Obama nominates NewyoRican female to SCOTUS

[Ben Kenobi]

You'd have to ask any minority who supports the GOP that. No need to respond: just accept I'm right and you're nuts.

Seeing as I am a minority, I just did a poll of myself. Apparently rugged individualism is in these days.

[DinoDoc]

you mean someone who reads what the Constitution says as opposed to what they want it to say? As one of the authors he had a say in what it says

He probably supported Marbury v. Madison, one of the more famous cases of judicial activism, though. What with him being a benficiary of it.

[asleepathewheel]

Not at all.

I have to go to sleep, so these numbers may be slightly off, I haven't fact checked as much as I'd like.

Of her 380 opinions, 6 have been granted cert by SCOTUS, 3 have been overturned and another is pending. SCOTUS doesn't grant Cert unless they want to clarify an issue of importance or resolve a circuit split, or something to that effect. To have a 60% reversal by SCOTUS is not terribly surprising, Alito himself was reversed I believe twice. While of course, all 380 of those decisions didn't end up with SCOTUS to grant or deny cert (inevitably some would be settled or dropped due to expenses), the rejection of cert means that the ruling is precedent in the Circuit's jurisdiction.

So the 60% is an attention grabber, it really isn't a terribly meaningful statistic. Now, trial court judges who get over turned frequently, that's a meaningful number.

[Berzerker]

He probably supported Marbury v. Madison, one of the more famous cases of judicial activism, though. What with him being a benficiary of it.

so it wasn't really Marbury vs Madison, but was in fact Marbury + Madison? And how was he a beneficiary?

[Zevico]

I'm assuming you're referring to the main principle decided in that case--the affirmation of judicial review of the constitutionality of government action?
What's wrong with this principle?

[Kuciwalker]

so it wasn't really Marbury vs Madison, but was in fact Marbury + Madison? And how was he a beneficiary?

Dude, Madison won.

[Berzerker]

what did he win?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

When the Supreme Court reverses 60% of a judge's decisions, that's a problem.
She not only kept her job, she got a raise.

Sorry, Sloww, that dog won't hunt. On average, the Court reverses lower court decisions 75% of the time, so Sotomayor's reversal rate could actually be seen as one of her qualifications.

(That is, if it weren't actually statistically insignificant; she has only had 5 cases reviewed by high court -- and that itself speaks well of her -- so saying she was reversed 60% of the time is like me saying I wore a suit to work 75% of the time this week -- true, but kind of a dopey way to frame the fact.)

Edit: just saw Asleepatthewheel's response, which lays out the logic.

[SpencerH]

I think Ginsberg and Stevens were fairly qualified as well (I know Ginsberg was a law professor).

Breyer (Harvard Law School), Ginsburg (Columbia), Stevens (Northwestern), and Kennedy (McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific) were all professors prior to becoming circuit court judges so had no practical experience to speak of (well Ginsburg worked for the ACLU for a short while). Souter, OTOH, had plenty of practical experience as Attorney General of New Hampshire etc but no substantial academic qualification (which is similar to Thomas' qualification).

As I said previously, only Alito, Roberts, and Scalia (my favorite) had experience in all three areas so I deem them best qualified.

[SpencerH]

Personally,I'm not really bothered by the fact that she was nominated because of her ethnicity and gender. After all, we accept that she was nominated because she is viewed as a liberal. Obama's the President, so of course he'll nominate someone with his own viewpoint! I do feel, however, that (as with Thomas) she may always be viewed as a "second class Justice" who obtained the position based on affirmative action rather than merit, and I think that weakens the court.

[Arrian]

Bad logic. Even if I'm not capable of calculating who is the most qualified, I can certainly decide in many cases that someone is not. e.g. I know for a fact that I am not the most qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court

Yes, we can say that. But when we're evaluating someone like Sotomayor against similar candidates with similar experience, academic qualifications, etc., it's a whole lot harder to determine who is best. That was my point, and you really haven't refuted it. Yes, Kuci, you are unqualified for SCOTUS, as am I. Brilliant insight, that.

I do. People think having women/minorities on the Supreme Court is great because it shows how far women and minorities have come. But it DOESN'T show that as long as the reason they get appointed to the court is to pander to political groups.

I'm not so much concerned about the symbolism. I do think her career to this point (pre-nomination) shows how far women/minorities have come, moreso than being chosen for SCOTUS.

I think diversity on the court is a good thing b/c I think differing life experiences have value when they get to discussing a case. This is the empathy factor, and if it's a problem, it's one that Alito (at least) has openly admitted to as well.

Also, back to the symbolism for a moment: what you say is only true if you emphasize the race/gender factor and minimize her academic and professional qualifications. Which many are eager to do, of course. But she would not have been in a position to be nominated if not for her qualifications, so that - to me - is primary. The race/gender is secondary, and thus does not detract, IMO, from her accomplishment. Again, if you can show me a clearly better qualified candidate who was passed over/not considered because said candidate had the wrong ancestry or chromosones, I'm willing to listen.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

This is the empathy factor

Again, if you can show me a clearly better qualified candidate who was passed over/not considered because said candidate had the wrong ancestry or chromosones, I'm willing to listen.

Given that no men were considered to replace Souter, this is a really, really stupid argument to be making.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what did he win?

Uh... I hope you are just being coy...

Madison won by not being forced to accept Marbury's writ of mandamus to be appointed Justice of the Peace for D.C.

Not sure how Madison felt about the final result (he may have been pleased), but I know Jefferson was furious. Jefferson was no fan of the independant judiciary in the first place. Allowing them to declare laws unconstitutional was really too far for him.

As one of the authors he had a say in what it says

Alexander Hamilton was an author of the document as well, and he was a huge supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under John Adams. So is that a good reason to believe that the 1st Amendment means the Alien and Sedition Acts are allowable?

[Drake Tungsten]

Allowing them to declare laws unconstitutional was really too far for him.

Smart man. I wonder if he saw judicial activism coming?

[DinoDoc]

Marshall should have recused himself anyway given his personal involvement in the case.