.

3. How about, being white makes me more qualified to be a judge.

Kevin Lockett said...

1. So now La Raza is the KKK? And Alberto Gonzales is racist?

2. Striking down laws because they are incompatible with other laws is policy making. That is also not the only job of the court. They are to interpret laws and the Constitution. That's policy making. Again, look at the example of Brown. That decision declared a specific policy unconstitutional, and then (and most people don't know this) there was a whole second Brown case in which the courts had to FORCE schools to change their policy because they didn't abide by the first decision. I don't know, maybe you think the court got it wrong in Brown, but either way, I see that as setting policy. Anything that a court does sets policy for courts beneath them. Lower courts have to abide by the rulings of the superior court, that's just the way it works.

3. Being white makes you a better judge than what? And why?

Keli Ata said...

Kevin, you seem to ignore the whole bias issue when it comes to courts. Any bias is wrong. Courts by their very nature must be objective--judges who cannot be objective or have a conflict of interests typically recuse themselves.

If that's true in the lower courts it should also apply to the Supreme Court and a nominee who has made racist comments and belongs to a supremacy organization.

This is the Supreme Court, not a lower court in which a judge can show discretion in sentencing after a conviction. The Supreme court isn't a trial court.

Two trials worth noting--Simi Valley and the O.J. Simpson trial. Very terrible and unjustice outcomes based on biases and people looking after their "own kind" so to speak based on race.

The US Constitution is too vital to this country to let it fall victim to the whims and biases of a particular judge.

Drastic alternation in the Constitution can lead to a blood coup. A political coup.

Sultan Knish said...

1. KKK, La Raza, etc. Nationalist racial groups dedicated to racial pride and promoting intolerance toward people of other races.

If the shoe fits...

2. Policy making means originating laws. The judiciary is not meant to originate laws. Striking down laws that violate pre-existing laws, particularly the Constitution is not making policy, if done correctly.

The Warren Court was habitually guilty of judicial activism, and inventing and originating laws. The Warren Court embodied judicial activism. Courts are not supposed to invent laws, that's why we have a legislative and executive branch, at the state and federal levels.

3. It doesn't. Anymore than Sotomayor is a better judge because she's a hispanic woman.

Kevin Lockett said...

Keli Ata, it's not that I'm ignoring the bias issue. It's just that I believe every judge is biased. When a judge here's a case, her or she has to be aware of what their preconceived notions are and work not to let that keep them from rendering a fair judgement. Sotomayor has acknowledged this.

Look at the abortion issue. Do you believe that none of the judges on the bench have an opinion on abortion? So if an abortion case were to come before the court, they would be biased to their existing positions. However, they would work to not let this bias blind them to the facts of the case.

Sultan Knish,
1. Show me specific instances that prove a pattern of intolerance on the part of La Raza. (I'm not even going to ask you to respond to the racial pride thing because I'm sick and tired of being told not to be proud of who I am or where I come from).

2. I think we just define policy-making differently. I think when Sotomayor refered to policy making she had in mind the things that both you and I have acknowledged as the role of appeals courts - interpreting and applying the law. I see that as policy, you don't.

On the Warren court: do you agree with the Brown decision? If so, do you see how some could see that as both a correct decision and an instance of making or at least influencing policy?

3. She didn't say that by virtue of her race she's a better judge. She said that she hoped that she could use her experiences to make her a better judge than she would be devoid of those experiences. (But, again, you're not really into looking at her actual words)

Liana Davidson said...

Whites have unique experiences that other races don't have as well.
There are also many good things about some white only groups too.They are not necessarily racist either. Thinking that they are is racist in itself.

I would think that I, as a white woman could be able to use the richness of my experience to render better decisions than a Latina woman.

Sultan Knish said...


The problem is that Sotomayor is not setting aside her bias, but emphasizing it as her qualification for office.

All human beings are biased, but some do a better job of transcending it than others.

1. La Raza is the mainstream face of secondary hate groups such as MECHA, much as David Duke's White Nationalist Party.

2. If that was all, Sotomayor wouldn't have reacted the way she did on the video.

3. She did indeed say that, and the secondary quote linked above demonstrates it.

Topanga Canyon said...

to Kevin
You say:"So we don't need any races represented on the court? Except for white, right?"

Where you see someone say except white?

Kevin Lockett said...

My mistake. So we should only have raceless people on the court. So all the white people have to go, too.

Lemon said...

I don't think the Supreme Court is about representation of factions within the nation.

However if we want accurate representation on the court, then it must be made up of primarily white , anglo saxon-German, Protestants since that is over 86% of the US population.

In that case other groups are very much over represented no?

So can we get over this diversity junk?

Sultan Knish said...

No, neither should we have people becoming judges because of their race

Kevin Lockett said...

Lemon, that's not even an accurate statistic.

Sulatan Knish, are you arguing that the most the woman who has more federal court experience than any nominee in the last 100 years, who was second in her class at Princeton, and editor of the Yale law journal was nominated because of her race?

And, I'll say again, I don't think that we should have slots reserved for minority groups as a representative system. I do think that it is a benefit to the court to have diversity, be it ethnic, socioeconomic, geographical, or otherwise. I guess most people on this board would have no problem if all nine justices were 75 year old white conservative men who grew up in upper-middle class homes where the were the second of three children in stable nuclear families in the same small town in Montana, attended the same high school, played the same sports, all went to Yale, all worked at the same law firm, all became judges on the circuit court of appeals in the same year, and all joined the Supreme Court at the same time. Personally, I don't feel that this would be good for the court. Like it or not you LEARN from your experiences, and I refuse to accept the notion that knowledge is bad.

Susanna said...

What a brilliant article - as usual, and always spot on!
Thank you!

Marc deAngeles said...

Lemon is not wrong.
80% or more of the US is white.The number rises with the addition of Hispanics that are actually white spanish and not of mixed background. Those numbers are pretty substantial acutally.

The latest statistic is that 86% of Americans are Christian.

Sultan Knish said...

Thank you Susanna

Sultan Knish said...

The coverage and the promos have repeatedly emphasized her race, rather than her mixed bag of qualifications, which include a rather high rate of reversals and slapdash opinions.

But my point was that she clearly believes her race and gender make her qualified, she's made similar statements repeatedly over the years.

Whether a judge comes from a middle class home or a housing project, whether he's black or white, male or female, tells you nothing about his fitness. It's only a PC society that would emphasize identity over qualification.

Keli Ata said...

Well said Sultan. I think it says it all, actually.

Her rulings are often reversed on appeal. That says a great deal about her ability as a judge. A pretty clear indicator that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

Kevin Lockett said...

1. Only 5 of the hundreds of Sotomayor decisions have been ruled on by the Supreme Court, bringing into question the statistical significance of her reversal rate (mathematically speaking, you can't argue that the 60% rate would hold if the court reviewed all her rulings). One must also wonder if the number of rulings are so low because her other decisions were so good the SCOTUS decided not to even review the case (they only choose to hear about 1% of the cases appealed to them each year).
2. 60% is actually a good rate. It's lower than the average. The Supreme Court reverses 75% of the circuit court cases it chooses to hear (

If you want to cite statistics, than be prepared to deal with the reality of what they mean. The stat you brought up actually shows how good of a judge Sotomayor is, except...

3. You already said that the Supreme Court gets is wrong sometimes, so why are you putting faith in their reversal rate? Possibly, all 5 decisions should have been overturned, or maybe they all should have been upheld.

Kevin Lockett said...

4. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Sam Alito's reversal rate: 100%. Do you think they should kick him off the court?

Sultan Knish said...

So your argument is that Sotomayor is an exceptional candidate for the court because her reversal rate is only slightly lower than average?

Not that reversal rates matter very much, but it seems convenient that instead of answering anything else, you jumped at the chance to trot out all the latest pro-Sotomayor reversal rates talking points.

L. DePalma said...

Sam Alito is Italian and that is what makes him totally acceptable for the supreme court.
Wake up and smell the canoli.

You non-Italians are all alike.
You all look alike too if you ask me.

Hello Birdy said...

Lemon's first comment about turning American into a conglomerate of tribes is important. That is the divide and conquer method of evil people.

If you are interested in what a tribal society looks like, look no further than the Middle East.

Nice eh?

Post a Comment